Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Sanctuary

  • Sanctuary – Lamentations 1:10

    Sanctuary – Lamentations 1:10

    10 Enemies have stretched out their hands
    over all her precious things;
    she has even seen the nations
    invade her sanctuary,
    those whom you forbade
    to enter your congregation.

    The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), La 1:10.

    Most of us have things that we consider our own, private, and often held closely. Sometimes, for example, this is our family. Sometimes it is our family home.

    A few months ago Jody and I experienced an attempt to break into our house by someone who intended to do us violence. The individual was experiencing mental issues that made him feel we were a threat. The situation worked itself out, but we still have habits that were changed due to that experience. Somehow, we don’t feel quite as secure. Someone didn’t enter, but did seriously threaten our home, our sanctuary.

    Often when we discuss safety, we emphasize the safety of our property and most importantly our home. In communities a century or so ago in the United States you might have just one church, and in times of trouble, that church might be regarded as a sanctuary.

    Judah had a sanctuary, the temple in Jerusalem. They believed that many bad things might happen to them, but the temple was secure. As long as the temple was there, they could never be completely destroyed. Jeremiah (chapter 7) tells them that if they are far from the Lord, they can’t depend on the Lord’s temple to save them.

    As Christians we speak of Christ being in us, and us in Christ. In 1 Peter 2:5 we’re called to be living stones, to be built into a spiritual house. For us, there is to be a sanctuary in us and around us that travels with us. It’s the presence of Jesus with us.

    Are you living as a spiritual house? A sanctuary?

  • Psalm 77:13 – Answering a Question about Translation

    Psalm 77:13 – Answering a Question about Translation

    I am frequently asked questions about the translation of a specific word, often because there is a difference in English translations. Frequently, the specific wording of a text means a great deal to the person who asked, as it may be part of the exposition of some other doctrine or chain of thought. Sometimes it is even a proof text to support such a doctrine.

    In this context, consider the translation of Psalm 77:13:

    Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God? (KJV)

    In the NRSVue, however, we read:

    Your way, O God, is holy. What god is so great as our God? (NRSVue)

    Presenting just two translations in this case may give a wrong impression. So running a list of all English translations available on Bible Gateway, I find that KJ21 (21st Century King James Version), ASV (American Standard Version), AMPC (Amplified Bible, Classic Edition), BRG (Blue, Red, and Gold-based on the KJV), DARBY, GNV (Geneva Bible), and KJV read “sanctuary” while most others read “holy” or something very similar.

    Let me outline the process I use (loosely) to answer this sort of question. What I am not going to do is simply give you my preferred translation.

    Differences in translation can result from:

    1. Differences in the text that is translated.
    2. Differences in approach to translation. Some common terms for this include functional equivalence, featured in versions such as the New Living Translation and Formal Equivalence, use in translations such as the New American Standard Bible and New King James Version.
    3. Choice of a different English gloss from within the source word’s semantic range.
    4. Accommodation, such as the effort to make Old Testament passages match New Testament quotations. This one is fairly rare.
    5. Different understandings of the context.

    I avoid the use of the term “translation error” unless there is simply no basis for that translation. I prefer to call an odd translation that is even remotely possible a difference of opinion and characterize it according to what evidence I see that would justify that translation.

    Let’s run through this one in order.

    People often imagine textual differences where there are none. This generally results from not understanding the process of translation in which many English renderings can legitimately be derived from the same text. Usually the problem is not finding a translation, but rather figuring out which possible rendering is best in a particular context. In this case, the fact that the versions that read “sanctuary” tend to center around the King James tradition might suggest such a thing, especially if one forgets that this is Old Testament, and thus the Textus Receptus vs other texts does not apply. In fact, there are no significant textual issues here.

    Also, all of the translations that read “sanctuary” lean toward the formal equivalence end of the spectrum, but those that read “holy” (or related terms) span the spectrum. This is not a difference in overall approach. There is also no New Testament quotation to which one might hope to accommodate the verse.

    This leaves us with a choice of a different English gloss, which might well be based on a different understanding of the context.

    In fact, the Hebrew word used in this passage can properly be translated either “holy” or “sanctuary,” and there are numerous instances of both in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, it may be used to refer to other holy objects or even sacrifices. If Hebrews 9 is a parallel to the LXX in this regard, it could also be regarded as a reference to just the first compartment of the tabernacle, though I think the overall context would be against that reading.

    As I read the Psalm we have a prayer that, after a first introductory verse, begins with a lament. God is not answering as was hoped, but in disappointment, the psalmist recounts prior acts of God and speaks of God’s greatness. This unfolds in two parts, the first affirming miracles, and the second point to God as savior, with the water imagery evoking both creation and the exodus from Egypt. We conclude with the victory, not in an individual way, but affirming that God has led and guided God’s people. We know that the psalmist’s prayer was answered because he affirms that in the first introductory verse.

    The most interesting contextual element in all that is that we have God’s way or path through the sea, which evokes the imagery of creation. So we have God’s way both in the Qodesh (holy/sanctuary) and in the sea within the same Psalm.

    The bottom line is that either translation is possible here and that the context doesn’t explicitly make one more likely than the other. I suspect most translators find it hard to connect God’s way and the sanctuary, whether tabernacle or temple.

    I would have to consider “sanctuary” a potentially valid translation nonetheless if we consider the cosmic quality of the sanctuary introduced in Hebrews. That would not be definitive, but looking at the idea of a new and living way which leads right to the presence of God, and which sees the sanctuary as a shadow of heavenly reality, divine movement in that heavenly reality is not impossible. If this were the idea here, I would see an intended contrast between verse 13 (14 in Hebrew) and verse 19 (20 in Hebrew) telling us that God has his path/way everywhere, in the chaos represented by the sea and the perfection represented through the sanctuary imagery.

    Having said all of that, the evidence behind my comment is far too thin to be regarded as more than suggestive. I do see a sanctuary pattern in the book of Revelation as well, however, which probably tends me to see it as a live option.

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)

  • Hebrews: Going On Toward Perfection

    The first time I taught a class on Hebrews following publication of my study guide, we were studying lesson #7, Falling Away. The primary reading for the lesson is Hebrews 5:11-6:12, and thus includes the passage, “going on toward perfection” which is very famous in Methodist and Wesleyan circles. In discussing the passage we noted that some translations used the word “maturity” while others used “perfection.” I explained why one might use either term properly as a translation of the Greek “teleiotes” but added that I felt that “maturity” was a little bit weak for the message.

    On my way home after the class I got this nagging feeling, and so I went to the translation I had written for the study guide and checked my own translation. There large as life and twice as annoying was the word “maturity.” I had managed to contradict myself within days of publication. The next week I pointed it out to the class, which resulted in another discussion. Of course, the inevitable question was, “What do you really think?”

    That’s a fair one, and I’d like to answer it in an overview fashion here. I do feel that “maturity” is a little bit weak of a translation on this occasion, but “perfection” goes a bit astray of the author’s intent. Either English word overlaps the Greek word in the source. Which is best must be determined from the immediate context. To get a broad view of how I understand the structure of Hebrews, check my outline and translation. (I do not recommend my own translation as a clear, accurate, and natural one. Use a good modern version for reading. The reason I created a translation was so that I could have one in modern language without copyright restrictions to use to hang my notes on. All modern versions with copyrights do restrict one from including the entire text of a Biblical book in a published work.)

    So what is the broad view here? First, in the text leading up to Hebrews 5:11, our author has brought us to the brink of discussing the priesthood of Jesus. He has hinted at the topic and started to lay out the requirements for that role and the importance of it. He has established the importance of Jesus as one who reveals God to us.

    Now he pauses for a moment, in what I believe is the key to his central point. The readers are not mature enough to really get into the meat. They want milk. So first he talks about their immaturity. But then in a turn that has been noted by many commentators, he says he is going on anyhow. He presents the grave dangers of not going on (Hebrews 6:4-8). Why does he say they are not ready and then go on anyhow?

    I believe our author sees the addressees standing at precisely this point of danger. They are ready to be weaned and start on the meat of the word, but they are looking back and asking if this is worth it. Is it worth all the trouble? Is there really something to look forward to? Can we do it? So having told them where they are, he suits actions and words and charges forward with them. As I have noted previously, I believe that all Christians are in danger of the situation depicted in Hebrews 6:4-6. While it describes the extreme case, falling away under extreme hardship, it also points us to the danger that we are in every time we say no to something God has called us to do.

    So in 5:11-14, maturity is the thing that the addressees have failed to obtain. In 6:1-3 it is that which the author is calling them toward. In 6:4-8, he warns them against its opposite, and in 6:9ff he expresses his certainty that despite the dangers they will not fail. They will attain “it.” So what is “it”?

    I would suggest that it is that final, unshakable kingdom (Hebrews 12:26) in which everything that can be shaken has been and is gone. In the meantime, the call is always to move in that direction, and not to fall back or change course, no matter what comes up. We have Jesus, the high priest, who has gone this way before and proven that it can be done.

    In the Wesleyan tradition we use Hebrews 6:1 in connection with the doctrine of Christian perfection. In context, I don’t see that it has that exact intent. The perfection to which we are called is a maturity, or “rightness” at each point in our journey with the final, true perfection coming on that day when everything shakable has been shaken out.

    Note: I say some more about this “going on” in my podcast presentation on Seven Kingdom Principles of Choice (also part 2), which is based on the pamphlet by the same name.

  • Was Jesus a Lawful Priest and Sacrifice?

    I’m going to post next on the nature of the priesthood of Jesus, by looking at the major passages in the book of Hebrews. These especially chapter 2, 4:14-16, and 7. Obviously that list is not exhaustive, as priesthood is fundamental to most of the book, but those passages will get us started. First, however, I want to address the question in the title: Was Jesus lawful as either a priest or a sacrifice? I’ve seen this discussion between Jews and Christians, and a great deal of confusion was generated.

    The short answer is no. Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, much less of the family of Aaron. He was not qualified according to the Torah to be a priest. Neither was he qualified to be a sacrifice. Humans are not kosher animals, and they are nowhere specifically authorized as sacrifices. Indeed human sacrifice is specifically forbidden.

    But none of this should be a surprise to a Christian Bible student, though unfortunately it seems to be for some. Indeed, the author of Hebrews is not only aware of this point; it’s a key element of his argument. Recall that he has been establishing Jesus, and the witness to Jesus, as superior to the Torah as a revelation. I have noted how this is completely contrary to the Jewish approach to scripture and its interpretation. (Note that I am in no way trying to tell Jews how to approach scripture; I’m addressing this to Christians, but the difference needs to be understood for interfaith discussions.) Having made such an argument he continues by establishing Jesus as a new kind of priest, on which he spends almost all of chapter 7, and then chapter 8 introduces the concept of a new covenant. If Jesus were here, he would not be a priest. There already are priests, but more importantly, Jesus comes from the tribe of Judah, and there is no privision in Torah for such a priest (Hebrews 7:14).

    Rather than trying to argue against this obvious fact, the author of Hebrews bases his argument for the superior priesthood of Jesus on that fact. He was not a priest like the old, Levitical priests. He was a priest of a new order, based on a new covenant, and new regulations. (We’ll discuss the priestly order of Melchisedek in a later entry.) He argues this superior priesthood on the same basis as he has argued the superiority of the revelation that comes through Jesus–he maintains that in all ways Jesus’ ministry is superior. Note that he does not start by establishing the ministry of Jesus from the Old Testament scriptures. (Those who recall how much Old Testament he quotes, hold your exclamations and questions.) Rather, he starts with the superiority of the established testimony of Jesus (2:1-4) and of his priesthood and sacrifice (7-10 passim), and then looks for pointers to something superior that is to come in the Old Testament scriptures.

    Thus the correct answer to the title question is, again, no. Under the Torah, Jesus was neither lawful as a priest nor as a sacrifice. Further, he was not offered according to the law. Does this mean that Jesus is not a priest or a sacrifice? Well, according to the book of Hebrews, he is. He is lawful because he inaugurated a new law.

    I would two other points. The first is the nature of metaphor. Jesus was not killed as a sacrifice from the point of view of those who did it, or from the point of view of those who watched. The Romans crucified Jesus as a routine act of political intimidation. The observers were, well, intimidated. One of the ways in which we can understand this is as a sacrifice–and indeed it was. But we will neither understand everything about it by this means, nor will we be able to connect it to a sacrifice at every point.

    The second is the idea of type and antitype. This is expressed in Hebrews 8:5. The earthly things are a sketch and shadow of heavenly things. Those who understand this passage as indicating that there is a building in heaven proportional to the tabernacle or the temple, and that in the most holy compartment of that temple there is an ark of the covenant miss the point. The ark of the covenant was the shadow, the representation, the physical expression of God’s presence. The heavenly reality is God’s actual presence. To read about the antitypical most holy place, read Revelation 4, and the experience of worship around the throne of God.

    Beware of getting two little or two much out of these types of parallels.

  • What is a Priest?

    If you read through the book of Hebrews as a whole, you cannot help but notice the central place that the concept of priesthood has for the author of the book. His metaphors come strongly from the tabernacle or sanctuary service, and especially the wilderness version. Where he refers to these things he doesn’t reference the second temple or even Solomon’s temple, but the original tent. Some believe this means he wrote after the temple was destroyed, but I would suggest that there must be a greater motivation than that. The wilderness tabernacle itself was not in existence either. I would suggest that his interest in the tabernacle is because he sees this version as the pristine form, the inaugural form, if you will, and because it is the form described directly in Torah. He is working on a contrast of the person of Jesus with the whole of Torah, so he takes his illustration from the Torah as directly as possible. (We will note when we discuss his use of the Old Testament that he works from the LXX to some extent.)

    The problem for modern readers is that we do not hear the same things by these words as he probably did. Terms like priest, high priest, sacrifice, pure, impure, and even worship don’t necessarily mean the same thing to us simply because we live in a vastly different cultural context. The sacrifices fit well into their cultural context and served a teaching purpose. I was energized by studying through Leviticus with Jacob Milgrom’s 3 volume commentary in the Anchor Bible series (see my review).

    [For those who are working through my study guide, you might stop at this point and work with the advanced question on priests, ministers, and intercessors, and fill in the chart on page 29.]

    Milgrom suggests two key functions of the priest. These are not the only functions, but they are critical. First, according to Leviticus 10:10-11, the priests are to be teachers, and the key element that they teach is distinguishing sacred from common and pure from impure. (I could write an entry on that, but I will refrain for the moment. Milgrom’s key comments are on pp. 615-618 of Volume 1 of his series.) This function is restated and reemphasized in Ezekiel 44:23-28. This pair of distinctions is pervasive through the book of Leviticus, and it is made clear that the priests are to know them, to be able to render judgments about them, and to teach them.

    Secondly, priests, and particularly the High Priest, were to carry and/or carry away sin. This is illustrated at Exodus 28:38, but could well be expanded from many other passages in Exodus and Leviticus, looking at how sin is handled in connection with sacrifices. (Again, Milgrom comments in his first volume, pp. 622-625.) So we have these two functions that we often do not think about in connection with priests and the tabernacle–teaching and bearing sin and impurity. (Note these two are not identical, something Christian readers often miss.)

    The tabernacle, and particulary the priestly service as carried out in it, is the central metaphor of Hebrews, the means by which he conveys his message. If we don’t understand his metaphor, we’re not going to understand what it means. This is something we will work on through several posts.

    Do these two key elements of the priestly function play a role in the book of Hebrews? Indeed they do.

    First, the learning of distinctions:

    14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil. — Hebrews 5:14 (from the TFBV project).

    This single reference would not be nearly as important as it is if it did not occur in a section leading up to one of the key points of the book. At the end of chapter 5 our author is explaining why he can’t go deeper into certain things: Believers need more maturity to understand. The key requirement of maturity is a well-trained discernment. Isn’t it interesting that one of the key things the priests were to teach the Israelites through the sanctuary service was precisely this? All those weird rules about which animals to eat and which not to, and what to touch and what not to were, at least in part, an exercise in learning how to make distinctions.

    We are frequently hesitant to make distinctions in the church, fearing the dreaded accusation of “discrimination.” But our author here is affirming that there are right and wrong actions, and that the mature Christian has a mind trained to choose between them. We must guard against a critical spirit or nitpicking on non-essentials, but there is a place, and apparently a fairly substantial one, for making distinctions.

    Second, bearing sins . . .

    4 . . . it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to carry sin away. — Hebrews 10:4 (TFBV)

    This is again a key problem addressed by the book of Hebrews. His answer is the once and for all sacrifice for sins by Jesus who is able to bear away the sins of many once and for all.

    27And just as it is the nature of men to die one time, and after that the judgment, 28so also Christ will appear again without sin, having offered himself to bear the sins of many, to those who wait for salvation. — Hebrews 9:27-28 (TFBV).

    So two key elements of the book of Hebrews are based on these two functions of the priesthood as taught in Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel. In future entries, I will discuss the characteristics that our author believes make Jesus the perfect High Priest.