In many ways, Hebrews 7–10 is a crucial passage for New Testament theology. It uniquely defines the priesthood of the Messiah and elaborates upon the New Covenant. Along with Paul’s letter to the Galatians, the Epistle to Hebrews, and especially chapters 7–10, is the basis for most Christians’ understanding of their relationship to the Mosaic law.
Most commentators understand Hebrews 7–10 as a paradigm shift from the Mosaic law to Christ. For example, in his recent dissertation, Barry Joslin argued that in Hebrews 7–10, “the work of Christ has transformed the Law, and this transformation involves both its internalization and fulfillment in the NC [New Covenant]; the Law has forever been affected Christologically.” For Joslin, “The commandments (and particularly the cultic regulations) are insufficient for attaining perfection . . . unfettered access to God, and the inward cleansing of the conscience. Further, for the writer of Hebrews, the Law and its requirements were never designed to atone permanently for sins, and thus to seek atonement on this basis in the present eschatological age is to set oneself over against God.”
Against many traditional understandings of Hebrews 7–10 like this, my proposed article will offer an exposition of this passage from a more originalist perspective. First, the proposed article would survey Jewish literature like Targum Jonathan on Ezekiel 43:10–11, the Temple Scroll (11Q19), 1 Enoch 90, Wisdom of Solomon 9:8, 4 Ezra 10:25–27, and 2 Baruch 6:3–9 to determine whether the author of Hebrews, as a Messianic follower of the Messiah in the first century, had Ezekiel’s temple in mind when he wrote of “the throne of the majesty in the heavens . . . the true tabernacle” (Heb 8:1–2). Second, if the author of Hebrews did have Ezekiel’s temple in mind in Hebrews 7–10, then the proposed article will attempt to demonstrate that this passage is much more “pro-nomian” than traditionally understood, as would be expected for the Jewish sensibilities of the earliest disciples of the Messiah. Third, the article will attempt to show that Hebrews 7–10 is not arguing to abrogate the entire Mosaic law for its original recipients but is explaining how the permanent abrogation of the original Yom Kippur rite of Leviticus 16 in Ezekiel’s temple aligns with the person and work of the Messiah. Fourth, the proposed article will attempt to prove that although Hebrews 7–10 is heavily critical of the Aaronic priesthood, it does not in fact call for its permanent abrogation, in contradiction to Ezekiel’s temple, but merely argues for the legitimacy and superiority of the Messiah’s non-Aaronic high-priestly ministry in the future Messianic kingdom.