The Hidden Assumption Behind Future Sacrifices (Part 2): Does Hebrews 9 Actually Support Future Sacrifices?
In the first article, I argued that the real issue behind the case for future sacrifices is not Jeremiah 33 or Hebrews 9:13–14 by themselves, but the larger protos/deuteros framework Lancaster brings to Hebrews. According to that framework, the protos refers to this present world, the Sinai covenant, the earthly sanctuary, and Levitical service, while the deuteros refers to the World to Come, the new covenant, the heavenly sanctuary, and Messiah’s priesthood.
My concern was that Hebrews 8 does not clearly establish that framework. Hebrews certainly contrasts a first covenant and a second covenant, but Lancaster moves beyond that covenantal contrast and identifies the protos with this continuing present world. That move becomes especially difficult in Hebrews 8:13, where the old order is described as becoming obsolete, growing old, and ready to vanish away. If the Temple, priesthood, and sacrifices remain covenantally valid throughout the continuing protos, then the disappearance of the Temple cultus for nearly two thousand years becomes a significant historical and theological problem.
The question now is whether Hebrews 9 provides the exegetical foundation that Hebrews 8 does not. This is where Lancaster’s paradigm receives its fullest development.
Lancaster’s Reading of Hebrews 9:1–14
Up to this point, Lancaster has argued that the protos refers to this present world and that what is becoming obsolete in Hebrews 8:13 is not the Torah, Temple, or priesthood, but the present order itself. The question now is whether Hebrews 9 supports that conclusion, since this chapter provides the primary basis for identifying the protos with the present age and the deuteros with the World to Come. On page 90, Lancaster begins his exposition of Hebrews 9:2–3. Here his framework becomes explicit: the Holy Place corresponds to the protos (the present world and the Sinai covenant), while the Most Holy Place corresponds to the deuteros (the World to Come and the new covenant).
Before evaluating that claim, it is important to observe the flow of Hebrews itself. Hebrews 9:1 continues the covenantal argument of chapter 8. When the author writes, “Now even the first had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary,” the adjective prōtē (“the first”) most naturally refers back to the first covenant discussed in Hebrews 8:7 and 8:13. The sanctuary discussion therefore expands upon the cultic features of that covenant rather than introducing a new conceptual category. Hebrews 9 continues the covenantal contrast of chapter 8; the sanctuary serves the argument about covenant, not vice versa.
This is where I begin to have concerns with Lancaster’s interpretation. He writes (Hebrews, 90):
Contrary to that conventional interpretation of the symbolism, the exhorter maintains that the Temple represents both the protos and the deuteros. It contains within it two separate zones corresponding respectively to the two covenants and to the two states of the world.
Yet this is precisely the point that remains to be demonstrated. The author of Hebrews never explicitly says that the Holy Place represents the present world or that the Most Holy Place represents the World to Come. Nor does he identify the first section of the tabernacle with the Sinai covenant and the second with the new covenant. In context, the “first” refers to the outer section of the tabernacle (Heb. 9:2) and the “second” to the inner sanctuary behind the veil (Heb. 9:3). The author’s concern is priestly access, the limitations of the earthly sanctuary, and the superiority of Messiah’s priestly work—not the construction of a symbolic map of two cosmic ages.
This is significant because Lancaster’s argument depends on symbolic correspondences that extend beyond anything stated in the text. Neither Exodus, Leviticus, nor Hebrews explicitly identifies the Holy Place with “this present world” or the Most Holy Place with “the World to Come.” Indeed, Exodus 25:40 presents the tabernacle as a whole as a copy of the heavenly pattern shown to Moses. If the sanctuary derives its significance from heavenly realities, the burden of proof rests on demonstrating why one room should suddenly represent the present world while the other represents the World to Come.
Hebrews 9:9 does describe the tabernacle arrangement as symbolic for the present kairos. Yet that is not the same thing as asserting that each section corresponds to a fixed eschatological realm. While kairos can refer to more than a single moment, it commonly denotes an appointed season or covenantal circumstance rather than an indefinitely continuing age.1 Consequently, Hebrews 9:9 appears better understood as referring to the cultic situation existing at the time of writing than as establishing a symbolic correspondence between the first tent and an age extending across millennia.
We now come to Lancaster’s exposition of Hebrews 9:4–5 (Hebrews, 91–93). Here I begin to have greater reservations about the direction of his argument. The author of Hebrews mentions the golden altar of incense, the ark of the covenant, the golden urn containing the manna, Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. Yet immediately after listing these items, he concludes, “Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.” The author deliberately declines to develop the symbolic significance of the furnishings because his interest lies elsewhere. He is moving toward an argument concerning priestly access, the structure of the sanctuary, and the superiority of Messiah’s ministry. Yet Lancaster assigns detailed symbolic significance to many of these objects, incorporating them into his larger protos/deuteros framework. The issue is whether these symbolic associations arise from Hebrews itself or are being supplied from outside the text. The author intentionally passes over the furnishings. Lancaster pauses to develop them. Consequently, the burden of proof rests upon demonstrating that these interpretations belong to the intended argument of Hebrews.
Lancaster next turns to Hebrews 9:7 and the ministry of the high priest. Once again, the protos/deuteros framework governs his interpretation. The high priest enters the second room once a year on the Day of Atonement, and Lancaster understands this room to correspond to the deuteros, the World to Come. He writes: “The Levitical priesthood continually conducts the divine service in this present world, but the Messiah carries out his divine service once, and not in this world, but in the World to Come, so to speak” (Hebrews, 94).
What is striking about this statement is the assumption that the Levitical priesthood continues conducting divine service in this present world. Yet that is precisely what requires explanation. There is no Temple, altar, sacrificial system, or functioning priesthood carrying out the ordinances prescribed in the Torah. If Lancaster’s identification of the protos with the continuing present world is correct, one must account for why God himself has rendered the Levitical system inoperative.
This tension becomes even more apparent in Lancaster’s discussion of Hebrews 9:8–9. Hebrews does not merely refer to the protos; it specifically speaks of “the first tent” (τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς). Grammatically, protos modifies skēnē, not an age or world. The author’s concern remains focused on the sanctuary arrangement described in Hebrews 9:2–3 and the restricted access associated with it. Thus, Hebrews 9:8 ties access to God’s presence to the standing of the first tabernacle arrangement rather than to the continuation of “this present world.” This reading fits naturally with Hebrews 8:13, where the old order is described as becoming obsolete, growing old, and nearing disappearance.
The same tension appears in Lancaster’s exposition of Hebrews 9:9–10. He argues that the Levitical rites provide physical cleansing and ritual access to God within this present world and continue until the “time of reformation,” which he identifies with the World to Come (Hebrews, 96). Yet the same question remains: if these rites continue throughout the protos, where are they? Lancaster’s framework repeatedly assumes the ongoing validity of the Levitical order, whereas Hebrews appears more concerned with an order that is aging, passing away, and being surpassed by the superior ministry of Messiah.
On page 99, Lancaster discusses Hebrews 9:11 and Messiah’s priesthood as it relates to the coming resurrection and the World to Come. He argues that the deuteros form of priesthood occupied by Messiah does not compete with the protos form occupied by the Levitical priesthood. Appealing to Hebrews 8:4, he maintains that Messiah’s priesthood belongs to a different sphere altogether, namely the World to Come and the new covenant.
A significant part of his argument rests upon a textual variant in Hebrews 9:11. Some manuscripts read tōn genomenōn (“the good things that have come”), while others read tōn mellontōn (“the good things to come”).2 Lancaster prefers the latter reading and argues that the former was likely introduced by a scribe who misunderstood the author’s argument and wished to support a realized eschatology in which the time of reformation had already arrived and the Levitical system had already become obsolete. That is a sweeping conclusion. One may certainly argue for the superiority of one reading over another, but reconstructing the theological motivations of an anonymous scribe requires a level of evidence that Lancaster does not appear to provide. The textual question should be decided on textual grounds, not on assumptions about the doctrinal commitments of a hypothetical copyist.
We now come to one of the most important sections in Lancaster’s argument, Hebrews 9:13–14. To his credit, Lancaster does not deny that the Levitical sacrifices accomplished something real. In fact, he rightly argues that many Christians have misunderstood the function of the sacrificial system. Commenting on Hebrews 9:14, he writes:
Replacement theology reads the “dead works” of Hebrews 9:14 as the equivalent of the works of the law discussed in the Pauline epistles. What’s more, replacement theology misunderstands Paul’s use of that term. By means of this double error and conflation of terminology, replacement theology misinterprets Hebrews 9:14 to mean that Christ died to purify Jews from observing the ceremonies of the Torah, such as the sacrifices. (Hebrews, 101)
He then appeals to Hebrews 9:13–14:
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a young cow, sprinkling those who are defiled, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we can serve the living God?
Lancaster’s point is that the sacrifices were genuinely efficacious within their intended sphere. They purified the flesh and enabled worshipers to participate in the covenant life of Israel. He writes:
The sacrifices and Temple rituals were about drawing near to God within his holy precincts in this world. The exhorter argues that if animal sacrifices of this present world are efficacious to purify the flesh, how much more so is the sacrifice of Messiah efficacious to purify the spirit. (Hebrews, 101)
Later he summarizes the argument this way: “If Levitical sacrifices were efficacious on a physical level for this present world, how much more so is the blood of Messiah efficacious on a spiritual level for the world to come? (Hebrews, 101).”
At this point, I think Lancaster is correct to identify the argument as a classic greater-to-lesser (qal waḥomer) argument. The argument only works if the lesser premise is true. The blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer really did sanctify for the purification of the flesh. That is exactly what Hebrews says. The question is what follows from that observation.
Hebrews 9 suggests that Christ’s death addresses the very covenantal problem that necessitated the Levitical system in the first place. The blood of bulls and goats preserved ritual cleanness and covenant participation within Israel’s worship life, but it could not perfect the worshiper’s conscience. By contrast, Christ “offered himself without blemish to God” and thereby cleanses the conscience and secures “redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:14–15). His sacrifice accomplishes what the Levitical order could only anticipate. For this reason, the priestly and sacrificial system becomes obsolete not because it lacked divine purpose, but because its intended goal has been achieved in Christ. Once sin has been definitively dealt with through the self-offering of the Son, the mediatorial structures that anticipated that cleansing are no longer necessary as the covenantal means of access to God.
This is where I think Lancaster goes beyond the text. The point of a greater-to-lesser argument is not merely to show that two things operate in different spheres. The point is that the greater accomplishes more than the lesser. If the lesser purified the flesh, how much more does Christ’s sacrifice accomplish? The argument is not merely one of distinction but of superiority. The issue, therefore, is not whether the Levitical sacrifices possessed real efficacy within the covenant order God established. They did. The issue is whether Hebrews intends that observation to preserve the continuing validity of the Levitical system alongside Messiah’s priesthood, or to demonstrate the surpassing sufficiency of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. The flow of the argument favors the latter.
Conclusion
Lancaster rightly reminds us that the Levitical sacrifices were neither empty rituals nor ineffective symbols. Yet Hebrews 9 does not stop with their efficacy; it argues for the surpassing efficacy of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. The issue is therefore not whether the Levitical system accomplished something real, but whether Hebrews presents it as continuing alongside Christ’s priesthood. I do not believe the chapter supports that conclusion.
In part 3, we will consider whether the apostles’ continued participation in the Jerusalem Temple changes that assessment.
1 “ἐνίστημι,” Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick William Danker, 3rd edition. (University of Chicago Press, 2001), 337.
Comments