In addition to Hebrews 9:24, two
other uses of ουρανος in the singular form occur in
Hebrews (11:12 and 12:26). Both of these latter instances of the term occur,
however, in the context of biblical allusions. The singular form of the word at
these points most likely reflects the direct influence of the versions of the
biblical passages as the author knows them. This recognition is nevertheless
important because it highlights the fact that the dependence of someone, like
the author, on a Greek version of Jewish Scriptures might allow them to use the
word “heaven” in both plural and singular forms without necessarily implying
that the change in number entails any change in the reality to which they
assume the term refers.
In fact, one commonly finds
precisely this switching between the plural and the singular forms of the word
in apocalyptically oriented early Jewish and Christian texts written in Greek. Thus
Paul, who clearly believes in at least three heavens (2 Cor. 12:2), often
refers to heaven in the singular (e.g., Rom. 1:18; 10:6; 1 Cor. 15:47; Gal.
1:8). He can even use ουρανος
in the singular and plural forms back-to-back in 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 with
apparent reference to the same reality (cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16). This
variation between forms stands in marked contrast in nonapocalyptic Jewish
authors such as Philo and Josephus. The latter hold the view that the cosmos is
God’s temple complex—with heaven itself being the cosmic sanctuary/temple. In
keeping with this cosmology, both of these authors use the singular ουρανος consistently throughout their
writings. This usage agrees with Greek philosophical speculation about the
nature of the cosmos, where the singular form is by far the norm.
Given that Hebrews’ use of the
plural and singular form of ουρανος
fits with the practice of others of the same time period who believed in
multiple heavens, the use of the singular in 9:24 cannot bear the weight that
MacRae tries to place upon it. More plausible is the interpretation advanced
by Otfried Hofius that “heaven itself” in 9:24 refers to the highest of the heavens,
the place where the heavenly holy of holies of the tabernacle/temple was taught
to be located (see., e.g., T. Levi 5:1). That Jesus has entered the
highest heaven coheres well with the language of Jesus passing “through the
heavens” (4:14) and being now higher “than the heavens” (7:26) while still also
being “in the heavens” (8:1). Jesus, that is, has not left the heavens, as
one might imagine someone in Philo’s or Plato’s universe having to do were that
person above to be absorbed into the ultimate realm of the divine that exists
outside the cosmos. Instead, Jesus has been invited to ascend to the highest
place in the heavens, the place above all other heavens, where the heavenly
holy of holies and the heavenly throne of God are. (David M. Moffitt, Rethinking
the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2022], 129-31, emphasis in bold added)
In a footnote to the above, Moffitt notes that:
I have asserted elsewhere (Atonement
and the Logic of Resurrection, 231n36) that the author distinguishes
between created heavens and uncreated heavens. I am no longer confident that
this view is correct. The evidence presented here—and particularly the fact
that the author speaks of the “heavens” being changed (Heb. 1:10-11) and of the
“heaven” being shaken (12:26)—seems to suggest instead that he is merely
adopting biblical language and assuming that the plural and singular forms are
interchangeable ways of referring to the same reality. There are things that
are “unshakeable” and that “remain” after the final shaking (12:27), but such
distinctions do not correlate neatly in Hebrews with a “heaven” and “earth”
dualism. It seems to be that just as some of the heavenly things, like the
earthly things, require purification (9:23), so also at least some of the
heavenly things, like the earthly things, will be subject to the final,
eschatological transformation (1:10-11; 12:26). (Ibid., 130 n. 33)
