No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Senses of οὐρανός, Hebrews 12.25–29, and the Destiny of the Cosmos
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2025
Abstract
Hebrews scholarship regularly includes claims that the author used the word οὐρανός in either two or three distinct senses. Most basically, it is argued that the word can refer to created parts of the cosmos or to the uncreated place where God dwells, and that authors who use the word have one of these two distinct referents in mind. This is particularly important in Hebrews 12.25–9, where the οὐρανός is shaken. It is often argued that this must be the created οὐρανός in distinction to the divine or eternal οὐρανός. This article critiques this common understanding of οὐρανός and its application to Hebrews 12.25–9. First, it surveys some early Jewish and Christian texts that discuss humans ascending into heaven, illustrating that these texts do not indicate any ontological divisions between various entities named ‘heaven’. Second, it briefly examines the ten occurrences of οὐρανός in Hebrews against this background, and it becomes clear that the author of Hebrews was more interested in contrasting heaven and earth (and perhaps the highest from the lower heavens) than in separating ‘heaven’ into distinct realms based on ontology. Third, the article outlines the significance of this conclusion for understanding what Hebrews 12.25–9 says about the shaking of heaven and earth. The author of Hebrews does not mean that some uncreated οὐρανός will ‘remain’ while the created heavens and earth are shaken. Instead, all of the heavenly and earthly space will be shaken.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.
References
1 O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 196011) 203.
2 Michel, An die Hebräer, 203.
3 A. Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspective (St. Meinrad: Grail Publications, 1960) 77.
4 Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary, 79.
5 D.A. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 27.
6 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 28.
7 P. Church, Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews (NovTSup 171; Leiden: Brill, 2017) 372.
8 O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19 f. und 10,19 f (WUNT 1/14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972) 71.
9 M. Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: Ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser (WUNT 1/41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 36.
10 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 27.
11 Rissi, Die Theologie, 35.
12 Hofius, Der Vorhang, 72.
13 H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951) 1–2; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Four Worlds that are “Other” in the Enochic Book of Parables’, Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions (ed. T. Nicklas et al.; JSJSup 143; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 55.
14 G.W. MacRae, ‘Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews’, Semeia 12 (1978) 187–8.
15 C.R. Koester, Hebrews (AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 99.
16 D.M. Moffitt, ‘Serving in the Tabernacle in Heaven: Sacred Space, Jesus’s High-Priestly Sacrifice, and Hebrews’ Analogical Theology’, Hebrews in Contexts (ed. G. Gelardini and H.W. Attridge; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 272 n. 35.
17 For some examples, see J.L. Berquist, ‘Critical Spatiality and the Book of Hebrews’, Hebrews in Contexts (ed. G. Gelardini and H.W. Attridge; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 185–6; Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews (SBLDS 25; Missoula: Scholars, 1975); W. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 116; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003) 376–7; L.T. Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 17–21; Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe (JSNTSup 219; New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 355–6.
18 See for example Questions and Answers on Exodus 52; Allegorical Interpretation 3.100–03; Concerning Noah’s Work as a Planter 26–7; On the Life of Moses 2.71–6. J.W. Thompson points to these texts in ‘What Has Middle Platonism to Do with Hebrews?’, Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students (ed. Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden; SBLRBS 66; Atlanta: SBL, 2011) 31–52.
19 For agreement, see Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 70; G. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT 2/212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 120–5. The only possible exception I have found is a text that C. R. Koester points out in The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989) 67: there, he notes that Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.51 perhaps references some kind of heavenly sanctuary (although the word ‘heavenly’ does not appear). However, the text is only preserved in Armenian, and the editor suggests an emendation that does not refer to a heavenly sanctuary (Philo, Questions on Exodus (trans. Ralph Marcus; LCL 401; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953) 97).
20 See J.A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 97; B.J. Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews (BZNW 222; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016) 92.
21 For 2 Enoch, see C. Böttrich, ‘Das slavische Henochbuch’, Apokalypsen (JSHRZ 5.7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1996) 811; R.H. Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (trans. William Richard Morfill; Oxford: Clarendon, 1896) xvi–xvii; N. Schmidt, ‘The Two Recensions of Slavonic Enoch’, JAOS 41 (1921) 310–11. For Testament of Abraham, see G.H. Box, The Testament of Abraham (London: SPCK, 1927) xxviii–xxix. For Apocalypse of Abraham, see M. Sommer, ‘Ein Text aus Palästina? Gedanken zur Einleitungswissenschaftlichen Verortung der Apokalypse des Abraham’, JSJ 47 (2016) 252.
22 Many scholars suggest that 3 Baruch implies seven heavens; see R. Bauckham, ‘Early Jewish Visions of Hell’, JTS 41 (1990) 372–4; G.N. Bonwetsch, ‘Das slavisch erhaltene Baruchbuch’, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Philologisch-Historische Klasse aus dem Jahre 1896 (Göttingen: Commissionsverlag der Dieterich’schen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1896) 93; L. Ginsberg, ‘Greek Apocalypse of Baruch’, The Jewish Encyclopedia (ed. I. Singer; New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1902) 551; D.C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity (SVTP; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 41–3; W. Hage, ‘Die griechische Baruch-Apokalypse’, Apokalypsen (ed. W.G. Kümmel; JSHRZ 5.1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1974) 18; H.M. Hughes, ‘The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch or 3 Baruch’, APOT 2 (ed. R.H. Charles; 2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 527; C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 81–2. However, Picard and others have made a convincing case that the text only includes five heavens; see especially J.C. Picard, ‘Observations sur l’Apocalypse grecque de Baruch: cadre historique fictif et efficacité symbolique’, Sem 20 (1970) 96 n. 50; see also Testamentum Iobi; Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece (ed. S.P. Brock and J.-C. Picard; PVTG 2; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 77; L. Carlsson, Round Trips to Heaven: Otherworldly Travelers in Early Judaism and Christianity (Lund Studies in the History of Religions 19; Lund: Department of History and Anthropology of Religions, Lund University, 2004) 342–3.
23 For agreement that Baruch is barred from entering, see Carlsson, Round Trips, 341–2; H. E. Gaylord, Jr., ‘3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch’, OTP 1 (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 653; A. Kulik, ‘The Enigma of the Five Heavens and Early Jewish Cosmology’, JSP 28 (2019) 248–52; Picard, ‘Observations’, 82–3; J.E. Wright, ‘The Cosmography of the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch and Its Affinities’ (Ph. D. diss., Brandeis University, 1992) 296. For Wright, Baruch does partially enter the fifth heaven, but the door is inside the fifth heaven, which has an antechamber (Wright, ‘Cosmography’, 331). On the other hand, some suggest that Baruch does enter (for the Greek, see Bauckham, ‘Visions of Hell’, 372–3). This view is particularly characteristic of Harlow, who argues that the angelic guide greets Michael in 11.5 and thus must enter the fifth heaven (Harlow, 3 Baruch, 36). To argue this, however, Harlow has to claim that the door that closes before Baruch’s exit is different than the fifth-heaven door; given that one can easily read the text as barring Baruch from the fifth heaven generally, Harlow’s two doors appears the more complex and thus less convincing option.
24 This seems to be the view of Picard and Kulik (Kulik, ‘The Enigma’, 263–4; J.C. Picard, ‘“Je te montrerai d’autres mystères, plus grands que ceux-ci…” Deux notes sur III Baruch et quelques écrits apparentés’, Le continent apocryphe: essai sur les littératures apocryphes juive et chrétienne (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia 36; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999) 150–1).
25 For connections between the prayer liturgy in 3 Baruch and the temple as well as the Day of Atonement, see A. Kulik, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010) 361–4; Kulik, ‘The Enigma’, 248–50. For a heavenly temple beyond Baruch, see Carlsson, Round Trips, 345; Gaylord, Jr., ‘3 Baruch’, 657–9; Picard, ‘Observations’, 82–3. On the other hand, others suggest that a heavenly temple, if it existed, would be more clearly marked in the text (Harlow, 3 Baruch, 34–5; K. R. Jones, Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: Apocalypses and Related Pseudepigrapha (JSJSup 151; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 138). Harlow, in fact, thinks that there is an intentional polemic against a heavenly (and also earthly) temple in 3 Baruch (Harlow, 3 Baruch, 64–75). The liturgical functions that appear so strongly in 3 Bar. 12–16, however, suggest that a heavenly temple or something like it is likely.
26 For agreement that Enoch is barred from entering the second house, see R.A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment (EJL 8; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 115; K.C. Bautch, ‘The Heavenly Temple, the Prison in the Void and the Uninhabited Paradise: Otherworldly Sites in the Book of the Watchers’, Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions (ed. T. Nicklas et al.; JSJSup 143; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 40; M. Black, The Book of Enoch Or I Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 148; G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 80–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 270; R.E. Stokes, ‘The Throne Visions of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14 and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of Their Literary Relationship’, DSD 15 (2008) 350. For the argument that these restrictions stem from the temple concept, see M. Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature (Judentum und Unwelt 8; Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1984) 49; D.W. Suter, ‘Temples and the Temple in the Early Enochic Tradition: Memory, Vision, and Expectation’, The Early Enoch Literature (ed. G. Boccaccini and J.J. Collins; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 214. Esler, however, suggests the restrictions mirror the distance between the court and the common people (P.F. Esler, God’s Court and Courtiers in the Book of the Watchers: Re-interpreting Heaven in 1 Enoch 1-36 (Eugene: Cascade, 2017) 61). Both may be in mind.
27 For this division, see L.R. Lanzillotta, ‘The Cosmology of the Ascension of Isaiah: Analysis and Re-Assessment of the Text’s Cosmological Framework’, The Ascension of Isaiah (ed. J.N. Bremmer, T.R. Karmann and T. Nicklas; Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2016) 264–6. He further subdivides each of these three sections into equal halves, and suggests that this cosmological model is an attempt to integrate a seven-heaven model onto a tripartite cosmology (Lanzillotta, ‘Cosmology’, 268–9, 287–8). See also E. Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe (Apocryphes: Collection de poche de l’AELAC; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993) 45–6, who also argues that the angels of heavens 1–5 are imperfect, while those of 6–7 share divine perfection.
28 Ascen. Isa. does not explicitly mention God’s throne, but it is implied by Christ’s ‘sitting’ in 11.32. The lack of throne in 4 Ezra may simply be due to the terse and general nature of the description. For agreement that this is a consistent feature of this kind of text, see E. F. Mason, ‘“Sit at My Right Hand”: Enthronement and the Heavenly Sanctuary in Hebrews’, A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. Vanderkam (ed. E.F. Mason et al.; 2 vols; JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 2:903.
29 Despite this, Nickelsburg does divide between a heaven as God’s dwelling and meteorological heaven; see G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables’, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 27–37; Nickelsburg, ‘Four Worlds’. However, refusing to divide a ‘cosmological’ heaven from God’s heaven would fit with Nickelsburg’s own suggestion that there are two primary ‘cosmic’ dualisms in 1 Enoch: heaven and earth, and inhabited and uninhabited earth (see G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘The Apocalyptic Construction of Reality in 1 Enoch’, George W.E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning (ed. J. Neusner and A.J. Avery-Peck; 2 vols; JSJSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 1:37).
30 For agreement that this is the highest out of multiple heavens, see P. Andriessen, ‘Das grössere und vollkommenere Zelt (Hebr 9:11)’, BZ 15 (1971) 88; DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 27–8; Hofius, Der Vorhang, 70–1; W.L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B; Dallas: Word, 1991) 248; R.J. McKelvey, Pioneer and Priest: Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Eugene: Pickwick, 2013) 47; J. McRay, ‘Atonement and Apocalyptic in the Book of Hebrews’, ResQ 23 (1980) 5; Moffitt, ‘Serving in the Tabernacle’, 272–3. For no significant difference between singular and plural of οὐρανός, see K. Backhaus, Der Hebräerbrief (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 2009) 181–2; G. L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) 224 n. 10; P. Ellingworth, ‘Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews’, EvQ 58 (1986) 341 n. 6; K. Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Waynesboro: Paternoster, 2005) 193–4; G. E. Tymeson, ‘The Material World in Gnosticism and the Epistle to the Hebrews’ (PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1975) 154–5. For the idea that the plurals simply represent שׁמים, see Backhaus, Der Hebräerbrief, 182; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn 1990) 115; P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000) 103.
31 See e.g., E. Adams, The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World (LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 188; H.W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 381; D.A. De Silva, ‘Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews’, TJ 21 (2000) 26–7; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 687; Hofius, Der Vorhang, 71; Johnson, Hebrews, 335; K. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice (SNTSMS 143; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 122–3; A. Stewart, ‘Cosmology, Eschatology, and Soteriology in Hebrews: A Synthetic Analysis’, BBR 20 (2010) 550–1; J. W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQMS 13; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982) 49–50. Such a distinction between heavens does not require this conclusion, however, as is illustrated by D.J. Moo, Hebrews (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming) on 12:26–7; Rissi, Die Theologie, 129.
32 Thompson, Beginnings, 50.
33 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 687.
34 Stewart, ‘Cosmology’, 550.
35 For agreement about the emphasis on οὐρανός, see e.g., F.H. Cortez, ‘Creation in Hebrews’, AUSS 53 (2015) 312; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 480; P. Lee, The New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation: A Study of Revelation 21-22 in the Light of Its Background in Jewish Tradition (WUNT 2/129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 262. While one could argue that the singular of οὐρανός here indicates more precisely the highest heaven, as it does in 9.24, the fact that the author is quoting from the LXX should make us hesitant to base any significant claim upon the singular form.
36 For a similar critique of different meanings of οὐρανός, including the implication that here all of heavenly space is shaken, see Koester, Hebrews, 547. For general agreement that even God’s heavenly ‘dwelling place’ is shaken, see Cockerill, Hebrews, 667; Cortez, ‘Creation’, 311; J. Lee, ‘The Unshakable Kingdom through the Shaking of Heaven and Earth in Heb 12:26–29’, NovT 62 (2020) 258. For further agreement that the shakable/unshakable contrast does not line up on the earth/heaven contrast, see G. Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (SNT 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1969) 92 n. 11.
37 E.g., W. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 118; Moo, Hebrews, on 12.27; Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 128; Thompson, Beginnings, 49.
38 See Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 119.
39 For ‘shakable’, see Adams, Stars Will Fall, 192; Cockerill, Hebrews, 667; Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 124–5; P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 558; Koester, Hebrews, 552; Thompson, Beginnings, 50; see also many of the major English versions, including NASB, NIV. Some versions translate only some of the words with nature or ability language; see ESV, HCSB, KJV, NLT. For ‘shaken’, see O. J. Filtvedt, ‘Creation and Salvation in Hebrews’, ZNW 106 (2015) 298; Moo, Hebrews, on 12:27; see also the ASV and NET.
40 My translation. Greek: πλημμύρης δὲ γενομένης προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμòς τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν σαλεῦσαι αὐτὴν διὰ τò καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν.
41 Josephus, BJ 1.21.3 §405 (LCL 203 (Thackeray), 191). Greek: παρὰ δὲ τὴν ὑπόρειον λαγόνα συνηρεφὲς ἄντρον ὑπανοίγει, δι᾿ οὗ βαραθρώδης κρημνὸς εἰς ἀμέτρητον ἀπορρῶγα βαθύνεται, πλήθει τε ὕδατος ἀσαλεύτου καὶ τοῖς καθιμῶσίν τι πρὸς ἔρευναν γῆς οὐδὲν μῆκος ἐξαρκεῖ.
42 For the verbal form in a context where it clearly means result and not nature, see also Acts 2.25/Ps 15.8 LXX. For some ambiguous references, see Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 7.11; Eunapius, Lives, 504; Philo, Eternity 22 §116.
43 For the basic translation, see Adams, Stars Will Fall, 190; Cockerill, Hebrews, 667; Filtvedt, ‘Creation’, 301; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 482. For good representatives of an annihilation view, see Attridge, Hebrews, 381; Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 119; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 688; G. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie, 469–70; E. Grässer, An die Hebräer (Hebr 10,19–13,25) (EKKNT 17/3; Zürich: Benziger Verlag/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 128; Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 128. For representatives of ‘removal’ without annihilation, see Adams, Stars Will Fall, 182–96; J. C. Laansma, The Letter to the Hebrews: A Commentary for Preaching, Teaching, and Bible Study (Eugene: Cascade, 2017) 315–6.
44 For a similar conclusion, see S. Schapdick, ‘Die Metathesis der erschütterbaren Dinge, “damit das Unerschütterbare bleibe” (Hebr 12,27): Verwandlung—Vernichtung—Wandelbarkeit? Zum Verständnis des Begriffs μετάθεσις im Kontext von Hebr 12,1–29 (Teil II)’, BZ 57 (2013) 46–50. For agreement that destruction is not in view here, see Lee, New Jerusalem, 260; Moo, Hebrews, on 12.18–29; Rissi, Die Theologie, 129.
45 For a similar focus on God’s purposes instead of inherent ‘unshakableness’, see Cockerill, Hebrews, 668–9; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 482; Tymeson, ‘Material World’, 272.
46 For some applications of critical spatiality to Hebrews, see Berquist, ‘Critical Spatiality’, 181–93; G. Gelardini, ‘Charting “Outside the Camp” with Edward W. Soja: Critical Spatiality and Hebrews 13’, Hebrews in Contexts (ed. G. Gelardini and H.W. Attridge; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 210–37; G. Gelardini, ‘Existence Beyond Borders: The Book of Hebrews and Critical Spatiality’, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Writing at the Borders (ed. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, and G. van Oyen; CBET 85; Leuven: Peeters, 2016) 187–203.