Understanding the Different Tabernacle Typologies of Hebrews and Revelation

The typology of the tabernacle as presented by the authors of Hebrews and Revelation at first seems to be in direct conflict.

In Hebrews, the first tabernacle, or Holy Place, was manifest only to emphasize that man, specifically the priests, could not enter into the Holy of Holies. The signification of this is that man could not enter into the true Holy of Holies, Heaven. But Jesus Christ, through his personal sacrifice and blood and torn flesh (Hebr 10:20) has made a way for us to enter (Hebr 10:19). The Holy of Holies is the place of the presence of God. Therefore the ability of man to enter into the Holy of Holies, the very presence and throneroom of God, occurred at the death (the lamb sacrifice), resurrection and ascension (to act as High Priest) of Christ.

Revelation, in contrast, paints a significantly different picture of Heaven. It is at first very similar to the temple and tabernacle. It has an altar, a sea of glass (laver), a holy place, lamp of fire (menorah), altar of incense, throne / ark of covenant, & four beasts (cherubim). But at the end of Revelation the picture of Heaven is quite different. There “is noTemple,” for the Lamb is the temple. This is further confirmed, for it is only at the seventh trumpet that the temple in heaven is opened and the ark is seen inside (Rev 11:19).

After the parousia, heaven is compared instead to the Garden of Eden where Adam walked freely with God. But all this occurred after the Parousia (Rev 19-22). NOT when Christ ascended. It is only after Christ’s Parousia that the is the Bride presented (Rev 21:2), implying that she can be one with Christ in the bridal chamber, the Holy of Holies.

So in Hebrews, heaven was represented as the Holy of Holies, and the way to God is made manifest sometime after the ascension of Christ. In Revelation, the heavenly tabernacle included the inner court, the holy place and the Holy of Holies. Although saints are seen in the inner court at the altar (Rev 6:9) and sea of glass (Rev 15:2) and the holy place (Rev 7:15), but cannot enter into the Holy of Holies until the Parousia (the door is closed before the parousia, Rev 11:19).

In Hebrews the Heavenly tabernacle never had a holy place, only the Holy of Holies. In Revelation, the Heavenly tabernacle contained all three compartments, until the Parousia when the ‘new heaven’ only contained the Holy of Holies (or that all compartments were removed).

The two accounts seem in direct conflict. Surely the way could not have been manifested at the accension of Christ, just to be closed off again before the Parousia. Why are the typologies so different?

But notice this from Revelation as John addresses his audience:
Reve 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Reve 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Reve 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

First we are given the timing…the phrase “was, and is, and is to come” places us somewhere between Christ’s death/resurrection and his return (Rev 1:7). So this in every way, shape, and form is the transitory time in which sections of heaven are cordoned off. But notice that the theology of John’s is similar to the author’s of Revelation. They both emphasize that the washing of sins (and the purchase of man – see Rev 5:9) occurred at the cross. In this they agree perfectly.

But the question is ‘how did the author of Revelation interpret how this affects the individual,’ versus how the author of Hebrews, and do they conflict? Notice that in Revelation those composing the seven churches are made kings and priests (or kingdom of priests depending on the translation). And yet they are not in heaven yet. In other words, after receiving the blood and being bought by Christ are now considered priests. Priests are set apart. Priests perform the duties of God. Priests worship and serve God. But also, priests can enter into the Holy Place. Now I call to the remembrance of the reader that in the typology of the book of Revelation, the holy place is a part of Heaven (as opposed to the typology of the book of Hebrews). So in essence, what the author of Revelation is conveying is that we (whether Jews or Gentiles, see Rev 5:9) no longer need a priest to enter into heavenly places. But the author of Revelation stills sees that there are degrees of separation, as in the earthly tabernacle.

Is the author of Hebrews mistaken? Absolutely not. His typology is different because he is addressing a different audience for a different purpose. Revelation was addressed to the Church regarding the last times. Although never explicitly stated, it is assumed that the book of Hebrews was addressed to the Hebrews, showing why the sacrifice and person of Jesus Christ was superior to their sacrifices and priesthood. Thus the author of Hebrews is not concerned with the details of Heaven, but desired to show the Hebrews that their own tabernacle emphasized their ultimate separation from God. He was showing why their priesthood and sacrifice would never be permanent and how Christ’s was both perfect and permanent. In his typology, the mere fact that they had two tabernacles (the holy and holy of holies) testified that they would always be separated from God. It was only through the person of Jesus Christ that the separation could be removed.

If we stop the story there, then we would conclude that after the great High Priest Jesus Christ entered the Holy of Holies with his own blood, that man could now enter into the very precense of God. But here the author of Revelation makes a distinction, not a contradiction. He follows the typology of the tabernacle in perfect parallel to the earthly. In the book of Hebrews, the Holy of Holies was “Heaven” as a whole. The author of Revelation confirms that man, through the blood of Christ, can enter into “Heaven,” but that “Heaven” was further compartmentalized into the same division as the tabernacle. In addition, that the saints could only enter up to the Holy Place within this heavenly tabernacle. Both agree that the man could now enter ‘heaven’ through the blood of Christ, but they simply describe heaven differently. To force them in the same typology is to commit error and engender confusion.

You may ask why does the analogy break down (why can’t the holy of holies by consistent in both)? It is because that ultimately John was using a different analogy than the author of Hebrews. In Revelation, Christ is the bridegroom who prepares the home and bridal chamber for the bride. The bride certainly cannot enter the bridal chamber until they are married, ie: after the marriage supper. Once they are married, the bride and Christ are one, no longer needing the separate divisions in Heaven.

So are the two typologies in conflict? No. Different Audience. Different Purpose. Different Analogies. But the conclusion is simple. The author of Revelation saw Heaven as divided as in the earthly tabernacle, thus there was a degree of separation between God and man until the Parousia. It was at the Parousia that the bride was taken to the bridal chamber to become one with her husband, Jesus Christ. It was then that heaven was finally opened up to become the new Garden of Eden, the New Heavens, the New Jerusalem. And it was then that man could truly enter into the Holy of Holies.