Paul Ellingworth

Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews

Dr. Ellingworth is a Translations Consultant with the United
Bible Societies. This essay is a by-product from his preliminary
work towards the writing of the volume on the Epistle to the Heb-
rews in The New International Greek Testament Commentary

The purpose of this paper1 is not to explore the influences which

may have contributed to the cosmology of Hebrews, nor to take
issue with those who have attempted to find a coherent pattern in
this puzzling area of the 'epistle', but to re-examine the relevant
texts themselves, in order to discover how they relate to one
another.
One must begin somewhere. We take as starting-points for this
discussion three theses which, though there is much evidence to
support them, will not be argued in detail. They may be stated as
follows:
(1). The author's purpose in writing is to encourage (13:22)
his readers, and prevent them from drifting away (2:1) or
'shrinking back' (10:39) from faith in Christ.
(2). The author does this by exploring for his readers who
Jesus is, what he has done, and the results of his work.
(3). This teaching cannot without distortion be analysed into
the later categories of christology and soteriology. Hebrews
contains much valuable material for the later formulation ofthese
and other doctrines; but within the perspective of the epistle itself,
who Jesus was and what he did are inseparable, and in the letter
as a whole, what Jesus did is primary. The theme of who he was
is explored in order to throw light on what he did.
Within this teaching, there are however three distinctions to be
made. The first two may be considered together. They are, first,
the distinction between old and new teaching about Jesus; and
second, that between peripheral and central teaching. In the
nature of the evidence, a single writing by an unknown author to
unknown readers and/or hearers, these distinctions cannot be
made with absolute precision. As far as the distinction between
old and new teaching is concerned, there is still for example

1 This is a revised form of a paper presented to the British New Testament

Conference held in Edinburgh in September 1984.
EQ LVII I14-D
338 The Evangelical Quarterly
disagreement about how much, if any, of the teaching about
Christ's high priesthood was already familiar to the original
receptors. As for the distinction between central and peripheral
teaching, this must be made on the basis ofthe epistle as a whole,
not of individual verses or passages, still less on the basis of
grammatical criteria. For example, a reading of 1:1-4 alone
might suggest that the author was more interested in christology
than in soteriology; but when one returns to this prologue after
reading the entire epistle, the apparently incidental participial
phrase 'having made purification for sins' proves to be of the
greatest significance.
Moreover, the distinctions are themselves distinct from one
another. It does not seem to be the case, as one might perhaps
expect, that traditional teaching is always peripheral, or even that
the new teaching is always central. The first readers of Hebrews
had almost certainly already learned to confess Jesus as Son of
God, yet this traditional teaching is prominent throughout the first
seven chapters; by contrast, the equally traditional title 'Christ' is
not developed in any distinctive way. In 3:1, Jesus is called 'the
apostle and high priest of our confession'. Since neither title is
given toJesus elsewhere in the New Testament, one may presume
that they were probably both new to the readers. One title, high
priest, is central to the entire argument, especially from the end of
chapter 4 to the end of chapter 9; the other, apostle, is never used
again.
The third distinction ranges more widely than teaching about
Jesus. It is the distinction between, on the one hand, concepts
which, whether old or new, central or peripheral, are the subject
of explicit statements; and, on the other hand, concepts which are
presupposed by the author, and perhaps also by the readers. Of
particular interest for the present discussion are the author's
presuppositions about the universe; in other words, his implicit
cosmology.
It is not claimed that the distinction between statement and
presupposition in Hebrews is clear-cut in every case; only that it is
valid in principle. For example, the author never reproduces the
primitive confession Jesus is the Christ'; it is presupposed. In
various places, however, e.g. in 9:11f, he makes explicit
statements about Christ based on this presupposition. Conversely,
in 3:7-4:11, he makes explicit statements about God's katapausis
which, if the spatial language about 'entering' is taken seriously,
must be understood cosmologically as a 'place of rest'.2 More
2 O. Hofius, Katapausis. Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im
HebraerbrieJ. Tiihingen, 1970. So BAGD s.v. iv.2.
 Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews 339

commonly, however, the cosmology remains latent, as in texts

discussed in greated detail below. Since, therefore, the author so
seldom pauses to make explicit cosmological statements, and is
never sufficiently interested in the subject to draw a comprehen-
sive picture of the universe as he sees it, it is not surprising that
this aspect of his thought presents obscurities and apparent
contradictions.
Before examining these in greater detail, it may be helpful to
combine in a diagram the three distinctions we have made.

Diagram. 1

NEW

high priest
(central)

Son
(central) .

OLD

The most complex problems in this area are raised by a group of

texts which both Ca). appear to involve cosmological presupposi-
tions, and also Cb). are related to distinctive teaching about the
work of Christ. 3:7--4:11, for example, is simple by cQmparisonin
this respect, because neither of these two factors is present. The
cosmological statements about God's resting-place are clear and
explicit, and the passage says astonishingly little about Jesus.
340 The Evangelical Quarterly
Nor are there any serious problems with texts which involve
only one of these factors. On the other hand, there are texts in
which the first but not the second factor is present: that is, where
the cosmology is implied, but the work of Christ is not directly in
question. Examples are the Old Testament quotations in 1:10 =
Ps. 102. (LXX 101):26 and 12:26 = Hag. 2:6, both of which
combine references to heaven(s) and earth to mean 'the whole
created universe'.
On the other hand, there are passages such as 7:15f, 9:13[,
10:8--10, in which the second but not the first factor is present:
Christ's work is spoken of without direct cosmological overtones.
It is remarkable, however, how often the author's view of who
Jesus was and what he did does involve presuppositions about the
universe. Evidence for this statement could be quickly found in
the contexts ~f the texts just mentioned: 7:26; 9:11£; 10:5a. The
author thinks synthetically, not analytically: for him, whatjesus
did, who he was, and how the universe is framed, belong
together, though the last is least important for him.
Some of the less problematical texts foreshadow problems
which arise elsewhere. What they say, or at least clearly and
directly imply, about· the universe is that it was made by God
(1:10), by his creative word (11:3) and through Christ (1;2); that
it is supported by God (1:3), and will in the last days be 'shaken',
that is, judged and possibly destroyed, by him (12:26). What
remains unclear is, so to speak, the internal structure of the
universe. 12:26 makes clear (clearer than in Haggai) the
distinction between heaven and earth: 'not only the earth but also
the heaven'; here, at least, 'earth and heaven' is not a mere
hendiadys for 'the universe'.
For further evidence about the author's implied cosmology, it is
necessary to turn to the most problematical texts, those in which
both factors (a). and Cb)., latent cosmology and patent soteriology,
appear to be combined.
Eight passages of this type have to be considered. Each of them
presents or presupposes a picture which may be represented by a
diagram. Such representation involves some simplification, be-
cause it involves, firstly, laying greater stress on cosmological
features than in Hebrews itself; and secondly, taking picture
language at its face value.
(1). Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the
angels, crowned with glory and honour ... ' (2:9, c£ v. 7 =
Ps. 8:5).
Taken by itself, 'lower' could refer to status rather than place;
but that Jesus was originally, and is now, above the angels is
 Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews 341
implied in 'for a little while', expressed in 1:2-4, and again
implied throughout chapter 1.:{

I
I
+
I
I I
I I
I I
I angels I
I I
I I

~
JESUS

(2). ' ... we have a great high priest who has passed through
the heavens,]esus, the Son of God ... ' (4:14).
The fact thatjesus 'has passed through the heavens' appears to
be incidental to the argument; a strengthening of the already
emphatic phrase 'a great high priest'. In certain contexts,
dierchomai + accusative may refer to movement within an area, 4
but more usually it denotes movement through an area and
beyond. s Here, the second option is supported by 'above the
heavens' in Heb. 7:26, discussed below. The direct implication is
that he is now 'above the heavens'. Verse 15 immediately adds a
complementary reference to his human experience, so to speak
'below the heavens'. There is no conflict with 2:9: the two pictures
complement one another. 6
3 Brachu ti is probably temporal: so RSV, NEB, TEV, NIV note; cf. Isa. 57:17
LXX. So most commentators and J. W. Pryor, 'Hebrews and Incarnational
Christology', Refonned Theological Review 40 (1981) 44-46, against]. A. T.
Robinson, The Human Face of God, London 1973, 159. Brachu ti is seen as
spatial by Delitzsch and by A. Vanhoye, Situation du Christ, Paris 1969.
287f.; so MT, cf. 2 Sam. 16:1 LXX; Acts 27:28.
4 Acts 13:6; 18:23.
5 Acts 14:24; 15:3, 41; 16:6; 19:1, 21; 20:2; 1 Cor. 16:5.
G OurarlOs s. and pI. are juxtaposed in 9:23f. and 12:23, 25f., suggesting no
precise difference of meaning; so Michel on 4:14. J. McRay, 'Atonement and
Apocalyptic in the Book of Hebrews', Restoration Quarterly 23 (1980) 4-6
unconvincingly disagrees. See also K. Galling, '''Durch die Himmel
hindurchgeschritten" (Hebr. 4:14)', ZNW 43 (1950-51) 263f.
342 The Evangelical Quarterly

+
I

j
E
heavens S
U
S
I
I

(3). ' ... the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has
gone ... ' (6:19f).

......
JESUS

Here the imagery is quite distinct from that in 2:9 and 4:14. 7 The
implied contrast is not between higher and lower, but between
inner and outer. This is represented in the diagram by the use of
the horizontal axis, and in· future we shall call this 'horizontal
language'. RSV's 'shrine' is not in the Greek, but it would be
clearly implied even iflater passages (especially 9:1-14) did not
give explicit confirmation. The contrast is however confined to the
use of the comparative to esoteron. Nothing is directly stated
about an outer (part of a) tabernacle, or about Jesus' presence in
7 The implied cosmology is the same, whether it is the anchor or the hope
which is said to 'enter the inner shrine'. The second option is strongly
supported by RSV, NEB and by N. H. Young, The Impact ofthelewish Day of
Atonement upon the New Testament, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Manchester
1973, 161-4; the first option is chosen by Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch.
 Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews 343

it; about the nature of the tabernacle, or any contrast between

earthly and heavenly tabernacles. Following the author's usual
practice, he gives here a preliminary indication of a theme which
will become much more important later.
(4). ' ... a high priest ... exalted above the heavens' (7:26).

JESUS as Ho
high priest

I
heavens I
I
I
I
I

This text moves back to the vertical imagery of 2:9 and 4:14, to
which it forms a perfect complement: 2:9 has in focus Jesus'
earthly humiliation, 4:14 an intermediate stage, and 7:26 his
completed exaltation. 'Exalted above the heavens' forms the
climax of verse 26; but in the wider context, the theme of
exaltation is subordinate to that of the permanent effectiveness
(vv. 24f, 28) of Christ's high-priestly ministry.
(5). ' ... we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the
right hand of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and
the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord' (8:1-2).

God, heaven,
heavenly tabernacle,
Christ

(earth)
344 The Evangelical Quarterly
Here, as in 4:14, 6:19f, and 7:26, the main theme is the high
priesthood of Christ; but instead of the vertical three-part division
found in 2:9,4:14 and 7:26, and the horizontal, two-part division
of 6:19f, there is a two-part vertical contrast between heaven and
earth, as in such less directly christological texts as 1:10 and
12:26, mentioned above. The heavenly tabernacle is described as
'the sanctuary ta hagia and the true tent', which is almost
certainly to be understood as 'the sanctuary, that is, the true tent',
(kai epexegetical), not as referring to two parts of the heavenly
tabernacle. Alethinos implies a contrast, not between true and
false (since after all the levitical cultus had its place in God's
purpose, 5:4; 9:1-10), but between the original and the copy
(9:24; 10:1). The true tabernacle, however, is 'set up by the Lord',
that is, by God, in God's immediate presence. The contrast
between heavenly and earthly cultus is developed in the following
verses. The picture presented here is compatible with tl?-at in
6:19f, but not yet directly related to it.

heavenly tabernacle

greater and holy place

more perfect (v. 12)
tent (v. 11)
t- - ...
~
JESUS

holy place (v. 2) holy of holies

(v. 3)
,.,. high priest
priests ....
earthly tabernacle

(6). It is in 9:1-14 that the author presents his fullest and most
complex picture of the universe, and of Christ's place and work
within it. Part of the confusion arises because the author uses
'first' and 'second' both temporally and spatially. In verse 1, 'first'
almost certainly does not refer to a tabernacle at all, but to the old
covenant (cf.8:7, 13), as all current translations make clear. In v.
2 and 6, however, 'first' refers to the 'outer' (RSV) part of the
tabernacle (or, as the author himself puts it, the 'first tabernacle').
Similarly, the 'second tent' of v. 7, the Holy of holies, could be
translated as 'inner'. These comprise the two parts of the 'earthly
sanctuary' (v. 1).
 Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews 345
This phrase reintroduces the two-part vertical contrast found in
8:1f. This is implicit in 9:2-10, and re-emerges in full strength in
verse 11 ('. . . through the greater and more perfect tent (not
made with hands, that is, not of this creation)'), and again in
verse 24 (see below). Christ's high priesthood belongs to a
'greater and more perfect tent' of which the earthly sanctuary is
only a 'parable' (9:9; RSV 'symbolic'), 'copy' (9:24) or 'shadow'
(10:1).
There is clearly some kind of typological parallel between what
the levitical high priest did in the earthly tabernacle, and what
Christ did in the heavenly. The extent of the parallel is however
difficult to determine, and should not be exaggerated. Some ofthe
dissimilarities do not involve spatial, cosmological language: for
example, both offer blood, though of very different kinds (9:12).
But even the spatial parallelism is not complete. On the one hand,
nothing distinctive is said about the earthly high priest in the
outer tabernacle (cf. 9:6), whereas Christ is said to have passed
'through the greater and more perfect tent'. On the other hand, in
the heavenly tabernacle, unlike the earthly, there are no
subordinate priests, so there is no counterpart to the contrasts of
9:2f, 6f. These asymmetrical features are all the more remarkable
in a passage in which formal features are closely parallel.
Before attempting to explain them,8 two complicating factors
must be briefly mentioned, since they raise queries about how
much of the language is indeed spatial.
First, it is possible, though on balance unlikely, that the dia of
verse 12, like the two dia's of verse 13, may not be local,
'through', but instrumental, 'by means of the greater and more
perfect tent'.9
Second, by 9:8, as certainly by 9:9f, temporal language may be
taking over from spatial, so that we should translate, not with
RSVand most other translations, 'the first tent', but with NEB text
'the earlier tent'. This verse would then refer to the earthly
sanctuary as a whole, as in verse 1, by implication in verse llb,
and in verse 24. This is quite possible, though there is no exact
parallel: Hebrews is full of such gradual transitions. It is a
question of deciding which line of interpretation causes the least
problems. RSV's 'as long as the outer tent is still standing' raises

8 See below on Heb. 10:19£

9 P. Andriessen and A. Lenglet, 'Quelques passages difficiles de l'Epitre aux
Hebreux', Biblica 15 (1970) 207-220, esp. 214£; Andriessen, '''Das grossere
und vollkommenere Zelt" (Hebr. 9, 11)' BZ 15 (1971) 76-92; N. H. Young,
'''.ou.' E<TnV .ijt:; oaQxot:; a'ihou" (Heb. x.20)" NTS 20 (1973) 100-104;
Andriessen, En lisant l'Epitre aur Hiibreur, Vaals 1977, 35£
346 The Evangelical Quarterly
the question of what it would mean, in terms ofthe imagery, for
the inner tent to remain standing on its own. NEB's 'the earlier
tent' produces some tension with verse 2, and especially verse 6,
where the language is clearly spatial. Perhaps a clue to a solution
is to be; found in the fact that, in verse 8, the author explicitly
moves from description to interpretation: 'By this the Holy Spirit
indicates ... ' NEB's temporal language may thus be preferred,
though there is doubtless an element of play on words.
If this line of interpretation is generally correct, the passage can
be understood as a combination and development of the implied
cosmology of 6:19f and 8:1f, several aspects of the picture,
however, cannot be finally clarified from the immediate context. lO
(7). 'For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with
hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself ... ' (9:24).
If 9:1-14 presents a more complicated form of6:19fand 8:1f, the
present verse combines the same two texts in a simpler form. The
author does not repeat what he said in 9:11 about Christ passing

heaven

--~-·...
!!,CHRIST

earth

10 C£ Fd. Schierse, Verheissung und Hei/svollendung, Munich 1955, esp. 210.

Bleek, Michel, Hering, Michaelis in TDNT vii.376£; P. Andriessen, "'Das
grossere und vollkommenere Zelt" (Hebr. 9, 11)" 84£, and B. Sandvik, Das
Kommen des Herrn beim Abendmahl im Neuen Testament, Ziirich 1970,
104£ see here an implied reference to a two-part heaven; but Riggenbach,
Westcott, Montefiore, Zimmermann op. cit. 181; O. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor
dem Thran Gottes, Tiibingen 1972, 65£; A. Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and
Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Meinrad, Illinois 1960. 150, 155--8;
F. Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, Regensburg 1980, 186; and W. R. G.
Loader, Sohn und Hohepriestel', Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981,166£ disagree. The
discussion illustrates the difficulty ofimposing a single cosmological structure
on the whole Epistle.
 Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews 347
'through' an outer tabernacle, or about any permanent division
between the earthly and heavenly tabernacles. Here, he is
exclusively concerned with Christ's access to the heavenly
tabernacle. Spatial language is not prominent in this passage: 11
the author is by this time more concerned with the permanent
effectiveness of Christ's unique sacrifice in dealing with sin,
understood as defilement.
(8). ' ... we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the
blood ofJesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us
through the curtain, that is, through his flesh ... ' (10:19f).

--Hl...bo-.- . . . ?

JESUS

The final text in the series is also, with 9:1-14, the most
problematical; yet the two passages have much in common, and
it would be good to find that they threw light on one another.
The question mark beside the diagram indicates two uncertain
factors.
The first is whether 'through his flesh' means 'through the way
of his flesh' (NEB text), or whether the last words of verse 20
imply, as Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch puts it explicitly" 'the
curtain is his mortal body'. This difficult question is important for
determining what, in non-metaphorical language, the curtain
stands for in this context; it is less important for understanding
the picture language itself, since in either case it is said that Christ
passed 'through the curtain'. As the Germans would put it, it is
more important for the SachhiiTfte than for the BildhiiTfte of the
metaphor.
The second uncertainty is whether dia is to be understood

11 L. D. Hurse, 'How "Platonic" are Heb. viii.5 and ix.23f.?',]TS n.s. 34 (1983)
156-168, esp. 167, argues that antitupos has the temporal meaning of
"preliminary pattern or mould".
348 The Evangelical Quarterly
locally as 'through', or instrumentally as 'by means of'.12 The
. same problem arose in 9:11f, with this difference that there, the
dia was repeated, so that it was easier to suppose a gliding from
one meaning to another. Even here, such a transition is not
impossible: 'through the curtain, that is, by means of his flesh'.
"What is in any case virtually impossible is to give any non-
metaphorical meaning to 'by means of the curtain'; and for
figurative language to function, it must have a literal meaning
also.
The significance of all this for the implied cosmology of the
passage is perhaps less than one might think, and problems
concerning the Sachhii1fte are not here our first concern. In terms
of the image itself, there are two main options.
(1). The first is to think of the curtain as a horizontal barrier
separating earth and heaven. To do so would run counter to the
use of the Katapetasma image elsewhere. "What is more
important, it would also break the rule of the typological
language game which states that the two sides to the typological
comparison must not be confused; the parallel lines must not
meet.
(2). The other option is to think of the curtain as a vertical
feature, separating different parts ofthe heavenly tabernacle. This
option is in general preferable, yet here we encounter once more
the problem, left in suspense in our discussion of 9:1-14, of the
asymmetries between the description of the earthly and heavenly
tabernacles. The author is not concerned, as in the case of the
earthly tabernacle (9:1-10), with the furniture of the outer part of
the heavenly tabernacle, nor with any beings who may enter it to
minister as priests; not even with what Christ did on his way
through it.
A way through the problem can be found if a clear distinction
is made between the author's vertical and horizontal language.
They are distinct in the author's usage, and may also be distinct in
origin,13 though the argument does not depend on this. The
vertical language of 2:9; 4:14; 7:26 probably owes more to
primitive Christian tradition, whereas the horizontal language of
the heavenly and earthly tabernacles, though not without

12 'It is by means of his body given in sacrifice that Christ enters heaven'; P.
Giles,jesus the High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the Fourth
Gospel, unpublished M. A thesis, Manchester 1973, 197.
1:i So generally L K. K. Dey, The Intennediary World and Patterns ofPerfection
in Philo and Hebrews, 1975, esp. 144-9, 154, on which see W. G. Johnsson,
'Issues in the Interpretation of Hebrews', University Seminary Studies 15
(1977) 169-187, esp. 173£
 Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews 349

parallels elsewhere, is developed in a distinctive way to express

the author's own typology.
Two wider questions arise at this point. The first is whether
everything which was described above as prima facie cosmo-
logical language should in fact be grouped together, or whether
cosmological elements are.in any way significant in the horizontal,
typological texts. For example, 10:20 seems to presuppose
something in heaven which corresponds to the curtain in the
earthly tabernacle. Yet so little is said about it, even here, and a
fortiori elsewhere (6:19; possibly by implication in 9:11), that one
is virtually forced to conclude' that what, in plain language, the
author is affirming is not 'there is a curtain in heaven', but 'by his
sacrifice, Christ has gained access to the immediate presence of
God, just as the earthly high priest gained access once a year to
the inner part of the earthly sanctuary.' In this instance, at least,
cosmologicallanguage is used in an ad hoc and incidental way to
express a soteriological reality.
The second general question is whether the two types of
cosmological language cannot be reconciled by simply rotating
the horizontal picture through ninety degrees. This is in principle
possible, since the horizontal language, unlike the vertical, is
implicit; in other words, it is assumed, not stated, that the earthly
tabernacle, and by analogy its heavenly counterpart, are flat. The
first difficulty with this proposal is the complete lack' of evidence
that the author was concerned to reconcile his alternative
cosmologies in this way, or indeed at all. If, however, the modern
interpreter does so on his own responsibility, he encounters the
second and greater difficulty of harmonising the two-part
horizontal picture with the vertical picture, which includes an
intermediary world. To attempt to identifY this middle area with
the curtain between the two parts of the tabernacle would tend to
cause serious distortion in the understanding of particular texts.
If, then, we attempt to sum up what can be drawn directly from
the texts, it appears that the author works with two types of
spatial language.
One is vertical, perhaps largely traditional. It presupposes an
intermediate sphere populated by angels; but the author shows
no interest in describing it in detail, still less in subdividing it, for
example after the fashion of the Ascension of Isaiah 7-9. 14 It is
concerned largely with Christ's exaltation.
The other type of spatial language is horizontal, typological,
owes more to the author's own reflection, and is more concerned

14 Cf. Slavonic Enoch 1-20, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch passim, Test. Levi 2:3.
350 The Evangelical Quarterly
with Christ's sacrifice. It presupposes a simple contrast between
heaven and earth, with no reference to an intermediate sphere.
Our concentration on particular passages should not, however,
blind us to the fact that in the epistle as a whole, the two types of
language complement one another. They are used in close
conjunction (compare, for example, 7:26 and 8:1f); both are used
of]esus as high priest; and both are used to describe the access of
Christ to God's immediate presence, first for himself and then for
all true worshippers.
The author's terminology is fluid, imprecise, and sometimes
confusing; yet it is not incoherent, if the context is taken fully into
account. If the distinction between the two types oflanguage were
to be expressed in other words, not directly those used in
Hebrews, one might say that the horizontal, typological language
expresses nature or origin, whereas the vertical language
expresses location, and is thus more truly cosmological. In
horizontal, typological language, the nature of Christ's work is
heavenly, while that of the levitical cultus was of the earth. In
vertical, cosmological language, Jesus lived and died on earth,
and now reigns· in heaven at the right hand of God. At the end of
the day, what matters for the author is not the diverse imagery,
but the one reality to which it points. He is therefore able, without
embarrassment or confusion, to set alongside one another two
distinct pictures of the one universe in which Christ is supreme.