Should the eschatological outlook of the epistle to the Hebrews be understood as immaterial and otherworldly, along the lines of Middle Platonic cosmologies that bifurcate between the spiritual/heavenly and the material/earthly, as suggested by some NT scholars from Hebrews 3:7–4:11 and 12:18–29? The central claim of Jihye Lee’s study of the relationship between creation and eschatology in these and other passages in Hebrews is that “the author envisions the eschatological world as the culmination of God’s creational intention,” which was partially realized by Israel and is definitively realized in the Messiah Jesus (p. 147).After the initial chapter surveys prior scholarship advocating for various backgrounds to eschatology in Hebrews, chs. 2–4 develop an account of what Lee describes as “Urzeit-Endzeit eschatology” from 1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and Revelation. Lee’s terminology is drawn from Gunkel, Childs, Dahl, and others who conclude that Urzeit gleich Endzeit, “primeval time corresponds to eschatological time” (p. 2). In chs. 5–6, Lee offers a close reading of the renewal of creation in the eschatological expectations of Heb 3:7–4:11 and 12:18–29, and the concluding chapter summarizes her intended contribution to scholarship. Lee’s research presents an overall well-supported challenge to immaterialist readings of eschatology in Hebrews, developed from the key texts appealed to in immaterialist readings. Lee joins a growing number of recent studies that have explored the theme of creation in Hebrews, such as Angela Costley’s 2020 Creation and Christ, by illuminating the deep connections between creation and eschatology in Hebrews.The following three questions are intended less as criticisms and more as suggestions for further analysis in conversation with Lee’s research. First, Lee’s subtle methods of interpretation are attuned to both historical and theological considerations, but her book offers scarcely any methodological or meta-critical discussion. In fields such as NT Studies that rarely have new evidence to explore, our exegetical conclusions are largely determined by prior methodological decisions, and problems of over- or under-theorizing can be hard to avoid. Scholars who conclude Hebrews has an immaterial eschatology read these same texts differently from Lee; what hermeneutical assumptions underly their disagreement? I gained a much better sense of Lee’s contribution to scholarship when she appealed to Umberto Eco’s use of the term “encyclopedia” to describe the socio-cultural contexts within which rhetoric has plausible meanings, such as proposing an Urzeit-Endzeit encyclopedia for Hebrews, but that reference appears only in a footnote on the final pages, and it would help to explain which interpretive methods best serve these texts and topics (p. 151 no. 4).Second, Lee’s characterization of Urzeit-Endzeit eschatology, developed through close readings of pre- and post-70 AD Jewish apocalyptic literature, amply demonstrates that both these texts and Hebrews anticipated the restoration of creation, such as CD 3:20, when at the end those who belong to God will receive “everlasting life and all the glory of Adam” (p. 30). However, “apocalyptic” is never defined in this study, and that term is understood in contemporary NT scholarship as referring to widely differing theological, epistemological, historical, and literary categories. For example, scholars do not tend to characterize Genesis or Proverbs as “apocalyptic” literature, but arguably a case could be made that in Genesis primeval time is forward-looking toward the pattern of Israel’s future; in Proverbs, Wisdom is both an agent of creation and a revealed telos that is now discernible in creation. Consequently, the value of categorizing Hebrews with Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature that has an Urzeit-Endzeit eschatological framework is not entirely clear. What does and does not constitute the essential features of Urzeit-Endzeit eschatology—such as reversing the Adamic curse, anticipating a new temple-city, the restoration of Eden, or something else—and how many of these features must a text have to be recognized as having an Urzeit-Endzeit framework? Since Lee recognizes that “one of the major bases of the argument for the Platonic background of Hebrews is the apparent similarity of vocabulary and ideas between Philo of Alexandria and the author of Hebrews,” it would strengthen her overall argument to develop the differences between the eschatological expectations of Hebrews and Philo or Greco-Roman Middle Platonic philosophers (p. 6).Last, and perhaps most significantly, while Lee is correct to dissent from those who have argued for a wholly immaterial eschatological vision in Hebrews, Lee might have neglected the extent to which an apocalyptic eschatology can involve not only the renewal of creation but also certain qualified notions of immateriality. Though Lee describes her project as exploring “Urzeit-Endzeit” eschatology, her research primarily concerns the state of the material world at creation and consummation, while Zeit, “time” itself, remains out of focus. If Lee is correct that the beginning corresponds to the end in Hebrews, that observation could open interesting avenues for exploration of “time,” such as determining how “eternity” at the end does or does not correspond to “time” at the beginning—or exploring how we at present become contemporaries with God’s protological and eschatological Word in Christ. The apocalyptic eschatology of Hebrews is probably too under-determined to directly answer many metaphysical questions. But one of the key passages in Lee’s analysis describes how those who are in Christ have not only come to the broken creation made new, not only “to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God,” and not only to the holy assembly of saints and angels (12:22). Furthermore, we have come “to God” (12:23). The relationship between the material and the immaterial in Hebrews might be characterized not as a confluence but perhaps as some kind of convergence, when the immaterial and eternal encounters the material and temporal, quintessentially in our having come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant” (12:24; see 1:1–4). Lee recognizes the deep connections between creation and eschatology in Hebrews, and offers a needed challenge to scholars who describe the eschatological vision of Hebrews as wholly immaterial; I hope she writes more on what role the immaterial does play, if any, in the eschatological vision of Hebrews.