Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 13
13:1- see on Lk. 12:42.
Let love of the believers continue- The shift towards
legalism and Judaism was associated with a decline in love. For as with
legalistic churches today, belief in justification by works and ritual
breeds a distrust and dislike of anyone who doesn't think the rituals are
important for salvation and even actively discourages them. And it was of
course hard to show love to uncircumcised Gentile believers if one
believed that circumcision was essential to have covenant with God.
13:2- see on Rom. 12:13.
Do not forget to show love to strangers; for thereby some have
entertained angels unawares- As noted on :1, the Hebrew
Christians were prone to consider uncircumcised Gentile Christians as
outside covenant relationship with God. The reference could also be to the
itinerant spirit gifted prophets, cp. 2 Jn. 10). Paul is appealing to the
Hebrew understanding that all people had representative Angels. By
refusing Gentile brethren, they were turning away Angels. The only
Gentiles in Jerusalem would have been associated with the Romans or Arabs.
If there were believers amongst them, it is understandable that orthodox
Jewish Christians were tempted to refuse them hospitality (Gk.). But by
doing so they were leaving Angels out on the street. For each believer had
a representative Angel.
The allusion is clearly to Abraham entertaining the Angels unawares. If
they were the true seed of Abraham, then they would be eager to have
Gentiles, strangers, under their rooves and provide them with hospitality.
As Peter reminds us, it was considered illegal for a Jew to come under the
roof of a Gentile. So the Hebrew Christians needed encouragement to allow
Gentiles into their homes, and to realize that by not doing so, they would
be going against the spirit of Abraham. Perhaps he was motivated to
receive strangers by reflecting on the promises to him, that all Gentiles
would be blessed through his seed.
But there is also an allusion to Lot unknowingly entertaining Angels,
on the eve of Sodom's destruction; and Isaiah had portrayed Jerusalem as
Sodom, as does Rev. 11:8. The hint was that they were living in the very
last days or even moments before Jerusalem was to be destroyed; and they
should be as Lot rather than the men of Sodom - Jerusalem.
13:3
Remember those that are in bonds, as if you were bound with them;
those that are ill treated, as being yourselves also in the body-
The Hebrews were tempted to return to Judaism because it saved them from
persecution by the Roman and Jewish authorities. Judaism was a recognized
religion within the empire, and adherents were free from army service. The
Hebrew Christians were attracted by this, and were tempted to not identify
with those who were imprisoned or persecuted.
If we are truly members of the one body, we will be affected by the
sufferings of others in that body. The fact we are members of the one body
of Jesus should exclude all self-centred feelings, in the sense that if
one other part of the body suffers or rejoices, then we are to be affected
by this. Heb. 13:3 tells us to "remember them that are in
bonds, as bound with them, and them which suffer adversity, as being
yourselves also in the body" (AV). We are to feel as if we are inside the
body of our brethren. This is quite something. There is a purposeful
ambiguity here. Whose body? The body of Jesus, or that of the suffering
brother? Effectively, the one is the other. We can truly place ourselves
in the place of others. The only other time the Greek word translated
"remember" occurs is in Heb. 2:3: "What is man that thou art
mindful
of him". Because of the almost senseless mindfulness of God for us down
here on this speck of a planet, dust and water as we are… we must be
inspired to likewise be mindful of our suffering brethren. "Those that are
ill treated" is a Greek term found elsewhere only in 11:37; the suffering
Christians in Jerusalem were in direct connection with the faithful of old
who had likewise suffered for their faith.
13:4
Let marriage be held in respect among all, and let the marital
bed be undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge-
I noted on 12:16 that sexual immorality was an issue amongst those wishing
to return to Judaism; they felt liberated to misbehave in other areas of
moral life if they were technically obedient to ritual. The allusion to
Jerusalem as Sodom in :2 (see note there) is continued here; Judaism and
the temple cult was actually sexually immoral and would face God's
judgment for this. We have here a classic case of where legalism doesn't
curb sinful behaviour but actually encourages us. The grip of grace will
teach us to deny such lusts, whereas legalism encourages those lusts.
There may also be a swipe at the tendency for some Jewish false teachers
to deprecate marriage (1 Tim. 4:3); and we noted on Ephesians and 1 Cor. 7
that the Judaists had encouraged the denial of marriage in order to
indulge in sexual licence outside of it.
The adulterers who would be judged were those within the ecclesia and
responsible. This is matched by 1 Pet.3:1-5 warning that the sisters were
increasingly rebelling against their great prototypes of Eve and Sarah,
unwittingly egged on by their unspiritual husbands. So many other New
Testament passages imply a surge of marriage and sex related problems in
the run up to AD70. The ecclesia of Israel was an adulterous generation;
this was their main characteristic (Mt. 16:4). Looking around our
sisterhood and brotherhood today there can be no doubt about the reference
of all this to our last days. Add to this the parallels with Sodom and the
times of Noah in this respect too.
13:5- see on Dt. 31:3; Josh. 1:5.
Be free from the love of money, content with such things as you
have. For God Himself has said: I will in no way fail you, neither will I
in any way forsake you- This again must be understood in the
context of the Hebrew Christians wanting to return to Judaism. The
economic discrimination against Christians in Jerusalem would have been
significant, and surely contributed to the dire poverty of the Jerusalem
church which Paul had sought to address through the Jerusalem poor fund.
The Pharisees were covetous and materialistic (Lk. 16:14), and the
Sadducees were famed for their love of money. The economic attractions of
Judaism were to be resisted by faith that God would not fail to provide
for His people. Paul demonstrates this by quoting the Father's words to
Joshua-Jesus. So again we have a case of words specifically appropriate to
the Lord Jesus being applied to all those who are in Him, just as the
Lord's passage into the Holiest as supreme High Priest is applied to all
in Him.
Heb. 13:5 combines quotes from Gen. 28:15; Josh. 1:5 and Dt. 31:16.
Heb. 13:5 doesn’t quote any of them exactly, but mixes them together. See
on Rom. 11:26.
Those Old Testament promises are surely relevant to us: "Let your
conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as
ye have: for he hath said (to you, as well as Joshua), I will never leave
thee, nor forsake thee" (Heb. 13:5 AV). Notice once again that the Old
Testament scriptures are seen as alive and speaking directly to each of us
in whatever generation. The message was that it isn't the actual
possession of wealth that is condemned, but the way of life that seeks
more than what we have been given. This is the real danger of materialism.
13:6
So that with good courage we can say- This is the
word for "boldness" which is so characteristic of Hebrews; if as reasoned
earlier we are bold before the very presence of God in the Holiest, we can
be bold against all fears of human persecution.
The Lord is my helper. I will not fear. What shall man do to me?-
The quotation is from Ps. 118:6 "Yahweh is on my side, I will not be
afraid; what can man do to me?". Just as Scripture speaks personally to us
(see on :5), so we can put the words of scripture in our own mouths. The
context is relevant to those who wanted to trust in the apparent strength
of the temple cult to save them from persecution: "It is better to take
refuge in Yahweh than to put confidence in man" (Ps. 118:8). The Psalm is
clearly Messianic, stating that "The stone which the builders rejected has
become the head of the corner" (Ps. 118:22). So again, words directly
personally relevant to the Lord Jesus regarding His enemies in Jerusalem
become just as directly relevant to all those "in Him" in Jerusalem.
13:7
Remember those that had the rule over you, those who spoke to you
the word of God- The past tense "had" invites them to recall
the earlies leaders in Jerusalem such as Peter and Stephen. If as noted in
1:1 Paul is speaking or writing Hebrews with his eye on Stephen, this
takes on powerful relevance. The outcome of his life and faith was death
at Paul's hands, but with the sure assurance of salvation. The basis of
authority within the pastoral structure is that those who 'have the rule'
are those who taught the Gospel to those over whom they have authority.
Paul elsewhere uses family language to express the same truth; elders /
fathers in the church family are those who brought us to spiritual life by
teaching us the Gospel. This is the basis for eldership in the local
church; such positions of authority cannot be attained by a vote or simply
by default or age itself.
Consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith-
Elders are especially responsible. They can shut up, or open, the Kingdom
to men. They watch “in behalf of” the souls of the ecclesia (Heb. 13:17
RV). Their very examples can influence the flock positively or negatively-
for “like priest like people” is a Biblical idea. When the leaders
“offered themselves willingly”, so did the people (Jud. 5:2,9).
Respect must be earnt by elders, never demanded. Their way of life is the
basis of their authority; in this sense, we have the choice whom to
consider as our elders, whom we will respect and follow. Jesus taught as
one who had authority, unlike the scribes (Mk. 1:22). Yet the Scribes had
authority in terms of their position, and yet they were not respected; and
hence they couldn’t teach with authority as Jesus could.
In illiterate societies, or those with limited access to the Old
Testament scrolls and the Gospel records, the direction in spiritual life
was given by elders, by living examples. That is true today, but moreso in
their early situation.
Amongst those tending towards returning to the temple cult, there was a
tendency to despise those who had first taught them the Gospel and
suffered at the hands of Judaism for doing so. This is also mentioned as a
last days problem in 1 Pet. 5:5; 2 Pet. 2:10 etc. See on 1 Tim. 3:4.
13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever-
"For ever" is literally 'for all ages'. There will be many "ages" to come,
as there have doubtless been many "ages" of previous creations already
(Rom. 1:25; 9:5); but for our "age" alone was the only begotten Son of God
given as a representative of
us, the humans who live in this brief "age". God thus
describes Himself as a first timer falling in love with His people; as a
young marries a virgin, so God marries us (Is. 62:5); Israel were as the
lines graven on a man's palm, with which he was born (Is. 49:16). Thus
from absolute eternity, we were the great "all things" to Almighty God,
the God of all, all past and future creations.
Past, present and future as stated here suggests Paul saw the three
elements of the Yahweh Name supremely manifest in the Lord Jesus. Which is
surely why ‘Jesus’ in the NT becomes the Name above every Name (Phil.
2:9,10; Eph. 1:21); for only ‘Yahweh’ was exalted above every other name
(Neh. 9:5; Ps. 148:13).
The Jesus of history is the Christ of faith. The
same
Jesus who went into Heaven will
so come again
in like manner (Acts 1:11). The record three times says the
same thing. The “like manner” in which the Lord will return doesn’t
necessarily refer to the way He gradually ascended up in to the sky, in
full view of the gazing disciples. He was to return in the “like manner”
to what they had seen. Yet neither those disciples nor the majority of the
Lord’s people will literally see Him descending through the clouds at His
return- for they will be dead. But we will ‘see’ Him at His return “in
like manner” as He was when on earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today and forever. The Jesus who loved little children and wept over
Jerusalem's self-righteous religious leaders, so desirous of their
salvation, is the One who today mediates our prayers and tomorrow will
confront us at judgment day. Perhaps the Lord called the disciples His
“brethren” straight after His resurrection in order to emphasize that He,
the resurrected Man and Son of God, was eager to renew His relationships
with those He had known in the flesh. It’s as if He didn’t want them to
think that somehow, everything had changed. Indeed, He stresses to them
that their Father is His Father, and their God is His God (Jn. 20:18). He
appears to be alluding here to Ruth 1:16 LXX. Here, Ruth is urged to
remain behind in Moab [cp. Mary urging Jesus?], but she says she will come
with her mother in law, even though she is of a different people, and
“Your people shall be my people, and your God my God”. This allusion would
therefore be saying: ‘OK I am of a different people to you now, but that
doesn’t essentially affect our
relationship; I so love you, I will always stick with
you wherever, and my God is your God’.
Significantly, both Luke and John conclude their Gospels with the risen
Lord walking along with the disciples, and them ‘following’ Him (Jn.
21:20)- just as they had done during His ministry. His invitation to
‘Follow me’ (Jn. 21:19,22) is the very language He had used whilst He was
still mortal (Jn. 1:37,43; 10:27; 12:26; Mk. 1:18; 2:14). The point being,
that although He was now different, in another sense, He still related to
them as He did when He was mortal, walking the lanes and streets of 1st
century Palestine. Elsewhere I have pointed out that the fishing incident
of Jn. 21 is purposefully framed as a repetition of that recorded in Lk.
5- again, to show the continuity between the Jesus of yesterday and the
Jesus of today. It’s as if in no way does He wish us to feel that His
Divine Nature and glorified, exalted position somehow separates us from
Him. When the Lord awoke, He would have immediately been aware of the
carefully wrapped graveclothes and the anointing oil. He would have then
realized the care shown to Him by His sisters. Some of the very first
thoughts of the risen Lord were of His brethren. There was no gap between
His mortal awareness of His brethren, and His feelings for them after
resurrection.
The Lord will essentially be the same as the Gospels present Him when
we see Him again. This is why Jesus even in His earthly life could be
called " the Kingdom of God" , so close was the link between the man who
walked Palestine and the One who will come again in glory. “They see the
Kingdom of God come” (Mk. 9:1) is paralleled by “They see the Son of man
coming” (Mt. 16:28). Indeed it would seem that the references in the
Synoptic Gospels to the ‘coming’ of the Kingdom are interpreted in the
rest of the New Testament as referring to the personal ‘coming’ of the
Lord Jesus (e.g. 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20). In that very context of
referring to Himself as "the Kingdom of God", the Lord speaks of His
return as 'the days of the Son of man'- the human Jesus. And yet He also
speaks in that context of how after His death, men will long to see one of
the days of the Son of Man, i.e. how He had been in His mortal life (Lk.
17:20-26). As He was in His mortal days, so He will essentially be in the
day of His final glory. It just isn't true that He came as a meek, gentle
person, but will roar back as an angry lion. At His second coming, He will
reveal " the wrath of the lamb" . Can you imagine an angry lamb? Yes,
lambs can get angry. But it's a lamb-like anger. He came as the lamb for
sinners slain, and yet He will still essentially be a lamb at His return.
The Jesus who loved little children, sensitive to others weaknesses,
desperate for their salvation, is the same one who will return to judge
us. Even after His resurrection, in His present immortal nature, He
thoughtfully cooked breakfast on the beach for His men (Jn. 21;9,12). And
this is the Lord who will return to judge us. After His resurrection He
was recognized by the Emmaus disciples in the way that He broke bread. The
way He handled the loaf, His mannerisms, His way of speaking and choice of
language, were evidently the same after His resurrection as before (Lk.
24:30,31). The Lord is the same today as yesterday.
“The Kingdom of God” was a title used of Jesus. He ‘was’ the Kingdom
because He lived the Kingdom life. Who He would be, was who He was in His
life. At the prospect of being made “full of joy” at the resurrection,
“therefore did my heart rejoice” (Acts 2:26,28). His joy during His mortal
life was related to the joy He now experiences in His immortal life. And
this is just one of the many continuities between the moral and the
immortal Jesus. Pause for a moment to reflect that the Lord’s resurrection
is a pattern for our own. This is the whole meaning of baptism. “God has
both raised the Lord and will raise us up through his power” (1 Cor.
6:13,14). Yet there were evident continuities between the Jesus who lived
mortal life, and the Jesus who rose again. His mannerisms, body language,
turns of phrase, were so human- even after His resurrection. And so who we
are now, as persons, is who we will eternally be. Because of the
resurrection, our personalities in the sum of all their relationships and
nuances,
have an eternal future. But from whence do we acquire
those nuances, body languages, etc? They arise partly from our parents,
from our inter-relations with others etc; we are the sum of our
relationships. And this is in fact a tremendous encouragement to us in our
efforts for others; for the result of our parenting, our patient effort
and grace towards others, will have an eternal effect upon others. Who we
help them become is, in part, who they will eternally be. Job reflected
that if a tree is cut down, it sprouts (Heb.
yaliph) again as the same
tree; and he believed that after his death he would likewise sprout again
(yaliph)
at the resurrection (Job 14:7-9,14,15). There will be a continuity between
who we were in mortal life, and who we will eternally be- just as there is
between the pruned tree and the new tree which grows again out of its
stump. All our obedience and response to God's word in this life is
likened to building a foundation which will endure beyond the storm,
representative as that is of judgment day at Christ's return (Lk. 6:48).
There is therefore a link between who we are now and who we will eternally
be; we are building now the foundation for our eternity.
Who the Lord Jesus was is who He will be in the future; in the same way
as who
we are now, is who we will eternally be. For our
spirit, our essential personality, will be
saved
in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:5). “Flesh and blood” will not
inherit the Kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50); and yet the risen, glorified Lord
Jesus was “flesh and bones” (Lk. 24:39). We will be who we essentially are
today, but with Spirit instead of blood energizing us. It’s a challenging
thought, as we consider the state of our “spirit”, the essential ‘me’
which will be preserved, having been stored in Heaven in the Father’s
memory until the day when it is united with the new body which we will be
given at resurrection. For in all things the Lord is our pattern; and we
will in that day be given a body like unto His glorious body (Phil. 3:21)-
which is still describable as “flesh and bones” in appearance (Lk. 24:39.
Note that whilst flesh and
blood cannot inherit the
Kingdom, the risen, immortal Lord Jesus described Himself as flesh and
bones (Lk. 24:39). In fact, we find that "flesh and bones" are
often paralleled (Gen. 2:23; Job 10:11; 33:21; Ps. 38:3; Prov. 14:30), and
simply mean 'the person', or as the Lord put it on that occasion, "I
myself". We ourselves will be in the Kingdom, with similar personalities
we have now [that's a very challenging thought of itself]. "Flesh" doesn't
necessarily have to refer, in every instance, to something condemned. Who
we are now is who we will essentially be in the eternity of God's Kingdom.
Let's not allow any idea that somehow our flesh / basic being is so awful
that actually, the essential "I myself" will be dissolved beneath the
wrath of God at the judgment. The Lord is " the saviour of the body" and
will also save our " spirit" at the last day; so that we, albeit with
spirit rather than blood energizing us, will live eternally. Understanding
things this way enables us to perceive more forcefully the eternal
importance of who we develop into as persons, right now. The Buddhist
belief that we will ultimately not exist, that such 'Nirvana' is the most
wonderful thing to hope for, appears at first hearing a strange 'hope' to
be shared by millions of followers. But actually, it's the same essential
psychology as that behind the idea that 'I' will not exist in the Kingdom
of God, I will be given a new body, person and character. It's actually
saying the same- I won't exist. And it's rooted in a terribly low
self-image, a dis-ease with ourselves, a lack of acceptance of ourselves
as the persons whom God made us and develops us into. Whilst of course our
natures will be changed, so that we can be immortal, it is
we who will be saved; our body will be resurrected,
made new, and our spirit " saved" in that day, reunited with our renewed
and immortal bodies. We have eternal life in the sense that who we are
now, in spiritual terms, is who we will eternally be. Our spirit, the
essential us, is in this sense immortal; it’s remembered with the Lord. In
this sense, not even death itself, nor time itself, can separate us from
the love of God which is in Christ (Rom. 8:35-39). Just as we still love
someone after they have died, remembering as they do who they were and
still are to us, so it is with the love of God for the essential us. Hence
1 Pet. 3:4 speaks of how a “gentle and calm disposition” or spirit is in
fact “imperishable” (NAB)- because that spirit of character will be
eternally remembered. This is why personality and character, rather than
physical works, are of such ultimate and paramount importance. How we
speak now is in a way, how we will eternally speak- I think that's the
idea of Prov. 12:19: "The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but
a lying tongue is but for a moment". Our "way" of life and being is how we
will eternally be- and for me that solves the enigma of Prov. 12:28: "In
the way of righteousness is life; and in the pathway thereof there is no
death". In Jeremiah 18, God likens Himself to a potter working with us the
clay. We can resist how He wants us to be, and He can make us into
something else... we are soft clay until the 'firing'; and the day of
firing is surely the day of judgment. The implication is that in this life
we are soft clay; but the day of judgment will set us hard as the persons
we have become, or have been made into, in this life.
The continuity between the mortal, human Jesus and the exalted Lord of
all which He became on His ascension is brought out quite artlessly in
Heb. 4:14: “Our great high priest, who has passed through the heavens”.
The picture is of “this same Jesus”, the man on earth, passing through all
heavens to ‘arrive’ at the throne of God Himself to mediate for us there.
His ascension to Heaven was viewed physically like this by the disciples,
and is expressed here in that kind of language of physical ascent, to
bring home to us the continuity between the man Jesus on earth, and the
exalted Lord now in Heaven itself. The same Jesus who once experienced
temptation can thereby strengthen us in our temptations. We need to
realize that nobody can be tempted by that which holds no appeal; the Lord
Jesus must have seen and reflected upon sin as a possible course of
action, even though He never took it. And for the same reason, several New
Testament passages (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:5) call the exalted Lord Jesus a “man”-
even now. Let’s not see these passages merely as theological problems for
Trinitarians. The wonder of it all is that Jesus after His glorification
is still in some sense human. He as “the pioneer of our faith” shows us
the path to glory, a glory that doesn’t involve us becoming somehow
superhuman and unreal.
And so the Man who walked dusty Galilee streets is the very same one,
in essence, whom we will meet in judgment day. The ultimate question for
each of us, is whether we will be accepted by Him. In the Gospels, we see
the Son of man, Son of God, so acceptant of others, so patient with their
weaknesses, passionately dying for our salvation. Will He turn as it were
another face on us at the day of judgment, showing Himself suddenly and
unpredictably to be someone else? Like people we know, who suddenly
surprised us one day by showing a completely different aspect to their
character? I believe He won’t. Because integrity and consistency of
character, sharing His Father’s characteristic of not changing, is what He
is essentially about. He won’t show another face then, that we’ve not seen
now. The same basic Jesus, who so wished and wishes to eternally save us,
will be the One whom we meet in the final day.
If we truly love the Lord, we will fantasize about our moment of
meeting with Him. I suspect that His very appearance of ordinariness and
evident human aspect will impress me in that first moment of meeting.
Perhaps it will be that He appears to me in the midst of everyday life,
when I’m desperately consumed with doing something, and interrupts me. And
He’ll seem like an ordinary local person, speaking with the same accent,
wearing normal clothes, just as He did after His resurrection. And then
He’ll say with a very slight, cultured kind of smile: “Duncan, I’m
Jesus…”. Who knows how it will be. But if you love Him, you’ll fantasize
of that moment, as you love His appearing.
13:9
Do not be carried away by various and strange teachings. For it
is good that the heart be established by grace- not with food laws, which
have not profited those who have been so occupied with them-
The Hebrews were indeed being carried away and back to Judaism. But if we
have known grace, the certainty of salvation in Christ, looking forward
'boldly' to future eternity with Him, then our heart will be stable; the
hope we have will be as an anchor of the soul. Our heart will be stable.
It's easy to assume that the arguments about "regulations about food"
in the first century hinged about what
types
of food should be eaten, i.e. whether the Mosaic dietary laws should be
observed or not. But the angst about "food" was more passionately about
with whom you ate. Peter explains in Acts 11:3 how utterly
radical it was for a Jew to eat with a Gentile. Bearing this in mind, the
way Jew and Gentile Christians ate together at the Lord's supper would've
been a breathtaking witness of unity to the watching world. And yet
ultimately, Jew and Gentile parted company and the church divided, laying
itself wide open to imbalance and every manner of practical and doctrinal
corruption as a result. The problem was that the Jews understood 'eating
together' as a sign of agreement, and a sign that you accepted those at
your table as morally pure. The Lord's 'table manners' were of course
purposefully the opposite of this approach. Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho 47.2-3)
mentions how the Jewish Christians would only eat with Gentile Christians
on the basis that the Gentiles firstly adopted a Jewish way of life. And
this is the nub of the problem- demanding that those at your table are
like you, seeing eating together as a sign that the other has accepted
your positions about everything. The similarities with parts of the 21st
century church are uncanny.
13:10
We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have
no right to eat- As noted on :9, the arguments about "food"
were more about with whom one ate. In the same way as the Jews were
connected with the altar by reason of eating what was upon it, so all who
are connected with the Christ-altar (Heb. 13:10) show this by eating of
the memorial table. If we deny the breaking of bread to brethren, we are
stating that they are outside covenant relationship with God, that they
have no part in Israel. The argument here is not that the priests or
Judaists were forbidden from breaking bread with Christians. Rather was it
that they considered that they partook with the literal altar and thereby
as it were fellowshipped the tabernacle system as a whole; they themselves
denied themselves the right or [Gk.] authority to eat at any other altar.
For Judaism was exclusive; if you were partakers of the Jerusalem temple
altar, you were not allowed to partake of any other altar. And so they
themselves declared that they had no authority to eat of the Christ altar.
Return to the temple system was therefore a radical separation of
themselves from fellowship with Christ, for Judaism had become so
exclusive. Initially, Christianity could exist as a sect within Judaism,
but Judaism soon began to exclude Christians, and the time came as the
Lord predicted when Christians would be cast out of the synagogue system.
However as explained on :11, it is the day of atonement ritual which is
in view; and those who kept the Mosaic laws had no right to eat of the sin
offering whose blood brought atonement. But Christian worshippers do.
13:11
For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the
Holy Place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside
of the camp- The sin offering at the day of atonement, which
is the situation in view throughout Hebrews, could not be eaten of by the
priest nor worshippers. Its blood was important, but the body was burnt
and not eaten. Yet Christians by going outside of the camp of Israel and
the tabernacle system could eat of that ultimate sacrifice.
13:12
Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through
his own blood, suffered outside of the gate- The reference is
to the day of atonement ritual. "The people" are no longer natural Israel
but those who believe in His blood and are sanctified even in their
consciences, cleansed from all sin. Bu "sanctify" is the word used by the
LXX to describe the consecration of the priests to service of the body of
Israel (Ex. 28:41). If we reject the call to priesthood today, we reject
the point of the Lord's saving suffering for us. The Lord's death was not
within the temple system; it was outside the city gate.
13:13
Let us therefore go to him outside the camp, bearing his reproach-
We recall Simon carrying the Lord's cross in the sad procession which went
outside the camp of Jerusalem to Golgotha; and he becomes a type of us.
See on Mt. 27:32; Jn. 8:56.
When Heb. 13:13 speaks of
us going forth outside the
camp, perhaps there is a reference to Joshua who dwelt with Moses outside
the camp- thus making Joshua symbolic of us all.
We are to go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach, his
‘having it cast in the teeth’ (Gk.; Heb. 13:13).
We
may boldly say that we will
not be fearful, as Joshua was,
because God has addressed to
us
the very words which He did to Joshua: “I will never leave thee nor
forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5,6). In this especially, Joshua is our example.
The call to even now go to Him outside the camp speaks as if He is
still there, outside the city gates, and we shoulder our crosses and His
reproach as He walked the Via Dolorosa, and go out to be crucified next to
Him, as we endure being fools for Christ’s sake in our worldly decisions.
It's a rather strange idea, at first consideration. But His sufferings are
ongoing. The cross is still there- wherever we go, and however far we fall
away from Him. And the implication appears to be that the Hebrews had
already returned within the camp of the temple system, and were being
asked to come out from it, to Golgotha.
"Without the camp" is full of Old Testament allusion. The cross
convicts of sin, for we are impelled by it to follow Christ in going forth
“without the camp", following the path of the leper who had to go forth
without the camp (Lev. 13:46).
We’d sooner skip over the words of Deuteronomy 23:12-13 than analyze them
closely: “Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou
shalt go forth abroad: and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and
it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig
therewith”. Yet there can be no doubt that this is one of the source
passages for the words of Hebrews 13:13: “Let us go forth therefore unto
him (Jesus) without the camp, bearing his reproach”. When the Israelite
soldier had a call of nature, he went forth “without the camp”, doubtless
with a sense of sheepishness as he carried his spear-cum-spade with him.
Everyone knew what he was doing. This commonplace incident is picked up by
the Spirit and made relevant to the Jewish Christians going forth from the
camp of Israel, carrying with them the obvious reproach of the cross of
Christ.
13:14- see on Eph. 2:19.
For we do not have here a permanent city, but we seek after one
which is yet to come- The exodus of people from Jerusalem to
Golgotha was seen as symptomatic of how we as God's people, as Abraham,
are ever on the move, looking for a permanence and stability that is yet
ahead for us in literal terms (11:10). Jerusalem with its apparent
solidity was not a permanent city, it was about to be destroyed. The
Jerusalem yet to come is the community of believers whose memories /
spirits are in God's memory, who shall in symbolic terms come from heaven
to earth at the Lord' return. And the apparent solidity of secular life is
likewise far from permanent.
13:15- see on 1 Pet. 2:5.
Through him, therefore, let us continually offer up a sacrifice
of praise to God; that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to His
Name- Mosaic sacrifice could never be continual; the whole
nature of the rituals precluded that. But with such a priest as the Lord
Jesus, we can continually offer the sacrifice of praise, rather than
animals. The praise is for the certainty of our salvation and for the
certainty of our forgiveness; for "confession" can mean just that,
confession of sin. Our praise is for the forgiveness of sin confessed,
celebrated in the peace offering.
The peace offering was offered with unleavened cakes as was the
Passover. The bitterness of sin was to be ever remembered, amidst the joy
of peace with God. The description of the peace offering as “the sacrifice
of thanksgiving" is alluded to in Heb. 13:15: "Let us offer the sacrifice
of praise to God"- praise and thanks for our spiritual peace with God, our
forgiveness through His grace.
True sacrifice is praise of God; thus Abraham's willingness to offer
Isaac was "praise" (Gen. 22:5). Israel in their repentance "will account
our lips as calves" (Hos. 14:3 LXX, RVmg.), i.e. as sacrifices. The "fruit
of the lips" there was repentance. Which is why Paul says that we "make
confession to his name" with the fruit of our lips (13:15 RV). Continually
we should offer this sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15), the thankfulness
that wells up from knowing we are forgiven, the joy born of regular,
meaningful repentance. And we do this "by" or 'on account of' the
sacrifice of Jesus for us, which enables this forgiveness and thereby
repentance (Heb. 13:12,15). "Continually" in itself suggests that "praise"
does not mean singing or musical expression. This "sacrifice of praise" is
a quotation from Jer. 33:11, which describes our offering "the sacrifice
of praise... for his mercy" at the beginning of the Kingdom. Praise will
[and does] bring forth sacrifice / action. Yet " praise" here is the same
Hebrew word translated " thanksgiving" ; and the sacrifice of thanksgiving
was the peace offering, a commemoration of our free conscience and the
peace of sin forgiven (Lev. 7:12-15). If we seriously confess our sins and
believe in forgiveness, we should be experiencing a foretaste of the
praise we will be offering at the start of the Kingdom, as we embark upon
eternity. Our offering of this sacrifice of praise will be "continual" if
we continually maintain a good conscience through the confession of our
sins. This is surely a high standard to have placed before us: to
continually confess our sins,
to
continually receive God's mercy, and therefore to
live
continually in a spirit of grateful praise. The way
David praises God so ecstatically for immutable things and principles
(e.g. His character) is a great example in this (e.g. Ps. 33:3-5); our
tendency is to only seriously praise God when He resolves the unexpected
crises of life.
The Name of God of itself elicits repentance. Faced with the wonder of who
He is, we can’t be passive to it. We realize and are convicted of our sin
by the very reality of who He is, was and shall be. Heb. 13:15 speaks of
the fruit of our lips, giving confession to His Name. The “fruit of lips”
in Hos. 14:2 RVmg. to which the writer alludes is clearly enough, in the
context, the confession of sin. And the context in Heb. 13:12 is that
Christ’s blood was shed to sanctify us. That declaration of the Name
elicits a confession of sin, albeit in words of praise, to His Name. Mic.
6:9 has the same theme. When the Lord’s voice calls to the city demanding
repentance, “the man of wisdom shall see [perceive] thy name”- i.e.
repent. We come to know God's Name in practice through the cycles of
sin-repentance-forgiveness by God which we all pass through. It is through
this process that we come to know the very essence of God's Name. Thus Is.
43:25 LXX: "I am '"I AM", who erases your iniquities". We come to know His
Name, that it really
is ("I am") all about forgiveness and salvation of sinners.
See on Eph. 3:15.
13:16
But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such
sacrifices God is well pleased- This was a prompt to remember
the early days of the Jerusalem church, when the members shared their
possessions. In the immediate context here we have been reminded of the
Lord's sacrifice and our partaking in it. But there is to be a practical
response to that, in sharing what we have rather than solely partaking in
the sharing of the Lord Jesus.
The letter to the Hebrew Christians describes salvation and the Kingdom
with the idea of inheritance. The believers had possessions (Heb. 10:34),
had been generous to others (Heb. 6:10), and yet needed the exhortation to
"not live for money; be content with what you have" (Heb. 13:5) and to
"share what you have with others" (Heb. 13:16). We could surmise that this
audience weren't unlike many of us today- not overly wealthy, but sorely
tempted to be obsessed by possessions and material advantage. And to them,
as to us, the writer emphasizes that salvation in Christ is the ultimate
inheritance or possession (Heb. 1:2,4,14, 6:12,17; 9:15; 11:7; 12:17);
this is the ultimate "profit" (Heb. 13:17). Hence Esau was quoted as an
example- he gave up his inheritance for the sake of a material meal (Heb.
12:15-17). The
eternal inheritance which is
promised to us in the Gospel, rooted as it is in the promises to the
Jewish fathers, should make us not seek for great material inheritance in
this present world.
13:17
Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive; for they watch
out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with
joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you-
Given the apostasy of the Jerusalem church and their lack of support for
Paul and his positions, this was surely an attempt by Paul even from
prison in Rome to yet ingratiate himself to the Jerusalem leadership.
Elders must give an account for their flock as a shepherd must for his
sheep- implying that there will be a 'going through' with them of all in
their care. The drunken steward was condemned because he failed to feed
the rest of the household and beat them. If the capricious behaviour of
the flock makes the shepherd watch out for them "with grief", with
groaning and heaviness, then this is not profitable for us the sheep. For
they will not shepherd us well if all the time they are grieved by our
wayward behaviour and need to restrain all the time rather than lead
forward.
13:18
Pray for us. For we are persuaded that we have a good conscience,
desiring to live honourably in all things- The prayer was for
Paul's from prison (:19). Paul's sense of injustice at his incarceration
comes through so often, and again here. His conscience had been cleansed
in Christ, as he had previously taught in this letter; he felt no guilt
over his sins as they had truly been dealt with. A lesser faith in the
Lord's sacrifice would have surely led him to consider his imprisonment as
a just reward for the bad life he had previously lived, involving as it
did torture and murder of civilians.
The argument seems to imply that the more they prayed, the sooner he
would be released from prison. Thus prayer can hasten things, given
certain preconditions are fulfilled. So it is in our experiences, and so
it may be with the Lord’s return.
It was accepted in Judaism, as well as in many other contemporary
religions, that faithful saints [e.g. the patriarchs, Moses, the prophets
etc, in Judaism’s case] could intercede for the people. Yet in the New
Testament,
all believers are urged to intercede for each other, even to
the point of seeking to gain forgiveness for others’ sins (1 Thess. 5:25;
Heb. 13:18; James 5:15). They were
all to do this vital work. The
radical nature of this can easily be overlooked by us, reading from this
distance.
13:19
And I exhort you the more exceedingly to do this, that I may be
restored to you the sooner- As noted on :18, Paul felt that
the answer to his prayers depended upon how many others were praying for
him. Revelation uses a similar idea in visualizing a situation where there
is enough incense arising to trigger a response from Heaven. This in God's
wisdom is how prayer operates, so that we share our situations with others
and urge their prayers for us, and we too pray for others. This explains
why we cannot be Christians in splendid isolation from others, but rather
active communion and prayer for each other are a vital part of our
collective lives.
I suggested in commentary on Acts that Paul was not warmly received by
the Jerusalem church on his last visit there, and it would appear that his
arrest and imprisonment there was partly due to Jewish Christian elements
collaborating with the temple system. Yet Paul wishes to be restored to
them; he intended after release from prison to return to see them in
Jerusalem again. His fervour for their spiritual strength and holding on
in faith is remarkable after such betrayals.
13:20
Now the God of peace, who brought from the dead the great
shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus, through the blood of an eternal
covenant- The idea of "peace" speaks of peace between
believers as well as with God; and this would be the context provided by
:19, where as noted there, Paul has in view the restoration of his
relationship with the Jerusalem church. God is the author of peace both
with Him and within His people on account of the blood, resurrection and
covenant relationship of the Lord Jesus. "Our
Lord Jesus" is another attempt to demonstrate that they had in
common a joint acceptance of Jesus as "Lord"; even though it would seem
many amongst the Hebrew Christians were losing that sense of His
exaltation. The references to the Lord's resurrection, His blood and the
eternal new covenant pave the way for the desire in :21 that God would
continue working within them. For it was the Lord's death and resurrection
which brought into effect the new covenant for those in Him, with its
promise of the blessing of being spiritually transformed within.
"In the blood of an eternal covenant" (Gk., through the power of the
blood) is a hard phrase to understand if we isolate it from the rest of
the verse. The GNB gives the best general sense: "God has raised from
death our Lord Jesus, who is the Great Shepherd of the sheep as the result
of his blood, by which the eternal covenant is sealed". The Lord's
qualification as the supreme elder was on account of His death. The
Abrahamic covenant is the new covenant of eternal inheritance (see on
9:15), but this was sealed, brought into operation for us and guaranteed,
by the Lord's death. The connection between the covenant and God's people
as sheep, shepherded by God through Messiah, is made clearly throughout
Ezekiel 34. The sheep of Israel shall be led by the shepherd into an
eternal covenant. This is true of all the Lord's sheep today as it will be
for natural Israel in the last days.
13:21
Perfect you in every good thing to do His will; working in you
that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ. To whom be the
glory for ever and ever. Amen- We work God’s will, and He
works in us (Gk.). There is a mutuality between God and man. The new
covenant involves the blessing of the Spirit, preparing us, perfecting and
maturing us, so that we might do God's will in practice. But all this is
predicated upon the ongoing work of the Lord Jesus within us. It is the
internal gift of the Spirit through which God works within us (Eph. 3:20),
and this is an outflow of the new covenant (:20). The "Amen" brings to a
close the sermon we have transcripted here (see on :22); and the final
appeal to glorify the Lord Jesus would be an appropriate end to breaking
of bread sermon.
13:22
But I urge you, brothers, bear with this word of encouragement;
for I have written to you in few words- I suggest that the
letter to the Hebrews is actually a breaking of bread sermon first given
by Paul to the Jerusalem ecclesia, against a background of Judaist
pressure to return to the Law, and also bearing in mind some specific
moral and doctrinal problems which were in the ecclesia; see on 1:1. If
you read it through out loud, the "letter" takes about 45 minutes. The
last few verses seem to be 'tacked on' to turn it into a letter. Paul asks
them to "suffer the word of exhortation" (Heb. 13:22 AV), although, he
says, it was a brief one. This would imply that usually "the word of
exhortation" was a lot longer. Remember how Paul exhorted all night at
Troas at the breaking of bread (Acts 20:7-9).
There is evidence that the early breaking of bread service was based upon
the Synagogue Sabbath service. Heb. 13:17,24 speak of "them that have the
rule over you" , the language of the 'ruler of the synagogue' (cp. Lk.
8:49; 13:14; Acts 18:8). There were weekly portions of readings which were
read, similar to our Bible Companion (1) and
then expounded by the Rabbi and any others who would like to offer a "word
of exhortation" (Acts 13:15). Acts 13:15 is the only other place apart
from Heb. 13:22 that "the word of exhortation" occurs. It is clearly a
synagogue phrase. It is possible that "suffer the word of exhortation" was
also a Synagogue phrase, said at the end of the 'exhortation' on the
Sabbath. This suggests that the whole of Hebrews was a "word of
exhortation" at a Sabbath breaking of bread (probably this was the day the
Jewish ecclesias met in Jerusalem), being a commentary on the readings for
that week (perhaps the Melchizedek passages and parts of the Law),
constantly bringing the point around to the death of the Lord Jesus. In
this, Hebrews is an ideal sermon: it continually comes around to the work
of Christ.
Hebrews is also a series of quotations and allusions (over half the sermon
is comprised of these), interspersed with commentary and brief practical
exhortation (e.g. to disfellowship false teachers, 12:15,16), all tied
together around the theme of Christ's sacrifice and our response to it.
Our sermons should be Bible based, after this same pattern. This is surely
the way to construct sermons: re-reading verses from the chapters in the
readings, commenting on them, bringing it all round to the work of Christ.
A recurring theme of the Hebrews sermon is a reminding of the hearers of
the reality of their future reward, made sure by Christ's work (4:9; 5:9;
6:10,19; 9:28; 10:34; 11:40; 12:10). This should surely be a theme
embedded in our sermons: the personal Hope of the Kingdom, made sure for
us by the work of Christ.
So much in Hebrews is obviously relevant to the memorial meeting. The wine
represents the blood of the new covenant. That new covenant is repeated in
8:10,11; and the word "covenant" occurs 14 times, and the parallel
"testament" 7 times. The blood of the covenant is explicitly referred to
in 7:22; 8:6; 9:1 and 13:20. 12:24-26 personifies that blood as a mighty
voice speaking to us, manifesting the voice of God, capable of shaking
Heaven and earth. This is truly the power of appeal behind a consideration
of Christ's blood, as symbolised in the wine. There are 22 references to
"blood", 4 to “body", 8 to "sacrifice" i.e. the body of the animal, and 9
to "offering", also a reference to the body of the animal. The breaking of
bread is designed to remember the body and blood of our Lord's sacrifice.
And this is exactly the theme of Hebrews. Yet at the same time as doing
this, Paul was getting over his specific point to the Jerusalem ecclesia:
the utter supremacy of Christ's sacrifice ought to obviate the need for
any other theory of reconciliation to God. If only we could exhort like
this: make the specific points we need to make under the umbrella of a
sustained emphasis on the sacrifice of Christ.
1 Cor. 10:17,21 (probably an epistle known to the Jerusalem ecclesia)
speaks of us being partakers of the one bread at the breaking of
bread, partaking of the Lord's table there. The same word is used
in Heb. 3:14 concerning being partakers of Christ, again
suggesting that Hebrews was first spoken in a breaking of bread context.
The same word occurs in Heb. 12:8: we are partakers of Christ's
sufferings. We are Christ's partakers (AV "fellows"; 1:9); Christ
partakes of our nature (2:14). Yet we are only ultimately
partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence
(3:14). All these ideas are brought together in our partaking of
the emblems of Christ at the memorial meeting. In them, Paul is reasoning,
we should see our partaking of Christ's sufferings as a response to His
partaking of our nature, and thereby our partaking of the promised reward,
the "heavenly calling" (3:1).
Oral Style
The references to "let us" do this or that are all so appropriate to a
verbal sermon, encouraging the listeners to respond to the work of Christ.
"We see Jesus" (2:9), "Consider... Jesus" (3:1; 7:4; 12:3) would fit in
well to the context of a sermon given with the emblems before the
audience. "Concerning whom in our discourse..." (Heb. 5:11 Diaglott) would
certainly fit in to an oral discourse. “And, so to say…" (Heb. 7:9 RV) is
another example. Saying above, Sacrifice and offering…" (Heb. 10:8 RV)
sounds as if a scroll is being read and quotation made from passages
“above" in the scroll. "Of the things which we have spoken (RV we
are saying) this is the sum" (8:1) is language more appropriate to a
transcript of an address than to a written composition. "As I may so say"
(7:9) is another such example. "One in a certain place..." (2:6) is an odd
way to write in a formal letter. Yet it fits in if this is a transcript of
a sermon; it's the sort of thing you would say verbally when you know your
audience can't turn up the passage. The word of exhortation contained in
Hebrews was in "few words" (13:22); but this is a bad translation. Strong
defines it as meaning "a short time, for a little while" (2)-
i.e. Paul is saying 'It won't take long in terms of time to hear this, but
consider the points carefully'. Note that the RV speaks of “suffer the
exhortation", unlike AV “the word of exhortation" (Heb. 13:22). One almost
gets the impression that Paul is speaking with great constraints on his
time: "the cherubim... of which we cannot now speak particularly... what
shall I more say? for the time is failing me, running out" (Heb. 9:5;
11:32 Gk.). These sort of comments would surely be irrelevant in a written
letter. But as a transcript of a live sermon, they make perfect sense. M.
R. Vincent in his Word Studies Of The NT observed in Hebrews "a
rhythmical structure of sentences (with) sonorous compounds", as if what
is written had first been spoken.
"Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God" (13:15) would be appropriate
to communal praise at a memorial meeting. Likewise "Let us draw near... we
draw nigh... let us come boldly before the throne of grace" (4:16; 7:19)
is appropriate to the congregation coming before God in collective and
private prayer, culminating in the 'drawing nigh' of taking the emblems
(cp. the idea of 'coming to God' in 11:6). The emphasis on the power of
Christ as a mediator (7:25; 9:24) would be appropriate in this context of
rallying the congregation's faith in their prayers and confessions of sin.
The encouragement to "exhort one another daily" (3:13; 10:25)
takes on a special relevance if said at the breaking of bread; Paul would
have been implying: 'Don't just listen to me exhorting you today, or a
brother doing it once a week; you must all exhort each other,
every day, not just on Shabbat!'.
Self Examination
There is another sustained theme in this sermon, in addition to all the
stress on our Lord's sacrifice. It is the repeated warning as to the
likelihood of apostasy (2:1-3; 3:12; 4:1; 6:4-8; 10:26-30,38;
12:15-17,25,27) and the possibility of abusing the blood of Christ
(10:26-30)- exactly after the pattern of 1 Cor. 11:26-30, which explicitly
makes this warning in the context of the breaking of bread. “Of how much
sorer punishment, suppose ye [again, oral style], shall he be thought
worthy, who hath...counted the blood of the covenant... as unholy
thing?" (Heb. 11:29) is almost allusive to 1 Cor. 11:29, warning of
drinking damnation to oneself through an incorrect attitude to the
memorial cup. This kind of emphasis in a 45 minute sermon wouldn't go down
well in a Western church. Yet the more we consider the wonder of the work
of Christ, the more we will be driven to consider our own weakness, and
the need to "hold fast" our connection with it. This is why we should
examine ourselves at the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:28). "Hold on" is
another related theme (3:6,14; 4:14; 10:23). And here and there we find
brief, specific practical warnings which were doubtless especially
relevant to the initial audience. It's amazing that Paul got so much in 45
minutes. Yet this is what is possible. Note that all the exhortations in
Hebrews, the comfort, the warnings, are all an outcome of a consideration
of first principles, especially relating to the atonement. Thus Paul turns
the fact that Christ is our representative round to teach the
need for unity amongst us whom He represents (2:11).
"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of
unbelief" (3:12) is very relevant to a call for self-examination in the
presence of the emblems. "Let us" boldly ask for forgiveness (4:16) could
be read in this context too. The reminder that Christ examines us, that we
are naked and opened in His sight, would have encouraged them to be open
with him in their self-examination (4:12). Paul reminds them of their
initial conversion (3:6,14; 6:11; 10:22,32), in the same way as the
Passover was intended to provoke national and personal self-examination,
looking back to their spiritual beginnings at the Red Sea (cp. baptism).
He encourages them with a reminder that Christ is such a powerful priest
that He can really cleanse our conscience (9:14; 10:2,22); the blood of
the new covenant can destroy an evil conscience (10:22 cp. 9:20).
Therefore, Paul reasons, with this clear conscience, "let us draw near"-
to the emblems, to the reality of our relationship with God. Again we see
a marked emphasis on the need for self-examination at the breaking of
bread.
Having created this background of self-examination, Paul is able to more
easily hand out explicit rebuke; e.g. "You are dull of hearing" (5:11-14;
12:5). Yet at the same time Paul expressed a very confident view of his
audience; e.g. "We are persuaded better things of you" (6:9; 10:38,39).
This is an important aspect of exhortation; to convey to the brethren and
sisters the fact that we genuinely respect them as brethren and sisters in
the Lord Jesus, with the sure Hope and possibility of salvation.
There is an emphasis on the good works which a true understanding of the
first principles should bring (4:11; 9:14; 10:24; 12:28). This is exactly
in harmony with the idea presented above: that exposition of first
principle doctrine is the basis for practical exposition. This emphasis on
the need for works in response to the doctrines of the atonement could
suggest that Paul expected the congregation to make resolves at the
breaking of bread concerning their future behaviour. Maybe this is behind
his appeal for them to appreciate that Christ offers our works to God as
the priests did the sacrifices in the past (5:1; 8:3,4; 9:9).
Personal Relevance
The Hebrews sermon is shot through with internal connections; just as our
preaching sessions should constantly refer back to each other. Paul is
trying to get the brethren and sisters to see that if they respond to his
exhortations as they should, they will be connected in spirit with the
faithful heroes of the Old Testament; they will become connected with "the
spirits of just men made perfect" (12:23). Thus Noah was moved with fear,
Paul says (11:7), just as we should be (4:1); Sarah "judged him faithful
who had promised" (11:11), just as we should (10:23); as Moses bore the
reproach of Christ (11:26), so should we (13:13). The breaking of bread is
the equivalent of the Passover under the Old Covenant; therefore 11:28
highlights how Moses kept the Passover in faith as to the power of the
sprinkled blood of the lamb. The implication is that if we take the wine
with a similar faith in Christ's blood, we will come become united with
the spirit of Moses.
There are many of these inter-connections within Hebrews. Our
"afflictions" (10:32) uses the same word translated " suffering" in the
context of Christ's sufferings (2:9,10); we are to " endure" (10:32) as
Christ " endured" the shame of the cross (12:2,3 same word). Through these
inter-connections, Paul is trying to make the sufferings of Christ
relevant to them. We may never hope to achieve as much as Paul did in
those 45 minutes. But the principles remain for us to try to copy.
Therefore we should try not to offer unconnected comments on the readings,
we should seek to tie them together under the umbrella of the work of the
Lord Jesus, we should relate His sufferings to those of our brethren and
sisters, we should seek to inspire them with the fact that they are
fellowshipping the hope of the faithful recorded in the Bible records.
A Pattern For Us
The sermon to the Hebrews becomes more significant for us as we consider
its likely background. In his book The Jewish War, Josephus explains in
detail how the Jews in Palestine revolted against the Romans in AD66-70.
Initially, everything went well for them. The Romans were defeated at the
foot of the temple mount, the legions of Cestius Gallus were defeated, and
the Jewish zealots attributed these successes to God’s rewarding of their
loyalty to the Law. They purified and rededicated the temple, and
appointed a High Priest who was not a collaborator with Rome. The zealots
spoke of the liberation of Israel in strong religious terms; there was a
great wave of enthusiasm for the Law. It seems that Hebrew Christians were
caught up in this revival, and of course all Jews were expected to take up
arms and fight. The exhortation to the Hebrews therefore stressed the
passing of the Mosaic Law, the need to rally around Christ as the true
altar and the only true, pure High Priest (Heb. 4:14; 10:19-25; 13:10).
There was the command to move outside the camp of Israel, i.e. Jerusalem
(Heb. 13:13). And the institutions of the temple, which the Jewish
nationalists were so glorifying, are shown to be of no value compared to
the blood of Christ. The references to the temptations of Jesus (Heb.
2:17,18; 4:15) may be references back to the wilderness temptations, where
He faced the same choice that the Jewish Christians had- to opt for a
Kingdom here and now, throwing off the Roman yoke; or to hold fast our
faith in the Kingdom which is surely to come. The speaker / writer to the
Hebrew Christians doesn’t specifically tackle the issues affecting them in
bald terms. He instead sets a masterful example of how we should approach
issues and weaknesses which need our comment. He adopts a Christ-centred
and Biblical approach, demonstrating that he is exactly aware of the
issues which face them, and reasoning from unshakeable principles towards
specific applications of them.
The Final Appeal
All good sermons have a strong final appeal and focus on the sacrifice of
Christ. Heb. 12:23 appears grammatically and structurally to be a climax:
"Ye are come unto... the general assembly and church of the firstborn". It
is possible to understand this 'general assembly' as a reference to the
combined ecclesia present at the breaking of bread. Indeed the Orthodox
churches use this verse in this sense in their eucharist liturgy,
rendering it "the festival of the firstborn" (3). Chapter 13 contains a
series of brief practical exhortations just before the final appeal to
home in on the body and blood of our Lord. 13:10 then goes on to compare
us to the priests eating the sacrifice on the altar; a picture so
appropriate to partaking the emblems at the memorial meeting. 13:11-15 is
surely a fitting climax to the sermon, as the audience prepared to take
the emblems: "The bodies of those beasts...Jesus also, that He
might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered...let us
go forth therefore unto Him, bearing his reproach... by Him therefore let
us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually (not just at
this meeting)" . Notice the emphasis on the body and blood
of Christ, and an appeal for our response in praise rather than further
self-examination. The whole sermon started with God (the very first word
in 1:1), and ends with God; reflecting the fact that Christ's work is a
manifestation of God, and is intended to bring us to the Father, and
eternally reconcile us with Him.
Indeed, a fair case can be made that most of the NT epistles are in fact
based upon sermons read out at the breaking of bread service. Given that
most Christians would have been illiterate, the memorial meeting would
have been the logical time and place to read out the latest letter from
Paul or Peter, in any case (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Consider how Paul
writes to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 5:3-5 as if he is present with them at
their memorial meeting ["ye being gathered together..."]. Many of the
endings and greetings of the letters have some reference to the memorial
meeting. The commands to pray and kiss each other which conclude some of
the letters must be compared to the information we find in Justin Martyr's
description of the early communion meetings: "When we have ceased from
prayer, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the
president bread and a cup of wine" (Apology I, 65). The strange
ending of 1 Corinthians 16:20-24 is an obvious allusion to the passage in
the Didache, describing the words spoken at the breaking of bread
meetings in the first century: "If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be
anathema. Maranatha...Amen". According to the Didache, the
president at the memorial meeting said: " If any man is holy, let him
come; if any be not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen". Indeed, it is
possible that the book of Revelation is a series of prophecies initially
given at ecclesial gatherings. The whole book is punctuated by passages of
liturgy and worship (4).
The evidence provided here that ‘Hebrews’ was a sermon at the breaking of
bread is to me quite strong. As we've said, in an oral culture of
illiterate converts, it is to be expected that the majority of Paul or
Peter’s letters would’ve been read aloud to the assembled congregations
when they gathered for worship. There is reference to a “holy kiss” at the
end of some of the letters (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1
Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14). This was understood by Justin, Tertullian and
Hippolytus to be a signal to the hearers that now the sermon had ended,
and they were to kiss each other and begin partaking of the Lord’s supper
(5). Whether that’s the case or not, there’s some major homework here for
the enthusiast- to study each of the New Testament letters as a sermon
appropriate to the breaking of bread service.
Notes
(1) See Joe Hill, 'An Ancient Bible Companion', Tidings, series
1994/5.
(2) The only other times this construction occurs is in Heb. 2:7,9, where
we read that Christ was for "a little while" (RV mg.) lower than Angels.
(3) Christos Yannaras, The Freedom Of Morality (New York: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996) p. 107.
(4) This idea is developed further in Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian
Worship (London: SCM, 1953).
(5) References provided in Martin Hengel, Studies In The Gospel Of
Mark (London: SCM, 1985) p. 176.
13:23- see on 1 Thess. 2:17.
Be informed that our brother Timothy has been set at liberty;
along with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you- This is a
strong indication that Paul was the author, writing from Italy (:24),
where it seems Timothy was also imprisoned. Paul expressed his concern for
the situation in Jerusalem by sending Timothy to them. His begging of
Timothy to come to him in 2 Tim. 4 was therefore asking a fair favour of
Timothy, seeing timid Timothy had apparently been imprisoned with Paul at
some stage. Although it has to be said that there is no specific
implication that the place of Timothy's imprisonment was Rome.
13:24
Greet all those that have the rule over you, and all the saints-
Paul recognizes their elders (see on :17), but parallels the
elders with the church membership.
They of Italy greet you- This is significant in that
we get the impression from 2 Tim. 4 that the Rome ecclesia had come to
ignore Paul, so that he effectively stood alone.
13:25
Grace be with you all. Amen- There is significance in
the "all", because it's clear from the letter that some of the Hebrew
Christians had returned to the temple cult. And I noted in commentary on
Acts that there were apparently elements within the Jerusalem church who
collaborated with the Jewish 'satan' to get Paul arrested and imprisoned.
But we should likewise wish grace, the experience of God's gift working
within to transform us, to all who have named the name of Christ; no
matter how far they have apparently strayed from Him or personally turned
against us.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
