Hebrews 13

CHAPTER XIII

Let Christian Virtues Continue, v. 1–6

Hebrews 13:1

1 In a brief paragraph the writer touches upon the Christian moral conduct of his readers at a few points that are especially necessary and important for them. The absence of a connective marks these injunctions as constituting a separate group; each injunction is also allowed to stand by itself. The first one is general. Let fraternal affection continue to remain! The present imperative acknowledges the past love and urges only its continuous remaining. It is never to grow cold.

The pertinency of this admonition is obvious. Anyone of the readers who would be inclined to give up Christ and to revert to Judaism would promptly show that decline in faith by coldness and indifference to his Christian brethren. Love to the brethren is one of the outstanding marks of Christian faith. It is the new commandment given us by Jesus in John 13:34 and repeated again and again: 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 2:10; 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11, 12, 21.

When ἀγαπᾶν is used it refers to the love of intelligence coupled with corresponding purpose; when φιλεῖν is used as it is here in φιλαδελφία it refers to affectionate love, showing kindness, sympathy, offering help, etc. In our times, when so many false brotherhoods are established that claim to be superior to our brotherhood in Christ and urge their claims and their benefits to the detriment and even the disruption of our spiritual brotherhood in the faith and the confession of Christ, it is especially necessary to emphasize the divine character of the bond of brotherly love which unites us as believers in Christ and to urge all our brethren ever to continue therein and to cut loose from every antagonistic tie.

Hebrews 13:2

2 One of the ways of showing this love is now adduced. Be not forgetful of friendliness to strangers for thereby some have unawares entertained angels.

This, too, is a present imperative. One form of φιλαδελφία is φιλοξενία. Not only the brethren whom we know personally in our own city but also brethren that are strangers to us are to receive our fraternal friendliness; the word employed is another compound of φίλος. They may be only traveling brethren; to open the home to them for lodging and for food, to give them information and help, will be a great aid. Some of them will be poor, especially in need of such help. Public hotels and lodging places were unknown at this time. In a large city like Rome any strange Christian was at a disadvantage. Such brethren had sometimes been compelled to leave home because of persecution and to wander among strangers; these especially would need Christian hospitality and help.

In Gen. 18:3, Abraham, and in Gen. 19:2, Lot actually entertained angels unawares. The construction ἔλαθον with the participle is classic; the main idea is found in the participle, the verb adds only the adverbial notion “unawares.” The thought of the statement can hardly be that by entertaining strangers we, too, may have the good fortune of sometimes receiving angels into our homes. The Old Testament incidents are too exceptional to admit of such a generalization. It is sufficient to say that, as some were unexpectedly blessed by receiving strangers, so we, too, may be thus blessed. We may go a bit farther: Christ identifies himself with his saints so that what we do for them we do for him, Matt. 25:38, 40.

Hebrews 13:3

3 Continue remembering the prisoners as having been made (their) fellow prisoners; them that are disgracefully treated as being yourselves also (still) in the body!

To keep remembering is not to be forgetting (v. 2); the writer only varies the expression. These prisoners were such because of their faith. See the introduction regarding what happened in Rome in the year 64 and compare the exposition of 10:32–34. “As having been made fellow prisoners” is not to be understood in a physical but in a spiritual sense: feeling their imprisonment as if it were your own. Although we are unable to effect their release we can do what the Christians did for Peter (Acts 12:5): pray for such prisoners. In Peter’s case the prayers brought about even his release. “Whether one member suffer, all members suffer with it,” 1 Cor. 12:26.

The writer leaves unsaid how the readers are to remember the prisoners. They can sometimes visit them (Matt. 25:39), do something toward obtaining their release, etc., at all events they can pray for them. In the ancient synagogue prisoners were remembered in the service; this was also done in the early Christian Church. We still pray: “Be thou the protector and defense of thy people in all times of tribulation and danger.”

Without adding a connective the writer enlarges the circle: “them that are basely or disgracefully treated” (see the same participle in 11:37), i. e., in any way abused because of their Christian faith. Recall Moses in 11:25, 26: “having chosen to be basely treated together with the people of God rather than to have enjoyment of sin lasting for a period.” “As being yourselves also in the body” refers to our susceptibility to the same sufferings. In addition to the inward, spiritual tie there is also the outward bond of the same bodily condition. The readers had already suffered in this way (10:32–34).

Hebrews 13:4

4 In v. 3 the writer expands, he now condenses. He has mentioned the fact that we are still in the body; he now takes up one bodily relation, that of marriage. This shows that the writer proceeds in an orderly way. To say that he proceeds merely theoretically is to deny what the entire epistle shows, namely that it fits the needs of his readers in every part, and it does so here. The Judaism of the day was very lax regarding marriage as the Gospels show in regard to Palestine; this laxity was certainly not less in great Gentile centers like Rome. The admonition given here was needed, it would otherwise not be found here. It aims at elevating marriage, the closest relation, which was sanctified by God himself at creation and is no less sacred in Christianity as Jesus himself shows.

Honorable let marriage be in all respects, and the bed undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Shall we supply the indicative “is” (A. V.) or the imperative “let be” (R. V.)? The matter is not one of mere grammatical form. The patristic exegesis supplies “is” on the supposition that the writer defends marriage against a false asceticism which, because of the κοίτη (bed, marriage bed, copulation), considered marriage as being not really honorable but defiling or filthy. The writer is thought to contradict this error by saying that marriage is honorable, the bed is undefiled.

This is the idea that underlies the translation of the A. V., and it has been introduced into our marriage ceremony, namely the stout assertion that there is nothing dishonorable in marriage or defiling in marital copulation. This view led to the alteration of the reading: since γάρ does not fit, δέ was substituted, and our A. V. consistently translates this altered reading: “but whoremongers,” etc. It is a pity that the A. V., which so often follows Luther, disregards his correct translation: Die Ehe soil ehrlich gehalten werden, etc., although he has the inferior aber in the last clause.

Only the imperative is in place. Marriage is to be kept honorable, its honor is never to be defiled by sexual violation. The positive τίμιος is expounded by the negative ἀμίαντος, “honorable” = “undefiled”; and γάμος is defined by κοίτη, “marriage” meaning in particular “the marriage bed.” The defilements that dishonor marriage are fornication, which dishonors marriage in advance, and adultery, which dishonors marriage after it has been entered into. It is pedantic to claim that γάμος means only wedding or nuptials; its second current Greek meaning is “marriage.”

Ἐνπᾶσιν does not mean “in all persons” or “among all persons.” This view is due to the supposition discussed above, namely that all Christians are to consider marriage honorable and undefiling. Here, in v. 18, in Eph. 1:23, etc., the phrase = “in all respects,” in allen Stuecken (B.-P. 1012, lists the passages). Marriage is in no way to be disgraced by sexual unfaithfulness on the part of either spouse. “For God will judge fornicators and adulterers,” he whom the writer has just called “a consuming fire.”

Hebrews 13:5

5 The analogy of Scripture steadily joins the filthiness of fornication and adultery with the filthiness of avarice and covetousness. Even in the Decalogue the Sixth Commandment is followed by the Seventh. Yet in 10:34 we find another reason for this admonition. A good many of the readers had suffered severely by having their homes robbed and wrecked during the persecutions of the year 64 and were thus in a bad state financially. Hence the admonition offered here is coupled with the strongest comfort and assurance. We, of course, supply the imperative.

Without money-love the conduct, being contented with the things at hand! The force of the injunction is increased by its terseness. It reads like a general Christian motto: “Non-silver-loving the conduct!” Τρόπος is “turn” of mind, manner, or conduct. Not even a possessive pronoun is added. The readers once took joyfully the losses inflicted on them (10:34); let them keep that spirit: “contented with the things at hand.”

We decline to regard ἀρκούμενοι as an anacoluthon, or as a participle used like a finite verb (R., W. P.), or to read it with Moulton’s suggested refinements (Einleitung, 288); this participle is construed ad sensum. Since participles have case, number, and gender in the Greek they can be used with a perfect precision that is not possible in the case of either English or German participles. Contentment with whatever little God has given or left us is the cure for all money-love, all worry about money, and the like.

We have what is far better than all earthly wealth: For he himself has said (perfect tense as in 1:13: and what he has said still stands): In no wise will I let go of thee, nor in any wise will I abandon thee! so that, being of good corrage, we on our part say:

The Lord for me a helper; I will not fear.

What shall man do to me?

The one thing is what God says to us, the other what we say to him in return. In God’s statement we have two volitive subjunctives, aorists, decisive, with the usual double negative οὐμή, and ἀνῶ is the second aorist of ἀνίημι. The Greek doubles the negative: οὐδʼ οὐμή, “nor in no wise,” a construction which the English stylists avoid. The verbs are synonymous: to let go of someone is to abandon him; but the latter is the result of the former. Alas, we often think that God has let go, has abandoned. He never does.

The citation is taken from Deut. 31:6, 8; 1 Chron. 28:20. It is not slavishly literal, for the third person is changed to the first, and the two significant verbs are juxtaposed. Philo does the same, but we have no reason to think that he is being quoted here. It is most natural to quote as something said by God what Moses says of him, whether this is done by our writer, by Philo, or by yourself. God’s promise is better than any bond or note on any bank, financial institution, or most stable government, for all these may have to repudiate their bond; God never does so.

Hebrews 13:6

6 The result of God’s sure promise (ὥστε with the infinitive to express result, R. 999, etc.) is our courageous reply by making Ps. 118:6 our own, which was Luther’s favorite psalm, his Confitemini, the exposition of which gave him so much comfort during the trying days on the Coburg. The good courage recalls the joyfulness expressed in 10:34. By using the emphatic “we on our part” the writer makes himself the spokesman for his readers by voicing their united trust. When he uses words of Scripture in v. 5, 6, this is most effective for his readers, former Jews, who are now growing weak in their Christianity because of persecutions. They are not giving up Deuteronomy nor the Psalms but are only following Moses and the psalmist by relying on God and on his sure promises.

Let Us Go out to Him outside of the Camp! v. 7–17

Hebrews 13:7

7 In this paragraph the writer addresses to his readers the call to separate themselves completely from the camp of Judaism, to go out to Christ crucified, the changeless Christ, to be true to those who have preached and are now preaching this Christ, and to bring the offering of praise and obedience. The absence of a connective in v. 10 and in v. 17 might lead us to think that we have points of division in those verses, yet the thought presents itself as a unit and should be left so.

It begins with the blessed memory of the departed leaders whose faith the readers ought to imitate. Keep calling to mind your leaders who were such as spoke to you the Word of God, whose faith keep imitating, carefully viewing the issue of their manner of life.

The readers have been shown the Old Testament heroes of faith in chapter 11; there are others that are closer to them, their own “leading ones” (substantivized descriptive present participle). Οἵτινες, which is both qualitative and causal, describes them: “such as (and because they were such as) spoke to you the Word of God.” The second verb states why these leaders are to be kept in mind: “Whose faith keep imitating.” The writer uses no official name but says only “leading ones” and in his description brings out the two facts that they spoke “the Word of God” and that they had “the faith.” “Your leading ones” implies that the readers followed them when they spoke the Word of God, followed them in the same faith.

They were true leaders, indeed. All our church leaders may well look closely at this characterization: speaking the Word, the whole Word, and nothing but the Word (Acts 20:26, 27), and doing this with true personal faith; hence never once misleading the church. God, ever give us such leaders! All followers may well look at these words. Only such leaders are they to follow because they speak the Word of God. Such leaders they are to imitate in their own faith. God, ever give us followers of this kind!

The participle adds what the readers are especially to view most carefully in regard to the faith of their departed leaders, namely the ἔκβασιςτῆςἀναστροφῆς, an expression that it is hard to translate literally: “the end of their conversation” (A. V.), “the issue of their life” (R. V.). Take 2 Tim. 4:6–8 as a commentary and an illustration. There is the whole ἀναστροφή, the course of Christian life and conduct, and then its ἔκβασις, the act of going out of it by a blessed death. There is the whole work of these leaders to be kept in mind; there is their exemplary faith to be remembered; in particular, there is the conclusion of their life to be examined carefully.

The latter is so important for the readers because they were thinking of a different conclusion for themselves, namely a going back to Judaism and a dying as Jews. After having had such leaders, how can the readers answer to God if they after all fall back and end their lives in a wholly different manner?

The fact that the leading ones referred to are now dead and gone is evident. Those who place the readers in Palestine or in Jerusalem identify these leaders with the apostles and mention especially the martyrs Stephen and James and call the readers the second generation. “Your leading ones, such as spoke to you the Word of God” does not fit this idea of a second generation. See the introduction regarding the identity of the readers. We take them to be the mass of Jews in Rome who were converted by Paul (Acts 28:17, etc.). We thus take “your leading ones” to be Paul and Peter, both of whom were martyrs when this epistle was written. Peter suffered martyrdom in 64, Paul probably late in 66 or very early in 67.

Since these were an unmixed body of Jewish Christians, we think that when Peter arrived in Rome he devoted himself also to them. The readers know how these two leaders ended their lives as the noblest examples of faith. Were there others? We can say only one thing, namely, that no elders of this body of Jewish Christians died as martyrs during the Neronic persecutions (10:32–34). Whether one or more of their elders had died otherwise and may thus be referred to along with Peter and Paul we cannot say. As to other opinions, we assign these to the judgment of our readers and are content to voice our own convictions.

Hebrews 13:8

8 In a most effective way, without a connective, the writer adds: Jesus Christ, yesterday and today the same, and for the eons, i. e., for eternity. Jesus Christ, changeless, immutable! Here there is the person and the office. “Yesterday” = when he was first preached to the readers by Paul and then by Peter. He has not changed. “Today” he sits at God’s right hand as he did yesterday, our great High Priest (4:14); so he does to all eternity. Jesus Christ is the sum and substance of the Word of God that was spoken to the readers by those departed leaders, he upon whom alone they rested their faith, which the readers are ever to imitate. “Yesterday” should not be carried back to eternity although Rev. 13:8 is true. The writer is not speaking abstractly; his “yesterday” is historical because it follows verse seven as it does.

Jesus Christ cannot be anything but “the same” in regard to all that this letter has said of him. The only question is whether the faith of the readers will also remain the same.

Hebrews 13:9

9 The admonition is added without a connective: By varicolored and strange doctrines be not carried aside, for it is an excellent thing that by grace the hearts be made firm, not by meats in connection with which they were not benefited who walked about (in life).

One doctrine must be ours, one changeless doctrine, that which presents the changeless “Jesus Christ.” Whether we say “Jesus Christ” or “doctrine” makes no difference, for he is the sum and substance of the “doctrine,” and the “doctrine” is the true, adequate presentation of him as this substance. So Paul offers nothing “save Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), and he does this “not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, combining spiritual things with spiritual word” (1 Cor. 2:13). The words = the doctrine. The entire teaching of the Scriptures, the entire teaching of Jesus is doctrine. “My own doctrine (διδαχή) is not my own, but his that sent me,” John 7:16. This divine “doctrine” cannot change because the saving facts it presents are changeless.

Hence we have the admonition: “By various and strange doctrines be not carried aside!” Their very variety (literally, “many colored”) brands them as being false, for the truth is always one, unalterably one, lies are ever many and motley. They are also ξέναι, “strange,” like strangers or foreigners; they are not the old, familiar faces but odd, alien, suspicious from the start. They are the inventions of men, manifold and strange like men, not the Rock of Ages, the eternal, immutable truth from the eternal God. All they do is “to carry aside” (παρά in the verb), off the true, safe course—whither, one can only guess, certainly not to God. “Be not carried aside” (present imperative: now or ever) applies to any and to all such doctrines. The injunction is comprehensive. Among such doctrines is the Jewish teaching which was threatening to mislead the readers at this time. It is here classified and branded with all the rest.

The present imperative implies that the readers had not yet been carried aside; yet the fact that they need this warning indicates that they were not in a state of firmness but were rather wavering and hesitating. Hence the reason for not being carried away is added: “for it is an excellent thing that by grace the heart be made firm” (present infinitive: as the writer is now making it firm). “By grace” is emphatic; its position makes it so just as the preceding dative is emphatic. Those doctrines carry away; grace ever makes firm. Instead of saying “by the one true doctrine” the writer at once names the divine power in this doctrine: χάρις, “grace,” God’s undeserved favor which operates in and through his Word (doctrine) and roots and grounds the heart, the center of our being, in the saving truth (John 17:17; Eph. 4:14, 15).

A third dative follows and is also placed forward for the sake of emphasis: “not by meats in connection with which they were not benefited who walked about” (in life). With this dative the writer comes to the doctrine that was at that time threatening to carry aside his readers. It is summarized in the one word βρώματα, “meats,” which is at once understood by the readers especially because of the added clause: that they who walked had no benefit or profit from these “meats.”

The early Greek commentators and some since their day construe ἐνοἷς with οἱπεριπατήσαντες, but this construction is incongruous. The participle means “to walk about”; in its metaphorical sense as it is used in the papyri it means “to conduct one’s life” (M.-M. 507) and never quite loses its etymological meaning. While it is often construed with ἐν: “to walk about (live) in sins—in good works—in the ways of righteousness” and the like, such phrases are always congruous. One does not “walk about (live) in meats”—that would be incongruous; but those who walk about (do their living) may be benefited ἐνβρώμασιν, “in connection with meats,” i. e., by eating them; again they may not be profited in them.

B. Weiss attacks the grammar on the score that the article with the participle debars connection with the phrase since no other example of such a connection can be found. The incongruity alone is enough. The phrase goes so naturally with “were not benefited” that it seems gratuitous to give the participle meanings which it never has in order to make it fit the phrase: “they that have been occupied therein” (A. V.), “wherein they that occupied themselves” (R. V.), die sich damit abgeben (Riggenbach). Some change the phrase in order to gain the same end.

It lies on the surface that the clause refers to meats that were supposed to profit, i. e., strengthen spiritually, those who needed such benefit in the daily round of their lives. The writer says that they did not get benefit in such “meats.” What does he mean by these βρώματα, Speisen, foods? Some think that kosher Jewish food is referred to. It is said that this word is used regularly with reference to such foods, which is, of course, true, for what other word could be used? But the benefit of kosher eating was not derived from the foods that were eaten but from the foods that were shunned. Avoiding foods that were regarded as unclean kept the Jews clean.

Moreover, this epistle nowhere touches upon the subject of kosher food, it deals throughout with far graver subjects. As far as kosher food was concerned, its use or nonuse was entirely a matter of liberty to Christians. The whole subject had been settled long ago. As far as these Jewish Christians are concerned, it is safe to assume that they never stopped eating kosher; it cannot be assumed that they had stopped eating kosher since their conversion and were now inclined to begin kosher eating again. The whole epistle, the present context, as well as what we know about the danger that was confronting the readers establish the fact that these profitless βρώματα were cultus meats.

This is a reference to the σύνδειπνα, joint feasts, which the Jews were permitted to have already in Caesar’s time; these great joint meals were among the special concessions granted to the Jews of the Diaspora. Josephus, Ant., 14, 10, 1–8, records Caesar’s decrees in full, and in paragraph 8 has these particulars: “Now it does not please me that such decrees should be made against our friends and confederates, whereby they are forbidden to live according to their own customs, or to bring in contributions for common suppers and holy festivals, while they are not forbidden to do so even at Rome itself, for even Caius Caesar, our imperator and consul, in that decree wherein he forbade Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city, did yet permit these Jews, and these only, both to bring in their contributions and to make their common suppers. Accordingly, when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I permit these Jews to gather themselves together according to the customs and laws of their forefathers and to persist therein. It will be, therefore, good for you [throughout the empire] that, if you have made any decree against these our friends and confederates, to abrogate the same by reason of their virtue and kind disposition toward us.”

The readers of this epistle are living in Rome. The writer alludes to the celebrations of the Jews in Rome. Roman Jews would seldom be able to attend the celebrations in Jerusalem. Throughout the Diaspora the Jews made the more of their local “common suppers” as Caesar’s decree calls them. They helped greatly to bind the Jews together. That was the profit the Jews had from them—not confirmation by divine grace for their hearts in the true faith, only confirmation in their bigoted Judaism and the doctrines supporting it.

Hebrews 13:10

10 We have an altar of sacrifice from which (even) they have no authority to eat who serve the Tabernacle. For of what animals the blood is brought by the high priest into the Sanctuary for sin, of these the bodies are burned outside of the camp.

The way in which the writer advances his thought by alluding to Jewish practices creates difficulties that are acknowledged by the best of the commentators. We agree with those who decline to find too much in these words. Allusions are never to be pressed, for we then get beyond the writer’s meaning into thoughts of our own, which is no longer exegesis.

We have no contrasting ἡμεῖς and no δέ: “but we on our part have,” etc. We have only the simple ἔχομεν and a relative clause which describes the altar we have as one that excludes all eating and hence also all βρώματα such as the Jews had, for which they had secured a Roman decree of permission throughout the empire, of which they were also very proud. This altar is one without meats and eating and is filled only with “grace.” We see it typified by the Day of Atonement, by the sacrifice that already then excluded every idea of “foods” to be eaten (v. 11).

The mention of a θυσιαστήριον is an allusion to the Jewish sacrificial altar. We have what this Jewish altar typifies. Yet the writer again thinks of the Mosaic Tabernacle and not of the Temple, for he says that of the altar which we have even they have no authority to eat who serve the Tabernacle. These are the priests. The verb λατρεύω is used as it was in 8:5 and not λειτουργέω. The latter = official ministration; the writer aims to say more than the latter, namely the service of worship for one’s own soul (λατρεύω).

He is thinking of sacrifices that were made at the Tabernacle by the Levitical priests, not merely for other Israelites, but for the priests themselves, in particular of the great sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. The allusion is plain and readily caught by the readers who are former Jews. The Christian altar of sacrifice bears a sacrifice that is like that which was offered on the Jewish Day of Atonement, which admitted of no eating whatever.

There were sacrifices such as the thank offerings, the schelamin, Lev. 19:5–8; 22:29, 30, of which only the people ate; the Passover is similar to these. Then there were sacrifices of which both the priest and the person bringing the sacrifice ate certain designated parts. Finally, there was this sacrifice on the Day of Atonement of which none had a right to eat. The writer alludes to this last type of sacrifice. Instead of saying we have “a sacrifice” the writer says we have “a sacrificial altar.” The difference is most important. The altar that we have had only one sacrifice, the one that is typified by the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement; it is not like the Jewish altar on which all kinds of sacrifices were offered. Thus because our altar bears only one sacrifice, namely the one indicated, it admits of no eating by anybody (v. 11); it is unlike the Jewish altar save for one exceptional sacrifice.

Hebrews 13:11

11 It is this point that “for” explains. The bodies of the animals, whose blood the high priest brought into the Sanctuary of the Tabernacle “for sin” (his own sin first and then also that of the people), were not eaten, not even by any of the priests, not even when they were λατρεύοντες, serving the Tabernacle in the capacity of worshippers for their own soul’s good; these bodies were burnt “outside of the camp,” speaking in terms of the sojourn in the wilderness in the days of Moses. The tertium comparationis in the type and the antitype lies in the fact that the sacrifice was not to be eaten. To extend it beyond that point implies to misunderstand the writer’s thought.

By abiding with this tertium we have the great fact of grace, the grace which Israel had in the sacrifice of the high priest on the Day of Atonement which cleansed away Israel’s sins and received its cleansing power from the blood of Christ, the antitype, and the atonement he made. Type and antitype are marked by the fact that both exclude eating. This type is raised above all other types of sacrifice and offering by this outstanding mark. Since one altar with this sacrifice has come, the Jewish Day of Atonement is ended, its purpose is fully served. All God’s grace is bestowed by Christ’s atoning blood. All these Jewish βρώματα are profitless.

The preceding chapters have developed and explained all this at length. In the light of these chapters the allusions now used are plain and most significant.

We add a few additional notes. It is not well to say that “we have an altar” = the cross on Calvary. Christ’s cross stood “outside of the camp,” “outside of the gate” (v. 12). An incongruity would thus result. In the Jewish type the altar before the Tabernacle, the Sanctuary within the Tabernacle, and the place outside of the camp for burning the bodies are distinct and separate; in the antitype nothing of this kind appears. We may speak of Christ’s cross as an altar in a figure of our own making but not when the allusions in these verses are properly explained.

It is not in place to say that the altar we have is the Lord’s Table. This is unwarranted because all eating is excluded. To speak of spiritual eating is not satisfactory. Moreover, the Lord’s Table is not for children and babes; the malefactor on the cross did not partake of this table. Yet all these may say, “We have an altar.” After what we have said regarding “those serving the Tabernacle” we pass by the efforts to regard these as anything but the priests of the Tabernacle.

Hebrews 13:12

12 A surprisingly new and yet perfectly true deduction is now made: Wherefore also Jesus, in order that he might sanctify the people by means of his own blood, suffered outside of the gate. Now then, let us be going out to him outside of the camp, bearing his reproach! For we have here no continuing city, but we are seeking the one about to come.

The significant point is the fact that the bodies of the animals, whose blood was used to cleanse and sanctify the people on the Day of the Atonement, were burned “outside of the camp.” “Outside of the camp” is significant. The camp enclosed Israel; to be outside of it meant to be removed from Israel. So these animal bodies were taken outside, and this act symbolized the removal from Israel of the sin for which these animals had been slain. In order to show that Christ’s blood was likewise to sanctify the people (as already stated in 9:12–14; 10:29) he, too, suffered “outside of the gate,” on Calvary outside of Jerusalem. “Gate” is substituted for “camp” because the journey through the wilderness during which Israel pitched camp was long a matter of history when Jesus suffered. Jesus bore away the sins of the people, bore them outside of the gate in order to gain for them the sanctification of atonement by means of his own blood.

“His own blood,” holy and precious, retains the idea of sacrifice, retains it better than the word “death.” Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness and hence no sanctification, 9:22. It is better to say “Jesus suffered” than to say he “died.” The mention of Jesus’ death would suggest the death of animals on the Day of Atonement, which took place at the side of the altar and not outside of the camp. Any suggestion that would parallel the deaths is avoided. Jesus “suffered” is preferable also because it brings out all that happened on Calvary; the animals died after a quick thrust of the knife and not after a long agony of pain.

Hebrews 13:13

13 The very significance of complete ejection from Israel, which lies in what is said of the animals in v. 11 and is then predicated of the suffering of Jesus, is now applied to the readers: “Now then, let us be going out to him outside the camp,” etc. The present iterative imperative is in place because the writer and the readers must again and again repeat this act, namely every time they are called to bear “Jesus’ reproach.”

The Jews cast Jesus “outside the gate” like a criminal accursed (Lev. 24:14; Deut. 17:5). We see from Gal. 3:13 how the cross intensified the idea of being accursed. In 12:2 the cross and the shame are combined. In 11:26 Moses esteems “the reproach of Christ” above the treasures of Egypt. We have the same word here: τὸνὀνειδισμὸναὐτοῦ, “his reproach,” all the vilification heaped on Jesus: the curse of the cross, the crown of thorns, and every other indignity. Here belong all such passages as Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13. “Outside of the camp” adopts this phrase from v. 11.

It is full of significance for Jewish Christians, for it denotes a complete and a continued break with the Jews and with all Judaism. From Jews, yea from the Jewish nation came and still comes “his reproach”; Jews have taught the world to despise Christ. They shouted that he should be crucified and now point at his cross in derision.

We have reached the climax of the epistle. From the start its aim has been to restore the wavering faith of the Jewish Christian readers in Jesus, to rid them of their recently conceived desire to go back to Judaism. To accomplish this effectively the break with their nation, with all Jews must be final, irrevocable, apparent at every turn. This is here told them in the most masterful way. The writer includes himself; he adopts a wording from the ritual of Moses for the Day of Atonement, and he does this after the fullest preparation. Who could do better?

We are Gentile Christians who are less apt to catch all the implications in the allusions; it will be well to work ourselves into them. We must read with Jewish eyes. The personal gain for us will be a better application to ourselves who must bear the world’s reproach of Jesus and not merely the Jewish reproach.

Hebrews 13:14

14 Why this going out loaded with the reproach of Jesus? In connection with 11:10, 14–16, coupled with 12:22, the answer is that here we do not have a continuing city, one that remains; we are only pilgrims and strangers (11:13), wayfarers for a few days. We are seeking the city that is about to come, the city eternal, immutable. It is no loss to the writer and to the readers to be treated as outcasts by their Jewish nationals; as Christians they belong to a far more exalted nation (12:23, 24). We have no hint here that the year 70 is already past, that Jerusalem has fallen, and that the Jewish nation is wrecked forever. Judging from the way in which the writer words his hortation, these events had not yet transpired although it is true that he touches the late history only where he must (as in Jesus’ suffering “outside of the gate” of Jerusalem) and otherwise reverts to the Tabernacle in the wilderness (v. 10).

Hebrews 13:15

15 Trusting solely in the sanctifying power of Jesus’ blood and going out unto him from the Jews and from Judaism means turning away from Levitical sacrifices, none of which are any longer needed. In the case of Christians only the schelamin (thankofferings) could be left, and these no longer in their old Jewish form but in a far higher form that corresponds to the Christian’s relation to God through Jesus.

Through him, therefore, let us keep offering up sacrifice of praise constantly to God, that is, fruit of lips confessing his name. Moreover, the doing good and fellowship do not be forgetting, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. These are ever to be our sacrifices, and we ourselves are to be the priests.

“Through him” means with his priestly mediation and without any other. “Through him” we may ever draw nigh to God, both ourselves to get help from the throne of grace for the time of need (4:14–16), to strengthen our faith and our hope, and to stimulate our love and our good works as we assemble jointly (10:19–25) and, as the writer now adds, “to offer up constantly to God sacrifice of praise,” which is defined as “fruit of lips confessing his name,” i. e., acknowledging his name or revelation by which he makes himself known to our hearts and by which we know him.

God’s ὄνομα = his revelation of himself in Christ Jesus. To confess this “name” is the highest function of faith (Matt. 10:31, 32; Rom. 10:9, 10). The language recalls Ps. 54:6. So many think that works that are helpful to men are worth more than confession of the name; but without this confession all else is vain. The question is illy put: “Which is more important for a congregation, to maintain the confession or to save souls?” The more we confess, the more truly we confess, the more we help to save souls; and vice versa. The alternative with which the question confronts us is not an alternative; it is a fig leaf behind which to hide the shame of failure to confess (Matt. 10:33).

Hebrews 13:16

16 The direct praise of true confession, which is directed to God himself, must ever come first although it employs only the lips; yet these are to speak out of the abundance of the heart (Matt. 12:34). Next there comes “the doing good and fellowshiping,” the two being combined under one article. “The doing well” is more than doing good to our neighbor in the sense of being kind and helping him. All our deeds must be well done, no matter whether they are done for others or not.

Some commentators and then also some of the dictionaries (Thayer and Abbott-Smith may serve as examples) think that in Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; and in our passage κοινωνία means “communication, contribution,” and that in Romans and in II Corinthians it may be translated “collection.” Our versions adopt this idea: “to do good and to communicate”; Dods offers “charity” as a proper comment, and Delitzsch: “It means plainly the assistance rendered by charitable contributions.” The word does not have this meaning. It means “fellowship.” Here we have the combination doing well in all our deeds and acts and doing this in faithful fellowship by holding close together. Regarding the latter the writer has already said “not abandoning the assembly of your own selves as is the custom of some” (10:25). We cannot find the idea of charity in the word κοινωνία by making it mean a communion of earthly goods; it means communion of hearts, these being bound together by faith and then by love, all making the same noble confession.

The poor and needy are not mentioned in this epistle. Some of the members had lost their possessions (10:34); yet the writer tells them only to be content with the things at hand and comforts them with God’s promise of help (13:5, 6). Charitable gifts are not mentioned, because this was evidently not necessary; the readers were already attending to this. We are pleased to note that C.-K. 612, etc., and B.-P. 687, etc., do not define κοινωνία as “contribution.” “Do not be forgetting” is a litotes and equals always be remembering. Such are the sacrifices, the writer says, with which God is pleased; let the readers dismiss the thought of any other kind.

Hebrews 13:17

17 It seems best to add v. 17 to this paragraph instead of letting it start the next. It harks back to v. 7. Some of the leaders were dead, and although they are dead they still speak and are ever to be kept in mind; others have stepped into their place. What about these? Be obedient to your leading ones and submit, for they are watching over your souls as having duly to give account, so that they may do this with joy and not as groaning, for this is unadvantageous for you.

In the light of what this epistle reveals about the readers we conclude that the leaders among them were staunch and true at this time, and that the desire to turn away from Christ and back to Judaism was found only among the members. This prompts the writer to remind all the readers of the high responsibility that is resting upon the leaders—a good thing also for the leaders themselves to hear—and of the damage that disobedience to true leaders entails.

“Obey and yield.” One obeys when one agrees with what he is told to do, is persuaded of its correctness and profitableness; one yields, gives up, when he has a contrary opinion. The pertinency of the latter is apparent. Any of the members that are inclined to leave Christ are to give up this notion and thus obey their faithful leaders. Αὐτοί is emphatic: “they are the ones who are watching over your souls” so that these may not be lost or even endangered. The verb recalls Jer. 6:17; Ezek. 3:17, etc.; 33:1, etc. God set the prophets of old as watchmen over Israel.

Not as being self-appointed and accountable only to themselves are the leaders doing this watching with such concern for your souls but “as having to render due account” to God. Ἀπιδίδωμι with λόγον = to render due account. The future participle is very rare and has a temporal meaning here: “shall render account” when their work is done. R. 1128 misunderstands ὡς when he says “as much cause as purpose”; it is neither. This word has its common meaning “as”: the readers are to look upon their leaders, and these leaders, too, are to look upon themselves “as in due time to give account,” B.-D. 425, 13: als solche die; im Gedanken, dass sie, usw.

Those who are called to watch are to give the alarm at the approach of danger; they are to give it early enough so that those who are watched over may meet the danger or may escape it. When an appointed watchman proves a dumb dog, calamity results. Woe to the people whose leaders are blind watchers, unable to distinguish foe from friend or to recognize danger before it is too late. Watching means warning at as early a time as possible, and the warned must heed—otherwise why set watchmen? Watching implies keeping oneself and others safe where danger is known to exist or where one fears its existence. Where no danger exists watching is not needed.

But where safety is at stake no one but a fool takes chances. All this applies to the church in the highest degree where the safety of souls is to be guarded. Some watchmen in Israel take their accountability lightly, they will find their medicine in Ezek. 33:7, etc. Whoever assumes or is given responsibility over the souls of any others, even of only one other, is fully accountable.

Ἵνα introduces contemplated result. These leaders are to find their followers obedient and yielding so that they may do their work and bear their responsibility with joy and not with groaning. The participle is strong, cf. Rom. 8:23. This joy is found when all hear and heed, and none is either hurt or lost. The groaning comes when some will not hear and heed, and, still worse, when some are actually lost. Recall 6:4–8; 10:26–31.

A litotes concludes this part of the admonition: “for this is unadvantageous for you.” While they groan, you would do worse than groan. All the advantage of having faithful leaders and watchmen would not only be lost but would turn into the opposite. It is bad when no one rings the alarm and warns, it is a thousand times worse for you and for me when we are deaf to a true warning. A litotes often sounds mild and becomes a meiosis, but it is in reality only the stronger because of that.

Conclusion, v. 18–25

Hebrews 13:18

18 Be praying for us! For we are persuaded that we have a good conscience in wanting to conduct ourselves well in every way. Moreover, I urge you the more to do this in order that I may the more quickly be restored to you.

The request for prayers needs no comment; but the plural “for us” does. It is not a literary plural, for no careful writer says “we” and “I” in the same sentence as is done here when he is referring only to himself in both instances. Nor does “we” refer to the writer and the leaders mentioned in v. 17. “We” = the writer and his companions. Like Paul, the writer had a few associates with him as the readers in Rome know. Even if he had only one, this “for us” is in place.

It is impossible for us to say what lies back of their conviction that they have a good conscience in wanting to conduct themselves well in every way. Various suggestions are offered, but they are, after all, only surmises. The view that the writer is speaking only of himself is unacceptable; his companion or his companions are included. If they had been imprisoned on some charge, the writer would have said so.

As always, ἐνπᾶσι means “in all respects,” in jeder Hinsicht, as it does in v. 4; see B.-P. 1012. When we have the will to conduct ourselves well in every way we do, indeed, have a good conscience. This does not mean that conscience may not err; but if it should err with such a will, this would be due only to ignorance. Since this is written at the close of an epistle such as this, such an error is excluded. As far as we are able to say, this assurance about a good conscience bears on the contents of this epistle. Some of its warnings are sharp, plain language; the readers are to know that conscience compels the writer to speak to them in such a way. The men who are associated with him approve every word with a like good conscience.

Hebrews 13:19

19 When the writer now uses the singular without an emphatic, contrasting ἐγώ he speaks of his own return and not also of the return of such associates as he has with him. The explanation is simple: he has some time ago left his readers on some important mission and has taken one or more assistants along with him; he is anxious to return and expects to leave these helpers behind to attend to what may still need their attention. He counts on the earnest intercession of the readers to bring God’s blessing on his present mission, which would enable him to leave it in the hands of his associates while he himself hastens back to his readers, who, as the entire letter has shown us, certainly need him. To go beyond this and to surmise that the writer was imprisoned is of little actual value.

Hebrews 13:20

20 As the writer asks for the prayers of his readers, so he offers prayer for them. Now the God of peace, the One who brought again from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep in connection with blood of an eternal testament, our Lord Jesus: may he fit you out in every good thing to do his will, he doing in you the thing well-pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ: to whom the glory for the eons of the eons! Amen.

In this one sentence the writer sums up all that his epistle contains and puts it into the form of a fervent prayer-wish. While it is addressed to the readers in form, the appeal is in reality made to God. “The God of the peace,” peace with the article in the sense of “the divine peace,” names him as the fountain of this schalom and conceives this εἰρήνη or peace objectively as the state or condition that is established by him, into which we enter, in which we dwell, which we are given to enjoy. It is “the peace” of God in the soteriological sense as the apposition shows.

This apposition presents the God of the (divine) peace as “the One who brought again from the dead the Shepherd of the sheep, the great one, in connection with blood of an eternal testament” and names this great Shepherd as “our Lord Jesus.” While the wording “the God of peace” is Pauline (Rom. 15:33; 1 Thess. 5:23) and “the Shepherd of the sheep” is an Old Testament allusion (Isa. 40:11; Ezek. 34:23), which both Jesus and Peter adopted (John 10:11, 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4), the main thing to note is the correspondence of “peace” with the imagery of “the great Shepherd of the sheep.” Under this Shepherd’s staff there is divine peace indeed.

Israel had other shepherds, but they died and passed on; this Shepherd is “the Great One” (note “Great High Priest” in 4:14) because God “brought him again from the dead” by a glorious resurrection and did this “in connection with blood of an eternal testament.” The nouns are qualitative and thus without articles. No other shepherd like this one did Israel ever have. Perhaps there is an allusion to Zech. 9:11: “the blood of thy covenant (testament)”; but why not think of Jesus’ own word “my blood of the new testament” (Matt. 26:28) and of all that this epistle has to say about this very testament and about the blood by which it is established? A new word, “eternal,” is applied to “testament” (on διαθήκη see 7:22); yet all that has been said about this testament has fully shown it to be eternal indeed.

It is the covenant or testament that was received by Abraham. It was at first promised, but this promise was duly fulfilled by Jesus, namely “in connection with his blood,” the expiatory power of which is permanent, eternal. The testament that was brought to Israel by Moses was only a temporary addition; Israel had lost its promises. The eternal seal upon the expiation of Jesus is his resurrection, when God brought him again “from the dead” (on this phrase see Matt. 17:10).

Ἐν puzzles some, but it means “in connection with blood,” etc., and modifies ὁἀναγαγών. The phrase connects God’s act of raising from the dead with the blood of Jesus as expiatory blood and thus blood of an eternal testament, blood that establishes eternal peace. Jesus was the great Shepherd of the sheep before he died (John 10:11), but as the One who lays down his life for the sheep (v. 15) even as he in due time also laid it down. There is no mixture of incompatible terms: the peace—the Shepherd—blood—eternal testament—brought back from the dead. The moment one understands these terms, they harmonize and put into compact form what this epistle presents at length.

This Shepherd’s name is effectively placed last: “our Lord Jesus.” The possessive “our” is always strongly confessional; it voices the faith of the writer and of his readers. We generally have the fuller form: “our Lord Jesus Christ”; as we have noted, the writer loves the simple name “Jesus,” but he now adds “our Lord” as the soteriological title. This Lord purchased and won us with his blood and made us his own, and he now rules us as his own with the rule of love and of grace; this is the meaning of “Lord.”

Hebrews 13:21

21 Καταρτίσαι is the optative of wish: this God, “may he fit you out (effective aorist) in every good thing (good in the sense of being beneficial for you) to do his will, he doing in you the thing well-pleasing before him” or “in his sight” (Phil. 2:13), and do all this “through Jesus Christ.” To do God’s will should not be restricted to doing what are called good works; it includes, above all, faith in Christ (John 6:40). To do his will (effective aorist infinitive) is not a matter which we are able to accomplish. All the admonitions that are addressed to the readers in this epistle are not to be understood in this way. God must fit us out in an effective manner (aorist), in fact, he must then continue doing (present participle) in us the thing that is well-pleasing in his eyes. We are to do, yet all the while God is doing. This is the blessed concursus of grace.

This very epistle exhibits it: through it God is doing his work in the readers; and so by doing it the readers will do his will, and thus God will produce in them the thing that is pleasing before him. This phrase is Hebraistic but juridical, “well-pleasing” when we stand before him in order to be judged.

The διά phrase modifies the optative together with all its other modifiers: the whole wish, all that God is to do and thus the readers are to do, all of it is to be accomplished “through Jesus Christ” who is the Alpha and Omega of all God’s saving work and of our work as this is wrought by God. The Savior is mentioned three times in this prayer-wish.

Is the doxology directed to God or to Jesus Christ? We cannot compare it with Rom. 16:25–27 because in that passage the relative is resumptive of the dative τῷδυναμένῳ while the relative is not resumptive here since v. 20 begins with the nominative ὁΘεός. Commentators are divided: some apply the doxology to God, others to “Jesus Christ.” Read the whole prayer aloud and note the effect. We must say for ourself that we believe that the ascription of glory is made to Jesus Christ. The sonorous εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας seems to crown the διαθήκηςαἰωνίου that preceded. Still more important: this entire epistle intends to magnify Christ even as three designations for him appear in this prayer.

He it is to whom “the glory,” the glorification, the praise and honor, are ascribed at the end. The intent of the writer is manifest, namely to apply to him this doxology which Jews constantly apply to God. So Jesus is elevated in chapter 1, so he is now again elevated. It is not merely the grammar that decides, it is the weight of the thought.

We do not supply a copula, neither the optative: “to whom be,” etc., nor the indicative: “to whom is” (i. e., belongs). This doxological ending is exclamatory and thus needs no copula; it is stronger without one. The phrase: εἰςτοὺςαἰῶναςτῶναἰώνων = “to all eternity.” “The eons of the eons” is really a superlative which is formed by adding the genitive to the accusative. While these expressions are terms that indicate time, the multiplication eons of eons is the Greek way of indicating “eternity,” which is also a term that indicates time. Human language has no other kind of term or terms to express what is not time in any sense, what is in reality the opposite of all time and is, therefore, inconceivable to the human mind.

Like other such doxologies, this one, too, ends with “amen,” the seal of verity, which is always intended as a confession of faith and of deepest conviction. “Amen” is only the Hebrew word for “truth.” It has been taken over unchanged into other languages and is used as faith’s solemn seal.

Hebrews 13:22

22 Now I urge you, brethren, to bear with this word of urging, for I have written to you briefly. “I urge” and this word “of urging” are a paronomasia. The writer confesses that he has been urging in his entire letter. He asks that the readers bear with him for doing so. Καὶγάρ is etenim. When he says that he has written to them (epistolary aorist) only “briefly,” this is said in view of the greatness of the subject and of the personal interests involved. The writer betrays a little of Paul’s feeling who, too, wrote in order to keep congregations true and was anxious about the manner in which his urgings would be received by his readers.

Hebrews 13:23

23 You know that our brother Timothy has left, in company with whom, as soon as he comes, I will see you.

If this is an indicative, the writer refers to what the readers already know about Timothy; if it is an imperative, the writer offers this news to his readers. “Our brother” intends to say that he is a brother to the readers and to the writer. Timothy was well known to these readers in Rome, for he had been with Paul often during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome when Paul converted so many of the Jews of the seven synagogues of Rome. If, as we feel rather certain, Apollos was the writer, it seems entirely natural to find him waiting for Timothy in order to return to Rome with him. Paul was dead. Timothy needed no longer to supervise the churches in the province of Asia where Paul had placed him, for about this time, when the Jewish war began, the apostle John, a greater than Timothy, had come to Ephesus in order to remain there as the leader of the Asian churches.

The Greek commentators regard ἀπολελυμένον as a passive and then take it to mean that Timothy “has been released from prison,” or they regard it as a middle, “has left and is now absent as this letter is being written.” If the former were the meaning, we think that the aorist participle would have been used; the perfect is far more in place to indicate the latter idea, for this tense then explains that Timothy is still absent since he has gone on some mission for the time being, but that he will soon rejoin the writer by returning. Those who think that Paul is the writer of this letter regard the participle as a reference to a release from imprisonment. This idea also changes the time of the writing by dating it during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome and presupposes that Timothy, too, had somehow been confined in prison. We cannot accept this view. The writer is separated from Timothy and is awaiting his return. The construction of γινώσκω with the participle is classic.

As soon as Timothy returns, the writer (Apollos) intends to go “in company with him” (μετά) to see the readers in Rome. He does not plan to go alone; the readers know Timothy so well that he will be a great help to the writer in holding the readers to their Christian faith. The expression ἐὰντάχιονἔρχηται = “as soon as he comes.” Unlike v. 19, τάχιον does not have the comparative idea here, see B.-P. 1291 on ταχέως: bald, alsbald. See also Riggenbach on the meaning of the clause.

Hebrews 13:24

24 Salute all your leading ones and all the saints. On ἀσπάσασθε, the common imperative used with regard to those to be greeted, see Rom. 16:3–16, where it is used repeatedly. It asks the readers to express the salutation of the writer to each other. This was commonly done by kissing one another, by doing this in place of the absent writer as if the kiss came from him, and, of course, using appropriate words. The leaders are honored by a separate mention, which is in harmony with v. 17. “Saints” is the common term used in the early church to designate true believers, see Acts 9:13. As “saints” they are separated unto God, made holy by the blood of Christ through faith and through a holy life. The Old Testament Jewish conception has advanced to the great Christian conception as is seen for instance in Eph. 1:1: οἱἅγιοικαὶπιστοί.

There salute you those from Italy = the Italians send their greetings. Much has been written about these Italians, about who they were, and especially about where they were, whether in Italy at the writer’s side or outside of Italy with him. We do not care to review the different opinions; it is enough to offer our own. We take these Italians to be associates of Apollos, who were present with him outside of Italy. We have no idea where the epistle was written; the postscript in our A. V. and other postscripts are valueless.

Several Italians traveled with Apollos and Timothy in the interest of the churches. Whether one or the other of them haled from Rome we are unable to say. Paul found brethren at Puteoli (Acts 28:14). At the time when this letter was written Italy had a number of churches. So these were Italian workers who were with Apollos and Timothy. These send their greetings.

That is all. Is is asked why the congregation at the place where the epistle was written sent no greetings. If we knew where the letter was written we might be able to answer this question.

Hebrews 13:25

25 The (divine) grace with you all. Amen. see Titus 3:15.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.