7Remember your leaders who taught you the word of God. Think of all the good that has come from their lives, and follow the example of their faith. 8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9So do not be attracted by strange, new ideas. Your strength comes from God’s grace, not from rules about food, which don’t help those who follow them. 10We have an altar from which the priests in the Tabernacle have no right to eat. 11Under the old system, the high priest brought the blood of animals into the Holy Place as a sacrifice for sin, and the bodies of the animals were burned outside the camp. 12So also Jesus suffered and died outside the city gates to make his people holy by means of his own blood. 13So let us go out to him, outside the camp, and bear the disgrace he bore. 14For this world is not our permanent home; we are looking forward to a home yet to come. 15Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name. 16And don’t forget to do good and to share with those in need. These are the sacrifices that please God. 17Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.
Hebrews 13:7-17
You will see that I have made a change to the layout of the passage for this verse. The reason being a couple of readers have told me they were confused by having verses 8 to 13 all coloured as I had them, when only one verse was in focus each time. The reason I have kept the colouring for all verses is because all six verses contain difficult elements and all of these verses fit together. As I have written before, our challenge is to exegete each verse one by one but then to interpret each verse ultimately in the midst of the combination of all 6 verses and in the context of all eleven verses (namely Hebrews 13:7-17). Our difficulty in this passage is that each of the verses I have coloured involve difficult elements to interpret. By giving you the coloured verses each time I have been keeping the whole passage with its difficulties always before us, or at least before me. Then I give you the specific verse we are looking with each new Gem emboldened.
10We have an altar from which the priests in the Tabernacle have no right to eat.
What is difficult about this verse? The words seem plain enough. Peshat, the basic level of Hebrew interpretation, says to take the simple, most obvious meaning from the verse as we read it.
Greek
ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες.
{we have} {an altar} {from which} not {to eat} not have authority those {in the} tabernacle serving
Literal
(Literal Version) We have an altar of which those serving the tabernacle have no authority to eat.
(Literal Standard Version) we have an altar from which they who are serving the Dwelling Place have no authority to eat,
Dynamic Equivalence
(Complete Jewish Bible) We have an altar from which those who serve in the Tent are not permitted to eat.
(Uma Back Translation) We, we have an altar [lit., offering burning table]. Priest(s) who work in the Jewish Worship Tent cannot / may not eat at that altar of ours. (Courtesy of Michael Martens)
The words are simple; the meaning is complex. We have a finely balanced statement which is deliberately contrastive. “We have” |versus| “they do not have”. Who are “we” and who are “they”? “We”, the contemporaries of the author of Hebrews, are being compared with “those in the tabernacle serving”. This latter combination of words is a complex imbedded noun phrase. A normal way of saying it would be “Those serving in the tabernacle” the Greek of which would be [οἱ λατρεύοντες τῇ σκηνῇ] However the words for “in the tabernacle” have been cleverly placed inside the phrase for “those serving” resulting in a complicated double noun phrase with one element tucked inside the other. It’s rather a clever way of making “those serving in the Tabernacle” stand out. That embedded noun phrase at the end of the verse now contrasts with the “we” at the front of the verse. “We” is most definitely contrasted with “those {in the tabernacle} serving”.
My friend and colleague, Michael Martens send me his most recent edit of this verse in the Uma translation. Notice the way Michael has captured the contrast in this verse: “We, we have an altar” contrasts with “the Priest(s) who work in the Jewish Worship Tent and who cannot / may not eat at that altar of ours.” There is much going on in this verse which I will point out as we continue our investigation. As is said these days: It’s complicated. Can the priests who work in the tabernacle be priests who are in the tabernacle today? No. As Michael has spelled out in the Uma translation, the priests being referred to here are the priests of the Old Covenant system. They cannot eat at the altar that is ours.
Have you noticed the variation going on between the sample translations I have given you above? I am talking about the variations in the translations between ‘Tabernacle’, ‘tabernacle’, ‘Dwelling Place’, ‘tent’ and ‘Jewish Worship Tent’. [σκηνη] can be all those terms and more. I would suggest you take another look at the Gems I wrote between Gem 2113 and 2116 to refresh your mind on all that is included in the word [skēnē] and its derivatives. I am sure when you have done that you will understand better why there is variation between the terms used in the translations for this verse. It is deeper than you imagine. All of the significance of Gem 2116 is packed into this comparison between the altar we have and the altar the Priests in the Tabernacle under the Old Testament system represented.
The significance doesn’t lie just in the terms used here: altar and skēnē. It also has to do with what they could not eat. The word picture of the Day of Atonement was in mind at this point. The sacrifice on the Day of Atonement was not to be eaten. One of the sacrifices was burnt and the other was taken outside the camp and released to carry the sins of the people into the wilderness and die. This was the scapegoat. Unlike the other sacrifices which the priests were allowed to eat, these two sacrifices were not to be eaten. (Lev 6:30 and 16:27). It is this word picture which lies behind the words of Hebrews 13:10. Jesus is the once-for-all Sin Offering releases New Covenant worshippers from the Old Covenant system. The writer of Hebrews has previously made it clear to us Jesus is the sacrificial offering and the Great High Priest. For Christians, it is not a matter of “eating” this unique sacrifice but of identifying with it. To be in the system under the Old Covenant was to be excluded from the benefits of all the Day of Atonement offering stood for. Thus the author of Hebrews could state quite succinctly, “We have an altar which the priests in the Tabernacle have no authority to eat.” The contrast that is being stated here is the difference between the Old and New Testament systems, that which I summed up in Gem 2116.
Many commentators have tried to find an analogy between the altar stated here under the New Testament system. It has been suggested that the altar is the communion table; that is not the case. It has been suggested it is the cross; that is also incorrect. Others have suggested that Jesus Himself is the altar with all sorts of contrivance to attempt to make that point stick. I don’t believe the writer of Hebrews was saying that at all. I think he was meaning something else altogether different which I will draw out when we look at the verses which follow verse 10. The Cross and Christ’s sacrificial death for us lies at the heart of this statement as the author clearly had the Day of Atonement in mind, but we don’t have to find the altar represented in the New Covenant. Rather the author’s mind switches to the phrase “outside the camp” or “outside the gates” which he uses three times in the following verses. Not only that, the following verses give us the explanation as to why the author has written this passage in the way he has. Many commentators seem intent on identifying the altar in New Testament terms in order to determine what our New Testament equivalent of the altar is. I don’t think that was the purpose of the author of Hebrews at all. He was using this passage to say something else, something in line with the theme of his letter throughout.
In the next Gem we will address verses 11-13 in my attempt to make the writer’s purpose clear. Specifically to address Kevin’s question as to the three fold repetition of ‘outside the camp’ or ‘outside the gates’. Once we have dealt with Hebrews 13:11-13 I will try to pull it all together. It is as I have stated complicated and there are many threads that need to be drawn together.
We just can’t fully grasp the subtleties that are expressed in the biblical words which can go right over our head.
Ian
If I had a million brains I could not fully process all the ways God is working around me right now for my good and His glory.
Louie Giglio
If we only knew the true intimacy of the Presence of God we would crave it more and make it our number one priority.
Ian
When you get a glimpse of the subtlety and depth of the Word of God, doesn’t it make you want to live in that moment more often?
Ian
It is not at all incredible, that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind should contain many truths as yet undiscovered.
Bishop Butler
When you begin to understand the depth of God’s Word and you understand the limitless nature of it, it’s then that you want to plumb its depths for all you’re worth.
Ian
When faced with the fullness and depth of the Word of God, don’t approach It with a teaspoon, at least take a bucket!
Ian
Yes you counted right, I have given you seven quotes; it just seemed appropriate.