Quotes, Allusions and Echoes in Hebrews 13

Now to finish up my brief tangent to Hebrews 13 by looking specifically at the possible references, allusions, and echoes of the temple's destruction in Hebrews 13.

13:3 "remember the prisoners"
If in fact Hebrews was written to the church at Rome not long after the Roman triumph in AD71 celebrating victory over the Jews, it is at least possible that some Roman Christian Jews were imprisoned in its wake and treated badly. Numerous Jews were brought back to Rome from Jerusalem and put to death after the Romans triumphally processed them through the streets.

Although there is an tradition of Jerusalem Christians fleeing Jerusalem to Pella just before its siege, we can presume that some Christians remained there to fight as well. For example, it is even possible that one of the disciples, Simon the Zealot, participated in the war against Rome. As is now commonly agreed, the Zealots did not exist as a specific group until around the time of the Jewish War. By the time Luke 6:15 was penned, the revolutionary group would likely have been what would come to mind.

Of course since Timothy has just been imprisoned somewhere other than Rome (13:23), we should not assume that the prisoners Hebrews has in mind were imprisoned in Rome. Apparently some crisis among Christians had taken place elsewhere as well. The Jewish War is in any case the best first century candidate for an event that would have created a climate of difficulty for Jews all over the world, including Christian Jews whose faith was probably more active than other Jews. Although there was never any intentional empire wide Roman persecution of Christians prior to AD250, the Jewish War might very well have created a brief approximation by coincidence.

13:5-6 Material difficulty around 71?
These verses hint of material hardship for the Roman audience. The Neronic persecution has often been suggested as the context. If there was hardship under Domitian, it would perhaps be a second possibility. However, the Neronic persecution is a better candidate for the prior persecution of the audience in which it lost some of its founding leaders (13:7). And the time of Domitian is pushing the time when Timothy was likely to continue in active ministry (13:23).

Difficulty in the wake of the temple's destruction is thus a strong candidate for such Roman hardship. When we look at the two Scriptural citations in search of possible echoes of this event, we find them. It is impossible to know whether the author had such contexts in mind, but we can at least suggest what they might be.

The statement "I will never leave you or forsake you" seems a splicing together of two or three Septuagint Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 31:6: "He will certainly neither leave you nor forsake you."

Joshua 1:5: "I will neither forsake you nor abandon you."

Genesis 28:15: "I will never forsake you until I do all things as I have spoken to you."

Deuteronomy 31 comes the closest, except it is in the first person of Joshua. And the Genesis passage has the "never" element.

This concoction of Scripture quotes was not the author of Hebrews' doing. The same exact combination appears only elsewhere in Philo, De Confusione 166. Apart from the somewhat Middle Platonic dualism of Hebrews, this parallel strongly adds to the case for an Alexandrian connection for the author.

In my opinion, Philo very likely wrote De Confusione before the Alexandrian "pogrom" and before the incident with Caligula. In my opinion, that means he wrote it before the political situation of Alexandria pulled him down from his days of more abstract philosophical speculation and indeed, a real strong flirtation with Hellenism in his early years (cf. Spec. 3.1). It would thus be difficult to link the origins of this Scriptural allusion to a specific political crisis in Alexandria.

However, Philo does make this citation in the context of desertion by God as discipline for the soul brought through the power of tyrants (Conf. 164-66). While Philo philosophizes this idea, it is quite possible that this verse was a commonplace in the Alexandrian synagogue for such situations where the people of Israel were oppressed. If so, then it would be an apt quote for the time just following the destruction of Jerusalem.

The second quote in 13:6 has similar potential echoes. Psalm 118:6 (117:6 LXX) has to do with the persecution and eventual vindication of the righteous. The other Christian prooftexts int he psalm ("the stone the builders rejected," "blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD") probably indicate that the earliest Christians primarily understood the psalm in relation to the sufferings and vindication of Jesus.

Nevertheless, 1 Peter 2:7 probably shows that the passage resonated around the time of the Jewish War (cf. 1 Pet. 5:13). The part of the psalm that Hebrews quotes in particular talks of not trusting in princes (118:9), even when all the nations surround you (118:10). Although we cannot prove the author was echoing these aspects of the psalm, it would certainly fit the context just following the temple's destruction if he was.

13:8 "Jesus Christ the same"
In the context of the past martyrdom of leaders and the present difficulty of the audience, the reminder that Jesus Christ is the same for them as he was in the past Neronic persecution would be apropos.

13:10 "those who serve the altar do not have authority to eat"
Recognizing Jared's argument that there probably were Levites scattered throughout the Diaspora even prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, I think it would be very speculative to suggest there were actual Levites in Rome tugging at the thoughts of the audience, even prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. And wouldn't the author more likely go literal in this "afterward" to the sermon if he were really talking about sacrifices at the literal Jerusalem temple at this point? And wouldn't he do so if it were still standing?

Although it is not a major piece of evidence, I'm arguing that the metaphor here fits better after the temple's destruction than before.

13:11-14 "we have no remaining city here"
The most likely allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple of all is in 13:14. The lead up to this verse speaks of going outside the camp in disgrace, like the unclean carcasses of the animals sacrificed. The train of thought equates the camp with a city, and clearly Jerusalem is by far the most likely candidate.

While a person might easily make such a comment prior to Jerusalem's destruction, it would be deeply ironic. It would just happen to turn out that the city this author said would not remain didn't remain within just a few years. On the other hand, no coincidence would be involved if in fact the author were alluding to a city that currently was not standing.

13:18-19,23 "pray for us," "we have a good conscience," "Timothy has been released"
The audience in Rome is experiencing difficulty. The author in a different location has been under scrutiny. Timothy in another place has just been in prison. Such widespread persecution could be coincidental. We have no evidence of an empire-wide persecution of Christians until the third century, so it is not a matter of some Roman decree.

We would argue, however, that the destruction of the Jerusalem likely created a climate of Jewish persecution on an empire-wide scale, not by design but by convergence. And since Christians were not distinguishable from mainstream Jews either internally or externally at this time, they would have partaken of it.

These are some possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Hebrews 13.