4 -- Hebrews' Closing Clues (13:1-19)

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus
______________________________
What clues might Hebrews 13 give us about the story of Hebrews? The hypothesis. The church is coming off a time of persecution, possibly in the wake of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction. Leaders have died. Others are still in jail. Maybe, Apollos and Timothy are planning to visit Rome again. Or insert a different name and destination.

In the wake of the temple's destruction, synagogue meals have taken on a heightened importance. What other formal connection to atonement is left at this moment in time? So being kicked out of the synagogue was even more devastating than before.

The author reminds them that they have a table (the Lord's Supper) that is connected to the one truly effective sacrifice of Christ -- not the sense of "you need to participate to get atonement" but in the sense of "you don't need to worry about being excluded from the synagogue." Note that God-fearers could participate and be excluded from the synagogue too.

Now the details.

1. "We do not have a city here that remains but we are seeking the one that remains" (Heb. 13:14). The verse doesn't necessarily mean that Jerusalem has been destroyed.

But it might. 

Jerusalem is the city in question. The author has just talked about how Jesus suffered outside the gate of Jerusalem. That's what Romans did. They crucified people on major thoroughfares into the city to make an example of them.

Apollos (for the sake of argument) wants the believers of Rome (for the sake of argument) to "eat the shame" of being followers of Jesus. He uses the analogy of the Day of Atonement, where the high priest takes the blood of the sacrificed into the Most Holy Place. The carcasses, however, are taken outside the camp, just like Jesus' body died outside Jerusalem.

Could there be a "twin shame" here? There is first the shame of being a Christian Jew (whether ethnically Jewish or a proselyte). You are shamed by the mainstream Jewish community, which is increasingly rejecting Jesus followers. If Jesus followers primarily rejected the Jewish War, this could have led to an even more profound ostracism.

Then, just maybe, there is the shame of being associated with the city the Romans have just destroyed, just like they crucified Jesus outside the gate. Bearing shame is a major feature of Hebrews. [1] We see it not least in 12:2, where the example of Jesus "despising the shame" is given as a model for the audience to emulate. 

Clearly, they are experiencing some "shame fatigue."

2. "Don't be led astray by various strange teachings" (13:9).

This is one of the more cryptic comments in Hebrews. The author seems to have some specific kinds of teachings in mind, because he goes on to warn them that "foods" do not establish one's heart before God. What foods does he have in mind? Well, it would seem to be sacrificial foods of some kind because he lifts up  the "foods" believers are privileged to eat that "those who serve the tent" cannot eat.

What a strange comment! For one, he doesn't speak of the temple but of the wilderness tent. As we will see, the book of Hebrews nowhere explicitly mentions the Jerusalem temple. Like Philo, the argument is a theological exploration rather than a concrete one. I would argue this makes a lot of sense especially if the temple has been destroyed. The author is "starting with why" the whole sanctuary thing existed in the first place.

Throughout most of church history, Jerusalem was a favored suggestion for the destination of Hebrews. Perhaps these verses would give the strongest argument. How could you eat from the "table of the tent" anywhere in the world but Jerusalem?

But it seems much more likely to be metaphorical. We can eat from the Lord's table and Jerusalem priests can't -- if they're not believers. 

But he tells them to stay away from strange teachings. This suggests that we're going to have a hard time guessing what alternative he has in mind. It's strange. A sacrificial meal in Jerusalem isn't strange. It's normal.

3. So let's speculate a little. It involves foods of some kind. And, "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent do not have authority to eat." So the food is thought in some way to represent a sacrificial meal someone might have in the temple -- except it's not in Jerusalem.

Yep, that's strange alright.

We're looking for a practice that claims to function like a temple meal. The best candidate I can think of is synagogue meals or synagogue meals associated with certain key Jewish festivals. [2] 

Even before the temple was destroyed, there is some reason to believe that many Jews saw synagogue meals as extensions of, perhaps even proxies for temple meals.  After the temple was destroyed, it seems even more likely that this sort of sentiment would have exploded in significance. We can hear the argument: "Now that there aren't temple sacrifices being offered, participation in the synagogue meal is essential for atonement." [3]

So, here's the hypothesis. In the absence of the temple, synagogue meals took on an even greater significance than before (or perhaps certain key synagogue meals did, such as the one on Yom Kippur). You can hear the argument -- "If you are not part of the synagogue, you are cut off from (what is left of) the atonement system."

The author's counterargument is that participation in the communal meals of the Christian assembly -- the Lord's supper, in other words -- is more than equivalent. It is a table connected to the one effective sacrifice for all time as opposed to a table connected to the (no longer offered) sacrifices that merely represented Jesus' one true sacrifice. [4] Believers had authority to eat from the true table.

And believers continue to offer sacrifices of praise to God (13:15). Indeed, doing good and sharing fellowship is a pleasing sacrifice to God as well (13:16). The church is a "cultic" community, just as almost certainly the synagogue community was viewed.

4. "Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Observing the outcome of their conduct, imitate their faith" (13:7).

The most natural way to take this verse is that the leaders of the (perhaps Roman) church have been martyred. The author urges the audience to demonstrate the same faithfulness that they did. Indeed, the whole point of Hebrews 11 is to spur the audience to continued faithfulness in the light of those who have gone before.

When did these leaders die? They certainly may have died in the Neronian persecution ca. 64. 

Could individuals like Paul and Peter be in view? It's possible, although it doesn't fit the verse as well as the community's own leaders, since Paul was under house arrest when he was there, and Peter probably was not in Rome too long before he was martyred.

This points to a date at least in the late 60s, and a date around 71 or 72, as I am suggesting, would fit as well. [5]

The well-known verse -- "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever" (13:8) -- was not just a general theological statement. The context tells us the author is telling the audience that they can rely on Jesus today just like their leaders relied on him yesterday. So they will always be able to rely on his atonement forever. 

This sense of the eternal efficacy of Jesus' blood was a new stage in the early church's sesnse of the scope of Jesus' atonement.

5. "Remember those in prison" (13:3). This at least makes us think of Timothy, who had just been released (13:23). We get the impression that the church is recovering from a hard time, perhaps a global hard time. While there were no empire-wide persecutions of Christians this early, the wake of the Neronian persecution or the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem probably fit this tone best.

6. "Obey your leaders" (13:17). Their job is to watch over your souls. In every generation, the people of the church can be in tension with those who watch over their souls. Similarly, of course, leaders can be tempted to "lord it over" congregations in every generation.

7. This final chapter also has some instruction of a general nature -- the kind that you might hear on a Sunday morning in any sermon.

• Love each other (13:1). The early church struggled with this just like we do.
• Show hospitality to strangers (13:2). This is a notable verse because there are voices that want to limit the church's love to those inside the church. Hebrews extends the love to strangers. This is also a curious verse in its mention that angels sometimes walk among us, possibly an allusion to Genesis 18 and the men who visited Abraham.
•  Be faithful to your marriages (13:4). In all times and all places, this is a concern because fallen human nature always struggles with sexual temptation.
• Don't be overcome with the love of money (13:5). Again, a problem for certain people in every generation. Be content with what you have.

Hebrews quotes a couple verses to support the idea that we can depend on God (rather than money). "I will never forsake you" (Josh. 1:6) and "The Lord is my helper. I will not fear what a mortal might do to me" (Psalm 118:6) puts together two verses in a way only done elsewhere this way in Philo. In fact, there are several quotations in Hebrews that parallel Philo's way of quoting them exactly -- and found in those forms nowhere else. Drip, drip, Apollos.

[1] See David deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (SBL, 2008).

[2] Philo's description of the Therapeutae's celebration of Pentecost in On the Contemplative Life seems to see their meal as analogous to eating the table of presentation in the temple.

[3] I first encountered this speculation in relation to the temple sacrifice in Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge University, 1991).  

[4] It is not widely held, but W. E. Brooks once suggested that they may have continued to offer sacrifices on the temple mount even after the temple was destroyed: "The Perpetuity of Christ's Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews" JBL 89 (1970): 205-14.

[5] Although we come at the question from slightly different angles, the work of Jason Whitlark fits very well with my dating here. E.g., Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of the Letter "To the Hebrews" (T & T Clark, 2014).

Targum of Hebrews 13:9-16

I love the idea of targum--an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture.  The Jews did it.  Arguably there is a significant element of this in the NT use of the OT, as well as in the early phase of copying the New Testament.  The old idea that they counted line by line to make sure they didn't miss anything applied to the Masoretes 1000 years later, not to the biblical authors and early Christians.  The Message was much more the name of the game than the ESV.

I'd love to do a targum on the whole New Testament, but I doubt any publisher would be interested.  But here's my targum on Hebrews 13:9-16:

"Do not be carried away with the varied, strange, Levitical substitutes that have arisen since the temple’s destruction. We should be confident in God’s grace through the sacrifice of Christ rather than in whatever foods some are now suggesting represent the foods they used to eat in the temple. We have the altar of Christ, a sacrificial altar from which those who only rely on the “wilderness tabernacle” do not have authority to eat. When Israel was in the wilderness, they took the carcasses of sacrificial animals outside the camp and burned them. Jesus’ body was also taken outside the gate of Jerusalem—our altar is not inside the camp, nor inside the earthly tent. Let us therefore go outside the camp, outside Jerusalem, and bear the reproach that Jesus bore when the Romans crucified him, just as the Romans have brought shame on us again by destroying Jerusalem and the temple. The earthly Jerusalem is not our true city anyway, and we should not expect it to remain forever. We belong instead to the heavenly Jerusalem that is coming. The sacrifices we should be offering now are sacrifices of praise, doing good deeds, and fellowship. We should not worry about the old temple sacrifices."

Date of Hebrews: Excerpt

I was happy with how this paragraph came out.  In context, I'm addressing arguments by David deSilva that  10:2 implies that sacrifices are still being offered at the time of writing, as well as Luke Timothy Johnson's argument that 8:13 implies that the cultus has not been destroyed yet.  Of course the use of the present tense has long been shown to be irrelevant to the case because Josephus, Clement, and others do the same long after the temple was destroyed.
____________
...When we therefore try to reconstruct the mindset of Jews toward the temple in the time between the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kochba revolt, we get a sense that the temple was physically destroyed but not permanently destroyed in their conceptual framework.  If we want to evaluate the possibility that Hebrews was written in this period, we have to forget that we know the temple was never rebuilt.  We have to picture a time when “various strange teachings” (13:9) might come into play as a coping mechanism until such time as the temple was re-established.  God had allowed the temple to be destroyed before, but once Israel’s sins were purged, he had faithfully seen it rebuilt.  So he would again.  This is the way we must expect many Jews to have thought in those years, and it is against such a backdrop that we must evaluate the possibility that Hebrews comes from this period.

Excerpt: Hebrews 13:9-14

Here's an excerpt from my writing today.  I'm discussing 13:9 and whether it might refer to participation in the temple cultus: "With various strange teachings do not be carried away, for it is good for the heart to be confident in [God’s] grace, not in foods that do not benefit those who walk in them."
________
... Two considerations, however, point in a different direction in this instance.  The first is the way the author describes the teaching in question.  Most interpreters render xenos in 13:9 as “strange.”  It is of course possible that, if the temple had continued to exist, a later Gentile Christian at some point might have described the normal operations of the temple cultus as "strange."  The question is whether anyone prior to 70CE would have, Jew or Gentile believer.  On the face of it, it does not seem very likely that any mainstream Christian--especially a Christian Jew--would describe the idea of the sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple as a "strange teaching."

Indeed, it seems unlikely that "strange teachings" relating to the Levitical cultus would have arisen while the temple was still standing.  In itself, this warning not to participate in miscellaneous and peculiar practices of a Levitical nature is one piece of an overall puzzle that we are arguing points to a post-70CE date for the sermon.  We can imagine that, in the absence of a temple, any number of synagogue and other practices might emerge intending to serve in some way as a substitute for the now defunct sanctuary. [1]  It is neither possible nor necessary for us to know exactly what they were, only to recognize the forces that make their existence more than plausible.

A second argument against the exhortation of 13:9 referring to temple sacrifices is the way that it arises in its literary context.  It is plausible enough that the central high priestly argument of Hebrews alludes to the operations of the Jerusalem temple in one way or another, even though it only refers explicitly to the wilderness tabernacle.  Although 13:9-14 alludes back to those earlier arguments, it seems to bring up a new issue, even if it is related.  These verses are part of a collection of miscellaneous instructions in the final chapter, the letter closing to the sermon.  This admonition about strange teachings is neither at the beginning of these final exhortations nor is it the final one.

It thus does not arise in a way that makes it seem like the central point of the whole sermon, which it would presumably be if it were about the Jerusalem temple.  Indeed, how odd it would be if, after so much generality in the bulk of the sermon, the author only got to the point in the letter conclusion, after the sermon part was already for all intents and purposes over!  It seems much more likely that this later instruction is related to the central argument but only in a somewhat peripheral way.

Accordingly, 13:9-14 does not affect our argument that Hebrews never argues against participation in the mainstream Levitical cultus.  Rather, its argument always urges the audience to rely positively on Christ as a means of atonement.  The audience can be confident in relation to what Christ has done.  While the author argues that the Levitical cultus did not take away sins and was ineffective as a means of atonement, he never then proceeds to say, "So do not participate in it." 

[1] Jukka Thoren, Barnabas Lindars***