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).

3. Hebrews 13:22-25 -- The Context of Hebrews at Corinth/Ephesus

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
______________________
1. Here's the hypothesis. Argument to follow. We, of course, don't know for certain.

Apollos is at Corinth or Ephesus. Timothy has just been released from jail somewhere not far away. Priscilla and Aquilla are there with Apollos. The churches of Ephesus have become more diverse in the last ten years with the arrival of refugees from Jerusalem during the Jewish War -- including John the son of Zebedee.

Some of this cadre had probably visited Rome in the meantime. It makes sense that while Paul was under house arrest in Rome for two years, Timothy and others would have made their way there to visit him. The audience knows this group of church leaders based in the Greece/Ephesus area.

These last two years have been hard. Jerusalem was destroyed. The temple burned to the ground. John was martyred at Ephesus. About the only original follower of Jesus now left standing is John the elder, who wasn't one of the twelve.

Apollos and Timothy plan to visit the churches of Rome soon. But given the drama of watching Rome kill all the captives from Jerusalem, Apollos worries that their faith might be wavering. He sends this sermon, this "word of exhortation" ahead of them to prepare the way.

What if this is the context of Hebrews 13:22-25?

Of course, there are seemingly endless other possibilities. More than any other part of Hebrews, these verses sound like Paul (see the previous post for arguments against Paul as author). Some suggest the author is Priscilla and that she is somewhat obscuring her identity (I don't see it, although it would be great). A couple key scholars think it is being written from Ephesus to Corinth. [1] 

I get it. Apollos to Corinth. Would make sense. But also notice that Timothy doesn't seem to be in the same place as the author. If Timothy was at Ephesus -- as 1 and 2 Timothy seem to imply -- then a little journey to join Apollos at Corinth would fit our traditions.

In any case...

2. And now the argument. The first twelve chapters of Hebrews are a sermon, a "word of exhortation" (13:22). But they were a "sent sermon." The author was in another location, maybe Corinth or Ephesus. He knew the audience, possibly in Rome. He planned to visit them soon. He was sending this letter ahead because he felt like they needed it to bolster their faith.

The audience also knew Timothy (13:23). At that time, he had just been released from jail -- perhaps at Ephesus. This is after Paul's time. Paul probably died around 62 in Rome at the end of his house arrest in Acts. [2] That was now almost ten years now in the past.

In the years since Paul died, surely much had happened at Ephesus. There are traditions that some of the apostles came to Ephesus, most notably John the son of Zebedee. [3] I personally suspect that the earliest part of the book of Revelation dates to the last days of the Jewish War, just a year or two before the Gospel of Mark and the sermon of Hebrews. John was then probably martyred in the environs of Ephesus, maybe on the isle of Patmos. [4]

Ephesus would soon become a somewhat theologically diverse set of churches. You had the earliest Pauline layer. Hebrews reflects it. You had a rising Jerusalem oriented layer, strengthened by the presence of John the son of Zebedee there. Revelation represents it. 

Another John, the elder, possibly the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John, would have great influence there in the last part of the century. [5] The Gnostic movement at Ephesus would grow to power in the midst of his ministry (cf. 1 John 2:19). It was a very Hellenistic -- Greek influenced -- branch of Christianity.

2. "Those from Italy greet you" (Heb. 13:24). It is very tempting to think this refers to Priscilla and Aquila. Wherever we think they were in Romans 16, 2 Timothy 4:19 has them at Ephesus at the end of Paul's life. They were of course from Rome (cf. Acts 18:2), so a letter to Rome might easily mention them.

3. We've already mentioned that Hebrews was a "word of exhortation." It's a homily or a short sermon. It has no letter introduction. Its beginning is far too magnificent to cloud with a mundane greeting.

Besides, the letter would be sent with someone who would make it abundantly clear who it was from.

Apollos is only a guess since we don't know. His name was not suggested in writing by the early church. Martin Luther in the 1500s is the first he is mentioned as a possibility.

But there is a reason, chiefly the cumulative (superficial) parallels with the writings of Philo. Apollos was from Alexandria and Philo taught at Alexandria. Apollos has the level of education that the author of Hebrews surely had.

Luke is sometimes suggested. On writing style, this is very possible. However, Luke's theology seems quite distinct from that of Hebrews. Acts 7 comes the closest to Hebrews' theology, and it is generally an outlier in the general attitude of Acts toward Jerusalem. In general, Luke-Acts is strongly oriented around the future kingdom of God on earth while Hebrews demonstrates much more of a dualism.

It is interesting to see Hebrews on a continuum that moves to the dualism of John and then on to the dualism of Gnosticism. Just maybe, this was in the water at Ephesus.

[1] Chiefly, Hugh Montefiore and Luke Timothy Johnson.

[2] This is not the most popular reconstruction, but it is the most likely. The last nine chapters of Acts repeatedly foreshadow Paul's death. He tells the Ephesians he'll never see them again (Acts 20:25). Agabas warns him not to go to Jerusalem, and Paul says he is ready to die (21:10-14). Agrippa II and the Roman governor Festus both agree it is a shame he appealed to Caesar because he was clearly innocent (26:31-32). These do not prove that Paul died in Rome, but the most likely way to take these comments is that they are foreshadowing a bad outcome.

The dating of Luke similarly is not really ambiguous. Both Matthew and Luke give hints that they were written after the temple's destruction. Matthew does it in the way he tells the Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt. 22:7). Luke does it in the way he paraphrases Jesus' abomination of desolations statement (Luke 21:20). The fact that they both use Mark is another prong in this argument, since Mark also was also likely written around the time of Jerusalem's destruction (cf. Mark 13:14 -- "let the reader understand").

It is often protested, "Then why doesn't Acts tell us what happened to Paul. Don't you think he would have told us?" This is a narcissistic answer. Acts wasn't written to us. The original audience knew. He didn't need to tell them.

Acts is not some mere history book. It has clear theological and ideological tendencies. Acts is making an argument, and a key piece of that argument is that Christians -- and Paul -- were not troublemakers. Rather, their opponents oppressed them and stirred up problems all around them. The way Acts ends fits beautifully with this purpose. He implies Paul's innocence without saying Caesar was wrong. He stays far away from that puppy!

None of the above items are particularly ambiguous to me. They seem the obvious  and most natural way to interpret this data. Why would anyone question these conclusions? Sentimentality. I recognize the impulse because it once was me. It is an intellectually perverse drive to find alternative interpretations to fit a narrative that feels better -- even though no item of faith is at stake.

[3] One tradition is that John brought Mary, Jesus' mother there, but I consider it far more likely that she was dead by this time. The tradition probably grew out of John 19:27.

[4] The reason to suspect his martyrdom is because Mark seems to allude to it (Mark 10:39). The confusion is because the Beloved Disciple was possibly another disciple of Jesus who was also named John -- John the elder. Papias, writing in the early second century, mentions a "John the elder" at Ephesus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.4).

Given the style and theological differences between the Gospel of John and Revelation, it has been suggested since the early church that these were two different Johns (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24–25). To me, Revelation sounds like it came from a "son of thunder" (cf. Mark 3:17). So it seems reasonable to think that the bulk of the Johannine corpus grew from the ministry of John the elder at Ephesus. See Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (SCM, 1989).

[5] See note 4 above.