HEBREWS
XIII. 10-16
To begin with, it seems violent
indeed to take “those that serve the tabernacle” in xiii. 10 as being the
Christian worshippers, as some do. This necessitates, for one thing that οι λατρευοντες should be the subject (or the
same people as the subject) of εχομεν.
Also it is a most surprising expression of the Christian worshippers are really
meant. Furthermore, it makes the passage a protest against the realistic
Eucharistic doctrine. But this is very unlikely. There is, for one thing, the
author’s general approval of sacramentalism as revealed in vi. 2. Then,
besides, it is most improbable we would find any great leader of the church
protesting against a doctrine we have already seen . . . to have been generally
received and of primitive origin. Still less likely is it that his work would
have been canonized had he done so. Finally, even if he disapproved the
realistic belief, he could not have combated it by urging his readers to imitate
the faith of those who had held it, nor by stressing the immutability of Christian
teaching of which it was a part. Nor is it likely he could have referred to it
as diverse and strange (ξενοις)
teaching. Thus only if our conclusions above are utterly false can this interpretation
be considered to have the slightest probability.
Secondly, the two γαρ’s in verses 9 and 11 must be given their natural force if it is
reasonably possible. The “diverse and strange teachings,” then, must be or
include the strengthening of the heart by meats instead of (or as well as) by
grace; because the fact that Christians should have their hearts established by
grace, not by meats, is the reason they should avoid being carried away
by these divers and strange doctrines. Also the O.T. rule quoted in xiii. 11
must be the reason why those who serve the tabernacle have no right to
eat of the Christian altar.
Thirdly, the word “eat” must be
taken literally, not figuratively, as meaning “to partake of the spiritual
benefits of the sacrifice.” For the whole purpose of offering the sin-offerings
was in order that the benefits might be gained. It was only the strictly
physical, literal eating which was forbidden. The argument here is pure
nonsense if appropriation of the spiritual benefits is all that is meant.
Fourthly, it is unlikely the “diverse
and strange teachings” concern ordinary foods, whether we think of the O.T.
laws as to clean and unclean foods, or of dualistic objections to certain foods
and drinks in Gentile circles. For in neither of these cases, I believe, was it
ever thought that teaching certain foods strengthened the heart, but rather
that eating other and improper foods “defiled the heart,” so to speak. It is
not permissible to interpret the writer negatively when he has spoken
positively, unless it is impossible to avoid doing so.
Fifthly, we conclude, from the
immediately preceding results, that it is a question here of sacrificial “meats”
which were supposed to bestow some positive benefits; and which, moreover, the
Christians might be tempted to use by the plausible argument that their own
religion had no true sacrificial meal and hence needed to be supplemented in
this respect by partaking of either Gentile or Jewish sacrificial meals. This
inference seems to be strongly confirmed by the general trend of the argument,
by the use of “altar” in xiii. 10, and by the reason adduced in xiii. 11.
Sixthly, it will make difference,
as far as the Eucharistic teaching of the passage goes, whether the sacrifices
n which the Christians were being tempted to share were Gentilic of Jewish. If
the latter, the argument is perfectly simple and direct. If the former, it is
less direct, but a fortiori. In this case, the author means that if even
the authentically Divine sacrificial meats of the O.T. had profited their uses
nothing, how much less will the pseudo-sacrificial meats among the Gentiles
profit any!
Seventhly, xiii. 8 gives the
reason why the Christian Faith does not change (because Christ, its giver, does
not); and why consequently the present generation should imitate (hold fast to)
the faith of those from whom they had received the tradition. Then xiii. 9a
draws, from the general truth enforced by xiii. 7-8, the general inference that
new and strange doctrines contrary to what had been received ought to be
avoided. Then he narrows down the general principle of xiii. 7-9a and
applies it to the particular danger he has in mind, at the same time backing up
the general argument with a more specific one (xiii. 9b and c).
Then he goes on to give a more fundamental answer to the specific point to
which he passed on in xiii. 9b. He denies the very premise on which the
argument that tempted the Christians was based. It is not true that the
Christian religion lacks its sacrificial “meats” and therefore needs to be
supplemented in that respect. We have, on the contrary, a sacrifice on which we
feed; and if this sacrificial food is indeed of a different sort from that
eaten in other religions, it is not because it is inferior to theirs, but
rather because it is superior. In fact, we have a sacrifice of which we alone
may eat—namely our Sin-offering (which is Christ).
Therein we surpass even the Jewish
religion (which to the author is unquestionably the highest and truest religion
outside of Christianity—yea the only one that was in any sense true). Because
even the Jews were not allowed to feast on their sin-offerings, though of
course they did on their other sacrifices. Thus we Christians have an
absolutely new and unique and supremely perfect sacrificial meal which puts us
far ahead of those to whom you are tempted to join yourselves. Their sacrificial
meals would profit nothing anyway, even if we had none better of our own. Bu in
fact we have, and it is one inch we eat not ordinary meats but the spiritual,
glorified body and blood of Christ, who suffered for us as our Sin-offering. In
eating of this we receive bountiful Divine grace by which the heart can really
be strengthened. (Felix L. Cirlot, The Early Eucharist [London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1939], 130-33)
