Observations to date suggest that the “altar” in Hebrews should be seen
as denoting the same piece of cultic equipment that Paul calls the “table of
the Lord”. Calling the eucharistic table an “altar” (θυσιαστηριον) makes its sacredness
as a sacrificial table unmistakably clear. Nevertheless, most scholars are
reluctant to see the “altar” in Hebrews as a sacred table. The reason for this
may be that they associate the word “altar” exclusively with one for slaughtering
animal sacrifices . . . But θυσιαστηριον can also mean the holy table. This then removes a
second misgiving, namely that it is impossible to image eating from an altar
(on which sacrificial animals are slaughtered). It may also be that the
formulation in the singular—“We (Christians) have an altar”—has led to
its being assumed to be merely a metaphor. The singular can be explained by
positing that the author must have based the letter on the concrete situation
of one particular community meeting for worship (Heb 10:25), which would have
had only one altar.
Instead of accepting what is given, the exegetes perform veritable
contortions in order to avoid the conclusion that the “altar” in Hebrews is
actually an altar. Franz Wieland wants to see it as Christ crucified on
Golgotha, an interpretation that is probably inspired more by the patristic
topos of the altar of the Cross than by the biblical text. George Gäbel assumes
that Heb 13:10 is speaking of the heavenly altar in contrast to the
earthly Jerusalem altar. Knut Backhaus does not even want to consider a heavenly
altar but instead sees in the altar “the cross standing before the sanctuary of
the divine presence or [. . .] the High Priest in his self-giving.” For him the
expression “We have an altar” indicates the present possession of
salvation and is to be understood as analogous to “We have [. . .] a
high priest” (Heb 8:1). But why should the High Priest on the Cross be referred
to with an abstruse altar metaphor for which there is absolutely no preparation
in the preceding text?
A close exegesis of the text is helpful if we want to escape from the
metaphor trap. Backhaus rightly recognises that the Sitz im Leben of the
Letter to the Hebrews is the communal Lord’s Supper. In concrete terms, the
Letter to the Hebrews is, according to its style and construction, a sermon
given at the community gathering (Heb 10:25) after the Old Testament readings
(Heb 1:1; 2:1). This reveals the celebration of the liturgy to be the
appropriate horizon of understanding. The letter is not for private reading but
is instead read aloud to a largish audience. The community hears the text only
once, the sentences following each other in sequence from beginning to end, and
the meaning is constructed solely in this direction; the letter cannot be
interpreted backwards. It is of further significance that the theological
passages end in the middle of chapter 10 and that then paraenetic sections
begin. The concluding chapter, chapter 13, to which the passage referring to
the altar belongs, is concerned with concrete community life.
So if the Sitz im Leben of the Letter to the Hebrews is the
community gathering, one wonders why the faithful should understand the words
“we have an altar” in any way other than literally, especially since eating is
concretely mentioned in the same sentence (Heb 13:10). There is nothing here to
suggest a metaphorical use since it is merely describing a cultic action that
is common in antiquity; namely, consuming the sacrificial food of the altar.
Even is the preacher were to have a theological metaphor in mind, this is
nevertheless attached to a concrete piece of furniture that his listeners can
see in front of them when they are gathered for the cultic meal. This item of
furniture is quite naturally called an “altar” because his nomenclature is
familiar to the audience.
The exegetes who regard the altar as simply a metaphor also have to
spiritualize the concept of “to eat” from it, too. Strictly speaking, it would
in fact be the eating that is the actual metaphor, which makes the matter even
more abstruse. Backhaus thinks that “to eat” from the altar refers to “enjoying
the fruit of salvation won on the Cross, tasting the eschatological gift.” But
would anyone who read or heard the Letter to the Hebrews ever have come up with
such an idea? Backhaus himself speaks of a “somewhat unusual metaphor”.
However, the problem only arises when he understands the word “altar” as a
metaphor and not in its lexical meaning, i.e. an altar at which people do in
fact eat (cf. 1 Cor 10:18).
In its totality, the Letter to the Hebrews very concretely depicts the
ecclesial-sacramental situation of the community. It speaks of Communion (Heb
6:4), baptism (Heb 6:2, 4; 10:22, 32) and finally the altar (Heb 13:10). The
letter does consistently draw a contrast between itself and the Old Testament
according to the pattern of heavenly versus earthly, but in so doing its aim is
simply to emancipate itself from the Jewish religion, not to dissipate the
ecclesial reality in metaphors and symbols. One must resist any spiritualizing
tendency in Hebrews and instead try to unearth the reality that lies behind it.
Even when the exegetes emphasize the theologizing tendency of the epistle,
arguing that it does not permit any real cult but rather only a spiritual
Christianity, they cannot deny that a metaphor requires a correlate in reality.
If everything were purely spiritual, metaphors would say nothing, or put
differently: those who maintain that blood, flesh, water and altar are
metaphors will be unable to avoid talking about the ritual reality behind them.
The ritual reality is the reason that Hebrews distinguishes meticulously
between the Body and Blood of Christ when speaking of his salvific death on the
Cross (Heb 2:14; 10:19 f.; 13:11 f.; cf. 7:15). For what lies behind it is the
cultic act of the new covenant, at which bread and wine are eaten and drunk. As
already stated, the Letter to the Hebrews is directed against those who
participate in Jewish cultic meals. In the eyes of the letter, they have fallen
away from both baptism and Eucharist (6;4), taken the Blood of the covenant to
be “normal” blood (Heb 10:29) and sold their birthright for a single mean (Heb
12:16).
This polemic against those “who have spurned the Son of God and esteemed
as ordinary the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and
outraged the Spirit of thanksgiving (χαρις) (cf. Heb 10:29) is perplexing. For if the Christians
who have been received into the community through baptism (Heb 10:26: received
the knowledge o the truth) and Communion (Heb 10:29: sanctified by the blood)
take the covenantal and sacrificial Blood of the Son of God (Heb 10:26) to be
“ordinary” blood, then a ritual cultic interpretation is inevitable in that a
transformation through an act of blessing is implied.
Far more important for a cultic-religious interpretation of the
Eucharist is the fact that the apostates make themselves guilty of a veritable
cultic offence. In the Old Testament already, offences against “the altar (θυσιαστηριον) of the Lord your
God” (Dt 16:21 LXX) had to be authenticated by two or three witnesses. This is
now also the case when Judaizers are being convicted of outrages against the
Christian altar (Heb 10:28 = Det 17:6 LXX). This is made even more evident by
the divine curse that the Letter to the Hebrews then utters over the apostates
(Heb 10:30). The curse is carefully chosen from
the book of Deuteronomy (Dt 32:35f. LXX). There it is directed against
the heathen gods, their grapes of poison and their bitter clusters (Dt 32:32 f.
LXX) at their sacrificial meals offering of libations (Dt 32:38 LXX). The
Letter to the Hebrews applies this to the Jews, who ridicule the wine of the
gentiles, namely the Christians (Heb 10:29 f.). This makes it clear that
Hebrews relates the Blood of the covenant to the Eucharist as the cultic meal
of the Christians which is performed with wine.
So Hebrews is really not about high theology but is rather based on
concrete events in the community: certain Christians have consumed the useless
Jewish sacrificial foods (Heb 9:9; 13:9; cf. 10:26, 29) instead of the useful
eucharistic food (Heb 9;14). The food and drink of the old covenant, which
“cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper” (Heb 9:9) is contrasted with
the Blood of the spotless self-sacrifice of Christ, which will “purify our
conscience [ . . . to worship the living
God” (Heb 9:14). (Stefan Heid, Altar and Church: Principles of Liturgy from
Early Christianity [Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America
Press, 2024], 34-38)
A sign of cultic terminology: χαρις
is regularly translated with “race.”
That can hardly be correct here. Rather, it is likely to refer to the ευ-χαρισ-τια (eucharistia = “thanksgiving”). Whoever
spurns the eucharistic blood commits an offence against the “spirits of
thanksgiving”. Heb 12:14-16 refers to participating in worship: “Pursue peace
(kiss of peace) with everyone, and the holiness (through the blood of the
covenant: Heb 10:29) without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no
one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness (cf. Dt 32:32
LXX: cluster of bitterness) springs up and causes trouble (Dt 29:17 LXX), and
through it many become deified. See to it that no one becomes like Esau, a
fornicator (i.e. apostate) and profane person, who sold his birthright for a
single meal” (Heb 12:14-16). Did. 4 (FC 1, 220): the peace and the Eucharist. 1
Cor 10:30: χαρις (thankfulness) and ευχαριστειν (give thanks). For the contrasting of
“ordinary” food with “blessed” eucharistic food, see Justin. Apol. 1, 66,2 (SC
507, 306). (Ibid., 37 n. 41)
