Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 13:1 - 13:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Let your brotherly love continue. 2Never forget to be hospitable, for by hospitality (δὰτύη, as 12:15) some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember prisoners as if you were in prison yourselves; remember those who are being ill-treated (11:37), since you too are in the body.
Neither φλδλί nor φλξναis a &LXX term, though the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 13:23, 26, 14:1. Μντ (cp. 6:10, 10:24, 32f.), though its demands might be severe at times (cp. Rom_12:10, Rom_12:1 P 1:22; Clem. Rom_1:2; Herm. Mand. 8:10); the duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on officials. In v. 2 a particular expression of this φλδλί is called for. φλξναwas practically an article of religion in the ancient world. The primary reference here in τνςis to Abraham and Sara (Gen_18:1f.), possibly to Manoah (Jdg_13:3f.), and even to Tobit (Tob 12:15); but the point of the counsel would be caught readily by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, e.g. Hom. Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (κίτ θο ξίοσνἐιόε ἀλδπῖι| πνοο τλθνε, ἐιτωῶιπλα, cp. Plat. Soph. 216 B); Sil. Ital. vii. 173 f. (“laetus nec senserat hospes | advenisse deum”), and the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Met. viii. 626 f.) alluded to in Act_14:11. In the Hellenic world the worship of Zeus Xenios (e.g. Musonius Rufus, xv. a, ὁπρ ξνυ ἄιο εςτνξνο ἁατνιΔα fortified this kindly custom. According to Resh Lakish (Sota, 10a), Abraham planted the tree at Beersheba (Gen_21:33) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and φλξναwas always honoured in Jewish tradition (e.g. Sabbath, 127. 1, “there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come: they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick,” etc.). But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the primitive church. Christians travelling abroad on business might be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were frequent; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in the Greek world (cp. Plato’s Laws, 918 D) was due partly to this and partly also to a “general feeling against taking money for hospitality” (cp. Jebb’s Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition, the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char. 6:5 διὸ δ πνοεσικὶπροοκσικλ there is significance in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 1) that Rahab ἡπρη(11:31) kept an inn. For a Christian to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character, and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts of an inn. (“In the better parts of the empire and in the larger places of resort there were houses corresponding in some measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century; in the East there were the well-known caravanserais; but for the most part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable quarters. They were neither select nor clean,” T. G. Tucker, Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3Jn_1:5-8).
According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did not at first appear divine (ο δ θιτρςὄτςφσω ἐεήεα), though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his splendid hospitality (Abrah. 22-23). “In a wise man’s house,” Philo observes, “no one is slow to practise hospitality: women and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do service to strangers”; at the same time such hospitality was only an incident (πρρο) and instance (δῖμ σφσαο) of Abraham’s larger virtue, i.e. of his piety. Josephus also (Ant. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves as divine angels (θαάεο τεςἀγλυ κὶνμσςενιέοςἤπστ τ ἀατςκὶπρ ατ κτχέτςπρκλιείνμτλβῖ). It was ignorance of the classical idiom (cp. Herod. i. 44, ὑοεάεο τνξῖο φνατῦπιὸ ἐάθν βσω) in ἔαο ξνσνε, which led to the corruptions of ἔαο in some Latin versions into “latuerunt,” “didicerunt,” and “placuerunt.” Note the paronomasia ἐιαθνσε…ἔαο, and-the emphatic position of ἀγλυ. “You never know whom you may be entertaining,” the writer means. “Some humble visitor may turn out to be for you a very ἄγλςθο” (cp. Gal_4:14).
Μμήκσε(bear in mind, and act on your thought of) τνδσίν Strangers come within sight; prisoners (v. 3) have to be sought out or—if at a distance—borne in mind. Christian kindness to the latter, i.e. to fellow-Christians arrested for some reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Mat_25:36, 2Ti_1:16), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying for them (Col_4:18 and 4:3). All this formed a prominent feature of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales about the general practice: e.g. Aristid. Rev_15; Tertull. ad Mart. 1 f. and Apol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the de Morte Peregr. 12, 13. This subject is discussed by Harnack in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. 2Ch_3, section 5). Our author urges, “remember the imprisoned” ὡ σνεεέο. If ὡ is taken in the same sense as the following ὡ, the meaning is: (a) “as prisoners yourselves,” i.e. in the literal sense, “since you know what it means to be in prison”; or (b) “as imprisoned,” in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Χιταοκτχνα ὡ ἐ φορ τ κσῳ A third alternative sense is suggested by LXX of 1 S 18:1 (ἡψχ Ἰνθνσνδθ τ ψχΔυδ but the absence of a dative after σνεεέο and the parallel phrase ὡ ἐ σμτ rule it out. Probably ὡ is no more than an equivalent for ὡε. Christians are to regard themselves as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1Co_12:26 ετ πσε ἓ μλς σμάχιπνατ μλ. This interpretation tallies with 10:34 above (cp. Neh_1:3, Neh_1:4). It does not, however, imply that ἐ σμτ, in the next clause, means “in the Body (of which you and your suffering fellows are alike members”); for ἐ σμτ refers to the physical condition of liability to similar ill-usage. See Orig. c. Cels. ii. 23, τντῖ ἐ σμσ (Bouhé conj. σμτ) σμαννω, and especially Philo’s words describing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer on his victims, as suffering acute pain, ὡ ἐ τῖ ἑέω σμσνὐο κκύεο (de Spec. Leg. iii. 30). So in de Confus. Ling. 35, κὶτ σμοῶ ἀηύω τνκκυοέω (i.e. by exile, famine, and plague; cp. Heb_11:37) οκἐδθῖα χρῳ σμτ.
Seneca (Ep. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested by Epicurus, viz., to “have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill, someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty,” but “that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit, someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy.” The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate: “a man has made a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage (‘adversum vincula’), but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle (‘cum primum crepuerit catena’).” In Ep. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the use of kinship, the Jew replies, ἐντῖ σμανυινμζμνἀυοσ μνἑατῦθικὶκκπθμνὡ ατί φίεα τ σγεὲ ὅο ἰχό ἐτ. Cicero specially praises generosity to prisoners, and charity in general, as being serviceable not only to individuals but to the State (de Offic. ii. 18, “haec benignitas etiam rei publicae est utilis, redimi e servitute captos, locupletari tenuiores”).
4Let marriage be held in honour by all, and keep the marriage-bed unstained. God will punish the vicious and adulterous.
5 Keep your life free from the love of money; be content with what you have, for He (ατς has said,
“Never will I fail you, never will I forsake you.”
6So that we can say confidently,
“The Lord is my helper (βηό, cp. 2:18, 4:16), I will not be afraid,
What can men do to me?”
As vv. 1, 2 echo 10:24, 32, 33, v. 4 drives home the προ of 12:16, and vv. 5, 6 echo the reminder of 10:34. Evidently (v. 4), as among the Macedonian Christians (1Th_4:3-9), φλδλί could be taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Τμο (sc. ἔτ as in v. 5, Rom_12:9, the asyndeton being forcible) ὁγμςἐπσν i.e. primarily by all who are married, as the following clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an ascetic disparagement of marriage. Κίηis, like the classical λχς a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between the married; ἀίνο is used of incest, specially in Test. Reub. i:6, ἐίν κίη τῦπτό μυ Plutarch, de Fluviis, 18, μθλνμανι τνκίη τῦγνήατς etc.; but here in a general sense, as, e.g., in Wisdom:
μκραἡσερ ἡἀίνο,
ἥι οκἔν κίη ἐ πρπώαι
ἕε κρὸ ἐ ἐικπ ψχν(3:13),
and οτ βοςοτ γμυ κθρὺ ἔιφλσοσν
ἕεο δ ἕεο ἢλχνἀαρῖἢνθύνὀυᾷ(14:24).
In προςγρκὶμιοςκλ the writer distinguishes between μιο, i.e. married persons who have illicit relations with other married persons, and προ of the sexually vicious in general, i.e. married persons guilty of incest or sodomy as well as of fornication. In the former case the main reference is to the breach of another person’s marriage; in the latter, the predominating idea is treachery to one’s own marriage vows. The possibility of πρεαin marriage is admitted in Tob 8:7 (ο δὰονίνἐὼλμάωτνἀεφνμυτύη), i.e. of mere sexual gratification1 as distinct from the desire and duty of having children, which Jewish and strict Greek ethics held to be the paramount aim of marriage (along with mutual fellowship); but this is only one form of πρεα In the threat κιε (as in 10:30) ὁθό, the emphasis is on ὁθό. “Longe plurima pars scortatorum et adulterorum est sine dubio, quae effugit notitiam iudicum mortalium …magna pars, etiamsi innotescat, tamen poenam civilem et disciplinam ecclesiasticam vel effugit vel leuissime persentiscit” (Bengel).
This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the Epicurean rejection of marriage (e.g. Epict. iii. 7. 19), which is finely answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25: ὁεγνςκὶὔυο νο …θωῶ δόιτλιςοκςκὶβο οκἄλςδντιεέθι ἢμτ. γνιὸ κὶτκω κλ as well as of current ascetic tendencies (e.g., 1Ti_4:3), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage, but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any Christian to marry. Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to the suppression of the inconvenient ἐ πσ (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912* Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan, Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is hardly affected, whether γρ(אA D* M P lat sah boh) or δ (C Dc Ψ6 syr arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an antiascetic maxim.
A warning against greed of gain (vv. 5, 6) follows the warning against sexual impurity. There may be a link of thought between them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money, see Epict. iii. 7. 21, σὶκλνγνῖαφίεθιμδμα ἢτνή, κλνπῖαμδν, κλνἀγρμ μθν χύωαμθν Test. Jud_1:18, φλξσεἀὸτςπρεα κὶτςφλρυίς…ὅιτῦα…οκἀίιἄδαἐεσιτνπηίνατῦ and Philo’s (de Post. Caini, 34) remark, that all the worst quarrels, public and private, are due to greedy craving for ἢεμρίσυακςἢχηάω κλ In de Abrah. 26, he attributes the sensuality of Sodom to its material prosperity. Lucian notes the same connexion in Nigrin. 16 (σνιέχτιγρμιεακὶφλρυί κλ the love of money having been already set as the source of such vices). In 1Co_5:10f. Paul brackets ο προ with ο πενκα, and πενξα(cp. 1Th_4:6) as selfishness covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence. In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24), “latissime patet avaritia.” When Longinus describes the deteriorating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sublim. 44), he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure; φλρυί μννσμ μκοοό, φλδναδ ἀενσαο. Then he proceeds to analyse the working of φλρυί in life, its issue in ὕρς πρνμα and ἀασυτα
Ἀιάγρς(the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in OP xxxiii. 10, 11, that his father τ μνπῶο ἦ φλσφς τ δύεο ἀιάγρς τ τίο φλγθς ὁτόο (in sense of “mores,” as often, e.g., M. Aurelius, i. 16, κὶπςὁτιῦοτόο). Ἀκύεο is the plur. ptc. after a noun (as in 2Co_1:7, Rom_12:9), and with τῖ πρῦι reproduces a common Greek phrase for contentment, e.g. Teles, vii. 7, ἀλ ἡεςο δνμθἀκῖθιτῖ πρῦι, ὅα κὶτυῇπλ δδμν and xxviii. 31, κὶμ ἔω οκἐιοήεςἀλ βώῃἀκύεο τῖ πρῦι. The feature here is the religious motive adduced in ατςγρερκν(of God as usual, e.g., 1:13), a phrase which (cp. Act_20:35 ατςεπν recalls the Pythagorean ατςἔα(“thus said the Master”). The quotation ο μ σ ἀῶοδ ο μ σ ἐκτλπ is a popular paraphrase of Jos_1:5 or Gen_28:15 (cp. Deu_31:8, 1Ch_28:20) which the writer owes to Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32), who quotes it exactly in this form as a λγο τῦἵε θο μσὸ ἡεόηο, but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the aor. subj. with the first ο μ and the reduplication of the negative (for οδ ο μ, cp. Mat_24:21) amount to a strong asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus does, to the merits of the fathers (Antiq. xi. 5. 7, τνμνθὸ ἴτ μήῃτνπτρνἈρμυκὶἸάο κὶἸκβυπρμνντ κὶδὰτςἐεννδκισνςοκἐκτλίοτ τνὑὲ ἡῶ πόοα) in assuring his readers that they will not be left forlorn by God.
Ἐκτλίω(so all the uncials except D) may be simply an orthographical variant of the true reading ἐκτλπ (aorist subj.). In Deu_31:6 the A text runs ο μ σ ἀῇοδ ο σ ἐκτλίῃ in Jos_1:5 οκἐκτλίωσ οδ ὑεόοα σ, and in Gen_28:15 ο μ σ ἐκτλίω The promise originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it (Christian Year, “The Accession”):
“Not upon kings or priests alone
the power of that dear word is spent;
it chants to all in softest tone
the lowly lesson of content.”
Ὥτ (v. 6) θρονα (on the evidence for this form, which Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant θρεν cp. Crö’s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 133:2) ἡᾶ (om. M, accidentally) λγι. What God says to us moves us to say something to ourselves. This quotation from Psa_118:6 is exact, except that the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the κί( = so) before ο φβθσμι which is reinserted by א A D K L M syrhkl etc. For the phrase θρονα λγι, see Pro_1:21 (Wisdom) ἐὶδ πλι πλω θροσ λγι and for βηό and θρενin conjunction, see Xen. Cyr. v. i. 25, 26, ἐεδ δ ἐ Πρῶ βηὸ ἡῖ ὡμθς…ννδ α οτςἔοε ὡ σνμνσὶὅω κὶἐ τ πλμᾳὄτςθρομν Epictetus tells a man who is tempted (ii. 18, 29), τῦθο μμηο ἐεννἐιαο βηὸ κὶπρσάη. This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here. Courage is described in Galen (de H. et Plat. decr. vii. 2) as the knowledge ὧ χὴθρενἢμ θρεν a genuinely Stoic definition; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian defeat at Delium κὶἰὼ εθςπρκλύμίτ ατῖ θρεν κὶἔεο ὅιοκἀοεψ ατ. In the touching prayer preserved in the Acta Pauli (xlii.), Thekla cries, ὁθό μυκὶτῦοκυτύο, Χιτ Ἰσῦὁυὸ τῦθο, ὁἐο βηὸ ἐ φλκ, βηὸ ἐὶἡεόω, βηὸ ἐ πρ, βηὸ ἐ θρος
According to Pliny (Epp. ix. 30: “primum est autem suo esse contentum, deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam societatis ambire”) a man’s first duty is to be content with what he has; his second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need. Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus: ο θλι μλτνἀκῖθιτ δδμν; (i. 1. 27); but this refers to life in general, not to money or property in particular. The argument of our author is that instead of clinging to their possessions and setting their hearts on goods (10:34), which might still be taken from them by rapacious pagans, they must realize that having God they have enough. He will never allow them to be utterly stripped of the necessaries of life. Instead of trying to refund themselves for what they had lost, let them be content with what is left to them and rely on God to preserve their modest all; he will neither drop nor desert them.
Hitherto the community has been mainly (see on 12:14f.) addressed as a whole. Now the writer reminds them of the example of their founders, dead and gone, adding this to the previous list of memories (12:1f.).
7 Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you; look back upon the close of their career, and copy their faith.
Μηοεεετνἡομννὑῶ οτνς(since they were the men who) ἐάηα ὑῖ τνλγντῦθο. The special function of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the gospel (cp. 1Co_1:17) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit. Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their consistent and heroic life; they had sealed their testimony with their (ὧ κλ blood. Ἡομνς like ἄχν was a substantival formation which had a wide range of meaning; here it is equivalent to “president” or “leader” (cp. Epp. Apollon. ii. 69, ἄδα τὺ ἡομνυ ὑω = your leading citizens, or prominent men, and Act_15:22).1 It was they who had founded the church by their authoritative preaching; ἐάηα ὑῖ τνλγντῦθο recalls the allusion to the στραwhich ὑὸτνἀοσνω (i.e. Jesus) εςἡᾶ ἐεαώη(2:3). The phrase denotes, in primitive Christianity (e.g. Did. 4:1 where the church-member is bidden remember with honour τῦλλῦτςσιτνλγντῦθο), the central function of the apostolic ministry as the declaration and interpretation of the divine λγς These men had died for their faith; ἔβσςhere, as in Wis 2:17 (τ ἐ ἐβσιατῦ is, like ἔοο, a metaphor for death as the close of life, evidently a death remarkable for its witness to faith. They had laid down their lives as martyrs. This proves that the allusion in 12:4 does not exclude some martyrdoms in the past history of the community, unless the reference here is supposed to mean no more than that they died as they had lived κτ πσι (11:13), without giving up their faith.
In Egypt, during the Roman period, “a liturgical college of πεβτριor ἡομνιwas at the head of each temple” (GCP i. 127), the latter term being probably taken from its military sense of “officers” (e.g. ἡεόε τνἔωτξω).
Ἀαερῦτςis “scanning closely, looking back (ἀα on”; and ἀατοήis used in this sense even prior to Polybius; e.g. Magn 4635, 44 (iii b.c.) and Magn 165:5 (i a.d.) δὰτντῦἤοςκσινἀατοή. As for μμῖθ, the verb never occurs in the LXX except as a v. l. (B*) for ἐίηα in Psa_31:6, and there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4:2 (πρῦά τ μμῦτιατν so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes, and in 4 Mac 9:23 (μμσσεμ) 13:9 (μμσμθ τὺ τεςτὺ ἐὶτςΣρα ναίκυ) it is used of imitating a personal example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation (ὁδ ἀκσιτ κλνἀλ μ δδσαί κώεο) attends ο τῖ λγμνι ἀλ τῖ λγυι μμύεο τνἐεννβο ἐ τῖ κτ μρςἀειήτι πάει He is referring to living examples of goodness, but, as in de Vita Mos. i. 28, he points out that Moses made his personal character a πρδιμ τῖ ἐέοσ μμῖθι This stimulus of heroic memories belonging to one’s own group is noted by Quintilian (Instit. Orat. xii. 2. 31) as essential to the true orator: “quae sunt antiquitus dicta ac facta praeclare et nosse et animo semper agitare conveniet. Quae profecto nusquam plura maioraque quam in nostrae civitatis monumentis reperientur …Quantum enim Graeci praeceptis valent, tantum Romani, quod est maius, exemplis.” Marcus Aurelius recollects the same counsel: ἐ τῖ τνἘιορίνγάμσ πργεμ ἔετ σνχςὑοινσεθιτνπλιντνςτνἀεῇχηαέω (11:26).
Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and remains the same; no novel additions to his truth are required, least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with what is sensuous and material.
8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 9 Never let yourselves be carried away with a variety of novel doctrines; for the right thing is to have one’s heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food— that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. 10 Our (ἔοε as 4:15) altar is one of which the worshippers have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of the animals whose “blood is taken into the holy Place” by the highpriest as a “sin-offering, are burned outside the camp”; 12 and so Jesus also suffered outside the gale, in order to sanctify the people (cp. 10:2f.) by his own blood (9:12). 13 Let us go to him “outside the camp,” then, bearing his obloquy 14 (for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to come). 15 And by him “let us” constantly “offer praise to God” as our “sacrifice,” that is, “the fruit of lips” that celebrate his Name. 16 Do not forget (μ ἐιαθνσε as in v. 2) beneficence and charity either; these are the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God.
V. 8 connects with what precedes and introduces what follows. Ἐθς refers to his life on earth (2:3, 5:7) and includes the service of the original ἡομνι it does not necessarily imply a long retrospect. Σμρνas in 3:15, and ὁατςas in 1:12. The finality of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily (1:1f.), resounds again here. He is never to be superseded; he never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v. 9) the warning against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy of Jesus Christ. Δδχῖ (6:2) πιίας(2:4 in good sense) κὶξνι μ πρφρσε Πρφρσα (cp. Jud_1:12) is never used in this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it is always literal, and the best illustration of ξνι in the sense of “foreign to” (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of the epistle to Diognetus (11:1), who protests, ο ξν ὁιῶ…ἀλ ἀοτλνγνμνςμθτςγνμιδδσαο ἐνν Such notions he curtly pronounces useless, ἐ οςοκὠεήηα ο πρπτῦτς where ἐ οςgoes with πρπτῦτς they have never been of any use in mediating fellowship with God for those who have had recourse to them. It is exactly the tone of Jesus in Mar_7:18.
Πρφρσεwas altered (under the influence of Eph_4:14) into πρφρσε(K L Ψ2, 5, 88, 330, 378, 440, 491, 547, 642, 919, 920, 1867, 1872, 1908, arm sah). Πρπτσνε (א C Dc K L M P syrhkl arm Orig. Chrys. etc.) and πρπτῦτς(א A D* 1912 lat) are variants which are substantially the same in meaning, πρπτῖ ἐ being used in its common sense = living in the sphere of (Eph_2:10 etc.), having recourse to.
The positive position is affirmed in κλνκλ (κλν as in 1Co_7:1, Rom_14:21 etc.). “Κλς…denotes that kind of goodness which is at once seen to be good” (Hort on 1 P 2:12), i e. by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good course is χρτ ββιῦθιτνκρίν i.e. either to have one’s heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (κρίν accus. of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (ἄτςκρίνἀθώο σηίε, Psa_104:15), but κρί here means more than vitality; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God’s χρςalone can sustain, and God’s χρςin Jesus Christ is everything (2:9 etc.). But what does this contrast mean? The explanation is suggested in the next passage (vv. 10-16), which flows out of what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were connected in some way with βώαα So much is clear. The difficulty is to infer what the βώααwere. There is a touch of scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of δδχί The writer does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a preoccupation with βώαα There is no reference to the ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9:10; this would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case, such notions could not naturally be described as πιία κὶξνι We must look in other directions for the meaning of this enigmatic reference. (a) The new δδχίmay have included ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the ἐτλαακὶδδσαίιτνἀθώω which disturbed the Christians at Colossê Partly owing to Gnostic syncretism, prohibitions of certain foods (ἀέεθιβωάω, 1Ti_4:3) were becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of spiritual religion. “We may assume,” says Pfleiderer, one of the representatives of this view (pp. 278 f.), “a similar Gnostic spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences.” (b) They may also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among some ultra-liberal Christians of the age. It is denounced by Paul in 1Co_10, and may underlie what the writer has already said in 10:25. Why our author did not speak outright of εδλθτ, we cannot tell; but some such reference is more suitable to the context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question. He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation. (c) Is there also a reference to the Lord’s supper, or to the realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body of the Lord? This reference is urged by some critics, especially by F. Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums, i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zeitschrift fü die neutest. Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260). Spitta goes wrong by misinterpreting v. 10 as though the σμ of Christ implied a sacrificial meal from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly sees that the contrast between χρςand βώααimplies, for the latter, the only βῶαpossible for Christians, viz. the Lord’s body as a food. What the writer protests against is the rising conception of the Lord’s supper as a φγῖ τ σμ τῦΧιτῦ On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers, there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim; there could not be, in the nature of the case (v. 11). So, he argues, the σμ Χιτῦof our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten, as these neo-sacramentarians allege; any such notion is, to him, a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he despises as “a vain thing, fondly invented.” A true insight into the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness and irrelevance of these δδχί As the writer is alluding to what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv. 10f. is plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal; the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers partake by eating. This is the point of v. 10. The writer characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonementday, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv. 11, 12) that the sacrifice must not be eaten. Then he finds in this fact about the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldliness (vv. 13, 14). Finally, in reply to the question, “Then have Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?” he mentions the two standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 15, 16), both owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating thought of the entire paragraph. God’s grace in Jesus Christ works upon the soul; no external medium like food is required to bring us into fellowship with him; it is vain to imagine that by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside things touched and tasted; in relationship to him and him alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign. He never alludes to the eucharist; the one sacrament he notices is baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest degree. It is not thus that God’s χρςis experienced.
The clue to v. 10 lies in the obvious fact that the θσατρο and the σηήbelong to the same figurative order. In our spiritual or heavenly σηή the real σηήof the soul, there is indeed a θσατρο ἐ ο (partitive; cp. τ εςτῦἱρῦἐθοσν 1Co_9:13) φγῖ (emphatic by position) οκἔοσνἐοσα1 (1Co_9:4) ο τ σηῇλτεοτς(λτεενwith dative as in 8:5). It makes no difference to the sense whether ο …λτεοτςmeans worshippers (9:9, 10:2) or priests (8:5), and the writer does not allegorize θσατρο as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Alleg. i. 15, τςκθρςκὶἀινο φσω τςἀαεοσςτ ἄωατ θῷ ατ δ ἐτ τ θσατρο). His point is simply this, that the Christian sacrifice, on which all our relationship to God depends, is not one that involves or allows any connexion with a meal. To prove how impossible such a notion is, he (v. 11) cites the ritual regulation in Lev_16:27 for the disposal of the carcases of the two animals sacrificed πρ τςἁατα (ὧ τ αμ εσνχηἐιάαθιἐ τ ἁί ἐοσυι ατ ἔωτςπρμοῆ κὶκτκύοσνατ ἐπρ). For a moment the writer recalls his main argument in chs. 7-10; in v. 10 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice (cp. ποεεθί in 9:28), but here the necessities of the case involve the activity of the Victim. ΔὸκὶἸσῦ κλ (v. 12). The parallel breaks down at one point, of course; his body was not burned up.2 But the real comparison lies in ἔωτςπλς(sc. τςπρμοῆ, as Exo_32:26, Exo_32:27). The Peshitto and 436 make the reference explicit by reading πλω, which seems to have been known to Tertullian (adv. Jud_1:14, “extra civitatem”). The fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mar_12:8 = Mat_21:39 = Luk_20:15. Mark’s version, ἀέτια ατνκὶἐέαο ατνἔωτῦἀπλνς was altered into (ἐέαο) ἐβλνε ατνἔωτῦἀπλνς(κὶ ἀέτια. Crucifixion, like other capital punishments, in the ancient world was inflicted outside a city. To the writer this fact seems intensely significant, rich in symbolism. So much so that his mind hurries on to use it, no longer as a mere confirmation of the negative in v. 10, but as a positive, fresh call to unworldliness. All such sensuous ideas as those implied in sacrificial meals mix up our religion with the very world from which we ought, after Jesus, to be withdrawing. We meet Jesus outside all this, not inside it. In highly figurative language (v. 13), he therefore makes a broad appeal for an unworldly religious fellowship, such as is alone in keeping with the χρςof God in Jesus our Lord.
Τίυ (beginning a sentence as in Luk_20:28 τίυ ἀόοεκλ instead of coming second in its classical position), let us join Jesus ἔωτςπρμοῆ, for he is living. The thought of the metaphor is that of Paul’s admonition μ σνχμτζσετ αῶιτύῳ(Rom_12:2), and the words τνὀεδσὸ ατῦφρνε recall the warnings against false shame (11:26, 12:2), just as the following (v. 14) reason, ο γρἔοε ὧε(in the present outward order of things) μνυα1 πλνἀλ τνμλοσνἐιηομνrecalls the ideas of 11:10, 14-16. The appeal echoes that of 4:11 σοδσμνονεσλενεςἐενντνκτπυι. It is through the experiences of an unsettled and insulted life that Christians must pass, if they are to be loyal to their Lord. That is, the writer interprets ἔωτςπρμοῆ figuratively (“Egrediamur et nos a commercio mundi huius,” Erasmus). Philo had already done so (cp. specially quod. det. pot. 44), in a mystical sense: μκὰ δοκζιτῦσμτκῦσρτπδυ μνςἂ οτςἐπσςἱέη κὶθρπυὴ ἔεθιτλιςθο. Similarly in de Ebrietate, 25, commenting on Exo_33:7, he explains that by ἐ τ σρτπδ ( = ἐ τ πρμοῇ Moses meant allegorically ἐ τ μτ σμτςβῳ the material interests of the worldly life which must be forsaken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the thought in 2 Clem. 5:1 (ὅε, ἀεφί κτλίατςτνπριίντῦκσο τύο πισμντ θλμ τῦκλσνο ἡᾶ, κὶμ φβθμνἐεθῖ ἐ τῦκσο τύο) and 6:5 (ο δνμθ τνδοφλιενι δῖδ ἡᾶ τύῳἀοααέοςἐεν χᾶθι Only, our author weaves in the characteristic idea of the shame which has to be endured in such an unworldly renunciation.
The next exhortation in v. 15 (ἀαέωε) catches up ἐεχμθ, as δʼατῦcarries on πὸ ατν For once applying sacrificial language to the Christian life, he reminds his readers again of the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The phrase κρὸ χιένexplains (τῦʼἔτν the sense in which θσαανσω is to be taken; it is from the LXX; mistranslation (κρὸ χιέν of Hos_14:3 where the true text has פִָם(bullocks) instead of פְִ (fruit). In ὁοοονω τ ὀόαιατῦ ὁοοενis used in the sense of ἐοοοεσα by an unusual2 turn of expression. The ὄοαmeans, as usual, the revealed personality. Probably there is an unconscious recollection of Ps 54:8 (ἐοοοήοα τ ὀόαίσυ θσαανσω3 is also from the psalter (e.g. 50:14, 23). Ἀαέενelsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual sacrifices in the parallel passage 1 P 2:5 ἀεέκιπεμτκςθσα εποδκοςθῷδὰἸσῦΧιτῦ We have no sacrificial meals, the writer implies; we do not need them. Nor have we any sacrifices—except spiritual ones. (The ονafter δʼατῦ which א A C Dc M vg syrhkl boh arm eth Orig. Chrys. etc. retain, is omitted by א D* P Ψvt syrvg; but א D* om. ονalso 1Co_6:7, as D in Rom_7:25). The thought of 12:28 is thus expanded, with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired by our experience of Jesus (δʼατῦ as Col_3:17 εχρσονε τ θῷπτὶδʼατῦ the phrase is a counterpart of δὰτῦἀχεέςin v. 11. This thank-offering is to be made δὰπνὸ (sc. χόο), instead of at stated times, for, whatever befalls us, we owe God thanks and praise (cp. 1Th_5:16). The Mishna (cp. Berachoth 5:4) declares that he must be silenced who only calls upon God’s name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good (Berachoth 5:3 האֵֹ . . . עלטֹ יזֵָ שְֶָמִֹםמִֹםמשַּקי אֹו).
The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters. According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested: μνενδ πῖέ φσνκὶτῖ θοςἡίυ ενιθσῶ τςχρσηίυ ἢτςμιιίυ. Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that εχρσί is exceptionally sacred, and that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice: θῷδ οκἔετ γηίςεχρσῆα δʼὧ νμζυι ο πλο κτσεῶ ἀαηάω θσῶ—οδ γρσμα ὁκσο ἱρνἀιχενἂ γνιοπὸ τντύο τμνἀλ δʼἐαννκὶὕνν οχοςἡγγνςᾄεα φν, ἀλ οςὁἀιὴ κὶκθρττςνῦ ἐηήε κὶἀαέψι He proceeds (ibid. 33) to dwell on the meaning of the name Judah, ὃ ἑμνύτικρῳἐοοόηι. Judah was the last (Gen_29:35) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of God, nothing excels ὁελγντνθὸ νῦ. This tallies with the well-known rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: “in the time of messiah all sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease; all prayers will cease, but praises will not cease” (on basis of Jer_33:1 and Psa_56:13). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 10:7).
In v. 16 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of charity. Επια though not a LXX term, is common in Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, e.g. Fragm. 15 (ed. Schenk), ἐὶχητττ κὶεπιᾳ Fragm. 45, οδνκεσο …επια (where the context suggests “beneficence”). Κιωί in the sense of charity or contributions had been already used by Paul (2Co_9:13 etc.). To share with others, to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service in the NT (here, Rom_12:1, Rom_12:2 and Jam_1:27) are all inward and ethical; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor. Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these beneficent purposes. An equivalent must be provided in our spiritual religion, the writer suggests; if we have no longer any animal sacrifices, we must carry