¹ Out of the recent publications on Hebrews, I mainly refer to the commentaries of James Moffatt (ICC), Hans Windisch (Handbuch z.N.T. ed. by H. Lietzmann, 2nd. ed. 1931), Theodore H. Robinson (Moffatt Comm. 1933); Otto Michel (Meyer's Krit.-ex. Komm. 1956¹⁰). Cf. further Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1951, pp. 149 ff.Google Scholar; Käsemann, Ernst, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, 2. ed. 1957.Google Scholar Earlier publications especially on Hebrews 13.9 ff: Holtzmann, Oskar, Der Hebräerbrief und das Abendmahl, ZNW 10 (1909), pp. 251–260Google Scholar.

² Moffatt, op. cit., p. 234; cf. p. 235: “… showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (of Atonement-day) that the sacrifice must not be eaten.” Michel, op. cit., p. 344: “also kennt schon das AT ein Verbot, den Priestern am Opfer Anteil zu geben: am grossen Versöhnungstag wird das Opfer nicht gegessen, sondern verbrannt. Hebr. sieht in dieser Anordnung einen theologischen Hinweis darauf, dass die Vertreter der ‘fremden Lehren’ von dem Abendmahlsgenuss ausgeschlossen sein sollen.”

³ Even Michel, who comes very close to my interpretation, hasnot seen the contrast of Hebrews 13.12–13 to Leviticus 16.28. He mentions Miriam's exclusion from the camp (Numbers 12.14–15), and that men and animals outside the camp are unclean before God (op. cit., p. 344), also that guilty persons were to be killed outside the camp (p. 345).

⁴ Cf. Grant, F. C., “The Epistle to the Hebrews” (Harper's annotated Bible Series 15, 1957), p. 59.Google Scholar — Note that in this context the name “Jesus” occurs alone, without any Christological title; “Name ohne Zusatz als Zeichen seiner Niedrigkeit” (, Michel, op. cit., p. 344)Google Scholar.

⁵ Michel does not offer a solution, but leaves the alternatives open. However, he stresses one point that is in precise agreement with my interpretation: “Die Deutung dieses Verses muss wohl unsicher bleiben. Gewiss ist jedoch, dass dort, wo nach dem Gesetz ‘Unreinheit’ ist, fuer den Christen die wahre ‘Reinheit’ zu suchen ist” (op. cit., p. 347).

⁶ For these see , Michel, op. cit., p. 347Google Scholar.

⁷ , Moffatt, op. cit., p. 234Google Scholar; cf. p. 236: “only our author weaves in the characteristic idea of the shame which has to be endured in such unworldly renunciation.”

⁸ Translation from F. H. Colson in Loeb Classical Library.

⁹ Windisch's definition “Scheidung von der irdischen Welt und vom irdischen Wesen überhaupt” (op. cit., p. 119) is as misleading as the often quoted passage 2 Clem 5,1: καταλεíψαντεѕ τὴν παροικíαν τοû κóσμου … καì μὴ ϕοβηθῶμεν ἐξελθεîν ἐκ τοû κóσμου τοúτου.

¹⁰ Cf. the Commentaries, especially the discussion of the various interpretations in , Moffatt, op. cit., pp. 233 fGoogle Scholar; , Robinson, op. cit., pp. 200 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Examples of such diet regulations can be found among the opponents of some of the deutero-pauline epistles (e.g. Col. 2.16; 1 Tim. 4.3). For such understanding of Hebr. 13.9 see , Windisch, op. cit., p. 118Google Scholar; very cautiously Lietzmann, Hans, Geschichte der Alten Kirche, vol. I, p. 223Google Scholar(“Das kann man wohl fragen, aber ohne die Hoffnung auf befriedigende Antwort”); also Manson, W., op. cit., p. 150Google Scholar (but see below).

¹² On this question see already Holtzmann, O., op. cit., p. 254Google Scholar.

¹³ Considered by , Moffatt, op. cit., pp. 233 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ See also Holtzmann, O., op. cit., p. 252Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Moule, C. F. D., Sanctuary and Sacrifice in the Church of the N.T., J. T. S., N. S. 1 (1950), pp. 36–39,Google Scholar believes that the epistle was written before 70 A.D. and that ch. 13 is directed “against the pressure to revert to Judaism” (p. 39), which he seems to define as both, the altar “… of the levitical system,” and “the observance of food-taboos” (p. 38). But Moule has to consider verses 11-14 as “apparently intrusive,” and says that the author must have been “sidetracked by a separate and secondary thought” (p. 38). He also realizes that there are some difficulties concerning such an early date for Hebrews. Cf. also , Manson, op. cit., p. 150Google Scholar: “… Jewish regulations …, and that the propaganda owed the strength of its appeal, in the last resort, to the association of these regulations with the cultus of the past.” Although Manson dates Hebrews before 70 A.D., he feels that a direct attack upon the Jewish temple-sacrifices is not a possible explanation of the passage. Cf., Windisch, op. cit., p. 118Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See especially Holtzmann, O.: “Die schillernde, neue Lehre behauptet also, dass die Christen durch ihr heiliges Mahl an dem einen für sie gebrachten Opfer teilhätten.” (Op. cit., p. 255)Google Scholar; also , Moffatt, op. cit., pp. 232 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ E.g., recently in Manson, W., op. cit., pp. 51 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Note that διάϕοροι has a parallel in ποικíλαι in 13.9!

¹⁹ Concerning the meaning of the term πρώτη σκηνή in Hebrews, see below.

²⁰ Originally βρῶσις is nomen actionis and as such also used frequently in the NT (e.g., 1 Cor. 8.4; 2 Cor. 9.10); but it can be used as synonym with βρῶμα = “food,” as in Hebr. 12.16; Did. 6.3; John 6.55; cf. Diogn. 4.1; see also W. Bauer, Wörterbuch s.v.

²¹ See Bornkamm, G., “Die Häresie des Kolosserbriefes” in: Das Ende des Gesetzes (1958 ²), p. 147Google Scholar.

²² Cf. Barn. 10.9: περì μὲν τῶν βρωμάτων 10.10: περì τῆѕ βρώσεωѕ.

²³ Cf. Barn. 11.1: περί τοû ũδατοѕ καì περì τοû σταυροû … τò βάπτισμα τò ϕέρον ᾰϕεσιν άμαρτιῶν …

²⁴ Positively, for Christian food regulations, βρῶσιѕ is used only Did. 6.3: περì δὲ τῆѕ βρώσεωѕ, δ δúνασαι βάστασον. References to heretics who practiced such (Jewish) food laws are: the above mentioned Col. 2,16 ff, and 1 Tim. 4,3; cf. also Rom. 14.15 ff.

²⁵ In 1 Cor. 8.4,8,13 Paul uses βρῶσιѕ and βρῶμα in a non-technical way in the context of the discussion of the eating of meat offered to the idols.

²⁶ It is necessary to distinguish between this figurative meaning in John 6,27 and the reference to the element of the sacrament in the later section 6.51b–59 whichI believe to be an interpolation (for the best recent argument in favor of the interpolation-hypothesis see Bornkamm, G., “Die eucharistische Rede im Johannesevangelium,” Z.N.W. 47 (1956), pp. 161–169).Google Scholar Apparently the interpolator of verses 51–59 has chosen this rather unusual word for the Christian sacrament in order to maintain a vocabulary consistent with the rest of the chapter.

²⁷ Cf. especially Hebr. 2.10; 5.9; 10.14; 12.2. See Käsemann, E., op. cit., pp. 82–90Google Scholar.

²⁸ βέβαιοѕ = “legally authenticated and, therefore, valid” (rechts-kräftig-rechtsgültig), cf. Schlier, H., Th. W. N. T. I, pp. 602 f.Google Scholar; W. Bauer Wörterbuch, sv. See also Hebr. 2.3; 3.14; 6.16–19.

²⁹ Whether this is a general statement, or only refers to a specific form of worship in the past, depends on the meaning of the term “tent” which is to be discussed later in this paper.

³⁰ For examples of such general use of the word see Bultmann, R., Theology of the NT, II, pp. 210 fGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Bultmann, R., op. cit., I. p. 289; see further the entire chapter “Grace as Event,” pp. 288 ffGoogle Scholar.

³² Some prefer the less well attested reading Χωρìѕ θεοû (M etc.) instead of Χάριτι θεοû (= the vast majority of manuscripts); see Michel, O., op. cit., p. 74. But seeGoogle ScholarWindisch, H., op. cit., p. 21 in support of thetraditionally accepted readingGoogle Scholar.

³³ Recent LXX editions read here ώτíα with LaGa = M (so Rahlfs in the Göttinger Ausgabe). But whether ώτíα is the original LXX reading or not—I would judge ώτíα as an obviously late correction according to M, and prefer σῶμα which is given by almost all Greek manuscripts of the LXX — “our author found σῶμα in his LXX text and seized upon it” (, Moffatt, op. cit., p. 138)Google Scholar.

³⁴ The remark ἥτιѕ λέγεται “Αγια referring to the “first tent” Hebr. 9.2 is very odd and not consistent with the word usage of the rest of theEpistle. In 9.3 Hebr. calls the inner tent “Αγια 'Αγíων, but in all other places the simple “Αγια is the technical term for the “inner tent,” the earthly one (9.25; 13.11) as well as its heavenly prototype (8.2; 9.12; in both passages the inner sanctuary, called “Αγια is clearly distinguished from the σκηνή of the heavens; 9.23; 10.19; 9.9). The use of the term “Αγια for the outer tent in 9.2 is either to be explained as due to the dependence upon a “Vorlage” in the description of the tabernacle, or, preferably, the sentence ἤτιѕ λέγεται “Αγια is a marginal gloss which later came into the text, that is at a wrong place; cf. , Moffatt, op. cit., p. 113; “The phrase … would have been in a better position immediately after ή πρώτη … instead of after the list of furniture.” Note also that the manuscripts vary: AD have “Αγια 'Αγíων, B: τὰ ãγια, P⁴⁶ the totally confusing designations “Αγια 'Αγíων for the “first tent” (Hebr. 9.2) and “Αγια for the inner tabernacle (9.3)Google Scholar.

³⁵ Cf. also Hebr. 4.14: ἒΧοντεѕ άρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθóτα τοùѕ οúρανοúѕ. For the ascension in Hebr. see Windisch, H., op. cit., pp. 69–71Google Scholar.

³⁶ τῶν άγíων in Hebr. 10.19 as in 8.2 is the Gen. of the Neuter τὰ ἄγια, not of οί ᾰγιοι.

³⁷ Cf. also Hebr. 6.19–20.

³⁸ For the understanding of the “veil” see , Käsemann, op. cit., pp. 140–151Google Scholar.

³⁹ See Hebr. 5.1–3; 7.27; 8.3; especially 10.1–18.

⁴⁰ It is, of course, impossible in our context to elaborate this point in greater detail. For references in Hebr. itself see 2.14 ff.; 5.7 f.; 10.1 ff. Such reinterpretation of a sacrificial language and symbolism has become possible for the author to the Hebrews on the basis of an underlying allegorical and mythological understanding of such sacrificial terms; as Käsemann has shown (op. cit.).

⁴¹ This also explains why Hebr. never describes Christ's present activity in the heavenly sanctuary as a performance of heavenly priestly function, but only as intercession, etc.(Hebr. 1.25) on the basis of the one “sacrifice” of entering the heavenly sanctuary. In his present dignity Christ is rather referred to as the Kosmokrator (Hebr. 1.3-4; 10.12-14, etc.); this is also implied, when he is referred to with the title high-priest (Hebr. 5.10).

⁴² See Hebr. 8.5.

⁴³ See any commentary ad loc, especially Windisch, op. cit., and Michel, op. cit.

⁴⁴ , Windisch, op. cit., p. 77,Google Scholar suggests putting the sentence in parenthesis.

⁴⁵ “Bekenntnisaussage” for which ἒΧομεν is typical (, Michel, op. cit., p. 341).Google Scholar Basic for the recognition of the structure of the Homologia in Hebr. is Bornkamm, G., “Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief,” Studien zu Antike und Christentum (1959) PP. 188–204Google Scholar (first published in Theologische Blätter 1942, pp. 1 ff.). To put the emphasis upon the word “have” (“We have an altar,” , Moule, op. cit., p. 37)Google Scholar is not justified in sentences of this style.

⁴⁶ The word θυσιαστήριον occurs elsewhere in Hebrews only in 7:13 with a non figurative meaning. In the description of the tabernacle Hebrews does not mention an altar for sacrifices (θνσιαστήριον), but only one for incense (θνσιαστήριον 9.4).

⁴⁷ There is no single instance in the New Testament in which the word refers to the table of the Lord's Supper.

⁴⁸ The first to use θνσιαστήριον as a term for the table of the Eucharist is Ignatius of Antioch, cf. Phld. 4: μíα γὰρ σὰρξ τοû κυρíον … καì ἓν ποτήριον εìѕ ἓνωσιν τοû αἵματοѕ αύτοû, ἓν θνσιαστήριον ὡѕ εîѕ έπíσκοποѕ, see also Magn. 7.2.

⁴⁹ This excludes Holtzmann's exegesis, according to which οí τῆ σκηνῆ λατρεύοντεѕ is a picture for the church of the New Testament: “… σκηνή der pneumatische neutestamentliche Tempel, bei dem der pneumatische Altar steht, auf dem Christus sich selbst geopfert hat. Da darf die feiernde Gemeinde von diesem Altar nicht essen.” (Op. cit., p. 255.)

⁵⁰ Cf. , Michel, op. cit., p. 343Google Scholar; this refers only to the guilt-and-sin-offerings for transgressions, not to the whole-offerings in the inner sanctuary; see Lev. 16.19–22; 7.6; Num. 18.9 f. The same principle is also used in Barn. 7.4; see also 1. Cor. 9.13; 10.18.

⁵¹ According to Michel the sentence says that Jewish and sectarian priests are excluded from the Lord's Supper (op. cit., p. 343); a more general interpretation is presented by , Moule, op. cit., p. 38:Google Scholar “the Jews whose religion runs upon the lines of the Mosaic tabernacle … have not the privilege of eating from it,” i.e., the real altar which the Christians have. But on the whole I agree with Moule's main point: “The sacrifice (of the Christians) is the Body of Christ, his obedient selfsurrender,” which is opposed to sacrificial performances as “really is opposed to symbolically” (p. 39).

⁵² , Moffatt, op. cit., p. 234Google Scholar.

⁵³ , Moffatt, op. cit., p. 234Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ , Windisch, op. cit., p. 118.Google Scholar Moreover every attempt to fix the epistle as a whole in a specific situation of the church or a church group fails, because of the character of this writing, which is not a “letter” written for a specific situation (against Manson!), but by all means a fundamental theological treatise.