'Outside the Camp': Hebrews 13.9-14

l-tlE

"OUTSIDE THE CAMP": HEBREWS 13.9-14HELMUT KOESTERHmvenn Drvnvrry Scsoor,

HBsREws r3.9-r4 is among the most difficult passages of the en-tire New Testament. Here, in the context of a warning against

"diversified and foreign doctrines" (Er,Ea1ai nocxilwr, xo,i {6ac),a Christological argument occurs (t3.tr-rz). It is obviously theintention of the writer to ground his objection to the "foreigndoctrines" on this Christological basis. But the character of thedoctrines opposed in these verses has remained an enigma tocommentators inasmuch as the function of the Christological ar-gument in this polemical setting has not been recognized clearly.lHowever, a closer examination of the Old Testament passagewhich underlies the Christological argument in Hebrews r3.rrmay provide a key for a fresh solution of the complex problemsof this passage.

That Hebrews r3.rr is based upon Leviticus t6.27 is com-monly known.

Hebrews r3.r r says: 6v yd"p eia$€perat, (citav rb atpa repi d.p.ap-rtas ets ri. dryn 6d, ro0 d"pyrcpfus, ro{rtav rd. adp,ara xo,ro,xo,[,eratd(u rfis napepBdrffs. This is an obvious reference to Leviticust6.27: ra) rby p"6ayov rbv trepi rffs d.po,prios *ai rdv yi,p.apov rbvnepi rfis d.p.apri,as, 6v rb aty.a etaqvty?q i(t)rd"aaa0ar, iv rQ dytE,i{otaouatv aird. t(a rffs napep.Bolfs xo,i xaraxa{,covaw aind, ivflpt, xa) rd 6(pp.ara ai,rdv xo) rd, xp€a ai,ril xo,i rfiv rc6rpov airdv.

The point of Hebrews' argument is usually seen in this verse. Thecorpses of the two animals sacrificed are not eaten, but are dis-posed of and burnt outside the camp. Thus Moffatt concludes:"His point is simply this, that the Christian sacrifice, on which all

'Out of the recent publications on Hebrews, f mainly refer to the commentariesof James Moffatt (ICC), Hans Windisch (Handbuch z.N.T. ed. by H. Lietzmann,end. ed. r93r), Theodore H. Robinson (Moffatt Comm. rSSl); Otto Michel (Meyer'sKrit.-ex. Komm. 1956'o). Cf. further W. Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews,r95r, pp. r49 ff.; Ernst Klsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, z. ed. r957.Earlier publications especially on Hebrews 13.9 fr: Oskar Holtzmann, Der Hebrher-brief und das Abendmahl, ZNW ro (r9o9), pp. z5r-26o.

qt ( te67)z q q - 9 f

300 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEIV

our relationship to God depends, is not one that involves or allowsany connection with a meal." 2

It cannot be doubted that Hebrews r3.rr refers to this versefrom Leviticus. It is questionable, however, whether the pointof the argument, drawn from the Old Testament, is exhausted,when it is only seen with respect to the Old Testament proviso thatsacrifices must not be eaten. What has not been noticed, is the factthat the following verse from Leviticus, 16.28, is basic to anunderstanding of the following sentences in Hebrews r3.rz-r3.

Leviticus 16.28: 6 Et xaraxatav aitrd" rr\w6, rd. i,p.d.rta xo,i )toiae-rat rb a6y.a ainoi iEarr, xo,i p,erd. raira eirelre{aerat eis rlv napey"-

Bo\fiv.Hebrews r3.r2-r3: Er.d ro) 'Ipco0s, tva d,yt6.ap Eai roi ii(,ou

ai,p.crros rbv ),a6v, E(a rffs rulqs tzra)ev. roi.vuv i(epyrip"e1a npbsainbv €(a rfis napep"Bo\ffs rdv 6vecDcap.6v aino$ $(povres. WhereasHebrews r3.rr simply paraphrases Leviticus t6.27, Hebrewsr3.r2-r3 is formulated in conscious contrast to Leviticus r6.28.3

Leviticus: Whoever performs the burning outsi.de the camp is unclean.Hebrews: Jesus suffered outside the gate in order to sanctily his

people.Leviticus: After being sanctified he may enter the camp again.Hebrews: Let us go out to him outside ol the carnp to bear his re-

proach.

Hence the quotation of Leviticus t6.27 in Hebrews r3.rr onlyintroduces the Old Testament context on which the main argu-ment is based; the author of Hebrews does not give this mainargument until verses r2-r3, where it occurs in contrast to theLevitical passage. This contrast is not yet apparent in the quota-tion in verse r r. But it is precisely this contrast which appears to

2Moffat t , op. c i t . , p .234; c f . p .235: " . showing how the very death ofJesus outside the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (of Atone-ment-day) that the sacrif ice must not be eaten.t ' Michel, op. cit., p.344: "alsokennt schon das AT ein Verbot, den Priestern am Opfer Anteil zu geben: am gros-sen Vers6'hnungstag wird das Opfer nicht gegessen, sondern verbrannt. Hebr. siehtin dieser Anordnung einen theologischen Hinweis darauf, dass die Vertreter dertfremden Lehren' von dem Abendmahlsgenuss ausgeschlossen sein sollen.t'

8 Even Michel, who comes very close to my interpretation, has not seen thecontrast of Hebrews 13.r2-r3 to Leviticus r6.28. He mentions Miriam's exclusionfrom the camp (Numbers rz.r4-r5), and that men and animals outside the campare unclean before God (op. cit., p. 344), also that guilty persons were to bekil led outside the camp (p. g+S).

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP" 30r

be basic for the decisive Christological argument against the"foreign doctrines." The Levitical passage describes the holycamp of the wilderness people. To leave this camp, even in theperformance of holy duties, rendered a man unclean (cf. alsoLeviticus 16.26), and excluded him from the holy fellowship. Thewriter of Hebrews, however, insists that the sacrifice of Jesus wasperformed outside of the holy place, and it is this sacrifice whichsanctifies his people. This act of sanctification marks the abolitionof the necessity of holy places for sanctification.

The mention of Jesus' sacrifice outside the gate is doubtless anallusion to the suffering and death of Jesus outside the city of

Jerusalem. The historical fact of Christian revelation breaksthrough the symbolism of the terms "camp" and "sanctify" withthe terms "gate" and "suffer." a Thus it is finally the basic his-torical fact of the Christian revelation, which gives the clue tothe argument against the doctrines opposed. Hebrews insists onthe historicity, worldliness and profaneness of the Christian reve-lation.

Therefore, the argument continues, Christians who have beencleansed by Jesus'sacrifice are no longer to enter the sacred pre-cincts, but are to go out of the holy camp and to bear his reproach,(t3,r3). Because of the peculiar character of Jesus' sacrifice('outside the camp" the place of the Christian is not in holy placeswith the security which is offered in cultic performances, but inthe uncleanness of the world.s

It is necessary to clarify this interpretation by a confrontationwith the two traditional explanations of Hebrews 13,13.6 Thefirst of these understands this verse as a renunciation of theJewish religion. This is unlikely, since the symbolism of thispassage does not suggest the distinction between "false" and

I Cf. F. C. Grant, "The Epistle to the Hebrews" (Harper's annotated BibleSeries 15, rg5Z), p.59.-Note that in this context the name "Jesus" occurs alone,without any Christological titlel "Name ohne Zusatz als Zeichen seiner Niedrig-keit" (Michel, op. cit., p. 344).6 Michel does not offer a solution, but leaves the alternatives open. However,he stresses one point that is in precise agreement with my interpretation: "DieDeutung 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 is t " (op. c i t . , p .g+Z).0 For these see Michel, op. cit., p. 347.

302 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

tttrue" religion, but rather that between ttsacredt' and "pro-fane" or ttcultic" and ttsecular." But I hasten to add thatalso the general question decides the possibility of this first tradi-tional interpretation, i.e., the question, whether Hebrews as awhole and the r3th chapter in particular is directed against Ju-daism or rather against inner-Christian heretical opinions (whichmay very well have their roots in Judaism ! ). For this questionsee below.

The alternate traditional interpretation finds "in this fact aboutthe death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldli-ness." ? But it is pre-cisely the disgrace of worldliness itself thatChristians should be determined to bear, since, again, the distinc-tion is not between "worldly" and t'unworldlyi' or t'outward"

and t'inward," but rather between t'sacred" and ttsecular.tt Notin the participation in sacred and cultic performances, but in theacceptance of the secular reality the Christian finds his properplace.

The phrase "outside the camp" is the designation of Jesus'place of suffering and reproach, and therefore totally differentfrom Philo's understanding of the same phrase: "so too Mosespitched his own tent outside the camp ({{a rffs napep"Bo},fs, thereference is to Exodus 33,7) and the whole array of bodilythings. . Then only does he begin to worship God and enter-ing the darkness, the invisible region, abides there while helearns the secrets of the most holy mysteries" (de gig. 54).8 Here,in Philo's understanding, "outside the camp" is indeed the placeof unworldliness, the presence of the divine as it is attainable al-ready now in the seclusion from all worldly and secular things,i.e., in the initiation into the "mysteries."

For Hebrews, "outside the camp" is identical with the worldli-ness of the world itself and the place where men are exposed tothe experience of this world rather than secluded and protectedfrom it. In consequence of such understanding the secret presenceof the divine in any present experience is denied in the followingsentence: "For we have no lasting city here (in this world and

zMof fa t t , op . c i t . , p ,234 ; c f . p . z36 : { ' on l y ou r au tho r weaves i n t he cha rac -teristic idea of the shame which has to be endured in such unworldlv renuncia-tion."

8 Translation from F^ H. Colson in Loeb Classical Librarv.

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP''

during this life), on the contrary, we seek the city to come" (He-brews r3.r4). Thus the anticultic antithesis ((not sacred, butsecular" is continued by an eschatological antithesis ('not present,but future." fnasmuch as there is no abiding sacred refuge forChristians in the present, the "city" of the Christians is in thefuture and still to come. It is not in the first place the certaintybut rather the futurity of the heavenly city which is emphasizedhere. Therefore the appeal is neither to lead an unworldly life asa member of a heavenly city, nor to escape from this world andlife as soon as possible.e On the contrary, both these appeals areconsciously excluded or even refuted, and are to be found amongthe opponents of Hebrews rather than in what he wants to sayhimself. The eschatological expectation of the Christian here isidentical with the radical openness to the challenges and suffer-ings that necessarily result from the existence '(outside the camp."And since the refuge in sacred places and cultic performancesis abolished for those people who stay "outside the camp" withJesus, the sacrifices of God are rather thanksgiving and charity(Hebrews r3, r5-r6).

II

It is the emphasis on the non-sacral historical sacrifice of Jesuson Calvary, and the stressing of the eschatological character ofthe Christians' life which provides the background for under-standing the character of the "foreign doctrines" referred to inHebrews r3.9. From what has emerged as the point of the Christo-Iogical argument on the basis of the underlying Old Testamentpassage, it is generally clear that the doctrine opposed here musthave spoken about unworldliness attainable by means which wererelated to a cultic and sacral interpretation of Jesus' suffering anddeath. They failed to recognize the paradoxical character of thehistorical appearance of the redeemer in the profaneness of thisworld.

This Christological distinction underlies the contrast yd.pwt-e Windisch's definition "scheidung von der irdischen Welt und vom irdischen

Wesen i. iberhaupt" (op. cit., p.rr9) is as misleading as the often quoted passagez Clem grt: xaraltehfiavres riv rapotxtav ro0 r6ap,ov . . xal p.h OoFn\Gpet i{e}ticitix roA x6ap,ov ro{trov.

303


oit Bpriy"auv in Hebrews r3.9. In this context, Bptip.ara seems torefer to cultic, sacramental, or ritual means by which the powersof Jesus' sacrifice were represented and being made available. Anexact explanation of the term Bp<ipdra, however, has great diffi-culties. The following possibilities have been proposed: 10

r ) Ascetic or cultic diet regulations.ll But since such regula-tions would usually stress that certain things must not be eaten,it is hard to see how Hebrews 13.ro states, against these doctrines,that Christians have an altar from which the worshi.ppers haae nori,ght to eat.r2

z) Pagan sacrifices.13 However, the distinction yd.pnt, oit

Bpcitp.acw does not indicate a controversy between two differentreligions, but rather a controversy about method of representa-tion of one and the same revelation.la This finds further proof inthe fact that the argument in the following verses is about aproblem in the Christological question.

3) Sacrificial offerings of the Jews. This hypothesis has thesame difficulties as the preceding one. Furthermore, Hebrewswas probably written when the Jewish temple had already ceasedto exist. But also in other respects this explanation for the con-troversy is not tenable without important qualifications 15 whichwe will have to discuss later.

t0 Cf. the Commentaries, especially the discussion of the various interpretationsin Moffatt, op. cit., pp. 233 f ; Robinson, op. cit., pp. zoo ff.

tt Examples of such diet regulations can be found among the opponents of someof the deutero-pauline epistles (e.g. Col. 2.161 r Tim.4.3). For such understandingof Hebr. r3.9 see Windisch, op. cit., p. rr8; very cautiously Hans Lietzmann,Geschichte der Alten Kirche, vol. I, p. 223 ("Das kann man wohl fragen, aberohne die Hoffnung auf befriedigende Antwort") I also W. Manson, op. cit., p. r5o(but see below).

12 On this question see already O. Holtzmann, op. cit., p. 254." Considered by Moffatt, op. cit., pp. 233 f.tt See also O. Holtzmann, op. cit., p. 252.' jt C. F. D. Moule, Sanctuary and Sacrif ice in the Church of the N.T., J. T. S.,

N. S. r (r95o), pp.36-39, believes that the epistle was written before 7o A.D. andthat ch. r3 is directed "against the pressure to revert to Judaism" (p. gS), whichhe seems to define as both, the altar ". of the levitical system," and "the ob-servance of food-taboos" (p. 38). But Moule has to consider verses rr-r4 as"apparently intrusive," and says that the author must have been "sidetracked bya separate and secondary thought" (p.f8). He also realizes that there are somedifEculties concerning such an early date for Hebrews. Cf. also Manson, op. cit., p.r5o; ". . . Jewish regulations , and that the propaganda owed the strengthof its appeal, in the last resort, to the association of these regulations with thecultus of the past." Although Manson dates Hebrews before 7o A.D., he feels thata direct attack upon the Jewish temple-sacrifices is not a possible explanation ofthe passage. Cf, Windisch, op. cit., p. r18.

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP" 305

a) The Christian sacrament of the Lord's Supper in a more orless sacramentalist interpretation.lG The discussion of this hypoth-esis is burdened with the theblogical controversy about non-sacra-mental or sacramentalist understanding of Christianity. Some findno difficulty in identifying the opponents of Hebrews 13.9 ff. withadvocates of the sacraments, whereas apologetical tendencies areobvious, whenever a scholar argues against such an understandingof the passage.t? But one should be prepared to face a resultalong the lines of a polemic against Christian sacramentalism -

which does not necessarily constitute an argument in favor of

"Spiritual Religion," - en the contrary!Apart from r3.ro which in itself is a part of the very problem

that concerns us here, the author in ch. 13 does not give anyfurther information on the term Fp6p" and its contrast to theword yd.pcs. But there is a close parallel to r3.9 in Hebrews

9.9-ro where also the term Bpitpo is employed, as part of thedesignation that characterizes the ritual regulations of the OldCovenant, pointing out the insufficiency of the arrangements ofsalvation in the "first tent." We take Hebrews 9.9-ro as the pointof departure for a reconsideration of some elements of the Epistleto the Hebrews that bear on the understanding of Hebrews r3.9-r 3 .

III

The use of the term BpcitLaro., always in the plural, is one ofthe common features of Hebrews r3.9 and 9.ro. In 9.ro Bpcip,arastands in parallelism to n6p,ara and Eai{o pot Batrrtap.oi,.Ls Thesethree terms serve as a comprehensive description of the ritual andsacramental arrangements associated with the offerings and sacri-fices (E6pd" re xo,i |uatat) of the "first tent,t' i.e., the covenant ofthe Jews in the wilderness.le

Such use of the word Fpdp" agrees with the common usage inEarly Christian Literature. Bpdp" and the synonym Bpda'c20

'uSee especially O. Holtzmann: "Die schillernde, neue Lehre behauptet also,dass die Christen durch ihr heiliges Mahl an dem einen fiir sie gebrachten Opferteilhitten," (Op. cit., p. 25S) ; also Moffatt, op. cit., pp. 4z ff..

tt E,8., recently in W. Manson, op. cit., pp. 5r ff.uNote Lhat itdQopor has a parallel in rrorrlXar in r3.9!D Concerning the meaning of the term rptbrq oxr1u.$ in Hebrews, see below.m Originally ppi;a,-s is nomen acti.onis and as such also used frequently in the


frequently characterize Jewish food and diet regulations. Usuallythey occur together with other terms which also designate culticregulations of Jewish origin:

Col. z t6: BpdaLs, nocrLs, eoprq, veopqvl,a, cd.BBara, cf . also thediscussion of. repnopni in Col. 2.rr.27

Diogn. 4.t: Bpcitaets, adBBara, neplro1,tfi, vtyareta, veoptr1vi,a.Barn. 7 ff., in the arrangement of his expositions, reflects a

similar list of Jewish cult regulations: ch. 7-8 deal with sacrifices,ch. g with circumcision, ch. ro with food laws," ch.rr with waterand washings,2s ch. r 5 continues with a discussion of the sabbath,ch. 16 of the temple.

The three sacraments of the Exodus to which Paul refers inr Corinthians ro.2-4 give witness to the same traditional terminol-ogy:

nd.wes eis zlz Moti)rrffv EBarrtaawo. . . .rd ar.'rd rveup"arwdv Bpitp"a i$ayov.r) arizb TrwuparLKbv ttrnv r6p"a.

These examples show clearly that the term Bpdp"a, if. used in atechnical way, together with r6p.a and Banroy.6s belongs to thedescription of cultic regulations of the Jews or of the Old Testa-ment.24 On the other hand, Bpdp" (or Bpdats) is not a term com-monly used for the Lord's Supper. It is worth noting that Paul,although he sets the sacramental Bpdp" and rr6y.a of the wilder-ness-generation into parallelism with the Lord's Supper, does notuse the same terms for the Christian sacrament, but rroniprcv a.ndd.pros instead (r Cor. ro.16).25 There is only one occasional useof. Bpdars for the Lord's Supper, i.e., in the disputed section John

NT (e.g., r Cor. 8.4; z Cor. 9.ro); but it can be used as synonym with ppCtp.a: " food," as in Hebr. rz .16; Did. 6.3; John 6.55; c f . Diogn. 4. r ; see a lso W.Bauer, Wtirterbuch s.v.

a See G. Bornkamm, "Die Hlresie des Kolosserbriefes" in: Das Ende desGesetzes ( rgS8 ') t p. r47.

" Cf. Barn, ro.g: repl p,tv rCtv ppupd.rut, ro,ro: rrepi rils Bp6oeon,aCf. Barn. tt.t: r,epl roA tiaros xal rcpi roA aravpoi. zd pd.rrtol.to rbQtpov d.Qeor.v d,p.oprtC:t .

*Positively, for Christian food regulations, ppricrs is used only Did,6.3: zepl 6Arfis pp<boeus,6 |iLvaoat pd.araaov. References to heretics who practiced such (Jew-ish) food laws are: the above mentioned Col. z,16 ff, and r Tim. 4,3i cf . also Rom.r4.r5 f f .

*fn r Cor.8,4,8,13 Paul uses Bp6os and BpC:p.d in a non-technical way in thecontext of the discussion of the eatins of meat offered to the idols.

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP'' 307

6.5r-592 i ydp o,ipt y.ov d.)r1P,fis ianv Bpdats (John 6.SS). Buthere this term is employed with reference to John 6.27 where thesame word is clearly used in a figurative meaning.26

To conclude this survey of the use of the word Bpdy.a: there isno basis for taking Bpriy,ara as a direct designation of the Lord'sSupper in Hebrews. The technical use of the term in the contextof the descriptions of the cultic arrangements of the Old Covenantalso suggests that the author is concerned with more than asceticfood regulations when he says in Hebrews r3.9: oit BptiltacLv.The parallel passage Hebrews 9.ro shows that the polemic against

Bpcip.ara is to be understood in the context of the author's inter-pretation of the cultic arrangements of the "first tent."

The insufficiency of these arrangements for salvation is againexpressed in corresponding terms in both passages:

Hebrews g.gt td Suvd.y.evat xo;rd. c.uvet}qaw re\etttaac. .Hebrews r3.g: BeBatoAoilat tlrv xo,pito;v, oi BpripacLv. . . .

The verbs rel.eooOz and BeBo,tottv &te almost synonyms in He-brews. Both are descriptive of the process of divine action bywhich the quality is achieved to enter the heavenly rest. Whereasre\etoi,v emphasizes the purification and deification through whichthe believers become one with the Son,2? BeBo,a.li,v stresses morethe giving of strength and security that rests upon the legal cer-tainty and validity of the work of salvation.2s The arrangementsfor salvation in the ('first tentt' were not able to supply the wor-shipper with these qualifications. They are therefore calledSmauiy.aro" oaprcis Hebrews 9.ro. The same thought is expressed

'0 It is necessary to distinguish between this figurative meaning in John 6,27and the reference to the element of the sacrament in the later section 6.5rb-59which I believe to be an interpolation (for the best recent argument in favor ofthe interpolation-hypothesis see G. Bornkamm, "Die eucharistische Rede imJohannesevangelium," ZN.W. 47 (1956), pp. 16r-169). Apparently the inter-polator of verses 5r-59 has chosen this rather unusual word for the Christiansacrament in order to maintain a vocabulary consistent with the rest of thechapter.

tCf . especia l ly Hebr.2. ro; S.9; ro. r4; rz .z . See E. Kdsemantr , op.c i t . , pp.8zjo.

n BlBatos: "legally authenticated and, therefore, valid" (rechts-kriiftig-

rechtsgiiltig), cf. H. Schlier, Th. W. N. T. I, pp.6oe f.; W. Bauer Wiirterbuch,sv. See also Hebr. 2.3; 3.r4; 6.16-19.

308 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIE\,V

in the sentence (Bp6y.anv . . .), iv ots oitx 6$e\rfi0r1aav oi nepona-rottwes, Hebrews r3.g.2e

In Hebrews r3.9 the opposite of Bpriy.ara is 1dprs. This latterterm in Hebrews does not mean the "graciousness of God" in ageneral sense,3o but is rather to be understood in the Pauline senseas God's "now occurring act of grace." 31 This is particularlyclear in Hebrews ro.29. rveip.a rffs yd.p,,ros here stands in paral-lelism to uils ro6 1eofi and atp.u rfis 6ca0rjxqs. Thus, the "spirit ofgrace" is the representation of the event of salvation which wasaccomplished by Christ when he suffered on Calvary (Hebrewsr3.r2), or, when he entered the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews

9.r r ff.). We also note the close connection of ldprs deo0 with thedeath of Jesus in Hebrews 2.9: 6na,s y,ipt"rt, 1eoi irrtp ravrbsyeicqrar, |avd.rou.32

The contrast Bpciltara-yd.pts in Hebrews r3.9, consequentlyfinds its explanation by the contrast of the arrangements of salva-tion in the "first tent" with the work of salvation in Christ (He-brews 9.9-ro and 9.rr ff.). It is obvious that the Christologicalargument which we have considered above recurs here in the jux-taposition of Bprip.ara and y6"p,s. It is because of the redeemerentering the heavenly sanctuary through his suffering on Calvaryin the midst of the profaneness of the world, that the cultic salva-tion in a sanctuary of sacrifices proves to be inadequate. In apregnant formulation the difference of these two ways of salvationis expressed by means of the quotation from Psalms 4r.7 (LXX)in Hebrews ro.S: ?ual,av xo,i rpoa$opdv oitx i1)(Irqaas, a6pr,a 33 Eixarr1prtaa pot". In order to understand fully the implications of

t Whether this is a general statement, or only refers to a speci_fic form ofworship in the past, depends on the meaning of the term 'ttent" which is to bediscussed later in this paper.

s For examples of such general use of the word see R. Bultmann, Theology of theNT, I I , pp. zro f .

It R. Bultmann, op. cit., I. p. 289 I see further the entire chapter s,Grace asEvent," pp. 288 ff.

* Some prefer the less well attested reading yutpis \eofr (M etc.) instead ofydptrt 9eofi (* the vast majority of manuscripts) ; see O. Michel, op. cit., p. 74.But see H. Windisch, op. cit., p. zr in support of the traditionally accepted reading.

33 Recent LXX editions read here d'ric with LaGa : M (so Rahlfs in theGiitt inger Ausgabe). But whether 6ria, is the original LXX reading or not-I would judge <izla as an obviously late correction according to M, and prefero6pa which is given by almost all Greek manuscripts of the LXX - "our authorfound aripa in his LXX text and seized upon it" (Moffatt, op. cit., p. r38).

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP" 309

the rejected doctrines of cultic salvation we have to discuss themeaning of the term "first tent" and the symbolism of the taber-nacle-sanctuary in Hebrews.

IV

In both passages discussed before, Hebrews 9 and Hebrewsr3.ro the term (rrpdn1)axqvrj occurs as a designation of a placeof cultic performances. The term "tent" in Hebrews is used in ahighly figurative meaning. The symbolism of the word is three-fold.

Firstly, in its direct meaning, aKnvi is the outer part of thetabernacle of the wilderness (: rpdrn aKqni 9.2,6), never thetabernacle as a whole ! It is clearly distinguished from the "sec-ond," "the inner tent,t ' the"Lyw'Lyitirv (g.5,7), or simply called".!ryta.8a Both are divided by the xaranr(raap." (q.g).

Secondly, since the inner part of the tabernacle, the Holy ofHolies, is the type of the heavenly sanctuary, the "tent" becomesa symbol for the heavenly regions through which Christ was topass to enter the heavenly sanctuary itself (9.rr-rz: Eai rfsp,el,(ovos xa) rel,eeoz€pos o*rlrfs ori yetpo,nonjrov . . . eis rd, &ym.)The same differentiation between heavenly sanctuary and theheavenly regions is apparent in Hebrews 8.2 : r6v 6,ytav ),eeroupTdsrd rfs axqvffs rfis d.\r1|wfis. This is not a hendiadys, but ex-

that thepressespresses [na[ \-nrrs['s omce rncruoes Dotn tne servrce ln tne sanc-tuary of heaven itself (ri. &ym) and the entering by passing

Christ'soffice includesboth the servrce

through the heavenly regions (i ont-) : the ascension! 35 Itu The remark fir,-s \,67etat "A7rcl referring to the "first tent" Hebr. g.z is very

odd and not consistent with the word usage of the rest of the Epistle. In 9.3 Hebr.calls the inner tent'.!ryn'.!ryitor, but in all other places the simple "A7rc is thetechnical term for the "inner tent," the earthly one (9.25; r3.rr) as well as itsheavenly prototype (8.2; g,rz; in both passages the inner sanctuary, called "A"yrc,is clearly distinguished from the oqvil of. the heavens; g.23; ro.r9; 9.9). Theuse of the term "A"yra for the outer tent in 9.2 is either to be explained as due tothe dependence upon a"Voilage" in the description of the tabernacle, or, preferably,the sentence iirr.s \,(Yerat "A'yra is a marginal gloss which later came into the text,that is at a wrong place; cf. Moffatt, op. cit., p. rr3; "The phrase . would havebeen in a better position immediately after r) rptir4 . . . instead of after the tistof furniture." Note also that the manuscripts vary: AD have "Ay,z'A.yluv, B:rd. d4n, Ptu the totally confusing designations "Ay,z 'A,yto:y for the "first tent"(Hebr. 9.2) and "A"yra for the inner tabernacle (9.3).

sCf. also Hebr. 4.r4: tyovres dpytepfu g.d7cu dretr4trv06ra rois oipauoi.ts. Forthe ascension in Hebr. see H. Windisch, op. cit,, pp. 69-2r.

ln

3 1 0 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

also becomes clear here that the author of Hebrews is more inter-ested in the opening of the way into the heavenly sanctuary thanin the performance of a service within the sanctuary of heaven.

Finally, "first tent," symbolically, designates the place of culticperformances which are not only insufficient for salvation, but alsoconceal the true way into the inner sanctuary: pfirra re'ltavep6a0at,tlv r6v dyi,av 6Elz Ert rffs zrptinys axr1vfis iyotr.tls ard.ow (He-brews 9.8). Christ's high-priestly sacrifice reveals this waythrough the "tent" into the heavenly sanctuary (9.rr-r2), i...,Christ's sacrifice is the abolition of the "first tent." Here, theterm on1tfi in this figurative meaning is almost synonymous withxararrtraap.a. The way into the true sanctuary (Hebrews ro.r9 uu), now open to the believers, is identical with the way throughthe t'veil" (Hebrews ro.zo) 3? However, since the "veil" betweenthe "tent" and the inner sanctuary at the same time is both thewall between earth and heaven, and the flesh of Jesus (6r,,i ro0xararrerd,op,aros, roir'Zcrw rffs aapxds airoi, Hebrews ro.zo),38it is also clear why the sacrifice of priests who offer "somethingelse" (not themselves) must remain ineffective.ss It is throughthe sacrifice of his own body (Hebrews ro.ro) that the real re-demption, true access to the heavenly sanctuary is brought about.Of this true offering, the annual sacrifice of the high-priest in theinner sanctuary of the tabernacle is only the shadow, in itself in-effective (Hebrews ro.r ff.). This description of Christ's workof salvation in such highly sacrificial language, however, actuallyrefers to a work of salvation which has no cultic and sacrificialconnotations and implications at all. On the contrary, here ap-pears a salvation that is brought about exclusively within the di-mension of man's suffering and death as opposed to the sacreddimension of cult and sacrifices.ao This marks the termination of

8 rdv d.1luv in Hebr. ro.r9 as in 8.2 is the Gen. of the Neuter rd &1o, not ofol d1rct.

37 Cf. also Hebr. 6.19-zo.s For the understanding of the t 'veil" see Kdsemann, op. cit., pp. r4o-r5r.* See Hebr. S.r -3; 7.27; 8.3; especia l ly ro. r - r8.r0 It is, of course, impossible in our context to elaborate this point in greater

detail. For references in Hebr. itself see z.r4 fr.; S.I f.; ro.r ff. Such reinterpreta-tion of a sacrificial language and symbolism has become possible for the authorto the Hebrews on the basis of an underlying allegorical and mythological under-standing of such sacrif icial terms; as Klsemann has shown (op. cit.).

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP'' 3 1 1

all cultic performances anywhere - and the author to the Hebrewsis fully aware of this conclusion (Hebrews 9.ro).n1 What isabolished with the ('first tent" is not specifically the Jewish under-standing of cult and sacrifice as distinguished from an ongoingChristian cult. It is each and every way of salvation by means ofcultic performances and sacrificial rites as such, that has becomeanachronistic and absurd now because Christ as a human beingwent through suffering and death obediently.

On the other hand, what the "inner sanctuary" of the Jewishtabernacle stands for symbolically, is not abolished but ratherfulfilled positively by Christ's sacrifice of his own body since this"inner sanctuary" is a type of heaven itself.a2 Of course theannual sacrifice in the inner sanctuary is obsolete now. Hebrewsthinks that it was never meant to bring about forgiveness of sins,(ro.z-3). Since forgiveness has come, not through this shadow-sanctuary, but by Christ's entering into the real sanctuary ofheaven, offerings for sin have ceased (ro.r8).

When the author of Hebrews thus interprets the cultic arrange-ments of one part of the tabernacle, the "first tent,t' as obscuringthe true salvation, but takes the other part, the inner tent, as apositive symbol for Christ's sacrifice, he clearly shows that hedoes not attack the Jewish cult as such. Rather, when he confinesthe Bpcitp.ara to the "first tent)' arrangements, he attacks any per-formances of salvation which according to their character andintention belong to the '(first tent.t'

Of some interest in this context is the phrase which is addedto the mention of the first tent in 9.8-9:. firts napaBoltfi eis rbyxar.pdv rbv Evearqx6ra. This might be an indication that the authorunderstands present cults and religions as a continuation of thatwhich the "first tent" stands for as a symbol. On the other hand,Hebrews considers the present time as the "time of reformation"(q.ro). Consequently, the first tent is already abolished. There-

a This also explains why Hebr. never describes Christ's present activity in theheavenly sanctuary as a performance of heavenly priestly function, but only asintercession, etc. (Hebr. r.z5) on the basis of the one "sacrifice" of entering theheavenly sanctuary. In his present dignity Christ is rather referred to as theKostnokrotor (Hebr. r.3-4; to.rz-r4, etc.) ; this is also implied, when he is re-ferred to with the title high-priest (Hebr. 5.ro).s See Hebr. 8.5.


fore, and with regard to the syntactical difficulties which thissentence provides,a3 it is rather to be taken as a marginal gloss.aa

In the context of the discussion of the meaning of the termaKqvi in Hebrews we have to try an explanation of the most diffi-cult verse, r3.ro, where the formulation oi rfi ct<\vfi \rarpe{owesoccurs. The verse is introduced by Eyop.ev |vcr"aaztjpnv. Thisformulation reflects the style of credal statements,as although theformulation here is a literary device not an actual quotation of at'creed." Typical for these sentences in Hebrews, especially thosewhich are his own formulations, is the use of cult terms from theOld Testament to describe the content of the possession of faithfiguratively; cf, t'we have such a high priest, who is seated on theright hand. . . ." Hebrews 8.r; ". since we have confidencefor the en t rance in to the sanc tuary . . . " Hebr . ro . rg . Thus ,0uananiproy here is to be understood as an Old Testament termused to characterize the place of the Christian "sacrifice," i.e.,Calvary. Such understanding is consistent with the word use ofHebrews ao and also of the New Testament as such where?vcmazfiprov almost always is the altar of the tabernacle or thetemple.aT

It is, therefore, rather difficult to find a reference to the Lord's

Supper in the formulation Eyoy"ev ?va,narfiprcv.48But we have to ask positively: What is meant by this figurative

statement in which an Old Testament term is the content of aformulation in the style of a credal formula? What does it mean,if Christians confess Calvary as their altar? The answer is implied

rs See any commentary ad loc., especially Windisch, op. cit., and Michel, op. cit.{{ Windisch, op. cit., p. 77, suggests putting the sentence in parenthesis.6"Bekenntnisaussage" for which tTop.ev is typical (Michel, op. cit., p.S+l).

Basic for the recognition of the structure of the Homologia in Hebr. is G. Born-kamm, "Das Bekenntnis im Hebrierbrief," Studien zu Antike und Christentum(rg5g), pp. r88-zo4 (first published in Theologische Bli itter 1942, pp.r ff.). Toput the emphasis upon the word t 'have" (t 'We haae an altar," Moule, op, cit.,p. 37) is not justified in sentences of this style.

sThe word |vanotilprov occurs elsewhere in Hebrews only in 7;13 with a non-figurative meaning. In the description of the tabernacle Hebrews does not mentionan altar for sacrifices (0vcrnartiptoz), but only one for incense (|upr.arfiprcv 9.4).

tt There is no single instance in the New Testament in which the word refersto the table of the Lord's Supper.

€ The first to use ?voocrilptov as a term for the table of the Eucharist isIgnatius of Antioch, cf. Phld. 4:pia 1dp cd.pf roA xvptov .. roi tv rorfiptov clsEvucw roA alparos aitroA,2v |voncrtiptov 6s ets irtoxo?ros, see also Magn. 7.2.

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP" 3 1 3

in our exegesis of Hebrews r3.rr-rzi the sacrifice '(outside thecamp" puts an end to all cultic and sacred performances, andthose who have this "altar" are not to dwell in sacred places andto deal with ritual regulations, but to go out into the world tobear his reproach (see above). The consequence is pointed outin 13.15-16: The Christian "sacrifice" is topraise God and to dogood works.

On the other hand, "i."fi

aKryrfr \arpeiowes according to ourinterpretation of t'tent" means those who are involved in theobsolete service of cultic and ritual performances for salvation.aeWithout the negation orix, the second part of r3.ro is a citation ofa cultic principle from the Old Testament: the priests had theright to eat the meat of the sacrifices.so The negation added tothis citation says that in view of the Christian altar, i.e., Calvary,such participants have lost their claims which are only legitimatein the "first tent." This probably does not exclude Jewish priestsin particular from Christian worship,El and it does not apply topriests alone. In Hebrews 9.ro |rarpe{erz is not used of priests inparticular, but of the cultic worshippers in general. Thus the sen-tence r3.ro excludes all cultists and ritualists in general fromthe participation in the salvation accomplished at Calvary. Ifwe, thus, try to translate this sentence which is packed with figura-tive terminology, we would have to interpret: Concerning thealtar which we confess as ours, namely Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary,- those who are concerned with a cultic and ritual mediation ofsalvation, have no part in this "altar" (sc. Calvary); since all

€ This excludes lfoltzmann's exegesis, according to which ol rff oxqvfi \.arpcttovresis a picture for the church of the New Testament: ". , arqvfi der pneumatischeneutestamentliche Tempel, bei dem der pneumatische Altar steht, auf dem Christussich selbst geopfert hat. Da darf die feiernde Gemeinde von diesem Altar nichtessen." (Op. cit., p. 255.)

s Cf. Michel, op. cit., p. 343 ; this refers only to the guilt-and-sin-offerings fortransgressions, not to the whole-ofrerings in the inner sanctuaryl see Lev. t6.rg-zz17.6; Num. r8.9 f. The same principle is also used in Barn. 7.4 I see also r. Cor.9.r3;ro. r8.

n According to Michel the sentence says that Jewish and sectarian priests areexcluded from the Lord's Supper (op. cit., p. S+S); a more general interpretationis presented by Moule, op. cit., p.38: "the Jews whose religion runs upon the l inesof the Mosaic tabernacle . have not the privilege of eating from it," i.e., thereal altar which the Christians have. But on the whole f agree with Moule's mainpoint: "The sacrifice (of the Christians) is the Body of Christ, his obedient self-surrender," which is opposed to sacriicial performances as ttreally is opposed tosymbolically" (p. 39).


this belongs to a way of participation which is obsolete now, i.e.,that of the "first tent." The Lord's Supper is not specifically re-ferred to, nor any other particular doctrine of ritual or culticregulation. But we have to ask further: What are the polemicalimplications of these fundamental and radical Christologicalarguments in Hebrews r3.9 ff.?

V

Is it possible that r3.g ff. implies an argument against somet'neo-sacramentarians," u' who misunderstand the Lord's Supperas a Bpdp"a that gives direct communion with the divine? Wasthe author to the Hebrews then an antisacramentalist? It isstrange that he never - except, perhaps in our passage - evenmentions the Lord's Supper, although his highly liturgical andsacrificial symbolism could have given ample opportunity to arguein this direction positively. Furthermore his attitude to baptismis quite peculiar. In 9.ro he challenges the "baptisms" (Batrrwp"ot: ablutions) of the "first tent" as t'regulations of the flesh,"without mentioning the Christian baptism with a word. In 6.2 hementions the "teaching of baptisms" (Barrwpdv-plural! -

Er8api) among the initial, elementary doctrines of Christianity,which a Christian has to leave behind to advance to perfection.Nevertheless, there is a positive interpretation of baptism in He-brews rot22, but it is not a sacramental one. If there is really acriticism of the sacraments in Hebrews - and some indicationsare given for this-we have to be aware of one thing: sacra-mentalism is not criticized because "any such notion is, to him,a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he des-pises as 'a vain thing, fondly invented,"' as Moffatt says.b3 Onthe contrary, sacramentalism would be challenged because for theauthor of our epistle, it implies an escape from the dimension ofhuman, i.e., historical, and secular reality. It is within this realmof human existence that Jesus suffered and died (cf., Hebrews

S.Z). It is in this same realm of reality that the Christians as thetrue wandering people of God have no escape into performances

6'Moffatt, op. cit., p. 234.sMoffat t , op. c i t . , p . 234.

..OUTSIDE THE CAMP"

and t'sacraments" which are in themselves "religious" or divine.But they have to accept the challenges and sufferings of this hu-man existence as their path to the city they are to inherit, whichis, however, still in the future (cf., Hebrews 13.r4). Hence, suchcriticism of a false "sacramentalism" would be very similar tor. Corinthians rr, where the point of Paul's argument is thepreaching of the Lord's death until he cornes again.

But whether the passage Hebrews r3.9 ff. has such anti-sacra-mentalistic implications or not, basically it is directed against anymediation of the Divine that entailed a denial of the humanity andreal suffering of the redeemer in this world, which did not takethis life and world seriously, but takes refuge in the sacred ratherthan in the human appearance of God in the world.

What is attacked here as Bpdy"ara is the Christian - butheretical - doctrine of direct communion with the divine in thesacrament or in any other regulations and rituals. This teachingfailed to acknowledge the paradoxical character of the divinepresence in the salvation focused in the cross of Calvary "outsidethe camp," and did not see the involvement of the christian exist-ence in the non-sacred character of this life as a necessary conse-quence from the ((unholy sacrifice" of Jesus, upon which Chris-tian faith rests. Therefore our author here in the paraenesis ofthe last chapter of his epistle points vigorously to the humanityof the redeemer and his suffering beyond the holiness of the campas the basic fact of the Christian faith.

Our passage is not a key to Hebrews in the sense that the en-tire epistle is to be understood as a controversy with such hereticsas are attacked in chapter 13.64 But the basic Christological ar-gument against heresy is, nevertheless, a clue to the problems ofchristology in this epistle. The entire epistle is devoted to theChristological problem of salvation and of revelation of the di-vine power precisely in the man Jesus, and to the ecclesiologicalconsequences of this Christological concept.

- 6'windisch, op. cit., p. rr8. Moreover every attempt to fix the epistle as a

whole in a specific situation of the church or a church group fails, beciuse of thecharacter of this writing, which is not a "letter" written for a specific situation(against Mansont), but by all means a fundamental theological treatise.

3 1 5

'Outside the Camp': Hebrews 13.9-14

Documents