<- Previous   First   Next ->

point: mononouci; to; tou' Cristou' levgei ejn oi|" e[legen ouj to; eijsercovmenon koinoi' to;n a[nqrwpon ajlla; to; ejxercovmenon, kai; deivknusin o{ti to; pa'n pivsti" ejstivn . a]n au{th bebaiwvsh/ hJ kardiva ejn ajsfaleiva/ e{sthken .

For the use of kalovn compare Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26; Gal. 4:18; Matt. 17:4 & c. In each case the idea of the observable effect of that which is described appears to be dominant. Comp. Heb. 10:24, note.
ejn oi|" ... oiJ perip .] Vulg. ( non profuerunt ) inambulantibus in eis, for they that occupied themselves (walked) therein were not profited , that is, they did not gain the end of human effort, fellowship with God. There is no thought here of the disciplinary value of the Law.

For the image of peripatei'n [ ejn brwvmasin ] compare Eph. 2:10 ( ejn [ e[rgoi" ajgaqoi'" ] perip. ); Col. 3:7; and the more general phrases Rom. 6:4 ( ejn kainovthti zwh'" p. ); 2 Cor. 10:3 ( ejn sarki; p. ); Col. 4:5 ( ejn sofiva/ p. ). The ejn expresses the defined sphere of action and thought.

For oujk wjfelhvqhsan see Herm. Vis. 2.2 prodovnte" oujk wjfelhvqhsan . ( b ) Heb. 13:10-12. The strength of the Christian comes from God's gift, but He uses the natural influences of life for the fulfilment of His purpose. Provision is made in the Christian society for the enjoyment of the benefits of Christ's Life and Death in social fellowship. In this respect Christians have that which more than compensates for any apparent loss which they may incur in their exclusion from the Jewish services.

13:10. e[comen qusiasthvrion ] Vulg. habemus altare ( hostiam d). The position of e[comen and the absence of the personal pronoun indicate that the statement presents a contrast to some supposed deficiency. Christians, as such, so it appears to have been urged, are in a position of disadvantage: they have not something which others have. The reply is ‘We have an altar....’
‘We have that which furnishes us also with a feast upon a sacrifice.’

There is not a sharp opposition between Christians and Jews at first: that difference comes out later. The main contention is that the exclusion from the sacrificial services of the Temple is compensated by something which answers to them and is of a nobler kind. At the same time the writer, as he develops the thought, goes further. Hitherto he has shewn that the Christian can dispense with the consolations of the Jewish ritual: he now prepares to draw the conclusion that if he is a Christian he ought to give them up (13:13 Let us go forth ...).

From the connexion which has been pointed out it seems clear that the ‘altar’ ( qusiasthvrion ) must correspond with the Temple altar as including both the idea of sacrifice and the idea of food from the sacrifice (1 Cor. 9:13). Primarily there is but one sacrifice for the Christian and one means of support, the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and the participating in Him (John 6:53 ff.). In this first and highest sense, into which each secondary sense must be resolved, the only earthly ‘altar’ is the Cross on which Christ offered Himself: Christ is the offering: He is Himself the feast of the believer. The altar is not regarded at any time apart from the victim. It is the source of the support which the Christian partakes. When the idea of the one act of sacrifice predominates, the image of the Cross rises before us: when the idea of our continuous support, then the image of Christ living through death prevails.

So it is that as our thoughts pass from the historic scene of the Passion to its abiding fruit, Christ Himself, Christ crucified, is necessarily


<- Previous   First   Next ->