ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες.
“We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have not authority to eat.” Hebrews 13:10
I. The problem
Reflections on this verse tend to express the following themes:
- The Levitical Priests and those who continue under the old order cannot benefit from the sacrifice of Christ.[1]
- The hearers, likely those who believe in Jesus, can eat from this altar.[2]
- This demonstrates a denouncement of the priesthood, and the elevation of believers in Christ.[3]
As we line up these interpretations with the logic of the text itself and the principles the text draws from Leviticus, we find that these interpretations fall short. If we were to prioritize the text over the interpretive tradition, might we come to different conclusions. Our hope is to revisit these verses asking what is definitively said in Hebrews 13:10-12? We will begin this process by looking at the questions that arise from the text itself.
II. Questions arising from Hebrews 13:10-12
A cursory reading of the text raises several immediate questions. Is the language of the text referring to a sacrifice or an altar? If it is altar, which altar is it, where is it located, and how can it be said that the recipients “have” such an altar or such a sacrifice? As for the sacrifice on that altar, what sort of sacrifice might this be?
- The θυσιαστήριον problem, sacrifice or altar?
θυσιαστήριον occurs 24 times in the New Testament. It has been translated as “an altar or a metonymy for the sacrifices”.[4] However, the second meaning is given only in reference to Hebrews 13:10 while every other NT reference is clearly to the place of offering. Thus, the second definition is possible, but “place of sacrifice” or “altar” is more likely. At the same time, the context is the question of who may eat from this altar, and sacrifices are referenced. As a result, we put forward that the altar itself is in view, but eating refers to the sacrifices burnt and cooked on this altar.
- Which Altar?
Since this altar involves food, it is an allusion to the Israel’s brazen altar. At the same time, the author says this is an altar ἔχομεν, present active indicative, “we are having.” In light of the previous chapters in Hebrews this could be a reference to the altar of the earthly tabernacle or the altar of the heavenly tabernacle. The centrality of the altar in the life of Israel has been raised repeatedly in Hebrews 9 and especially in 9:22 with its allusion to Leviticus 19. While this helps understand the meaning which the writer ascribes to the altar, the present verse could, in light of this background, be a reference to the cross of Christ using a sanctuary metaphor.[5] Perhaps we can clarify what writer means by ἔχομεν. Some help is contributed by the writer’s use of ἔχω elsewhere in Hebrews, which let us what we have[6] or do not have:
- 4:15- we do not have an unsympathetic high priest
- 6:19- we have hope as an anchor of the soul
- 8:1- we have such a high priest who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the majesty on high
- 10:19-25 we have confidence and a great high priest
- 12:1- we have a great cloud of witnesses
- 13:14- we do not have a lasting city, but we seek on which is to come.
Since the uses of “what we have” or “what we do not have” are framed in terms of “not this” and “but this” to “have an altar” seems to be in the “but this” category. This suggests a reference to an altar other than the altar in the earthly sanctuary. Based on the expansion in verse 12, that Jesus, “to sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the camp”, this altar may be the cross itself, the heavenly altar,[7] or even Christ, himself.[8]
However, we should note that the altar is not the place of slaughter but the place of offering. Our modern use of “sacrifice” as death or loss rather than offering in worship tends to color our understanding of the ancient usage. Since the text speaks of an altar from which we may or may not eat, this becomes even more important, since no sacrifice was eaten raw. Nor does blood get cooked. It is always drained either collected for other ritual purposes or poured out according to the directions for each offering.[9] In this case, the text itself refers to a sacrifice where the blood is “brought into the sanctuary.” On the brazen altar parts of it are burnt up in smoke. The bulk of the carcass would be burned in a clean place outside the camp. The text contrasts places of offering, not slaughter. Blood is brought into the sanctuary, carcass is burned outside the camp, thus the meat on the altar is not for food. The language seems to be referring to this specific sacrifice on a spiritual or heavenly altar in which this offering is given to God but not consumed by the officiants.
- Which sacrifice or sacrifices?
Next we will examine the possible sacrificial references the writer could have in mind in Hebrews 13:10-12. As we do, we will explore three themes raised in Hebrews 13:10-12 to find out how details of these offerings were understood by people familiar with the sacrifices of Israel. We will explore:
- Sacrifices whose blood is brought into the sanctuary.
- Sacrifices whose carcasses are burned outside the camp.
- The relationship between officiant, offeror, and eating.
III. Levitical Precepts
Sacrifices whose blood is brought into the sanctuary
Of the 5 classes of Levitical offerings, the blood of the אָשָׁם offerings and Passover lambs were applied to the brazen altar. The blood of peace and whole burnt offerings were sprinkled around the brazen altar (Leviticus 3:8, 13). But only the type 2 חַטָּאת and the Yom Kippur involved the transporting of blood into the holy place or the holy of holies.[10]
The type 2 חַטָּאת can be described by level of need. Forgiveness or cleansing for the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:3-7), or the community as whole (Leviticus 4:13-19) would warrant a type 2 חַטָּאת. Whereas for an individual with less social responsibility, the type one would suffice (Leviticus 4:27-30). The distinction in practice between two kinds of חַטָּאת is evident in that a portion of the type 1 was eaten in the sanctuary by the priest, while the type 2 burned outside the camp. This is not a question of holiness of one type over the other. The type 2, burnt outside the camp, involved blood applications that penetrated deeper into the sanctuary, as specified in Leviticus 2:26. On the one hand, that might make the blood of that animal holier. On the other hand, the flesh of that animal may have been more defiling. Were that the case, it would be unnecessary to specify that it be burned in a place that is clean.[11]
That a small portion of the type 1 חַטָּאת was eaten suggests that the point of eating was not to dispose of impurity but to demonstrate acceptance of that sacrifice by God.[12] The priest who survived eating the sacrifice signified that things were well between God and the supplicant. Similarly, for those sacrifices whose blood was brought into the holy place, the reemergence of the priest from the sanctuary[13] demonstrated that the sacrifice had been accepted, rendering the eating of the sacrifice unnecessary.
The level of benefit provided by sacrifice, or the depth of crisis the sacrifice remedied, was communicated by the costliness of the sacrifice (bull or goat) and the depth of penetration into the sanctuary (first veil, altar of incense, second veil). Since the חַטָּאת provided both cleansing/sanctification and forgiveness it is not as clear as we might naturally think as to which of these the writer has in mind.
That the writer references the offering as being made by the ἀρχιερεύς or high priest, may indicate Hebrews 13:10 speaks of a sacrifice of ultimate purgation at Yom Kippur. But since a high priest may offer any other of the sacrifices during the year, and customarily offered all the sacrifices during the week leading up to Yom Kippur we cannot yet decide with certainty.[14]
A Yom Kippur sacrifice is also suggested by the location to which that blood is brought, εἰς τὰ ἅγια or into the most holy place,[15] so we would read “for the bodies of those animals whose blood it brought into the (holy of) holies by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp.”[16] This would be in keeping with Leviticus 16:27.[17] Because the Yom Kippur pattern shares a great deal with the type 2 חַטָּאת we will need to depend on the meaning of εἰς τὰ ἅγια in order to determine which sacrifice is being referenced.[18]
Who “has the right to eat”?
The one for whom a sin or guilt offering was made, was not to receive any other benefit from it. The supplicant, whether lay person or priest, was not to eat the meat or use the skins of a sin offering made on their own behalf. This creates a problem for the traditional readings of Hebrews 13:10-11 that claim the readers, recipients of the letter, would see themselves as eating from this altar or of this sacrifice.
This also poses a challenge to readings that insist that those who serve the altar could gain no benefit from the altar that “we have”.[19] Granted, a benefit gained by those who served the altar was eating. The benefits of the sacrifice itself, forgiveness, cleansing, and consecration was the specific allotment of those who could not eat from the altar at that time. However, the text describes a sacrifice from which no one would be allowed to eat. The means of benefiting from this sacrifice is not through eating but by being included in the confession of the need for it. The benefit for the one who officiates the ceremony, is surviving entry into the holiest place, a major theme in the Letter to the Hebrews. In the logic of Leviticus, that the priests could not eat from this altar says less about who receives the ultimate benefits of the sacrifice and more about what manner of sacrifice the writer is referencing. The question is now open is whether the “we” in this verse may eat of it, and whether in doing so, the writer envisioned some benefit in eating. If the answer is “yes” and the believers did eat of this offering, the writer has left the domains of his controlling analogy and placed us in a new domain for which we have little guidance.[20]
The language of “authority to eat” has led some to say that “authority” is at issue here. However, the language of the text is not a question of authoritative groups. Hebrews 13:10-12 is clear in its citation that it is the regulation from Leviticus is authoritative and that no one may eat.[21]
Sacrifices Burned Outside the Camp
- In Exodus 29:14, the offering for priestly, consecration, speaks of a bull, whose blood is applied to the horns of the altar and whose blood is poured out at the base of the altar. It is burned outside the camp, but neither blood within the veil nor eating are mentioned. Seven such bulls are offered during this consecration ritual across seven days (Exodus 29:36). These are said to be “a sin offering”, “for the altar to consecrate it”, so that “the altar will be most holy and whatever touches the altar shall be holy.” Where the rams are eaten, there is no instruction to eat any of the bulls. In verse 38:45 the tamid offerings are designated to the following end:
“It shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the doorway of the tent of meeting before the Lord, Where I will meet with you, to speak to you there. “I will meet there with the sons of Israel, and it shall be consecrated by My glory. “I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar; I will also consecrate Aaron and his sons to minister as priests to Me. “I will dwell among the sons of Israel and will be their God. “They shall know that I am the Lord their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them; I am the Lord their God.”
What is notable, is that the first mention of a bull that involves blood application and burning outside the camp is not a regular sin offering, nor the Yom Kippur, but is an offering for consecrating the priesthood and the sanctuary.[22]
- Lev 4:12-21 The offering in Leviticus 4 is the one most associated with the language of Hebrews 13:10-11. It is the sin offering for the sin of the anointed priest, which requires a bull, blood sprinkled on the inner veil, blood applied to the altar of incense, and the burning of the bull outside the camp.
- Leviticus 9:8-11 is a re-statement of the ordination sacrifices of Exodus 26, although, in this case the sin offering for ordination is not mentioned as a bull, but as a “calf.” Also mentioned here is the outpouring of blood at the base of the brazen altar.
- Leviticus 16:27 speaks of the bull as a Yom Kippur sacrifice. The additional instructions here involve the need to wash those who burn this offering before they are allowed to return to the camp.
- Numbers 19:3-10 speaks of the ashes of the red heifer. It does not involve eating or blood applications, only that the blood is sprinkled “toward the tent of meeting seven times”. Since the animal is burned whole, and no blood is brought from it into the tent, this does not seem to be the object of Hebrews 13:10.
The surprise here might be that half of the candidates mentioned in the torah, bulls, whose blood is taken into the sanctuary, and whose carcass is burned outside the camp are, in fact, related to priestly ordination.
IV. What is certain about Hebrews 13:11?
We have seen that the one who eats of sin offerings is not the one who benefits from them, but the one who offers them. We have also seen that in the case of those offerings brought inside the veil, no one is to eat of them. A common reading of Hebrews 13:10-12 is that those not permitted to eat have such a limit precisely because they serve the tent.[23] Rather, the text is clear that those who serve the tent cannot eat because this sacrifice is of the sort that is brought inside the veil. Pitting serving the tent against the eating of the sacrifice is not the logical flow of the text and should not be used as the text’s main meaning.
The question remains, “what is definitively expressed in Hebrews 13:10-11?” We have said so far that the text does not exclude Jews or priests from receiving the benefits of the “altar we have.” Nor does it clearly assert that believers in Jesus have the right to eat from this altar. They are clearly the recipients of the benefits, but eating would not normally be the benefit they receive. If it is uniquely present in this case, it is implied rather than stated. Here in Hebrews 13, the logic runs:
- Sacrifices whose blood is brought into the sanctuary may not be eaten by the priest.
- Instead, these sacrifices are burned outside the camp
- Because our sacrifice was one in which the blood was brought into the sanctuary, the priests of the earthly sanctuary may not eat from our altar.
- For Jesus, to sanctify a people through his blood suffered outside the gate.
Herein lies the tension. The rationale for not being allowed to eat from the altar, is that the blood of this sacrifice for sins was “brought into the sanctuary.” We have explored the nature of the altar that “we are having”, that is unique to the community to whom Hebrews was written. Read along with Hebrews 13:12, this seems to be, if not the altar at which Christ officiates, the altar where Christ was “offered” (Hebrews 9:28). This would, in turn, mean that the blood brought would be the “blood of Christ” through which he “sanctified a people.”
If this sacrifice is, in any way, the body or blood of Christ, then this text states that Christ’s blood has been brought into the sanctuary. Unless we hold that this altar is in the earthly sanctuary, then this seems to be a clear statement that Christ, as high priest has brought his blood into the heavenly sanctuary. Though the conversation of Christ’s blood in the heavenly sanctuary is generally discussed based on Hebrews 9, the text there does not allow the conversation to be settled.[24] What could not be settled in Hebrews 9, the writer seems to be saying here in Hebrews 13, in no uncertain terms, that Christ’s blood was brought into the heavenly sanctuary. That, itself makes the altar one from which those who serve sanctuary have no right to eat.[25]
[1] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Eerdmans, 2012), 399, especially footnote 63. See also Cockerill, 697, Koester, 569, and Hagner, 242)
[2] Franz Delitsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (T & T Clark, 1876), 386. Delitsch goes on to argue that we may eat of Christ since he is our Paschal lamb. While this is noted elsewhere, it does not seem to be in view here. The question must be, what does the language here indicate by invoking the legislation regarding blood brought inside the first or second of the tabernacle veils.
[3] Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews: Based on the New International Version, 5th printing, New International Biblical Commentary New Testament Series 14 (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 242. “The word eat here is almost certainly to be taken in a figurative sense to mean to partake of the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ. That is, within the framework of the old system, they cannot partake of the fulfillment brought by the sacrifice of Christ. This is true of the priests and the high priest, but by implication true of all those who participate in their work. Thus for the readers to return to Judaism would mean the forfeit of the benefits of Christ’s work. They, like the priests, would be excluded from partaking of the altar, that is, the work of Christ.”
[4] Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 399.
[5] Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews, A Commentary, The New Testament Library (John Knox Press, 2006), 348.
[6] Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Eerdmans, 2012), 696. Corkerill points out that the author gives no indication that the heavenly sanctuary has an altar. See also Koester, 596. Koester points out that Hebrews 9 θυμιατήριον makes mention of while Hebrews 13 refers to the brazen altar, θυσιαστήριον. This does not seem to be a problem since Hebrews 9 describes the contents of the tents, while Hebrews 10 is speaking of outside the tent and outside the camp.
[7] Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 696.
[8] John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1688), 7:545.
[9] Levitcus 1:5, 4:5-7, 4:16-18, 4:34.
[10] Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 679. In footnote 46, Cockerill says the offering of Hebrews 13 is the peace offering which would fit the eating of it, but not the transport of blood into the sanctum. One possibility is that the writer is merging metaphorical language, in which case, Cockerill’s interpretation could fit.
[11] Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Brill, 1983), 334, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004666603.
[12] Derek Kidner, “Sacrifice – Metaphors and Meaning,” Tyndale Bulletin 33, no. 1 (1982): 135, https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.30604.
[13] Similarly the Yom Kippur is successful based on the reemergence of the high priest from the sanctuary as in Hebrews 9:28.
[14] Mishnah Tractate Yoma 1, “During all seven days of the High Priest’s sequestering before Yom Kippur, he sprinkles the blood of the daily burnt-offering, and he burns the incense, and he removes the ashes of the lamps of the candelabrum, and he sacrifices the head and the hind leg of the daily offering. The High Priest performs these tasks in order to grow accustomed to the services that he will perform on Yom Kippur. On all the other days of the year, if the High Priest wishes to sacrifice any of the offerings, he sacrifices them, as the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and takes any portion that he chooses first.”
[15] Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3rd Edition (Macmillan and Co., 1903), 442.
[16] Since many do not accept this wording as specifically referring to the Holy of Holies, it is not universally recognized that this is a Yom Kippur sacrifice. If it is not a Yom Kippur sacrifice it must be a type 2 חַטָּאת.
[17] Hagner, Hebrews, 244. Hagner points out that the language of Hebrews 13:11 is largely drawn from the LXX of Leviticus 16:27
[18] Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 333.
[19] Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 7:548. “He doth not intend that we have an altar whereof some may eat, namely, of meats taken from it and consecrated by it, which they had no right to do; but only that they have no right to participate of the benefits of our altar in any way or kind.”
[20] Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 441. Westcott makes a remarkable and plausible case for Christians being allowed to eat saying, “The superiority which the Christian enjoyed over the Jew became most conspicuous when the highest point in each order was reached. The great sacrifice for sin on the Day of Atonement was wholly consumed. Though they ‘who served the tabernacle’ ‘were partakers with the altar,’ even those who were most privileged had no right to eat of this offering. But Christ who is our sac1ifice for sin, the perfect antitype of that symbol is our food also.”
[21] Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible Commentary (Doubleday, 2001), 36:570. Koester says that the priests do not have the authority to eat from the Christian altar, because the New Covenant offering is received by faith. However, it is here the Old Covenant that the writer cites to explain why those who serve the tent are not authorized to eat. If Koester is correct than the New Covenant benefits only belong to those with enough faith to break the Old Covenant.
[22] Justin Harrison Duff, “The Blood of Goats and Calves … and Bulls? An Allusion to Isaiah 1:11 LXX in Hebrews 10:4,” Journal of Biblical Literature 137, no. 3 (2018): 774, https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1373.2018.344454.
[23] Delitsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 387. See also Bruce, 403 where “outside the camp” is to leave Judaism and Hagner, 242, where to “return to Judaism” would cause the readers to forfeit their own right to eat from this altar.
[24] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews Part IV: The Present Work of Christ in Heaven,” Bibliotheca Sacra 131, no. January-March (1974): 26–33. Hughes in this series and in his commentary gives the most complete refutation of the idea that Christ brought his blood into the heavenly sanctuary based on Hebrews 9. Though his argument is thorough, I do not believe it is final.
[25] Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 7:535. “For in the solemn sacrifices of expiation and atonement, as we shall see, the blood of them was carried into the holy place, and the bodies of them were burned entirely without the camp, so as that the priests themselves had no right to eat any thing of them, verses 11, 12.”