A brief note on Hebrews 13.11-13 (camp and gate).

[Peter Kirby]

After discovering some more discussions online which seem to assume that the mention of the gate in Hebrews 13.12 stands out as odd or different somehow from the Israelite encampment and sacrificial protocols of the surrounding verses (some such assumptions even being made by mythicists keen to remove possible historical references in the epistle), I decided to revisit this thread with a simple experiment in mind: since the Israelite encampment had a gate, according to the OT, and since, therefore, outside the gate can simply equal outside the camp without remainder, let us just make the substitution and see how the passage sounds at that point. Hebrews 13.11-13, alternate version:

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης]. Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the camp. Hence, let us go out to him outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης], bearing his reproach.

(Reading it out loud to ourselves, with its now threefold attestation of the same prepositional phrase, we might even detect why, stylistically, the author may have had good cause to write outside the gate instead of outside the camp in that middle verse.)

Does any temptation remain to find verse 12 somehow different in texture than verses 11 and 13? What appears is a simple metaphor. This is not the same kind of operation found in those parts of Hebrews that parallel a spiritual sprinkling of the implements of the heavenly tabernacle with a physical sprinkling of the implements of the earthly tabernacle; but, then again, it never was, not on any halfway decent reading. It is just a metaphor, a conceit which expressed more bluntly as a simile might run something like this: like the sacrificial carcasses are burned outside the camp, so Jesus suffered outside the camp; that is, he was (and still is) rejected by humanity; you, likewise, join him out there in his reproach, even if it means experiencing rejection by humanity, as well. (Segue into the next verse.) For any present city, any acceptance by humanity here and now, is transitory; we await an eternal city (replete with all the good stuff already described in 12.22-24).

Interesting take on things. Thanks, Ben.

[Tenorikuma]

I would just suggest, Ben, that the author wants to make the metaphor of the wilderness Tabernacle relevant to the heavenly Jerusalem and its temple where Jesus is the high priest.

[andrewcriddle]

After discovering some more discussions online which seem to assume that the mention of the gate in Hebrews 13.12 stands out as odd or different somehow from the Israelite encampment and sacrificial protocols of the surrounding verses (some such assumptions even being made by mythicists keen to remove possible historical references in the epistle), I decided to revisit this thread with a simple experiment in mind: since the Israelite encampment had a gate, according to the OT, and since, therefore, outside the gate can simply equal outside the camp without remainder, let us just make the substitution and see how the passage sounds at that point. Hebrews 13.11-13, alternate version:

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης]. Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the camp. Hence, let us go out to him outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης], bearing his reproach.

(Reading it out loud to ourselves, with its now threefold attestation of the same prepositional phrase, we might even detect why, stylistically, the author may have had good cause to write outside the gate instead of outside the camp in that middle verse.)

Does any temptation remain to find verse 12 somehow different in texture than verses 11 and 13? What appears is a simple metaphor. This is not the same kind of operation found in those parts of Hebrews that parallel a spiritual sprinkling of the implements of the heavenly tabernacle with a physical sprinkling of the implements of the earthly tabernacle; but, then again, it never was, not on any halfway decent reading. It is just a metaphor, a conceit which expressed more bluntly as a simile might run something like this: like the sacrificial carcasses are burned outside the camp, so Jesus suffered outside the camp; that is, he was (and still is) rejected by humanity; you, likewise, join him out there in his reproach, even if it means experiencing rejection by humanity, as well. (Segue into the next verse.) For any present city, any acceptance by humanity here and now, is transitory; we await an eternal city (replete with all the good stuff already described in 12.22-24).

Ben.

Doesn't the obvious sense of it as a simile/metaphor imply that Jesus suffered death after being rejected by his fellow Jews ? This would fit very well with the way it is used as an example for the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Doesn't the obvious sense of it as a simile/metaphor imply that Jesus suffered death after being rejected by his fellow Jews ? This would fit very well with the way it is used as an example for the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews.

I think that depends on which elements of the word picture are actually being pressed into active service by the metaphor. Is it the Jewishness of the encampment? Is it the burning??

To my eye, the context suggests that the beating heart of the metaphor is the dichotomy of inside versus outside, the being unwelcome in current circles (versus being welcomed into circles to come, once the metaphor has switched over to cities). Everything else may be there, but is not essential. For example, the author elsewhere specifies that Christ was crucified. Is the usual venue for crucifixion, outside of settlements, a good match for suffering outside the gate? Absolutely, and I for one happen to think that it is squarely in mind. But we have to derive that connection from beyond the wording of the metaphor itself.

Likewise, is the Jewishness of the encampment a good match for a scenario in which Christ was rejected by fellow Jews? Certainly, but again, we are deriving that connection from beyond the wording of the metaphor itself.

Likewise again, and back to the main point of this thread, I think that treating the gate in this passage as automatically implying knowledge from beyond the metaphor itself (such as that Christ suffered outside a gate of Jerusalem, or that Christ suffered outside the gate of a celestial city) is a mistake. Basically, this is an exercise in self-discipline as an exegete; even if the connection is there, this forces me to identify exactly what is making that connection, and in this case it is not the mere presence of the gate, which appears to be as much a part of the word picture as the camp is. Those connections may be there in the mind of the author, but we have to derive them from elsewhere in what the author has written, not from the metaphor itself. Or so it seems to me.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

I would just suggest, Ben, that the author wants to make the metaphor of the wilderness Tabernacle relevant to the heavenly Jerusalem and its temple where Jesus is the high priest.

I agree that the author is making the metaphor relevant to other concepts in the epistle; in fact, this metaphor leads directly into the tale of two cities metaphor, as it were. But see my response above to Andrew; my point is that the term gate is not what gets us there; not by itself.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

I agree about metaphors in Heb 13.11-13 in this way:
The camp (of the Jews) in the Pentateuch is a metaphor for the then Jerusalem (of the Jews), itself a metaphor for (non Christian) Judaism.
However, in order for the argument to work, it would greatly help if it was common knowledge then that Jesus was crucified outside a city gate.
Could the author, without knowing the relative location of the crucifixion, assume it happened not inside the "camp"?
That would be a risky proposition: if proven wrong, his potential Jewish detractors could have the argument backfire to their advantage.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Bernard, do you understand my point about the word gate in this metaphor? Do you agree that the word gate is not, in and of itself, a tip-off that a city is in mind?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Bernard, do you understand my point about the word gate in this metaphor? Do you agree that the word gate is not, in and of itself, a tip-off that a city is in mind?

I think you are referring to that:

Ben wrote:

... so Jesus suffered outside the camp; that is, he was (and still is) rejected by humanity; you, likewise, join him out there in his reproach, even if it means experiencing rejection by humanity, as well.

I do not agree. I think it is too much of a stretch to say that humanity is a metaphor for "camp". And the whole of humanity is not totally rejecting Christ (at the time of the writing of the epistle) because some, Gentiles and Jews, had become Christians.
The Jewish "camp", in the times of Moses, is essentially the precursor of the Jewish Jerusalem. Both were/are the "capital" of the Jews and therefore also a symbol for Judaism. That's as far as I can go.

Heb 13:13-14 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
I understand that as "Let us go forth therefore unto him outside traditional Judaism (being replaced by the new covenant based on faith), bearing his reproach.
For here have we no continuing city (Jerusalem, symbol for Judaism), but we seek one to come (the heavenly Jerusalem)."

I think I know now why the author of Hebrews made his argument from "the camp", rather than from his contemporary Jerusalem. Then, the animals were killed and burnt inside Jerusalem, so the author could not use Jerusalem to make his point. But he remembered about the red heifer of Numbers which states clearly it was killed and burnt outside the camp, and ignoring (purposely or not) the fact that the other animals were killed and burnt inside (but not clearly stated in the OT).
That's why he used that burnt red heifer (but as "the beasts") as a parallel for Christ suffering the crucifixion outside the gate. That means to me the author did some "stretching" in order to provide a OT parallel as support for accommodating the fact Jesus was crucified outside the gate, and then make his point.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Bernard, do you understand my point about the word gate in this metaphor? Do you agree that the word gate is not, in and of itself, a tip-off that a city is in mind?

I think you are referring to that:

Ben wrote:

... so Jesus suffered outside the camp; that is, he was (and still is) rejected by humanity; you, likewise, join him out there in his reproach, even if it means experiencing rejection by humanity, as well.

No, actually, I am referring to this:

...I decided to revisit this thread with a simple experiment in mind: since the Israelite encampment had a gate, according to the OT, and since, therefore, outside the gate can simply equal outside the camp without remainder, let us just make the substitution and see how the passage sounds at that point. Hebrews 13.11-13, alternate version:

For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης]. Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the camp. Hence, let us go out to him outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης], bearing his reproach.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the camp. Hence, let us go out to him outside the camp [εξω της παρεμβολης], bearing his reproach.

But the text does not have the (bolded) "outside the camp". Instead it is "outside the gate", suggesting that gate is not necessarily one of the camp (during the exodus), allowing it to be understood as one of Jerusalem city gates. And verse 13:14 suggests the continuing city (Jerusalem of the Jews and old covenant) is not for Christians, paralleling it was also not for Christ (because he was expelled from it on his way to the place of crucifixion).

Cordially, Bernard