Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 13:11

For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

11. are burnt without the camp ] Of the sin-offerings the Priests could not, as in the case of other offerings, eat the entire flesh, or the breast and shoulder, or all except the fat (Num 6:20; Lev 6:26, &c.). The word for “burn” ( saraph) means “entirely to get rid of,” and is not the word used for burning upon the altar. The rule that these sin-offerings should be burned, not eaten, was stringent (Lev 6:30; Lev 16:27).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For the bodies of those beasts … – The word rendered here for – gar – would be here more properly rendered moreover. Stuart. The apostle is not urging a reason for what he had said in the previous verse, but is suggesting a new consideration to excite those whom he addressed to fidelity and perseverance. In the previous verse the consideration was, that Christians are permitted to partake of the benefits of a higher and more perfect sacrifice than the Jews were, and therefore should not relapse into that religion. In this verse the consideration is, that the bodies of the beasts that were burnt were taken without the camp, and that in like manner the Lord Jesus suffered without the gate of Jerusalem, and that we should be willing to go out with him to that sacrifice, whatever reproach or shame it might be attended with.

Whose blood is brought into the sanctuary – ; see the notes on Heb 9:7, Heb 9:12. Are burned without the camp; Lev 4:12, Lev 4:21; Lev 16:27. The camp here refers to the time when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and lived in encampments. The same custom was observed after the temple was built by conveying the body of the animal slain for a sin-offering on the great day of atonement beyond the walls of Jerusalem to be consumed there. Whatever, says Grotius, was not lawful to be done in the camp, afterward was not lawful to be done in the city.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Heb 13:11-13

Jesus also suffered without the gate

Jesus suffering without the gate

I.

A CUSTOM that prevailed among the Israelites in the wilderness; The bodies of those beasts, etc. The apostle writes as though the camp and this custom still existed. The camp, however, was gone, but the custom remained with this difference only, that the temple was now substituted for the tabernacle and the city for the camp. It was a custom of Divine appointment. The Lord, in framing a law for the Jews, regarded the whole nation as sinners. Besides, therefore, the offerings to be made by individuals for their own sins, various sacrifices were ordained for the sins of the nation, and among these, one of unusual solemnity. It was to be offered once in every year, and on a certain day of the year, called from this circumstance the day of atonement.

II. AN EVENT which took place at Jerusalem, closely resembling it; Wherefore Jesus also, &c. Notice three points of resemblance between our Lord and the animals burnt on the day of atonement.

1. They did not die a natural death; their blood was shed before they were carried forth. And our Lord also suffered; His precious blood, too, was poured forth.

2. He suffered in the same place in which these animals were destroyed. They were slain, indeed, in the camp, but they were burned outside of it. So our Lord suffered without the gate. They led Him out to crucify Him, out of their city, to the very spot probably where, after the people were settled in Jerusalem, the bodies of those beasts which had so long prefigured Him were consumed.

3. He suffered for the same end. The blood of these animals was shed that it might be taken into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, as a propitiation for sin; their bodies were burned as a testimony of the Divine indignation against sin. When these two ceremonies had been gone through God is said to have been reconciled to His people, the whole camp was considered as purged from its transgressions. And what was the end for which our Lord suffered? It was that His people, His spiritual Israel, might have sin removed from them.

III. AN EXHORTATION grounded on the event mentioned. Let us go forth, &c. We must again imagine ourselves in the desert. Around us are spread the tents of Israel. The men dwelling in them are all worshipping the Lord in one way–as their fathers worshipped Him, looking for His mercy through rites and ceremonies and bleeding victims. The Lord Jesus appears amongst them; tells them He is sent of God to abolish these rites and ceremonies, to become Himself once for all a victim for them, and calls upon them in consequence to turn from their shadowy rites and long accustomed sacrifices to Him. Instead of this, they cast Him forth out of their camp and crucify Him. We are to conceive of Him, therefore, as even now hanging in shame and suffering on a Cross beyond the gate, and then comes this apostle saying to us among our tents, Let us not linger here. Let us go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.

1. It is clear, then, that He calls on us, first, to forsake the religion of our fellow-men, a religion, it may be, that either is or once was our own. The Jew in the desert could not go forth to a bleeding Jesus without turning his back on the Jewish worship, and giving up all his long-cherished Jewish hopes. He must abandon the sanctuary and ordinances with which all his religious feelings have been long associated, and around which he beholds his countrymen still gathering. A painful sacrifice. And it is the same now. Many of us have a religion that the gospel calls on us to renounce. It is made up of opinions and feelings and hopes which are as much opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ as the religion of any Jew ever was. We may have cherished it long, even from our childhood. The world around us may respect and commend it; it is natural it should do so–it is the worlds own religion; the world taught it us. But no matter who commends it or how highly we may have valued it, we must let it go; or rather we must turn our backs on it, we must cast it away, before we and the Cross of Christ can ever meet.

2. And with the religion of the world, we must forsake also to a considerable extent the men of the world.

3. Then, connected with this forsaking of the world, there must be an actual coming, the apostle says, to Christ our Lord. Observe, he does not simply bid the Israelites leave the camp, as though his only object was to get them away from their old religion and companions, he directs them all to one spot; he bids them leave the camp for one purpose, that they may go to Him who is suffering for them without the gate. So we are not to go forth only, we are to go forth unto Christ. It will profit us nothing to give us the empty religion of the world, if when we let that go, we get no other. Superstition for scepticism is a poor exchange. And it will profit us as little to forsake the world, if we stand still when we have forsaken it. The going forth, the apostle enjoins, is not going into cells and hermitages, nor is it roaming this desert world in a proud, dreary solitariness. It is a going forth unto Jesus. It is exchanging the religion of the world for the religion of His Cross; it is giving up that which cannot elevate, comfort, or save us, for that which can. And then it is leaving the world for the worlds Master; it is suffering the loss of all things that we may win Christ; it is the forsaking of a world which is not worthy even of us, that we may be–what? outcasts? No; but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God; sharers now of higher riches and pleasures than the earth can give, and heirs of a world that is worthy, if any world can be, of the God who made it. (C. Bradley, M. A.)

Let us go forth therefore unto Him

Exhortation to decision and earnestness in religion:

I. A GENERAL VIEW OF THE ADMONITION IN THE TEXT.

1. The conduct which he intended to prescribe to the Christian converts to whom he wrote was evidently this–namely, that they should openly profess their faith in Jesus, who had been cast out as accursed, notwithstanding the reproach to which such a profession would expose them; and should publicly adhere to His worship and service in the sight of their unbelieving and reviling countrymen.

2. What does the apostle here exhort us to do? He doubtless exhorts us to make Christ crucified our only hope; to confess Him before men, and by our open and consistent attachment to His cause, His people and His ordinances, to show that we indeed belong to Him.

II. SOME PARTICULARS WHICH A COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ADMONITION INVOLVES.

1. That we renounce all other grounds of satisfaction for sin, and of acceptance with God, but those which the Cross of Jesus Christ provides.

2. That we separate ourselves from the world. Especially

(1) From its corrupt practices and principles; and

(2) From its religion–the resemblance of godliness without the power thereof.

3. That we are prepared to take up the cross and encounter reproach for Christs sake.

III. THE MOTIVES BY WHICH THE ADMONITION IS ENFORCED.

1. Our situation in this world is one of extreme uncertainty. Here we have no continuing city.

2. Besides we seek one to come. This is our profession as Christians. We profess that we are seeking a city which hath foundations; a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. But unless we go forth unto Christ, all such profession is vain. (E. Cooper, M. A.)

Let us go forth

I. We have, first of all, THE BELIEVERS PATH. Let us go forth without the camp. The Divine command is not, Let us stop in the camp and try to reform it–things are not anywhere quite perfect, let us therefore stop and make matters right; but the Christians watch cry is, Let us go forth. To this day the Christians place is not to tarry in the camp of worldly conformity, hoping, Perhaps I may aid they movement for reform: it is not the believers duty to conform to the world and to the worlds ways, and say, Perhaps by so doing I may gain a foothold, and mens hearts may be the more ready to receive the truth. No, from the first to the last day of the Church of God, the place of witness is not inside, but outside the camp; and the true position of the Christian is to go forth without the camp, bearing Christs reproach. What is meant by this going forth without the camp?

1. I understand it to mean that every Christian is to go forth by an open profession of his faith. You that love the Lord are to say so. You must come out and avow yourselves on His side. You may be Christians and make no profession, but I cannot be sure of that, nor can any other man.

2. This done, the Christian is to be separate from the world as to his company. He must buy, and sell, and trade, like other men in the world, but yet he is not to find his bosom friends in it.

3. The follower of Jesus goes without the camp as to his pleasures. He is not without his joys nor his recreations either; but he does not seek them where the wicked find them. If thou hast no separation from the world, as to thy pleasures, since thy heart is generally in thy pleasures, thy heart therefore is with the wicked, and with them shall thy doom be when God comes to judge mankind.

4. Furthermore, the true follower of Christ is divided from the world as to his maxims; he does not subscribe to the laws which rule most men in their families and their business. Men generally say, Every one for himself, and

God for us all. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others, is the Christians rule.

5. Once more–and here is a very difficult part of the Christians course–the Christian is to come out not only from the worlds pleasures, andsins, and irreligion, but there are times when the true followers of Christ must come out from the worlds religion as well as irreligion.

II. But now, secondly, we have in the text, THE CHRISTIANS LEADER. It does not say, Let us go forth without the camp merely, but, Let us go forth therefore unto Him.

1. It means, let us have fellowship with Him. He was despised; He had no credit for charity; He was mocked in the streets; He was hissed at; He was hounded from among society. Expect not to wear the crown where Christ carried the Cross; but, for fellowships sake, follow Him.

2. Again, if I am to follow Him, I am to follow His example. What Christ did, that I am to do.

3. I am to go forth unto Him: that is, I am to go forth to His truth. Wherever I see His truth, I am to espouse it: wherever I see error, I am to denounce it without hesitation.

4. And then I am to go forth to Christs witness-bearing. The present age does not believe in witness-bearing, but the whole Bible is full of it. The duty of every Christian is to bear witness for the truth.

III. Now, in the third place, we have THE CHRISTIANS BURDEN. He is to bear the Lords reproach. I knew you may live without it if you will fawn and cringe, and keep back part of the price; but do not this, it is unworthy of your manhood, much more is it unworthy of your Christianity. For God and for Christ be so holy and so truthful that you compel the world to give its best acknowledgment of your goodness by railing at you–it can do no more, it will do no less. Be content to take this shame, for there is no heaven for you if you will not–no crown without the cross, no jewels without the mire. You must stand in the pillory if you would sit in glory; and if you reject the one you reject the Other.

IV. THE CHRISTIANS REASON FOR BEARING HIS REPROACH, AND GOING WITHOUT THE CAMP. It is in the text, Let us go forth therefore–there is the reason. Why then?

1. First, because Jesus did. Jesus Christ came into the world pure and holy, and His life and His testimony were a witness against sin. Jesus Christ would not conform. He stands out like a lone mount of light, separate from the chain of dark mountains; and so must the Christian. Christ was separate; and so must you be. Christ was pure, holy, truthful; so must you be. I pray you either renounce your profession, or else seek grace to carry it out.

2. Moreover, the connection of the text tells us that Christ set apart His people by going without the camp. That He might sanctify His people, He suffered without the camp. The Head is not of the world, and shall the members be of it?

3. Again, Christ would have His people separate for their own sanctification. You cannot grow in grace to any high degree while you are conformed to the world. The path of separation may be a path of sorrow, but it is the path of safety. The martyrs tell us in their diaries that they were never so happy as when they were in the dungeon alone with Christ for company; nay, their best days were often their days of burning: they called them their wedding-days, and went to heaven singing and chanting the triumphal paean, as they mounted in their chariots of fire.

4. Thus we shall hope to win the crown if we are enabled by Divine grace faithfully to follow Christ in all respects. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Going forth to Christ

1. Let us go forth unto Christ without the camp, that we may testify to Him as the Messiah, the only Saviour. This is manifestly the first leading idea which our text is designed to convey. On this fundamental doctrine of our holy faith hinges the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism. It constitutes also one vital point of difference between the gospel and the various systems of heathenism and infidelity. All the sections of the unbelieving world agree in this, that they do not acknowledge Christ as the promised Messiah. Unto you who believe He is precious. Attachment to the person of Christ can only spring from a Divine principle. No man can truly call Him Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. I beg of you, therefore, distinctly to understand, that I do not expect you will be prepared to lift up a consistent testimony to His Messiahship, unless you are the subjects of a saving change. The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to His law, neither indeed can be.

2. Let us go forth unto Jesus without the camp, that we may specially bear testimony to Him as King of Zion. This is what may be emphatically called our present duty. We might justly regard it as treason against the Lord of Glory, were we to overlook this view of our subject. We dare not hold our peace regarding the sovereign authority of the Redeemer, although some prejudiced souls should be offended.

3. We must go forth unto our Lord without the camp if we would enjoy fellowship and communion with Him. This idea is naturally suggested by the preceding context, We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. The importance of this consideration should ever be borne in mind. It argues a very diseased state of things on the part of any professing Christian, when the question with him is–How far he may go in the path of error and corruption, and still enjoy communion with the author and finisher of our faith. And it certainly is a sign of daring impiety when individuals, be they ministers or hearers, are exercising their ingenuity in devising reasons for palliating soul-destroying errors, and when they have the effrontery to tax us with want of charity when we endeavour to vindicate the doctrine of spiritual fellowship, and call upon the Christian people to abandon the communion of a Church that has practically renounced the King of saints.

4. In obeying this command we must lay our account with contempt, reproach, and persecution. It is the dictate of experience, as well as of Scripture, that all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. The mere circumstance of coming out from the world lying in wickedness, and of faithfully serving the Captain of our salvation, has never failed to bring upon them the scorn and hatred of the ungodly. The votaries of superstition cannot bear to see the truth as it is in Jesus openly proclaimed and honoured. Men of despotic principles will not tolerate, if they can help it, a spiritual authority which stands in the way of their usurpations. And false professors of the gospel, whose interests are linked with corruption and tyranny, will be among the foremost to vilify such as for conscience sake withdraw from their communion. Where do we find, among men, a brighter example of piety, and holiness, and philanthropy, than that of the apostle of the Gentiles? and who ever experienced greater reproach or more bitter persecution than he? When we look higher we see that our Lord Himself was despised and rejected of men, a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. Why should we dream of exemption from trials? The offence of the Cross has not ceased. But we must not be deterred from following Christ by the dread of obloquy, or the loss of all things. (John Thomson.)

The renouncing spirit of Christianity

I. ALL PRIVILEGES AND ADVANTAGES WHATEVER ARE TO BE FOREGONE, PARTED WITHAL, AND RENOUNCED WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH AN INTEREST IN CHRIST, and a participation of Him; as our apostle shows at Php 3:4-10).

II. That if it were the duty of the Hebrews to forsake these ways of worship, which were originally of Divine institution, that they might wholly give up themselves unto Christ in all things pertaining unto God, MUCH MORE IS IT OURS TO FOREGO ALL SUCH PRETENCES UNTO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AS ARE OF HUMAN INVENTION.

III. Whereas the camp contained not only ecclesiastical but also political privileges, WE OUGHT TO BE READY TO FOREGO ALL CIVIL ACCOMMODATIONS ALSO IN HOUSES, LANDS, POSSESSIONS, CONVERSE WITH MEN OF THE SAME NATION, WHEN WE ARE CALLED THERE UNTO ON THE ACCOUNT OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPEL.

IV. If we will go forth unto Christ as without the camp, or separated from all the concern of this world, WE SHALL ASSUREDLY MEET WITH ALL SORTS OF REPROACHES.

V. THAT BELIEVERS ARE NOT LIKE TO MEET WITH ANY SUCH ENCOURAGING ENTERTAINMENT IN THIS WORLD AS TO MAKE THEM UNREADY OR UNWILLING TO DESERT IT, and to go forth after Christ bearing His reproach. For it is a motive in the apostles reasoning to a readiness for that duty, we have here no continuing city.

VI. THIS WORLD NEVER DID, NOR EVER WILL, GIVE A STATE OF REST AND SATISFACTION TO BELIEVERS. It will not afford them a city. It is Jerusalem above that is the vision of peace. Arise and depart, this is not your rest.

VII. IN THE DESTITUTION OF A PRESENT SATISFACTORY REST, GOD HATH NOT LEFT BELIEVERS WITHOUT A PROSPECT OF THAT WHICH SHALL AFFORD THEM REST AND SATISFACTION TO ETERNITY. We have not, but we seek.

VIII. As God hath prepared a city of rest for us, so IT IS OUR DUTY CONTINUALLY TO ENDEAVOUR THE ATTAINMENT OF IT IN THE WAYS OF HIS APPOINTMENT.

IX. THE MAIN BUSINESS OF BELIEVERS IN THIS WORLD IS DILIGENTLY TO SEEK AFTER THE CITY OF GOD, or the attainment of eternal rest with Him; and this is the character whereby they may be known. (John Owen, D. D.)

Coming forth to Christ

I. WE MUST COME FORTH OF THE CAMP OR CITY TO HIM.

1. The camp or city is Judaism, and all erroneous sects, and also the world, and men of the world: we must separate from all things inconsistent with the truth and Christ.

2. Out of this camp or city we must come forth, and that we do when we renounce all errors in religion and all earthly affections. We have something in our hearts which keeps us from our God till we be truly converted.

3. To come forth to Christ, therefore, is to be rightly informed, and to believe the saving truth of Christ; and upon this right information, to love Him above all, as far more necessary, excellent, and beneficial than anything, than all things else. To come forth to Him is not to change the place but our hearts; it is a motion not of the body, but the soul, and if we once knew the beauty of Christ, and had tasted of His sweetness, we should be ravished with Him, and all the world could not keep us from Him. In Him alone true happiness is to be found.

II. The second part of the duty is TO BEAR HIS REPROACH. Here is reproach, His reproach, the bearing of His reproach. In this the author alludes unto the bearing of the cross, which was the greatest shame any man could be put unto. To endure disgrace, and suffer in our reputation, credit, hot, our, and good name, is a very grievous evil, and few can endure it, and some can better suffer death than ignominy. The Cross was not only a matter of reproach, but of grievous pain, and was the epitome of all possible evils; and, therefore, by reproach is signified all kinds of afflictions which we may suffer from men, or may be obnoxious unto in this life. Yet this reproach and this cross here meant must be His reproach, His Cross. If we suffer punishment for our own crimes, and through our own folly, then it is not Christs cross. This is a reproach and cross laid upon us for His sake, because we profess His truth, obey His laws, oppose sin and His enemies, refuse to comply with the world in any sin, renounce all errors, idolatry, superstition, and wicked customs of the world, and all this out of love to Christ. To bear this cross is not merely to suffer any ways, but to suffer the worst man can do unto us with patience, with constancy, with joy, and to think ourselves happy and much honoured that we are counted worthy to suffer for so great a Saviour, and in so noble a cause. This requires a Divine faith well grounded upon the word and promises of God, and a special assistance of the Divine Spirit; for these will strengthen our hearts, and make us willing to suffer anything before we offend our God and lose our Saviour. (G. Lawson.)

Bearing His reproach

Christs reproach

It is called Christs reproach in sundry respects: as

1. The union that is betwixt Him and His Church. So as the reproach of the body or of any member thereof is the reproach of Christ Himself.

2. The sympathy which is betwixt Christ and every of His members. He is sensible of that reproach which is cast upon any of them (Act 9:4).

3. The account which Christ hath of the reproaches of His saints; He doth account them as reproaches cast upon Himself.

4. His undertaking to revenge such reproaches and wrongs as are done to His members (Rom 12:19).

5. The cause of the reproach which is here meant, and that is Christ Himself, a profession of His name, a maintaining of His gospel, and holding close to His righteousness. In this sense an apostle calleth sufferings in such cases Christs sufferings (1Pe 4:14; Act 5:41).

6. That resemblance that is betwixt the reproaches of saints and Christ.

This reference of reproach to Christ in this phrase, His reproach is for limitation, direction, consolation, and incitation.

1. It affordeth a limitation, in that it restraineth it to a different kind of reproach, which is Christs reproach. It is not every kind of reproach that can be counted a matter of glory, wherein a man may rejoice; but Christs reproach. I may in this case say of reproach, as the apostle doth of buffeting: What glory is it, if when ye be reproached for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? (1Pe 2:20).

2. It affordeth a direction in showing how we ought to bear reproach, even as Christ did; for we are in this case to look unto Jesus, who despised the Heb 12:2).

3. It ministereth much comfort, in that no other thing is done to us than what is done to our Head before us. Herewith doth Christ comfort His disciples (Mat 10:25; Joh 15:20).

4. What greater motive can we have to incite us willingly and contentedly to bear reproach than this, that it is Christs reproach? If honour, if profit may be motives to incite us to a duty, these motives are not wanting in this case. What can be more honourable than to be as Christ was? and if we be reproached with Him here, we shall enjoy with Him hereafter a crown of glory; what more honourable? what more profitable? (W. Gouge.)

Reproach incurred by Christians:

The following are the chief grounds on which the first Christians were called to bear reproach, and on which we also may be called to bear the same.

1. They suffered reproach, as being followers of a crucified Saviour.

2. A second ground of the reproach suffered by the first Christians was that they forsook the ways of an evil world.

3. Christians are reproached by many on account of their general seriousness and spirituality of character.

4. Lastly: those who adopt any peculiar mode of religious observance have been at times exposed to ridicule on that account. (R. Hall, M. A.)

Bearing Christs reproach

Sheriff—was the child of a Christian mother. He had lived to be over sixty years of age without openly confessing Christ. Some time ago he became interested in his spiritual welfare, and after attending some meetings in the city where he lived, he arose and openly acknowledged his intention to be a Christian. The positiveness of his expression, and his prominence in the community, caused a reporter to insert an item in the next mornings paper that the sheriff had been converted. When he went into the court-house in the performance of his duties, he was saluted by one of a throng of godless men with the remark, Well, sheriff, we hear you are going to leave us.

Leave you? said he. What do you mean? Why, we heard, said the man, that you were going to leave the world, the flesh, and the devil. The sheriff hesitated only an instant, and said, with great emphasis, Thats just what Im going to do. One of the men then said, How do you like its being printed in the paper that you have been converted? He said, Was that in the paper? I think that is grand. I wish that theyd print placards about it and put them up all over the city, so that people might know about it at once, that I mean henceforth to be a Christian man. It is needless to say that from that time he was a devoted and faithful follower of Christ.

Prizing the Cross:

Tacitus reports that though the amber ring among the Romans was of no value, yet, after the emperor began to wear it, it began to be in great esteem: it was the only fashion amongst them. So our Saviour has borne the Cross, and was borne upon it. Once a disgrace, even, it comes to be a boast to the true believer. We should esteem it more highly than many of us do, and bear it daily in remembrance of Him. (E. P.Thwing.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 11. For the bodies of those beasts] Though in making covenants, and in some victims offered according to the law, the flesh of the sacrifice was eaten by the offerers; yet the flesh of the sin-offering might no man eat: when the blood was sprinkled before the holy place to make an atonement for their souls, the skins, flesh, entrails, c., were carried without the camp, and there entirely consumed by fire and this entire consumption, according to the opinion of some, was intended to show that sin was not pardoned by such offerings. For, as eating the other sacrifices intimated they were made partakers of the benefits procured by those sacrifices, so, not being permitted to eat of the sin-offering proved that they had no benefit from it, and that they must look to the Christ, whose sacrifice is pointed out, that they might receive that real pardon of sin which the shedding of his blood could alone procure. While, therefore, they continued offering those sacrifices, and refused to acknowledge the Christ, they had no right to any of the blessings procured by him, and it is evident they could have no benefit from their own.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The illustration of the legal and gospel altar service is added as a typical proof of the foregoing reason; for annexing it to it; that the Jews and Judaizing Christians had no right to eat of the Christian altar, for a law of their own excludes them from it, which is written, Lev 6:30; 16:27; That the bodies of those living creatures, which were yearly sacrificed as a sin-offering for priests and people, both of the bull and the he-goat, with their skins, &c., were burnt wholly without the camp; so as neither the priests nor any of the people had any part of this bull or goat allowed them to eat, having no right to it by the law of God, which otherwise ordered it. This is the literal sense, yet the use of it is anagogical, leading us to higher things; as that the high priest signified Christ, God-man; the altar, his Godhead; the sanctuary, heaven itself; the sacrifice, his human nature, the true sin-offering, of which neither priest nor people serving the tabernacle ought to eat.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

11, 12. For just as “thebodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by .. . are burned without the camp,” so “Jesus also that . . .suffered without the gate” of ceremonial Judaism, of which Hiscrucifixion outside the gate of Jerusalem is a type.

forreason why they whoserve the tabernacle, are excluded from share in Christ; because Hissacrifice is not like one of those sacrifices in which they had ashare but answers to one which was “wholly burned” outside(the Greek is “burnt completely,” “consumed byburning”), and which consequently they could not eat of. Le6:30, gives the general rule, “No sin offering whereof anyof the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation toreconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burntin the fire.” The sin offerings are twofold: the outward,whose blood was sprinkled on the outward altar, and of whose bodiesthe priests might eat; and the inward, the reverse.

the sanctuaryhere theHoly of Holies, into which the blood of the sin offering wasbrought on the day of atonement.

without the campinwhich were the tabernacle and Levitical priests and legalworshippers, during Israel’s journey through the wilderness; replacedafterwards by Jerusalem (containing the temple), outside of whosewalls Jesus was crucified.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For the bodies of those beasts,…. Not the red heifer,

Nu 19:1 nor the sin offering in general, Le 6:30 nor those for the priest and people, Le 4:11 but the bullock and goat, on the day of atonement, Le 16:11 which were typical of Christ, in the bringing of their blood into the most holy place, by the high priest, for sin; and in the burning of them, without the camp: these beasts were slain, their blood was shed, and was brought into the most holy place, by the high priest; and was sprinkled on the mercy seat, and the horns of the altar of incense; and, by it, atonement was made for the priest, his house, and all Israel; which was a type of the death of Christ; the shedding of his blood; the carrying of it into heaven; the sprinkling it upon the throne of grace and mercy; by which reconciliation is made for the sins of all God’s people:

whose blood is brought into the sanctuary: that is, into the holy of holies, as the Ethiopic version renders it:

by the high priest for sin; to make atonement for it, for his own, and for the sins of his family, and of all Israel:

are burnt without the camp, Le 16:27 even their skins, flesh, and dung; and the men that burnt them were unclean, though, upon being washed, were received: which was typical of the dolorous sufferings of Christ without Jerusalem, as the next verse shows; and points out the extent of his sufferings, reaching to all parts of his body, and even to his soul; and expresses not only the pains, but the shame and reproach he endured, signified by the burning of the dung; and hints at the pardon of the wicked Jews, who were concerned in his sufferings; which was applied unto them upon their repentance.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Of those beasts whose blood ( ). The antecedent () of is here incorporated and attracted into the case of the relative, “the blood of which beasts” and then (genitive demonstrative) is added, “of these.” Cf. Lev 4:12; Lev 4:21; Lev 16:27 for the Old Testament ritual in such cases. This is the only example in the LXX or N.T. where (animal) is used of a sacrificial victim. See also Exod 29:14; Exod 32:26 for burning without the camp.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The statement that the adherents of the old economy are excluded from the privileges of the new is justified by an illustrative argument drawn from the ceremonies of the Great Day of Atonement. See Leviticus 16, and comp. Heb 9:7. Of the victims offered on that occasion neither people nor priest were allowed to eat. The blood of the bullock and of one of the goats was carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled upon the mercy – seat, and afterward on the horns of the great altar outside; and the bodies of the slain animals were burned in a clean place outside of the camp or city. Beasts [] . Lit. living creatures. The victims for the Day of Atonement were a bullock and two young goats for sin – offerings, and two rams for burnt – offerings. Only one goat, chosen by lot, was slain; the other served as the scape – goat. Zwon animal is not used elsewhere of a sacrificial victim, either in N. T. or LXX The word in N. T. mostly in Revelation. See on Rev 1:16; Rev 4:6.

Without the camp [ ] . Burning without the camp was also required in the case of victims offered at the consecration of the priests, Exo 29:14; at the sin – offering for the priest, Lev 4:11, 12; and at the sin – offering for the congregation, Lev 4:21. For parembolh camp, see on Act 21:34.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For the bodies of those beasts,” (hon gar eispheretai zoon) “For the carcasses of those animals,” those offered in the Mosaic sacrificial program of worship; That of the sin offering was disposed as follows, Exo 29:14; Lev 6:30.

2) “Whose blood is brought into the sanctuary,” (to hima eispheretai eis ta hagia) “Whose blood is carried into the area of the holies,” the holy of holy place. For it was the blood alone that was offered as an acknowledgment of ones need of cleansing, Heb 9:22. The blood was drawn from the body of the sacrificial animal, then the carcass was disposed of as Divinely directed, Lev 4:11-12; Lev 4:21; Lev 6:30; Lev 9:11; Lev 16:27.

3) “By the high priest for sin,” (dia tou archiereos peri hamartias) “By the high priest, concerning sins,” on the day of atonement, on behalf of sins committed by the people, Lev 17:1-7; Heb 9:6-12; Heb 9:23-26. Christ is the High Priest of our profession, who offers his own blood to atone for our sins, Heb 9:24-26.

4) “Are burned without the camp,” (touton ta somata katakaietai ekso tes paremboles) “Those bodies or carcasses (of these animals) are burned outside the camp,” for disposition, sanitary purposes, and a type of Christ’s death outside the Holy City, without the wall, the gate, among the heathen, disclaimed by his own people. The red heifer offering was one that was made “without the camp,” separate and apart from the altar of sacrifice, definitively, specifically, and prophetically declaring that Christ should be thus offered at Calvary, without the city wall, Joh 19:17; Num 15:35-36; Act 7:58.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

11. For To illustrate this separation between the faithful participant and unbeliever. As at the great day of atonement the sacrificed animal was carried out of the limits of camp or city, and burned; and as, similarly, Christ was led out of the city to be crucified, so do we, his followers, leave the symbolic “camp” or “city” of Judaism, and go out unto him. The Jew is in the camp, the city, and we are with the crucified One. Outside the city is the cross. Apart from the tabernacle is the Church, and in the Church is the true altar. The bodies of sacrificed beasts were generally eaten by priests or people. But there was one pre-eminent exception. On the great day of atonement the blood of the victim was brought into the sanctuary and sprinkled on the altar for sin, but the body of the beast, instead of being made a banquet for the people, was taken from the camp while in the desert, and from the city in later ages, and burned without.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the holy place through (dia) the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. For which reason Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate.’

He now likens Jesus to the special sacrifices whose blood is brought into the Holy Place. If by the Holy Place he means the Holy of Holies then these are the Day of Atonement sacrifices. Otherwise they also include the sin offerings for the priests and for the people as a whole. In all cases the bodies of such beasts had to be burned outside the camp because they were especially holy.

‘Those beasts (zo-on.’ This is not the usual word for beasts, especially sacrificial beasts, in LXX . In 2Pe 2:12; Jud 1:10 it refers to natural brute beasts. It is used in Revelation 4 of the ‘living creatures’ around the throne. But the writer is probably trying to make a comparison with Jesus and therefore uses this more startling contrast signifying natural brute beasts in comparison with the heavenly Christ.

For let them recognise the significance of Christ being offered outside the gates of Jerusalem. As all his readers knew intimately, under the Jerusalemite ritual what is dealt with outside the camp belongs wholly to God. Man cannot partake of it. It is sacred. They can only participate of sin offerings offered on the altar in Jerusalem, the blood of which is not taken within the Holy Place, and the carcases of which were not burned outside the camp. We could call them the lesser sin offerings. Those alone may be retained within the camp, and be partaken of. And the consequence is that if Jesus was offered outside the camp, as He was, it is clear that He is inaccessible to them unless they are willing to leave the camp and put their trust in Him, and leave behind their faith in the Jerusalemite ritual once and for all. Otherwise He is forbidden to them by their own laws.

In order to understand this we must be aware of the niceties and significance of Old Tetament ritual. All sin offerings were offered on the altar, but these were basically divided into two groups. In one group are the sin offerings which were for the whole people, and those which were for the priests as the anointed of God. In these cases the blood was offered within the sanctuary and the carcases could not be eaten, and apart from the fat which was burned on the altar, had to be burned in their totality outside the camp in a clean place. These included the great sacrifices on the Day of Atonement, the blood of which alone was presented in the Holy of Holies (in the other cases it was before the veil at the altar of incense). See Lev 16:27, and compare Lev 4:12; Lev 4:21. Any sin offering whose blood was presented in the Holy Place was to be treated in the same way (Lev 6:30). And finally the ashes which were taken from the altar each day, while restoking the fire which had to burn continually, were also taken outside the camp to a clean place for they might contain elements of the above offerings (Lev 6:9-11).

Then there were the sin offerings for individuals. These were offered on the altar and the blood of the sacrifice presented to God by means of that altar, and the fat was offered on the altar. The blood was not taken within the Holy Place. The edible meat from these sacrifices was then partaken of by the priests, while the remainder would be burned up on the altar.

What must be noted about all these offerings is that even the lesser sin offerings were all ‘most holy’ to the Lord (Lev 6:25; Lev 6:30 to Lev 7:1. See also Exo 29:34). That is why all that could be eaten was to be eaten within the precincts of the tabernacle, and only by the anointed priests who because of what they were, were thereby also holy, while the other remains were burned on the altar in the court of the tabernacle. This being so these other sin offerings of which none could partake, and which were carried out of the camp and burned there in a clean place, being thereby given to God, must be even more holy. The fact that they had to be burned in a clean place demonstrated that they were certainly holy. Indeed they were so holy that apart from the fat which was burned on the altar because it was God’s they were burned outside the camp of Israel in their totality. The same occurred to burnt offerings which were for the totality of the people. This suggests that these sacrifices were seen as exceptionally holy, so holy that they belonged only to God.

So when we learn that ‘Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate’ we are made to recognise that His offering of Himself was also to be seen as exceptionally holy. Not only were the remains dealt with outside the camp, but the whole sacrifice and offering was made there. Even the tabernacle/temple itself was not holy enough for this offering. How holy then must be the holiness with which He sanctified His own. And God did this that it might be clear that no one who partook of the Jerusalemite ritual could have part in this sacrifice.

For the reason that ‘they’ could not partake of that altar was because what was sacrificed on it was a sin offering for the whole world, the type of offering of which none in the camp or even in the sanctuary could eat, but which had to burned outside the camp (thereby being given to God) because of its great holiness.

And now that the ‘camp’ had in the eyes of the Jews, religiously speaking, become Jerusalem the remains of these sacrifices were now in fact specifically burned outside Jerusalem. Thus Jesus sacrifice was seen as taking place outside the camp because it took place outside the city gates.

Burning outside the camp was the regular way of dealing with anything that had been ‘devoted’ to God, or that belonged wholly to God, or that was so excessively holy that man could have no part in it, and religiously Jerusalem was seen as the equivalent of the camp, and Jesus as being offered outside the camp.

Note on The Camp.

The concept of the camp was an interesting one. It was to be kept as holy by the people, in that nothing unclean must be allowed in it, including human excrement (Deu 23:14 see also Lev 26:11-12), because the Lord walked there ‘The Lord walked there’ probably means that He was present in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle for the verse also refers to His warlike activities which were connected with the Ark (Num 10:35-36). So the very presence of the Tabernacle ‘in the midst of the camp’ meant that the camp must be kept free from anything unclean, because God was there. That is why anything ‘unclean’ had to be removed from, or disposed of, outside the camp and anyone who had sinned presumptuously had to be put out of the camp, in order to be stoned, and thereby not touched (Lev 13:46; Lev 24:23; Num 5:2-3; Num 12:14-15; Num 15:32-36; Num 31:19; Num 31:24; Deu 23:10-11; Deu 23:13-14). This did not include temporary uncleanness which could be coped with by staying in their tents. But the camp had to be kept ritually ‘clean’. This was, however, a lower level of holiness.

But in contrast, anything more positively holy had to be dealt with in the Tabernacle precincts (e.g. Lev 6:16; Lev 6:26), while it would seem that anything excessively holy had to be dealt with outside the camp in a clean place. This last is why the total remains of sin offerings for the whole community and for the priests had to be burned outside the camp in a clean place, in contrast with the remains of the lesser sin offerings which were dealt with in the tabernacle area. Because they represented the whole of Israel or God’s anointed priests the former were seen as excessively holy (Lev 16:27; Lev 4:12; Lev 4:21; Lev 8:17; Lev 9:11; Exo 29:34). The remains of other sin offerings could be burned within the tabernacle.

The red heifer also was slain outside the camp and the ashes of the heifer, which were to be used for preparing the water of purification, must be kept in ‘a clean place’ outside the camp (Num 19:9). We must presume that its presence in the camp would defile the ashes, or alternately that the presence of these holy ashes in the camp would make it dangerous for men and women to walk there lest they approach too close to the ashes. How the clean place was made clean we are not told. A further possibility is that the ashes were not allowed within the tabernacle and the camp because they were for dealing with the taint of death. Whichever it was, the fact that they were to be stored in ‘a clean place’ emphasises their holiness.

Furthermore anything that was ‘devoted’ to the Lord had to be burned outside the camp, and thereby God received it (Jos 7:24-25).

The Tent of Meeting where Moses met with God prior to the erecting of the tabernacle was also sited outside the camp ‘afar off’ (Exo 33:7-11). There he met with God ‘face to face’. It must not be contaminated by the camp. This was, however, followed by the tabernacle which was ‘in the midst of the camp, once they had been received as His people (although it took time to make). But then it was surrounded by the sub-camps of the twelve tribes, with a special enclave within the camp which was especially holy, in which the tabernacle stood, surrounded by the Levite camp (Num 2:17).

When God gave the covenant which included the ten commandments the people were called from the camp to hear it and God gave it from Mount Sinai (Exo 19:17).

So we may conclude that the camp was modestly holy, the precincts of the tabernacle were truly holy, and outside the camp was divided into clean places for what was excessively holy, and other places which could swallow up what was unclean. And it was there that the One Who was excessively holy was met with.

End of note.

Thus in the same way as the sin offerings for the priests and for the community were seen as excessively holy, and had to be dealt with outside the camp, so the One of Whom we partake is also seen as so excessively holy in that He also had to be offered outside the camp, with His sacrificed body also being dealt with ‘outside the camp’, that is outside ‘the gate’ of Jerusalem (this description is clearly of the site where He was crucified for that was where He ‘suffered’). In His case the offering also took place there, and that could be allowed because it was not to be tied to tabernacle/temple ritual, but was offered by Himself as of a different priesthood and was uniquely holy. His offering of Himself was thus both uniquely holy, and offered by a unique High Priest. This demonstrated that according to the Jerusalemite ritual the worshippers under that ritual were unable to partake of it. Unless they came ‘outside the camp’ they could have no part in it. And this was because it was of a type which was of such holiness that it was forbidden.

For, as we have already noted, ‘the camp’ (now Jerusalem) could never retain what was exceptionally holy. The camp was too secular. It was not therefore a fit place for God’s supreme holiness, and for the Holy One of God. And as we have seen this was evidenced by their own ritual. So when they sent Him out to be cursed, although they did not realise it they were paradoxically revealing His exceptional holiness, and even more drawing attention to the fact that the way to God could not be fully open for the people who still looked to Jerusalem, because their sacrifices could not make them perfect (Heb 9:9-10; Heb 10:1-3). Their sacrifices were not effective to fully cleanse and make fully holy. Thus they could not cope with God’s holiness. That is why, says the writer, Jesus suffered outside the camp, outside physical Jerusalem, because He was so holy, too holy for a ‘camp’ where the offerings were not sufficiently effective.

Of course the Jews stated that it was because He was accursed. They had sent Him to die outside Jerusalem as a judgment on Him. What they had failed to realise was that it was a judgment on themselves. For the real reason that it had happened in God’s eyes was that it was Jerusalem that was accursed, and that He was too holy for Jerusalem and what it represented. That was why He died outside the camp. It was another sign of Jerusalem’s rejection.

And it is because of this unique holiness that He is able to offer His full holiness to His people, that He is able to sanctify them, making them holy in God’s eyes, and making them fitted to meet God through His blood (Heb 10:10; Heb 10:14). And it is also the reason why they are able actually to spiritually partake of Him in spite of the fact that He is the sin offering for the sins of the world. Such an offering was, under the Law, something so holy that it was beyond being partaken of even by the levitical priesthood itself, but those who have come to Him have through Him a superior holiness and can actually know Him and touch Him and participate in Him spiritually as He now is in Heaven. Such is the efficacy of His sin offering that because of its effectiveness those who receive atonement by it can also eat of it because they have been made sufficiently holy. They, through Christ, are thus of an equal level of holiness to His offering of Himself and unlike the levitical priests can freely partake of Him.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Heb 13:11-12. For the bodies of those beasts, &c. The connection of these words with the foregoing seems to be this: The thing to be proved, ver.10 is, that the Jewish priests have no right by the law to partake of the Christian altar. The reason of which is, because the sacrifice offered upon the Christian altar of the cross, was offered without the gates of Jerusalem; which shews that it was of the same nature with the old propitiatory sacrifices, whose bodies were ordered to be burned without the camp; of which therefore it was unlawful and impossible for the Jewish priests to partake: so that the law which forbad them to eat of propitiatory sacrifices, denied them a right to partake of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. From all which it is to be inferred, that they should forsake the law, and become Christians, and have their hearts established in grace, not in meats. The priests who served the tabernacle, were allowed to partake of some sacrifices which were offered within the tabernacle; (Lev 6:26.) but they had no right to partake of those sacrifices which were propitiatory, as appears from the order given relating to the service of the great day of propitiation, to which the apostle here undoubtedly refers;The bullock for the sin-offering, and the goat for the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung. Lev 16:27. As therefore the priests had no right, according to the law, to partake of expiatory sacrifices, the law could not give them any right to partake of Christ’s sacrifice, which is of the same expiatory kind figured and represented by them, as appears from his sufferingwithoutthegatesofJerusalem, in conformity to their being burnt without the camp. The apostle speaks of these things in the language of Moses, in whose days there was no temple built for the Jewish worship. He describes the people as living in a camp in the wilderness, only because he had respect to the words of Moses just quoted, which he recites almost verbatim. As, during the time of the tabernacle in the wilderness, the bodies of these sacrifices were to be burnt without the camp; so when the temple was built at Jerusalem, the bodies of those sin-offerings were burnt without the gates of Jerusalem; for which reason Jesus was to suffer, as he actually did, without the gate of the same city. Luk 23:33.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 13:11-12 . Proof for Heb 13:10 . The proof lies in the fact that Christ’s sacrifice is one which has been presented without the camp, and consequently has been freed from all community with Judaism. Heb 13:11 and Heb 13:12 are, as a proof of Heb 13:10 , closely connected, and only in Heb 13:12 lies the main factor, whereas Heb 13:11 is related to the same as a merely preparatory and accessory thought (Bhr). For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest are burned without the camp ; wherefore Jesus also, in order that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered without the gate . That is to say: The N. T. sacrifice of the covenant is typically prefigured by the great atoning sacrifice under the Old Covenant. Of the victims, however, which were devoted to the latter, neither the high priest nor any other member of the Jewish theocracy was permitted to eat anything. For of those animals only the blood was taken, in order to be brought by the high priest into the Most Holy Place as a propitiatory offering; the bodies of those animals, on the other hand, were burned without the camp or holy city (Lev 16:27 ), wherein was contained the explanation in an act (comp. Bhr, l.c. ), that they were cast out from the theocratic communion of Judaism. But thus, then, has Jesus also, in that He entered with His sacrificial blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies, made expiation for the sins of them that believe in Him; His sacrificial body, however, has, since He was led out of the camp, or beyond the gate of the holy city, in order to endure the infliction of death (comp. Lev 24:14 ; Num 15:35 f.; Deu 17:5 ), declared by this act to be cast out from the Jewish covenant-people. Eat of His sacrificial body, i.e. obtain part in the blessing procured by His sacrifice, can therefore no one who is still within the camp, i.e. who still looks for salvation from the ordinances of Judaism. Consequently he who will eat of the altar of Christ must depart out of Judaism, and go forth unto Christ without the camp (Heb 13:13 ).

] as Heb 9:8 ; Heb 9:12 ; Heb 9:24-25 , Heb 10:19 , the Most Holy Place .

The tenses in the present mark the practice as one still continuing.

] Characterization of the dwelling-place of the Jewish people at the time of the lawgiving, while it was still journeying through the wilderness and had tents for its habitation. The camp was the complex of the tents, enclosing the totality of the people together with the sanctuary. Thus there was combined with the idea of locality the religious reference to the people as one covenant-people, and “without the camp” became equivalent in signification to “without the bounds of the Old Covenant.” But, since afterwards the city of Jerusalem, with the temple in its midst, took the place of the , the standing in Heb 13:12 , without the gate, sc . of the city of Jerusalem, says in effect the same thing as , Heb 13:11 ; Heb 13:13 .

] wherefore, i.e. because the sacrificial death of Jesus has been prefigured by the type mentioned, Heb 13:11 .

] opposition to the animal blood in the O. T. sacrifices of atonement.

] see at Heb 2:16 , p. 132.

] comp. Heb 9:26 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 2347
THE BURNT-SACRIFICES TYPICAL OF CHRIST

Heb 13:11-13. The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without, the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

SUCH is the proneness of men to superstition, that they need to watch with care, lest, after having once shaken off its fetters, they be again subjected to its dominion. The Hebrew Christians in particular were liable to be drawn aside from the simplicity of the Gospel: their fond attachment to the law of Moses, seconded by the subtle arguments of Judaizing teachers, exposed them to continual danger. Hence the inspired author of this epistle cautioned them against returning to their former bondage. And, lest they should be led to think, that by renouncing the law of Moses, they deprived themselves of the blessings which were procured by their sacrifices, he tells them, that this was by no means the case; yea, that, on the contrary, they were partakers of a better altar, to which the adherents to Judaism had no access; and that the very ordinances, in which the Jews trusted, pointed out this truth in a clear and convincing manner; for not even the high-priest himself was permitted to eat of the sacrifices whose blood he had carried within the vail; whereas every true Christian was permitted to eat of that sacrifice which alone could atone for sin; and therefore, so far from there being any necessity for them to revert to Judaism in order to partake of the Jewish sacrifices, the Jews themselves must be converted to Christianity in order to obtain the full benefit even of those sacrifices which they themselves had offered [Note: This seems to be the true scope of the passage as connected with the context.].

To illustrate this more fully, we shall point out,

I.

The correspondence between the death of Christ, and the ordinances whereby it was prefigured

The most minute particulars of the death of Christ were typified under the law: but we shall fix our attention at present on that only which is specified in the text.
The sacrifices on the great day of annual expiation were to be burnt without the camp
[The sacrifices on the great day of atonement were distinguished far above all others, and accompanied with circumstances of peculiar solemnity. Their blood was carried within the vail, and sprinkled upon the mercy-seat, as the means of propitiating the incensed Deity, and of obtaining pardon for the sins committed by the whole nation through the preceding year. A part of most other sacrifices belonged to the priest who offered them: but of this not the smallest portion was to be preserved for the use of man: all, except the fat which was consumed upon the altar, was carried without the camp (in later ages, without the city of Jerusalem) to be destroyed by fire [Note: Lev 6:30; Lev 16:27.]. Probably this was intended to exhibit Gods indignation against sin, and to shew how utterly they must be consumed by the fire of his wrath, who should not be interested in this atonement. But the words before us reflect a light on this ordinance, which it is of great importance to observe. The burning of the whole of these sacrifices shewed that no legal services whatever could entitle a person to partake of them: not even the high-priest himself, who carried their blood within the vail, had any privilege beyond the poorest and meanest of the people. They could obtain an interest in them only by faith; nor could he taste of them in any other way: though his services were the most sacred, and his access to God far more intimate than any other person, or even he himself at any other period, could enjoy, yet had he no more part in this atonement than every other person might have by the exercise of faith: and consequently they, who, under the Christian dispensation, should trust in the sacrifice of Christ, would participate the benefits, from which the high-priest himself should be excluded, if he rested in the outward services without looking through them to the great, the true atonement.]

Agreeably to this typical ordinance, our Lord suffered without the gate of Jerusalem
[The death of Christ was that which the annual sacrifices typically represented. He died for sin, and, after he had offered himself upon the cross, entered into heaven itself with his own blood, there to present it before the Father on our behalf: and it was by this means that he sanctified, or consecrated to himself, a peculiar people, who should for ever enjoy the virtue of his atonement But, in order that his death might produce the full effect, it was necessary that it should be conformed in every respect to the ordinances whereby it had been prefigured: hence it was accomplished without the gate of Jerusalem; so strictly did it accord with the most minute particulars that had been before determined in the Divine counsels.

Whether there was any mystery couched under this event, we cannot absolutely determine. We should not indeed have discerned perhaps any thing particular in it, if light had not been thrown upon it by an inspired writer. But, as we are certain that this event was a completion of the pre-existing ordinance, it is not improbable that it might have some further signification. While it shews us to what a degree Christ became a curse for us, it may also intimate, that the virtue of his sacrifice was not to be confined to those who were within the pale of the Jewish Church, but rather to extend to those who were without it, even to the whole Gentile world.]
The exhortation, which the Apostle grounds upon these circumstances, leads us to point out,

II.

The conformity which Christians also are to bear, both to the law and to him who fulfilled it

Doubtless, every thing which Christ has done for us, entails on us an obligation to conform ourselves to his mind and will.

But the circumstances before considered, suggest to us some appropriate and important duties
1.

We must renounce all legal hopes, that we may depend on Christ

[The particular injunction to go forth to Christ without the camp, intimates, that we must turn our back upon all the legal services, and trust alone in that sacrifice which he offered without the gate. The importance of this observation would he more strongly felt by an Hebrew convert, who was assailed with arguments respecting the obligations of the Mosaic law. But it is, in reality, no less important to us: for, if we do not trust in the blood of bulls and goats, we are ever ready to substitute something in the place of Jesus, as the ground of our confidence. But services, of whatever kind, whether ceremonial or moral, must be renounced in point of dependence. They must not even be blended in any degree with the atonement of Christ, as though the performance of them could procure us an interest in this. We must be justified by his blood, and by that alone. If St. Paul himself desired to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness [Note: Php 3:9.], much more must we. Let us remember then what, not the Gospel only, but even the law itself, speaks to us on this subject; and let us look for a participation in the great Sacrifice, not for, or by our works, but by faith only.]

2.

We must forsake all worldly lusts, that we may walk with Christ

[What a perfect deadness to the world did Jesus manifest, when he went forth to the place of execution, giving up himself to that accursed death, from which he could have been so easily delivered! But the world had nothing that could fascinate him: its cares, its pleasures, its honours, its society, were all alike indifferent to him: He had one only wish, to fulfil his Fathers will, and finish the work he had been commissioned to perform. In turning his back on that devoted city, he felt no regret, except indeed for the blindness and hardness of the peoples hearts. Thus must we come out of the world which lieth in wickedness: we must be crucified to the world, and the world must be crucified to us [Note: Gal 6:14.]. All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, must be abandoned as objects of indifference, as objects of abhorrence. The things that are dearest to flesh and blood, if they stand at all in competition with Christ, are to be hated and forsaken. Our former companions, if they will not travel with us in the heavenly road, are to be left behind; for what communion hath light with darkness, or a believer with an unbeliever? Wherefore, saith God, come out from among them, and be separate [Note: 2Co 6:15; 2Co 6:17.]. Even father and mother, and wife and children, yea, and our own lives also, are to be of no account with us [Note: Luk 14:26.], if they interfere with our duty to God, or retard the execution of his commands.]

3.

We must submit to all indignities, that we may resemble Christ

[This is the principal point to which the text refers. Jesus, when carrying his cross from the city to Mount Calvary, was an object of universal execration. Thus, in a measure, must we also be, if we will be his disciples. The world will hate, revile, and persecute us, as soon as ever we become his faithful adherents. If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, so will they those of his household. But we must not be deterred from our duty by these things: we must follow our Lord without the camp, not only bearing his reproach, but esteeming it our riches [Note: Heb 11:26.], and rejoicing that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for his sake [Note: Act 5:41.]. He has told us beforehand, that in the world we shall have tribulation, and that, in proof of our attachment to him, we must take up our cross daily and follow him. Expecting this therefore, we must count the cost; that, if we be treated as the filth of the world and the off-scouring of all things, we may, like him, endure the cross and despise the shame [Note: Heb 12:2.]. Nor should it ever seem hard to us to go in the path which he has trodden before us. On the contrary, to be conformed to him should be our highest ambition: for if we suffer with him for a time, we shall reign also with him [Note: 2Ti 2:12.] in glory for evermore.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

Ver. 11. Are burnt without the camp ] And so the priests had no part of the sin offering; to show that they have no part in Christ that adhere to the Levitical services. See Lev 16:27 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

11 .] For (reason why this exclusion has place: because our great Sacrifice is not one of those in which the servants of the tabernacle had any share, but answers to one which was wholly taken out and burnt: see below) of the animals of which the blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, of these the bodies are consumed by fire outside the camp (there was a distinction in the sacrifices as to the subsequent participation of certain parts of them by the priests. Those of which they did partake (I take these particulars mainly from Delitzsch) were: 1. the sin-offering of the rulers (a male kid), and the sin-offering of the common people (a female kid or lamb), Lev 4:22 ff., Lev 4:27 ff. (compare the rules ib. Lev 6 about eating and not eating the sacrifices): 2. the dove of the poor man, Lev 5:9 . Lev 5:3 . the trespass-offering, Lev 7:7 . Lev 7:4 . the skin of the whole burnt-offering, ib. Lev 7:8 . Lev 7:5 . the wave-breast and heave-shoulder of the peace-offerings. 6. the wave-offerings on the feast of weeks, entire. But those of which they did not partake were, 1. the sin-offering of the high priest for himself, Lev 4:5-7 , esp. Lev 4:12 . Lev 4:2 . the sin-offerings for sins of ignorance of the congregation, Lev 4:16-21 , cf. Num 15:24 . Num 15:3 . the sin-offering for high priest and people combined, on the great day of atonement, the blood of which was brought not only into the holy but into the holiest place, Lev 16:27 . Besides which we have a general rule, to which doubtless the Writer here alludes, Lev 6:30 , “No sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.” As regards particular expressions: here, as in ch. Heb 9:8 ; Heb 9:12 ; Heb 9:24-25 ; Heb 10:19 , probably means not the holy place commonly so called, but the holy of holies, into which the blood of the sin-offering was brought on the day of atonement, and which only typified heaven, whither Christ as High Priest is entered with His Blood. refers to the time when Israel was encamped in the wilderness: the enclosure of the camp was afterwards replaced by the walls of Jerusalem, so that below answers to it).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

beasts. Greek. zoon. Compare Heb 12:20.

into. Greek. eis. App-104.

the sanctuary. The Holy of Holies. See Heb 8:2.

for = concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.

sin. Greek. hamartia. App-128.

without = outside. Greek. exo.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

11.] For (reason why this exclusion has place: because our great Sacrifice is not one of those in which the servants of the tabernacle had any share, but answers to one which was wholly taken out and burnt: see below) of the animals of which the blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, of these the bodies are consumed by fire outside the camp (there was a distinction in the sacrifices as to the subsequent participation of certain parts of them by the priests. Those of which they did partake (I take these particulars mainly from Delitzsch) were: 1. the sin-offering of the rulers (a male kid), and the sin-offering of the common people (a female kid or lamb), Lev 4:22 ff., Lev 4:27 ff. (compare the rules ib. Leviticus 6 about eating and not eating the sacrifices): 2. the dove of the poor man, Lev 5:9. 3. the trespass-offering, Lev 7:7. 4. the skin of the whole burnt-offering, ib. Lev 7:8. 5. the wave-breast and heave-shoulder of the peace-offerings. 6. the wave-offerings on the feast of weeks, entire. But those of which they did not partake were, 1. the sin-offering of the high priest for himself, Lev 4:5-7, esp. Lev 4:12. 2. the sin-offerings for sins of ignorance of the congregation, Lev 4:16-21, cf. Num 15:24. 3. the sin-offering for high priest and people combined, on the great day of atonement, the blood of which was brought not only into the holy but into the holiest place, Lev 16:27. Besides which we have a general rule, to which doubtless the Writer here alludes, Lev 6:30, No sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire. As regards particular expressions: here, as in ch. Heb 9:8; Heb 9:12; Heb 9:24-25; Heb 10:19, probably means not the holy place commonly so called, but the holy of holies, into which the blood of the sin-offering was brought on the day of atonement, and which only typified heaven, whither Christ as High Priest is entered with His Blood. refers to the time when Israel was encamped in the wilderness: the enclosure of the camp was afterwards replaced by the walls of Jerusalem, so that below answers to it).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 13:11. ) Lev 6:23 (30), And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood , is brought into the tabernacle of the testimony, to reconcile Heb 9:12-13.- , blood; bodies) which were the shadows of the blood and of the body of Christ.- ) without the camp, in which were the tabernacle, and the Levitical priests, and as many of them as adhered to that worship. So the LXX., Lev 4:12; Lev 4:21, etc., Lev 16:27.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Without The Camp With Christ

“For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” Heb 13:11-13

There are many who take great pride in being without the camp, after a fashion. But that is all that can be said of them. They are without the camp in exactly the same sense that one might say a Mormon, a Russellite, or a Hindu is without the camp. They seem to think that godliness and gossip, holiness and haughtiness, separation and isolation are all synonyms. They think that meanness and meekness is the same thing. Merely being without the camp, is meaningless. We must be found without the camp; but we must be found without the camp with Christ. That is the instruction of Heb 13:11-13.

As the Lord Jesus Christ voluntarily identified himself with us, bearing our reproach for the salvation of our souls, let us ever go forth unto him, bearing his reproach for the glory of God.

The Day of Atonement

First, the apostle Paul points us once more to typical sacrifices of the Old Testament offered unto God on the day of atonement. The opening word of Heb 13:11, For, refers us back to Heb 13:10. There, Paul spoke of Christ our Altar, that Altar which we have in heaven, by whom we come to God. Here he speaks of the sacrifices offered on that old, carnal altar. As that altar was typical of the true Altar, all those sacrifices were typical of Christ, our one, great, sin-atoning Sacrifice.

The bodies of those animals, which were sacrificed year after year as sin-offerings for the priests and the people of Israel, were completely burnt without the camp of Israel. Without the camp was the place of uncleanness, the place of Gods curse, and the dwelling-place of lepers.

The sacrifice was carefully chosen, precisely according to the rigid requirements of the law. The sins of the people were imputed to the innocent victim. The blood was carried by the priest into the holy of holies and sprinkled upon the mercy-seat. And the body of the slain sacrifice was burned without the camp, symbolizing the wrath of God against the cursed thing.

The Sufferings of Christ

“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate” (Heb 13:12). Here, the Holy Spirit shows us the parallel between the burning of those sacrifices on the day of atonement in the Old Testament and the sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ, our sin-atoning sacrifice, for us. In order to fulfill the type, the Lord Jesus who came to save his people from their sins, that he might sanctify and save us with his own blood, suffered all the horrid wrath of God for us, as our Substitute, as our sin-atoning Sacrifice to God without the gate, out in the place of uncleanness, the place of Gods curse, where lepers dwelt.

In order to redeem and save his people from their sins, it was necessary for the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to suffer all the horrid terror of Gods holy law, inflexible justice, and infinite wrath against us. In order to redeem and save his chosen people, the Son of God had to suffer all the consequences of our sins to the full satisfaction of divine justice as our Substitute

Much we talk of Jesus blood, but how littles understood!

Of His sufferings so intense angels have no perfect sense.

Who can rightly comprehend their beginning or their end?

`Tis to God and God alone that their weight is fully known.

See the suffering Son of God Panting, groaning, sweating blood!

Boundless depths of love divine! Jesus, what a love was Thine!

Our sins were imputed to the Son of God! That fact in itself is overwhelming. But I am certain that there is more to the sufferings of our Lord for us than the mere legal, or forensic term imputation implies. His heart was not broken simply because he was made to be legally responsible for the debt of our sins. Our sins were not pasted on him, or merely placed to his account. The Lord Jesus Christ, Gods Darling, our all-glorious Savior, was made to be sin for us!

Our Reasonable Response

“Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb 13:13). Since the Lord Jesus Christ so willingly bore our reproach and suffered the wrath of God for us, let us go forth unto him without the camp bearing his reproach. Let us ever glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 6:14). Though the offense of the cross is ever increasing, let us never flinch to bear the offense of Christ and his gospel, and do it with patience, counting it our great honor to bear his reproach (1Pe 2:21; 1Pe 4:12-19). Is anything too much for us to suffer for Christ? Is any sacrifice too great for us to make for him? Is any devotion to the Son of God extreme?

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

the bodies: Exo 29:14, Lev 4:5-7, Lev 4:11, Lev 4:12, Lev 4:16-21, Lev 6:30, Lev 9:9, Lev 9:11, Lev 16:14-19, Lev 16:27, Num 19:3

Reciprocal: Exo 33:7 – went out Lev 1:16 – by the place Lev 6:11 – without Lev 8:17 – General Num 15:35 – stone him Eze 43:21 – burn Mat 21:39 – cast Mat 27:32 – as Mar 12:8 – cast Joh 19:17 – went Rev 14:20 – without

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Heb 13:11. The bodies of those beasts, etc. (See Exo 29:14.) The blood of those beasts was used in the most holy place while the bodies were taken to the outside of the camp and burned as a sacrifice for sin.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

As if the apostle had said, “As the beasts slain for atonement, whose blood was brought into the sanctuary, were not to be eaten by the priest, but burnt without the bounds of the camp of Israel; in like manner Christ, when he was to be offered up, to sanctify the people with his own blood, went without the gates of Jerusalem to suffer; signifying, that as they rejected him as unworthy to live with them, so he departed from them and their political and legal state.

Accordingly, Let us go forth unto him without the camp; that is, let us go unto him from the Jewish state and ceremonial law, bearing his reproach of the cross, which must be expected by us.”

Observe here, That Jesus Christ in his suffering did offer himself unto God; that the end of his offering was to sanctify the people: this he designed, and this he accomplished by his own blood, so called emphatically, partly in opposition to the sacrifice of the high priest, which was the blood of bulls, and not their own: and partly to testify what our sanctification cost Christ, even his own blood.

Observe, farther, The circumstance of place where our Lord suffered, it was without the gate of the city of Jerusalem, intimating, that he had now finally left the city and church of the Jews, and accordingly he denounced their destruction as he went out of the gate. Luk 23:28-30

And by thus turning his back upon the temple, he plainly showed, that he had now put an end to all sacrificing in the temple, as unto divine acceptation; and by going out of the gate, he declared that his sacrifice, and the benefits of it, were not included in the church of the Jews, but equally extended unto the whole world; and by going out of the city as a malefactor, and dying an accursed death, he plainly declared that he died a sin-offering: that his death was a punishment for sin.

Observe, lastly, Our duty to go forth to him wihtout the camp; this implies a reliquishing of all the privileges of the temple and city.

1. A turning our backs eternally upon all Jewish observations. 2. An acceptance of the merit of his sacrifice. 3. The owning of Christ under all that reproach and contempt that was cast upon him in his suffering withut the gate, and not being ashamed of his cross. 4. In our conformity to him in self-denial and suffering; all which are comprised in his apostolical exhortation, Let us go forth to him without camp, bearing his reproach.

The sum is this, “That we must leave all to go forth to a crucified Saviour; and if we resolve so to do, we must expect and prepare to meet with all sorts of reproaches.”

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Heb 13:11. For, &c. As if he had said, This was shown figuratively in the law; for the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought On the day of atonement; into the sanctuary The holy of holies; by the high-priest, for sin To make expiation of it; are burned without the camp See Lev 4:12; and therefore no part of them could be eaten by the priest or people; so they who, under the gospel, adhere to that way of worship, cannot partake of Christ, who is the truth signified by that type. In other words, according to their own law, the sin-offerings were wholly consumed, and no Jew ever ate thereof. But Christ was a sin-offering; therefore they cannot feed upon him as we do. This is explained more at large by Macknight, thus: This law, concerning the bodies of the animals whose blood the high-priest carried into the holy places, we have Lev 16:27. The same law is given concerning all the proper sin- offerings, Lev 6:30; from which it appears that neither the priest, who offered the sin-offerings, nor the people, for whom they offered them, were to eat of them. Wherefore, if the eating of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings was permitted, to show that the offerers were at peace with God, as their political Ruler, it may fairly be presumed that the prohibition to eat any part of the bodies of animals whose blood was brought into the holy places as an atonement, was intended to make the Israelites sensible that their sins against God, as moral Governor of the world, were not pardoned through these atonements; not even by the sacrifices which were offered by the high-priest on the tenth of the seventh month, which, like the rest, were to be wholly burned. Unless this was the intention of the law, the apostle could not, from that prohibition, have argued with truth that they who worshipped in the tabernacles with the sin- offerings, had no right to eat of the Christian altar. Whereas if, by forbidding the priests and people to eat the sin-offerings, the law declared that their offences against God, as moral Governor of the world, were not pardoned thereby, it was in effect a declaration, as the apostle affirms, that they had no right to eat of the Christian altar; that is, to share in the pardon which Christ hath procured for sinners by his death, who trusted in the Levitical sacrifices for pardon and acceptance with God.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 11

Hebrews 13:11; Leviticus 16:11,14-16,27.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Far from defiling those who associated with Jesus Christ, our sin (purification) offering, associating with Him leads to holiness. Here the writer compared Jesus to the sin offering that the Jewish high priest offered on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16:27).

". . . in Hebrews the expression ’high priest’ customarily signals that the field of reference is the annual atonement ritual (cf. Heb 5:3; Heb 7:27; Heb 8:1-3; Heb 9:7; Heb 9:11-12; Heb 9:24-26)." [Note: Lane, Hebrews 9-13, p. 540.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)