Hebrews 13:1–25

Original Meaning

General Guidelines for Christian Living (13:1–6)

(1) L OVE FELLOW C HRISTIANS (13:1). The New Testament resounds with the command to love the “brothers,” an idiom for fellow believers (e.g., Matt. 22:39; John 13:34; Rom. 13:8; 1 Cor. 13; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 John 2:10; 3:10; 4:7).2 Philadelphia, a noun translated here “loving … as brothers,”3 was used commonly in early Christian ethical teaching (Rom. 12:10; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22; 2 Peter 1:7). Rather than speaking to a particular emotion, the emphasis in the New Testament focuses on the call to meet one another’s needs. Thus, it may be that the author intends Hebrews 13:2–3 as application of this admonition in verse 1.4 He has treated well the interwoven themes of God’s “fatherhood,” the Christians’ status as “heirs,” and Christ’s role as the “first brother,” who leads them to their inheritance (2:10–18; 12:3–17).5 The concept of believers as united in a close spiritual family lays the foundation for practical exhortations to meet the needs of those in the family. Believers must live out love practically as an ever-present, foundational dynamic within the community.

(2) Show hospitality (13:2). The word rendered “entertain strangers” (philoxenia) connotes treating a person, perhaps a stranger, nobly and magnanimously in the context of one’s home, joyfully seeking to bring that person refreshment.6 In the ancient world it was expensive to stay overnight at an inn, and such establishments usually had poor reputations. Thus, an aspect of Jewish and early Christian piety, as well as etiquette in the broader Greco-Roman culture, involved taking people in for an evening. In the Christian context such admonitions to show hospitality have their foundation in the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus.

The practice of hospitality is evident in the life of the early believers as witnessed in Acts and the New Testament letters.7 The earliest Christians shared the mobility of the broader culture, and, therefore, many opportunities existed for them to practice hospitality toward traveling teachers, businesspersons, or refugees from persecution. The supreme paradigm for hospitality in early Jewish literature was the hospitality of Abraham, shown to his heavenly visitors (Gen. 18:2–15), which is probably alluded to in Hebrews 13:2: “for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.”

(3) Minister to those in prison and to those who are mistreated (13:3). The community of faith addressed by Hebrews had demonstrated practical ministry to those in prison in the past (10:34), and they are called here to continue that practice. Prisoners were not treated well in the first century, often having to depend on friends and family even for the most basic necessities of life.8 Christians could minister to fellow believers in prison, who were suffering for the sake of the gospel, either by offering consolation and gifts (Matt. 25:36; 2 Tim. 1:16) or by praying for them (Col. 4:18; Heb. 13:18–19). To “remember” (mimneskomai) means to keep present in one’s thoughts, an idea strengthened by the adverbial phrase “as if you were their fellow prisoners.” In other words, Christians are to keep their imprisoned friends constantly in mind as if they were right there looking at them.

Such concern should also be extended to those suffering mistreatment. Rather than a reference to the “body of Christ” as used in Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:1–16), the clause at the end of verse 3 (lit., “as also those being in the body”) is rendered appropriately by the NIV with “as if you yourselves were suffering.” The thought here is “be concerned for those who are suffering as if every blow they receive puts a stripe across your own back.”

(4) Hold marriage as honorable and keep the sexual relationship pure (13:4). Another motif common in early Christian ethical teaching was the need to keep the marriage relationship in proper perspective. The institution of marriage was assaulted from two sides in the ancient world. Some felt chastity in marriage was unreasonable. For example, in some corners of Greco-Roman culture men were expected to take mistresses as their confidants and sexual partners. Others felt marriage stunted spiritual devotion and thus held asceticism as the ideal. As the verse develops, it is clear that the former, rather than the latter, error is in view.

The word “honor” (timios) connotes “respect” or attributes “preciousness or value” to someone or something.9 For example, timios can be used of valuable material possessions (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:12), a respected teacher (Acts 5:34), the promises of God (2 Peter 1:4), or even the blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:19). As used in Hebrews 13:4, the word suggests that marriage, rather than an arrangement to be treated lightly, should be esteemed as of great worth.

Correspondingly, the marriage bed (koite), used here as an idiom for the sexual relationship, is to be guarded or “kept pure.” The defilement that the author has in mind is expressed in the explanatory “for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” The former word, “adulterers” (moichoi), is more focused than the latter, referring specifically to those who betray their marriage vows. The latter, “the sexually immoral” (pornoi), refers to all those involved in sexual activity apart from the sanctity of the marriage relationship. Together the two words cover the gamut of illicit sexual behavior.10 For those so involved in dishonoring marriage and defiling the marriage bed, the judgment of God awaits.

(5) Be content with your financial status (13:5). The sins of sexual impurity and covetousness are linked in several New Testament passages (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:10–11; Eph. 4:19; 1 Thess. 4:3–6), probably because their prohibitions are given side by side as the seventh and eighth of the Ten Commandments. Both the sexually immoral and those greedy for money pursue a myopic self-gratification that takes them outside the bounds of God’s provision. Such greed amounts to accusing God of incompetence as a provider of one’s most basic needs and, therefore, is incompatible with commitment to God himself (cf. Matt. 6:24). Consequently, Christians are exhorted to keep their lives “free from the love of money” and to “be content” with what they have.

Absence of the love of money (aphilargyros) was extolled in secular culture as a virtue because leaders would be incorruptible in the management of certain affairs, a thought that parallels a requirement for church leaders (1 Tim. 3:3).11 Here, however, the author has in mind Christians in general and the struggle to keep money in perspective in daily life. For the one who is aphilargyros, money is simply a means of meeting needs rather than a driving motivation or preoccupation of life. Such a person is “content” (arkoumenos) with what God has given.

The basis for such contentment is God’s promise of his ever-present help: “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” No Old Testament quotation perfectly corresponds to this quote in Greek, although several approach correspondence (e.g., Gen. 28:15; Deut. 31:6–8; Josh. 1:5), and various theories have been offered as to how the author was using his source material. Perhaps he conflated two Old Testament passages or used a Greek translation no longer in existence.12 Nevertheless, the significance of the promise is clear: God keeps his covenant to provide for his people. Therefore, believers need not worry that their needs will go unmet.

Thus, the Christian can profess with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (13:6). This response comes from Psalm 118:6–7 and asserts that the plans of the wicked will be thwarted by the provisions of God. The backdrop for the author’s use of this promise and for this human response placed on the lips of believers certainly involves the hearers’ situation. If, as was the case in their past, they were being persecuted in part by being forced to give up property or material possessions (Heb. 10:32–34), this promise of God and the encouragement to make an appropriate response would be especially relevant.

Bridging Contexts

IS THERE A bridge? The NIV Application Commentary series seeks to treat each text of the New Testament in a three-step process, addressing the original context, the contemporary significance, and dynamics by which the original and the contemporary concerns are bridged. One assumption behind this approach is that such a bridge is both possible and desirable. But that is not an assumption shared by all who interpret Scripture. Some scholars believe that the modern reader’s presuppositions so skew interpretation that “objective” reading of any ancient text is impossible. To them, the author’s original meaning is lost to modern Christians, so that we must make our own meaning; the text merely serves to stimulate responses from the interpreter’s own framework. Others suggest that bridging from the message of the New Testament to the contemporary scene is not even desirable. They reason, “The morality represented by these ancient texts belongs in a museum and is completely irrelevant for modern life.”

Why do we believe that the prescriptions concerning hospitality, for instance, or sexual ethics, love of money, and church leaders should be followed today? Are these perhaps just throwbacks to a social structure that has long since passed from the scene, disintegrating in the light and heat of modern learning?

Perhaps the most graphic departure from these guidelines found in Hebrews 13 is in the area of sexuality. For many in modern culture the sanctity of the marriage bed is a nonissue. Adultery and sexual immorality are so widely accepted in the Western world as to barely raise a yawn, much less an outcry. In some circles the love of money is seen as a virtue rather than a vice, and in a democratic society, who wants to talk about submission to leaders or anyone else? For many in the modern world it does no good to say simply, “The Bible says so!” What reasons can we give that these should be brought across the bridge of interpretation as of contemporary significance?

(1) The early Christian movement was far from homogeneous culturally. That movement assimilated people of both Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures, spanned continents, and broke down barriers of race. The earliest Christian writers give us examples to follow as they taught Christian ethics concerning money, sexuality, family, and church structure across cultural lines. They bridged the gap between different contexts in their world. The technical term for lists such as the one found in Hebrews 13:1–6 is paraenesis, and scholars have noted that such lists occur throughout the New Testament. The parallels between these lists of ethical teachings indicate that the early Christians, following in the path of their Jewish heritage, shared a common understanding of how life should be lived from a Christian perspective.

(2) Early Christian teachers had a body of Scripture we call the Old Testament, parts of which were written more than a millennium prior to its use by the earliest Christ-followers. Certainly, many of the contemporaries of first-century believers would have considered the Ten Commandments outdated. The view that people of the first century generally were prudish is naïve from a historical perspective. Sexual immorality in a wide variety of forms was rampant. The prescriptions concerning the purity of the marriage bed in Hebrews 13:4, therefore, would have been considered absurd to many. Yet Jesus himself and the authors of the New Testament practiced interpretation and application of the “much-older” Testament, bridging the contexts between the messages found in their scrolls and their own world. Thus, we have a precedent for bridging the context between the world of an ancient body of literature and a later time period.

(3) The moral guidelines found in Hebrews 13 are grounded not in a person’s existential sense of morality but in a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever.” The exhortations to love others by practicing hospitality and caring for their needs when oppressed are grounded in revelation from God. Commands concerning marriage fidelity and greed span the covenants because the holy God is God of both covenants, and his requirements concerning morality do not change. Furthermore, the warnings concerning the end of the age indicate that the new covenant will be in force until that time. Changes in the winds of social and cultural thought do not change God’s covenant or his moral requirements.

Therefore, we suggest that the cultures of the ancient and modern world can be bridged through proper interpretation. Not only is it possible, but it is also mandatory from a Christian perspective. Our faith is grounded historically in God’s revelation through his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the apostolic witness. To depart from the basic theological and ethical teachings of the New Testament, therefore, is an egregious error for those who call themselves Christians.

Across the bridge. One of the supreme challenges in teaching (or commenting!) through the book of Hebrews has to do with its theological orientation. Many moderns are so oriented to “daily practical application” that a theological treatise threatens to overwhelm them. As I have argued and attempted to demonstrate throughout the commentary, however, theology has a pervading relevance for daily life.

But as we come to Hebrews 13, we find a wealth of so-called “topics for practical application.” We can identify with the essential importance and relevance of issues concerning marriage and sexuality, money, caring for the suffering, and leadership. Most of us probably struggle with one or more of those issues on a weekly if not daily basis. The difficulty here, however, involves narrowing the scope of our application. A book could be written on any of these topics. Potential pitfalls are legion. What is a commentator, preacher, or teacher to do?

If you have the time, a series of messages, lessons, or personal Bible studies would be in order. The topics here are as fresh and vital as any topics in your morning newspaper. Unfortunately, I share the author of Hebrews’ time and space constraints (“And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about …,” 11:32)! Therefore, let me suggest that we proceed as follows. The instructional part of Hebrews 13 divides into two primary movements: the practical instructions of verses 1–6 and the guidelines surrounding church leadership in verses 7–19. What primary issues lie at the heart of each of these passages? How can parts of the material here be used in an illustrative manner to address those primary issues?

Verses 1–6 demonstrate that true Christian commitment involves living out commitment to Christ in the nitty-gritty of daily living. Beds and bankrolls cannot be separated from theology. This is where the reality of our relationship with God is manifested. The dusty and crowded sidewalks, the kitchen tables, the lunchrooms and lounges, are the places where we must “confess his name” and “do good and … share with others” (13:15–16) if we are to live authentically as believers. We must work out these principles in daily practice.

Verses 7–19, by contrast, concern Christian leaders and their role in leading the church through right doctrine. Just as the first six verses address Christian living “out in the world,” the next thirteen address life “in the church.” At least three issues are paramount here with regard to a leader’s role. (1) Leaders are responsible for living in such a way that their lives are worthy of imitation. (2) They must lead the way in holding to right doctrine, which will lead to right identification with Christ and his church. (3) They are responsible for caring for those under their charge, and those under their charge are responsible for facilitating their leadership.

Notice the orientation of this passage, however. These remarks are addressed to the church members in response to their leaders! (1) Church members are to keep in mind the example of godly leaders, scrutinizing the outcome of their manner of life and imitating their faith. In our application, therefore, we must reflect on those in our church life whom we should be holding up as examples worthy of imitation.

(2) Church members are to respond to leadership by embracing right doctrine, valuing the Christian community and Christian thought more than the comfort and community offered by other groups that do not believe the gospel. Believers are to respect and yield to their leaders in this regard, being teachable when it comes to Christian instruction.

(3) Believers should offer to God “thank offerings” for the sacrifice of Christ and should perform practical ministry to one another in the community of faith. The impetus for such worship and work is the work of Christ, who has redeemed and leads the community.

(4) Finally, members of the church should reflect on the effects of their responses on the church’s leadership. Does a relationship with you or me facilitate their difficult work or hinder it? This does not mean that members of a church are to give their leaders a “blank check” or uncritical deference in all situations. The leaders need accountability and members of the church must exercise spiritual gifts. However, when leaders are living within biblical guidelines and teaching faithfully the central tenets of the Christian faith (the focus here is on the sacrifice of Christ as the communication of God’s grace), church members should seek to make the leaders’ ministry a joy. Application, therefore, involves reflection on how this can be accomplished. When leaders are ministering faithfully and members of the church are following with right attitudes, it is to everyone’s “advantage” (v. 17).

Contemporary Significance

EVERYDAY CHRISTIANITY. ONE of the most insidious dynamics in the modern church involves the bifurcation of life into two spheres, the sacred and secular. The life of the spirit and the life of the street, meant to be integrated, instead are ripped apart and thrown in different directions. Where this aberrant vision of the Christian life prevails, “church language” has the hollow thud of wordy noise rather than the ring of authenticity.

When Christ-following truth is no longer spoken in street language, when it is no longer directed at street life, and when it no longer challenges men and women to live as Christ-followers in those streets, there is no longer a chance for real-world faith. People are tamed, learning how to act with deftness inside the religious institutions. But they do not learn how to live faithfully in the real world.29

Real-world faith is replaced by a shallow substitute—a spiritual-looking, institutionalized religion that is completely irrelevant to everyday life. The vibrant, zesty fullness and realness of true Christianity is replaced by a tame spiritual vapidity that must be checked inside the door of the church lest it vaporize under the heat of the streets.

Conversely, it is through the devoted living for God in common aspects of life that the truth of the gospel is proclaimed in a thousand varied voices, and the kingdom is built. In the common practices of financial management, date nights, cleaning dirty faces and dirty bottoms, integrity at work, care for the burdened or oppressed, and hospitality God finds pleasure, for these are worthy sacrifices when presented on an altar made holy by the blood of Christ.

For example, a healthy sexual relationship within marriage gives a platform for truth’s proclamation to the world and a joyful dance of worship before God. In marriage pleasure and fidelity we shout against the inevitability of marital breakup and adultery proclaimed by the godless. Our healthy marriages trumpet the redemption of people from self-centeredness and destructive, immoral life patterns. The bed becomes a mini-church in which the two covenant members sacrificially and ecstatically meet one another’s needs and offer their bodies as living sacrifices in worship before God. We should remind the world that God created the wonder and fireworks of sex long before the advent of the glossy, counterfeit sex-sellers of modern culture.

Nevertheless, our sexuality rumbles as thunder in our bones, a power both beautifully dynamic and horrifically damaging in its relational potential—both in relation to people and God. Author Mike Mason writes:

Surely it was God’s full intention for the physical joining together of a man and a woman to be one of the mountaintop experiences of life, one of those summit points of both physical and mystical rapture in which He Himself might overshadow His people in love, might come down among them and be most intimately and powerfully revealed. How horribly tragic, therefore, that it is here at this very point, here at this precious male-female encounter which ought to be overflowing with holiness, here that godless people have succeeded in descending to some of the most abysmal levels of human degradation.… Sex is sacred ground.… It is more conspicuously than anywhere else, the place where the angel and the animal in man meet face to face, and engage in mortal struggle.30

This mortal struggle is why we need to be reminded of guidelines such as those found in Hebrews 13:6. Good marriages and good sex do not just happen; they take thought and effort, both born of a selfless willingness to live for God in the details of life over a long period of time. It may also be that the intensity of the struggle increases proportionately the worth of this pleasing sacrifice.

Money is another area that tests the authenticity of our devotion to God. The heart that is too close to the back pocket is out of place and grows numb to the good gifts and provisions of God. Again, it provides an arena in which great spiritual vitality can be grown and demonstrated.

Corrie ten Boom recounts an event from her childhood that well illustrates the power of keeping money in perspective. The ten Boom family prayed one morning that God would send a customer that day to the family’s shop to purchase a watch, the income from which would pay bills that had come due at the bank. During that day a customer with a large sum of cash came into the store. He picked out and paid for an expensive watch but, at the same time, complained about a Christian watchmaker, suggesting that the merchant had sold him a defective piece of merchandise. Casper, Corrie’s father, asked the man if he could examine the watch that was not working properly. Only a minor repair was needed, which Casper made, assuring the customer that he had been sold a fine quality watch that would work well for him. He then gave the astounded gentleman his money back, and the man returned the watch for which he had just paid.

Little Corrie asked, “Papa, why did you do that? Aren’t you worried about the bills you have due?” Her father responded, “There is blessed and unblessed money,” explaining that God would not be pleased with the ruination of another believer’s reputation. God would provide, he assured her. Just a few days later another man came into the shop and paid for the most expensive watch produced at that time. The purchase not only allowed the family to pay their bills, but also provided the funds for Corrie to receive training in Switzerland as a watchmaker for two years.31

C. S. Lewis once remarked, “He who has God and everything has no more than he who has God alone.” The truth of this statement and freedom from the love of money can elude rich and poor alike. The poor struggle against the clinging, grasping demands of daily existence. An empty stomach, a lack of transportation or social advancement, and dire surroundings can cry out against God’s promise of provision as a mockery. The rich, by contrast—and the vast majority of Christians in the Western world should be considered rich by the world’s standards—experience the drowning out of God’s promises by their super supply of material things. “Provision? Who needs provision?” Such questions are but a short step away from, “Who needs God?”

Along these lines James warns the poor and rich to think rightly. The poor should take joy in their exalted status as Christ’s persons; the rich should focus on their low station as Christ’s servants and on the temporality of life (James 1:9–11). We cannot be both lovers of money and lovers of God because these loves divide our allegiance, passions, and efforts in life (Matt. 6:24). Thus, if we are to be effective Christ-followers, productive members of his covenant community, we must keep ourselves “free from the love of money.”

In areas such as marriage and money the worlds of the spirit and the street meet. Such meeting places either become dance floors on which we move to the music of his will or a stage of games on which we play at Christianity with dichotomized, hypocritical hearts. Everyday. Everyday. God wants us and wants us to want him in the nitty-gritty wonder, the plain and exalted dance of everyday.

Follow the leaders. Kent and Barbara Hughes tell of the wife of a close pastor friend, who relates a humorous nighttime encounter with her husband. One night she awoke to find her sleeping husband on elbows and knees at the foot of their bed. With his arms wrapped around some unseen object before him he was mumbling to himself. The startled wife asked, “George! What on earth are you doing?” “Shhh,” the sleeping pastor answered. “I’m holding a pyramid of marbles together, and if I move, it’s going to tumble down.” A pyramid of marbles—an appropriate metaphor for a church leader’s ministry!32

In the years I have been involved in ministry, it has struck me how naïve some church members are about the realities of daily church leadership. Most pastors have heard with chagrin, “So, I know you preach on Sunday. What do you do the rest of the week?” One close friend of mine, a layperson in his church, suddenly found himself thrown into (over his head!) a critical leadership position because of the pastor’s sudden departure from the church. The circumstances of that departure and the continuing needs of a young congregation made for late nights and weary days. My friend, who has been involved in church faithfully for many years, exclaimed, “I had no idea!!!” Most do not, unless they have been there.

Church leaders, especially those who serve as the “main minister” or “pastor,” have difficult jobs. In many contexts they are expected to wear the multiple hats of social coordinator, superb orator (several times a week), sensitive and insightful counselor, administrator, motivator, teacher, evangelist, mender of relationships, “marryer,” and “buryer”—all the while cultivating an exemplary personal, spiritual, and family life. The pressure to spend hours in study, hours in the community, hours in visiting prospects, hours in counseling, hours in training the staff, and hours in prayer all add up to unrealistic expectations on the part of the church. The effect can be overwhelming.

In 1925 the great theologian Karl Barth was offered the pastorate of a church in Neumunster near Zurich, Switzerland. Reflecting on his previous pastorate he sighed, “I am troubled by the memory of how greatly, how yet more greatly, I failed finally as a pastor of Safenwil.… The prospect of having to teach children again, of having to take hold of all kinds of practical problems … is really fearful to me.”33

So what can you and I do in response to our church leaders? I would like for us to reflect on a number of questions in light of the principles found in Hebrews 13:7–17. (1) Church members are to keep in mind the example of godly leaders, scrutinizing the outcome of their manner of life and imitating their faith. Who are those leaders in your church life that you should be holding up as examples worthy of imitation? Have you of late thought carefully about the fruit of a great leader’s life, using that scrutiny as a motivation in your own spiritual life? Do the expectations your church has of its pastor(s) facilitate a spiritual life that is worthy of imitation, or is the pastor so overwhelmed with responsibilities that there is little time to be with God in prayer and study?

(2) Church members are to respond to the leadership by embracing right doctrine, valuing the Christian community and thought more than the comfort and community offered by groups who do not believe the gospel. Are you respecting and yielding to your leaders in this regard, being teachable when it comes to Christian instruction? Are you struggling with the pull of social or religious groups outside the Christian community, and have you begun to drift from thinking clearly about Christ? Do you value the community of faith? What in your life demonstrates clearly that value? Do you value your leaders’ seriousness about right doctrine? Do you encourage their theological training, their further education? Or do you fight against it? Do you cloud church discussions by downplaying the leaders’ pleas for theological reflection?

(3) Believers should offer to God “thank offerings” for the sacrifice of Christ and should perform practical ministry to one another in the community of faith. The impetus for such worship and work is the work of Christ, who has redeemed and leads the community. Are you characterized by thankfulness to God, or are you a grumbler, constantly finding fault with people and processes in the church? Are you engaged in meeting the needs of others in the church on a weekly basis? Do you see your ministry as a sacrifice that pleases God?

(4) Members of the church should reflect on the effects of their responses on the church’s leadership. Does their relationship with you facilitate the difficult work of your church leaders or hinder it? Are you a source of emotional refreshment or emotional fatigue? Does your pastor leave you with a song on the lips or a groan in the heart? What might be a way you can show encouragement to your church leaders this week?

Church life is difficult. Relationships get strained because the church is full of real people. But when church leaders lead well, living lives worthy of imitation, and when church members follow their lead, the kingdom is built. God is pleased. This helps and benefits all.

Conclusion. So, dear reader of this commentary, we come to the end of Hebrews. Thank you for taking up this volume. Unless you are unusual, you have not read it from beginning to end—we do not normally interact with commentaries in that way! However, whatever your circumstance—whether you are doing personal study in Hebrews, have stopped by this wonderful New Testament book for a brief look at an isolated passage, or are engaged in leading others through a more detailed study—I pray that you will heed “the word of exhortation” that is Hebrews. May you grasp fully the message of the exalted Christ, who has died for our sins and lovingly embraces us in the new covenant. May you consider him, fixing your eyes on the author and perfecter of our faith. May you heed the warnings and exult in the promises of this book, following the good examples such as Abraham and Moses and avoiding the errors of the bad. May you receive an inheritance with the saints in the heavenly Jerusalem as we worship with the angels “in joyful assembly.” In the words of Hebrews 13:20–21:

May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Original Meaning

Guidelines on Church Leadership and Doctrine (13:7–19)

THE BOUNDARIES OF the middle portion of Hebrews 13 are marked by the references to the community’s leaders in verses 7 and 17. The exhortation to “remember your leaders” (v. 7) leads into a somewhat complex discussion of theology that hints at a significant struggle for this church and ends with a practical challenge to application (vv. 9–15). The exhortation to “obey your leaders” (v. 17) extends to the author’s request that the church pray for him (vv. 18–19).13

In 13:7 the readers are exhorted to “remember your leaders.” The present participle of the word hegeomai was used in the broader Greco-Roman culture of state officials and in the LXX for religious, political, and military leaders.14 Used in a Christian context for a church office, the word finds expression in ancient Christian documents especially related to the city of Rome.15 Most interpreters suggest the author has in mind here church leaders who have already died;16 the identifying relative clause, “who spoke the word of God to you,” is understood as a technical reference to the preaching of the gospel in the founding of this church. Also, the word translated “outcome” (ekbasis) can refer to the sum total of one’s accomplishment in life.17 The author, therefore, exhorts his hearers to consider closely or scrutinize the fruit of their leaders’ manner of living and imitate their faith. In other words, the leaders are placed in the same category of “heroic examples” as the paragons of biblical history (6:12–15; 11:1–40).

Hebrews 13:8 sets forth a beautiful proclamation of Christ’s immutability: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” The theological perspective behind this concise Christological formula has been developed well in the course of Hebrews. The author asserts the Son’s role in creation (1:2, 10), certainly an aspect of “yesterday.” Presently the Son sits in his exalted status as Lord of the universe, who intercedes for his people (1:3, 13; 7:26–28). The author has vigorously promulgated the perpetual nature of Christ’s rule “for all time” into the eternal “tomorrow” (1:8a, 10–12):

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.…

… the heavens are the work of your hands.

They will perish, but you remain;

they will all wear out like a garment.

You will roll them up like a robe;

like a garment they will be changed.

But you remain the same,

and your years will never end.

In the current context of Hebrews 13, the author has a specific reason for interjecting this confession concerning the Son’s immutability. The key lies in the phrase “who spoke the word of God to you” from verse 7. The proclamation of the gospel had played a significant role in the founding of this church. That event, now in the distant past, perhaps has faded in the minds of those who are struggling with the faith. With this Christological statement the author reminds his audience that the same Christ who was so real to their community in the beginning, as they were ministered to by their former leaders, presently sits in his exalted state and will rule perpetually. Although their circumstances and perspectives change, Jesus Christ and his gospel do not.

It is important, therefore, that the congregation guard against “all kinds of strange teachings,” to which some were being drawn (13:9). These teachings evidently promised spiritual strengthening through ceremonial foods and apart from God’s grace found in Christ. In first-century Judaism participants celebrated special cultic meals, particularly the fellowship meal, as a means of communicating the grace of God. These meals involved the blessing of God, thanks for his grace, and prayers of request. More broadly, Jewish meals were understood to give spiritual strength—strength for the heart—through the joy experienced at the table (Ps. 104:14–15). Every meal offered faithful Jews the opportunity to reflect on God’s goodness and thus be nourished spiritually. It reminded them that the ultimate expression of thanks to God for redemption must be made via the thank offering and the fellowship meal at the altar in Jerusalem. Some Jews of Diaspora Judaism, moreover, celebrated special fellowship meals in an attempt to imitate the cultic meals of the temple.18

Some of the recipients of Hebrews are perhaps being drawn away from Christian fellowship and doctrine to theological expressions heralded within a community practicing Judaism. They are embracing aspects of Jewish community life and thought that are at odds with the gospel of grace through Jesus Christ. The author asserts that such ceremonial foods have no “value to those who eat them.” They are not the true means of grace and spiritual strength. When he states, “We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat” (v. 10), he reiterates the demarcation between those who participated in the old covenant religion and the members of the new covenant. Although it is not clear exactly what he has in mind regarding the Christian’s “altar,” this much is certain: The participants of the new covenant draw spiritual sustenance and life from a source unavailable to those of the tabernacle, and that source is the sacrifice of Christ.

Speaking of the offering on the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16:27 reads, “The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement, must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up.” This verse forms the backdrop of Hebrews 13:11–14, which reiterates the author’s interpretation of Christ as the Day of Atonement sacrifice (9:11–14, 24–28; 10:1–4). With 13:12 the author draws two parallels between Jesus’ sacrifice and that of Yom Kippur. (1) “Jesus also suffered outside the city gate.” As the old covenant atonement sacrifices were taken outside the camp, so Jesus was taken outside the city of Jerusalem. (2) The purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice was “to make the people holy.” Jesus’ high-priestly offering, however, was “through his own blood,” one vital point in the author’s extensive defense of that offering’s superiority (9:11–28).19

Having reasserted the superiority of Jesus’ sacrifice and thus the superiority of Christian doctrine, the author offers an application in 13:13–14: Believers must reject the tempting security of Judaism and be resolute in their identification with Christ. Throughout the book the author has encouraged his audience to go into (“enter”) God’s “rest” (4:11) or the heavenly Most Holy Place (4:14–16; 6:19–20; 10:22). Now, however, he challenges the hearers to “go out.”20 The “camp” represents the religion of Judaism, grounded in the tabernacle rituals of the old covenant.

For the listeners to turn their backs on Judaism will mean rejection and “disgrace,” such as that experienced by Christ. The motive for bearing this disgrace has to do with the eternal perspective offered at the end of chapter 12 (12:25–29). Judaism, a religion wed to the old covenant, is depicted as an aspect of the present world that will be shaken to pieces at Christ’s return. By contrast, new covenant believers have “an enduring city,” one “that is to come”—the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22). Thus, Christians should hold to their confession of Christ in the face of opposition because his sacrifice means lasting holiness and his “city” is one that will endure.

Although Christians should not participate in the Jewish cultic meals, they have their own appropriate “sacrifices” to offer (13:15–16). These offerings are to be made “through Jesus,” since Christ, the mediator, has made it possible for believers to come before God in worship (9:9–14; 10:1–14). The writer details two spiritual sacrifices in 13:15–16. (1) He exhorts the readers to “continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise,” which he explains as “the fruit of lips that confess his name.” The words translating “sacrifice of praise” occur in the LXX of Leviticus 7:12 and speak of the highest form of peace offering under the old covenant.21 This thank offering was voluntary and could only be made after the expiatory offerings had been presented and the worshiper was ritually clean; its primary purpose was to express gratitude to God.22 However, the author’s explanatory comment concerning the “fruit of lips” shows that he has in mind a metaphorical application of this language found in the Psalms, where the “sacrifice” is the prayer of thanks (e.g., Ps. 50:14, 23; 107:22; also 2 Chron. 29:31).

(2) The Christ-follower is also to offer a sacrifice of good deeds (13:16). Already having emphasized the necessity of good works in the form of ministry to others (e.g., 10:24; 13:1–3)—activities in which these believers had been engaged in the past (6:10; 10:34)—the author reminds them again to be faithful in this regard. The word translated “share with others” (koinonia) emphasizes a life in the covenant community, in which members meet the practical needs of one another. As the life of faith pleases God (11:6), so the sacrifices of praise and practical ministry give him pleasure.

With 13:17 the writer returns to the subject of the church’s leadership, this time focusing clearly on current leaders. The members of the congregation have a responsibility to “obey” these leaders and to “submit to their authority.” The verb translated “obey” (peitho) as used by ancient authors had various nuances. It could mean to “conform one’s actions” (e.g., Gal. 5:7; James 3:3), but it could also connote the idea of “being persuaded by” or “putting one’s confidence in.”23 The further injunction to “submit to their authority” (hypeiko) means the listeners are to have “a readiness to comply” and may indicate a strained relationship between the leadership and some members of the Christian community.24

The admonitions to obey and submit probably relate to the leaders as deliverers of proper instruction, a focal role of early Christian elders (1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17). Thus, these two commands involve yielding to and respecting the leaders as they give direction concerning right Christian doctrine. By guiding the church in doctrinal integrity the leaders “watch over” (agrypneo) the lives of those committed to their charge. This word, when used metaphorically, means to be spiritually alert or wide awake (see Mark 13:33; Luke 21:36; Eph. 6:18). The responsibility associated with such leadership is weighty, since the leaders must “give an account” of their instructional oversight (James 3:1).

Consequently, instead of working against them, the members of the congregation are to yield to their leaders so that their ministry may be carried out with “joy.” The phrase “not a burden” can be translated as “not groaning.” When members of the church fail to submit themselves to the leadership, the leaders end up working under an emotional burden that gives them a life filled with sighs. Such a condition is “of no advantage” to the congregation since ministry is diminished by undue emotional stress.

The author rounds out his series of admonitions with a personal request in 13:18–19. In saying “pray for us,” he uses an “authorial plural,” a stylistic device by which he refers to himself (cf. 5:11; 6:9).25 The exhortation to pray is in the present tense and should be understood as durative: “Keep on praying.” In saying, “We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way,” the writer commends himself to his hearers as one for whom they should pray as a good Christian leader (2 Cor. 1:11–12; 4:2). He specifically asks them to pray that he “may be restored” to them, indicating that he was a member of this church, who, for whatever reason, had been prevented from rejoining them.