It is not difficult for systems of doctrine to become
well–established in the mind without there ever being sufficient
reflection on what is believed. In the light of this, I wish to
consider the exhortation of the writer of Hebrews to go forth to
Christ without the camp (see Heb. 13: 13) and ask whether the
traditional teaching that has grown up around this subject has been
properly thought through.
Some seem to believe, for example, that “the
camp” refers to Christendom, with their own distinct group a
separate body of believers “outside the camp” (v11). Is this idea
really sustainable? No it is not. In a great house, there are
vessels both of honour and dishonour (see 2 Tim. 2: 20). The great
house is the Christian profession—Christendom—and includes both the
false and the true. If we have been baptised unto the name of Christ
then we are part of it, whether we accept the fact or not. We are
not exhorted to leave that great house, and neither are we able to.
Probe a little deeper into this simplistic view
of Hebrews 13: 10–14. Does what the writer is talking about involve
an ecclesiastical position? Surely. But then does that mean that by
joining some particular band of Christians you take up a position of
being “outside the camp” (and, conversely, that if you leave that
narrow circle, that you are no longer “outside the camp”)? Some
certainly think so. With such, the ‘company’ is everything, and
going “forth to him” (Heb. 13: 13) is a mere form of words to cover
what is really sectarianism.
Others, however, would recoil from such
presumptuous views. What then, is to be done with those godly
believers that conscience shrinks from categorising as being in the
camp, and yet, for whatever reason, are closed off from practical
fellowship? Scripture does not give us an option of a ‘middle way’.
If the believer is not
in the camp, then he must have gone forth
without the camp (see
v13). Furthermore, the effect of this
must be to bring him
into association with others who have made the same step. That this
has largely not happened should make us wonder whether there is in
fact a deeper problem to be addressed.
Many have focused on the ritualistic and legal
nature of Judaism and assumed that this is the basis for the
exhortation to go forth to Christ “without the camp” (v13). However,
Hebrews is not Galatians, and the problem addressed in the former is
not exactly the same as in the latter. The Galatians were seeking to
establish law in Christianity, even though law never had any
relevance to the Christian, since, through Christ, he is dead to law
(see Gal. 2: 19). The Hebrews, by contrast, had been born into a
legal system that actually originated in “the oracles of God” (Rom.
3: 2), and were now being exhorted to break their ties with Judaism,
not because it was based on law,
but because it had rejected
Christ. Indeed, to go back to Judaism (which the Hebrews
were in danger of doing), would be to go back to rejecting Christ,
crucifying afresh (as it were) the Son of God (see Heb. 6: 6).
Certainly the Galatian error was extremely serious—they were in
danger of being “deprived of all profit from the Christ as separated
[from him]” (Gal. 5: 4)—but they still wished to retain Christ.
Galatianism must be vigorously resisted, but it has nothing directly
to do with Heb. 13: 10–14.
Now in seeking to understand the application of
any Scripture to ourselves in the present day it is
imperative that we understand the interpretation of the passage
first. Many fail to grasp that the traditional ecclesiastical
application of “outside the camp” is not only not the primary
meaning of the passage, but that it is not even a secondary one!
Essentially, this teaching is an application of an application,
because Heb. 13: 10–14 is the inspired writer’s own application of
what he had got from the OT. Why is this important? Because it
should make us
very careful in how we
apply the passage, particularly since the practical outcome is often
to label fellow saints of God in a way that may not be just.
The writer of Hebrews takes up the idea of the
camp from two distinct (though related) uses—one in relation to the
sin offering on the day of atonement, and one in relation to the
incident of the golden calf, and blends them together. His readers,
being Jews, would immediately recognise the picture he presents to
them. In that sin offering, the sacrifice, being fully identified
with the sin of the people, was burned “outside the camp” (Lev. 16:
27)—the place of judgment and rejection. Christ, as the great sin
offering, “made sin for us” (2 Cor. 5: 21) suffered in the same
place of rejection, as refused by man and forsaken by God. It is
also no coincidence that Calvary is outside Jerusalem (He suffered
“without the gate”—Heb. 13: 12). No one, however, was exhorted in
the OT teaching of the day of atonement to go to where the bodies
were burned “outside the camp” (v11)—except for one man, who would,
of necessity, have to take the offering there (see Lev. 16: 27).
For the truth of
joining Christ in the
place of rejection, the writer of Hebrews turns to the imagery of
the incident of the golden calf. Moses had gone up into the mountain
(type of Christ gone up to heaven), and the people, having grown
impatient, said to Aaron, “Up, make us a god, who will go before us;
for this Moses, the man that has brought us up out of the land of
Egypt,—we do not know what is become of him!” (Exod. 32: 1). A
religion was thus inaugurated which, though it professed a
connection with God (see v5), had no place for the man that God had
appointed to lead His people. The eventual consequence of all this
was that “Moses took the tent, and pitched it outside the camp, far
from the camp, and called it the Tent of meeting. And it came to
pass [that] every one who sought Jehovah went out to the tent of
meeting which was outside the camp” (Exod. 33: 7). This then, is
the inspired interpretation
of being “outside the camp”.
In Hebrews 13, the writer takes up these OT
Scriptures and applies them to the current situation at the time of
writing, when the Hebrew saints, for conscience sake, were exhorted
to separate themselves from the ‘camp’ of Judaism—a religion which
had murdered its own Messiah. Judaism had not professed to give up
on God—but they had no time for the Man He had appointed. Christ was
“the stone which has been set at nought by you the builders” (Acts
4: 11). In passing, it is important to see that this call for the
abandonment of Judaism did not come at Pentecost. Peter may have
preached “be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2: 40), but
he remained a Jew, the early Christians continued to frequent the
temple (see Acts 3: 1; 5: 21; 21: 26), and Christianity was
initially viewed simply as a sect within Judaism (see Acts 24: 5,
14). Only after the Jews had reiterated their rejection of the Lord
by sending an embassy after Him (see Luke 19: 14)—as witnessed by
their persistent refusal of the Gospel preached in the book of
Acts—do we get this exhortation to the Jewish believers to sever
their links with Judaism fully and finally. This then, is
the inspired application of being “outside the camp”.
It is clear from both the inspired
interpretation and the inspired application that “the camp”
signifies a religion that, while professing to be of God, has very
definitely cast off the Man He has established as “Son over his
house” (Heb. 3: 6). It is not a Corinthian situation, where there
was bad practice, or Galatian in character, where there was bad
doctrine. These things may exist, and may justly result in
separation, but they are not what is addressed in Heb. 13: 10–14.
The issue there was Christ
personally, hence:
“let us go forth
to him” (Heb. 13: 13,
my emphasis). The true–hearted Jewish Christian could not stay in
the camp, for Christ was not there, and, moreover,
was not wanted there.
To what then, can we apply all this to today?
Clearly, we need to be very careful about drawing too hard and fast
a parallel between the Hebrew believers separating themselves from
the Jewish worship, and how you and I view other Christians “not
with us” (Luke 9: 49). For reasons of conscience, other believers
may not be happy to walk with us (or we with them) but this may have
nothing to do with being within or without the camp. To make being
“outside the camp” dependent on ‘following with us’ (see Mark 9: 38)
is, I believe, to set up a system of ecclesiastical pretension that
God cannot and will not honour.
Circumstances have certainly altered since the
writing of the Hebrew epistle. When it was written, the vast
majority of Christians were Jews. By comparison, believers having
their origins in Judaism now form a tiny proportion of the Christian
profession. The Judaism of the first century AD has long since gone:
there is no temple, and there are no priests or sacrifices in
Judaism today. Why then has this book been preserved for a largely
Gentile readership? The answer must surely lie in what has
not changed, and what
is
still relevant.
The instruction is to go forth to Christ
without the camp “bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13: 13).
Now while the camp of Israel (as
understood by the Hebrew saints), may no longer be with us, we have
a
living Christ, and
thus His reproach is still a
current matter. Why do
I draw attention to this? Because bearing the reproach of Christ is
critical to the whole
question of what it means to be outside the camp. What then, is this
reproach? It is the reproach that comes with being identified with
anything that
truly takes its character from Christ—that order of man that
this world has refused. It is more than simply using His name as a
label. The great established bodies of Christendom may bear His
name, but they do not bear His reproach.
The first man recorded as bearing the reproach
of Christ was Moses (see Heb. 11: 26). How? Scripture tells us that
it was because he refused worldly patronage, choosing rather to
“suffer affliction along with the people of God” (v25). He
identified himself with them (in effect with Christ) rather than
identifying himself with the world (as typified by Pharaoh’s
daughter). That reproach continues now since Christ continues to not
have his rightful place here. A worldly religion may take the name
of Christ but it does not suffer the reproach of the Christ because
it accommodates itself to the world. However, the faithful will
share their Master’s rejection. Thus: “If the world hate you, know
that it has hated me before you. If ye were of the world, the world
would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have
chosen you out of the world, on account of this the world hates you
… If ye are reproached in [the] name of Christ, blessed [are ye]”
(John 15: 18, 19; 1 Pet. 4: 14). Notice the word “therefore” in Heb.
13: 13.
He had suffered
“without the gate” (v12),
therefore, they were to go out (in effect) to the same place,
“bearing his reproach” (v13).
When the Hebrew epistle was written, Judaism
and Jerusalem were ripe for judgment (fulfilled shortly afterwards
in AD 70). Judaism had all the attractions of an established and
very visible religion—the priests ministered every day in a
magnificent temple “offering often the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins” (Heb. 10: 11)—but
it had no room for Christ. Sad to say, we see the same round
of Christ-less religion in much of Christendom—indeed the greatest
of the ‘churches’, with its priests, altars and sacrifices, has more
than a passing resemblance to the Judaism of old. Although true
believers may remain in them, such bodies clearly belong to the camp
in their moral character, and share the same prospect of judgment
(see Rev. 18: 8). Fidelity to Christ would dictate that we get out
of them.
Some foolishly imagine that because something
claims the name of Christ, then it must be ‘alright’. On the
contrary, “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light”
and “it is no great thing therefore if his ministers also transform
themselves as ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11: 14, 15). Thus
there are establishment ‘churches’ today that form an intrinsic part
of the fabric of society, and yet who really have no time for the
Lord or His sacrifice. That is the kind of ‘Christianity’ that the
Devil is happy with. Interestingly, when the apostle Paul refers to
the incident of the golden calf in 1 Cor. 10: 7, he associates the
idolatry not so much with the golden calf itself but with the spirit
of self–gratification that hankers after a life of comfort and
pleasure on earth—where the religious instincts of man are satisfied
without being troubled by the reproach of the Christ. Incredibly,
some imagine that they can have ‘the best of both worlds’ by taking
up an ecclesiastical position of separation, while fraternising as
far as they dare with what passes for ‘mainstream Christianity’.
This cannot be done. The tent of meeting was pitched “far from the camp” (Exod. 33: 7, my emphasis). There is a great
deal in the Christian profession that is happy to shelter under the
name of Christ, but, at heart, has no real place for Him. If
faithful, I will bear His reproach, and stand far apart from such
things.
However, we are not simply talking about
ecclesiastical separation. It is comparatively easy to be strict
about doctrine and careful about reception, but it is foolish to
imagine that this puts one outside the camp. We go forth “to
him” (Heb. 13: 13, my emphasis)—a person not a position.
Merely joining a particular company of Christians who believe in
separation will not put me outside the camp as Scripture envisages
it—there must be a going forth to
Christ. The fact that unbelievers are sometimes found in the
position of ecclesiastical separation illustrates the point. Yes, a
real going forth to Him without the camp
must include the taking of an outward, ecclesiastical place of
separation, but that is inadequate on its own. To be outside the
camp is an intensely spiritual position, and is essentially a matter
of the heart. As such, it must be entered upon individually. Of
course the divine intention is for others to be with us (“let
us”—Heb. 13: 13, my
emphasis), but I cannot get there by hanging on the coat–tails of
another. The Scripture says that “every
one who sought Jehovah went out to the tent of meeting” (Exod.
33: 7, my emphasis). Bearing Christ’s reproach involves a separation
of the heart, a willingness to share (in measure) His place of
rejection and suffering. Hence, “far be it from me to boast save in
the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom [the] world is
crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6: 14). As someone said
long ago, outside the camp and inside the veil go together (though,
in actual fact, the tent of meeting pre-dated the tabernacle). If
you are not separate in heart, you will carry the worldly character
of the camp with you
in your heart, even if
your ecclesiastical position might suggest otherwise. Whatever my
church position, it is my spiritual position that counts. I am
either in association with Him or with the camp. It cannot be both,
for the camp and the tent of meeting are far apart.
In conclusion, I return to the fact that
Hebrews 13: 10–14 is an application of an application.
For the Gentile Christian (as most believers are), there is no
Christ–rejecting Judaism to be abandoned. Of course, these verses
have surely been “written for our instruction” (Rom. 15: 4) as well,
but are we certain that we have got the instruction intended? The
pernicious effect of the traditional application adopted by many has
been an unjustly negative view of other Christians and a conceited
opinion of one’s own church position. Other believers may have
faults—including, perhaps, a failure to see that “if ye are led by
the Spirit, ye are not under law” (Gal. 5: 18)—but it is grossly
unjust to lump such in with those who have
no place for Christ. I would suggest that such high–mindedness
betrays a spirit that has not really been in company with the Lord.
Indeed, the lack of any true going forth “to him” may be why there
has been so little coming together of seemingly like–minded saints,
and instead, a disturbing trend in the opposite direction. What is
needed is not preservation of a long–standing ecclesiastical
position but Christ: “And it came to pass [that] every one
who sought Jehovah went out to the tent of meeting which was
outside the camp” (Exod. 33: 7, my emphasis).
