Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 27

Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.

A CATHOLIC-PENTECOSTAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE EUCHARIST:


THE EUCHARIST AS OFFERING OF FIRSTFRUITS AND THE ZEBACH TÔDÂ

Ecumenical Studies Interest Group

Lawrence Francis Ligocki


North Central University

Presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies

Introduction

This paper will investigate the Epistle to the Hebrews and its relationship to the

Eucharist, and the offering of firstfruits.1 One of the main problems is how to reconcile

Hebrew's repeated emphasis that Jesus offered himself "once" (7:27: 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10), with

the notion that the Eucharist is an offering. Hebrews gives evidence that Jesus is the firstfruits of

the new humanity, who has ascended on high, and who holds the priesthood permanently

through whom the church offers the Zebach tôdâ (‫ח־ּתֹודה‬


ָ ‫)זֶ ַב‬, the offering of praise and

thanksgiving, which finds its enduring significance through charity.

Epistle to the Hebrews


The Epistle to the Hebrews is both fascinating and mystifying. Its author writes in a

unique style that is highly literate with comprehension of the Greek language, rhetoric, and

Jewish thought. It has been called the “most elegant and sophisticated,” of early Christian texts,

yet also the “most enigmatic.”2 The work is well constructed with a parallel structure that

1
This paper is a continuation of previous work on the Eucharist as the offering of firstfruits.
2
Harold W. Attridge and Helmut Koester, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle
to the Hebrews (Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1989), xxviii, 1.

1
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

centers on Christ’s high priesthood and the theme of sacrifice (Heb 4:14-10:39).3 The book's

authorship is uncertain, view of Jewish worship at first appears negative, and relationship to the

Early Christian Eucharist is debated. What is certain is the work’s high regard for the supremacy

of Christ, the one-time sacrifice of Christ, use of cultic language, comparison of Christ’s

priesthood with Melchizedek, and the work’s undeniable criticism of the cultic worship

associated with the wilderness Tabernacle. Although the book is critical of this worship and its

priesthood, the Second Jewish Temple is not mentioned. It is also unclear whether the Jewish

Temple is still standing when the book was written.4 The book is difficult to date precisely, but

is safe to say it was written sometime between 60 to 90 CE.5

This paper is divided into three parts: 1) the offering of Christ; 2) the offering of the

community; and 3) the offering of the Zebach Tôdâ. It begins with a short discussion on

Hebrews and the Eucharist, then proceeds through the body of material, during which I will

discuss Hebrews with the context of literature from Second Temple Judaism and early

Christianity.

Hebrews and the Eucharist


Since this study is on the Eucharist as the offering of firstfruits, let us look at the

relationship between the Epistle and the Eucharist. Hebrews does not mention the Eucharist by

name. This has not prevented some scholars from arguing that the Eucharist is an important

background for the Epistle. In the 19th century, John Mason Neale held the view that the Epistle

3
Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 690.*
4
This raises the question of the date of the book in relation with the destruction of the Jewish
Temple in 70 CE. Was it written before, during, or after? The destruction of the temple is not
mentioned, which leads some scholars to conclude that the epistle was written before. However,
this is not conclusive, and some scholars would date the epistle after 70 CE. It is a though issue to
decide.
5
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 696.

2
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

to the Hebrews drew upon the ancient and primitive Liturgy of Saint James.6 John Edward Field

later maintained that there are numerous illusions to the Eucharist in the epistle,7 following to a

certain degree the view of Neale stated above—that is, that important passages in Hebrews were

derived from this primitive liturgy.8 However such dependence is difficult to accept today.

Scholars such as Gregory Dix9 and Louis Bouyer10 have argued that the Liturgy of Saint James,

as we now have it, is from the 5th century. Furthermore, Edward Yarnold has pointed out that,

“we do not possess a text of the Jerusalem liturgy of the fourth century,” and that the Liturgy of

Saint James has “come down to us in a later form,” and that this liturgy as we have it has been

developed from Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogical Catechesis, which is dated to the 4th

century.11 The point is that the earliest texts associated with the Liturgy of Saint James are dated

centuries after Hebrews.

In the last fifty years, scholarship has again investigated the relationship between the

Epistle and the Eucharist. On the one hand, Ronald Williamson claimed that there is no

association between Hebrews and the Eucharist,12 and more recently Craig Koester thinks it is

6
John Mason Neale, Essays on Liturgiology and Church History…With an Appendix (2nd ed;
London: Saunders, Otley, and Co., 1867 [1863]). See pages 419-421. *
7
John Edward Field, The Apostolic Liturgy and the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Rivingtons,
1882).
8
Field, The Apostolic Liturgy and the Epistle to the Hebrews, vi-vii: Field states, “I accept [Neale’s]
main position, that certain important passages occurring both in the Liturgy of S. James and in the
Epistles of S. Paul [here Field attributes both 1 Corinthians, Colossians and Hebrews to Paul] are
taken by the Apostle from the Liturgy and not by the Liturgy from the Apostle; and I have attempted
to strengthen the proof of this theory.”
9
Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (2nd ed.; New York: Continuum, 2003 [1945]), 176.*
10
Louis Bouyer, Eucharist (trans. C. U. Quinn; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968
[French: 1966]), 268-280 (esp. 277).
11
Edward J. Yarnold, “The Liturgy of the Faithful in the Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries,” in The
Study of Liturgy (rev. ed.; eds. C. Jones et. al.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 239-240.
12
Ronald Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” NTS 21.2 (1975): 300-312.
For a criticism of R. Williamson, see Hahn, “Appendix: Jesus’ Death as Liturgical Sacrifice in
Hebrews,” in Kinship by Covenant, 330-331. *

3
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

best not to assume illusions to the Lord’s Supper in the Epistle.13 On the other hand, James

Swetnam has argued that the Eucharist is the central point of the Epistle and that there are

“plausible grounds for seeing Eucharistic allusions” in Heb 9:20 and 13:7.14 While some of

Swetmam’s earlier work15 was questioned by Williamson, mentioned above, more recently Paul

Williams has lent support to Swetnam’s work.16 Arthur Just has also built on the work of

Swetnem, arguing that the Epistle was written within a liturgical context for Christians who

celebrated the Eucharist on a regular basis.17 Albert Vanhoye also understands the Epistle as

being preached by the author during Eucharistic celebrations and that the Epistle is inviting the

community to come near to and into contact with God in the Eucharist.18 Swetnem himself has

13
Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (vol. 36; The Anchor Bible; Doubleday: New York, 2001), 128.*
14
James Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Biblica 70.1
(1989): 74-95 (esp. 93-94): Swetnam argues that the Eucharist is not made more specific possibly
because of the writer’s pastoral concerns or possibly the author is following the “discipline of the
secret.”
15
James Swetnam, “’The Greater and More Perfect Tent’: A Contribution to the Discussion of
Hebrews 9:11,” Biblica 42 (1966): 91-106; “On the imagery and Signficance of Hebrews 9:9-10,” CBQ 28
(1966): 155-157.
16
Paul Williams, “The Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” LTR 12 (1999-2000): 95-103.
17
Arthur A. Just, “Entering Holiness: Christology and Eucharist in Hebrews,” CTQ 69:1 (2005): 75-
95: Just states, “This essay will show how the Christology of Hebrews suggests a eucharistic reading
of this Epistle; that is, to understand the high-priestly Christology of Hebrews is to affirm that the
hearers believed that this Christology was enfleshed at the altar” (76). I thank Dr. Phil Mayo who
first shared this article with me.
18
Albert Vayhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Rome: Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1989). This is a publication of two previously published books by Albert Vanhoye, Le message
de l'Épître aux Hébreux (Paris 1977) and A structured Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Rome,
1964).
See also Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, “Let us Receive Christ Our High Priest,” Preached February 10-
16, 2008 for the Spiritual Exercises with Pope Benedict XVI. Trans. J. Wallace. While commenting on
Heb 10:19-25, Vanhoye states, “As we have already seen, the High Priest could only enter once a year
into the Most Holy part of the Temple, and only for the purpose of observing a whole series of
minutely prescribed rites. Now, instead, we are all invited to come near to God, to enter into intimate
contact with him. We have good reasons for thinking that the author made this exhortation during a
Eucharistic celebration, perhaps even during several Eucharistic celebrations because, as I have
already said, he was a travelling apostle; we see that at the end. It seems to me very probable to me
that he composed this magnificent homily in order to preach it in Christian assemblies that involved
the celebration of the Eucharist. This phrase corresponds perfectly to the Eucharistic dynamism in

4
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

continued his work among which he has dealt specifically with a liturgical approach to Hebrews

13.19

A slightly different approach is taken by Barnabas Lindars, who argues that Hebrews has

influenced liturgical text throughout history, including the Liturgy of Saint James, the early

Roman Liturgy, and more modern hymn writers such as William Bright’s “Once, only once, and

once for all,” applying Hebrew’s theology to Eucharistic worship in 1866.20

I. Offering of Christ
Jesus as One Time Sacrifice
In the Epistle, “offering” appears twenty-nine times in chapters 5, 7-13. Hebrews

compares and contrasts the worship that took place in the Tabernacle with the worship that takes

place in the New Covenant. On the one hand, in the Tabernacle both priests and high priests

offer gifts and sacrifices for the sins of themselves and the people (Heb 5:1, 3; 7:27, 8:3-5; 9:7,

9; 10:1, 2; 11). On the other hand, in the New Covenant Jesus offers the gift of himself through

his life, death, and ascension. In the days of his flesh, he “offered (προσφέρω: προσενέγκας) up

prayers and supplications" (5:7). Jesus offered (ἀναφέρω: ἀνενέγκας) himself up, doing this only

once, ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ (7:27). He offered (προσφέρω: προσήνεγκεν) himself to God through the

eternal Spirit (9:14), and has no need to offer (προσφέρῃ) himself again and again (9:25). And

every way. The author speaks here of the blood of Christ, the flesh of Christ, (just like in Jesus’
discourse on the bread of life) and the person of Christ the Priest. He says that these three realities
are now available to us. Where are they available? They are available in the Eucharistic celebration”
(78-79).
19
James Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,” Letter & Spirit: The Authority of
Mystery: The Word of God and the People of God (vol. 2; ed. S Hahn; Steubenville: Emmaus Road Press,
2006), 159-173. * See also James Swetnam, “Zebach tôdâ [‫ ]זבח תודה‬in Tradition: A Study of ‘Sacrifice
of Praise’ in Hebrew, Greek and Latin,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 15 (2002): 65-86. *
20
Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991), 141-142. * & % $

5
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

when Jesus offered (προσφέρω: προσενέγκας) once for all time, he sat down at the right hand of

God (10:12). After having been offered (προσενεχθεὶς) once to bear the sins of many, he will

appear a second time (9:28). Through the offering (προσφορᾶς) of the body of Christ once for

all, the people of the New Covenant have been sanctified according to God’s will (10:10), for by

a single offering (προσφορᾷ) he has perfected for all times those who are sanctified (10:14).

According to Hebrews Jesus suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify (ἁγιάσῃ) the

people by his blood (Heb 3:12), a term that carries with it the meaning not only to sanctify in a

moral sense, but in a cultic sense too.21 Through his death and through the blood of the covenant

Jesus was sanctifying a priestly people for himself and giving them an eternal kingdom

(12:28)—that is, a priestly people who would make offerings like those of Jesus (2:11-12; 13:15-

16).

Two things are certain. First, the references above from Hebrews emphasize the onetime

(ἐφάπαξ) offering of Jesus, which on a literary basis is made several times (7:27: 9:12, 26, 28;

10:10). Secondly, although this offering is the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for the

purification of sins through sufferings and for atonement (1:3; 2:10, 17; 9:26-28; 10:29; 12:2), it

was an offering made to God through the eternal spirit (9:14), and finds its fuller fulfillment in

his ascension into heaven (1:3-4; 4:14; 6:19; 7:26: 8:1; 9:24; 12:2), to which his heavenly bound

priestly community is also called and called to confess, ὁμολογία (3:1; 4:14; see also 12:22-23;

13:14-16).

21
BDAG 10.

6
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

Jesus as First Fruits of the New Creation


In Hebrews 1:6, Jesus is called the πρωτότοκος (firstborn), which here most likely refers

to Jesus having been raised from the dead,22 and as such is the “firstborn of a new

humanity”23 or in other words the firstfruit of the new creation (Col 1:5; Rev 1:5). In a later

passage, those who have responded to Jesus have come to the ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων (church of

the firstborn), who are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23), which most likely refers to the believers

(Lk 10:20; see also Phil 4:3 Rev 3:5; 13:8; 20:12) who are members of the assembly of the

firstborn. Jesus is also called ἀρχηγός (2:10), referring to him as the “pioneer” of salvation

through both the sufferings of the cross and the resurrection (13:20).24 Again in a later

passage, Jesus is not only called the pioneer (ἀρχηγός), but also the perfecter (τελειωτής) of faith,

to whom the community is looking (ἀφορῶντες) as they run (τρέχω) the race with patient

endurance (12:2). Jesus is also called πρόδρομος, forerunner (6:20). In the entire NT, πρόδρομος

is only used here in Hebrews. It appears three times in the LXX. In Numbers 13:20 it is used as

a translation for the Hebrew word for firstfruits (‫ִרּוִּב‬ ‫ ּכ‬bikkûrîm),25 where Moses encourages
‫ם ּכ‬,

Israel’s early explores to enter into the promised-land and among other things to bring back some

of the firstfruit of the soil (Num 13:21-24). According to Pliny the Elder, when the fig-tree

produces its early fruit, the Atheneans call them forerunners (prodromos).

Conclusion on the Offering of Christ


Jesus, then, is the firstfruits of the new creation having been raised from the dead; in

other words, he is the pioneer and forerunner of the resurrection. As the firstfruits, Jesus was

finally raised into heaven itself (1:3-4; 4:14; 6:19; 7:26: 8:1; 9:24; 12:2), to which his heavenly

22
Contrary EDNT 3.190.
23
BDAG 894.
24
EDNT 1.163,
25
HRCS 1206.

7
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

bound community is also called; and he is the firstfruits of the resurrection through which the

community is called and called to confess, ὁμολογία (3:1; 4:14; see also 12:22-23; 13:14-15). If

Jesus is the firstfruits, is the priestly community’s confession and praise likened to firstfruits?

II. Offering of the Community


What does the community offer? What is offered is greater than the sum of its parts. I

am certain that it cannot be exhausted with what follows below, but I suggest three dimensions:

1) offering of self; 2) offering of the Zebach Tôdâ; and 3) offering of works of charity [or fruits

of righteousness].

Offering of Self
The first dimension is the priestly gift of self of the communities’ members. It is the

offering of self. Hebrews uses the term προσέρχομαι (approach) in a cultic sense for approaching

God’s presence (Heb 7:25; 11:6), approaching the throne of grace (4:16), and “to come to God in

a cultic sense” (10:22).26 The community has not approached Mount Sinai (12:18), but has come

to (προσεληλύθατε) Mount Zion (v 22). According to Robert Daly, only priests had the right to

draw near to the sanctuary and the altar to serve God, yet “this cultic act of drawing near” is

repeated by the author of Hebrews using προσέρχομαι in the cultic sense.27 Thus, as Hebrews

stresses the onetime event of the sacrifice and ascension of Christ (as noted above), the Epistle

also points out the continual need for the priestly community to approach God (7:25:

προσερχομένους;28 11:6: προσερχόμενον29). In other words, the Church offers itself by drawing

26
BDAG 878.
27
Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 275-276, 273-274.
28
Verb, present (middle or passive), participle, plural, accusative, masculine. See also 10:1.
29
Verb, present (middle or passive), participle, single, accusative, masculine.

8
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

near and coming into the presence of God. It is an oblation of self to God in response to what

God has done through Jesus. Yet, there are at least two other dimensions of the offering.

We Have an Altar
The second dimension of the community’s offering is the offering of praise, and

according to the Epistle, the offering of the community is associated with an altar. William Lane

has noted the parallelism in Hebrews 13:10-16 that is divided into the two following parts: the

first portion is in the form of exposition, which begins with “we have an altar” (10-12); the

second is in the form of exhortation, which concludes with sacrifices (13-16). Within the

parallelism are three portions of texts (A – A`; B –B`; C – C`) that are arranged within its

chiastic structure.30 Both parts are positioned between the imperatives, “remember your leaders”

(v. 7) and “obey your leaders” (v. 17).

We Have an Altar for Offering

A (13:10) We have an altar (θυσιαστήριον) from which those who [minister] in the
tent have no right to eat.
B (13:11) For (γὰρ) the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the
sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the
camp.
C (13:12) Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the
people by his own blood.
C’ (13:13) Let us then [go out] (ἐξερχώμεθα) to him outside the camp and bear the
abuse he endured.
B’ (13:14) For (γὰρ) here we have no lasting city, but we are looking for the city
that is to come.
A’ (13:15-16) Through him, then, let us continually offer (ἀναφέρωμεν) a sacrifice of
praise (θυσίαν αἰνέσεως) to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his
name. Do not neglect to do good (εὐποιΐας) and to share what you have
(κοινωνίας), for such sacrifices (θυσίαις) are pleasing to God.31

30
William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (vol. 47B; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word,
Incorporated, 1998), 503.*
31
I have used the NRSV for the text with my alterations marked with [] and additions from NA26
Greek text marked with ().

9
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

This brings us to the outer parallel between the proposition in v. 10 and the exhortations

(vv. 15-16). The assertion that “we have an altar,” θυσιαστήριον (13:10a) is the “determining

thesis” that sheds light on 13:15-16.32 The proposition that “we have an altar” justifies the

exhortation of the two subjunctive hortatives33 to “go out” (ἐξερχώμεθα: v 13) to him, and to

“offer” (ἀναφέρωμεν: v. 15-16) to God the types of sacrifice that are pleasing to God. The inner

parallelism focus on the object of Jesus.

Assertion “We Have an Altar”

We have an altar (θυσιαστήριον) from which those who [minister] in the tent have no right to eat
(Heb 13:10).

What is the “altar”? Two things are certain. On the one hand, it is not the “altar”

associated with the Levitical priesthood and the tabernacle (Heb 7:11-14: 13:10). On the other,

its meaning and interpretation has taken on a life of its own. There are four basic interpretations:

1) the cross; 2) a heavenly altar; 3) the Eucharistic table; and 4) the human heart.

The first view has the strength of identifying the centrality of Christ sacrificial death on

the cross, which has a biblical and historical foundation (Heb 13:12; Jn 19:17-18; see also Mk

15:22-24; Matt 15:22-24; Lk 23:33). A weakness is how to describe the continued benefits of

the cross. If Christ died only once on the altar of the cross, how is the community to participate

in the event? Some scholars find it helpful to interpret “altar” as either symbolic language or as

having a spiritual meaning. Another approach is to understand the altar as the body of Christ

upon who was sprinkled the blood of the covenant. Thus, Christ is the offeror, the offer, and the

altar. The second view has the strength of continuity with the first. Through the resurrection and

32
Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 503.
33
Max Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (trans. M. Grosvenor; 4th ed.;
Roma; Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), 688-689.

10
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

ascension, Christ mediates grace and mercy from his heavenly throne much like Melchezidek

shared bread and wine and a heavenly blessing with Abram (Heb 4:16; 5:1-10; 7:1-10).34 The

third view develops the second. It has the strength of associating the “altar” with the Eucharist,

and understands “eating” as feeding on the earthly and heavenly mystery of Christ, and also

accommodating the reality of the Eucharist, the crucified, risen, and ascended Christ. The

strength of this view is it is found in early liturgical text in the fourth century such as the Liturgy

of Saint Basil, the Roman Rite, and the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. In his work,

The Eucharist: the Sacrament of the Kingdom, Alexander Schmemann speaks of the ancient

“eucharistic experience, to which the very order of the eucharist witnesses, speaks of our ascent

to the place where Christ ascended,”35 and that, “through thanksgiving the meaning of the

eucharist as the ascent of the Church to the heavenly altar, as the sacrament of the kingdom of

God, is fulfilled.”36 A weakness of this view is that presently the earliest evidence for an early

Eucharistic altar comes from the second and third century. However, this does not seem

insurmountable. The author of Hebrews uses the term θυσιαστήριον which designates a place of

sacrifice. The fourth view argues that the altar is the interior heart of the individual. The

strength in this view is that it has a biblical basis in Hebrews and is supported by some of the

early patristic fathers. Its weakness, though, is that it is simply too subjective. If each individual

heart was an altar, then there would be altars. There is something more objective: be it the

34
Of course a weakness in this association with bread and wine is that Hebrews does not
explicitly link Christ priesthood with them, but this should not be a huge problem. When discussing
Melchizedek, the author of Hebrews does not mention him bringing out bread and wine (Gen 14:18-
20).
35
Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (trans. P. Kachur; Crestwood,
New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), 60.*
36
Schmemann, The Eucharist, 199. *

11
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

memorial of the cross, the ascended Lord, the participation in the Eucharist; something that is

eaten (13:10) and something that is heavenly (3:1; 6:4).

In closing this section, it is worth noting that the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the

“altar of the New Covenant” as the “Lord’s Cross” and “the table of the Lord,”37 and that, “the

Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself.”38

First Exhortation “Let Us Go Out”


Let us then [go out] to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured. For here we have no
lasting city, but we are looking for the city that is to come” (Heb 13:13-14).

Concerning the phrase “outside the camp” in Hebrew 13:11, 12, 13, there at least four

interpretations: 1) going beyond the earthly world seeking the heavenly city; 2) to go outside the

world of Judaism and Jewish traditions; 3) going outside sacred and cultic space into the secular

and profane world; and 4) outside the city and to the marginalized and suffering. There is not

room to discuss all of these interpretations in detail. Let it suffice to say there may be truth in all

of them. However, the one view that I want to discuss about is the second.

This view explains “going out” to mean leaving Judaism and Jewish traditions. Simon

Kistemaker argues that, ‘the Jewish Christian must leave the family structure in which he learned

the precepts and commandments, the ceremonies and traditions, the prejudice and pride of the

Jew….To go to one who bears the curse of God is to share “the disgrace he bore.” By choosing

for Christ, the Jew rejects Judaism and thus faces expulsion, alienation, and at times

persecution.”39 For Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown just as the bodies of the animals, whose blood

is taken into the sanctuary, and the bodies burned outside the camp, so also Jesus suffered

37
CCC 1182. *
38
CCC 1383. *
39
Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of Hebrews (vol. 15; New Testament
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 422.

12
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

outside the gate of “ceremonial Judaism, of which His crucifixion outside the gate of Jerusalem

is a type.”40 Westcott states, “Christians are now called upon to withdraw from Judaism even in

its first and purest shape. It had been designed by God as a provisional system, and its work was

done.”41

There is certainly some truth in this view. However, Jesus was a Jew. This point was

emphasized by both Jewish and Christian scholars during the second half of the last century

including Geza Vermes,42 E.P. Sanders,43 and Harvey Cox.44 Christians have had to struggle for

centuries with the fact that Jesus “was Jewish and remained so throughout his entire life.”45 So,

going out to him does not necessarily mean abandoning everything that is Jewish and from early

Semitic tradition. This is especially true when Hebrews is understood in the context of Second

Temple Judaism. Case in point: Hebrews emphasizes the importance of understanding Jesus in

light of the high priesthood of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:11-28). Among the discoveries

from the Second Temple period and the Qumran Scrolls is 11Q13, also known as 11QMelch,

dated to around 1st century B.C.E., which is an eschatological text in which Melchizedek is

explained as a heavenly high priest, who is closely associated with the Day of Atonement in the

last days, and who brings both grace and judgment.46 In the New Testament, Melchizedek is

40
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the
Whole Bible (vol. 2; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 480. *
41
Brooke Foss Westcott, ed., The Epistle to the Hebrews the Greek Text with Notes and Essays (3d
ed.; Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament; London: Macmillan, 1903), 444.
42
Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981 [orig. 1973]); and The Religion of Jesus
the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
43
E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
44
Harvey Cox, “Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yoseph: Reflection of Jesus’ Jewishness and the Interfaith
Dialogue,” Jesus’ Jewishness: Exploring the Place of Jesus in Early Judaism (vol. 2 of Shared Ground
Among Jews and Christians; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York; Crossroad, 1991), 27-62.
45
Cox, “Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yoseph,” 32.
46
According to Annette Steudel, 11Q13 ii.18 “contains the oldest known explicit citation from the
Book of Daniel.” See Annette Steudel, “Melchizedek,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (vol. 1; ed.
L.H. Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1.356.

13
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

only discussed in Hebrews 4-10, and according to Annette Steudel, the influence of Qumran

ideas on the Christology of Hebrews often “has been assumed, and indeed there are some

characteristic parallels in the concept and the use of the figure of Melchizedek,” but there are

also differences.47 Joseph Fitzmyer has argued that 11Q13 displays “an almost contemporary

Jewish understanding of Melchizedek,” with material that has been incorporated into Heb 7.48

Larry Hurtado has also commented on the similarities and differences between Hebrews and

11Q13; he presents three possibilities: 1) Hebrews reflects a Christian adoption of ideas from

Qumran about Melchizedek; 2) the biblical texts on Melchizedek (Gen 14:17-21; Ps 110:4) may

have generated a variety of interpretations, from which both Hebrews and 11Q13 are the only

two surviving examples (each developing independent of the other); and 3) Hebrews and 11Q13

are the only two texts from this period (ca. 100 B.C.E. – 100 C.E.) that demonstrate interest in

Melchizedek, and that it is purely coincident that both are extent.49 We will return to the

importance of Second Temple Judaism in relations to Hebrews. However, let us look at the

second exhortation from Heb 13:15).

III. Offering of the Zebach Tôdâ


Second Exhortation to Offer a “Sacrifice of Praise
Through him, then, let us continually offer (ἀναφέρωμεν) a sacrifice of praise (θυσίαν αἰνέσεως) to
God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name (13:15).

47
Steudel, “Melchizedek,” 1.356.
48
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11,” JBL 86 (1967): 31. *
49
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI;
Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 501. * Of the three possibilities,
Hurtado finds the second more probable, and the third as the most unlikely.

14
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

We discussed above the parallel between the assertion “we have an altar” (v. 10) and the

exhortation to offer up worship (v. 15). This brings us to the second dimension of the

communities offering, that is, the θυσίαν αἰνέσεως, sacrifice of praise.

What is the Nature of the “Sacrifice of Praise”


The “sacrifice of praise” is rooted in the Hebrew phrase ‫זבח תודה‬, zebach tôdâ or simply

tôdâ (Lev 7:13-15 (2x); Ps 50:23), which is translated “sacrifice of thanksgiving,” “offering of

thanksgiving,” or simply “thank offering.” In the LXX it is translated as θυσία αἰνέσεως, meaning

sacrifice of praise, which appears in Heb13:15. The Vulgate translates Heb 13:15 primarily with

hostiam laudis, but there are variant readings sacrificium laudis and laudes hostias.50

In Leviticus, the sacrifice of thanksgiving was included under and as part of the ‫םלב‬

“peace offering” (7:11; see also chap. 3). The thank offering included, among other things,

unleavened bread (LXX, ἄρτος; Vulgate, panis; MT, ‫[ חלה‬cakes]) that were mixed with oil (v.

12), and also leavened bread (LXX, ἄρτος; Vulgate, panis; MT, ‫[ ַחֹּלת ֶל ֶחם ָח ֵמץ‬cakes of

unleavened bread]) (v. 13). From the animal that was sacrificed for the peace offering (chap. 3),

the priest sprinkled the blood, and the flesh was to be eaten on the day of the sacrifice (vv. 14-

15). The sacrifice of thanksgiving seems to be the more primitive, for according to Jacob

Milgrom, “the tradition that the thank offering is an independent offering,” separate from the

peace offering is found in all other sources, 51 which even includes rabbinic sources (m.

Zebachim 5:6-7).52 A later rabbinic tradition taught that according to Rabbi Mehahm the

50
Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews,” 168.
51
See Lev 22:19 (H not P); Jer 17:26; 2 Chr 29:31-33; 33:16.
52
Jacob Milgrom, A Continental Commentary: Leviticus: a Book of Ritual and Ethics (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2004), 71.

15
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

Galilean, “in the time-to-come all offerings will cease except the thank-offering, this will never

cease” (Midrash Tehillim 56.4; 100.4).53 The point is that the “peace offering” included a bloody

sacrifice and a bloodless sacrifice. And if Milgrom is correct, and I understand him correctly,

behind the priestly tradition of Lev 7 lays a more primitive “thank offering” that was from a

bloodless rite. Regardless, the priestly tradition in Lev 7 presents the zebach tôdâ as a rite of

sacrifice that includes material offerings from the created order.

The “sacrifice of praise” also appears in a number of the Psalms (26:7*; 42:4*; 50:14,

23*; 69:30, 34*; 107:22*; 116:17*; 147:7*). These all contain hymns and songs of praise and

thanksgiving. Sometimes there is a tendency to argue that the Psalms above allegorize or

spiritualize the sacrifice of praise, thus outright rejecting any type of material sacrifice. While it

is true that among these Psalms there is emphasis on the singing of songs of praise and

thanksgiving (26:7; 42:4; 69:30; 107:22; 147:7), and criticism of animal sacrifice (69:31; 50:7-

13), nowhere in these Psalms is there an attack or sign of disapproval of the offering of the bread

associated with the zebach tôdâ. Furthermore, one of these Psalms shows a parallel between the

zebach tôdâ and the lifting up of the cup of salvation (116:13-17). This reference to the cup in v.

13 is “among the positively connotated passages regarding the cup,” with parallels in Pss 16:5

53
See The Midrash on Psalms (2 vols.; ed. L. Nemoy et. al.; trans. W. G. Braude; Yale Judica Series,
vol. 13; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 1.498, 2.148; saying attributed to Rabbi Menahem
the Galilean. Menahem the Galilean is to have also said, “[To invite] one to go before the ark they do
not say [to him], ‘Come and pray.’ Rather they say [to him], ‘Come and draw near. Come and make
our offerings for us, provide for us, fight for us, make peace for us’” (y. Ber. 4:4, III.1.A). The Talmud
continues, “others say [the text of the short Prayer is as follows]: “The needs of your people Israel
are great and their ability [to express them] is limited. But let it be your will, Lord our God, and God
of our fathers, that you provide for each and every creature his needs, and for each and every person
that which he lacks. ‘Blessed be the Lord, for he has heard the voice of my supplications’ [Ps. 28:6].
Blessed art thou, O Lord who hears [our Prayer].” [T. 3:7F.]: see Jacob Neusner, The Jerusalem
Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008).

16
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

and 23:5.54 The cup may be associated with a drink offering, which is called “the cup of

salvation” (v. 13),55 or may be the cup that is raised up and drank with thanksgiving for the

received benefits and joy of salvation.56 Thus, the zebach tôdâ is an offering of praise and

thanksgiving that also contains a ritual offering of bread and possibly wine.

There are a number of texts from Second Temple Judaism that enhance our

understanding of the “sacrifice of praise” within early Judaism as both the fruit of the lips and

the fruits of charity (1QS 9:4-5; 1 QHodayot; Sirach 35:1-10; Psalms of Solomon 15:3).

Robert Daly has suggested that the texts from the Rule of the Community (1QS 9:4-5;

10:6) are so much akin to Heb 13:15 that they have to be considered “part of its background” and

“possibly even its source in some indirect way.”57 Daly points out that only in 1QS 9 and 10 is

the phrase “fruit of lips” so inclined toward a “sacrificial meaning as in Heb 13:15.”58 Here three

things stand out. These sections from the Rule of the Community (1QS 9:4-5; 10:6) are an

important historical background for Heb 13:15. Secondly, it is surely possible that they had an

influence in some indirect way, but it seems at present difficult to show. It is better to use a more

comparative approach in saying that the parallels are undeniable. Finally, there are also strong

parallels in the Thanksgiving Hymns between “fruit of the lips” in Heb 13:15 and “fruits of the

lips” in 1QHa 9:28-33, and to a lesser degree in 19:3-8.

54
Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (ed. Klaus
Baltzer; trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible;
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011), 218.
55
Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (vol. 5; ed. F. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
1991), 727.
56
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (vol. 5; Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1996), 716.
57
Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 283.
58
Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 283.

17
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

A. Offering of the Sacrifice of Praise


How are we to interpret the “sacrifice of praise” in Heb 13:15? There are generally two

interpretations: 1) a liturgical rite, with the Eucharist as the chief explanation; and 2) some sort

of verbal and spiritual offering simply from the lips.

Spiritual Offering of Praise


According to Ellingworth, the language in this verse “is not typical of Hebrews, and is

perhaps influenced by a liturgical tradition.”59 He also thinks the phrase “sacrifice of praise”

neither requires nor excludes association with the Lord’s Supper.60 Attridge argues that the

metaphorical characteristic of “sacrifice of praise” is seen in the appended phrase, “that is, the

fruit of lips that confess his name (v. 15),”61 and that the nature of the praise “appears to be

primarily prayer rather than a ritual act.”62 Attridge questions if the author of Hebrews is even

making allusions to the Lord’s Supper.63 William Lane argues that the offering of Christian

“consists…in the verbal response of praise and gratitude to God (cf. 12:28).”64 Johnson also

maintains verbal praise stating that the sacrifice is one,

consisting in praise, “the fruit of lips confessing his name,” Hebrews joins a broad stream of
Greco-Roman and Jewish piety that regarded moral virtue and verbal praise as more appropriate
offerings to the Divine than animal sacrifices.65

59
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New
International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster
Press, 1993), 719. *
60
Ellingworth, Hebrews, 719.
61
Attridge, Hebrews, 400. *
62
Attridge, Hebrews, 400, 401. *
63
Attridge, Hebrews, 400.
64
William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (vol. 47B; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word,
Incorporated, 1998), 549.
65
Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (ed. C. Clifton Black, M. Eugene Boring, and
John T. Carroll; 1st ed.; The New Testament Library; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,
2012), 349. Johnson cites a number of examples: “Epictetus, Enchiridion 31.5; Apollonius of Tyana,
Letter 26; Sir 34:18–35:11; Pss. Sol. 15:3; T. Levi 3.5–6; 1QS 9:4–5, a perspective found in other New
Testament writings as well (Rom 12:1–2; Phil 2:17; 4:18; 1 Pet 2:5; John 4:24).”

18
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

Liturgical Offering of Praise


The other interpretation, held by fewer scholars, understands “sacrifice of praise” within

the context of a liturgical rite of the Eucharist. James Swetnam has made a strong case for its

defense and reasonableness in “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,”66 in which he

investigates the perspective of the following topics: 1) the structure of chapter 13 of Hebrews;67

2) the association of the biblical sacrifice zebach tôdâ with the “Sacrifice of Praise” in

Hebrews;68 and 3) the zebach tôdâ and the “Sacrifice of Praise” in the Latin Rite of the Catholic

Church.69 In the heart of the Latin Eucharistic Prayer is the phrase, Qui tibi offerunt hoc

66
James Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,” Letter & Spirit 2 (2006): 159-173.
67
Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,” 159. Swetnam will later describe this first
topic on the structure of Hebrews 13 as the first stage of the paper: “The first stage approached the
text in the perspective of its structure. Any text is presumed to have a structure or at least a non-
structure. Determining the structure of a text generates perspectives, for a structure indicates the
author’s points of view. The structure which emerged from a study of formal criteria as well as
content showed that the author was basing his exposition on the centrality of the death of Jesus
and its role in Christian liturgy (vv. 11–14). Flanking this central concern were verses concerned with
eating (vv. 9–10) and verbal prayer (vv. 15–16). Serving as a frame for all of this were verses which
emphasized the role of the leaders of the community (vv. 7 and 17). Verses 1–5a indicated the
author’s concerns about moral conduct; vv. 5b–6 indicated his concern for Scripture; vv. 18–19
indicated the author’s personal reliance on the community in prayer; and vv. 20–21 indicated his
concern to invoke God’s blessing in Christ on the addressees” (172).
68
Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,” 165. Swetnam will later describe this second
topic on the Jewish tôdâ as the second stage of the paper, which is “the attempt to make chapter 13
more intelligible, approached the central portion of the text, vv. 7–17, from the perspective of the
Jewish tôdâ ceremony. This resort to the tôdâ was justified by the occurrence of the phrase θυσία
αἰνέσεως in v. 15. Thus the perspective of the “sacrifice of praise” was used to evaluate the structure
resulting from a study of formal indications in the text combined with content. This use of the tôdâ
perspective seemed confirmed by the apparent coincidence of its three elements—bloody sacrifice,
food, and verbal prayer/hymns—with the three elements of eating, bloody death, and verbal prayer
resulting from the analysis of structure” (172).
69
Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,” 168. He will finally describe this third topic
on the Roman Rite as the third state of the paper, which “approached the entire text, vv. 1–21, from
the standpoint of the Latin Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. The justification for this
approach was the coincidence of the five sections of these verses with the basic outline of the Latin
liturgy: act of repentance; reading from Scripture; central sacramental action; prayer based on
remembrance of the living; final blessing (172).

19
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

sacrificium laudis (we offer you this sacrifice of praise).70After sequencing through the above

three topics, and correlating parallels between them, Swetnam concludes that Heb 13:1-21 is “a

sophisticated presentation of the Eucharistic liturgy of the church, carefully structured and

carefully argued.”71 Swetnam does not argue that an early liturgical rite directly influenced the

Epistle, or vice versa, but that the parallels and coincidences in so many areas make total

isolation and independence highly improbable.72 This approach opens the door for considering

the offering of the “sacrifice of praise” to have been not simply a spiritual and verbal offering,

but also the offering of bread, and possibly a cup of wine, which was at the heart of the zebach

tôdâ. 73

Conclusion on the Offering of Praise


Since the community is called to acknowledge the crucified (1:3; 2:10, 17; 9:26-28;

10:29; 12:2) and risen Christ (1:3; 4:14; 6:19; 7:26: 8:1; 9:24; 12:2), who is the risen “firstfuits”

(1:6; 2:10: 6:20: 12:2, 23; 13:20), then we can consider that in Heb 13:15 the “sacrifice of

praise” and “fruit of the lips” are firstfruits of the community through the risen Christ (3:1; 4:14;

see also 12:22-23; 13:14-15). In other words, they offer Christ to the Father through their praise.

This offering comes from the heart strengthened through grace (13:9). When thanking God with

this new song of praise, the “fruit of the lips” are the “firstfruits from a holy and righteous heart

70
James Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews,” Letter & Spirit: The Authority of Mystery:
The Word of God and the People of God 2 (2006): 169.
71
Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,” 172.
72
Swetnam, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13,” 172: Swetnam concludes with, “no
statement was made about whether the epistle was influenced by the liturgical act or vice versa. The
only thing asserted was that a coincidence in so many variables of such a varied nature seems
improbable.”
73
See Appendix One.

20
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

(Pss. Sol. 15:3).74 It is an offering from the created order and not simply something spiritual and

verbal. In the words of the Catholic Catechism,

In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through
the death and the Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of
praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in
humanity (CCC 1359).75

There is also the possibility that something more is taking place. While Jesus offered

himself once to make atonement (7:27: 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10), he continually bears all of creation.

God created the universe through him (1:2), and he also sustains all things, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα,

(lit. “bearing or moving all things”) by his powerful word (v. 3; see Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6). All of

creation came through the praise of his lips and are sustain and moving toward her final inheritor

(Heb 1:2). In the words of Pope Francis, “"the ultimate destiny of the universe is in the fullness

of God, which has already been attained by the risen Christ, the measure of the maturity of all

things."76

It is certainly possible that the offering of the “sacrifice of praise” in 13:15 also included

the offering of bread and wine in their expressing praise and thanksgiving. Through the eyes of

faith and their encounter with Christ, the community had the substance (ὑπόστασις) of the things

hoped for, things not seen with the visible eyes (Heb 11:1). In other words, with the eyes of faith

they came to know the reality of Christ crucified, resurrected, and ascended on high. Yet, the

community was not to be so heavenly minded that they were no good to others.

74
Ken Penner and Michael S. Heiser, “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology”
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008), Ps Sol 15:3.
75
Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed.; Washington, DC: United States
Catholic Conference, 2000), 342–343: “The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished
by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation.” *
76
Pope Francis, Laudato Si', 83.

21
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

Firstfruits of the Eucharistic Prayer


I wonder if Heb 13:15 is one of the earliest exhortations we find within the early streams

of liturgical prayer that were developing during the first two centuries of Christianity. I have in

mind three examples for parallels. First, the exhortation on how to give thanks in the Didache,

Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτω εὐχαριστήσατε, “concerning the Eucharist, in this manner give

thanks” (Did. 9.1), which is followed with a liturgical prayer (9.2-10.6),77 that even includes

the exhortation to allow the prophets, ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν, to give thanks in the

manner they wish (10.7). Scholars both ancient and modern have pointed out the parallels

between Hebrews and 1 Clement.78 Both Hebrews and 1 Clement use the term θυσία αἰνέσεως,

sacrifice of praise, (35:12; Heb 13:15); but only 1 Clement contains a liturgical like prayer (59.3-

61.3) that actually contains words of praise to God, a prayer that acknowledge that it is διὰ τοῦ

ἀρχιερέως, through the High Priest Jesus Christ, that the community makes its confession and

praise (ἐξομολογέω) (61.3), though this is similar with Hebrews exhortation to offer up θυσίαν

αἰνέσεως, sacrifice of praise through him (Διʼ αὐτοῦ) (13:15).79 The final example is from the

early Christian text the Odes of Solomon. Scholars such as Jean Carmignac,80 James

Charlesworth,81 and Michael Lattke82 have commented on the parallels between the Odes and

77
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 259-263. *
78
Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 3.38; Attridge, Hebrews, 6-7; Andreas Lindemann, “The First Epistle of
Clement,” in The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (ed. Wilhelm Pratscher; trans. Elisabeth G. Wolfe;
Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 59.
79
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated
ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 22. * References for 1 Clement are taken from Holmes’
edition.
80
Jean Carmignac, “Les affinités qumrâniennes de la onzième Ode de Salomon,” RevQ 3 (1961):
71–102: Carmignac compared Ode 11 with the Qumran hymn 1QH.
81
James H. Charlesworth, “Solomon, Odes of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible
Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 114; * see also James H. Charlesworth, “Qumran, John and

22
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

Qumran Scrolls. The Odist prays, “open to me the harp of the Holy Spirit, so that…I may praise

you, O Lord,” and “according to the multitude of your mercies…grant unto me, and hasten to

grant our petitions” (14.8-9).83 “My heart was pruned and its flower appeared, then grace sprang

up in it, and it produced fruits for the Lord” (11.1). The Odist proclaims, “I shall open my mouth,

and his spirit will speak through me,” the praise and beauty of the Lord (16.5). The Odist states,

“He has filled me with words of truth, that I may proclaim him. And like the flowing of waters,

truth flows from my mouth, and my lips declare his fruits” (12.1-2). Finally, the Odist realizes

that those who participate in the Lord’s offering are called to show compassion, justice, and

truth, and not to oppress any one (20.5-6), for, “the offering of the Lord is righteousness, and

purity of heart and lips” (20.4).

From the three examples above, only the Didache gives evidence for the early

formation of a Eucharistic prayer. The other two, 1 Clement and the Odes of Solomon, are not

explicitly Eucharistic, but provide early examples of verbal offerings of praise and thanksgiving

that are reminiscent of Heb 13:15.

Within Heb 13:15, have we discovered an important component for understanding

the origins of the early Eucharistic prayer? Be that as it may, there is a final dimension of the

community’s worship that includes another dimension of the offering of the sacrifice of praise.

Odes of Solomon,” in John and Qumran (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972),
135.
82
Michael Lattke and Harold W. Attridge, Odes of Solomon: A Commentary (Hermeneia—a Critical
and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 153 n.15. *
83
James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions
of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes,
Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (vol. 2; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985),
748. * All the following sections from the Odes of Solomon are from or based on Charlesworth’s
edition.

23
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

B. Offering through Works of Charity and Mercy as Sacrifice of Praise


Sacrifice of Praise as Charity
Do not neglect to do good (εὐποιΐας) and to share what you have (κοινωνίας), for such
sacrifices (θυσίαις) are pleasing to God (Heb 13:16).

The Greek word εὐποιΐας means “rendering of service,” “well doing,” a “good deed”

(BDAG 410). In the New Testament, it is a hapax legomenon. In another early Christian text,

Ignatius of Antioch uses it to describe “a good work in the service of God” (IPol. 7.3). The word

κοινωνίας means “communion,” “fellowship,” or “sharing” (BDAG 552). The community

already had been encouraged to practice hospitality (13:2), and here in v. 16 they are

commanded to “do good” and “to share,” and according to Kistemaker, here the author of

Hebrews “sees these deeds of love and mercy as sacrifices of praise.”84 According to Morris,

this means that they offer “no animals but make their response to what Christ has done for them

in praise, good deeds, and works of love and charity.”85

Sacrifice of Praise as Worship


Thus according to Heb 13:15-16, when the community shares and exercises charity to

others (through Christ), they are really worshiping God, and fulfilling the “sacrifice of praise.”

Through Christ they are receiving an eternal kingdom (12:28), mercy and grace (4:16), through

whom they offer acceptable worship to God (12:28; 13:16), rendering service to others (12:8;

13:16). There is an unmistakable parallel in vv. 15-16 with the great commandment (Matt

22:36-40). This can be extended to 1 John, where those who say they love God must also love

84
Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of Hebrews (vol. 15; New Testament
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 424. *
85
Leon Morris, “Hebrews,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation (ed.
Frank E. Gaebelein; vol. 12; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 152.

24
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

one another (4:19-21). “It is charity alone that makes it possible for us to love God above all

else, and makes us ready and glad to do all the good we can to others in a spirit of generosity.”86

Worship and Marriage


This raises a question. If works of charity and sharing of goods are acceptable worship,

is it possible that marriage and the marital bed are a form of worship (Heb 13:4)? Earlier, the

community is called λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι, to worship the living God (9:14), with λατρεύωμεν

εὐαρέστως, acceptable worship (12:28), and to do good and to share with others, for such

sacrifices εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ θεός, are pleasing to God (13:16). However, although they shared

nearly all things in common, they were not so share the marriage bed for sexual union.

Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed (κοίτη) be kept undefiled
(ἀμίαντος); for God will judge fornicators and adulterers (13:4).

In the Letter to Diognetus, Christians are described as those who live in the flesh, but not

according to the flesh, and that they setup and share a common table, but not their marriage bed

(κοίτην) (Diogn. 5:7).87

The word ἀμίαντος in Heb 13.4 means pure in either a religious or moral sense.88 In fhe

Clementine Vulgate from 1592, we find thorus immaculatus,89 and the BSV, inmaculatus. 90

Finally, much of Heb 13 is sandwiched between the adverb εὐαρέστως (pleasing or acceptable),

“let us offer to God acceptable worship” (12:28), and the verb εὐαρεστεῖται (pleasing), “do good

86
John XXIII, Aeterna Dei Sapientia (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1961). *
87
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated
ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 541.
88
BDAG 54.
89
Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. (Ed. electronica.; Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible
Software, 2005), Heb 13:4.
90
Biblia Sacra Vulgata: Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem (electronic edition of the 3rd edition.; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969), Heb 13:4.

25
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

and share” for such sacrifices are pleasing to God (13:16). If marriage and the marriage bed are

not forms of worship, they should at least be considered within the context of worship.

Conclusion
According to Hebrews, Jesus Christ offered himself once in order to make atonement for

sin. Through his resurrection and ascension into the heavenly tabernacle, Christ is also the

firstfruits of the eternal priesthood, through whom the Church offers a “sacrifice of praise”

through its priestly service, worship, liturgical traditions, and also through its works of charity,

mercy, and justice. Not all Christians will agree that Heb 13:15 is the basis or even concerned

with the Eucharist, as does Catholic tradition. 91 However, all Christian should be able to agree

that Heb 13:15 is the basis for other liturgical prayer such as the Liturgy of the Hours (Divine

Office),92 the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Through Christ, the Church

expresses her praise and thanksgiving to God the Father for both the goodness and beauty of

creation, and for the wonders of salvation brought about through the crucified, risen, and

ascended Lord. This is not merely a human work. The author of the final benediction of

Hebrews states the conviction that it is God, who through the blood of the covenant raised up

Jesus from the dead, will also raise up the community, making them complete in everything good

(παντὶ ἀγαθῷ), to do his will (τὸ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ), working among them what is pleasing

in his sight, through Christ, to God be the glory forever (13:20-21). After which the author

finishes with the liturgical expression ἀμήν, “may it be so.”93

Finished on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord

January 10, 2016

91
CCC 1359. *
92
Pius XII, Mediator Dei 139; * Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, n. 62. *
93
BDAG 53.

26
Lawrence Francis Ligocki, “Eucharist as Offering.”

“Accept, O Lord, the offerings we have brought to honor the revealing of your beloved

Son, so that the oblation of your faithful may be transformed in the sacrifice of him who willed

in his compassion to wash away the sins of the world. Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.”

(Prayer over the Offerings on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord)

27

Вам также может понравиться