In just a few short years (cir. five to seven) Jerusalem and the Temple would have been conquered and destroyed, so there really wasn’t a future in clinging to the Jewish religion and the Old Covenant. Paul’s statement, to go to Jesus who is outside the camp and bear his reproach, has to do with leaving the then present social norms (Hebrews 13:13). The walled city (Jerusalem) was set up to provide protection for the people during an adversarial invasion. Paul was recommending that believing Jews leave all that behind (Hebrews 13:14), or at least not be dependent upon the sense of security such things offered.
What Jesus offered was a new Jerusalem, or the new worldview, which is the New Covenant. It would be established as the Old Covenant was taken out of the way. For nearly 2000 years the Lord had dealt with the world through the Mosaic Covenant. The Jews’ way of life had been set up by God as something different from the worldview of the nations. It was meant to attract the nations to the Lord, but, instead, the Jews were attracted more and more to the way of life of the world. They wanted to imitate the strong nations that surrounded them, believing their gods had blessed them. They set up kings over themselves, so they could be like the nations, and they even began worshiping gods of wood and stone. So, the Old Covenant failed, because it was equally dependent upon the faithfulness of men toward God, as much as it was dependent upon God’s faithfulness to his people. Not so, the New Covenant, which is completely dependent upon God being faithful to his word (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
The New Covenant is founded upon spiritual principles, rather than outward religious practices. Its sacrifices include doing good to others and sharing what one has with those who have not. While the Old Covenant was established upon what food was clean or unclean, the New Covenant is established upon a life that is clean or unclean. For example, under the Old Covenant an animal had to chew the cud and have a parted hoof (cp. Hebrews 13:9), while under the New Covenant a child of God needed to walk the separate life (parted hoof) and let the word of God establish a man’s understanding of life (chew the cud). If one practiced the Oral Law, he did nothing without abundant washings in an outward display of cleansing that one’s life (cp. Mark 7:1-8), but under the New Covenant, the believer was already washed by the Lord (1Corinthians 6:11; Revelation 1:5; 7:14).
Finally, Paul told his readers to “obey (G3982) them who have the rule over (G2233) you …” (Hebrews 13:17). The translators seem really attached to the English word “obey” in this verse, and I have to wonder why. The Greek word is pietho (G3982), and the word occurs 58 times in the New Covenant Scriptures. In the KJV it is usually translated persuade (22 times) or trust / believe (13 times),[1] confident (9 times) but obey (only 7 times). Most translations have obey at Hebrews 13:17, but the ACV has “have confidence in” while the ANT has “agree with”. I believe “trust” or “have confidence in” is more appropriate at this point in Paul’s letter, because there seems to be a growing breach of trust in the believing community towards their leaders. The more renown leaders, like James (called ‘the brother of the Lord’) had been slain at this point in time (cir. 64-65 AD), and there was real danger of the believing community to rely upon the popular leaders of Judaism, instead of the leaders of the Messianic Jews, who had the best interest of the believing community at heart.
As Paul finished his letter, he asked for their prayers, saying he had a clear conscience in his walk, implying his letter should be seen in such a light, or in other words, he, too, has their best interest at heart, meaning that they follow Christ (Hebrews 13:18-19). Praying for the plight of someone working in the Gospel often puts the heart of the prayer warrior in the Gospel as well. I believe this was also Paul’s hope.
__________________________________________
[1] In the very next verse this word is translated into “trust” by the translators. ‘Obey’ gives the wrong picture at this point in my opinion.
Smoodock's Blog 