We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. Here there is a plain allusion to the eating of offered sacrifices. If, then, there was no such allusion in the preceding verse, what is the connection of thought? It appears to be this: "Some would teach you that meats are of religious importance. Nay, but what are meats to us who have Christ himself for our spiritual food? This is our peculiar privilege, not shared by the very priests of the old dispensation." Then, in Hebrews 13:11, "That this is so is shown by the very symbolism of the Day of Atonement." Then, in Hebrews 13:12, "Let us, then, be well content to leave Judaism entirely, and cleave to Christ alone." By "those that serve ( λατρεύοντες) the tabernacle" are meant the priests of the Law, whose service is, as in former passages, referred to as still going on. It is evidently implied that we have the right which they have not.
For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin (i.e. as sin offerings; for this sense of περὶ ἁμαρτίας, cf. Hebrews 10:6), are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate. The allusion is to the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement—the bullock for the high priest, and the goat for the people. Of the flesh of some sacrifices of ordinary peace offerings—the people ate, being themselves "partakers of the altar;" that of ordinary sin offerings was partaken of by the priests alone: but the special sin offerings of the great day, which typified complete atonement, and the blood of which alone was taken into the holiest of all, were consumed entirely by fire without the camp, and not even the priests might eat of them (Le 16:27, etc). This part of the ceremonial, not mentioned in Hebrews 9:1-28., completed the symbolism of the Day of Atonement. It not only typified (together with the other goat that was set free) the entire removal of sin from the congregation; it also signified that the Law itself made none, not even the priests, partakers in such complete atonement. Christ fulfilled the first significance of this type by suffering "without the gate;" the Jews, in casting him out from their midst, were the unconscious instruments of his so fulfilling it; he thus bare and took away the sins of all outside the holy city which represented the Israel of God. But further, in him is supplied what under the Law was wanting; for of him, the true Sin Offering, we may all partake: he declared this himself when he spoke of our caring his flesh and drinking his blood—in which words the mention of the blood as well as of the flesh is peculiarly significant; for of the blood, which was "given upon the altar to make atonement for sins" (Le 17:11), none might in any case under the Law partake; but of him we even drink the blood, in token that atonement is completed, and that we are now full partakers in all its benefits. The only seeming discrepancy between the type and the Antitype, as above set forth, is in the order of the different parts of the old ceremonial. The sin offering was slain in the camp before it was burnt outside, whereas Christ fulfilled both these parts of the type by one act upon the cross outside. Again, the blood of the sin offering was taken into the holy of holies before the body was consumed by fire outside, whereas Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary "with his own blood" after he had suffered "without the gate." But the general significance of the symbolism in its several parts is not thus disturbed; it is viewed as a whole, and all parts of it are found to be fulfilled. In saying, "we have an altar," and implying that we eat of it, the writer has surely the Eucharist in view, though it does not follow that θυσιαστήριον means definitely the table on which it is celebrated. He may, as some explain, have especially in his mind the cross on which the sacrifice was once for all completed; or he may have had no definite local image before him, seeing rather (as elsewhere in the Epistle) in spiritual realities and relations the counterparts of the Levitical symbols. But that the Holy Communion is alluded to, even if it were not apparent here, might be concluded from 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, where similar phrases are used with distinct reference to it. There St. Paul is dissuading from participation in heathen sacrificial feasts, as being inconsistent with partaking of the Holy Communion; and he says in this connection, "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices ( ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας) partakers of the altar ( κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου)?" It is evident that "partakers of the Lord's table" (1 Corinthians 10:21) are regarded as being thereby partakers of the Christian altar, of which mention is made in the text before us. It may be observed that the use here of the word θυσιαστηρίον may be held to justify—and this without implying any actual repetition of the one accomplished sacrifice—the application of the term "altar" to the table on which the Eucharist is celebrated, as does 1 Corinthians 10:21 the term "the Lord's table." Both terms were so applied from very early times. The holy tables in our churches are altars, in that on them is continually commemorated and pleaded the one sacrifice of the cross, and that from them the spiritual food of the body and blood is given to the faithful.