Does Hebrews 13:10's mention of an altar contradict Old Testament laws allowing priests to eat sacrifices?

Overview

Hebrews 13:10 states, “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.” At first glance, this could seem to contradict passages in the Old Testament where priests were permitted to eat portions of the sacrifices (e.g., Leviticus 6:26; 7:6). A closer study reveals no true contradiction. Instead, the verse highlights a distinct aspect of the new covenant established through the sacrifice of Christ, contrasted with the physical tabernacle worship under the old covenant.

Old Testament Context: Priests and Their Altar

Throughout the Old Testament, priests performed sacrifices at the altar according to detailed regulations:

1. Allowed Portions for Priests: In many cases, priests were explicitly allowed to eat portions of sacrificial offerings. Leviticus 7:6 instructs, “Any male among the priests may eat it. It must be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy.” These provisions underscored how priests were provided for through certain parts of the sacrifices (burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, etc.).

2. Exceptions to Eating the Sacrifice: Not all offerings were consumed by the priests. For instance, on the Day of Atonement, the bull and the goat of the sin offering were burned outside the camp (Leviticus 16:27). In those circumstances, priests did not partake of the flesh. Such regulations highlight that the old covenant sacrificial system was varied and not every sacrifice granted a right to eat.

3. Sacrificial System and Holiness: Many of these regulations served to preserve the holiness and ritual cleansing associated with worship in the tabernacle. The right to eat parts of certain sacrifices was extended only to those who fulfilled priestly duties in adherence to divine law.

Context of Hebrews 13:10

1. Audience and Purpose: The Epistle to the Hebrews was written to believers familiar with Jewish sacrificial customs. The letter encourages readers to understand that the ultimate sacrifice—Jesus—transcends any need for ongoing temple offerings, since He completes what the old system foreshadowed (Hebrews 10:11–14).

2. “We Have an Altar”: The “altar” in Hebrews 13:10 is generally understood as the altar of the cross or the spiritual reality of Christ’s atoning work. The verse explains that those who cling to the old covenant tabernacle system (relying on animal sacrifices) have “no right to eat” from this new altar because they have not embraced the new covenant found in Christ.

3. Connection to the Day of Atonement: Hebrews 13:11–12 emphasizes, “The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sacrifice for sin, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to sanctify the people by His own blood.” This reference shows the parallel between the sin offerings burned outside the camp and Jesus’ crucifixion outside Jerusalem’s city walls (cf. John 19:17–20).

No Contradiction with Old Testament Laws

1. Different Covenants, Different Participation: Under the old covenant, priests ate certain parts of designated sacrifices. Under the new covenant, the “eating” is a metaphor for partaking in Christ’s sacrifice by faith (John 6:53–56). This spiritual reality does not negate the physical priestly customs but fulfills and supersedes them.

2. Specific Kind of Offering: Hebrews is reflecting on the sin offering associated with the Day of Atonement, which was not eaten by priests. By paralleling Christ’s sacrifice to that sin offering, the text indicates that the old covenant priests who remain tied to the tabernacle system never partake of the redemptive benefits of the final sin offering—Jesus Himself.

3. Unity in Scripture: The Old Testament consistently pointed to a greater sacrifice (Isaiah 53). The New Testament reveals Christ as that ultimate, sufficient offering (Hebrews 9:24–26). The statements in Hebrews hold together with the Old Testament context: they do not deny the historical practices of priests eating sacrifices but draw a contrast to show Christ’s superiority.

Historical and Archaeological Insights

1. Dead Sea Scrolls and Temple Worship: Fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (particularly those outlining temple service regulations) align with the notion that certain sin offerings were never eaten. This discovery supports the biblical detail that priests could not eat every sacrifice.

2. Josephus’ Writings: In Antiquities of the Jews (Book III), Josephus provides information on priestly duties, including how some offerings were consumed by the priests and others were wholly burned. This arrangement corresponds well with Scriptural accounts and confirms no contradiction between the statement in Hebrews and established priestly practices.

3. Manuscript Evidence and Consistency: Ancient manuscripts of Hebrews—including papyrus fragments (e.g., Papyrus 46)—reflect the same wording found in modern critically formed Greek texts. There is no variation that suggests a concern about priests eating or not eating. The consistent text across manuscripts underscores a clear theme about distinguishing the finality of Christ’s sacrifice from the old system.

The Significance of Christ’s Sacrifice

1. Christ as the Superior Offering: Hebrews lays out that Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice brings forgiveness in a way that repeated animal sacrifices could not accomplish (Hebrews 10:1–4). This exaltation of Christ’s work is the central reason the epistle speaks of a new “altar” to which only believers have access.

2. Spiritual Nourishment: In John 6:35, Jesus declares, “I am the bread of life.” Those who come to Him receive spiritual life and nourishment. By contrast, those who remain under the old tabernacle system (and refuse Christ’s sacrifice) surrender their right to experience that nourishment.

3. No Ongoing Sacrificial System Needed: Hebrews 9:28 declares: “So also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.” This finality stands at the heart of the new covenant. Thus, the physical priestly right to eat certain sacrifices in the old covenant does not negate or contradict the spiritual truth that those outside of Christ do not share in His offering.

Practical and Devotional Implications

1. Faith Over Ritual: The altar in question signifies the transformative power of faith in Christ’s finished work. For believers, the call is to partake by faith. No ritual act or old covenant practice can replace what Christ has already accomplished.

2. Assurance of Access: When Hebrews says, “We have an altar,” it offers believers assurance of direct access to God. This stands in contrast to the limited access under the Levitical system, affirming that salvation is entirely through Christ and His sacrifice.

3. Consistency of God’s Plan: Throughout Scripture, God’s redemptive plan has been consistent—pointing forward through the old covenant sacrifices and culminating in the new covenant in Jesus. Rather than conflict, Hebrews 13:10 highlights this progression and fulfillment.

Conclusion

Hebrews 13:10 does not contradict the Old Testament regulations that allowed priests to eat portions of certain offerings. Instead, it addresses a different aspect of the sacrificial system, focusing on sin offerings burned outside the camp and revealing that the sacrifice of Christ—the true “altar” of the new covenant—cannot be partaken of by those who remain under the old covenant system alone.

The comprehensive witness of Scripture, supported by historical, textual, and archaeological evidence, shows that this verse smoothly fits into the larger biblical narrative: the old covenant offerings prefigured Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, and He alone provides the means by which believers truly “eat” (partake) of the benefits of salvation through faith.