Roman Empire and Hebrews

Submitted to: Dr. Gregory Basker

Presented by: John Fredrick David.
Response by: Mr. Immanuel Dutt

Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Roman Empire as a background for Hebrews ............................................................................... 1
2.1. Socio-historic Context ........................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Literary Context ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.3. Philosophical Context ............................................................................................................ 2
3. Roman Empire as a foreground for Hebrews................................................................................. 3
3.1. Hidden Transcripts: a theorical model of resistance from the subordinates .......................... 3
3.2. Redefinition of Symbolic Universe ....................................................................................... 4
3.2.1. Jesus as the χιερεὺς μέγας ................................................................................................. 5
3.2.2. Appropriating the titles and roles of the Emperor ............................................................. 6
3.2.3. The Coming City as being better than Rome. ................................................................... 6
3.2.4. The God of Peace and His Victorious King ...................................................................... 7
4. Assessment of the scholarly relation between the Roman Empire and Hebrews ........................... 8
5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 9

1. Introduction
Here in this paper, we shall endeavor to understand the relation between Roman Empire
and the Epistle to the Hebrews (hereafter, the epistle). Questions such as “How has the Roman
Empire influenced the content and the form of the text?” and “How was the epistle probably
received in the Roman Imperial context?” have guided the study. The Relevance for a
contemporary post-colonial context is also inquired.
2. Roman Empire as a background for Hebrews
2.1. Socio-historic Context
The Epistles to the Hebrews has the distinction of being one of the most enigmatic
books of the New Testament. There is scarcely any historical data contained in the epistle.
Even the title “to the Hebrews” has been understood as a later addition. And therefore attaching
a time frame as well an author becomes difficult.
However, William Lanes claims that an analysis of the text of the epistle gives a clue
that it is an exhortatory writing written by a Hellenistic Jew to a group composed of probably
predominantly Jewish believers who live in a Roman world which is not conducive to their
faith.1
Johnson claims that text assumes a remembered past that includes “public humiliation,
imprisonment, and seizure of property”, which might signify a position of “shame, weakness
and vulnerability within the society and a record of conflict with its governing officials”.2
Westfall agrees with him by adding that the recipients seem to be in danger of death. The topic
of people "held in slavery by their fear of death" (Heb 2:15), and the various aspects of death
that are dealt with in chapter 11 help to substantiate her claim.3
2.2. Literary Context
In addition to the socio-historical context of the Roman Empire, the epistle also emerges
from the Greco-Roman Literary world. It is conspicuous that the author is well versed in the
symbolic universe of the Roman empire and also in the rhetoric skills. Literary devices used
by Hellenistic writers not uncommon in Hebrews: “etymological wordplay (2:10; 7:9; 9:6–17;
12:2); alliteration (1:1; 4:16; 12:21); anaphora (the repetition of “by faith” throughout ch.
11); antithesis (7:18–20; 10:11–12); assonance (1:1–3; 12:9); and litotes (4:15; 6:10; 7:20),
among others.”4
2.3. Philosophical Context
A number of passages in epistle give a nod to the Greco-Roman philosophy, especially
to Plato’s theory of Forms. The connection is well documented by the works of a number of
scholars. Attridge and Koester say that the recurring contrast between the unchanging heavenly
realm and the passing earthly realm resembles Platonic dualistic metaphysics (1:10–12; 10:34;
12:27–28). They continue this observation in where Jewish tabernacle is but “a copy and a
shadow of the heavenly sanctuary” (Heb 8:5 and 9:23– 24) and which is made according to the
“pattern” showed to Moses by God, “a copy of the true”. The tabernacle where Jesus serves as

1
William L Lane, “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting,” Southwest. J. Theol. 28.1 (1985): 13–18.
2
Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, 1st ed., The New Testament Library (Louisville, Ky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 33.
3
Cynthia Long Westfall, “Running the Gamut: The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish Christianity,” in
Empire in the New Testament, ed. Stanley E Porter (McMaster Divinity College Press, 2011), 248.
4
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),
20–21.

2
high priest is one “not made with hands” (9:11) corresponding to the Ideal realm. The law also
is “shadow” but “not the very image” of “good things to come” (10:1).5
Niko Huttunen, however argues against the claim that Hebrews merely adopts but
asserts that it contains temporal adaptations of the Platonic allegory side by side in additional
to the original platonic spatial thought.6 Along the same lines, Cockrill adds that the added
temporal dualism is an Jewish apocalyptic influence. Cockrill, however, along with Edward
Adams argues that the Hebrews portrays “a concrete heavenly world entered by Christ and
open to the people of God rather than a neo-Platonic world of ideas”.7 Thus we can see a
creative usage of the contemporary philosophical thought that is modified to suit the authorial
agenda.
3. Roman Empire as a foreground for Hebrews
The development of Post-Colonial theory and subaltern studies in the last half century
have given rise to the idea that in addition to the Roman Empire acting as a background, it also
serves as the foreground. Thus Roman empire becomes the space where the critiquing voice of
the epistle to the Hebrews is heard. The overarching idea is that the epistle is a tacit critique of
the imperial Roman empire, tacit because the oppressed are too weak to mount an explicit
confrontation.
3.1. Hidden Transcripts: a theorical model of resistance from the subordinates
Steven Muir employs the theory of James Scott as given in the book “Domination and
the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts” to understand the function of the epistle.
In theory, in any oppression, there exist a Dominant class and subordinates. Public
discourse happens between the Dominant and Subordinate classes. However, in addition to the
public, Private Discourse happens intra group. Resistance happens predominantly in the
private discourse among the oppressed classes and this resistance can take many forms of
actions which mitigate claims of superiors, advance claims by the subordinate over against
those of the superiors. It is better for the oppressed to employ double meaning, subtlety and
misdirection in critiques of the establishment. These techniques are termed as Hidden

5
Patrick Gray, “Hebrews among Greeks and Romans,” in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for
Students, ed. Eric Farrel Mason and Kevin B. McCruden, Society of Biblical Literature. Resources for Biblical
Study no. 66 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 18.
6
Niko Huttunen, Early Christians Adapting to the Roman Empire: Mutual Recognition, Supplements to Novum
Testamentum volume 179 (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2020), 78.
7
Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Kindle Edition., The New International Commentary on the
New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2012).

3
transcripts. Hidden transcripts are derivative, are a response and subversive to the hegemony
of public discourse.8
Using this theoretical model, Muir describes the epistle as a Hidden Transcript, where
author implicitly rejects the claims of Imperial Roman empire of Hebrews through an explicit
criticism of the Jewish system. To the Roman authorities, the Christological assertions in
Hebrews might just a matter of theological questions about terms and requirements of Jewish
law. But this might indeed be a subtle form of resistance.9
3.2. Redefinition of Symbolic Universe
Other scholars claim that the resistance is offered in terms of redefining reality. Westfall
says that the epistle does not mount a counter-attack on the Roman Empire directly but rather
does it by redefining reality of the reader so that the Roman Empire is robbed of its power to
define reality for the believer.10 This is was significant in the ancient Roman era which was
marked by the culture of honour and shame.
David deSilva claims that the author questions the shame of their past, firstly by
showing them as examples biblical exemplars who took a lower status as aliens and sojourners
for the sake of attaining eternal honour and the promises of God (Heb 10:32-12:2). And
secondly, the author challenges the understanding of persecution by reinterpreting the hostility
of the unbelievers in a positive light for the persecuted: Persecution is seen as training or
discipline by God given to his adopted children as part of their partnership with Christ (Heb
12:1-11).11Thus, as Westfall argues, through the powerful tool imagery or metaphor the author
places the believers' existence of shame and pressure within the larger metaphysics of the
unseen heavenly kingdom.12 In this manner, Rome has been denied the privilege of delimiting
reality for believers and in turn, robbed its power to threaten believers of dispossessing
everything through military might.13 The epistle’s exhortation for the believer to resist sin and
endure the opposition to the point of shedding blood (Heb 12:4) must include the Roman
persecution too. And thus, it is a resistance.

8
Steven Muir, “The Anti-Imperial Rhetoric of Hebrews 1:3: Χαρακτηρ as a Double-Edged Sword,” in A Cloud of
Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al., Library of New
Testament Studies 387 (London: T & T Clark, 2008), 174.
9
Muir, “The Anti-Imperial Rhetoric of Hebrews 1:3: Χαρακτηρ as a Double-Edged Sword,” 174.
10
Westfall, “Running the Gamut: The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish Christianity,” 249.
11
David Arthur DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 68.
12
Westfall, “Running the Gamut: The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish Christianity,” 249.
13
Westfall, “Running the Gamut: The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish Christianity,” 251.

4
 3.2.1. Jesus as the χιερεὺς μέγας
Heb 4:14 reads as “Since, then, we have a great high priest (ἀρχιερεὺς μέγας) who has passed
through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession”. Jörg Rüpke
notes that ἀρχιερεὺς μέγας is not the term used to denote the high priest in the Septuagint,
instead there ἱερεὺς μέγας is used.14 ἀρχιερεὺς μέγας is infact the Greek equivalent for the latin
title “pontifex maximus” which was used for local or provincial chief priests and subsequently
for the emperor himself.15 Rüpke claims that this ascribing the office of heavenly priesthood
to Jesus can be seen as a response to contextual political developments. Such an act of making
competing claims to the post held by the Emperor was potentially a capital crime and therefore
it was cloaked in terms of religious language.16
However, it is important to note, as Muir does, that the portrayal of Jesus’s priesthood
is indeed on the model of the Jewish system, yet with the new title, elements from the Roman
Imperial Cult can be seen to have been appropriated. Thus through the assertion of superiority
that Jesus is the true high priest over against any Jewish claims, the author is tacitly offering
the resistance to the Emperor’s claim that he is the pontifex maximus, the mediator above all
mediators.17 Yet, the title ἀρχιερεὺς μέγας can be as a semantic signal inviting reflection on
one of the most widely known offices of the time.18
Similarly, Rüpke sees a the usage of the term προτότοκον (“firstborn”) followed by εἰς
τὴν οἰκουμένην (“into the world”) as not only denoting the Christological title as used in Col
1:18 and Rom 8:29 but also has an political insult to Domitian was born in second place only.19
In conclusion, the author, for Rüpke, insists that the believers also have a pontifex maximus but
their one is better than the roman emperor. In this way, the Roman Imperial Cult is resisted.20

14
Jörg Rüpke, “Starting Sacrifice in the Beyond: Flavian Innovations in the Concept of Priesthood and Their
Reflections in the Treatise ‘To the Hebrews,’” in Hebrews in Contexts, ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W.
Attridge, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity volume 91 (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2016), 122.
15
Rüpke, “Starting Sacrifice in the Beyond: Flavian Innovations in the Concept of Priesthood and Their
Reflections in the Treatise ‘To the Hebrews,’” 123.
16
Rüpke, “Starting Sacrifice in the Beyond: Flavian Innovations in the Concept of Priesthood and Their
Reflections in the Treatise ‘To the Hebrews,’” 124.
17
Muir, “The Anti-Imperial Rhetoric of Hebrews 1:3: Χαρακτηρ as a Double-Edged Sword,” 170.
18
Rüpke, “Starting Sacrifice in the Beyond: Flavian Innovations in the Concept of Priesthood and Their
Reflections in the Treatise ‘To the Hebrews,’” 123.
19
Rüpke, “Starting Sacrifice in the Beyond: Flavian Innovations in the Concept of Priesthood and Their
Reflections in the Treatise ‘To the Hebrews,’” 124.
20
Rüpke, “Starting Sacrifice in the Beyond: Flavian Innovations in the Concept of Priesthood and Their
Reflections in the Treatise ‘To the Hebrews,’” 126.

5
 3.2.2. Appropriating the titles and roles of the Emperor
Craig R. Koester sees a lot of parallels between the contemporary titles and roles of
the Roman Emperor and the corresponding ones ascribed to Jesus in the epistle. Greco Roman
rulers were at times claimed to be sons of a god, bearing divine radiance and directing all
things. But Hebrews corresponds these traits to Christ.21 While Kings and emperors invited
people to approach their thrones to gain favour and help. And correspondingly, the epistle
invites its readers to approach the throne of grace through Christ.22 Also, as Emperor’s roles
included public works such as opening new roads or ways, so is Christ’s in the epistle: He
opens a new way that leads into God's presence.23 We have already seen how Greco Roman
rulers commonly served as high priests and how the epistle insists that Jesus possesses both
kingly power and priestly office.24 These redefinitions are seen as resistance by certain
scholars.
3.2.3. The Coming City as being better than Rome.
Heb 13:14 contrasts two unnamed cities—"the city that does not remain" with "the city
that is coming." The second is clearly the heavenly Jerusalem.25 But the first is left undefined
and unnamed. Jason Whitlark and Harry Maier identify the “city that does not remain” as the
Imperial capital, Rome itself.
One of the central aspects of the Imperial Roman agenda was the glorious superiority
of the Eternal Rome over against all other cities. The eternal claims made by Rome - “Roma
perpetua” (city that remains) - is clearly rejected by calling it “the city that does not remain,
although the rejections is hidden as a figured reference within a call for the believers to look
towards the future with hope. Maier adds that the epistle implicitly compares the glory of
Rome, which was has its foundation upon on the suffering of others and the conquest in a
bloody civil war, with the temple built without hands where Jesus’s enduring sacrifice and
claims that the latter is superior.26

21
Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 36 (New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2008), 74.
22
Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 74.
23
Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 74.
24
Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 78.
25
Jason A Whitlark, “‘Here We Do Not Have a City That Remains’: A Figured Critique of Roman Imperial
Propaganda in Hebrews 13:14,” J. Biblic. Lit. 131.1 (2012): 161–79.
26
Harry O. Maier, “‘For Here We Have No Lasting City’ (Heb 13:14a): Flavian Iconography, Roman Imperial
Sacrificial Iconography, and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews in Contexts, ed. Gabriella Gelardini and
Harold W. Attridge, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity volume 91 (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2016), 152.

6
 Whitlark sees the exhortation to go "outside the camp" in 13:13, not as a call to abandon
Jerusalem literally or symbolically, but to leave Rome. This means to reject any identification
with Rome, its culture and society and its sophistications but to identify with Gods people,
suffering in persecution.27
3.2.4. The God of Peace and His Victorious King
In the Roman imperial context, victory over enemies and the resultant political peace
and prosperity were seen as validation of authority of the emperor. This was because the
Romans saw victory as manifestation of divine approval of the victor.28 These two concepts,
peace and victory, were discussed together commonly in the imperial context of the audience
of the epistle.
The Benediction in Heb 13:20–21 reads “And may the God of peace who brought up
from the dead by virtue of the blood of the eternal covenant, the great shepherd of the sheep,
our Lord Jesus, equip you with all good things so that you do his will as he works in us what
is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ to whom be glory forever, amen.”
In the aforementioned benediction, Ellen Aitken sees a parallel between Roman
portrayals of the emperor as validated by victory and the epistle’s portrayal of Jesus as the great
shepherd, a kingly status, which has been legitimated by his resurrection which in turn is his
victory over death and the devil.29 Though it can be argued that common logic of victory that
brings forth peace has informed the the benediction in Heb 13:20–21, Whitlark also sees it
additionally as a declaration that Jesus as the true, triumphant king and peace-bringer and
rejects the claims for Roman emperors.30 Luke Timothy Johnson adds that in the antagonistic,
honor-shame culture of the ancient Mediterranean world, these implicit counterclaims, when
made explicity, were seen as acts of subversion that questioned the legitimacy of the Emperor
himself and thus these implicit claims cannot be seen as neutral.31

27
Whitlark, “‘Here We Do Not Have a City That Remains’: A Figured Critique of Roman Imperial Propaganda
in Hebrews 13:14.”
28
Jason A. Whitlark, “The God of Peace and His Victorious King: Hebrews 13:20–21 in Its Roman Imperial
Context,” in Hebrews in Contexts, ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge, Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity volume 91 (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2016), 160.
29
Whitlark, “The God of Peace and His Victorious King: Hebrews 13:20–21 in Its Roman Imperial Context,”
170.
30
Whitlark, “The God of Peace and His Victorious King: Hebrews 13:20–21 in Its Roman Imperial Context,”
157.
31
Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, 355.

7
4. Assessment of the scholarly relation between the Roman Empire and Hebrews
Most biblical studies have come to the conclusion that the presence of Roman imperial
cultural and ideological elements in the text must indicate the text’s opposition to the empire.
However, It must also be noted that there is a possibility that the text might indeed might not
be subversive, but only using the iconography of the roman empire to advance the ideas of the
author. Maier asserts that striking imperial visual language and imagery needs to be interpreted
as part of strategic methods of persuasion, in line with more nuanced approach to the uses of
visual data in biblical interpretation in recent studies.32 Maier asserts that the author expected
the readers to imagine in the reading, the icons and imagery of the Jewish system and also the
imagery from their imperial urban context.33
Koester argues in similar vein that the epistle cannot be seen to have both fully
embraced or entirely rejected Greco-Roman Culture but creatively redefines and transforms its
imagery to advance a distinctly Christian confession. Ryan D. Chivington is right in his
warning against a rush to conclude to every possible parallel as directly corresponding to the
text. This might lead the study to the error of impressionism. 34 And also, If the presupposition
is that the text is subversive, and the endeavour is to find subversive elements, then the
approach may be accused of circular reasoning.
However, it must be borne in mind that The Epistles to the Hebrews is of immense
importance to liberative and post-colonial interpretations where the epistle itself is seen as a
veiled resistance to the hegemony of the Imperial Roman Empire. It offers a model where
resistance is offered, not as an explicit act but though subtle forms where the symbolic universe
is first subverted so as to collapse the claims of the dominant system, with a hope that the
hegemony collapses as a consequence. It also attests to the fact that not all resistance must be
political but also that resistance may be offered, as Aitken says, through scriptural
interpretation, cultic reflection, allegory, and hymnody, as well as through visual art, coinage,
architecture, and religious festivals.35 Writing to an audience that has faced persecution in the
past and is preparing for new persecution, the author or Hebrews offers a tacit critique of the

32
Maier, “‘For Here We Have No Lasting City’ (Heb 13:14a): Flavian Iconography, Roman Imperial Sacrificial
Iconography, and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 136.
33
Maier, “‘For Here We Have No Lasting City’ (Heb 13:14a): Flavian Iconography, Roman Imperial Sacrificial
Iconography, and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 140.
34
Ryan D. Chivington, “An Investigation For Possible Parallels Of The Roman Imperial Cult (Caesar-Nero) In
The New Testament Book Of Hebrews” (Masters Thesis, University of Pretoria, 2006), 78.
35
Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, “Portraying The Temple In Stone And Text: The Arch Of Titus And The Epistle To
The Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini, Biblical Interpretation
Series v. 75 (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2005), 133.

8
Roman Empire through his criticism of Jewish cult. Thus, as Muir says, subtlety truly is used
as ‘two-edged sword’ (Heb. 4.12).36

5. Conclusion
Thus we have seen that the Roman Empire acts both as the background and the
foreground for the epistle to the Hebrews. We have seen that there are both elements of
appropriation of the imperial imagery as an authorial device of persuasion as well as elements
of critique of the dominant hegemonic and oppressive systems. Thus the Epistle serves as a
model for interpretation in a context of oppression.

Bibliography

Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. “Portraying The Temple In Stone And Text: The Arch Of Titus And
The Epistle To The Hebrews.” Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights.
Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Biblical Interpretation Series v. 75. Leiden ; Boston:
Brill, 2005.
Attridge, Harold W., 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.
Chivington, Ryan D. “An Investigation For Possible Parallels Of The Roman Imperial Cult
(Caesar-Nero) In The New Testament Book Of Hebrews.” Masters Thesis, University
of Pretoria, 2006.
Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Kindle Edition. The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans,
2012.
DeSilva, David Arthur. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Gray, Patrick. “Hebrews among Greeks and Romans.” Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A
Resource for Students. Edited by Eric Farrel Mason and Kevin B. McCruden. Society
of Biblical Literature. Resources for Biblical Study no. 66. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2011.
Huttunen, Niko. Early Christians Adapting to the Roman Empire: Mutual Recognition.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum volume 179. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2020.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. 1st ed. The New Testament Library.
Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The
Anchor Bible 36. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2008.
Lane, William L. “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting.” Southwest. J. Theol. 28.1
(1985): 13–18.
Maier, Harry O. “‘For Here We Have No Lasting City’ (Heb 13:14a): Flavian Iconography,
Roman Imperial Sacrificial Iconography, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Hebrews in
Contexts. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge. Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity volume 91. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2016.

36
Muir, “The Anti-Imperial Rhetoric of Hebrews 1:3: Χαρακτηρ as a Double-Edged Sword,” 174.

9
Muir, Steven. “The Anti-Imperial Rhetoric of Hebrews 1:3: Χαρακτηρ as a Double-Edged
Sword.” A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts.
Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald.
Library of New Testament Studies 387. London: T & T Clark, 2008.
Rüpke, Jörg. “Starting Sacrifice in the Beyond: Flavian Innovations in the Concept of
Priesthood and Their Reflections in the Treatise ‘To the Hebrews.’” Hebrews in
Contexts. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge. Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity volume 91. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2016.
Westfall, Cynthia Long. “Running the Gamut: The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish
Christianity.” Empire in the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E Porter. McMaster
Divinity College Press, 2011.
Whitlark, Jason A. “‘Here We Do Not Have a City That Remains’: A Figured Critique of
Roman Imperial Propaganda in Hebrews 13:14.” J. Biblic. Lit. 131.1 (2012): 161–79.
Whitlark, Jason A. “The God of Peace and His Victorious King: Hebrews 13:20–21 in Its
Roman Imperial Context.” Hebrews in Contexts. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini and
Harold W. Attridge. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity volume 91. Leiden ;
Boston: Brill, 2016.

10