Hebrews 7:26–8:2

For the high priest being eternal, of necessity the salvation also and the Tabernacle are eternal, in accordance again with what is written: And they indeed are many priests, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also, he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing that he always liveth to make intercession for them. For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. The expression higher than the heavens means, according to the idiom of the language, heaven; and, more clearly still, the expressions "unchangeable", and "the abiding for ever", and "always" indicate a state of things that is indissoluble. For if the priest is unchangeable, the Tabernacle also, wherein he exercises his office, must of necessity be unchangeable, that is, exempt from succession.

Who then is so just and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need of a sacrifice for the washing away of his own sins, neither original sins nor those that are added from human life? And what could be so fittingly chosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so suitable for this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansing the vices of mortals as the flesh born in the womb without the contagion of carnal concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? And what could be so acceptably offered and received as the flesh of our sacrifice made the body of our priest? Four things are to be considered in every sacrifice: by whom it is offered, to whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered.

This Hierarch is acceptable to God, for we need a most sacred Reconciler. Hence the Epistle to the Hebrews: "It was fitting that we should have such a High Priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and become higher than the heavens," in order that He be entirely in the form of God.

"It was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners … who had no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself," not for him but for the sins of humankind.

"For such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from the sinners." Thou seest that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I say "the manhood," I mean the manhood having Godhead; not dividing one from the other, but leaving you to suppose what is suitable.) Didst thou mark the difference of the High Priest? He has summed up what was said before, "in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin." "For" (he says) "such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless." "Harmless": what is it? Without wickedness: that which another Prophet says: "guile was not found in His mouth," that is, He is not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning Him, however, in respect of the Flesh, it might be reasonable to say it. "Holy, undefiled." This too would any one say concerning God? For has He a nature capable of defilement? "Separate from sinners."

It is obvious from these things that he is speaking about Christ according to the flesh in the preceding statements and these as well. For how could he say such things about divinity and not be ashamed, attributing these things to that incomprehensible nature? Therefore, he is holy, who neglects none of the things owed to him. He is innocent, blameless, and without deceit. "For no deceit," he says, "was found in His mouth." (Is. 53:9) "unstained."No one would call this a praise of God; for it is in his nature not to be defiled. But it is clear that this concerns the humanity of the one Christ. "separated from sinners." The chief priests among the Jews, he says, even if they were holy in other respects, as human beings they are still subject to evil and are not entirely separated from sinners; for how could they be, if they themselves are guilty of sins? "and exalted above the heavens." For He sat down on the throne of the Father. But does the term "exalted" not cry out that he speaks about His flesh? For the Word of God was always higher than the heavens.

For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners.

From these words it is clear that both above and now he speaks of the flesh. For who could say such a thing about God, and would he not be ashamed, applying this to the incomprehensible nature of God? So, He is "holy." Such a One Who leaves nothing undone that it is fitting for Him to accomplish; and "undefiled by evil," that is, free from guile and evil. "Neither was deceit found in His mouth" (Isa. 53:9; cf. 1 Pet. 2:22).

And this also, who can call it praise for God: for He has such a nature that He is not defiled. It is clear that he says this about the humanity of the one Christ.

The high priests according to the law, he says, even if they were holy in all other respects, nevertheless, being human, were not free from faults and not entirely "separated from sinners." For how could they be, if they themselves were partakers of transgressions? And besides, none of them was in heaven; but our High Priest, together with the fact that He is filled with every virtue and "separated from sinners," is also "exalted above the heavens," having sat down upon the very throne of the Father. The expression "exalted," as is evident, is used of Him according to the flesh. For, as God the Word, He was always "above the heavens."

374. – Then when he says, for it was fitting that we have such a high priest, he shows from Christ's excellence the excellence of His priesthood. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that the perfections of the conditions required for the priesthood of the Old Law suited Him; secondly, that He has no imperfections (v. 27).

375. – So he sets down four qualities in Him that were supposed to be in the priesthood of the Law: first, that he is holy: 'They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy' (Lev. 21:6). But Christ had this perfectly. For holiness implies purity consecrated to God: 'Therefore, also the Holy which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God' (Lk. 1:35); 'That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit' (Mt. 1:20); 'The saint of saints will be anointed' (Dan. 9:24). Secondly, he should be innocent: 'Let them keep my precepts that they may not fall into sin' (Lev. 22:9). But, properly speaking, innocence is purity toward one's neighbor: 'The innocent in hands, and clean of heart: who has not taken his soul in vain, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbor' (Ps. 23:4). But Christ was completely innocent, being One Who did not sin: 'I have walked in my innocence' (Ps. 25:11). Thirdly, that he be unstained and this in regard to himself: 'Whosoever of our seed through their families has a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God' (Lev. 21:17). Of Christ it is said in a figure: 'It shall be a lamb without blemish' (Ex. 12:5). Fourthly, he must be separated from sinners: 'He shall not mingle the stock of his kindred with the common people of his nation' (Lev. 21:15). But Christ was perfectly separated from sinners: 'Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly nor stood in the way of sinners' (Ps. 1:1). This is, of course, true in regard to a like life: 'His life is not like other men's' (Wis. 2:15), but not in regard to His dealings with others, because 'He conversed with men' (Bar. 3:38) and this with a view to their conversion: 'Why does your master eat with sinners?' (Mt. 9:11). And to such a degree He was separated that He was made higher than the heavens, i.e., exalted above the heavens: 'He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high' (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, he is a sufficiently competent priest.

Although we are not his brothers but have become his enemies by our transgressions, he who is not mere man, but God, after the freedom that he bestowed on us, also calls us his brothers. "I will tell of your name," he says, "to my brethren." Now, he who has redeemed us, if you examine his nature, is neither brother nor man; but if you examine his condescension to us through grace, he calls us brothers and descends to our human nature. He does not need a ransom, for he himself is the propitiation.

Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself also? How? "He needeth not daily, as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself." "This," what? Here what follows sounds a prelude concerning the exceeding greatness of the spiritual sacrifice and the interval between them. He has mentioned the point of the priest; he has mentioned that of the faith; he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not entirely indeed, still he has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a prelude concerning the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He is a priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest's office. For He executed it once, and thenceforward "sat down." Lest thou suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he shows that the matter is part of a dispensation. For as He became a servant, so also He became a Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming a servant, He did not continue a servant, so also, having become a Minister, He did not continue a Minister. For it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to stand.

This then he hints at here, and also the greatness of the sacrifice, if being but one, and having been offered up once only, it affected that which all the rest were unable to do. But he does not yet treat of these points.

"For this He did," he says. "This"; what? "For it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat also to offer"; not for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the people. What sayest thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (he says). "For the Law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity." And doth He not need to offer for Himself? No, he says. For, that you may not suppose that the words "this He did once for all," are said respecting Himself also, hear what he says: "For the law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity." On this account they both offer continually, and for themselves. He however who is mighty, He that hath no sin, why should He offer for Himself, or oftentimes for others?

"He does not need, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices daily." Not only, he says, is the difference from the sinless one in relation to the Jewish priests, but also from the manner of the sacrifice, that He does not offer for Himself first, then for the people, and that He made the sacrifice once for the people only. "like the high priests." That is, of the Jews. "he did this once for all." What is this? To offer himself as a sacrifice for the people. For himself, he did not do so even once. For he had no need, being sinless, to offer for himself. Therefore, when you hear him called a high priest, think of him as always being a priest. For having done this once, he sat down at the right hand of the Father. For to minister is to stand. But to sit down indicates that having offered the sacrifice once, namely, his own body, he has sat down; ministering under the authority of spiritual powers.

Having said that our High Priest is "separated from sinners," he now expands on this and says that He is so free from sins that, even having offered His own body as a sacrifice, He did not offer it for Himself — for how is this possible when He committed no sin? — but for us. There is, however, also another advantage. The high priests under the law offered sacrifices daily, since they were unable to cleanse all at once; but He offered a sacrifice having such great power that through it He cleansed the world in a single time. Thus, Christ in this respect also surpasses the priests.

What does this mean? That He offered a sacrifice for the sins of men, and not for Himself. "Once," he says, He performed the sacred rite, and after this He sat down at the right hand of the Father, as Lord. Lest you, hearing that He is a priest, should think that He constantly stands and performs sacred rites, he shows that He became a priest according to the dispensation. And when the dispensation was completed, He again assumed His own majesty.

376. – Then when he says, He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins, he removes from Him anything that was imperfect in the priesthood of the Law. But what was imperfect was that he needed the sacrifices of atonement: 'He shall offer the calf for himself; and the goat for the people' (Lev. 16:11). Therefore, he prayed for himself; and not only once but frequently. The reason for this is that the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests: 'A weak man and of a short time' (Wis. 9:5). But the word of the oath established the Son (Who had none of these imperfections, but was completely perfect), Who is after the Law, a priest to continue forever. For He did not offer for His own sins but for ours: 'He was wounded for our iniquities' (Is. 53:5). Nor did He offer for us frequently, but only once: 'Christ died for our sins' (1 Pt. 3:18). For His one offering is enough to take away the sins of the entire human race.

"The law appointed" weak "men as high priests" who certainly needed to offer sacrifices for their sins. "The word of the oath," however, "which" was provided in David "later than the law, appointed the Son" who remains "perfect forever."

"But the word of the oath which was since the Law maketh the Son who has been consecrated for evermore." "Consecrated": what is that? Paul does not set down the common terms of contradistinction; for after saying "having Infirmity," he did not say "the Son" who is mighty, but "consecrated": i.e. mighty, as one might say. Thou seest that the name Son is used in contradistinction to that of servant. And by "infirmity" he means either sin or death.

What is, "for evermore"? Not now only without sin but always. If then He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives always, why shall He offer many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist strongly on this point: but what he does strongly insist upon is, His not offering on His own behalf.

"For the law appoints men."And for whose sake did he not need, he says, to offer a sacrifice for himself? Nor did he often offer for the people, as the high priests do, but having offered once, he was sufficient; why? Because the priests who are appointed from the law are under sin. Therefore, they must always offer a sacrifice for both themselves and the people. But God, by the oath made after the law, appointing the high priest Christ, who is the Son, established him as a perfect priest, and not subject to the same weakness and sin as those according to the law, once as the Son of God and God, "has been made perfect forever." In common. He established him as a priest, he says, for made perfect forever, that is, not only now being without sin, but also to be such for all time. If then he is both Son and perfect forever, for whose sake was he to need many sacrifices?

Lest you think that although He offered once, yet it was also for Himself, he now proves that He did not offer for His own sins. For "the law appoints as high priests" ordinary men "who have weaknesses," that is, those who cannot resist sin, but who themselves, being weak, are subject to falls. But He, as the Son, being so powerful, how could He have sin? And having no sin, why would He offer a sacrifice for Himself? But even for others, not many times, but "once." As almighty, He was able through a single offering of sacrifice to accomplish everything. By "weakness" understand, as Paul himself says in many places, sin and even death. For since the high priests under the law were mortal and weak, they themselves were not sinless, and they could not cleanse others. But He is immortal and powerful. Listen also to what follows next.

Observe the oppositions. There the law, here the word of oath, that is, the most certain, the most true; there men, of course servants, here the Son, that is to say, the Lord; there the weak, that is, those who stumble, who have sins, who are subject to death — but here the one who is perfect forever, that is, eternal, almighty, not only now but always sinless. Therefore, if He is perfect, if He never sins, if He is always alive, then for what reason would He have offered a sacrifice for Himself, or indeed many times for others?

He calls the heavens "the tent" in this passage. In my opinion he seems to then call the flesh of the Lord "the true tent," which also the Lord himself fashioned when he was not yet man, considering that immaculate flesh did not come into existence by human coupling but by the Holy Spirit.

If one assigns to the Father the upper place by way of precedence and asserts that the only begotten Son sits below, he will find that all the consequent conditions of body attach to the creature of his imagination. And if these are the imaginations of drunken delusion and frenzied insanity, can it be consistent with true religion for people taught by the Lord himself that "he that honors not the Son honors not the Father" to refuse to worship and glorify with the Father him who in nature, in glory and in dignity is conjoined with him? What shall we say? What just defense shall we have in the day of the awful universal judgment of all creation, if, when the Lord clearly announces that he will come "in the glory of his Father";9 when Stephen beheld Jesus standing at the right hand of God; when Paul testified in the Spirit concerning Christ "that he is at the right hand of God";11 when the Father says, "Sit at my right hand"; when the Holy Spirit bears witness that he has sat down on "the right hand of the majesty" of God—what defense shall we have when we attempt to degrade him, who shares the honor and the throne, from his condition of equality to a lower state? Standing and sitting, I apprehend, indicate the permanence and entire stability of the nature, as Baruch, when he wishes to exhibit the immutability and immobility of the divine mode of existence, says, "For you sit forever and we perish utterly." Moreover, the place on the right hand indicates, in my judgment, equality of honor. It is rash, then, to attempt to deprive the Son of participation in the doxology, as though worthy only to be ranked in a lower place of honor.

We must here again observe that he (Paul) speaks of the Tabernacle which was pitched by God, namely heaven, as the true. Moreover he calls heaven that perfect Tabernacle not made with hands, as it was created by God. For he calls the Tabernacle which Moses prepared made with hands. And further in contrast with the Tabernacle prepared by Moses, he calls the other the true, because it abides for ever, while the former is dissolved.

We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man —as if he said: the Lord Christ had been taken up into the heavens, into the true Tabernacle, that is, one which is permanent and indissoluble. For the expression true indicates that it is indissoluble, since that which was prepared by Moses was dissolved; this one as being indissoluble, by way of distinction and in contrast with the other, he calls the true—as being permanent and firm and indissoluble.

Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it to be spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away.

"The point in what we are saying," that is, the discussion which we have undertaken with regard to priesthood and the law, is now presented to you according to what I have said above. "We have such a high priest" of the high priests, who does not stand before the ark of alliance but "who," by ascending, "is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven."Moreover, he, who was so entirely praised, was "a minister in the sanctuary" in the very tabernacle of truth—that is, either in the kingdom of heaven, as he promised, or in this world, as he actually did by washing the feet of his disciples.

Paul mixes the lowly things with the lofty, ever imitating his Master, so that the lowly become the path to the lofty, and through the former we are led to the latter, and when we are amid the great things we learn that these lowly ones were a condescension. This accordingly he does here also. After declaring that "He offered up Himself," and showing Him to be a "High Priest," what does he say? "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: we have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty." And yet this is not the office of a Priest, but of Him whom the Priest should serve.

"A minister of the sanctuary," not simply a minister, but "a minister of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man." Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" (supra, i. 14) and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, "Sit thou on my right hand," (supra, i. 13) for He that sitteth is not a minister. How is it then that it is here said, "a minister," and "a minister of the Sanctuary"? for he means here the Tabernacle.

See how he raised up the minds of the believing Jews. For as they would be apt to imagine that we have no such tabernacle as they had, see here (he says) is the Priest, Great, yea, much greater than the other, and who has offered a more wonderful sacrifice. But is not all this mere talk? is it not a boast, and merely said to win over our minds? on this account he established it first from the oath, and afterwards also from "the tabernacle." For this difference too was manifest: but the Apostle thinks of another also, "which" (he says) "the Lord pitched [or "made firm"] and not man." Where are they who say that the heaven whirls around? where are they who declare that it is spherical? for both of these notions are overthrown here.

"Now" (he says) "of the things which we have spoken this is the sum." By "the sum" is always meant what is most important. Again he brings down his discourse; having said what is lofty, henceforward he speaks fearlessly.

Let people therefore learn and understand why the Most High God willed that he should be clothed with mortal flesh, afflicted with torture and sentenced to death when he sent his ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of his righteousness. For since there was no righteousness on earth, he sent a teacher, as it were, a living law to found a new name and temple so that, by his words and example, he might spread throughout the earth a true and holy worship. However, in order that people might know for sure that he was sent by God, it was fitting that he should not be born as human beings are born, composed of a mortal on both sides. Rather, so that it might appear that he was heavenly even in the form of man, he was born without the office of a father. For he had a spiritual Father—God. And, as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father. He was therefore both God and man, being placed in the middle between God and man. From which the Greeks call him Mesitēs, that he might be able to lead humankind to God—that is, to immortality. For if he had been God only (as we have before said), he would not have been able to afford to people examples of goodness; if he had been man only, he would not have been able to compel people to righteousness, unless there had been added an authority and virtue greater than that of man.

"Moreover, the main point." He always calls that which is greatest the main point. Whenever someone intends to summarize the main points briefly, he says that the discourse is made into a point; just as the head, though small, is the most important part of the body. Therefore, the apostle also says now: "Moreover, the main point of what we say is this"—that is, to say the greatest and most comprehensive, we have a God as high priest; for the priesthood belongs to no one else but God. "we have such a high priest." This mixes the humble with the awe-inspiring in this place, so that through the humble it may prepare the way for the awe-inspiring. The humble are to be a priest and an administrator; the awe-inspiring is to sit at the right hand of God and in the heavens. "of the throne of majesty." He calls it the throne of majesty, the paternal throne, or that majesty might also be said to belong to the Father; or simply thus, the throne of majesty, the greatest throne.

When he serves and ministers, it is for this purpose: to cleanse humans from their sins and to make them holy. For it is fitting for the minister and creator of the saints to sit at the right hand of the Father as true God and his Son.

For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners.

He left till last the greatest honor, presenting him seated at the right hand of the throne of majesty. Aaron, the forebear of priests, remember, who was the first to receive the role of high priesthood, entered the divine sanctuary with fear and trembling, whereas this person has a seat at the right hand. He included the word minister, of course, because he is speaking of a high priest. What ministry does he discharge after offering himself once and for all, and no longer offering a further sacrifice? How is it possible for him at one and the same time to be seated and to minister? Only if you were to say the ministry is the salvation of human beings, which he procures in lordly fashion.

By "tent" he referred to heaven, where the apostle said he was ministering as man, though being its creator.

The chief point is always what is called the most important thing; when someone wishes to convey the most essential matter in few words, he says that he is directing attention to this above all else, just as the head, though small in size, constitutes the most important part of the body. So now the apostle says: "The chief point of what we are saying," that is, I will state the most important thing that briefly encompasses much: we have God as our High Priest. For sitting belongs to no one other than God. Notice how, after saying much that is lowly, namely that the High Priest intercedes before the Father, and what pertains to the humanity, he ascends to what is lofty and what pertains to the Divinity. He always does this, just as his Teacher does in the Gospel, so that through the lowly he may guide the listener to receive the word — for otherwise the listener does not understand if he does not ascend gradually — while through the exalted he teaches that the lowly was condescension. He calls it "the throne of majesty," meaning the throne of the Father, either because the Father could be called Majesty for Him, or simply because "the throne of majesty" is the highest throne.

377. – Having proved the excellence of Christ's priesthood over that of the Levitical on the part of the person, the Apostle now proves the same on the part of the priesthood itself. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows in a general way that Christ's priesthood is more excellent than that of the Old Law; secondly, in detail (chap. 9). The first is divided into two parts: first, he states his thesis; secondly, he explains it (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states the way in which he will present his teaching; secondly, he prefaces what he means to say (v. 1b).

378. – He says, therefore: Now the point in what we are saying is this [recapitulation]. A recapitulation is a brief synthesis containing many things. The word comes from 'caput' or 'head,' because, just as in the head are virtually and, as it were, summarily, contained all the things which are in the body, is in a recapitulation everything that has been said.

379. – Then (v. 1b) he prefaces what he means to say: first, the dignity of this priesthood; secondly, its office (v. 2).

380. – Its dignity is that we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. The throne is judicial power, which befits certain persons as ministers of God, as all kings: 'All the kings of the earth will adore him' (Ps. 71:11), and all prelates: 'Let a man so account of us as of Christ's ministers (1 Cor. 4:1). Therefore, because Christ has judicial power, He is said to sit: 'For the Father has given all judgment to the Son' (Jn. 5:22). But because He has this in the most excellent manner after God, He sits on the right hand of majesty in the heavens, i.e., in the more prominent goods: 'He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high' (Heb. 1:3).

381. – The expression, 'is seated,' can be referred to Christ as God, and then He is seated in that way, because He has the same authority as the Father, although distinct in person; and so 'majesty' is taken for the person of the Father. Or, to Christ as man: and this is more in keeping with the Apostle's intention, because he is speaking about the high priesthood of Christ, Who is a high priest as man. So He is seated in that way, because the assumed humanity has a certain association to the godhead; and He sits at the right hand to judge: 'Your majesty has been elevated above the heavens' (Ps. 8:3); 'He gave him power to judge, because he is the Son of man' (Jn. 5:27).

Isaiah again says: Thus saith the Lord, he that made the heaven and pitched it; and the Apostle in like manner says: Of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. They both speak of the heaven as standing on and fixed on the earth, and not as revolving round it.

Let men therefore learn and understand why the Most High God, when He sent His ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of His righteousness, willed that He should be clothed with mortal flesh, and be afflicted with torture, and be sentenced to death. For since there was no righteousness on earth, He sent a teacher, as it were a living law, to found a new name and temple, that by His words and example He might spread throughout the earth a true and holy worship. But, however, that it might be certain that He was sent by God, it was befitting that He should not be born as man is born, composed of a mortal on both sides; but that it might appear that He was heavenly even in the form of man, He was born without the office of a father. For He had a spiritual Father, God; and as God was the Father of His spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of His body without a father. He was therefore both God and man, being placed in the middle between God and man. From which the Greeks call Him Mesites, that He might be able to lead man to God-that is, to immortality.

"a minister of the sanctuary." The High Priest, he says, is of men who have been sanctified by him. For he is our High Priest. If he sat at the right hand of the Father, how is he a minister? For it is proper for ministers to stand and serve; but to sit is the role of God to whom the ministry is rendered. But, as has been said, the humble mingles with the awe-inspiring, so that by sitting he may show divinity, and by ministering the guardianship and humanity concerning us.

For this is the ministry and this is the priesthood, to cleanse men from sins and to make them holy. For such a minister and worker of the saints must sit at the right hand of the Father as the true God and Son.

"and of the true tabernacle." Here, he refers to the heavens as the tabernacle. For they were saying, perhaps, the believers from Judea: If he is a high priest, where is the tabernacle in which he performs his priestly duties? He indicates that there is also a tabernacle, and the difference of it compared to the Jewish tabernacle, wanting to show that it was established by the Lord and not by man.

Just as the earthly high priests served when entering the Holy of Holies, so too He is truly the minister of the holy, true, heavenly sanctuaries. It would seem that Paul here contradicts himself. For in the beginning he said: "To which of the Angels did God ever say: 'Sit at My right hand…'? Are they not all ministering spirits…?" (Heb. 1:13–14), as if giving to understand that a minister ought not to sit. But now, having said "sat down at the right hand of the throne," he again presents Him as a minister. So how does he say this, if not out of complete condescension toward his listeners, mixing the lowly with the exalted? And some understood "minister of the saints" as meaning minister of those people sanctified by Him. For, he says (the Apostle Paul), He is our High Priest.

Here he encourages the Jews who had believed. For since they were probably perplexed, saying: we do not have such a tabernacle, behold, he says, a greater and true tabernacle – heaven itself. For the Old Testament tabernacle was a figure of this one: and that one was pitched by man, either Bezaleel (Exod. 31:2) or Moses, but this one – by God. And here note, according to Saint John Chrysostom, that heaven neither moves nor is spherical: for the expression "pitched" excludes both the one and the other.

382. – Then when he says, a minister of the holies, he shows the dignity of his office. He says, minister of the sanctuary [holies], i.e., of the holy precincts, namely, of the sanctuary. For the ministers of old received the ministry of guarding sacred things and serving the tabernacle. But Christ had this in a more excellent manner, because He is a minister, not inasmuch as He is God, for then He is the author, but inasmuch as He is man: 'And passing he will minister until them' (Lk. 12:37). For the humanity of Christ is an organ of the divinity. Therefore, He is the minister of the holies, because He administers the sacraments of grace in the present life and of glory in the future. He is also the minister of the true tent [tabernacle] that cannot be removed' (Is. 33:20); 'Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle?' (Ps. 14:1). But the man Christ is a minister because all the goods of glory are dispensed by Him. But he says, of the true, for two reasons: first, because of its difference from the Old, which was a figure of it: 'Now all these things happened to them in figure' (1 Cor. 10:11). The New, therefore, is the truth of the former. Therefore, it is true, i.e., containing the truth in relations to the figure. Secondly, because the former was made by a man, but the other, namely, of grace and of glory by God alone: 'The Lord will give grace and glory' (Ps. 83:12); 'The grace of God, life everlasting' (Rom. 6:23). Hence, he says, which is set up not by man but by the Lord: 'We know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in heaven' (2 Cor. 5:1).