Hebrews 9:8–23

"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." For this cause (he says) have these things been thus "ordained," that we might learn that "the Holy of Holies," that is, Heaven, is as yet inaccessible. Let us not then think (he says) that because we do not enter them, they have no existence: inasmuch as neither did we enter the Most Holy place.

"made clear by the Holy Spirit." For this reason, he says, the tabernacle was thus constructed, where the lampstand and the table of showbread are in the first sanctuary, and since the remaining priests ascend into the Holy of Holies, it is evident that heaven remains inaccessible. For the Holy of Holies is a type of heaven. But only the high priest enters there, which was a type that only Christ, the true high priest, has ascended into heaven. But thereafter, having ascended, he brought in the race of mankind, for before this it was inaccessible. Now, however, it has become accessible through Christ. "not yet been made clear." It is not yet a path that is walkable and accessible to the heavens, which Christ first initiated. "was still standing," he says, and in a certain way blocking the passage to the Holy of Holies.

We indeed who are of the church rightly receive Moses and read his writings, believing that he is a prophet who wrote down the future mysteries which God revealed to him in symbols, figures and allegorical forms, which we teach were fulfilled in their own time. But whoever does not receive such an understanding in him, whether one of the Jews or even one of us, certainly cannot teach that he is a prophet. For how will he prove he is a prophet whose writings he asserts to be common, containing no knowledge of the future or anything of a hidden mystery? Whoever thinks thus the divine word censures, saying, "Do you understand what you are reading?"Therefore, the law and all the things that are in the law are, according to the opinion of the apostle, "imposed until the time of reformation." … Those whose craft is to make tokens from copper and to pour statues, before they produce a true work of copper or of silver or of gold, must first form figures from clay to the likeness of the figure image. (The model is necessary only until the work that is principal is completed, for when that work for which that image was made of clay is completed, its use is no longer sought.) [Thus we] understand also something like this in these things which were written or done "in a type" and in a figure of the future in the law and prophets. For the artist and creator of all himself came and transformed "the law which has but a shadow of the good things to come" to "the true form of these realities." But lest perhaps the things we say appear difficult for you to be able to prove, examine them one by one. First, there was Jerusalem, that great, royal city, where the most renowned temple had been constructed for God. But after that, one who was the true temple of God came and said about the temple of his body, "Destroy this temple," and began to open the mysteries "of the heavenly Jerusalem." This earthly place was destroyed, and the heavenly became visible, and in the temple "stone" did not remain "upon stone" from the time when the flesh of Christ was made the true temple of God. First there was a high priest who purified the people "by the blood of bulls and goats"; but when the true high priest who "sanctifies" believers "through his own blood" came, that first high priest existed no more, and neither was any place left for him. First there was the altar, and sacrifices were being celebrated; but when the true Lamb came who "gave himself up as an offering to God," all these other, as it were, temporary institutions ceased. Therefore, does it not seem to you that, according to the figure set forth above, there were some models made from clay, as it were, through which true images were represented? Finally, for this reason, the divine dispensation provided that the city and the temple and all those as well be overthrown, lest he who is perhaps still "a child and feeding on milk of the faith" be enraptured by the view itself of the diverse forms, if he should see them standing and be astonished and amazed during the ritual of sacrifices and during the order of the services. But God, watching out for our weakness and desiring his church to be multiplied, made all these to be overthrown and taken away completely, so that without any hesitation, when those ceased, we might believe these to be true for which the type was contained in advance in them.

Inserting thus the particle of present time, "And now," He shows that He had made for a time, and at present, a prolongation of man's life. Therefore He did not actually curse Adam and Eve, for they were candidates for restoration, and they had been relieved by confession.

We are being taught through figures, he is saying, that the law bears of this life and is appropriate for those who still have a moral nature.… He also clearly taught us in these words that he does not reject the law as a whole—only the regulations about eating and drinking, menstruation, leprosy, childbirth and periods; they washed themselves and purified themselves with sprinkling, but none of this could make the conscience pure. Now none of these was imposed without reason but to meet some need, specifying which is not relevant at the present time. They were all temporary, however, looking forward to the time of perfection.

Finally, he begins to consider more loftily the matters concerning the tabernacles, and says that since the Holy of Holies, as an image of heaven, was inaccessible to the other priests, while the first tabernacle, that is, the first one located directly beyond the bronze altar, was always accessible to them, being a symbol of the legal service, this symbolically indicated that as long as this tabernacle stands, that is, as long as the law remains in force and the legal services are performed according to the law, the way of the saints, that is, entry into heaven, is inaccessible to those who perform such services. For them it was not only not open, but also closed, and this way was prepared for the One High Priest Christ alone.

428. – Hence, he continues: the Holy Spirit signifying this, where he explains what is signified by this: first, in regard to the Old Testament; secondly, in regard to the New (v. 11). In the first part he does two things: first, he describes the office of the ministers in regard to the first; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 9).

429. – It should be noted that the priests entered into the holies every day; but into the second, which was beyond the veil the high priest alone once a year. Hence, in regard to those ministers there were two things there: one that entered everyday in the first; the other that there was a veil in front of the second. Hence, the interposition of the veil signifies that heavenly things were veiled from them. Furthermore, the fact that they did not enter signifies that the Old Testament is not the way to enter heaven before Christ's coming. He says, therefore: I say that this was thus accomplished, the Holy Spirit indicating this: 'Prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit' (2 Pt 1:21). This is against the heretics who say that the Old Testament was not from the Holy Spirit, but from an evil god. By indicating what? That the way into the holies was not yet made opened, as long as the former tabernacle, i.e., the Old Testament signified by the first tabernacle, was still standing. For as long as the Old Testament endured, the way into the holies, namely, Christ, Who says: 'I am the way' (Jn. 14:6) had not yet come; for He is the door by which one enters into the holies: 'I am the door' (Jn. 10:9). But He was not yet made manifest, because He was still hiding under the shadows of the figures of the letter: 'For the law having a shadow of the good things to come' (Heb. 10:1), which is symbolic for the present age, or leading us to the things which occur at the present time.

"Which" (he says) "was established as a figure for the time then present." What does he mean by "the time present"? That before the coming of Christ: For after the coming of Christ, it is no longer a time present: For how could it be, having arrived, and being ended?

There is too something else which he indicates, when he says this, "which was a figure for the time then present," that is, became the Type. "In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." Thou seest now what is the meaning of "The Law made nothing perfect," and "If that first covenant had been faultless." How? "As pertaining to the conscience." For the sacrifices did not put away the defilement from the soul, but still were concerned with the body: "after the law of a carnal commandment." For certainly they could not put away adultery, nor murder, nor sacrilege. Seest thou? Thou hast eaten this, Thou hast not eaten that, which are matters of indifference. "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings." "Thou hast drunk this," he says: and yet nothing has been ordained concerning drink, but he said this, treating them as trifles.

"And in divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation." For this is the righteousness of the flesh. Here he depreciates the sacrifices, showing that they had no efficacy, and that they existed "till the time of reformation," that is, they waited for the time that reformeth all things.

"which was a symbol." He says, a type of those in the tabernacle, for the time then present, from which they are fulfilled, he says, and have an end. And justly. For if those were a type of Christ, it is fitting that with the revelation of Christ, the types are fulfilled, and they have an end. "according to which gifts and sacrifices were offered." In which a symbol and according to which type the offerings of both giftsand sacrifices were offered, "which could not perfect the worshiper in regard to conscience." As if he said, In which type, that is, in the priestly service according to the law, the sacrifices were offered, but they were not able to cleanse the soul and conscience. For being bodily, they cleansed the body. "in regard to conscience;" or according to the soul. "which could not perfect the worshiper." Not even those who offered the sacrifices could be purified.

What he said above, the apostle now affirms, namely, that the tabernacle into which the priests always entered was a parable, that is, a figure and shadow of the present time according to the law, the time before the coming of Christ: during this time such sacrifices are offered, and ones so weak, that they cannot "in conscience," that is, according to the inner man, make perfect those who offer them. They cleansed bodily defilements, but not sins of the soul. They could not cleanse either adultery, or murder, or sacrilege.

430. – Then (v. 9b) he states the reason why the entrance into the holy of holies was closed during the state of the Old Law. For no one enters into it, unless he is perfect: 'It shall be called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it' (Is. 35:8). Hence, where there was no cleansing and no perfection, there was no entrance into it. But the Old Testament was unable to make perfect those who served it, because the sacrifice had not yet been offered that would satisfy for the sin of the whole human race; hence, he says. According to this, namely, parable or figure, gifts and sacrifices are offered, which refers to the clause, accomplishing the offices of sacrifice, because gifts of all things and offerings of animals were not offered in the holy of holies, but in the holies or in the court of the tabernacle. But they were unable to cleanse, because they cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper that serves with the service of latria, which pertains to divine worship. I say, perfect the conscience. For cleansing is of two kinds: one from the stain of sin and debt of punishment as to the conscience. The Law cannot do this: 'It is impossible that with the blood of the oxen and goats sin should be taken away' (Heb. 10:4); 'Offer sacrifices no more in vain' (Is. 1:13); 'May the Lord be appeased with thousands of rams, or with many thousands of fat he-goats' (Mic 6:7). The other cleansing was in regard to divine service, in order that one might lawfully minister at such sacrifices; and thus it cleansed.

431. – But were many perfect in the Old Law? It seems so; for it was said to Abraham: 'Walk before me and be perfect' (Gen. 17:1). Furthermore, Moses and many others were very saintly and perfect. I answer that although there were many holy and perfect persons then, it was not from the works of the Law: 'The law brought nothing to perfection' (Heb. 7:19); but this was by faith in Christ: 'Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him unto justice' (Gen. 15:6). Therefore, this was not in virtue of the ceremonies and practices of the law: hence, it is frequently stated there: 'And the priest will pray for him' (Lev. 5:10) and in many other places. Therefore, that it cleansed was due to faith. But in the New Testament it says in Mk (16:16): 'He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.' But there is no salvation without the sacraments of the New Law: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven' (Jn. 3:5).

"only." By hyperbaton [ὑπερβατὸν], the word imposed is to be joined: "in foods and drinks." The sacrifices and worship offered, he says, could not render anyone perfect concerning the soul, but only had power regarding the flesh and carnal matters: and in this, they satisfied the offerers so that they would eat this and not eat that, and that they would be washed with water those who had communicated, or were made common and unclean; which are the justifications of the flesh, that is, purifying the flesh, and not at all the soul; not at all the inner man, but were exercised concerning the outer. But how did he say, "and drinks," although the law did not make a distinction concerning drinks? This, then, he says, concerns the priest not drinking wine when he was about to enter the sanctuary; or also concerning vows, that is, promises, concerning abstaining from wine; simply belittling such ordinances and ridiculing them, this is what he said. "and various baptisms." There were various baptisms. For if someone touched a dead body, or a leper, or someone became afflicted with gonorrhea, they were baptized, and in this way it was thought they were being purified. But these were just ordinances of the flesh, fleshly things cleansing the flesh, and nowhere the soul, nowhere the mind, nor concerning the inner man, but they were concerned with the outer. However, they were not meant to last forever, but only until the time ofrestructuring. And what is this time of restructuring? Clearly, it is the coming of the Savior, who would correct these things and introduce true and spiritual worship. "Imposed." It is well said, "imposed"; for the burden was only those things in the law, as the apostles say; "Which neither we, he says, nor our fathers were able to bear." (Acts 15:10)

They, he says, were established only for the people of that time and are connected with instructions concerning foods and drinks. Eat this, but do not eat that. Why did he say "drinks"? For the law said nothing about distinctions in drinks. He says this either concerning the priest, that he must not drink wine when he intends to enter the sanctuary; or concerning those who had made vows, that is, promises of abstinence from wine, such as the Nazirites; or he said this simply with the aim of devaluing and diminishing these ordinances. The washings were various. If someone touched a dead body or a leper, and if someone suffered from a discharge of seed, he would wash and thus appeared to be cleansed. Carnal ordinances are precisely fleshly commandments, purifying the flesh and carnally justifying those who were considered unclean according to the flesh. However, they were not established permanently, but "until the time of reformation," that is, until the coming of Christ, who was to set all things right and introduce true and spiritual worship. And since the law was a heavy yoke, it was probably for this reason that he said "imposed." As it is also written in Acts: "Now therefore why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10).

432. – But why did they not cleanse the conscience? Because they consisted only in food and drink. But that which is altogether corporeal does not cleanse the soul, because it does not act on the soul. He says, therefore, in food and drink, i.e., in distinguishing meats and drinks that were forbidden in the Old Law, because abstaining from these does not cleanse the conscience; or else this refers to the use of the sacrifices, because the priests ate what was offered for sins. For they did not cleanse the conscience: 'Shall the holy flesh take away from your crimes?' (Jer. 11:15).

433. – And in various ablutions, because as it says in Mk (7:4), the Jews observed the washing of cups and of pots, and when they returned from the market, they did not eat until they were washed. Against this the Lord says (Mt. 23:25): 'Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees: because you make clean the outside of the cup and dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.' Yet the Apostle is not speaking here about the superstitions of the Pharisees. Therefore, we must go to the other washings commanded in the Law, such as the water in which the priests washed, and the water of purification in the cleansing of leprosy or defilement.

434. – Hence, they are regulations for the body. He adds this universally of all. He calls those ceremonies regulations for the body, i.e., fleshly, because they pertained only to bodily cleanness, and there was no spiritual power in them. And in order that no one ask: Why were they instituted, if they could not bring perfection; because it would then seem that God instituted them to no purpose, he rejects this when he says, until the time of correction. As if to say: It is true that they were instituted uselessly, if they were to continue forever. But as it is necessary first to give a child a pedagogue, and when he reaches perfect age, he is given a mode of behavior based on the judgment of the ruler of the republic; so in the Old Law were instituted things that look to imperfection. But when the perfect time came, the things which lead to perfection should have been introduced. Hence, he says, until the time of correction, i.e., in which they could be corrected, not as evil but as imperfect: 'For the law is good' (Rom. 7:12); 'Mildness is come upon us, and we shall be corrected' (Ps. 89:10).

"The Jews said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' " They answered as they understood. But lest we too should perceive our Lord's spiritual word in a carnal way, the Evangelist subsequently explained what temple it was of which he was speaking.… This number forty-six of years is most apt for the perfecting of our Lord's physical body. Writers of natural history tell us that the form of the human body is completed within this number of days. During the first six days after conception it has a likeness to milk; during the following nine days it is changed into blood; next, in twelve days it becomes solid; during the remaining eighteen days it is formed into the perfect features of all its members; and after this, during the time remaining until birth, it increases in size. Six plus nine plus twelve plus eighteen make forty-five. If to this we add one, that is the day on which the body, divided into its separate members, begins to grow. We find the same number of days in the building up of our Lord's body as there were years in the construction of the temple.And because that temple made by human hands prefigured our Lord's most sacred body, which he took from the Virgin, and in like manner pointed to his body which is the church, and to the body and soul of each one of the faithful, as we find in quite a few places in the Scriptures.

And then when explaining the second Tabernacle he speaks thus: But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the Holy place having obtained eternal redemption; as if he said: Just as the high priest once a year enters into the inner Tabernacle through the blood of goats and calves, making propitiation for the people, so also Christ entered into the Tabernacle not made with hands, that is, into heaven, having once for all procured eternal redemption.

Wherefore the Apostle Paul says that Christ having come as high priest of the heavens, entered into the higher place with his own blood, just as the earthly high priest entered into the inner tabernacle with the blood of others; and just as the Tabernacle here is small and made with hands, and, as being but a type, is imperfect and dissoluble, so the heavenly is great, and not made with hands, and is steadfast and true and eternal and indissoluble, and in it is the eternal redemption.

In order that, having again drawn back the veil of the word, we may with unveiled face behold the festival of the divine Passover, appealing thus to Jesus: Where wilt thou that we prepare to eat the Passover with thee? On receiving his reply that this feast was to be celebrated in an upper chamber, a chamber, that is, of second things, the disciples with alacrity of heart betook themselves with all speed to enter the Holy of Holies, into which Christ Himself hath entered for us, and hath done away with any further need of the typical High Priest, having obtained eternal redemption for us, and on our behalf presenting Himself before the face of God. Formerly indeed the High Priest alone once a year entered into the Holy of Holies, the people remaining without by reason of the littleness of their power. But the Saviour having entered in, has given full liberty of access to all who wish.

All these things, as I have said, were performed according to rules by infirm priests up to the time when God made a correction. From that time "Christ" came "as a high priest" not of sacrifices but of "good things." And he entered "the tent"—not a small one "made with hands" but a huge and perfect one, which is not the product of human work—"that is, not of this creation," because it was made out of nothing, unlike that tent which was erected with the spoils of the Egyptians.

"But Christ being come an High Priest of good things that are come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands." Here he means the flesh. And well did he say, "greater and more perfect," since God The Word and all the power of The Spirit dwells therein; "For God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him." And "more perfect," as being both unblamable, and setting right greater things.

"That is, not of this creation." See how it was "greater." For it would not have been "of the Spirit", if man had constructed it. Nor yet is it "of this creation"; that is, not of these created things, but spiritual, of the Holy Ghost.

Seest thou how he calls the body tabernacle and veil and heaven. "By a greater and more perfect tabernacle. Through the veil, that is, His flesh." And again, "into that within the veil." And again, "entering into the Holy of Holies, to appear before the face of God." Why then doth he this? According as one thing or a different one is signified. I mean for instance, the Heaven is a veil, for as a veil it walls off the Holy of Holies; the flesh is a veil hiding the Godhead; and the tabernacle likewise holding the Godhead. Again, Heaven is a tabernacle: for the Priest is there within.

"But Christ" (he says) "being come an High Priest": he did not say, "become," but "being come," that is, having come for this very purpose, not having been successor to another. He did not come first and then become High Priest, but came and became at the same time. And he did not say "being come an High Priest" of things which are sacrificed, but "of good things that are come," as if his discourse had not power to put the whole before us.

"But Christ, having come as a high priest." The old covenant high priests, Paul says, worship did not enter into the heavens; but Christ, having come, entered once for all into the holy place; for here the meaning is given. He did not say, "having become a high priest", but having come as a high priest, that is, having come for this purpose. He did not come first, and then, after this happened, become a high priest; but the purpose of his coming to earth was the priesthood. "of the good things to come." He did not say, High Priest of those being sacrificed, but, of the future good things, the good things that have evidently come to us; since the word could not fully present everything precisely, he simply and vaguely called good those things that have come to us; but he said these are future, as to the time of the law. For just as he called that one present, so he calls those future things according to Christ, as in comparison to that one; or even of the mysteries that will be revealed to us in the coming age. "through the greater and more perfect tabernacle." He refers to the body of Christ as the tabernacle, because in it all the fullness of deity dwells bodily. (Col. 2:9) "Greater", because it is God; more perfect, because it perfects those who draw near to Him.

Here a not-made-by-hand tabernacle called the human nature, which the Lord Christ took upon Himself. For it was not made according to the law of marriage, but the Most Holy Spirit prepared the tabernacle. And the phrase, Not of this creation, instead of, Not according to the law of nature, which is governed in creation.

"not made with hands." Not according to the imitation, he says, of the tabernacle among the Jews. For here he called the tabernacle not made with hands the human nature that Christ the Lord took on. For it is not only a marriage chamber that is prepared for the marriages, but the most Holy Spirit has constructed the tabernacle. And the phrase, "not of this creation," instead of "Not according to the law of nature as it is governed in creation." "Not of this creation." The body of Christ, and this was of creation, and not of this. Of this, inasmuch as it is and is similar to our body, but not of this, inasmuch as it possesses the divinity without confusion and without division. Therefore, what is said to the Apostle, "Not of this creation," accept as pertaining to the possession of divinity. As for the body itself, it was consubstantial with ours. The fact that it was not of this creation, he says, from which the tabernacle of the Jews came. For since he had called the body of Christ a tabernacle, it was necessary to prescribe words of this kind. "nor by the blood of goats and calves." For it was Jewish, and through which the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies. "He entered once and for all into the Holy Place." That is, into heaven. "having obtained eternal redemption." That is, having succeeded, he found eternal redemption. Not for himself, (for how could the sinless one?) but for his people.

Since the head of humanity deemed it fitting to be, the Apostle says that the things which were obtained for us were obtained by Him.

It ought to be observed that the priest uses certain clothes while he is in the ministry of sacrifices and other clothes when he goes out to the people. Paul, the wisest of the high priests and the most knowledgeable of the priests, used to do this. When he was in the assembly of the perfect or, as it were, placed in the "Holy of Holies," having put on the robe of perfection, he used to say, "Among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God.… None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." But nevertheless, after all these things, "going out to the people," he changes his robe and puts on another one, greatly inferior to that one. And what does he say? "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." You see, therefore, how this most learned priest, when he is among the perfect ones as in "the Holy of Holies," uses one robe of doctrine. But when "he goes out" to those who are not capable, he changes the robe of the word and teaches lesser things. And he gives to some "milk" to drink as "children," to others he gives "solid food," of course, for those who, insofar as they are able, "have their faculties trained to distinguish good from evil." Thus, Paul knew how to change robes and to use one with the people, another in the ministry of the sanctuary.But the high priest of high priests, and the priest of priests, is our Lord and Savior, about whom the apostle said, "He is a high priest of the good things that have come." Hear how first he did these things and so left them for his disciples to imitate. The Gospel refers to this, saying, "In parables he spoke to the crowds, and without parables he did not speak to them. But separately he explained them to his disciples." You see how he taught that the high priest ought to use certain garments when he went out "to the crowds" and others when he ministered to the experienced and "perfect" in the sanctuary. So we must choose and do, lest Jesus find us so unprepared and bound to the cares of the world that he speaks to us as to the crowds "in parables," that, "seeing, we may not see, and, hearing, we may not hear." Rather, let us be worthy to be found among those to whom he says, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven."

Concerning Christ it is written, "He was to us the first-fruits of the good things which are to come," and Christ the first-fruits hath an affinity with us, and with the good things which are to come unto us, for He became man, and with the good things which are about to be unto us, which by the fore-knowledge of the Father were prepared aforetime for us, for He was God, and He Himself together with God, by His will, which nothing preceded, prepared aforetime these good things for us. So likewise the joy of this world which is born of the freedom from passions hath an affinity with that joy which is about to be given unto those who are worthy thereof, and again the Gehenna of tribulation and sorrow which is born in this world of the ministration of the evil passions is akin unto that Gehenna which is to come. Let us then be earnest to put off the world, and to put off therewith also the passions which spring up in us therefrom, and let us put off also the evil passions, and let us clothe ourselves after them with the living motions of joy and love.

The tent built under Moses was to signify servitude [to the law]. Therefore, the more perfect tent is the dwelling of grace, the body of Christ whose head is Christ himself.

For we now affirm: This is lawful to the Lord alone: may the power of His indulgence be operative at the present day! At those times, however, in which He lived on earth we lay this down definitively, that it is no prejudgment against us if pardon used to be conferred on sinners-even Jewish ones. For Christian discipline dates from the renewing of the Testament, and (as we have premised) from the redemption of flesh-that is, the Lord's passion.

Here he referred to human nature, which Christ the Lord assumed. It was not made in accordance with the law of marriage: the all-holy Spirit was responsible for the tabernacle.

The Old Testament worship, he says, did not lead to heaven. But Christ, "having come," entered once into the Holy Place, for that is where the thought is directed. He did not say "having become" a high priest, but "a High Priest... having come," that is, having come for this very purpose. He did not first come and then, when it happened so, become a High Priest; rather, the goal of His coming to earth was the high priesthood. He did not say a High Priest of sacrificial offerings, but "of good things to come"; since language is powerless to represent everything precisely, he simply and indefinitely called "good things" what has been done for us. He called these good things "to come" as if in relation to the time of the law. For just as he called that time the present, so he calls Christ's time the coming, as if in comparison with it, or also in comparison with the mysteries that are to be revealed to us in the age to come.

Here he means the flesh; it is the greater tabernacle, because in it dwells both God the Word and the entire power of the Spirit. For "God does not give the Spirit by measure" (John 3:34). Being the most perfect tabernacle, it also accomplishes greater things.

Here heretics attack, saying that the body is heavenly and ethereal. However, if the apostle considered His body "heavenly and ethereal," how could he have said that it was "not of this construction"? For heaven is not excluded from the number of created things. So what do his words mean? On the one hand, that the Old Testament tabernacle was constructed by the hands of the craftsman Bezalel and his coworkers (Ex. 31:2–6), while the tabernacle of God the Word was formed by the Spirit. This is why he said that it was "not of this construction," that is, not from these created things, but that it is spiritual and divine. For none of the created things has in itself God the Word by nature; but that one was united with Him by nature. Thus, in material the Lord's body was like ours and of one substance with us, as formed from the pure blood of the Most Holy Virgin; but in the manner of union, it is above us, because by nature it was united with God the Word. Since the materials for the Old Testament tabernacle were wood and skins, gold and silver, bronze and certain fabrics, the apostle, turning his gaze to these things, said that that tabernacle was "not of this construction," such as was needed for the Old Testament tabernacle. In general, he speaks comparatively and shows the superiority of Christ. He calls the Lord's body both a tabernacle, as here, by virtue of the fact that the Only-Begotten dwelt in it, and a veil, because it concealed the Divinity. He also calls heaven by these same names: a tabernacle, because the High Priest is there; a veil (Heb. 10:20), because the saints are sheltered by it.

435. – Having shown the signification of things pertaining to the Old Testament and the first tabernacle, the Apostle now describes the condition of things pertaining to the second tabernacle, which represented the New Testament. Here he does two things: first, he sets forth that signification; secondly, he proves something he had presupposed (v. 13).

436. – It should be noted that if the things already said are considered, five things have already been said of the second tabernacle, namely, who entered it, because it was the high priest; secondly, the dignity and the condition of the place he entered, because it was called the holy of holies; thirdly, how he entered, because he entered with blood; fourthly, when he entered, because once a year; fifthly, why he entered, because it was to expiate for sins. But here the Apostle explains all this, first of all, who enters, namely, Christ. For the high priest is the prince among the priests. But Christ was such: 'And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory' (1 Pt 5:4); 'Having therefore a great high priest that has passed into the heavens' (Heb. 4:14). But every high priest is a dispenser of a testament. However, there are two things to be considered in every testament: namely, the end promised in that testament, and the things handed down in it. But the goods promised in the Old Testament were temporal goods: 'If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land' (Is. 1:19). Therefore, the other was a high priest of temporal goods; But Christ is the high priest of heavenly goods: 'Rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven' (Mt. 5:12). Therefore, He is a high priest of the good things to come, because by His high priesthood we are brought to goods to come: 'We shall be filled with the good things of your house' (Ps. 64:6). Furthermore, figurative things were dispensed in the Old Testament, but Christ dispenses the spiritual things they prefigured: 'Your Father from heaven will give the good spirit to them that ask him' (Lk. 11:13). Thus, therefore, by the good things to come can be understood either heavenly goods, and this in regard to the New Testament, or spiritual things, in regard to the Old, which was their figure. This high priest is not negligent, but assisting. For a high priest is a mediator between God and the people; but Christ is a mediator: 'The mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5): 'I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you' (Dt. 5:5); and therefore, He assists the Father by interceding for us: 'Christ Jesus who also makes intercession for us' (Rom. 8:34). Again, He assists us with his aid: 'He is at my right hand that I be not moved' (Ps. 15:8); 'Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God' (Ac. 7:55). Thus, it is clear who entered.

437. – Secondly, he shows the dignity of the inner tabernacle when he says, then through the greater, and its condition when he says, and more perfect tabernacle, inasmuch as it is unmovable: 'Your eyes shall see Jerusalem, a rich habitation, a tabernacle that cannot be removed' (Is. 33:20). But this is the tabernacle of heavenly glory: 'Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle?' (Ps. 14:1). But it is called a tabernacle, because it is the habitation of pilgrims. For it is not due to us by reason of the condition of our nature, but only through grace: 'My people shall sit in the beauty of peace, and in the tabernacle of confidence, and in wealthy rest' (Is. 31:18). Therefore, it is greater, because of the measureless multitude of good things, which is designated in the authority cited: 'My people shall sit in the beauty of peace (Is. 31:18); 'O, Israel, how great is the house of God' (Bar. 3:24). But there are two ways of reading the phrase, by a greater: in one way, so that it is one phrase as though meaning 'very great;' then the reading is this: When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered into the holy of holies, which, I say, is a very large tabernacle. In another way, so that the 'per' (by) is a preposition, which is expressed better in Greek; then the construction is this: Christ entered into the holies by a greater tabernacle, i.e., more ample and perfect. It was more perfect, because all imperfection ceased there: 'When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away' (1 Cor. 13:10). Furthermore, it is of a different condition, because the Old was made by human hands, but this by the hand of God: 'Your sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established' (Ex. 15:17); 'We know if your earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven' (2 Cor. 5:1); 'For he looked for a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God' (Heb. 11:10); hence, he says, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, because it is not made with hands as the Old, nor is it of this creation, i.e., in sensible created goods, but it is in spiritual goods.

438. – Or, by the tabernacle can be understood Christ's body, in which He fought against the devil: 'He has set his tabernacle in the sun' (Ps. 18:6), which is very large, because 'in him dwells all the fullness of the godhead corporeally' (Col. 2:9), and more perfect, 'Because we have seen his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth' (Jn. 1:14); and not made with hands, because not of human seed: 'A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands' (Dan 2:34).

Our Lord did not enter yearly like their high priest. After his coming he entered only once, not into the shrine which ceases, like their priesthood, but "into the Holy" of Holies of eternity, and he made a propitiation through his blood for all nations.

"Neither by the blood," he says, "of goats and calves" (All things are changed) "but by His own Blood" (he says) "He entered in once for all into the Holy Place." See thus he called Heaven. "Once for all" (he says) "He entered into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption." And this [expression] "having obtained," was [expressive] of things very difficult, and that are beyond expectation, how by one entering in, He "obtained everlasting redemption."

This is what the letter of the law explains to us, so that, collecting seeds of mysteries from them, we may use them as steps to climb from the lowly to a lofty place, from earthly to heavenly things. Therefore, my hearer, climb up now, if you can, and mount above earthly senses by the contemplation of your mind and by the discernment of your heart. Forget for a while earthly concerns; climb above the clouds and above heaven itself by the tread of your mind. Seek there the tabernacle of God where "Jesus has entered."

Behold, everything has changed, and to the same degree as the Blood of the Lord surpasses the blood of animals with which the high priest of the law entered.

That is, to heaven.

Not a temporary purification, like those, but an eternal liberation of souls from sins. Or, that having entered once, through one entrance He accomplished for us an eternal benefit. Pay attention also to the expression "obtained." This expression is used as though the matter occurred beyond expectation, for the liberation was doubtful for us; but He obtained it.

439. – Thirdly, he shows how he entered, because not without blood; but he with the blood of calves and goats, as it says in Leviticus (chap. 16); but Christ not so, i.e., not with another's blood: taking not the blood of goats or of calves but his own blood, which He offered on the cross for our salvation: 'This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins' (Mt. 26:28). But he uses the plural, of goats and of calves, not that more than one was offered at one time, but because he entered many times in various years. But Christ is signified by the goat because of the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3); by the calf because of courage and because He uses the two testaments as two horns: 'Horns are in his hands' (Hab. 3:4).

440. – Fourthly, when he entered, because once a year. But Christ throughout all of time, which is as a year, entered once for all into the holies and poured out His blood once: 'Christ died once for our sins' (1 Pt 3:18); 'for in that he died for sin, he died once' (Rom. 6:10). Furthermore, He entered once; for from the fact that He entered heaven, He is there always. Hence, he says, he entered once for all into the holies.

441. – Fifthly, he shows why He entered, namely, to make an offering for the ignorance of the people, not for His own, because He had none. For the blood of Christ is more powerful, because by it he secured an eternal redemption. As if to say: we are redeemed by that blood; and this forever, because His power is infinite: 'By one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified' (Heb. 10:14). The fact that he says, secured, can refer to things, namely, the desire God had for our salvation: 'I have found wherein I may be merciful to him' (Jb. 33:24); 'I desire not the death of him that dies' (Ez. 18:32); or to the desire of the fathers to be redeemed. For no one found a way so suitable as Christ, therefore, he says quite significantly, secured.

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God."

For (he says) if "the blood of bulls" is able to purify the flesh, much rather shall the Blood of Christ wipe away the defilement of the soul. For that thou mayest not suppose when thou hearest the word "sanctifieth," that it is some great thing, he marks out and shows the difference between each of these purifyings, and how the one of them is high and the other low. And says it is so with good reason, since that is "the blood of bulls," and this "the Blood of Christ."

Nor was he content with the name, but he sets forth also the manner of the offering. "Who" (he says) "through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without spot to God," that is, the victim was without blemish, pure from sins. For this is the meaning of "through the Holy Spirit," not through fire, nor through any other things.

"Shall purge your conscience" (he says) "from dead works." And well said he "from dead works"; if any man touched a dead body, he was polluted; and here, if any man touch a "dead work," he is defiled through his conscience. "To serve" (he says) "the Living and true God." Here he declares that it is not possible while one has "dead works to serve the Living and true God," for they are both dead and false; and with good reason he says this.

Then, since it seemed doubtful that a single sacrifice and the blood of one could provide eternal redemption, he prepares it and shows that it is plausible and not unattainable with the belief held by the Jews. For if you, he says, believe that you are cleansed by being sprinkled with the blood of a calf, and again with water poured on its ashes; (for the ashes were observed for the purification of those who had been defiled, that is, those who were contaminated;) how then does the blood of Christ not cleanse the souls? "sanctifies for the purification of the flesh." It sanctifies not spiritually, but for the cleansing of the flesh. See it speaking precisely. "who through the eternal Spirit." No high priest offered Christ, but He offered Himself; and not through fire, as the calves in the Old Testament, but through the Holy Spirit, so as to perpetuate both grace and redemption. "without blemish to God." And the ancient priesthood that was presented sought to be without blemish. There was a place of the body of Christ, the unblemished and absolutely pure. "For he did no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth," says Isaiah. (1 Peter 2:22; Isa. 53:9) "purify your conscience." For the blood of bulls and the ashes of a heifer, it said, for the purity of the flesh; but concerning the blood of Christ, it says, your conscience. See the difference in purification. What is your conscience? That is to say, it also purifies our soul, so that we may no longer be aware of any sin against ourselves from this time. "from dead works." Of the wicked, those who defile the soul. For one who touches a dead body, among the Jews, is defiled, but among us, the strange [ἄτοπα] works defile. "To serve the living God." This indicates that one cannot serve God unless they are pure from dead works. Thus, those who serve with them do not serve, but are condemned.

Since, perhaps, it seemed incredible to many that through a single sacrifice and the blood of one, eternal redemption is granted, he confirms this and shows its plausibility on the basis of the Jews' own belief. If, he says, you believe that by being sprinkled with the blood of goats, and also with ashes mixed with water, for the ashes were kept for purification, then how shall the Blood of Christ not cleanse souls? Notice his wisdom. He did not say that the blood of goats cleansed, but sanctified; not to glorify the law, but to accomplish what he desires. For if, as you believe, the blood of goats gave sanctification, then you ought much more to believe that the Blood of Christ grants sanctification. And that he said this not in order to exalt the belief of the Jews, see how he added: "so that the body might be clean." For the sanctification was for the cleansing not of souls, but of flesh.

442. – Then (v. 13) he proves one of the things he had supposed, namely, the statement, having obtained eternal redemption. As if to say: I have said that He wrought eternal redemption by His own blood, in which His greatest efficacy appears. That it is so, I prove by arguing from what is less; because if the blood of brute animals accomplished less, the blood of Christ can accomplish what is greater. Hence in regard to this he does two things: first, he lays down the antecedent; secondly, the consequent (v. 14).

443. – In regard to the first it should be noted that there were two cleansings in the Old Law: one took place on the day of atonement, as already stated, and seemed to be directly ordained to cleansing from sin. The other was against legal irregularity, as mentioned in Numbers (19:2), where the Lord commanded Eleazar to take from Moses a red cow without blemish, of full age and which has not carried the yoke, and bring her forth without the camp and immolate her in the sight of all. Then dipping his finger in her blood, he should sprinkle it over against the door of the tabernacle seven times; and then burn her flesh entirely, i.e., her flesh, hide and even her dung. Then the priest was to take cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet twice dyed. After this was done, a man that was clean was to gather up the ashes of the cow and pour them forth in a clean place outside the camp. Some of these ashes were to be put in water with which an unclean person, who touched the corpse of a man, was to be sprinkled on the third day, and on the seventh with hyssop. In this way and in no other way could he be cleansed. That is the opinion of the Apostle. Therefore in regard to the first he says, If the blood of goats and oxen; but as to the second he says, and the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled sanctify such as are defiled, not by conferring grace, but to the cleansing of the flesh, i.e., from an irregularity carnally hindering them, as though unclean, from divine worship. But they did not take away sins, because, as Augustine says, sometimes by virtue of that sprinkling they were cleansed from bodily leprosy; hence, he says, to the cleansing of the flesh.

However, one ought to consider continence not merely in relation to one form of it, that is, sexual relations, but in relation to all the other indulgences for which the soul craves when it is ill content with what is necessary and seeks for luxury. It is continence to despise money, softness, property, to hold in small esteem outward appearance, to control one's tongue, to master evil thoughts. In the past certain angels became incontinent and were seized by desire so that they fell from heaven to earth. And Valentine says in the letter to Agathopus: "Jesus endured all things and was continent; It was his endeavour to earn a divine nature; he ate and drank in a manner peculiar to himself, and the food did not pass out of his body. Such was the power of his continence that food was not corrupted within him; for he himself was not subject to the process of corruption." As for ourselves, we set high value on continence which arises from love to the Lord and seeks that which is good for its own sake, sanctifying the temple of the Spirit. It is good if for the sake of the kingdom of heaven a man emasculates himself from all desire, and "purifies his conscience from dead works to serve the living God."

We ought to examine not merely one single form of self-control in sexual matters but the other objects which our soul self-indulgently desires, not content with bare necessities but making a fuss about luxury. Self-control means indifference to money, comfort and property, a mind above spectacles, control of the tongue, mastery of evil thoughts. It actually happened that some angels suffered a failure of self-control, were overpowered by sexual desire and fell from heaven to earth. Valentinus in his letter to Agathopus says, "Jesus showed his self-control in all that he endured. He lived in the practice of Godhead. He ate and drank in a way individual to himself without excreting his food. Such was his power of self-control that the food was not corrupted within him, since he was not subject to corruption." So we embrace self-control out of the love we bear the Lord and out of its honorable status, consecrating the temple of the Spirit. It is honorable "to emasculate oneself" of all desire "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" and "to purify the conscience from dead works to serve the living God."

Well, I on my side will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father, was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift, had been through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original.

Not some high priest offered Christ as a sacrifice, but He Himself offered Himself, and not by means of fire, like heifers, but by the eternal Spirit, which is why He also made eternal both the grace and the redemption. And "without blemish," that is, without sin. For in the Old Testament as well it was required that the heifer be without blemish.

Although there he said "sanctifies," he added "that the body may be clean"; but here by the expression "will cleanse" he directly showed the superiority. For he adds that it will cleanse "the conscience," that is, the inner man, which was not the case there. True, there too the one who touched a dead body was cleansed after the offering of sacrifice; but here the cleansing is "from dead works," which truly can defile and turn one away from God.

From this, one who partakes in dead works does not serve the living and true God, but deifies the works he has chosen. Thus, the glutton deifies the belly; thus, the covetous man is an idolater. Therefore, works of this kind are dead not only because they are foreign to eternal life, but also because at the very time of their commission they are abominable and false, since they deceive us, and although they seem pleasant, in reality they are not.

444. – Then when he says, how much more the blood of Christ... cleanses our conscience, he lays down the consequent. As if to say: If blood and ashes can do this, what could Christ's blood do? Certainly much more. Then the Apostle mentions three things, which show the efficacy of Christ's blood: first, he shows whose blood it is, namely, it is Christ's. From this it is evident that His blood cleanses: 'For he will save his people from their sins' (Mt. 1:21). Secondly, the reason why Christ shed His blood, because this was done by the Holy Spirit, through Whose movement and instinct, namely, by the love of God and neighbor He did this: 'When he shall come as a violent stream which the spirit of the Lord drives on' (Is. 59:19). But the Spirit cleanses: 'If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning' (Is. 4:4). Therefore, he says, who by the Holy Spirit offered himself: 'Christ has loved us and has delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness' (Eph. 5:2). Thirdly, he describes His condition, because He is without blemish: 'It shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year' (Ex. 12:5); 'What can be made clean by the unclean?' (Sir. 34:4).

445. – But can an unclean priest cleanse? I answer: No, if he acted in his own power, but he acts by the power of Christ's blood, which is as a first cause. Therefore, He would not have acted, unless he were clean.

446. – Yet it should be noted that the blood of those animals merely cleansed from outward stain, namely, from contact with the dead; but the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience inwardly, which is accomplished by faith: 'Purifying their hearts by faith' (Ac. 15:9), inasmuch as it makes one believe that all who adhere to Christ are cleansed by His blood. Therefore, He cleanses the conscience. It also cleanses them from contact with a corpse; but He from dead works, namely, sins, which take God from the soul, whose life consists in union by charity. It also cleansed them in order that they might come to the figurative ministry; but the blood of Christ to the spiritual service of God: 'The man that walked in the perfect way, he served me' (Ps. 100:6). Therefore, he says, to serve the living God. Furthermore, God is life: 'I am the life' (Jn. 14:6); 'I live forever' (Dt. 32:40). Therefore, it is fitting that one who serves Him be alive: hence, he says, living God: 'For as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers' (Sir. 10:2). Therefore, he that would serve God worthily, should be living, as He is.

Christ instituted the seven Sacraments of the law of grace as the mediator of the new testament and the chief lawgiver, in which law he called to the promises eternal, gave directing precepts, and instituted sanctifying Sacraments.

Our restorative principle is Christ crucified, namely the incarnate Word, which because it is the Word coequal and consubstantial with the Father, is the Word of supreme power, supreme truth, and supreme goodness, and thereby also of supreme authority; and therefore it properly belongs to him to introduce the new testament, and it also belongs to him to give a law that is complete and sufficient according to the demand of his supreme power and truth and goodness. By reason therefore of supreme goodness, he set forth beatifying promises; by reason of supreme truth, he gave directing precepts; but by reason of supreme power, he established assisting Sacraments: so that through the Sacraments power might be restored for fulfilling the directing precepts, and through the directive precepts one might arrive at the eternal promises.

It was probable that many of those who were more weakly would especially distrust the promises of Christ because He had died. Paul accordingly out of a superabundance introduced this illustration, deriving it from common custom. Of what kind is it? He says, "indeed, on this very account we ought to be of good courage." On what account? Because testaments are established and obtain their force when those who have made them are not living, but dead. "And for this cause," he says, "He is the Mediator of the New Testament." A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death.

And a testament is of this character: It makes some heirs, and some disinherited. So in this case also: "I will that where I am," Christ says, "they also may be." And again of the disinherited, hear Him saying, "I pray not for" all, "but for them that believe on Me through their word." Again, a testament has relation both to the testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, and some to do, So also in this case. For after having made promises innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, "a new commandment I give unto you." Again, a testament ought to have witnesses. Hear Him again saying, "I am one that bear witness of Myself, and He that sent Me beareth witness of Me." And again, "He shall testify of Me," speaking of the Comforter. The twelve Apostles too He sent, saying, "Bear ye witness before God."

"And for this cause" (he says) "He is the Mediator of the New Testament." What is a "Mediator"? A mediator is not lord of the thing of which he is mediator, but the thing belongs to one person, and the mediator is another: as for instance, the mediator of a marriage is not the bridegroom, but one who aids him who is about to be married. So then also here: The Son became Mediator between the Father and us. The Father willed not to leave us this inheritance, but was wroth against us, and was displeased [with us] as being estranged [from Him]; He accordingly became Mediator between us and Him, and prevailed with Him.

And what then? How did He become Mediator? He brought words from [Him] and brought [them to us], conveying over what came from the Father to us, and adding His own death thereto. We had offended: we ought to have died: He died for us and made us worthy of the Testament. By this is the Testament secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy. At the beginning indeed, He made His dispositions as a father for sons; but after we had become unworthy, there was no longer need of a testament, but of punishment.

Why then (he would say) dost thou think upon the law? For it placed us in a condition of so great sin, that we could never have been saved, if our Lord had not died for us; the law would not have had power, for it is weak.

Since the death of Christ troubled many of the weaker ones (for they said, "If He died, how will He give what He promised?"), Paul now, healing this, shows that it is because this remains that His covenant is sure; for He died— for a covenant is not called valid while the one who made it is alive. Therefore, he says, "He died to cleanse us, and in the covenant He left us forgiveness and the enjoyment of the ancestral goods, becoming a mediator of the Father and us." The Father willed that we become heirs of the promises, but we could not, being enemies and having been at war with Him. What then? The Son interceded and reconciled us to the Father. But since it was necessary to also provide retribution for those on earth for what we had transgressed (for God is both loving and just), the Son himself endured this for us and made us worthy of the covenant, and henceforth the covenant became sure through the death of the Son, so that it did not send the inheritance to the unworthy. "called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance."For if the death of Christ did not deliver us from sins, through which we once fought against the Father, how would we receive the heavenly inheritance? But the term "called" shows this: that at first, God was related to us as a father to children, and we were called to the inheritance; but afterward, through our sins, we made ourselves unworthy of it. "that by means of death," for the covenant is confirmed by death. Therefore, Christ died so that His covenant with us might be confirmed. This is set forth, since especially the death of Christ troubled the weak. "for the redemption." Do you see that the death of Christ has become for our redemption? How then do you think this is weakness, Him who was so powerful as to heal even the transgressions under the law? How then do you run to the law, which is so powerless that it cannot even correct the transgressions against it? Not that it was evil, but that it was weak.

Obviously, the death of Christ troubled many of the weaker ones: if He died, they say, then how will He give what He promised? Now Paul, removing this trouble, shows that it is precisely because He died that His testament is firm, for one does not speak of a testament of the living. For this reason, he says, for the sake of cleansing us, He died, and in His testament He left us the forgiveness of sins and the partaking of paternal blessings, having become the Mediator between the Father and us. The Father did not want to leave us an inheritance; He was angry with us, as with sons who had departed from Him and become strangers. Therefore Christ became the Mediator and entreated Him. In what way? That which we should have undergone, for we were the ones who should have died — He Himself took upon Himself for us and made us worthy of the testament, and the testament was again confirmed by the death of the Son, since this testament bestowed an inheritance upon the unworthy. For a testament also considers some as heirs: hear the testament of Christ: "I desire that where I am, they also may be with Me" (Jn. 17:24); — and others as disinherited: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word" (Jn. 17:20). A testament has witnesses: "The Father who sent Me bears witness of Me" (Jn. 8:18) and: "The Comforter... will bear witness of Me,... and you also will bear witness" (Jn. 15:26–27).

Do you see that the death of Christ was for our redemption? Therefore, how can you think that it is weak, when it is so mighty that it healed even the transgressions that were under the law? So why do you turn to the law, which was so weak that it was unable to correct the transgressions within it? Not because it was bad, but because it was weak.

If the death of Christ had not freed us from the sins by which we had armed the Father against ourselves, how would we have received the heavenly inheritance? The expression "called" signifies that in the beginning God was disposed toward us as a Father toward sons, and we were called to the inheritance, but afterward, through sins, we ourselves made ourselves unworthy of that inheritance.

447. – Having explained things done in the Old Testament and disclosed their mystical explanation, the Apostle now uses these facts to prove his thesis, namely that the New Testament is preferred to the Old, because it can do what the Old could not. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states the intended conclusion; secondly, he proves something he had presupposed. The first is divided into two parts: in the first he concludes from the foregoing that Christ is a mediator; secondly, that the Old Testament could not do this (v. 15b).

448. – He says: Therefore, i.e., because Christ entered into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption, i.e., leads us to eternal things, which the Old could not do; it was fitting that this testament be distinct from that, as the new from the old: 'I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah' (Jer. 31:31); 'Behold, I make all things new' (Rev. 21:5). Therefore, he is the mediator of a new covenant between God and man: 'The mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ' (1 Tim. 2:5). But in every testament there is something promised and something by which that testament is confirmed. But in the New Testament heavenly and spiritual things are promised. Furthermore, that promise was confirmed by the death of Christ. And so, Christ is the mediator of the New Testament, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. He says, called, because this reward is not for our works but from God's call: 'Whom he predestinated, them he also called' (Rom. 8:30); 'We testified to everyone of you that you could walk worthy of God who has called you unto his kingdom and glory' (1 Th. 2:12); hence, he says, of the eternal inheritance, i.e., of eternal glory, which is our inheritance: 'He has regenerated us unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that cannot fade, reserved in heaven for you' (1 Pt 1:3); 'Behold the inheritance of the Lord' (Ps. 126:3); 'The Lord is the portion of my inheritance' (Ps. 15:5). But we have that inheritance through the death of Christ; hence, he says, since a death has occurred: 'Unto this you are called, that you may inherit a blessing' (1 Pt 3:9). The effect of this death is redemption from the transgressions under the first covenant: 'You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious blood of an unspotted lamb' (1 Pt 1:18).

449. – But could that redemption from sins have been accomplished in the Old Testament? He answers, No; because those prevarications were under the first covenant. As if to say: because they could not be removed by the power of the sacraments of the former covenant: 'Because we have charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin' (Rom. 3:9). But is it not a fact that David and many other saints obtained remission of their sins? I answer that so far as entering heaven is concerned, they did not, because the door to life was opened by the death of Christ: for no one entered before Christ's death: 'You also by the blood of your testament have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit, wherein is not water' (Zech 9:11). But so far as the stain of sin was concerned, they obtained it, not in virtue of the sacraments of the Old Law, but by faith in Christ. Thus, therefore, the New Testament is more excellent than the Old, because it has been confirmed by the death of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and because He shows forth the promise.

Inasmuch as the apostle says to the Hebrews, "A will takes effect only at the death of the one who made it," he therefore asserts that, with Christ's death for us, the new covenant has become valid. Its likeness was the old covenant, in which the death of the testator was prefigured in the sacrificial victim. Therefore, if one should ask how it is that we, in the words of the same apostle, are "children and heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ," since of course the inheritance is made valid by the death of the deceased and since an inheritance cannot be understood in any other way, the answer is this: he himself having in fact died, we have become heirs because we were also called his sons. "The sons of the bridegroom," he says, "do not fast while the bridegroom is with them." Therefore we are called his heirs, for he has left the peace of the Church, a peace which we possess in this life, in our possession through faith in the divine plan of salvation revealed in time.

It was probable that many of those who were more weakly would especially distrust the promises of Christ because He had died. Paul accordingly out of a superabundance introduced this illustration, deriving it from common custom. Of what kind is it? He says, "indeed, on this very account we ought to be of good courage." On what account? Because testaments are established and obtain their force when those who have made them are not living, but dead. "And for this cause," he says, "He is the Mediator of the New Testament." A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death.

And a testament is of this character: It makes some heirs, and some disinherited. So in this case also: "I will that where I am," Christ says, "they also may be." (John xvii. 24.) And again of the disinherited, hear Him saying, "I pray not for" all, "but for them that believe on Me through their word." (John xvii. 20.) Again, a testament has relation both to the testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, and some to do, So also in this case. For after having made promises innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, "a new commandment I give unto you." (John xiii. 34.) Again, a testament ought to have witnesses. Hear Him again saying, "I am one that bear witness of Myself, and He that sent Me beareth witness of Me." (John viii. 18.) And again, "He shall testify of Me" (John xv. 26), speaking of the Comforter. The twelve Apostles too He sent, saying, "Bear ye witness before God."

"there must also of necessity be the death of the one who made it," This is what disturbs them, the death of Christ. For how, he says, can the one who has died give us the promises? Therefore, he turns and shows that we can only receive the inheritance and the promise if Christ has died. For if he had not died, he would not have made a will, so that we might inherit; (for it is indisputable that a will is in force only after death;) nor would we be worthy of an inheritance at all, as long as the enmity remains unresolved.

450. – Then (v. 16) he proves what he had supposed, namely, that the New Testament was confirmed by the death of Christ: first, he proves this on the authority of human law; secondly, on the authority of divine law (v. 18).

451. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that the New Testament was confirmed by the intervening death of Christ, because in order that a will [testament] be in force, the death of the testator must be established. Therefore, the New Testament would have no strength, unless the death of Christ had come in: 'It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people' (Jn. 11:50). But the death of the testator is necessary for two reasons: first, that the testament might be valid, because, since it expresses the last will, it can always be changed before death; hence, he says, a testament takes effect only at death, i.e., after death. That is the way the New Testament has been confirmed by the death of Christ: 'this is my blood of the new Testament,' namely, its confirmer and dedicator (Mt. 26:28). Secondly, the death of the testator is necessary, in order that the testament be in force and be efficacious; hence, he says, otherwise it is yet not in force, because no one can seek anything, nor an heir his inheritance by reason of the testament, till after the death of the testator. Therefore, Christ willed to interpose his death for our sake.

"for it does not take effect while the one who made it lives." Read according to the question.

So let not the death of Christ trouble you: for if He had not died, He would not have established the covenant, so that we might be heirs. For it is beyond doubt that a covenant takes effect after death, and we would have been entirely unworthy of the inheritance, since the enmity would not have been destroyed.

Read and understand this in the form of a question.

And he established this no longer from common custom only, but also from what happened under the old [Testament]: which especially influenced them. There was no one who died there: how then could that [Testament] be firm? In the same way (he says). How? For blood was there also, as there is blood here. And if it was not the blood of the Christ, do not be surprised; for it was a type. "Whereupon," he says, "neither was the first [Testament] dedicated without blood."

What is "was dedicated"? was confirmed, was ratified. The word "whereupon" means "for this cause." It was needful that the symbol of the Testament should be also that of death.

"even the first was not." And thus, he says, by death, the covenant is confirmed, for the first had the blood as a symbol of death; but the new has the actual death. As those were types, the truth is in the new. "not dedicated without blood." As if he were saying: The blood has not ceased or been interrupted for a short time, but immediately as the covenant was dedicated, it also had successive blood.

What he said, he proved not only by general custom, but also by the events of the Old Testament, which was even more convincing to the Hebrews. "Wherefore," he says, that is, since it is necessary for death to precede a covenant, therefore the first covenant "was not dedicated without blood." Blood is a symbol of death. But there it was the blood of a lamb, for the Old Testament was a figure; here, however, when the truth shone forth, the Son of God died for us in the flesh. What then does "was dedicated" mean? That is, it became valid. For in no other way would it have received the beginning of its operation, had the shedding of blood not preceded it.

452. – Then (v. 18) he proves the same thing on the authority of divine law, by something in the Old Testament: In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the agreement between the two testaments; secondly, their difference (v. 23). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he made the statement; secondly, he proves (v. 19).

453. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that in order for a testament to have force, the death of the testator must of necessity come in. This should not seem strange, because neither was the first testament ratified, i.e., confirmed, without blood. But that blood prefigured the blood of Christ: 'All these things happened to them in figure' (1 Cor. 10:11).

For why (tell me) is the book of the testament sprinkled? "For" (he says) "when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you." Tell me then why is the book of the testament sprinkled, and also the people, except on account of the precious blood, figured from the first? Why "with hyssop"? It is close and retentive. And why the "water"? It shows forth also the cleansing by water. And why the "wool"? This also [was used], that the blood might be retained. In this place blood and water show forth the same thing, for baptism is His passion.

"For when every commandment had been spoken." For after he spoke the commandment, then Moses sprinkled the blood. "according to the law." As He says, God legislated, according to the law of God. Or of every command according to the law, these, of the legislated one. "taken the blood of calves." This blood was a type of the blood of God and our Savior, who cleansed us from all stain. "with water." Water was the figure of baptism. "and scarlet wool and hyssop." Wool and hyssop were used for their preservation. Indeed, hyssop, being dense and tender, retained and sprinkled blood, and wool likewise. Scarlet, however, was wool so that by its very color it would bear the type of the blood of Christ. "the book itself." The book was a type of the faithful, those who have the law of God within themselves.

One of these goats was bound with scarlet, and driven by the people out of the camp into the wilderness, amid cursing, and spitting, and pulling, and piercing, being thus marked with all the signs of the Lord's own passion; while the other, by being offered up for sins, and given to the priests of the temple for meat, afforded proofs of His second appearance, when (after all sins have been expiated) the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, the church, are to enjoy the flesh, as it were, of the Lord's own grace, whilst the residue go away from salvation without tasting it.

Since the divine nature is immortal, through the blood of the victims he realized the type of death and confirmed the covenant. Since God the Word became man and took a mortal body, there was no longer need of brute beasts as offerings; instead, he confirmed the new covenant with his own blood, the type corresponding to the shadow and the reality to the body. The water was a type of baptism, the blood of brute beasts the saving blood, the heat of the hyssop the grace of the divine Spirit, the scarlet wool the new garment, the piece of cedar (being a wood that does not rot) the impassible divinity, the ashes of a heifer the suffering of humanity.

"According to the law," that is, as God ordained by law that His commandments should be proclaimed aloud to all the people; or "all the commandments according to the law," that is, what was established by law.

Why then were the books and the people sprinkled? Either because from ancient times the Precious Blood was prefigured, with which we and our hearts are sprinkled — for hearts are books, as he also said above: "I will put My laws into their minds" (Heb. 8:10). Water is a symbol of baptism. Here blood and water are taken, perhaps to signify that from the side of the Lord flowed blood and water; perhaps also because baptism, of which water is the symbol, proclaims the death of the Lord, the sign of which is blood. Hyssop was used as a binding substance on account of its density, and wool served the same purpose. Or since Christ is the Lamb, therefore the wool is also "scarlet," so that by its color too it might bear the image of blood.

454. – Then (v. 19) he proves his statement, namely, that that testament was not confirmed without blood. He proves this in regard to three things in which blood was used: first, in the setting forth of the Law; secondly, in the consecration of the tabernacle (v. 21); thirdly, in the expiation of the vessels (v. 22).

455. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle alludes here to history, which is recorded in Exodus (chap. 24) that after Moses had read God's commandments to the people and they had answered: 'All things that the Lord has spoken we will do, we will be obedient' (Ex. 24:7), he took the blood which he had ordered them to save of the twelve calves, and sprinkled the book of the Law and the people, as though in confirmation of the covenant. Hence, he says, For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people: for it was necessary that they be read, for that reading was the promulgation of the Law: He took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people.

456. – Two objections arise here: one, because Exodus (chap. 24) makes no mention of a goat, but only of twelve calves; secondly, because no mention is made there of water and scarlet and hyssop. There are two answers to these two objections: one is that the Apostle had been brought up in the Law; hence, he knew what the usages were in cleansing according to the Law, namely, that the sprinkling involved the blood of goats and calves, and water mixed with hyssop, and scarlet wool as the sprinkler. Therefore, even though all are not mentioned in Exodus, the Apostle was familiar with the custom of the legal rites. Or it can be said that that was the first consecration and that it virtually contained the other sanctifications to come, among which the most important was the one which took place on the day of atonement, as described in Exodus (chap. 16) and the other about the red cow in Numbers (chap. 19). In the first of these the blood of a goat and of a calf was used; but in the second, water and purple wool and hyssop. Therefore, because that first one contained those two, the Apostle related all to it.

457. – He says, therefore: He took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying: This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you, i.e., God confirmed the testament: 'Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice' (Sir. 24:33). For that blood was a figure of Christ's blood, By Whom the New Testament was confirmed; therefore, Christ used the words in Matthew (26:28): This is the blood of a goat because of its likeness to sinful flesh, and of a calf because of courage. But it is mixed with water, because baptism derives its efficacy from the blood of Christ. It is sprinkled with hyssop, which cleanses the breast, by which faith is signified: 'By faith purifying their hearts' (Ac. 15:9); and with purple wool, which is red to signify charity: 'My beloved is white and ruddy' (S of S 5:10), because the people are cleansed by faith and the love of Christ. The book of the Law is sprinkled, because the passion of Christ fulfilled the Law: 'It is consummated' (Jn. 19:30); 'I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it' (Mt. 5:17).

Saying, "This is the blood of the covenant." But Christ: This is the blood of the new covenant (Matt. 26:28), for the forgiveness of sins; but there, neither new nor forgiveness of sins. Do you see then how he called the blood a covenant? For where a covenant is spoken of, death must be understood.

But Christ says: "this is My Blood of the New Testament... for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). There it is neither a new testament, nor a remission of sins. Therefore, do you see that he called the blood a testament? So that it is necessary to understand death wherever a testament is spoken of.

"Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission." Why the "almost"? why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case He says, "This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins."

Where then is "the book"? He purified their minds. They themselves then were the books of the New Testament. But where are "the vessels of the ministry"? They are themselves. And where is "the tabernacle"? Again, they are; for "I will dwell in them," He says, "and walk in them."

But they were not sprinkled with "scarlet wool," nor yet "with hyssop." Why was this? Because the cleansing was not bodily but spiritual, and the blood was spiritual. How? It flowed not from the body of irrational animals, but from the Body prepared by the Spirit. With this blood not Moses but Christ sprinkled us, through the word which was spoken; "This is the blood of the New Testament, for the remission of sins." This word, instead of hyssop, having been dipped in the blood, sprinkles all. And there indeed the body was cleansed outwardly, for the purifying was bodily; but here, since the purifying is spiritual, it entereth into the soul, and cleanseth it, not being simply sprinkled over, but gushing forth in our souls. The initiated understand what is said. And in their case indeed one sprinkled just the surface; but he who was sprinkled washed it off again; for surely he did not go about continually stained with blood. But in the case of the soul it is not so, but the blood is mixed with its very substance, making it vigorous and pure, and leading it to the very unapproachable beauty.

Henceforward then he shows that His death is the cause not only of confirmation, but also of purification. For inasmuch as death was thought to be an odious thing, and especially that of the cross, he says that it purified, even a precious purification, and in regard to greater things. Therefore the sacrifices preceded, because of this blood. Therefore the lambs; everything was for this cause.

"the tabernacle and." And the tabernacle was a type of the faithful, because of, "I will dwell in them and walk among them." (Lev. 26:12; 2 Cor. 6:16)

And this was a foreshadowing: for the tabernacle is us, according to the following words: "I will dwell in them, and walk in them" (2 Cor. 6:16). We are also "vessels in the great house of God," some golden, others silver (2 Tim. 2:20). Thus, we were sprinkled with the true Blood of Christ and sanctified, having been baptized into His death.

458. – Then when he says, the tabernacle also and all the vessels used in worship, in the same way he sprinkled with blood, he describes the consecration of the tabernacle. But because the tabernacle had not yet been constructed, the command to consecrate the tabernacle was not given until Exodus (chap. 25). I answer that, although the people were not sprinkled with the same blood as the tabernacle, nevertheless, the tabernacle was sprinkled with blood. Hence, it can be taken to mean that he used blood, even when he sanctified the tabernacle.

459. – But it says in Exodus (chap. 7) and Leviticus (chap. 8) that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. I answer that he is not speaking of the consecration, in which the tabernacle and its vessels were first consecrated, but of the one which occurred on the day of atonement. Or it might be better to say that even in the first one he used blood, because it says there that he anointed it with oil and later sprinkled it with blood. And these two things are necessary for sanctification, namely, the power of Christ's blood and the oil of mercy, by which the tabernacle, i.e., the Church, and the vessels, i.e., the saints, are sanctified.

The doctrine of death which I describe is not peculiar to Christianity. Nature herself has written it large across the world in the repeated drama of the buried seed and the re-arising corn. From nature, perhaps, the oldest agricultural communities learned it and with animal, or human, sacrifices showed forth for centuries the truth that "without shedding of blood is no remission"; and though at first such conceptions may have concerned only the crops and offspring of the tribe they came later, in the Mysteries, to concern the spiritual death and resurrection of the individual.

"And almost all things." Almost, for this he said, because it was not being purified clearly and sincerely at that time. For then the purifications were physical, being types of those that now purify souls and bodies. "and without shedding of blood is no remission." For even then, such purifications were thought to provide remission, but they did not actually provide it.

Vice is a sickness of the soul, and delusion is a loss of truth. Most men who are sick with the disease of vice and delusion proclaim health and are lauded by men. Unless the soul is cured from vice and is found in her natural state of health (with which she was created) so that she can be reborn by health of spirit, it is impossible for a man to desire the supernatural things of the Spirit. For so long as the soul is sick with passions, her senses have no perception of what is spiritual, and she does not even know how to desire it, saving only from the hearing of the ears and from writings.… Those who desire perfection must keep all the commandments, since the working of the commandments heals the powers of the soul. The practice of the commandments is not accomplished simply and by chance, for it is written that, "There is no remission without the shedding of blood." Our nature first received renewal through the incarnation of Christ, and it participated in His passion and death, and then, after the renewal of the shedding of blood, our nature was renewed and sanctified and became able to receive his new and perfect commandments. For if the new commandments had been given to men before the shedding of the Lord's blood, before our nature was renewed and sanctified, then it is perhaps possible that even the new commandments, like those of old, would have merely cut off vice from the soul but would have been unable completely to pluck out the very root of vice from her. But now it is not so; now there is a secret labour that accompanies the new, spiritual commandments. When the soul keeps these through the circumspection of the fear of God, they renew her, sanctify her and secretly heal all her members. For it is obvious which passion is quietly cured in the soul by each commandment. The operation of the commandments is perceived only by the healer and the healed, after the likeness of the woman who had an issue of blood.

Why did he add: "at all"? Because there was neither perfect cleansing nor perfect remission of sins. For how is this possible, when sins were not remitted?

460. – Then (v. 22) he continues with other cleansings in the Law. But cleansings were of two kinds: one from bodily stain, as leprosy, the other from spiritual, namely sin. The first could pertain to inanimate things, as the leprosy of houses: and the cleansing from that uncleanness was done with the blood of an immolated animal, or with the water of expiation, which was mixed with blood of a red calf. Hence, he says, almost all things, and not absolutely all. Or, almost all, so that all modifies are cleansed, i.e., 'are almost cleansed,' because they were not completely cleansed: for this was done only by a sacrament of the New Law. Or, it can modify all things, because not all things were cleansed with blood, for it says in Numbers (chap. 31) whatever can endure fire is purged by fire, whatever cannot, is purged by the water of expiation. But for the cleansing from the stain of sin the shedding of blood is necessary, because it was required for the sacrifice; hence he says, without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. This showed that the forgiveness of sin was to be accomplished by the blood of Christ. Hence, in the Old Law, sins were forgiven not by virtue of a sacrament, but by virtue of faith in Christ. Hence, it is frequently stated there: 'The priest shall pray for him and for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him' (Lev. 5:10).

And how come these to be patterns of the things in the heavens? And what does he call the things which are now in the heavens? Is it heaven? is it the angels? No, none of these, but our things, for heavenly things are ours, yea, even though they be accomplished on the earth, since the angels also are on the earth, and are nevertheless called heavenly. And the Cherubim too appeared on the earth, and yet they are heavenly. But what am I saying?—that they appeared? Is it upon the earth then they spend their time as if in Paradise? Nay, not so, for they are heavenly and our citizenship is in the heavens, although we spend our life with those that are here." And subsequently He says: "I show by actual facts those that attain to this height. And who be these? I mean Paul and his followers, who, though they were on earth, sojourned in heaven. But what am I saying?—in heaven? Nay, they were higher exalted than heaven, yea even than the other heaven, for they ascended to God Himself.

"It was therefore necessary that the Patterns" (he says) "of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

And how are they "patterns of things in the heavens"? And what does he mean now by "the things in the heavens"? Is it Heaven? Or is it the Angels? None of these, but what is ours. It follows then that our things are in Heaven, and heavenly things are ours, even though they be accomplished on earth; since although angels are on earth, yet they are called Heavenly. And the Cherubim appeared on earth, but yet are heavenly. And why do I say "appeared"? nay rather they dwell on earth, as indeed in Paradise: but this is nothing; for they are heavenly. And, "Our conversation is in Heaven," and yet we live here.

"But these are the heavenly things," that is, the philosophy which exists amongst us; those who have been called thereto.

"With better sacrifices than these." What is "better" is better than something [else] that is good. Therefore "the patterns also of things in the heavens" have become good; for not even the patterns were evil: else the things whereof they are patterns would also have been evil.

"Therefore it was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens." The heavenly things in the new covenant are said to be, since the initiation in it is heavenly, and the faithful are citizens of heaven, even if they are still living on earth. For the examples of the old covenant are types of the new covenant. "should be purified with these." These have been mentioned, with the blood of calves and goats, and with the ashes of a heifer, and with the other things so lowly. "but the heavenly things." Which are in the New Testament. "with better sacrifices." Therefore, since it was necessary according to their values to have better sacrifices, the Son of God Himself was offered, so that the death of the Lord not only benefited and enacted the confirmation of the covenantbut also to affect the true purification of the soul. And in the preceding and following, it demonstrates that the death of the Lord worked salvation for humankind, because some weaker ones were offended because of the cross.

The statement that "he entered into the heaven itself" must be taken by common agreement as this: "And so that he might not offer himself often, he entered into the very heaven." For it is characteristic of those entering the "antitypes of the true things" to bear sacrifices "often" and "with blood," but not of the one entering "into heaven itself."

He calls "heavenly" the things that pertain to us, that which concerns the Church. It was said above in what sense the Church is heaven. Therefore, the things used among the Jews were images and foreshadowings of our sacred rites; for this reason they were also purified with the blood of goats and the ashes of a heifer, and other equally insignificant things.

The meaning is that what belongs to the Church belongs to us.

Since our things are better than those of the Jews, and better by as much as heaven is better than earth — and indeed, earthly blessings were promised to them, while our inheritance is heaven — then, in all fairness, our sacred rites are worthy of a better and more magnificent sacrifice, the Blood of the Son of God, which cleanses us more perfectly. Thus, the death of Christ occurred not only for the establishment of the covenant, but also for the accomplishment of true purification, the purification of the soul. He reminds of the benefits of death because to many it seemed dishonorable, and especially death on the cross.

461. – Having shown what is common to the Old and New Testaments, the Apostle now shows the difference between the two. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that there is a better cleansing in the New; secondly, that it is more complete (v. 25). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that both as to what is cleansed and as to that by which the cleansing is effected, there is a better cleansing in the New; secondly, he clarifies what he has said (v. 24).

462. – He says, therefore, Thus it was necessary for the patterns of heavenly things, namely, the tabernacle itself, which, so far as we are concerned, is a pattern, although, absolutely speaking, it is the thing exemplified and its figure, and, therefore, of less value, because the thing exemplified is superior to the figure, as the body is superior to its shadow: to be purified with these rites, i.e., with the sacrifices. But the heavenly things themselves, namely, the New Testament, with better sacrifices than these: better, because the others were cleansings with the blood of animals, but in the New Testament the cleansing is accomplished with the blood of Christ. Now better things are always cleansed with better things. But they were the figures of heavenly things be cleansed with better blood.

463. – But on the other hand, there is no uncleanness in heaven. I answer that according to a Gloss, by heavenly things are understood things which pertain to the state of the present Church, which are called heavenly. Furthermore, believing men bear the image of heavenly things, inasmuch as they mentally dwell in heaven. Or, in another way and better: by heavenly things is understood the heavenly home. And the Apostle is speaking here in the way that the tabernacle was said to be cleansed in the Old Testament; not that it had any uncleanness in itself, but because certain irregularities were washed away, by which they were hindered from coming to the sanctuary. And heavenly things are said to be cleansed inasmuch as a sacrament of the New Law cleanses sins, which hinder one from entering heaven.

464. – But he says, sacrifices, in the plural. Yet there is but one sacrifice of Christ: 'By one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified' (Heb. 10:14). I answer that although it is one in itself, it was prefigured by several sacrifices of the Old Law. This text also shows that the sacrifices of the Old Law were good, for something is called better in relation to something good.