|
Hebrews vii. 11--14.
"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood; (for
under it the people have received the law' ) what further need was
there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec,
and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being
changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For He
of whom these things are spoken, pertained to another tribe, of which
no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord
sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning
priests."
"IF therefore" (he says) "perfection were by the Levitical
priesthood." Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how
much superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great
difference between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the
wide difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect
and the other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the
matters themselves, but first contends on the ground of the
priesthood, and the tabernacle. For these things would be more easily
received by the unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things
already allowed, and believed.
He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and
to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he
argues from a different point. What then is this? Why (he says)
did he not say, "after the order of Aaron"? And observe, I pray
you, the great superiority [of his argument]. For from the very
circumstance which naturally excluded His priesthood, viz. that He
was not "after the order of Aaron," from that he establishes Him,
and excludes the others. For this is the very thing that I say (he
declares); why has He " not been made after the order of Aaron"?
And the [saying] "what further need" has much emphasis. For if
Christ had been "after the order of Melchisedec" according to the
flesh, and then afterwards the law had been introduced, and all that
pertained to Aaron, one might reasonably say that the latter as being
more perfect, annulled the former, seeing that it had come in after
it. But if Christ comes later, and takes a different type, as that
of His priesthood, it is evident that it is because those. were
imperfect. For (he would say) let us suppose for argument's sake,
that all has been fulfilled, and that there is nothing imperfect in the
priesthood. "What need" was there in that case that He should be
called "after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of
Aaron"? Why did He set aside Aaron, and introduce a different
priesthood, that of Melchisedec? "If then perfection," that is
the perfection of the things themselves, of the doctrines, of life,
"had been by the Levitical priesthood."
And observe how he goes forward on his path. He had said that [He
was] "after the order of Melchisedec," implying that the
[priesthood] "after the order of Melchisedec" is superior: for
[he was] far superior. Afterwards he shows this from the time also,
in that He was after Aaron; evidently as being better.
And what is the meaning of what follows? "For" (he says) "under
[or "upon"] it the people have received the Law for "have been
legislated for"]." What is "under it" [&c.]? Ordereth
itself by it; through it does all things. You cannot say that it was
given to others, "the people under it have received the law," that
is, have used it, and did use it. You cannot say indeed that it was
perfect, it did not govern the people; "they have been legislated for
upon it," that is, they used it.
What need was there then of another priesthood? "For the priesthood
being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law also." But
if there must be another priest, or rather another priesthood, there
must needs be also another law. This is for those who say, What need
was there of a new Covenant?
For he could indeed have alleged a testimony from prophecy also.
"This is the covenant which I made with your fathers" [&c.].
(c. viii. 10.) But for the present he contends on the ground of
the priesthood. And observe, how be says this from the first. He
said, "According to the order of "Melchisedec." By this he
excluded the order of Aaron. For he would not have said "After the
order of Melchisedec," if the other had been better. If therefore
another priesthood has been brought in, there must be also [another]
Covenant; for neither is it possible that there should be a priest,
without a covenant and laws and ordinances, nor that having received a
different priesthood He should use the former [covenant].
In the next place, as to the ground of objection: "How could He be
a priest if He were not a Levite?" Having overthrown this by what
had been said above, he does not even think it worth answering, but
introduces it in passing. I said (he means) that the priesthood was
changed, therefore also the Covenant is. And it was changed not only
in its character, or in its ordinances, but also in its tribe. For
of necessity [it must be changed] in its tribe also. How? "For
the priesthood being changed [or "transferred "]," from tribe to
tribe, from the sacerdotal to the regal [tribe], that the same might
be both regal and sacerdotal.
And observe the mystery. First it was royal, and then it is become
sacerdotal: so therefore also in regard to Christ: for King indeed
He always was, but has become Priest from the time that He assumed
the Flesh, that He offered the sacrifice. Thou seest the change,
and the very things which were ground of objection these he introduces,
as though the natural order of things required them. "For" (he
says) "He of whom these things are spoken pertained to another
tribe." I myself also say it, I know that this tribe [of Judah]
had nothing of priesthood. For there is a transferring.
Yea and I am showing another difference also (he would say): not
only from the tribe, nor yet only from the Person, nor from the
character [of the Priesthood], nor from the covenant, but also from
the type itself., (Ver. 16) "Who was made [" became" so],
not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the
power of an endless life. He became" (he says) "a priest not
according to the law of a carnal commandment ": for that law was in
many respects unlawful.
What is, "of a carnal commandment"? Circumcise the flesh, it
says; anoint the flesh; wash the flesh; purify the flesh; shave the
flesh; bind upon the flesh; cherish the flesh; rest as to the flesh.
And again its blessings, what are they? Long life for the flesh;
milk and honey for the flesh; peace for the flesh; luxury for the
flesh. From this law Aaron received the priesthood; Melchisedec
however not so.
Ver. 15. "And it is yet far more evident, if after the
similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest." What is
evident? The interval between the two priesthoods, the difference;
how much superior He is "who was made not according to the law of a
carnal commandment." (Who? Melchisedec? Nay; but Christ.)
"But according to the power of an endless life. For He testifieth,
Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"; that
is, not for a time, nor having any limit, "but according to the
power of an endless life," that is, by means of power, by means of
"endless life."
And yet this does not follow after, "who was made not according to
the law of a carnal commandment": for what would follow would be to
say, "but according to that of a spiritual one." However by
"carnal," he implied temporary. As he says also in another place,
carnal ordinances imposed until the time of reformation." (c. ix.
10.)
"According to the power of life," that is, because He lives by
His own power.
He had said, that there is also a change of law, and up to this point
he has shown it; henceforward he enquires into the cause, that which
above all gives full assurance to men's minds, [I mean] the knowing
the cause thoroughly; and it leads us more to faith when we have
learned also the cause, and the principle according to which [the
thing] comes to pass.
Ver. 18. "For there is verily" (he says) "a disannulling of
the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitablehess
thereof." Here the Heretics press on. But listen attentively. He
did not say "for the evil," nor, "for the viciousness," but "for
the weakness and unprofitablehess [thereof]," yea and in other
places also he shows the weakness; as when he says "In that it was
weak through the flesh." (Rom. viii. 3.0 [The law] itself
then is not weak, but we.
Ver. 19. "For the Law made nothing perfect." What is, "make
nothing perfect"? Made no man perfect, being disobeyed. And
besides, even if it had been listened to, it would not have made one
perfect and virtuous. But as yet he does not say this here, but that
it had no strength: and with good reason. For written precepts were
there set down, Do this and Do not that, being enjoined only, and
not giving power within. But "the Hope" is not such.
What is "a disannulling"? A casting out. A "disannulling" is a
disannulling of things which are of force. So that he implied, that
it [once] was of force, but henceforward was of no account, since it
accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of
use; and of great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For
in this respect he says, "The Law made nothing perfect." All were
figures, all shadows; circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. There fore
they could not reach through the soul, wherefore they pass away and
gradually withdraw. "But the bringing in of a better hope did, by
which we draw nigh unto God."
(Ver. 20) "And forasmuch as not without the taking of an
oath."
Thou seest that the matter of the oath becomes necessary for him here.
Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much [hereon], how
that God swore; and swore for the sake of [our] fuller assurance.
"But the bringing in of a better hope." For that system also had a
hope, but not such as this. For they hoped that, if they were well
pleasing [to God], they should possess the land, that they should
suffer nothing fearful. But in this [dispensation] we hope that, if
we are well pleasing [to God], we shall possess not earth, but
heaven; or rather (which is far better than this) we hope to stand
near to God, to come unto the very throne of the Father, to minister
unto Him with the Angels. And see how he introduces these things by
little and little. For above he says "which entereth into that within
the veil", (c. vi. 19), but here, "by which we draw nigh unto
God."
"And inasmuch as not without an oath." What is "And inasmuch as
not without an oath"? That is, Behold another difference also.
And these things were not merely promised (he says). "For those
priests were made without an oath," (ver. 21, 22 ) "but This
with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will
not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better
covenant." He lays down two points of difference, that it hath no
end as the [covenant] of the Law had; and this he proves from [its
being] Christ who exercises [the priesthood]; for he says
"according to the power of an endless life." And he proves it also
from the oath, because "He swore," &c., and from the fact; for
if the other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm,
because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How?
Because He is One [only]; and there would not have been One
[only], unless He had been immortal. For as there were many
priests, because they were mortal, so [here is] The One, because
He is immortal. "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better
covenant," inasmuch as He sware to Him that He should always be
[Priest]; which He would not have done, if He were not living.
(Ver. 25) "Wherefore He is able also to save them to the
uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make
intercession for them." Thou seest that he says this in respect of
that which is according to the flesh. For when He [appears] as
Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says,
"who also maketh intercession for us" (Rom. viii. 34), he
hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He
"that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them," (John
v. 21), and that "even as the Father" [doth], how [is it
that] when there is need to save, He "maketh intercession'?
(John v. 22.) He that hath "all judgment," how [is it that]
He "maketh intercession"? He that "sendeth His angels" (Matt.
xiii. 41, 42), that they may "cast" some into "the
furnace," and save others, how [is it that] He "maketh
intercession"? Wherefore (he says) "He is able also to save."
For this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as
"He ever liveth," He hath (he means) no successor: And if He
have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there [under the
Law] indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration
during the time in which he was [High Priest] (as Samuel for
instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for
they were dead. But here it is not so, but "He" saves "to the
uttermost."
What is "to the uttermost"? He hints at some mystery. Not here
only (he says) but there also He saves them that "come unto God by
Him." How does He save? "In that He ever liveth" (he says)
"to make intercession for them." Thou seest the humiliation? Thou
seest the manhood? For he says not, that He obtained this, by
making intercession once for all, but continually, and whensoever it
may be needful to intercede for them.
"To the uttermost." What is it? Not for a time only, but there
also in the future life. ' Does He then always need to pray? Yet
how can [this] be reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimes
accomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then
is He throned with [the Father]?' Thou seest that it is a
condescension. The meaning is: Be not afraid, nor say, Yea, He
loves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the Father, but He
cannot live always. For He doth live alway.
(Ver. 26) "For such an High Priest also became us, who is
holy, harmless, unde filed, separate from the sinners." Thou seest
that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I
say 'the manhood,' I mean [the manhood] having Godhead; not
dividing [one from the other], but leaving [you] to suppose what is
suitable.) Didst thou mark the difference of the High Priest? He
has summed up what was said before, "in all points tempted like as we
are yet without sin." (c. iv. 15.) "For" (he says) "such
an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless." "Harmless
": what is it? Without wickedness: that which another Prophet
says: "guile was not found in His mouth" (Isa. liii. 9), that
is, [He is] not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God?
And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful?
Concerning Him, however, in respect of the Flesh, it might be
reasonable [to say it]. "Holy, undefiled." This too would any
one say concerning God? For has He a nature capable of defilement?
"Separate from sinners."
Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself
also? How? (Ver. 27) "He needeth not" (he says) "daily,
as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this
He did once for all, when He offered up Himself. "This," what?
Here what follows sounds a prelude concerning the exceeding greatness
of the spiritual sacrifice and the interval [between them]. He has
mentioned the point of the priest; he has mentioned that of the faith;
he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not entirely indeed, still he
has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a prelude concerning
the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He is a
priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest's office.
For He executed it once, and thenceforward "sat down." (c. x.
12.) Lest thou suppose that He is standing on high, and is a
minister, he shows that the matter is [part] of a dispensation [or
economy]. For as He became a servant, so also [He became] a
Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming a servant, He did not
continue a servant, so also, having become a Minister, He did not
continue a Minister. For it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to
stand.
This then he hints at here, and also the greatness of the sacrifice,
if being [but] one, and having been offered up once only, it
affected that which all [the rest] were unable to do. But he does
not yet [treat] of these points.
"For this He did," he says. "This"; what? "For" (he
says) "it is of necessity that this [Man] have somewhat also to
offer" (c. viii.
3); not for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the
people. What sayest thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (he
says). "For the Law maketh men high priests, which have
infirmity." (c. vii. 28.) And doth He not need to offer for
Himself? No, he says. For, that you may not suppose that the
[words, "this "] "He did once for all," are said respecting
Himself also, hear what he says: "For the law maketh men high
priests, which have infirmity." On this account they both offer
continually, and for themselves. He however who is mighty, He that
hath no sin, why should He offer for Himself, or oftentimes for
others?
"But the word of the oath which was since the Law [maketh] the Son
who has been consecrated for evermore." "Consecrated": what is
that? Paul does not set down the common terms of contradistinction;
for after saying "having Infirmity," he did not say "the Son" who
is mighty, but "consecrated": i.e. mighty, as one might say.
Thou seest that the name Son is used in contradistinction to that of
servant. And by "infirmity" he means either sin or death.
What is, "for evermore"? Not now only without sin but always. If
then He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives always, why
shall He offer many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does
not insist strongly on this point: but what he does strongly insist
upon is, His not offering on His own behalf.
Since then we have such an High Priest, let us imitate Him: let us
walk in His footsteps. There is no other sacrifice: one alone has
cleansed us, and after this, fire and hell. For indeed on this
account he repeats it over and over, saying, "one Priest," "one
Sacrifice," lest any one supposing that there are many [sacrifices]
should sin without fear. Let us then, as many as have been counted
worthy of The Seal,
as many as have enjoyed The Sacrifice, as many as have partaken of
the immortal Table, continue to guard our noble birth and our dignity
for failing away is not without danger.
And as many as have not yet been counted worthy these [privileges],
let not these either be confident on that account. For when a person
goes on in sin, with the view of receiving holy baptism at the last
gasp, oftentimes he will not obtain it. And, believe me, it is not
to terrify you that I say what I am going to say. I have myself
known many persons, to whom this has happened, who in expectation
indeed of the enlightening sinned much, and on the day of their death
went away empty. For God gave us baptism for this cause, that He
might do away our sins, not that He might increase our sins. Whereas
if any man have employed it as a security for sinning more, it becomes
a cause of negligence. For if there had been no Washing, they would
have lived more warily, as not having [the means of] forgiveness.
Thou seest that we are the ones who cause it to be said "Let us do
evil, that good may come." (Rom. iii. 8.)
Wherefore, I exhort you also who are uninitiated, be sober. Let no
man follow after virtue as an hireling, no man as a senseless person,
no man as after a heavy and burdensome thing, Let us pursue it then
with a ready mind, and with joy. For if there were no reward laid
up, ought we not to be good? But however, at least with a reward,
let us become good. And how is this anything else than a disgrace and
a very great condemnation? Unless thou give me a reward (says one),
I do not become self-controlled. Then am I bold to say something:
thou wilt never be self-controlled, no not even when thou livest with
self-control, if thou dost it for a reward. Thou esteemest not
virtue at all, if thou dost not love it. But on account of our great
weakness, God was willing that for a time it should be practiced even
for reward, yet not even so do we pursue it.
But let us suppose, if you will, that a man dies, after having done
innumerable evil things, having also been counted worthy of baptism
(which however I think does not readily happen), tell me, how will
he depart thither?
Not indeed called to account for the deeds he had done, but yet
without confidence; as is reasonable. For when after living a hundred
years, he has no good work to show, but only that he has not sinned,
or rather not even this, but that he was saved by grace only, and when
he sees others crowned, in splendor, and highly approved: even if he
fall not into hell, tell me, will he endure his despondency?
[10.] But to make the matter clear by an example, Suppose there
are two soldiers, and that one of them steals, injures, overreaches,
and that the other does none of these things, but acts the part of a
brave man, does important things well, sets up trophies in war,
stains his right hand with blood; then when the time arrives, suppose
that (from the same rank in which the thief also was) he is at once
conducted to the imperial throne and the purple; but suppose that the
other remains there where he was, and merely of the royal kindness does
not pay the penalty of his deeds, let him however be in the last
place, and let him be stationed under the King. Tell me, will he be
able to endure his despair when he sees him who was [ranked] with
himself ascended even to the very highest dignities, and made thus
glorious, and master of the world, while he himself still remains
below, and has not even been freed from punishment with honor, but
through the grace and kindness of the King? For even should the King
forgive him, and release him from the charges against him, still he
will live in shame; for surely not even will others admire him: since
in such forgiveness, we admire not those who receive the gifts, but
those who bestow them. And as much as the gifts are greater, so much
the more are they ashamed who receive them, when their transgressions
are great.
With what eyes then will such an one be able to took on those who are
in the King's courts, when they exhibit their sweatings out of number
and their wounds, whilst he has nothing to show, but has his salvation
itself of the mere loving-kindness of God? For as if one were to beg
off a murderer, a thief, an adulterer, when he was going to be
arrested, and were to command him to stay at the porch of the King's
palace, he will not afterwards be able to look any man in the face,
although he has been set free from punishment: so too surely is this
man's case.
For do not, I beseech you, suppose that because it is called a
palace, therefore all attain the same things. For if here in Kings'
courts there is the Prefect, and all who are about the King, and
also those who are in very inferior stations, and occupy the place of
what are called Decani (though the interval be so great between the
Prefect and the Decanus) much more shall this be so in the royal
court above.
And this I say not of myself. For Paul layeth down another
difference greater even than these. For (he says) as many
differences as there are between the sun and the moon and the stars and
the very smallest star, so many also between those in the kingdom [of
Heaven]. And that the difference between the sun and the smallest
star is far greater than that between the Decanus (as he is called)
and the Prefect, is evident to all. For while the sun shines upon
all the world at once, and makes it bright, and hides the moon and the
stars, the other often does not appear, not even in the dark. For
there are many of the stars which we do not see. When then we see
others become suns, and we have the rank of the very smallest stars,
which are not even visible, what comfort shall we have?
Let us not, I beseech you, let us not be so slothful, not so
inert, let us not barter away the salvation of God for an easy life,
but let us make merchandise of it, and increase it. For even if one
be a Catechumen, still he knows Christ, still he understands the
Faith, still he is a hearer of the divine oracles, still he is not
far from the knowledge; he knows the will of his Lord. Wherefore
does he procrastinate? wherefore does he delay and postpone? Nothing
is better than a good life whether here or there, whether in case of
the Enlightened or of the Catechumens, [11.] For tell me what
burdensome command have we enjoined? Have a wife (it is said) and be
chaste. Is this difficult? How? when many, not Christians only
but heathens also, live chastely without a wife. That which the
heathen surpasses for vainglory, thou dost not even keep for the fear
of God.
Give (He says) to the poor out of what thou hast. Is this
burdensome? But in this case also heathen condemn us who for vainglory
only have emptied out their whole possessions.
Use not filthy communication. Is this difficult? For if it had not
been enjoined, ought we not to have done right in this, to avoid
appearing degraded? For that the contrary conduct is troublesome, I
mean the using filthy communication, is manifest from the fact that the
soul is ashamed and blushes if it have been led to say any such thing
and would not unless perhaps it were drunk. For when sitting in a
public place, even if thou doest it at home, why dost thou not do it
there? Because of those that are present. Why dost thou not readily
do the same thing before thy wife? That thou mayest not insult her.
So then thou dost it not, lest thou shouldest insult thy wife; and
dost thou not blush at insulting God? For He is everywhere present,
and heareth all things.
Be not drunken, He says. For this very thing of itself, is it not
a chastisement? He did not say, Put thy body on the rack, but
what? Do not give it free rein so as to take away the authority of the
mind: on the contrary "make not provision for the lusts thereof."
(Rom. xiii. 14.)
Do not (He says) seize by violence what is not thine own; do not
overreach; do not forswear thyself. What labors do these things
require! what sweatings!
Speak evil of no man (He says) nor accuse falsely. The contrary
indeed is a labor. For when thou hast spoken ill of another,
immediately thou art in danger, in suspicion, [saying] Did he of
whom I spake, hear? whether he be great or small. For should he be
a great man, immediately thou wilt be indeed in danger; but if small,
he will requite thee with as much, or rather with what is far more
grievous; for he will say evil of thee in a greater degree.
We are enjoined nothing difficult, nothing burdensome, if we have the
will.
And if we have not the will, even the easiest things will appear
burdensome to us. What is easier than eating? but from great
effeminacy many feel disgust even at this, and I hear many say, that
it is weariness even to eat. None of these things is wearisome if thou
hast but the will. For everything depends on the will after the grace
from above. Let us will good things that we may attain also to the
good things eternal, in Christ Jesus our Lord, whom to the Father
together with the Holy Ghost be glory, might, honor, now and for
ever, and world without end. Amen.
|
|