Homilies on Hebrews 14.1–14.4

“[Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such] a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the holy things and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Paul mixes lowly things with lofty ones, always imitating his own Teacher, so that the lowly things may become a road to the lofty, and through them men may be led by the hand to those, and, having come to the great things, may learn that these were of condescension. This at any rate he does here too; for having said that he offered up himself, and having shown him to be high priest, he adds: “The main point … a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” And yet this does not belong to the holy things … to a priest, but to him to whom the priest must minister. “A minister of the holy things.” Not a minister simply, but “a minister of the holy things. And of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Do you see the condescension? Did he not a little before distinguish, saying, “Are they not all ministering spirits?”, and for this reason they do not hear, “Sit at my right hand”? And he says this as though the one who sits is certainly not a minister; so he hears this because of the flesh. By “tabernacle” here he means heaven. That is why, showing the difference from the Jewish one, he adds, saying, “which the Lord pitched, and not man.” See how he lifted up the souls of those of the Jews who had believed, by saying this. For since it was likely that they imagined, “We do not have such a tabernacle,” See, he says, the priest, both great and much greater than that one, and he has offered a more wonderful sacrifice. But are these not words, not boasting and enticement? But for this reason he confirmed it first from the oath, and now from the tabernacle too. This difference too was plain …; but he thinks of another too: “which the Lord pitched,” he says, “and not man.” Where then are those who say that heaven moves? Where are those who declare it to be spherical? For both these are done away here. “The main point,” he says, “in what we are saying.” What is greatest is always called the main point. Again he brings the discourse down; having said what is lofty, he now speaks the lowly things without fear. Then, so that you may learn that “minister” is said of the humanity, see how he again marks it: “For every high priest,” he says, “is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary that this one too have something to offer.” Do not, because you hear that he sits, think that his being called high priest is idle talk; for the sitting belongs to the dignity of God, but this to his great loving-kindness and his care for us. That is why he emphasizes it and lingers on it more; for he fears that that may overturn this. That is why he again brings the discourse down to this, since some were asking why he died, being a priest. And there is no priest without a sacrifice; so he too must have a sacrifice. And besides, having said that he is above, he says and shows that he is a priest from every side: from Melchizedek, from the oath, from his having offered a sacrifice. From this he now weaves another necessary syllogism. “For if he were on earth,” he says, “he would not be a priest at all, since there are the priests who offer the gifts according to the law.” If, then, he is a priest, he says, as indeed he is, another place must be sought for him. For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest. How so? He did not offer, he did not serve as priest; and rightly, for there were the priests. And he shows that it was not even possible for him to be a priest on earth; how? For there would not even be a rising up [against the appointed priests], he says. Here it is necessary to strain the mind and to perceive the apostolic wisdom; for again he shows the difference of the priesthood. “Who serve,” he says, “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” What heavenly things does he mean here? The spiritual things; for even if they are performed on earth, yet they are worthy of heaven. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain, when the Spirit comes, when he who sits at the right hand of the Father is here, when men become sons through the washing, when they are citizens of those in heaven, when we have a fatherland there, and a city, and a commonwealth, when we are strangers to the things here, how are not all these things heavenly?

And what? Are not the hymns heavenly? Do not we below sing in harmony with them the very things that the divine choirs of the bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar heavenly too? How? It has nothing fleshly; all that is set forth becomes spiritual; the sacrifice is not dissolved into ash, nor into smoke, nor into the savor of fat, but makes what is set forth bright and splendid. And how are the rites not heavenly, when those who minister at them hear still what was said, “Whatever you hold fast is held fast …”, when these hold even the keys of heaven? “Who serve,” he says, “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was instructed when he was about to complete the tabernacle; for see, he says, that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” Since our hearing is less instructive than our sight (for we do not store in the soul what we hear in the same way as what we see with our own eyes), he showed him everything. Either, then, he means this by “a copy and shadow,” or he hints at the temple; for he added, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” Did he see only the construction of the temple, or the sacrifices and all the other things too? Or rather, one would not err in saying this too: for the church is heavenly, and is nothing else than heaven. “But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant.” Do you see, he says, how much better the ministry is than the ministry, since that is a copy and type, but this the truth? But this did not profit the hearers nor gladden them. For this reason he says what most gladdened them: “which has been enacted on better promises.” Having exalted it from the place and the priest and the sacrifice, he then sets down the difference of the covenant too, having said it before as well, when he showed that it was weak and unprofitable. And see what safeguards he sets, being about to accuse it. For there, having said, “according to the power of an indestructible life,” he then said, “there is a setting aside of the former commandment”; then later he set down something great, saying, “through which we draw near to God.” But here, having led us up to heaven, and shown that in place of the temple we have heaven, and that those things were types of ours, and having exalted the ministry by these things, he now fittingly exalts the priesthood too. But, as I said, he sets down what most gladdened them, saying, “which has been enacted on better promises.” From where is this plain? From the fact that the one was cast out and the other brought in in its place; for it prevails for this reason, that it is better. For just as he says, “If perfection were through it, what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek?”, so here too he uses the same syllogism, saying, “For if that first had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second”; that is, if it had nothing lacking, if it made men blameless. For that he speaks of this, hear what follows: “For finding fault with them, he says.” He did not say, “finding fault with it,” but, “finding fault with them, he says, See, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will accomplish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in my covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.” Yes, one says; and from where is it plain that it came to an end? He showed this from the priest too; but now he shows it more clearly, in so many words, that it has been cast out. How? By saying, “on better promises.” For how, tell me, are earth and heaven equal? But see how there too he says “promises,” so that you may not accuse this one. For there too, “through which we draw near to God,” he says, “of a better hope,” showing that there too there was hope; and here, “a better promise,” hinting that there too he promised. And since they always charged …, “For see, the days are coming, says the Lord,” he says, “and I will accomplish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” He does not mean some old covenant. For so that they might not be able to say this, he defined the time too; for he did not simply say, “according to the covenant which I made with their fathers,” so that you might not say the one made with Abraham, or that with Noah; but showing which, he says, “not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers” at the exodus. That is why he added, “in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in my covenant, and I disregarded them.”

3. Do you see that evils begin first from us? “They,” he says, “first did not continue.” So the neglect comes from us, but the good things from him, I mean those of beneficence. Here he sets down, as it were, a defense, showing the very cause for which he abandons them. “For this is the covenant,” he says, “that I will make with the house of Israel after those days … [putting my laws into] their mind, and I will write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” So he says these things about the new one, since he says, “not according to the covenant which I made.” And what other difference is there but this? And if someone should say that the difference is not in this, but in its being given into their hearts, he does not bring in a difference of commands, but shows the manner of the giving. For the covenant will no longer be in letters, he says, but in hearts. Let the Jew, then, show that this ever happened; but he could not find it; for again it came about in letters after the return from Babylon. But I show that the apostles received nothing written, but received it in their hearts through the Holy Spirit. That is why Christ said, “He, when he comes, will remind you of all things, and will teach you.” “And they shall not teach,” he says, “each his neighbor and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their lawless deeds and their sins I will remember no more.” See another sign too: “From the least,” he says, “to the greatest of them they shall know me, and they shall not say, Know the Lord.” When did this happen but now? For ours is plain, but theirs is not plain, but was shut up in a corner. And besides, a covenant is then called new when it is other, and shows if it has anything more than the old. And it is also new when some parts of it are taken away and others not; for example, to speak by illustration, if someone, leaving the whole of an old house that is about to fall, underpins the foundation, we at once say, He has made it new, when he takes some things out and brings others in. For heaven too is called new so, when it is no longer bronze but gives rain; and the earth likewise new, when it is not unfruitful, not when it is changed. And a house is so new, when some parts are taken out and others remain. So he rightly said “a new covenant,” to show that that covenant had become old, in that it gave no fruit. And that you may learn this exactly, read what Haggai says, what Zechariah, what the angel, and what Ezra charges. How then did [the people] receive him? How does no one ask the Lord, when they themselves [the priests] transgressed and did not even know? Do you see how your interpretation has been forced? But I set down my own view, that this would properly be called new. And besides, I do not even grant that this was said about it, “The heaven will be new.” For why, when he says in Deuteronomy, “The heaven will be bronze,” did he not set this in the contrast: “but if you listen, it will be new”? And indeed for this reason he says that he will give another covenant, since they did not continue in the former. This I show from what he says: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh”; and again, “Why do you test God, putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” “Because they did not continue,” he says. Here he shows that he counts us worthy of greater and spiritual things. “For their sound has gone out,” it says, “into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” That is, “they shall not say each to his neighbor, Know the Lord.” And again, “The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as much water to cover the seas.” “[In saying, A new covenant, he has made] the first [old]. But what is becoming old and growing aged is near to vanishing away.” See how he uncovered the hidden meaning of the prophet. He honored the law, and did not wish to call it old by name; but nevertheless he said this; for if that was new, he would not have called this later one new. So, giving something more and another thing, “It has been made old,” he says. Then it is undone and perishes and is no longer. Having taken boldness from the prophet, he attacks it the more, to our profit, showing that our things are now flourishing; that is, he showed it to be old. Then, taking the name “old,” and adding another of his own, that of age, he took what remained from the rest, and says, “near to vanishing away.” So the new did not simply make the old cease, but as grown aged, as not useful. That is why he said, “because of its weakness and unprofitableness,” and, “the law made nothing perfect,” and that, “if the first had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second.” What is “faultless”? Useful, strong. And he says this not to show it answerable to charges, but as not sufficient; he spoke rather in common speech, as one might say, “The house is not faultless,” that is, it has a defect, it is rotten; “the garment is not faultless,” that is, it is now falling apart. So he says it here not as evil, but as having a fault and a defect …

So we too are new, or rather we became new; but now we have grown old; that is why we are near to vanishing and destruction. But if we will, it is possible to scrape off this old age. By the washing it is no longer possible, but here it is possible by repentance. If there is anything old in us, let us throw it off; if there is any wrinkle, any stain, any spot, let us wash it away and become beautiful, so that the king may desire our beauty. It is possible even for those who have fallen into the extreme of ugliness to recover that beauty about which David says, “Hear, daughter, and see, and incline your ear, and forget your people and your father’s house, and the king will desire your beauty.” And yet forgetting does not produce beauty, the beauty of the soul. What forgetting? That of sins. For he speaks to the church from the Gentiles, exhorting her not to remember the ancestral things, that is, those of men who sacrificed to idols; for it was gathered from such. And he did not say, “Do not pursue them,” but, what is more, “Do not even take them into your mind”; which he says elsewhere too: “I will not take their names upon my lips”; and again, “that my mouth may not speak the works of men.” This is not yet great virtue; or rather it is great, but not such. For there what does he say? He did not say, “You shall not speak of the things of the fathers,” but, “Do not even remember them, do not even take them into your mind.” Do you see how great a distance he wishes us to keep from wickedness? For he who does not remember will not reckon; and he who does not reckon does not even speak; and he who does not speak will not even do it. Do you see by how many roads he walled us off beforehand, by how many distances he kept us far, and with abundant margin? Let us too, then, hear and forget our evils; not, I mean, the sins we have committed; for “Remember first,” he says, “and I will not remember.” I mean, for example: let us no longer remember robbery, but let us also restore what we took before. This is to forget wickedness: to cast out the thought of robbery and never again receive it, but also to wipe out the offenses already committed. And from where would forgetting of wickedness come to us? From the remembrance of God’s good things; if we remember God continually, we cannot remember those things. “If I remembered you,” he says, “on my bed, at dawn I meditated on you.” Always, then, but especially at the time when the mind is in quiet, one must remember God, when through that remembrance it can condemn itself, when it can be held in the remembrance. For if we remember by day, other cares and tumults coming in drive it out again; but by night it is possible to remember continually, when the soul is in calm and at rest, when it is in harbor, when it is in fair weather. “What you say in your hearts, be sorry for on your beds,” he says. For one ought to have this remembrance by day too; but since you are always anxious and distracted by the things of this life, at least then remember God on your bed; at dawn meditate on him. If we meditate on these things at dawn, we shall go to our business with great safety; if we first make God gracious by petition and supplication, going forth so we shall have no enemy; and even if you have one, you will laugh at him, having God gracious. There is war in the marketplace; the daily affairs are a battle; there is surge and storm. We need arms, then; and prayer is a great weapon. We need favorable winds; we must learn everything, so as to get through the length of the day without shipwrecks and wounds; for many are the rocks every day. For this reason we need prayer above all, at dawn and at night. Many of you have often watched the Olympic games; and not only watched, but became partisans and admirers of the contestants, one of this one, another of that. You know, then, that on the days of the contests, and through those nights, through the whole night the herald thinks of nothing else, cares about nothing else, than how, when he comes out, he may not disgrace himself. For those who sit beside the trumpeter urge him not even to speak to anyone, so that his breath may not be spent and he incur laughter. If, then, one who is to contend before men takes such forethought, much more will it befit us to be continually thoughtful and anxious, for whom the whole of life is a contest. Let every night, then, be a vigil, and let us be anxious how, going out by day, we may not incur laughter. And would that it were laughter only! But now the president of the games sits at the right hand of the Father, listening exactly whether we utter anything out of tune, anything off the melody; for he is the judge not of deeds only, but of words too. Let us keep vigil, beloved; we too have partisans, if we will; an angel sits beside each of us; but we snore through the whole night. And would that this were all! But many also do many wanton things, some going to the brothels themselves, others making their houses brothels by bringing courtesans there. Very well indeed (do they not?) are they anxious to contend! Others get drunk and talk nonsense, others make uproar, others keep vigil wickedly, weaving plots worse than the sleepers; others counting interest, others cut by cares, and doing everything rather than what befits the contest. So, I beg you, leaving everything, let us look to this alone, how we may win the prize and bind on the crown; let us do everything by which we shall be able to obtain the promised good things; which may we all obtain, by grace and loving-kindness …