If Therefore Perfection Were By The Levitical Priesthood; (For Under It The People Have Received The Law) What Further N
HOMILY XIII
HEB. 7:11–14.
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 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 saith) perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and pointed out how much superior he was to Abraham, and having proved that the difference was great 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 shewn that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. [Now] he argues again from a different point. What then is this? Why (saith he) 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 for which it were natural to exclude 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 (saith he); why has He not been made after the order of Aaron?
And the [saying] what further need has much emphasis. For if the 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, a person might reasonably say that the latter as being more perfect, annulled the former, seeing that it had come in after it. But if the Christ comes later, and takes a different type, as that of His priesthood, it is evident that He does this on the ground that that [Aaronic] system was 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 [namely] 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 shews this from the time also, in that He was after Aaron; evidently as being better.
[2.] And what is the meaning of what follows next? for (saith he) under [or upon] it the people have received the Law [or have been legislated for]. What is, under it [&c.]? regulateth 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 that it indeed was perfect, but that it did not rule and protect 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 a different priest, or rather a different priesthood, there must of necessity be also a different law. This is directed against 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.] But for the present he contends on the ground of the priesthood. And observe, how he says this from the first. He had 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 this other had been better. If therefore another priesthood has been brought in, there must needs 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 that former [covenant].
In the next place, as to that which was the very ground of objection: “How could He be a priest if He were not a “Levite?” having previously overthrown this by what had been said above, he does not even condescend to solve it, but introduces it in passing. I said (saith he) 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 sacerdotal and regal.
And observe the mystery. First it was royal, and then it is become sacerdotal: therefore it is just as in the case also of 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 (saith he) 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.
[3.] Yea and I am shewing 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 (saith he) a priest, not according to the law of a carnal commandment: for that law was in many respects unlawful.
What is [the meaning 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 from work 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 it was that Aaron received the priesthood: Melchisedec however not so.
ver. 15. And it is yet far more abundantly 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 [is this?] Melchisedec? Nay; but the 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 indestructible life.
And yet this does not follow naturally after, who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment: for what would follow naturally would be to say, “but according to that of a spiritual one.” However by its being carnal, he implied its being temporary. Just as he says also in another place, carnal ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
According to the power of life, that is, because He lives by His own power.
[4.] He had said, that a change of law also takes place, and up to this point he has shewn it; Henceforward he enquires into the cause, that which above all things 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 the cause as well, and the principle according to which [the thing] is done.
ver. 18. For there is indeed (saith he) a disannulling of the commandment going before, on account of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. Here the Heretics press on. But listen thou attentively. He did not say “on account of the evil,” nor, “on account of the viciousness,” but on account of the weakness and unprofitableness [thereof], yea and in other places also he points out its weakness; as when he says In that it was weak through the flesh. It is not then [the law] itself which is weak, but we.
ver. 19. For the Law made nothing perfect. What is, made nothing perfect? made no man perfect, being disobeyed. And besides, not even if it had been listened to, would it 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, not at the same time giving power within. But the Hope is not of such a character.
What is a disannulling? a casting out. A Disannulling is a disannulling of things which are of force. So that he intimated, that it [once] was of force, but henceforward was held of no account, seeing that it accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of use: and of very great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For it is in this respect that he saith, The law made nothing perfect. All things were figures, all shadow; circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. Therefore they had not power to reach through into the soul, wherefore they pass away and gradually withdraw. But [it was] the introduction of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God.
[5.] (ver. 20) And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath. Thou seest that the point of the oath becomes necessary for him in this place. Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much [hereon], how that God sware; and sware for the sake of [our] fuller assurance.
But the introduction of a better hope. For that other system also had a hope, but not such as this. For their hope was, that if they were well pleasing [to God] they should possess the land, that they should suffer nothing fearful. But in this [dispensation] our hope is, that if we have pleased [God], we shall possess not earth, but heaven; or rather (which is far better) we hope to be placed near to God, to come even unto the very throne of the Father, to minister unto Him among the Angels. And see how he introduces these things by little and little. For above he says which entereth into that within the veil, but in this place, by which we draw nigh unto God.
And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath. What is And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath? that is, there is another difference also. Besides, neither were these things merely promised (saith he). For they indeed became priests without the taking of an oath, (ver. 21, 22) but He with the taking of an oath, through Him who said to Him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made surety of a better covenant. He lays down two points of difference, that it hath not any end as the [covenant] of the Law had; and this he proves from [its being] Christ who exercises [the priesthood]; for he saith according to the power of an endless life. And he proves it also from the oath, because [The Lord] sware &c, and from the fact; for if that other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How? Because there 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 surety of a better covenant, inasmuch as He sware to Him that He should alway be [Priest]; which He would not have done, if He had not been Living.
[6.] (ver. 25) Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, who come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. Thou seest that he saith 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, he insinuates the same thing; it is the High Priest that maketh intercession. For He that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them, and that even as the Father [doth], how [is it that] when there is need to save, He maketh intercession? He that hath all judgment, how is it that He maketh intercession? He that sendeth His angels, so as to cast some into the furnace, and to save others, how is it that He maketh intercession? Wherefore (saith he) 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 stand forward in behalf of all men. For there [under the Law] indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration, [was so] only for the time during 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 (saith he) but there also He saves them that come unto God by Him. How does He save [them?] in that He is ever living (saith he) to make intercession for them. Thou seest the humiliation? Thou seest the manhood? For he saith not, that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but [does it] 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? and yet how can [this] be reasonable? Even men indeed that are righteous, have oftentimes accomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? For what purpose 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 that He should live alway is not possible. For He doth live alway.
[7.] (v. 26) For such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from the sinners. Thou seest that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I say ‘the manhood,’ I mean [the manhood] having Godhead; not dividing [one from the other], but leaving [you] to suppose what is suitable). Didst thou mark the difference of the High Priest? He has summed up what was said before, in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. For (saith he) such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless. Harmless: what is it? without wickedness: that which another Prophet says: guile was not found in His mouth, that is, [He is] not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? and is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning Him, however, viewed 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.
[8.] Does then this alone shew the difference, or does the very sacrifice itself as well? How? (ver. 27) He hath no need (saith he) daily, as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for all, when He offered Himself. This, what? Here he proceeds to sound as it were 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 he proceeds to prelude also concerning the sacrifice itself.
Do not then, because thou hast heard that He is a Priest, suppose that He is alway executing the priest’s office. For He executed it once for all, and thenceforward sat down. That thou mayest not suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he points out that the matter is [part] of a dispensation [or economy]. For just as He became a servant, in the same manner 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 effected that which all [the rest] were unable to do. But he does not yet [treat] of these points.
For this He did, saith he. This; what? For (he saith) it is of necessity that this [Man] have somewhat also to offer Not [to offer] for Himself; for how did He offer for Himself? but for the people. What sayest thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (saith he). For the Law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity. And doth He not need to offer for Himself? No, saith he. For, that you may not suppose that the [words, this] He did once for all, are said respecting Himself, as well [as others], 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, for what cause should He offer for Himself, or oftentimes for the others?
But the word of the oath-taking which was since the Law [maketh] the Son who has been consecrated [perfected] for evermore. Perfected: what is that? Paul does not set down the expressions of contrast that are required in strictness; for after saying having Infirmity, he did not say the Son who is mighty, but perfected: 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 at any time, if He lives always, for what purpose 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.
[9.] Seeing then that 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 it is on this account that he repeats it over and over, saying, “one Priest,” “one Sacrifice,” lest any man 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 been partakers of the Immortal Table, [let us, I say] continue to guard our noble birth and our dignity: for our falling away is not without danger.
And as many as have not yet had these [privileges] vouchsafed, 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, perhaps (as often happens) 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 it is ourselves who cause it to be said [that we say] Let us do evil, that good may come.
Wherefore, I exhort you, ye also who are uninitiated, be sober. Let no man follow after virtue as an hireling, no man as an ungenerous and ungrateful person, no man as though it were a heavy and a burdensome thing. Let us pursue after it then with 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 (saith one), I do not become chaste. Then am I bold to say somewhat: never wilt thou be chaste, no not even when thou livest chastely, if thou dost it for a reward. Thou esteemest not virtue at all, if thou art not enamoured of it. But on account of our great weakness, God was willing that for a time it should be practised even for reward, yet not even so do we pursue it.
Let us however suppose, if you will, that a man dies, after having done innumerable evil things, having also had baptism vouchsafed him (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 shew, but only that he had 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 well in important things, sets up trophies in war, has his right hand stained 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 mercy does not pay the penalty of his deeds, let him however be in the last place, and let him be stationed under him who is [now] a 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 point of 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 honour, but through the grace and mercifulness of the King? For even should the King forgive him, and release him from the charges against him, still will he live in shame; For surely not even will others admire him: since in such instances of forgiveness, we admire not those who receive the gifts, but those who bestow them. And in such proportion as the gifts are greater, the more are they ashamed who receive them, when what they have done amiss is great.
With what eyes then will such an one be able to look 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 shew, but has his being saved itself of the mere lovingkindness of God? For just as if one were to beg off a murderer, a thief, an adulterer, when he was going to be led away for execution, 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 without question is this man’s case.
For do not, I beseech you, suppose that because it is called a palace, therefore all are to 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 (saith he) as many differences as there are [in passing] from the sun to the moon and the stars, and the very smallest star, so many also [will be the differences] of 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 puts out of sight the moon and the stars, the other perhaps does not even appear, not even in the dark. For there are many stars which we do not see. When then we see others become suns, and ourselves 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, let us not be so inert, let us not barter away the salvation of God on an easy life, but let us make merchandise of it, and increase it. For even if a person be only a Catechumen, still he knows Christ, still he is acquainted with 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 then 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 you? Have a wife (saith He) and be chaste. Is this difficult? How? when many, not Christians only but Heathens also, live chastely without a wife. That which the heathen goes beyond for vain glory’s sake, thou dost not even keep for the fear of God.
Give, (saith He) to the poor out of what thou hast. Is this burdensome? But in this case also heathen condemn us, who for vain-glory only have emptied out their whole possessions.
Use not filthy language. Is this difficult? For if it had not been enjoined, ought we not to have done right in this respect, to avoid appearing degraded? For that the contrary conduct is against the grain, I mean the using filthy language, is manifest from the fact that the soul is ashamed and blushes if it have been led to say any thing of that kind, and it will not even utter such things, unless by chance a man be 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 abstainest from doing it, lest thou shouldest insult thy wife; and dost thou not blush at insulting God? For He is every where present, and heareth all things.
Be not drunken, saith He. 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 make it so wild as to take away the authority of the mind: on the contrary make not provision for the lusts thereof.
Do not (saith He) seize by violence what is not thine own; do not over-reach; perjure not thyself. What labours do these things require! what sweatings!
Speak evil of no man (saith He) nor accuse [any] falsely. What toil is there here? Nay rather the contrary is a labour. 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 much greater degree. It is nothing difficult, nothing burdensome which we have enjoined on us, if we have the will. And if we have not the will, even the easiest things will appear burdensome to us. What is more easy than eating? but from great effeminacy many persons make a difficulty even of 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 every thing depends on the willing, after the grace from above. Let us then be willing to do things that are good, that we may attain also to the good things which are eternal, in Christ Jesus our Lord, whom to the Father and also to the Holy Ghost be glory, might honour now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.