Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9:1

Bede: Now the golden urn in the ark holding the manna is the holy soul in Christ that contains in itself all the fullness of divinity. Aaron’s rod that budded although cut off from the tree is the invincible power of his priesthood, concerning which the prophet says, “Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.” Even after it seemed for the time being to have been cut off through death, in the dawn of the resurrection morn it was found to have blossomed again all the more vigorously, and it became clear that it would remain forever imperishable and unfading. For “Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.” The tablets of the covenant in the ark indicate that all knowledge of the Father’s secrets and all power of judgment are in Christ. For on the tablets of the covenant were inscribed the faith of the eternal divinity which creates and rules the world, and the commandments through which one ought to serve God, and the discerning judgment with which God rightly condemns those who hate God and with due mercy rewards those who love him. This, then, is the testimony that the Lord gave Moses to be put into the ark. It indicated the truth that we ought to confess in Christ about his flesh, his son, and his word. It showed that after the passion of death the same flesh would be glorified in the resurrection and lifted up in the eternal dignity of a king and priest. It taught that he alone is privy to the Father’s secrets, just as truly as he is the judge of all worlds, of one and the same majesty with the Father. — On the Tabernacle 1.4.17

Bede: The ark can also be taken figuratively as the holy church that is constructed from incorruptible wood, that is, from holy souls. Extended throughout the four quarters of the world, with faith in the holy gospel, the church expects from God the eternal crown of life. It contains in itself the tables of the covenant by continual meditation on the law of God. It also contains the golden urn with the manna as a guarantee of the Lord’s incarnation, and Aaron’s rod that budded as a sharing in the kingship and priesthood of the Lord; for the apostle Peter says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood.” Up above, it has the propitiatory to remind it that every good thing it possesses it has received from the generosity of divine grace. And on the propitiatory it has the glorious cherubim, signifying either the angelic assistance with which it is always aided by a gracious God or the Testaments in which it is taught how it ought to live and in what manner it ought to seek the aid of divine propitiation so that it may live properly. Now the cherubim were set over the propitiatory in this way, just as the city of Christ, that is, the holy church, is said to have been built upon the mountain, that is, upon Christ himself; not that his city can be higher than he but because it derives support from his assistance. The ark has cherubim over the propitiatory because both the angelic ministries and the divine eloquences surely give aid to the church insofar as they themselves stand firm upon the foundation of the highest truth. — On the Tabernacle 1.5.20-21

Ephrem the Syrian: Now “even the first covenant had” in it some rules in addition to “regulations” of the ministry of “worship,” because sin exacted the punishment of the sword. However, this sanctification—this law that sanctifies us by means of water—does not pass away like those rules; in fact, it remains forever hereafter, because Jesus rejected that law for a new covenant, which was earlier proclaimed through Jeremiah.Then Paul turns his attention to the temporary tabernacle and to all the things which were in it in order to prove and reveal that they also have passed away, together with the abrogation of their law. It could not happen that they remained after the cessation of the law, because they also were shadows and symbols of this true ministry, which will last. Therefore, he begins again to deprive of its authority the service of the ministry held in the temporary tabernacle, of which the priests were proud in their overconfidence, by saying, “The first tent was prepared” so, because “in it were the lampstand and the table” and the other things. In the inner tent, “called the Holy of Holies,” under its veil, there was placed one “golden altar of incense and the ark covered on all sides with gold,” together with the other things. However, is there now any need to describe these objects in detail, one by one? In fact, even though each of these things had been set in their proper place for the service of religious ministry, they were nonetheless symbolic shadows of this heavenly ministry; since the truth has now come, it is not necessary anymore that we deal with shadows. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Gregory of Nazianzus: Since the Word knows the tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation—I mean the entire system of things visible and invisible—shall we pass the first veil and, stepping beyond the realm of sense, shall we look into the holy place, the intellectual and celestial creation? — ON THE DOCTRINE OF GOD, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 2.31

John Cassian: If you wish to achieve true knowledge of Scripture, you must hurry to achieve unshakable humility of heart. This is what will lead you not to the knowledge that puffs a person up but to the love which illuminates through the achievement of love. It is impossible for the unclean of heart to acquire the gift of spiritual knowledge. Therefore be very careful that your zeal for scriptural reading does not, because of empty pretentiousness, prove to be a cause of perdition instead of being for you the source of knowledgeable light and of the endless glory promised to the one enlightened by knowledge.Then, having banished all worldly concerns and thoughts, strive in every way to devote yourself constantly to the sacred reading, so that continuous meditation will seep into your soul and, as it were, will shape it to its image. Somehow it will form that “ark” of the Scriptures and will contain the two stone tablets, that is, the perpetual strength of the two Testaments. There will be the golden urn that is a pure and unstained memory and which will preserve firmly within itself the everlasting manna, that is, the eternal, heavenly sweetness of spiritual meanings and of that bread which belongs to the angels. The branch of Aaron is the saving standard of our exalted and true high priest, Jesus Christ. It leafs out forever in the greenness of undying memory. This is the branch that was cut from the root of Jesse and which after death comes more truly alive. Now all of these things are covered over by the two cherubim, that is, by the plentitude of historical and spiritual lore. “Cherubim” means knowledge in abundance. They provide an everlasting protection for that which appeases God, namely, the calm of your heart, and they will cast a shadow of protection against all the attacks of malignant spirits. And thus your soul will not only become the ark of God’s testament, but it will be carried forward into a priestly realm. And, by its unfailing love of purity, its concentration upon the disciplines of the spirit, it will implement the priestly command imposed by the lawgiver, “He will not emerge from the holy place, lest he profane the sanctuary of God.” That is, he will not depart from his own heart, where the Lord promised to live continuously when he said, “I will live and walk among them.” — CONFERENCE 14.10

John Chrysostom: He has shown from the Priest, from the Priesthood, from the Covenant, that that dispensation was to have an end. From this point he shows it from the fashion of the tabernacle itself. How? This, he says, was the “Holy” and the “Holy of Holies.” The holy place then is a symbol of the former period (for there all things are done by means of sacrifices); but the Holy of Holies of this that is now present.

And by the Holy of Holies he means Heaven; and by the veil, Heaven, and the Flesh “entereth into that within the veil”: that is to say, “through the veil of His flesh.” — Homily on Hebrews 15

John Chrysostom: And it were well to speak of this passage, taking it up from the beginning. What then does he say? “Then verily the first had also” (the first what? “The Covenant”). “Ordinances of Divine service.” What are “ordinances”? symbols or rights. Then; as (he means) it has not now. He shows that it had already given place, for (he says) it had at that time; so that now, although it stood, it is not.

“And the worldly Sanctuary.” He calls it “worldly,” inasmuch as it was permitted to all to tread it, and in the same house the place was manifest where the priests stood, where the Jews, the Proselytes, the Grecians, the Nazarites. Since, therefore even gentiles were permitted to tread it, he calls it “worldly.” For surely the Jews were not “the world.” — Homily on Hebrews 15

Oecumenius: The superior things are shown from the change of the priest, the sacrifice, and the covenant, which the old has come to an end, and that which is new is better in many ways; it now wishes to show from the very arrangement of the tabernacle that those were the figures of the true things: moreover, the figure takes an end where the truth approaches. What he says: “had,” signifies that it now does not have. Therefore, although it has not completely ceased, since some still cling to it, nevertheless, it has no rights. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: The first tabernacle indeed had rights of worship, I think it is not about the tabernacle, but about the old covenant itself. For it did not compare the tabernacle with the new covenant, but the entire old covenant with the new, and it showed the superiority of this over that entire one. “For behold,” he says, “the days are coming, and I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers.” (Jer. 31:31–33; Heb. 8:8–10) And again: “In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first obsolete."(Heb. 8:13) And after saying this, he adds: “He had also had it before.” (Heb. 10:15) Therefore, it is evident that the discussion is still about the covenant. For since he had depressed it in comparison to the new, lest anyone should say that it had always been rejected, he anticipates by saying that it also had rights of worship, laws, and order, and those things which pertain to the proper worship of God. Saying that by lineage he had rights of worship, he proceeds also in part, beginning from the tabernacle. “He had,” he says, “the holy world.” Then after the holy world and all that is sacred, he had again another tabernacle, set apart from the more secret and holier tabernacle. And in the set-apart one, both the lampstand and the arrangement of the loaves, which tabernacle is not called the holy world, just as the entire tabernacle, the first, but simply holy. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: After that tabernacle. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: The first, you say, as to the holy of holies, since it was not the first, but the middle. For the first was where the bronze altar of the sacrifices and the burnt offerings was. This is the second, concerning which it is said, “in which were the lampstand, the table, and the showbread.” The third, in which is a golden censer, and the Ark of the Covenant. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “the holy world.” It is called world because it is open to all. Here, the temple is rightly called holy, in which the liturgy [λειτουργίαν] was performed to God, or even the tabernacle, since they had previously had this in the order of the temple, thus calling it so. And this can be learned from the first book of Kings, which clearly states: “And Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the Lord, where the Ark of God was.” (1 Sam. 3:3) Therefore, he says, the holy was in the old covenant as something worldly, so that he might say when the temple was constructed as a type of the world. God indeed created heaven and earth, as Moses says, in the beginning, (Gen. 1) saying heaven above, on the second day, preparing for this heaven to be established in the midst of the waters; so that even being elevated, the waters have it above. Therefore, as a symbol of the world, commanding Moses to construct a certain type, God instructed him to make the tabernacle. “Make a sanctuary from the curtains, divided in the middle by another.” (Ex. 26:4) Thus indeed the temple later became a type according to the same pattern. And the whole house was divided by a wall in the middle, so that the outer part was the house, in which it was necessary for the priests to perform the service through the sacrifices and to render all the rest to God; this was a symbol of that very place upon the earth, where it has now happened that we dwell; but the inner part, in which it was necessary for the high priest to enter only once a year, was a symbol of the heavenly, where the Jews believed God to dwell. “For the first tabernacle was constructed.” — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: I noted that there were three tabernacles in the Octateuch that exist; one, concerning which the holy world speaks, where there was the bronze altar of burnt offerings, and it was permitted for all the people to enter and to perform the sacrifices; the second, where the priests were always permitted to perform the services, where there was the lampstand and the table and the showbread; the third, where there was the censer and the Ark, into which only the high priest entered once a year. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “And after the second veil.” Therefore, there was not only one veil. A tabernacle is called everywhere, because there God dwells. “the Ark of the Covenant.” It carries the symbols of the covenant, such as the tablets of the law and the others. “having a golden censor.” All these were in the Ark, rebuking the ingratitude of the Jews. “the rod”, because of the insurrection against the priesthood. the tablets, because the Jews had a ploy to break the first commandments. and the manna, because of their grumbling while eating. Therefore, these symbols should also be sent to their descendants for their caution. “Above it.” Of the ark. “Cherubim of glory.” Which are the glorious, or the beings of glory, namely, of God. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “overshadowing the mercy seat.” For above the ark, as if a square golden table, which was called the mercy seat, typifying Christ (Jn. 2:2), who is called to us the propitiation and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). See the passage in Exodus, in the places concerning these things. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “about which we cannot now speak in detail.” He wishes to show that the things seen were mysteries and types of the Truth. Therefore, it is not now, he says, to speak of them in part. For more words are needed than according to the present urge. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Origen of Alexandria: Each one of us can build a tabernacle for God in himself. For if, as some before us have said, this tabernacle represents a figure of the whole world, and if each individual can have an image of the world in oneself, why should not each individual be able to fulfill the form of the tabernacle in oneself?… For that part within you which is most valuable of all can act the part of priest—the part which some call the first principle of the heart, others the rational sense or the substance of the mind or whatever other name one wishes to give to that part of us which makes us capable of receiving God. — HOMILIES ON Exodus 9.4

Pachomius the Great: The brothers assembled at evening as was their custom. For in all seasons, when they had finished their modest meal, it was their habit to assemble and for each one to pronounce what he knew of the holy Scriptures.… The brother who had returned from the north spoke and said, “Allow me, my brothers, to tell you the saying and its commentary which I heard from a righteous man. It was while returning south that I passed by Tabennesi and was put up there at Abba Pachomius’s monastery. Toward evening Pachomius seated himself and spoke the Word of God to the brothers gathered around him. He spoke of the tabernacle and of the Holy of Holies, applying them to two peoples. The first people is the outer tabernacle, whose service consisted in sacrifices and visible loaves; the Holy of Holies, on the other hand, is the Gentiles’ calling, which, according to the gospel, is the fulfillment of the law. And all the objects that are found in this inner tabernacle are filled with glory. For instead of animal sacrifices, there is the altar of incense; instead of the table, the ark containing the spiritual loaves, that is, the fullness of the law and all that is to be found there; and instead of the light of the lamp, the mercy seat where God appears as a consuming fire, that is, God the Word made human who became remission for us by appearing in the flesh. The words mercy seat mean indeed the place of the remission of sins.”When the brother had finished his exposition of that saying and its commentary, he said, “I am confident that God will forgive me many of my sins because of the remembrance of that just man whose name I just pronounced here before you.” All the brothers uttered their admiration for the great knowledge that was in our father Pachomius, until it was time for each of them to return with joy to his cell. — LIFE OF PACHOMIUS (BOHAIRIC) 29

Photios I of Constantinople: I think that the phrase “also the first one had regulations for worship” refers to the old covenant and not the tabernacle. For he did not compare the tabernacle with the new covenant but the whole old covenant with the new one, and he showed the superiority of the latter over the whole former covenant. “For behold,” he says, “the days are coming and I will effect a new covenant on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I established for their fathers,” and again, “When he says ‘new’ he has already made the first old.” And he adds these things and says, “Now the first one had.” … Therefore it is clear that the discussion is still concerning the covenant. For since he struck it down in comparison with the new covenant, in order that no one may say then that it was rejected as worthless, he anticipates the argument and says that even that covenant had “regulations for worship,” laws and order and fitting conformity with the service of God. And having spoken broadly of the whole law, that “it had regulations of worship,” he also proceeds part by part, beginning with the tent. It had, he says, “the earthly sanctuary.” Then after the earthly sanctuary (which was accessible to all), he had again another tabernacle placed in front of the yet more mystical and holier tabernacle. And in the more outward tabernacle there was “the lampstand and the showbread,” which tabernacle is not called “the earthly sanctuary,” as is the tabernacle in front of all the other tabernacles, but it is simply called “the Holy Place.” — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 9.1-2

Theodore of Mopsuestia: He begins to say how there were symbols in the law and the types of things in the era of grace and how it was possible to see clearly the things of the new covenant glimpsed beforehand in the things of the old covenant, even as he shows in comparison what sort of preeminence the new covenant things have over those of the old covenant. He makes this the beginning of the exposition of his teaching. Then he says that also the first testament had bounds and commandments of ritual that were obligated to be offered to God. The phrase “regulations for worship” refers to the commandments concerning these things.“And an earthly sanctuary.” Most likely he calls the temple “the sanctuary” because the liturgy is rendered in it to God, or also he calls the tabernacle “the sanctuary,” since they had this in service before the temple. For in a similar manner he called the tabernacle “the temple,” inasmuch as God happened to be present in it, while the later temple was built by Solomon. “And Samuel sat in the temple of the Lord where the ark of God was,” although the temple had not yet been built by Solomon. And just as when God commanded Moses to erect the tabernacle as a symbol of the world according to a certain plan, God ordered him to make an enclosure out of curtains that would divide the middle from the rest, so also the temple was made according to the same plan. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 9.1-2

Theodoret of Cyrus: This is the term he used of the tabernacle, which represents a type of the whole world: it is divided into two down the middle by a veil, one part of it called Holy, the other Holy of Holies. While the Holy represented the way of life on earth, the Holy of Holies represented life in heaven. The veil itself performed the function of the firmament.… Accordingly, just as he separates what is below from what is above, so the veil stretched out in the middle of the tabernacle divided the Holy of Holies from the Holy. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9:2

John Chrysostom: “For” (he says) “there was a tabernacle made; the first, which is called holy, wherein was the Candlestick, and the Table, and the Shew-bread.” These things are symbols of the world. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Hebrews 9:3

John Chrysostom: “And after the second veil” (There was then not one veil only, but there was a veil without also) “the tabernacle, which is called holy of holies.” Observe how everywhere he calls it a tabernacle in regard of God’s encamping there. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Hebrews 9:4

John Chrysostom: “Which had” (he says) “a golden Censer, and the ark of the Covenant overlaid round about with gold: wherein was the golden pot that held the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant.” All these things were venerable and conspicuous memorials of the Jewish obstinacy; “and the tables of the covenant” (for they brake them) “And the manna” (for they murmured; and therefore handing on the memory thereof to posterity, He commanded it to be laid up in a golden pot). “And Aaron’s rod that budded. And over it, the Cherubim of glory.” What is “the Cherubim of glory”? He either means “the glorious,” or those which are under God. “Shadowing the mercy-seat.”

But in another point of view also he extols these things in his discourse, in order to show that those which come after them are greater. “Of which” (he says) “we cannot now speak particularly.” In these words he hints that these were not merely what was seen, but were a sort of enigmas. “Of which” (he says) “we cannot now speak particularly,” perhaps because they needed a long discourse. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Methodius of Olympus: The pledge and earnest of a perpetual priesthood, furnished no contemptible symbol of thy supernatural child-bearing. On thy account, and the undefiled Incarnation of God, the Word, which by thee had place for the sake of that flesh which immutably and indivisibly remains with Him for ever. — Methodius Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna

Hebrews 9:5

Thomas Aquinas: 413. - Having showed in general the dignity of the New Testament as compared to the Old, the Apostle now shows the same in particular by reaching down to the individuals in each Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he compares things of the Old Testament with those of the New to show the dignity of the New; secondly, he clarifies some things he had presupposed (chap. 10). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he explains what was present in the Old Testament; secondly, he shows what it signified (v. 8); thirdly, from these facts he argues to his conclusion (v. 15). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes the qualities of the Old Testament; secondly, he explains what he had said (v. 2).

414. • In regard to the first it should be noted that both the Old and New Testaments were instituted in order that by them the soul might come to God. But two things are needed for this, namely, withdrawal from sin and union with God. The first is brought about by justification, and the second by sanctification; and in both Testaments justification and sanctification took place. Hence, he says: So we have said that the former one had grown old. But what were the qualities of that Old Testament? It was such that it had regulations for worship, i.e., of latreia. For in the Old there were washings, by which they were cleansed not from the stain of sin, but from certain irregularities, which hindered them from the worship of God. Thus, after touching a corpse or anything unclean, they could not enter the tabernacle, until they were purified by certain washings. Therefore, they were called the ‘justifications of worship’, because by them they were made fit for divine worship. This is treated in Leviticus (chap. 22). ‘Justifications, i.e., washings, purified so that they could approach’ (Jerome). But their sanctification was a worldly sanctuary.
415. • Now ‘worldly’ is sometimes taken for any duration: ‘forever and ever’ (Ps. 109:3); sometimes it signifies the world itself: ‘Demas has left me, loving this world’ (2 Tim. 4:9). Therefore, that sanctification can be called ‘worldly,’ because it is temporal and not perpetual. But the Greek text does not take it that way, because it says, ‘mundane holy.’ Hence, a difference between the New Testament and the Old was that, although both are bodily, the former contains grace and is holy, and in it the divine power works salvation under cover of visible things. This was not so in the Old Testament, because it contained no grace in itself: ‘How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?’ (Gal. 4:9).
416. • Then when he says, For a tent was prepared, he explains what he has said: first, in regard to the disposition of the tabernacle; secondly, as to the ministry of the priests (v. 6).
417. • In regard to the first, to understand the literal meaning, it should be noted that the Lord commanded a tabernacle to be made in the desert. It was to be twenty cubits or paces long, and ten wide, with an entrance facing the east. In front of the entrance a curtain hung from four pillars. There was a small tent in which was the altar of holocausts. But all this was left unmentioned by the Apostle, because it contributed nothing to his thesis. In the tabernacle as you faced west, before an area ten cubits long and ten wide was hung a veil, which divided one area ten cubits long from the other twenty cubits long. The area twenty cubits long is called the sanctuary and the first tabernacle, the other of ten cubits in length is called the holy of holies and the second tabernacle.
418. • This distinction can be explained in two ways: in one way, because the things of the Old Testament were a figure of the New, and the New a figure of the heavenly country. Thus, therefore, by the first tabernacle was signified the Old Testament, and by the second, the New. In another way, by the first tabernacle the present Church, and by the second, heavenly glory. Therefore, inasmuch as it signifies the Old Testament, it is a figure of a figure; but inasmuch as it signifies the present Church, which in turn signifies future glory, it is a figure of the truth in regard to each. In regard to these he does two things: first, he describes what was in the first; secondly, in the second (v. 3).
419. • In the first tabernacle were three things, namely, the golden candlestick on the south. It was made in the following way: from a long shaft proceeded six branches, as it were, six arms, namely, three from the right side and three from the left, so that at the top were seven branches, in each of which burned a lamp. Then in each arm were four things, namely, the arm which divided into three cups, namely, cups, bowls, and lilies, because two parts were joined there. At the end of each part was a cup in which two cups are joined in the manner of a nut, and two revolving bowls and two leaves of a lily. Then in the northern area was a golden table upon which twelve freshly baked loaves were placed on the Sabbath, and over each one was incense burning on a paten of gold. Those loaves, which were called the Bread of the Presence, remained there until the Sabbath, when they were removed and others put in their place. Furthermore, in the middle was a golden altar for burning sweet-smelling thyme to prevent the house from stinking from the vast quantity of blood pouring from the victims. By the candlestick, which gives light, and by the table was designated that those who serve the altar should live off the altar. Therefore, he says, for a tabernacle, i.e., the front part of the tabernacle, was made first, in which were the candlesticks, which were one as to substance but many as to branches. This was to the south: and a table to the north and the presentation of the loaves, i.e., the Bread of the Presence. This part is called the Holy Place. All this is treated in detail in Exodus (chaps. 25, 26, 27).
420. • Then when he says, Behind the veil the second tabernacle called the Holy of Holies, he describes the things that were in the second tabernacle, namely, the ark of the covenant made of incorruptible sethim wood, covered about on every part, i.e., inside and outside, with gold. In the ark were three things: a golden urn that had manna in memory of the benefit bestowed on them; the rod of Aaron that had blossomed (Num. 17:8) in memory of Aaron’s priesthood, lest a stranger should presume to approach, and the tables of the covenant in memory of the Law. Then, over the ark were two Cherubim, who touched each other with two wings and touched the two sides of the tabernacle with the other two. Between the two wings, with which they touched each other, was a golden table of the same length and width as the ark, namely, two cubits in length and a cubit and a half in width, overshadowing the mercy seat. Hence, it served as a throne from which God would listen, to be re-propitiated toward the people: ‘You that sit upon the cherubim before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh’ (Ps. 79:2). But the ark was, as it were, a foot stool. The two cherubim facing each other looked at the mercy seat. But the Apostle adds a fourth item, namely, the golden altar of incense, concerning which some say that it was the altar between the holies, as has been said. The priests entered every day into the holies, which was outside, to perform the mysteries; but into the holy of holies the high priest once a year with blood. Then he filled that censer with thyme, so that from the smoke ascended a cloud which covered the holy of holies, so that it would not be seen by anyone outside. Those, therefore, are the things which were beyond the veil, which was the second tabernacle and called the Holy of Holies on account of its dignity, as the Blessed Mother is called the Virgin of virgins anthonomastically, having a golden censer and the ark in which was a golden urn, over which, namely, the ark (not that they had feet over it, but wings only) were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, namely, with their wings, of which it is not necessary to speak now, i.e., pursue with words, in detail.
421. • But in 1 Kg (8:9) it says that ‘in the ark there was nothing else but the two tables of stone.’ I answer that this is true as regards its principal purpose, because that was what the ark was principally made for, as it says in Exodus (25:16).
422. • In regard to what they signified, it should be noted that all the ceremonies of the Law were ordained to one thing according to that state; but to something else, insofar as they were figurative, namely, inasmuch as they represented Christ. As to the first, they were all instituted to represent God’s magnificence. But that was represented only in the effects. Those effects have, as it were, a twofold world: one is upper, namely, that of incorporeal substances, and that by the holy of holies; the other of the lower, sense-perceptible world, and that was represented by the Holy Place. In the upper world are three things: God, the reasons of things and the angels. But God is utterly incomprehensible; therefore, there was a seat left unoccupied, because He cannot be comprehended by a creature except from his effects. That seat was the propitiatory or mercy seat, as has been said. But the angels were signified by the cherubim on account of their wisdom; hence, even the philosophers call angels intellectual substances. There were two, to designate that they were not set there to be adored, because it had been said in Deuteronomy (6:4): ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord.’ The fact that they looked at the mercy seat shows that they do not cease contemplating God: ‘Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven’ (Mt. 18:10). The reasons of things are signified by the ark. But the ones in this world pertain to wisdom, which is signified by the tablets, or to power, which is signified by the rod; or to goodness, which is signified by the manna, which is sweet, because whatever sweetness is found in the creature is from God’s goodness. But because the reasons of things, which exist intelligibly in God, exist in a sense-perceptible manner in bodily creatures, therefore, just as there was an intellectual light in the tablets, so in the holies there was a corporeal light. There the manna, here the loaves; there the rod, here the altar, which pertains to the priest’s office.
423. • But inasmuch as Christ was prefigured by them, they are all found in Him: first, as to the holies, for He is a candlestick of light: ‘I am the light of the world’ (Jn. 8:12). In it are six orders: three on the left, namely, the perfect of the Old Testament; and three on the right, namely, of the New Testament. They are designated in Ezekiel (chap. 14): By Noah, prelates; by Daniel, contemplatives; by Job, the actives. Those branches receive light and impart it: ‘As every man has received grace, ministering the same one to another’ (1 Peter 4:10). The cups furnish the drink of wisdom; the bowls for ready obedience; the lilies for the end of eternal life; the seven lamps are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Again, Christ is a table of refreshment. The twelve loaves are the doctrine of the Apostles and their successors; they are put out on the Sabbath of hope to the Sabbath of hope; and if in the meantime one is removed by death, another is substituted. But on the great Sabbath all will be removed. In the interior was the propitiatory, and Christ is the propitiation of our sins’ (1 Jn. 2:2). The two angels are the two testaments looking peacefully at Christ; or all the angels serving Christ in concord and unity of spirit: ‘Angels came and ministered to him’ (Mt. 4:11); ‘Thousands of thousands ministered to him’ (Daniel 7:10); ‘All are ministering spirits’ (Heb. 1:14). They desire to look on Christ and they overshadow the propitiatory, i.e., guard Christ’s Church. Or because by their ministry occurred visions and apparitions in which Christ was prefigured overshadowingly. The ark made of sethim wood is Christ’s pure and most precious flesh, which is called a gold urn because of His wisdom full of the sweetness of the godhead. The tablets are His wisdom. The rod is His eternal priesthood, or it is Christ’s power; and the manna the sweetness of grace given by the priesthood of Christ or by obedience to His commandments, as a man obeys the power. But because no one has grace without having sinned, except Christ and His mother, it is necessary to have a mercy seat.

Hebrews 9:6

Bede: Figuratively, the curtain in the temple represents the same curtain that the apostle declares openly to the Hebrews, in the place where he also explains properly, according to the allegorical sense, the reason that “the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people.” This curtain is interpreted as heaven. And the priests entered into the first tabernacle with sacrifices daily throughout the year, which further illustrates the circumstances of this life, in which the saints who serve the Lord as true priests of God and of his Christ ceaselessly atone for the daily errors of their frailty, without which they are by no means able to exist in this life through the daily sacrifices of good works and the daily libations of their own tears. But the apostle understands the high priest who went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of victims once a year to be the great high priest himself, of whom it was said, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” He who as both priest and victim had offered himself through his own blood once for our sins entered “into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.” — On the Tabernacle 2.8.71

John Chrysostom: “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle accomplishing the service of God.” That is, these things indeed were there, but the Jews did not enjoy them: they saw them not. So that they were no more theirs than ours for whom they prophesied. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Hebrews 9:7

John Chrysostom: “But into the second the High Priest went alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.” Thou seest that the types were already laid down beforehand? for, lest they should say, “how is there but one sacrifice?” he shows that this was so from the beginning, since at least the more holy and the awful sacrifice was but one. And how did the High Priest offer once for all? Thus were they wont to do from the beginning, for then also (he says) “the High Priest” offered “once for all.”

And well said he, “not without blood.” (Not indeed without blood, yet not this blood, for the business was not so great.) He signifies that there shall be a sacrifice, not consumed by fire, but rather distinguished by blood. For inasmuch as he called the Cross a sacrifice, though it had neither fire, nor logs, nor was offered many times, but had been offered in blood once for all; he shows that the ancient sacrifice also was of this kind, was offered “once for all” in blood.

“Which he offers for himself;” again, “for himself; and for the errors of the people.” He said not “sins”; but “errors,” that they might not be high-minded. For even if thou hast not sinned intentionally, yet unintentionally thou hast erred, and from this no man is pure.

And everywhere he adds the “for himself,” showing that Christ is much greater. For if He be separated from our sins, how did He “offer for Himself”? Why then saidst thou these things (one says)? Because this is a mark of One that is superior. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Hebrews 9:8

John Chrysostom: “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. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Oecumenius: “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. “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. “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) — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Origen of Alexandria: 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. — HOMILIES ON Leviticus 10.1.1-4

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book II

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9:9

John Chrysostom: “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. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Hebrews 9:10

Thomas Aquinas: 424. - Having described the things which pertain to the Old Testament so far as the disposition of the tabernacle was concerned, the Apostle now continues with the office of the ministers: first, with those who look to the holies; secondly, with those who look to the holy of holies (v. 7).

425. • To understand the literal meaning of this, it should be noted that, as has been stated above, there was in the forepart of the tabernacle near the center the altar of thyme or of incense, which is the same thing, and the golden candlestick; but at the southern part opposite, the table of proposition. Every day in the morning and in the evening the priest entered the holies for two reasons: to dress the lamps and to renew the incense, in order that light and all good odor might be continually present in the holies. He says, therefore: Now these preparations, namely, which pertain to the appearance of the tabernacle, having been thus made, the priests go continually into the outer tent [first tabernacle] performing their ritual duties: not to sacrifice in the holies, because they sacrificed on the altar of holocausts in front of the door of the tabernacle under the sky; but he calls the renewal of the incense and the devotion of the offerers a sacrifice.
426. • Then (v. 7) he mentions the office of the ministers in regard to the holy of holies. Here it should be noted that, as it says in Leviticus (16:30) on the day of atonement (which occurred on the tenth day of the seventh month, namely, September, which is the seventh month after our March, which coincides with part of our April, when the Jewish year begins: ‘This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year’ (Ex. 12:2), for they began their month with the full moon which always begins in March, unless prevented by an embolism), the high priest offered a calf for himself and his whole house, and a goat for the sin of the people. When these were immolated, he took some of their blood and filled the thurible with the burning coals from the altar of holocausts, which was in the court in front of the tabernacle, and with all these things entered into the holy of holies to expiate the tabernacle with blood, sprinkling some of the blood on the veil. After he came out, he used the same blood to anoint the altar of incense. He did this once a year.
427. • Hence, he says, but in the second tabernacle, which is called the holy of holies, only the high priest goes, and he but once a year. A Gloss says that he could enter oftener without blood, but only once with blood. But this is recorded as happening only when the camp site was changed, because when Aaron and his sons entered to wrap the sanctuary and to appoint the burdens every man was to carry, as is clear from Num. 4:16. Nevertheless, once a year the high priest entered and not without taking blood, which he offered for himself and the people’s errors, i.e., sins: ‘They err that work evil’ (Proverbs 14:22). For every wicked person is ignorant, as it says in the Ethics. But this is treated in Leviticus (chap. 16), where the rite of atonement is described. Mystically, by the first tabernacle is designed the present Church, in which the faithful should sacrifice themselves: ‘Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God’ (Rom. 12:1) ‘A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit’ (Ps. 50:19). They should also sacrifice their property in alms: ‘By such sacrifices God’s favor is obtained’ (Heb. 13:16). But the high priest alone, i.e., Christ in soul and body, entered into the holy of holies, i.e., into the heavenly country. Yet according to the letter the intention of the Apostle is that the Old Law is signified by the holy, and by the holy of holies the state of the New Testament and heaven, because one enters heaven by the New Law.
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 Peter 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.
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’ (Micah 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).
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).

Hebrews 9:11

Bede: “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. — Homilies on the Gospels 2.1

Ephrem the Syrian: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 9

John Chrysostom: “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. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Oecumenius: “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. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: 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. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “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. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: 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. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Origen of Alexandria: 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.” — HOMILIES ON Leviticus 4.6.4-5

Severian of Gabala: 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. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 9.11

Tertullian: 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. — On Modesty

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9:12

Clement of Alexandria: 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.” — The Stromata Book 3

Ephrem the Syrian: 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. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

John Chrysostom: “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.” — Homily on Hebrews 15

Origen of Alexandria: 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.” — HOMILIES ON Numbers 3.3

Hebrews 9:13

John Chrysostom: “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. — Homily on Hebrews 15

Oecumenius: 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. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 9:14

Clement of Alexandria: 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.” — The Stromata Book 3

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book IV

Thomas Aquinas: 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 Peter 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. 2:0), and more perfect, ‘Because we have seen his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of trace 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’ (Daniel 2:34).
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 Peter 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.
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 defiles, 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.
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. 59:10). 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. 43:40). 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.

Hebrews 9:15

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Hebrews 16

Oecumenius: 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. “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. “for it does not take effect while the one who made it lives.” Read according to the question. “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. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 9:16

Augustine of Hippo: 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. — ON EIGHTY-THREE VARIED QUESTIONS 75.1

John Chrysostom: 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.” — Homily on Hebrews 16

Hebrews 9:18

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Hebrews 16

Hebrews 9:19

John Chrysostom: 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. — Homily on Hebrews 16

Oecumenius: “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. 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. “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 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. “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 Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Philoxenus of Mabbug: 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. — LETTER TO ABBA SYMEON OF CAESAREA

Tertullian: 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. — Against Marcion Book III

Theodoret of Cyrus: 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. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9:21

John Chrysostom: “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. — Homily on Hebrews 16

Hebrews 9:22

Thomas Aquinas: 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 Peter 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 Peter 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 Peter 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. 3:19). 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’ (Zechariah 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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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 not 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).

Hebrews 9:23

John Chrysostom: “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. — Homily on Hebrews 16

Photios I of Constantinople: 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.” — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 9.24-25

Hebrews 9:24

John Chrysostom: “For Christ is not entered into the Holy Places made with hands” (he says) “which are the figures of the True.” (These then are true; and those are figures, for the temple too has been so arranged, as the Heaven of Heavens.)

What sayest thou? He who is everywhere present, and who filleth all things, doth not He “appear” unless He enter into Heaven? Thou seest that all these things pertain to the flesh.

“To appear,” he says, “in the presence of God for us.” What is “for us”? He went up (he means) with a sacrifice which had power to propitiate the Father. Wherefore (tell me)? Was He an enemy? The angels were enemies, He was not an enemy. For that the Angels were enemies, hear what he says, “He made peace as to things on earth and things in Heaven.” (Col. i. 20.) So that He also “entered into Heaven, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” He “now appeareth,” but “for us.” — Homily on Hebrews 17

John Chrysostom: The Jews greatly prided themselves on the temple and the tabernacle. Wherefore they said, “The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord.” (Jer. vii.4.) For nowhere else in the earth was such a temple constructed as this, either for costliness, or beauty, or anything else. For God who ordained it, commanded that it should be made with great magnificence, because they also were more attracted and urged on by material things.

But the second temple was a more glorious building, both on account of its beauty, and in all other respects. Nor was it reverenced for this reason only, but also from its being One. For they were wont to resort thither from the uttermost parts of the earth, whether from Babylon or from Ethiopia.

What then does Paul do? What he did in regard to the sacrifices, that also he does here. For as there he set against them the death of Christ, so here also he sets the whole heaven against the temple.

And not by this alone did he point out the difference, but also by adding that The Priest is nearer to God: for he says, “to appear in the presence of God.” So that he made the matter august, not only by the consideration of heaven, but also by that of Christ’s entering in there. For not merely through symbols as here, but He sees God Himself there.

Seest thou that condescension through the lowly things have been said throughout? Why dost thou then any longer wonder that He intercedes there, where He places Himself as a High Priest? — Homily on Hebrews 17

Oecumenius: Since the Jews were greatly concerned about the temple, see how it is diminished in comparison to heaven. “a mere copy of the true one.” For the temple was handmade and was constructed as a type of heaven. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “but he entered into heaven itself.” The phrase, “he entered into heaven,” should be understood from a common perspective, as if to say, Nor does he frequently offer himself, for he has entered into heaven. For indeed, frequently to offer sacrifices through blood belongs to those who enter into the copies of the true one, but not to him who has entered into heaven itself. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Origen of Alexandria: Paul, writing to the Hebrews—those, of course, who were indeed reading the law and had meditated on these things and were examining them well but lacked understanding as to how the sacrifices should be understood—says, “For Christ has entered not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.” And again he says about the offerings, “He did this once for all when he offered up himself.” But why do we seek testimonies from these one by one? If anyone examines the entire epistle written to the Hebrews—and especially this place, where he compares the high priest of the law with the high priest of the promise, of whom it is written, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek”—he will find how this entire passage of the apostle shows that those things which were written in the law are “copies” and “forms” of living and true things. — HOMILIES ON Leviticus 9.2

Origen of Alexandria: If the ancient custom of sacrifices is clear to you, let us see what these things also contain according to the mystical understanding. You heard that there were two sanctuaries: one, as it were, visible and open to the priests; the other, as it were, invisible and inaccessible. With the exception of the high priest alone, the others were outside. I think this first sanctuary can be understood as this church in which we are now placed in the flesh, in which the priests minister “at the altar of the whole burnt offerings” with that fire kindled about which Jesus said, “I came to cast fire upon the earth, and would that it were already kindled.” And I do not want you to marvel that this sanctuary is open only to the priests. For all who have been anointed with the chrism of the sacred anointing have become priests, just as Peter says to all the church, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” Therefore you are a priestly race, and because of this you approach the sanctuary.… Therefore the priesthood is exercised in this way in the first sanctuary and the offerings are offered. And from this sanctuary the high priest, dressed in the sanctified garments, proceeds and enters into the interior of the veil just as we already pointed out above in citing the words of Paul, “Christ has entered not into a sanctuary made with hands but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.” Therefore, the place of heaven and the throne itself of God are designated by the figure and the image of the interior sanctuary. — HOMILIES ON Leviticus 9.9.3-5

Pseudo-Clement: The church being spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ, signifying to us that if any one of us shall preserve it in the flesh and corrupt it not, he shall receive it in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is the type of the spirit; no one, therefore, having corrupted the type, will receive afterwards the antitype. Therefore is it, then, that He says, brethren, “Preserve the flesh, that you may become partakers of the spirit.” If we say that the flesh is the church and the spirit Christ, then it follows that he who shall offer outrage to the flesh is guilty of outrage on the church. Such an one, therefore, will not partake of the spirit, which is Christ. — Second Epistle To The Corinthians (Pseudo-Clement)

Hebrews 9:25

John Chrysostom: “Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the Holy place every year with blood of others.” Seest Thou how many are the differences? The “often” for the “once”; “the blood of others,” for “His own.” Great is the distance. He is Himself then both victim and Priest and sacrifice. For if it had not been so, and it had been necessary to offer many sacrifices, He must have been many times crucified. “For then,” he says, “He must often have suffered since the foundation of the world.” — Homily on Hebrews 17

Oecumenius: “now to appear.” With the flesh, he says, it appears. “in the presence of God.” What do you say? Unless he had entered into heaven, he would not appear in the sight of the Father, who is present everywhere and fills all things? Do you see that these are humble matters of privilege? “on our behalf.” When the victim of his own body ascended to appear before the Father for us, this is to reconcile us to himself. Indeed, having made mention of the flesh, blessed Paul speaks boldly of all things humble. “Nor was he to offer himself repeatedly,” he says, this is what it means to ascend to heaven. For the offering of many sacrifices in blood is for those who enter into the copies of the true things, but not for the one who has entered into heaven itself. “as the high priest.” Do you see the difference? This one does it annually, but Christ once. “with blood not his own.” This one in the blood of others, of bulls and goats, but Christ in his own. “For then he would have had to suffer repeatedly.” For if it were necessary for him to offer a sacrifice more often, he would have had to suffer frequently since the foundation of the world was laid, as he would have to offer his own blood. “he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages.” Here something also is revealed concerning the mystery, why at the end of the ages, after many sins. For if death had come from the beginning itself, when sin was not yet so widespread, then no one would have believed, (there would have been no need to die a second time,) all would have been in vain. But now, since later the sins were many, it is fitting that at the end of the ages, that is, at the very fulfillment of the ages, and at the very end, it has been revealed; that is, with the flesh in the world; it has been revealed for the annulment of sin, that is, to annul and wipe out the sin of the world through His sacrifice, which He offered for us, that is, through the death of His flesh. Such a thing He also said elsewhere: “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” (Rom. 5:20) “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” That is, together with the flesh in the world. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Theodoret of Cyrus: He completely destroyed the force of sin, promising us immortality; sin is incapable of proving a problem to immortal bodies. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9:26

John Chrysostom: In this place he has also veiled over something. “But now once more in the end of the world.” Why “at the end of the world”? After the many sins. If therefore, it had taken place at the beginning, then no one would have believed; and He must not die a second time, all would have been useless. But since later, there were many transgressions, with reason He then appeared: which he expresses in another place also, “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. But now once in the end of the world, hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” (Rom. v. 20.) — Homily on Hebrews 17

John Chrysostom: What is, “He hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”? What is this “putting away”? it is making contemptible. For sin has no longer any boldness; for it is made of no effect in that when it ought to have demanded punishment, it did not demand it: that is, it suffered violence: when it expected to destroy all men, then it was itself destroyed.

“He hath appeared by the sacrifice of Himself” (he says), that is, “He hath appeared,” unto God, and drawn near unto Him. For do not think because the High Priest was wont to do this oftentimes in the year. So that henceforward this is done in vain, although it is done; for what need is there of medicines where there are no wounds? On this account He ordained offerings “continually,” because of their want of power, and that a remembrance of sins might be made. — Homily on Hebrews 17

Origen of Alexandria: But this world, which is itself called an “age,” is said to be the end of many ages. Now the holy apostle teaches that in the age that was before this, Christ did not suffer, nor even in the age before that; and I do not know that I am able to enumerate the number of previous ages in which he did not suffer. I will show, however, the statements of Paul from which I have arrived at this understanding. He says, “He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” He says that Christ was made a “sacrifice” once, and “at the end of the ages has appeared to take away sin.” Now after this age, which is said to be made for the consummation of other ages, there will be other ages again to follow; for we have clearly learned this from Paul himself, who says, “that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness toward us.” He did not say “in the age to come” or “in the two ages to come” but “in the ages to come.” I think, therefore, that by his language many ages are indicated. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 2.3.5

Origen of Alexandria: In trying to reconcile two apostolic passages it has often occurred to me to raise the question of how there can be a consummation of ages at which Jesus has been manifested once for all to do away with sin if there are going to be ages following this age. The passages are these: In Hebrews, “But now at a consummation of the ages he has been manifested once for all to do away with sin through his sacrifice,” but in Ephesians, “In order that he may show forth in the years following, the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us.” Well, conjecturing on a matter so great, I believe that, just as the year’s consummation is its last month after which arises another month’s beginning, so probably the present age is a consummation of numerous ages completing as it were a year of ages, and after it certain coming ages will arise whose beginning is the coming age. In those coming ages God shall show forth the riches of his grace in kindness, when the greatest sinner, who for having spoken ill against the Holy Spirit is held fast by his sin throughout the present age and the coming one from beginning to end, shall after that, I know not how, receive a dispensation. — ON PRAYER 27.15

Tertullian: Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age, either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders. — To His Wife Book I

Hebrews 9:27

Bede: On the day of atonement the high priest was commanded to expiate the sanctuary and the tabernacle of testimony, together with the altar, the priests as well, and the entire people. John showed clearly who that high priest was and what the expiation was when, as Jesus was coming to his baptism, he spoke, saying, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” This expiation had been established to be celebrated once during the year because, as the apostle says, “Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” As for the fact that after the high priest went into the sanctuary to make intercession, no other person was permitted to be in the tabernacle until after he came out—this indicates the weakness of the holy church, which was not yet fit to suffer for its faith in him. This was made evident in the case of the apostles themselves, who, when his passion had begun, “all forsook him and fled.” When the expiation was completed, the high priest came forth so that an opportunity might be given to others to go into the tabernacle. When the sacrifice of his passion was over, Christ appeared to his disciples; by giving them the grace of the Holy Spirit he strengthened their heart further for offering to God sacrificial offerings, not only of devoted works and prayer but also of his own blood. I have explained these details about the observance of this festivity under the law so fully in order that you, dear ones, may acknowledge how appropriately the proclamations of new grace took their starting point from it, in which, in so many ways, the working out of this grace and the redemption of the whole world is expressed. — Homilies on the Gospels 2.19

Ephrem the Syrian: “But now once by coming at the end of times” he has suffered, so that through his sacrifice he might destroy sin, which killed the people and all nations together.In fact “as it is appointed for men to die once” because of their first sin, and “after” death their “judgment” comes, “so Christ too,” by coming, was revealed once and “offered” himself for the sins of everybody. Then “he will appear a second time,” not in order to die for the sins, for which he has already died once, but in order to appear in a new world, where there will be no sins on the part of those who in hope expect salvation through him. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hippolytus of Rome: His first advent had John the Baptist as its forerun-her; and His second, in which He is to come in glory, will exhibit Enoch, and Elias, and John the Divine. — Dubious Hippolytus Fragments

John Chrysostom: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, the Judgment.” He next says also why He died once only: because He became a ransom by one death. “It had been appointed” (he says) “unto men once to die.” This then is the meaning of “He died once,” for all. (What then? Do we no longer die that death? We do indeed die, but we do not continue in it: which is not to die at all. For the tyranny of death, and death indeed, is when he who dies is never more allowed to return to life. But when after dying is living, and that a better life, this is not death, but sleep.) Since then death was to have possession of all, therefore He died that He might deliver us. — Homily on Hebrews 17

Oecumenius: “And just as it is appointed for men.“Now he also speaks of the cause, through which Christ died once for all; for, he says, he became the ransom for one death. For it is appointed to men once to die. Therefore, this once, Christ died for us. What then? Do we not die now? Yes, but we are not held by death, as before, which in its power is not even to die. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Christ having now been seen when he gained mastery over sin, took on death that had power because of sin. When sin had been atoned for, as was reasonable, he also will appear apart from suffering. For “without sin” means that when sin no longer has power, so also he himself will be seen apart from all human suffering. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 9.28

Theodoret of Cyrus: It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9:28

John Chrysostom: “So Christ was once offered.” By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are the words “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed. For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.

And what is the meaning of “He bare the sins”? Just as in the Oblation we bear up our sins and say, “Whether we have sinned voluntarily or involuntarily, do Thou forgive,” that is, we make mention of them first, and then ask for their forgiveness. So also was it done here. Where has Christ done this? Hear Himself saying, “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself.” (John xvii. 19.) Lo! He bore the sins. He took them from men, and bore them to the Father; not that He might determine anything against them (mankind), but that He might forgive them.

“Unto them that look for Him shall He appear” (he says) “the second time without sin unto salvation.” What is “without sin”? it is as much as to say, He sinneth not. For neither did He die as owing the debt of death, nor yet because of sin. But how “shall He appear”? To punish, you say. He did not however say this, but what was cheering; “shall He appear unto them that look for Him, without sin unto salvation.” So that for the time to come they no longer need sacrifices to save themselves, but to do this by deeds. — Homily on Hebrews 17

Oecumenius: “so Christ.” Since he was a man as well as being God, he himself, he says, endured the common lot of humanity. For just as men die once, so Christ, having been offered once, offered himself. For he is not only a high priest but also a victim. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “to bear the sins.” Just as in the holy liturgy we bring up the sins and say: Whether unwillingly or willingly we have sinned, forgive us; that is, we first remember them, and then we ask for forgiveness; so He Himself said to the Father: For them I sanctify Myself (Jn. 17:19). Or, He bore the sins of men to the Father, so that He might forgive and erase them. And why did He say, “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all have believed. For the sins of those who believe are taken away. For He died to save all, yet He forgives the sins only of the faithful. That is, “to bear the sins of many,” He says, so that He might also extinguish them, taking the punishment on their behalf. “willappear a second time, not to deal with sin.” Wherever he returns, he does not come to die again for your sins, nor that he will no longer free you from sins, as it now takes away; nor that he will not punish the guilty and those subject to sins, because he was crucified for us. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: Or that He says He bore the sins of many on the cross, so that He might also blot them out, giving the penalty on their behalf. Now, having made Himself sin, the Father sent Him; for Christ was indeed very sinful, having taken upon Himself and assumed the sins of the whole world. But He gave the penalty due to sinners through the cross, which belonged to them, and henceforth He will come with the glory of the Father, no longer as a sinner, no longer reckoned among the lawless. For if Christ is sinful, listen: for He who knew no sin, it is said, made sin to be sin, as if sin itself. (2 Cor. 5:21) — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Thomas Aquinas: 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. 10:4). 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.
465. • Then (v. 24) he shows that heavenly things are cleansed by better sacrifices. For the high priest expiated the sanctuary which was made with hands, but Christ has entered into the Holies not made with hands, for they were not, so far as they were concerned, the patterns of the true one, but into heaven itself, which He expiated not in itself but in regard to us, as has been said. But He did not expiate it with fleshly sacrifices, because Christ did not come to offer such things: ‘Burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require’ (Ps. 39:8); ‘With burnt offerings you will not be delighted’ (Ps. 50:18); ‘For it is evident that the Lord sprung out of Judah; in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests’ (Heb. 7:14). But he entered into heaven itself: ‘And the Lord Jesus was taken up to heaven’ (Mark 16:19); ‘This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come’ (Ac. 1:11).
466. • But Why? In order now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Here the Apostle alludes to a rite of the Old Law according to which the high priest, who entered the holy of holies, stood before the mercy seat to pray for the people. Similarly, Christ entered into heaven to stand before God for our salvation. But not in the same way, because the high priest could not see the holy of holies or any face on account of the smoke ascending from the censer; but Christ appears before the face of God: not that a bodily face is there, or a cloud, but clear vision.
467. • But when Christ was on earth, could He not appear before the face of God, since God sees all things? I answer that, as Augustine speaking of God says: ‘You were with me, but I was not with You,’ namely, because God is in all things by His essence, power and presence; but the wicked are not with God through grace. Thus, Christ is said to have entered to appear before the face of God, for although He always saw Him clearly as one perfectly happy, yet the state of pilgrims, as such, does not confer this, but only the heavenly state. Therefore, when He ascended perfectly happy, He entered, body and soul, to appear in the presence of God, i.e., He entered the place where God is seen clearly; and this for us. For He entered heaven to prepare the way for us: ‘I go to prepare a place for you. But I will come again and will take you to myself’ (Jn. 14:3); ‘He shall go up that shall open the way before them’ (Micah 2:13). For the body should follow the head: ‘where the body is, there the eagles shall be gathered’ (Mt. 24:28).
468. • Then (v. 25) he shows that the cleansing effected by the New Testament is more complete than that of the Old. But he shows this in two ways: first, by the fact that the former were repeated every day, but this only once. Likewise, as to its effects, because the former could not remove sin, but this one can. In regard to this he does two things: first, he describes the first; secondly, the second (chap. 10). But it should be noted that above, the Apostle had said three things about Christ: first, that He is a high priest; secondly, the dignity of the place He entered; thirdly, how He entered, namely, with blood. But since He has already explained these three things, he now explains how He entered, because, as the high priest entered once a year, so Christ entered only once. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows what was accomplished in the Old Testament; secondly, that it would not be fitting for the same to be accomplished in the New Testament (v. 26); thirdly, he shows what is accomplished in the New Testament (v. 28).
469. • For in the Old Testament, although the high priest could not enter lawfully but once a year, yet according to the Law he had to enter it every year with the blood of others, as it says in Leviticus (chap. 16). But Christ has not entered into the place made with hands, nor was it to offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holies every year with the blood of others.
470. • Then when he says, For then he ought to have suffered repeatedly since the foundation of the world, he proves that it would have been unbecoming to do the same thing in the New Testament, because the greatest impropriety would follow, because since Christ entered with his blood, it would follow that He would have to have suffered frequently from the foundation of the world. For this is not the case in the sacrifices of the Old Testament, because they were offered for the sins of the children of Israel. But that people began when the Law was given; therefore, it was not fitting that it be offered from the beginning of the world. But Christ offered Himself for the sins of the whole world, because He was made the propitiation for our sins and for those of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). Therefore, if He were offered frequently, it would have been necessary for Him to have been born and to suffer from the beginning of the world; but this would have been most unbecoming.
471. • Then (v. 26b) he shows what is done in the New. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows why the sacrifice is not repeated in the New Testament; secondly, he explains them (v. 27).
472. • He says, therefore: now at the end of the age, Christ has appeared: ‘We are the ones upon whom the ends of the ages are come’ (1 Cor. 10:11). And he says this on account of the number of years, because already more than a thousand years had passed since he said this. For the ages of the world are taken according to the ages of men, which are chiefly distinguished according to the state of progress and not according to the number of years. The first age was before the deluge, in which there was no written law or punishment, as in infancy. Another was from Noah to Abraham; and so on for the ages, so that the final age is the present one, after which there is no other state of salvation, just as there is no other age after old age. But just as in the other ages of men there is a definite number of years, but not in old age, which begins at sixty, and some live for 120 years, so it has not been determined how long this state of the world will continue. Yet it is the end of the ages, because no other age remains for salvation. But Christ appeared once during that age, and He gives two reasons why He was offered only once: the first is because in the Old Testament sins were not taken away, but this was accomplished by the offering of Christ. The second is because the high priest of the Law did not offer his own blood as Christ did. Hence, he says, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Therefore, the former are repeated, but not this one: ‘Christ died once for our sins’ (1 Peter 3:8).
473. • Then (v. 27) he explains the two reasons: first, the second one; secondly, the first one (chap. 10). He explains the second by reason of a likeness to other men; hence, he does two things: first, he shows what has happened to other men; secondly, what happened to Christ (v. 28).
474. • In every man we find two things, namely, the need to die; secondly, that he should rise, not to be cleansed but to be judged according to his deeds. He touches on the first when he says, and just as it is appointed for men once to die.
475. • But on the other hand, it seems that this is not appointed, but that man brought this about by sinning, for it says in Wisdom (1:13): ‘God made not death, neither has he pleasure in the destruction of the living;’ and shortly after: ‘But the wicked with works and words have called it to them.’ I answer that there are three things to consider in death: first of all, the material cause, and in this respect it has been appointed for men once to die by reason of the condition of his nature; secondly, the gift which was bestowed, and in this respect there was given to men the gift of original justice, by which the soul contained the body, so that it would not die; thirdly, the obligation of dying, and then by sinning, man deserved to lose that gift and became subject to death. Hence, the says that the wicked called death to themselves by touching the forbidden fruit. Therefore, man is the cause of death by default, but God as the judge: ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23).
476. • 477. • Then (v. 28) he shows how three things fit Christ. In regard to the first he says, and so Christ having been offered once, in which He agrees with the others. But He differed in two respects: first, since Christ had not descended from Adam by way of human seed, but merely as to bodily substance, He did not contract original sin; consequently, He was not obliged by that statute: ‘For in what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death’ (Gen. 2:17), but He underwent death by His own will: ‘No man takes it away from me: but I lay it down of myself’ (Jn. 10:18). Therefore, he says, that he was offered: ‘He was offered because it was His own will’ (Is. 53:7); ‘Christ has dies once for our sins’ (1 Peter 3:18). He differs, secondly, because our death is the effect of sin: The wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23). But Christ’s death destroys sin; therefore, he says, to bear the sins of many, i.e., to remove them. He does not say ‘of all,’ because Christ’s death, even though it was enough for all, has no efficacy except in regard to those who are to be saved: for not all are subject to Him by faith and good works.
477. • In regard to the second he says, he shall appear a second time not to deal with sin. He says two things about the second coming: first, how it differs from the first, because the second will be without sin. For even though He had no sin in the first coming, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3). In the first coming He was also made a victim for sin: ‘Him who knew no sin, he has made sin for us’ (2 Cor. 5:21). But those things are not to be found in the second coming; hence, he says that he shall appear without sin. Secondly, he states what will be peculiar to the second coming, because He will appear not to be judged, but to judge and to reward according to merits; hence, he says that he will appear. And although He will appear to all in the flesh, even to those who wounded Him, He will appear according to His divinity to the elect that eagerly wait for him by faith to save them: ‘Blessed are all they that wait for him’ (Is. 30:18); ‘We look for the Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who will reform the body of our lowliness, made like to the body of his glory’ (Philippians 3:20).