Homilies on Hebrews 13

If then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people had received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise up after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there comes about a change of law also.

For He of whom these things are said belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever attended at the altar.

For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, concerning which tribe Moses spoke nothing about priesthood.

'If then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood,' he says.

Having spoken concerning Melchizedek, and shown how much greater he was than Abraham, and declared the great difference, from here he then begins to demonstrate the disparity of the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect, but the other perfect.

And he does not yet enter upon the matters themselves, but for the present contends from the priesthood and the covenant.

For these things were more credible to the unbelievers, when the proof was drawn from things already assumed beforehand and already believed.

He showed that Melchizedek was far better than both Levi and Abraham, having stood in the rank of priest over them.

And again he takes up the argument from another point.

From what point? From the present priesthood, and the Jewish one.

And behold for me the surpassing wisdom!

For from that very point from which it was likely that one would cast Him out of the priesthood — since He was not after the order of Aaron — from this very point he establishes Him, but casts out those others.

And he does this by bringing himself in as if raising a difficulty about something — why ever He is called not after the order of Aaron — and thus resolving the perplexity.

'And I too,' he says, 'am perplexed about this very thing, for what reason He came not after the order of Aaron.'

For he shows this by saying, 'If then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood.'

And the phrase 'What further need,' carries much emphasis.

If then Christ, according to the flesh, had first been after the order of Melchizedek, and afterward the law had come to be, together with the things pertaining to Aaron,

one might reasonably say that these, being more perfect, do away with those, inasmuch as they came in afterward;

but if Christ came later, and takes another pattern of priesthood, it is clear that it is because those others were more imperfect.

For let us suppose, he says, for the sake of argument, that all had been fulfilled, and that there was nothing imperfect in the priesthood;

why then was it necessary to be called 'after the order of Melchizedek,' and not 'after the order of Aaron'? For what reason, setting Aaron aside, did He bring in another priesthood, that of Melchizedek? 'If then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood,' he says.

That is, if the perfection of things, of doctrines, of life, had been through the Levitical priesthood.

And see how he advances by an orderly way.

He said 'after the order of Melchizedek,' showing that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is better;

and then he shows this also from the time, that it was after Aaron, evidently as being better.

And what does what follows mean: 'For the people,' he says, 'had received the law upon it'? What is the force of 'upon it'? It marches in step with it, he means; through it the people carries out all things.

It cannot be said that the law was given to any others.

'The people had received the law upon it,'

that is, they employ it and have employed it.

It cannot be said that it was indeed perfect, yet did not preside over the people.

What need, then, was there of another priesthood, if it possessed perfection? 'For the priesthood being changed, of necessity a change of the law also takes place.'

But if there must be another priest, or rather another priesthood, of necessity there must be another law as well.

This is directed against those who say:

What need was there of a new covenant? For he could indeed have adduced a testimony from prophecy as well:

'This is the covenant which I made with your fathers;'

but for the present he contends from the priesthood.

And observe how he travailed to speak these things from the very outset.

'After the order of Melchizedek.'

This cast out the priesthood of Aaron;

Melchizedek, he said—as if to indicate that this priesthood was the better.

If, therefore, another priesthood has been introduced, there must be another covenant;

for neither can there be a priest apart from a covenant and laws and ordinances, nor, having received another priesthood, could he make use of the former one.

Then, that point which belonged to the objection—how one could be a priest without being a Levite—having laid it down beforehand in what precedes, he does not deign even to resolve it, but introduces it merely in passing.

I have said, he means, that the priesthood was transferred;

and it was transferred not in its manner only, nor in its ordinances, but also in its tribe;

How so? 'For the priesthood being changed,' he says.

That is, for this reason it was transferred from tribe to tribe, from the priestly to the royal, that the one and the same might be both royal and priestly.

First it was royal, and now it has become priestly;

just as also in the case of Christ;

for he was ever a king, but became a priest when he took upon himself the flesh, when he offered the sacrifice.

Do you see the change? And the things that belonged to the objection, these he introduces as though the sequence of the matters themselves demanded them;

'For he of whom these things are spoken,' he says, 'belonged to another tribe, from which no one has given attendance at the altar.'

'For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, concerning which tribe Moses spoke nothing about priesthood.'

And what he says is of this nature:

I too affirm, and I know, that this tribe had nothing of the priesthood, nor did anyone from it exercise the priestly office;

for this is what is meant by 'No one has given attendance at the altar;'

but the whole is a transference.

Thus it was necessary that the law and the old covenant should be transferred, since the tribe itself had also been changed.

Do you see how he shows yet another difference, drawn from the change of the tribe? And not only from this is the greatness of the difference shown, but already also from the person, and from the covenant, and from the manner, and from the type itself.

'Who was made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment, but after the power of an indissoluble life.'

He has become a priest, he says, but not after the law of a fleshly commandment;

for that law was in most respects unlawful.

And he well called it a fleshly commandment;

for all its prescriptions were fleshly.

For to say, 'Circumcise the flesh, anoint the flesh, wash the flesh, cleanse the flesh, shave the flesh, bind up the flesh, nourish the flesh, let the flesh rest'—

these, tell me, are they not fleshly? And if you wish to learn also what were the good things it promised, listen:

Long life, he says, to the flesh; milk and honey to the flesh; peace to the flesh; luxury to the flesh.

It was from this law that Aaron received the priesthood;

Melchizedek, however, was not thus.

'And it is yet far more evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest,'

What is evident? The distance between the two priesthoods, the difference—how much greater is he 'who was made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment.'

Who? This Melchizedek? No, but Christ.

'But after the power of an indissoluble life.'

For it is testified: 'You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.'

That is, not temporary, nor having an end, but 'after the power of an indissoluble life.'

This he said in order to make clear that he became a priest through his own power and that of the Father, through a life without end.

And yet this is not the consequent of the phrase, 'Who was made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment;'

for the consequent would have been to say, 'But after a spiritual one.'

But by means of the word 'fleshly' he showed its temporary character;

just as also elsewhere he says, 'The ordinances of the flesh imposed until a time of reformation'—'after the power of a life;'

that is, that he lives by his own power.

He said that a change of the law takes place, and showed how;

which of all things most fully assures the souls of men—namely, to know the reason with certainty—and leads to greater faith.

For we then believe the more, when we have learned both the cause and the reason according to which a thing comes to pass.

'For there is a disannulling,' he says, 'of a foregoing commandment, because of its weakness and unprofitableness.'

Here the heretics fasten upon us, saying:

Behold, Paul too has called the commandment evil.

He did not say 'because it was evil,' nor 'because it was wicked,' but 'because of

its weakness and unprofitableness.'

And elsewhere too he shows its weakness;

as when he says, 'In that it was weak through the flesh.'

So then it is not this that is weak, but we.

'For the law made nothing perfect.'

What is 'It made nothing perfect'? It made no one perfect, he says, when it was disobeyed.

And besides, not even if it had been obeyed would it have made a man perfect and virtuous.

For the present, however, this is not what the passage means here, but rather that it availed nothing.

'Do this, and do not do that'—

merely laying down commands, but not also implanting the power to fulfil them.

What is 'a setting aside'? A change, a casting out.

And to show of what he was speaking, he added, saying, 'of the foregoing commandment'; thus calling the law, because it has been cast out on account of its own weakness.

and 'foregoing' means that which has passed away and been made old because of its weakness.

So that the setting aside is a setting aside of things that were in force.

And from this it is henceforth plain that it did prevail, but was despised, since it accomplished nothing.

Did the law then profit nothing? It did profit, and profit greatly, but toward making men perfect it did not profit.

Accordingly, then, he says, 'For the law made nothing perfect,' inasmuch as all things were types, all were shadow—circumcision, sacrifice, the Sabbath—which had no power to pass into the soul.

For this reason it gives place and withdraws.

But there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

and inasmuch as it was not without an oath.

Do you see that the matter of the oath here has thus become necessary? So that on this account he discoursed at length above concerning how God swore, and swore for the sake of fuller assurance.

'But there is a bringing in of a better hope.'

What is this? The law too had a hope, he says, but not such as this.

For they hoped that, if they were well-pleasing, they would possess the land and suffer nothing dreadful.

But here we hope that, being well-pleasing, we shall possess not earth but heaven.

or rather, what is far better than this, we hope to stand near to God, to come to the very throne of the Father, and to minister to Him together with the angels.

And observe how he sets these things forth little by little.

'Entering into that which is within the veil.'

'and inasmuch as it was not without an oath';

what does 'and inasmuch as it was not without an oath' mean? That is, not without an oath.

And not even simply have these things been promised, he says.

For those were made priests without an oath;

but He was made priest with an oath, through Him who said to Him, 'The Lord has sworn and will not repent: You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek';

by so much has Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.

And those indeed have been made priests in great numbers, because they were prevented by death from continuing;

but He, because He abides for ever, has an unchangeable priesthood.

He sets forth two differences: that it has no end, as the legal one had, and that it is with an oath;

and this he does from Christ, who succeeds to it;

'For after the power,' he says, 'of an indissoluble life';

and he does this also from the oath, that He swore;

For if, because it was weak, he says, that one was cast out;

this one, because it is powerful, stands fast.

And he does this also from the priest.

How? By showing that He is one;

and He would not be one, unless He were immortal.

For just as there were many priests, because they were mortal;

so the One is one, because He is immortal.

'By so much has Jesus become the surety of a better covenant,' inasmuch as He swore to Him that He should be a priest for ever, he says;

which He would not have done, unless He were living.

Whence also He is able to save to the uttermost those who through Him draw near to God, since He ever lives to make intercession for them.

Do you see that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh? When he had shown Him to be a priest, then, opportunely, he speaks of the interceding.

So that even when Paul says, 'Who also makes intercession for us,' he hints at the same thing—that being High Priest He makes intercession.

For He who raises the dead as He wills, and gives life even as the Father does, how, where there is need to save, does He intercede? He who has all judgment, how does He intercede? He who sends forth the angels, so as to cast some into the furnace and to save others, how does He intercede? 'Whence,' he says, 'He is also able to save.'

For this reason, then, He saves, because He does not die.

and if He has no successor, He is also able to preside over all.

For here the high priest, even if he was admirable, was so only up to that time in which he lived—such as Samuel, and all who were like him;

but here it is not so, rather He saves to the uttermost.

What is 'to the uttermost'? He hints at some great mystery.

Not here only, he says, but also there He saves those who through Him draw near to God.

How does He save? By ever living to make intercession for them, he says.

Do you see how lowly a thing he said, on account of the humanity? For he does not say that having once interceded He obtained this, but always, and whenever there is need to make intercession for them;

for this is what 'to the uttermost' signifies.

What is 'to the uttermost'? Not for the present only, he says, but also there in the life to come.

Does He then always need to pray? And how could that be reasonable? Even men who are righteous have often accomplished everything by a single petition, yet does He always need to? For what purpose, then, does He sit together with the Father? Do you see that speaking lowly things is a condescension? But what he means is this:

Fear nothing, and do not say, 'Yes, He indeed loves us and has confidence toward the Father, but He cannot always live';

For such a High Priest was fitting for us: holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners.

Do you see that the whole is spoken concerning the humanity? But when I say humanity, I mean one that possesses divinity, not dividing them, but leaving you to surmise what is fitting.

Do you see the difference of the High Priest? He recapitulated the things said above, when he said:

'But one who has been tempted in all things according to our likeness, apart from sin';

for such a High Priest, he says, was fitting for us: holy, guileless.

What is 'guileless'? Free from wickedness, not deceitful;

and that He is such, hear the prophet saying:

'Neither was guile found in His mouth.'

This, then, one might say concerning God;

but who would not be ashamed to say that God is not deceitful nor guileful? Now concerning that which is according to the flesh one might have reason to say, 'Holy, undefiled';

and this too one could not say concerning God;

for He has a nature that cannot be defiled.

Separated from sinners.

Does this, then, show only the difference, or is the sacrifice itself also different? The sacrifice too.

How so? He has no need, it says, to offer up sacrifices daily, as the high priests do, first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people;

for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself.

This—of what kind? Here, then, he sounds beforehand the surpassing excellence of the spiritual sacrifice.

And he spoke of what lies between—that of the priest; he spoke of that of the covenant, not the whole of it indeed, yet he spoke of it nonetheless;

here, then, he sounds beforehand the sacrifice itself as well.

Do not, therefore, when you hear Him called a priest, suppose that He is always exercising the priesthood;

for He exercised the priesthood once, and thereafter sat down.

For lest you should suppose that He stands above and is a minister, he shows that the matter belongs to the dispensation.

For just as He became a servant, so also He became a priest and a minister;

but as, having become a servant, He did not remain a servant,

so also, having become a minister, He did not remain a minister;

for it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to stand.

This, then, is what he here hints at—the greatness of the sacrifice, which, being but one and offered once for all, availed as much as all the others together could not.

For this He did once for all.

This—of what kind? For it is necessary, he says, that this one too should have something which He may offer;

for how could He offer for Himself, being without sin? Rather, He offered for the people.

What do you say? Does He have no need to offer for Himself, yet avails so much? Yes, he says.

For lest you should suppose that the phrase 'He did it once for all' was spoken concerning Him also, hear what he adds:

For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness.

For this reason too they always offer for themselves;

but the One who is mighty, who has no sin—for what reason should He offer for Himself? Assuredly not for Himself, but for the people He offered.

But the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints a Son perfected forever.

What does 'perfected' mean? Consider.

Paul does not set the antitheses as exact counterparts;

for having said 'having weakness,' he did not say 'a mighty Son,' but 'perfected,' that is,

mighty, as one might put it.

Do you see that the name 'Son' is spoken in antithesis to that of servant? And by 'weakness' he means either sin or death.

What is 'forever'? Not now only, he says, is He without sin, but always.

If, then, He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives forever, for what reason would He often offer sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist on this point, but on the point that He does not offer for Himself—this he insists on.

Since, then, we have such a High Priest, let us imitate Him, and let us walk in His footsteps.

and after this, fire and hell.

For it is on account of this that he turns the matter up and down, saying 'one priest, one sacrifice,' lest anyone, supposing them to be many, should sin without fear.

As many of us, therefore, as have been counted worthy of the seal, as many as have enjoyed the sacrifice, as many as have partaken of the immortal table, let us remain guarding our nobility and honor;

for the falling away is not without danger.

But as many as have not yet been counted worthy of these things, let not these on that account be over-confident;

for when one sins for this very purpose—that he may receive holy baptism at his last breath—he will often not attain it.

And, believe me, it is not to frighten you that I say what I am about to say;

I know many who suffered this, who in the expectation of enlightenment sinned much, but on the day of their death departed empty.

For God gave baptism for this purpose—that He might loose sins, not that He might increase sins;

but if anyone should use it as a license for sinning the more, this becomes henceforth a cause of slothfulness.

For if there were no laver, men would live more securely, as not having remission.

Do you see that the saying 'Let us do evil that good may come' is made to be spoken by us who do these things? Therefore, I entreat you, you also who are uninitiated, be sober;

let no one pursue virtue as a hireling, no one as an ingrate, no one as though it were a heavy and burdensome thing.

Let us therefore pursue it with eagerness and with joy.

For if no reward were laid up, ought virtue not still to be a good? Yet nevertheless, even if it be with a reward, let us become good.

For how is this not a shame and a very great condemnation? 'Unless you give me a reward,' one says, 'I do not become self-controlled.'

Then may I be so bold as to say something? You will never be self-controlled, not even when you exercise self-control, if indeed you do it for a reward;

for you reckon virtue as nothing, if indeed you do not love it.

But God, on account of our great weakness, was willing for the time being that it should come to pass even for a reward;

yet we do not pursue it even so.

But let us suppose, if you please, that a certain man who has wrought countless evils departs this life, and having been counted worthy of baptism (which I do not think readily happens), how will he depart to that world yonder, tell me? Though not called to account for the things he has done, yet being without boldness, and reasonably so.

For when a man, having lived a hundred years, has displayed no good work, but only this—that he did not sin, or rather not even this, but that he was saved by grace alone—and sees others crowned, resplendent and highly esteemed;

even if he does not fall into hell, will he bear the despondency, tell me? And that I may make the matter plainer by an example: let there be two soldiers, and let the one steal, do wrong, and be grasping;

but let the other do none of these things, but play the man, achieve great deeds, set up trophies in wars, and redden his right hand with blood;

then, when the fitting time comes, let the one be led up all at once from that same rank in which the thief also stood, to the royal throne and the purple robe;

but let that thief remain there where he was, and only through the royal clemency let him not pay the penalty for what he did, yet let him be in the lowest place, and be ranked under the king;

will he bear the despondency, tell me, when he sees the one who was with him ascended, surely, to the very summit of the dignities, and become so resplendent, and ruling the whole world, while he himself still remains below, and does not even possess with honor his very exemption from punishment, but owes it to the grace and clemency of the king? For even though the king pardon him and free him from the charges, yet nevertheless he will live in shame;

for others surely will not admire him.

For in such pardons we admire not those

who receive the gifts, but those who give them;

and the greater the gifts they give, the more are the receivers put to shame, when their offenses are great.

With what eyes, then, will such a one be able to look in return upon those who are in the palace, when they display their countless sweats and wounds, while he himself has nothing to display, but owes his very salvation to God's clemency alone? For just as if one should beg off a murderer, a thief, an adulterer who was about to be led away to execution, and should command him to be by the vestibule of the palace, that man will thereafter be able to look no one in the face, even though he has been freed from the punishment;

For do not suppose, because it is called a palace, that all attain to the same things.

For if even here both the prefect, and all who are about the king, and those who are far inferior and hold the place of what are called the decani, are in the palace—and that though there is so great a distance between the prefect and the decanus—

much more will this be the case in the palace above.

And this I do not say of myself;

for Paul too sets down a distinction greater than these.

For as great, he says, as are the differences from the sun to the moon, and to the stars, and to the least of the stars, so great also are the differences of those in the kingdom.

And that the difference between the sun and the least of the stars is far greater than that between the one called a 'decurion' and a prefect is plain to all.

For the sun at once illumines the whole inhabited world and makes it bright, hiding both the moon and the stars from view;

but the star often does not so much as appear, and that even in the darkness;

for there are many of the stars which we do not see.

When, therefore, we see others becoming suns, while we hold the rank of the least stars, those that do not even appear, what consolation shall there be for us? Let us not, I beseech you, let us not be so sluggish, so idle; let us not turn the salvation that comes from God into an occasion for indolence, but let us trade with it and multiply it.

For even if one is but a catechumen, yet he knows Christ, yet he has come to know the faith, yet he gives ear to the divine words, yet he is not far from the divine knowledge, he knows the will of his Master.

Why then does he put it off? why does he delay and postpone? Nothing is better than a good life, both here and there, both for the baptized and for the catechumens.

For what burdensome thing, tell me, have we been commanded? 'Have a wife,' he says, 'and be temperate.'

Is this burdensome, tell me? And how can it be, when many are temperate even without a wife—not Christians only, but even pagans? That which the pagan surpasses out of vainglory, will you not observe even so much out of the fear of God? 'Give,' he says, 'to the poor out of what you have.'

Is this burdensome? Yet here too the pagans accuse us, for they have poured out whole fortunes for the sake of vainglory alone.

Is this difficult? For if it had not been commanded, ought we not to have done it aright, lest we should appear dishonorable? For that the opposite is difficult—I mean foul speech—is plain from this, that the soul is ashamed and blushes if it be led to say any such thing, and will not utter it, unless perhaps a man be drunk.

For why is it that, when sitting in the marketplace, you do not do at home what you do there? Is it not because of those who are present? Why do you not readily do the same thing in the presence of your wife? Is it not that you may not affront her? So then, that you may not affront your wife, you refrain;

yet when you affront God, do you not blush? For He is everywhere present, and hears all things.

For is not this very thing, of itself, a punishment? He did not say, 'Mortify the body,' but what? 'Do not be drunk';

that is, do not so overthrow it as to strip the soul of its rule.

What then? Ought we not to take forethought for the body? God forbid;

I do not say this, but do not take forethought for it unto its lusts;

for so also Paul commanded, saying:

'And make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.'

'Do not seize,' he says, 'what is not yours; do not defraud; do not swear falsely.'

What kinds of toil do these things require? what sweats? 'Do not speak evil,' he says, 'nor bring false accusation.'

What toil has this? On the contrary, it is the toil.

For when you speak evil, you are at once in danger, in suspicion: 'Has the man of whom I spoke perhaps heard it?'—whether

he be great or small;

for if he be great, you will straightway be in peril as to your affairs;

and if he be small, he will requite you with the like, or rather with things far more grievous;

for he will speak evil of you the more.

Nothing difficult, nothing burdensome have we been commanded, if we are willing;

but if we are not willing, even the easiest things will appear burdensome to us.

What is easier than eating? Yet out of great sluggishness many are vexed even at this;

and I hear many saying that even eating is a labor.

None of these things is a labor, if you are willing;

for in the willing everything lies, after the grace from above.

Let us therefore will the good things, that we may also attain the eternal good things, by the grace and lovingkindness [of our Lord Jesus Christ].