John Chrysostom — Commentary on Scripture

Hebrews 7:26

"For such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from the sinners." Thou seest that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I say "the manhood," I mean the manhood having Godhead; not dividing one from the other, but leaving you to suppose what is suitable.) Didst thou mark the difference of the High Priest? He has summed up what was said before, "in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin." "For" (he says) "such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless." "Harmless": what is it? Without wickedness: that which another Prophet says: "guile was not found in His mouth," that is, He is not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning Him, however, in respect of the Flesh, it might be reasonable to say it. "Holy, undefiled." This too would any one say concerning God? For has He a nature capable of defilement? "Separate from sinners."

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:27

Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself also? How? "He needeth not daily, as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself." "This," what? Here what follows sounds a prelude concerning the exceeding greatness of the spiritual sacrifice and the interval between them. He has mentioned the point of the priest; he has mentioned that of the faith; he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not entirely indeed, still he has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a prelude concerning the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He is a priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest's office. For He executed it once, and thenceforward "sat down." Lest thou suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he shows that the matter is part of a dispensation. For as He became a servant, so also He became a Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming a servant, He did not continue a servant, so also, having become a Minister, He did not continue a Minister. For it belongs not t…

Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself also? How? "He needeth not daily, as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself." "This," what? Here what follows sounds a prelude concerning the exceeding greatness of the spiritual sacrifice and the interval between them. He has mentioned the point of the priest; he has mentioned that of the faith; he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not entirely indeed, still he has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a prelude concerning the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He is a priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest's office. For He executed it once, and thenceforward "sat down." Lest thou suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he shows that the matter is part of a dispensation. For as He became a servant, so also He became a Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming a servant, He did not continue a servant, so also, having become a Minister, He did not continue a Minister. For it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to stand.

This then he hints at here, and also the greatness of the sacrifice, if being but one, and having been offered up once only, it affected that which all the rest were unable to do. But he does not yet treat of these points.

"For this He did," he says. "This"; what? "For it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat also to offer"; not for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the people. What sayest thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (he says). "For the Law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity." And doth He not need to offer for Himself? No, he says. For, that you may not suppose that the words "this He did once for all," are said respecting Himself also, hear what he says: "For the law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity." On this account they both offer continually, and for themselves. He however who is mighty, He that hath no sin, why should He offer for Himself, or oftentimes for others?

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:28

"But the word of the oath which was since the Law maketh the Son who has been consecrated for evermore." "Consecrated": what is that? Paul does not set down the common terms of contradistinction; for after saying "having Infirmity," he did not say "the Son" who is mighty, but "consecrated": i.e. mighty, as one might say. Thou seest that the name Son is used in contradistinction to that of servant. And by "infirmity" he means either sin or death.

What is, "for evermore"? Not now only without sin but always. If then He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives always, why shall He offer many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist strongly on this point: but what he does strongly insist upon is, His not offering on His own behalf.

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 8:1-2

Paul mixes the lowly things with the lofty, ever imitating his Master, so that the lowly become the path to the lofty, and through the former we are led to the latter, and when we are amid the great things we learn that these lowly ones were a condescension. This accordingly he does here also. After declaring that "He offered up Himself," and showing Him to be a "High Priest," what does he say? "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: we have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty." And yet this is not the office of a Priest, but of Him whom the Priest should serve. "A minister of the sanctuary," not simply a minister, but "a minister of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man." Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" (supra, i. 14) and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, "Sit thou on my right hand," (supra, i. 13) for He that sitteth is not a minister. How is it then that it is here said, "a min…

Paul mixes the lowly things with the lofty, ever imitating his Master, so that the lowly become the path to the lofty, and through the former we are led to the latter, and when we are amid the great things we learn that these lowly ones were a condescension. This accordingly he does here also. After declaring that "He offered up Himself," and showing Him to be a "High Priest," what does he say? "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: we have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty." And yet this is not the office of a Priest, but of Him whom the Priest should serve.

"A minister of the sanctuary," not simply a minister, but "a minister of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man." Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" (supra, i. 14) and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, "Sit thou on my right hand," (supra, i. 13) for He that sitteth is not a minister. How is it then that it is here said, "a minister," and "a minister of the Sanctuary"? for he means here the Tabernacle.

See how he raised up the minds of the believing Jews. For as they would be apt to imagine that we have no such tabernacle as they had, see here (he says) is the Priest, Great, yea, much greater than the other, and who has offered a more wonderful sacrifice. But is not all this mere talk? is it not a boast, and merely said to win over our minds? on this account he established it first from the oath, and afterwards also from "the tabernacle." For this difference too was manifest: but the Apostle thinks of another also, "which" (he says) "the Lord pitched [or "made firm"] and not man." Where are they who say that the heaven whirls around? where are they who declare that it is spherical? for both of these notions are overthrown here.

"Now" (he says) "of the things which we have spoken this is the sum." By "the sum" is always meant what is most important. Again he brings down his discourse; having said what is lofty, henceforward he speaks fearlessly.

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:3

In the next place that thou mayest understand that he used the word "minister" of the manhood, observe how he again indicates it: "For" (he says) "every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer."

Do not now, because thou hearest that He sitteth, suppose that His being called High Priest is mere idle talk. For the former, viz. His sitting, belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this to His great lovingkindness, and His tender care for us. On this account he repeatedly urges this very thing, and dwells more upon it: for he feared lest the other truth should overthrow it. That is, lest the belief of His Godhead should undermine our belief in His true manhood. Therefore he again brings down his discourse to this: since some were enquiring why He died. He was a Priest. But there is no Priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that He also should have a sacrifice.

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:4

And in another way; Having said that He is on high, he affirms and proves that He is a Priest from every consideration, from Melchisedec, from the oath, from offering sacrifice. From this he also frames another and necessary syllogism. "For if" (he says) "He had been on earth, He would not be a Priest, seeing that there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Law." If then He is a Priest (as He really is), we must seek some other place for Him. "For if He were" indeed "on earth, He should not be a priest." For how could He be? He offered no sacrifice, He ministered not in the Priest's office. And with good reason, for there were the priests. Moreover he shows, that it was impossible that He should be a priest upon earth. For how could He be? There was no rising up against the appointed Priests, he means.

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:5

Here we must apply our minds attentively, and consider the Apostolic wisdom; for again he shows the difference of the Priesthood. "Who" (he says) "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the Heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain as a sacrifice, when the Spirit is with us, when He who sitteth on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the Washing, when they are fellow-citizens of those in Heaven, when we have a country, and a city, and citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these be other than "heavenly things"? But what! Are not our Hymns heavenly? Do not we also who are below utter in concert with them the same things which the divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar also heavenly? How? It hath nothing carnal, all spiritual things become the offerings. The sacrifice does not disperse into ashes, or into smoke, or into steamy savor, it makes th…

Here we must apply our minds attentively, and consider the Apostolic wisdom; for again he shows the difference of the Priesthood. "Who" (he says) "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."

What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the Heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain as a sacrifice, when the Spirit is with us, when He who sitteth on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the Washing, when they are fellow-citizens of those in Heaven, when we have a country, and a city, and citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these be other than "heavenly things"? But what! Are not our Hymns heavenly? Do not we also who are below utter in concert with them the same things which the divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar also heavenly? How? It hath nothing carnal, all spiritual things become the offerings. The sacrifice does not disperse into ashes, or into smoke, or into steamy savor, it makes the things placed there bright and splendid. How again can the rites which we celebrate be other than heavenly? For when He says, "Whose soever sins ye retain they are retained, whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted" (John xx. 23) when they have the keys of heaven, how can all be other than heavenly?

"Who" (he says) "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle, for see, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount." Inasmuch as our hearing is less ready of apprehension than our sight (for the things which we hear we do not in such wise lay up in our soul, as those which we see with our very eyes), He showed him all. Either then he means this by "the example and shadow," or else he speaks of the Temple. For, he went on to say, "See" (His words are), that "thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount." Was it then only what concerned the furniture of the temple that he saw, or was it also what related to the sacrifices, and all the rest? Nay, one would not be wrong in saying even this; for The Church is heavenly, and is nothing else than Heaven.

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:6

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant." Thou seest (he means) how much better is the one ministration than the other, if one be an example and type, and the other truth. But this did not profit the hearers, nor cheer them. Therefore he says what especially cheered them: "Which was established upon better promises." Having raised them up by speaking of the place, and the priest, and the sacrifice, he then sets forth also the wide difference of the covenant, having also said before that it was "weak and unprofitable." (See Heb. vii. 18.) And observe what safeguards he lays down, when intending to find fault with it. For in the former place after saying, "according to the power of an endless life" (Heb. vii. 16), he then said that "there is a disannulling of the commandment going before" (Heb. vii. 18); and then after that, he set forth something great, saying, "by which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. vii. 19.) And in this place, after leading us up into Heaven, and showing that instead of the temple, we have Heaven…

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant." Thou seest (he means) how much better is the one ministration than the other, if one be an example and type, and the other truth. But this did not profit the hearers, nor cheer them. Therefore he says what especially cheered them: "Which was established upon better promises." Having raised them up by speaking of the place, and the priest, and the sacrifice, he then sets forth also the wide difference of the covenant, having also said before that it was "weak and unprofitable." (See Heb. vii. 18.)

And observe what safeguards he lays down, when intending to find fault with it. For in the former place after saying, "according to the power of an endless life" (Heb. vii. 16), he then said that "there is a disannulling of the commandment going before" (Heb. vii. 18); and then after that, he set forth something great, saying, "by which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. vii. 19.) And in this place, after leading us up into Heaven, and showing that instead of the temple, we have Heaven, and that those things were types of ours, and having by these means exalted the Ministration of the New Covenant, he then proceeds suitably to exalt the priesthood.

But (as I said) he sets down that which especially cheers them, in the words, "Which was established upon better promises."

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:7

Whence does appear? In that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, "If perfection were by" it, "what further need was there, that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedec?" (Heb. vii. 11); so also here he used the same syllogism, saying "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second"; that is, if it made men "faultless." For it is because he is speaking of this that he did not say, "But finding fault with" it, but "But finding fault with them."

And "faultless"; that is, useful; not as though it the old Covenant was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:8-9

"But finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Yea, verily. And whence does it appear that the first Covenant came to an end? He showed it indeed also from the Priest, but now he shows more clearly by express words that it has been cast out. But how is it "upon better promises"? For how, tell me, can earth and heaven be equal? But do thou consider, how he speaks of promises there in that other covenant also, that thou mayest not bring this charge against it. For there also, he says "a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God" (Heb. vii. 19), showing that a Hope was there also; and in this place "better promises," hinting that there also He had made promises. But inasmuch as they were forever making objections, he says, "Behold! the days come…

"But finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

Yea, verily. And whence does it appear that the first Covenant came to an end? He showed it indeed also from the Priest, but now he shows more clearly by express words that it has been cast out.

But how is it "upon better promises"? For how, tell me, can earth and heaven be equal? But do thou consider, how he speaks of promises there in that other covenant also, that thou mayest not bring this charge against it. For there also, he says "a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God" (Heb. vii. 19), showing that a Hope was there also; and in this place "better promises," hinting that there also He had made promises.

But inasmuch as they were forever making objections, he says, "Behold! the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." He is not speaking of any old Covenant: for, that they might not assert this, he determined the time also. Thus he did not say simply, "according to the covenant which I made with their fathers," lest thou shouldest say it was the one made with Abraham, or that with Noah: but he declares what covenant it was, "not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers" in the Exodus. Wherefore he added also, "in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Thou seest that the evils begin first from ourselves ("they" themselves first, saith he, "continued not in the covenant") and the negligence is from ourselves, but the good things from Him; I mean the acts of bounty. He here introduces, as it were, an apology showing the cause why He forsakes them.

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:10

"For this," he says, "is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people." Thus He says this concerning the New covenant because His words are "not according to the covenant which I covenanted." But what other difference is there beside this? Now if any person should say that "the difference is not in this respect, but in respect to its being put into their hearts; He makes no mention of any difference of ordinances, but points out the mode of its being given: for no longer" (he says) "shall the covenant be in writings, but in hearts;" let the Jew in that case show that this was ever carried into effect; but he could not, for it was made a second time in writings after the return from Babylon. But I show that the Apostles received nothing in writing, but received it in their hearts through the Holy Ghost. Wherefore also Christ said, "When He cometh, He will bring all things to your remembrance, and He shall teach y…

"For this," he says, "is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people." Thus He says this concerning the New covenant because His words are "not according to the covenant which I covenanted."

But what other difference is there beside this? Now if any person should say that "the difference is not in this respect, but in respect to its being put into their hearts; He makes no mention of any difference of ordinances, but points out the mode of its being given: for no longer" (he says) "shall the covenant be in writings, but in hearts;" let the Jew in that case show that this was ever carried into effect; but he could not, for it was made a second time in writings after the return from Babylon. But I show that the Apostles received nothing in writing, but received it in their hearts through the Holy Ghost. Wherefore also Christ said, "When He cometh, He will bring all things to your remembrance, and He shall teach you." (John xiv. 26.)

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:11-12

"And they shall not teach" (he says) "every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Behold also another sign. "From the least even to the greatest of them" (he says) "they shall know Me, and they shall not say, Know the Lord." When hath this been fulfilled save now? For our religion is manifest: but theirs, i.e. the Jews', was not manifest, but had been shut up in a corner.

A covenant is then said to be "new," when it is different and shows some advantage over the old.

Here he shows that God counts us worthy of greater and of spiritual privileges: for it is said "their sound went out into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world." (Ps. xix. 5; Rom. x. 18.) That is the meaning of "they shall not say each man to his neighbor, Know the Lord." And again, "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as much water to cover the seas." (Isa. xi. 9.)

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 8:13

"In calling it new" (he says), "He hath made the first old: but that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." See what was hidden, how he hath laid open the very mind of the prophet! He honored the law, and was not willing to call it "old" in express terms: but nevertheless, this he did call it. For if the former had been new, he would not have called this which came afterwards "new" also. So that by granting something more and different, he declares that "it was waxen old." Therefore it is done away and is perishing, and no longer exists. Having taken boldness from the prophet, he attacks it more suitably, showing that our dispensation is now flourishing. That is, he showed that the other was old: then taking up the word "old," and adding of himself another circumstance, the characteristic of old age, he took up what was omitted by the others, and says "ready to vanish away." The New then has not simply caused the old to cease, but because it had become aged, as it was not any longer useful. On this account he said, "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (H…

"In calling it new" (he says), "He hath made the first old: but that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." See what was hidden, how he hath laid open the very mind of the prophet! He honored the law, and was not willing to call it "old" in express terms: but nevertheless, this he did call it. For if the former had been new, he would not have called this which came afterwards "new" also. So that by granting something more and different, he declares that "it was waxen old." Therefore it is done away and is perishing, and no longer exists.

Having taken boldness from the prophet, he attacks it more suitably, showing that our dispensation is now flourishing. That is, he showed that the other was old: then taking up the word "old," and adding of himself another circumstance, the characteristic of old age, he took up what was omitted by the others, and says "ready to vanish away."

The New then has not simply caused the old to cease, but because it had become aged, as it was not any longer useful. On this account he said, "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Heb. vii. 18), and, "the law made nothing perfect" (Heb. vii. 19); and that "if the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." (Heb. viii. 7.) And "faultless"; that is, useful; not as though it the old Covenant was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.

Homily on Hebrews 14

Hebrews 9:1

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

Hebrews 9:1-5

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

Hebrews 9:2

"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

"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 9:4-5

"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

Hebrews 9:6

"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

"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 t…

"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