John Chrysostom

In the next place, lest hearing the words "after the same example," thou shouldest think that the punishment is the same, hear what he adds; "For the Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and pierceth even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." In these words he shows that He, the Word of God, wrought the former things also, and lives, and has not been quenched.

Do not then when hearing the Word, think of it lightly. For "He is sharper," he says, "than a sword." Observe His condescension; and hence consider why the prophets also needed to speak of saber and bow and sword. "If ye turn not," it is said, "He will whet His sword, He hath bent His bow and made it ready." (Ps. vii. 12.) For if now, after so long a time, and after their being perfected, He cannot smite down by the name of the Word alone, but needs these expressions in order to show the superiority arising from the comparison of the Gospel with the law: much more then of old.

"Piercing," he says, "even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit." What is this? He hinted at something more fearful. Either that He divides the spirit from the soul, or that He pierces even through them disembodied, not as a sword through bodies only. Here he shows, that the soul also is punished, and that it thoroughly searches out the most inward things, piercing wholly through the whole man.

"And is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight." In these words most of all he terrified them. For do not (he says) be confident if ye still stand fast in the Faith, but without full assurance. He judges the inner heart, for there He passes through, both punishing and searching out.

And why speak I of men? he says. For even if thou speak of Angels, of Archangels, of the Cherubim, of the Seraphim, even of any "creature" whatsoever: all things are laid open to that Eye, all things are clear and manifest; there is nothing able to escape it; "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him, with whom we have to do."

But what is "opened"? It is a metaphor from the skins which are drawn off from the victims. For as in that case, when a man has killed them, and has drawn aside the skin from the flesh, he lays open all the inward parts, and makes them manifest to our eyes; so also do all things lie open before God. And observe, I pray thee, how he constantly needs bodily images; which arose from the weakness of the hearers. For that they were weak, he made plain, when he said that they were "dull," and "had need of milk, not of strong meat." "All things are naked," he says, "and opened unto the eyes of Him, with whom we have to do." (c. v. 11, v. 12.)

Next he discourses of the Son, "with whom we have to do," he says. What is "with whom we have to do"? To Him (he would say) we have to render account for the things we have done? Even so. How then must we act that we fall not, nor be faint-hearted?

These things indeed (he would say) are sufficient to instruct us. But we have also "a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." Because he added it, for this reason he went on, "For we have not an High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities." Therefore he said above, "In that He hath suffered Himself being tempted, He is able to succor them which are tempted." See then how here also he does the same. And what he says is to this effect: He went (he says) the road which we also are going now, or rather even a more rugged one. For He had experience of all human sufferings.

He had said above "There is no creature that is not manifest in His sight," intimating His Godhead; then, since he had touched on the flesh, he again discourses more condescendingly, saying (ver. 14), "Having then a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens": and shows that His care is greater and that He protects them as His own, and would not have them fall away. For Moses indeed (he says) did not enter into the rest, while He Christ did enter in. And it is wonderful how he has nowhere stated the same, lest they might seem to find an excuse; he however implied it, but that he might not appear to bring an accusation against the man, he did not say it openly. For if, when none of these things had been said, they yet brought forward these charges, saying, This man hath spoken against Moses and against the law (see Acts xxi. 21, Acts xxi. 28); much more, if he had said, It is not Palestine but Heaven, would they have said stronger things than these.

But he attributes not all to the Priest, but requires also what is to come from us, I mean our profession. For "having," he says, "a great High Priest, who is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession" or "confession". What sort of profession does he mean? That there is a Resurrection, that there is a retribution: that there are good things innumerable; that Christ is God, that the Faith is right. These things let us profess, these things let us hold fast. For that they are true, is manifest from the fact, that the High Priest is within. We have not failed of our hopes, let us confess; although the realities are not present, yet let us confess: if already they were present they were but a lie. So that this also is true, that our good things are deferred. For our High Priest also is Great.

"For we have not an High Priest, who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities." He is not (he means) ignorant of what concerns us, as many of the High Priests, who know not those in tribulations, nor that there is tribulation at any time. For in the case of men it is impossible that one should know the affliction of the afflicted who has not had experience, and gone through the actual sensations. Our High Priest endured all things. Therefore He endured first and then ascended, that He might be able to sympathize with us.

But was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Observe how both above he has used the word "in like manner," and here "after the likeness." (c. ii. 14.) That is, He was persecuted, was spit upon, was accused, was mocked at, was falsely informed against, was driven out, at last was crucified.

"After our likeness, without sin." In these words another thing also is suggested, that it is possible even for one in afflictions to go through them without sin. So that when he says also "in the likeness of flesh" (Rom. viii. 3), he means not that He took on Him merely "the likeness of flesh," but "flesh." Why then did he say "in the likeness"? Because he was speaking about "sinful flesh": for it was "like" our flesh, since in nature it was the same with us, but in sin no longer the same.

"Let us come then boldly with confidence unto the throne of His grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

What "throne of grace" is he speaking of? that royal throne concerning which it is said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand." (Ps. cx. 1.)

What is "let us come boldly"? Because "we have a sinless High Priest" contending with the world. For, saith He, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world" (John xvi. 33.); for, this is to suffer all things, and yet to be pure from sins. Although we (he means) are under sin, yet He is sinless.

How is it that we should "approach boldly"? Because now it is a throne of Grace, not a throne of Judgment. Therefore boldly, "that we may obtain mercy," even such as we are seeking. For the affair is one of munificence, a royal largess.

"And may find grace to help in time of need [for help in due season]." He well said, "for help in time of need." If thou approach now (he means) thou wilt receive both grace and mercy, for thou approachest "in due season"; but if thou approach then, no longer wilt thou receive it. For then the approach is unseasonable, for it is not "then a throne of Grace." Till that time He sitteth granting pardon, but when the end is come, then He riseth up to judgment. For it is said, "Arise, O God, judge the earth." (Ps. lxxxii. 8.) ("Let us come boldly," or he says again having no "evil conscience," that is, not being in doubt, for such an one cannot "come with boldness.") On this account it is said, "I have heard thee in an accepted time and in a day of salvation have I succored thee." (2 Cor. vi. 2.) Since even now for those to find repentance who sin after baptism is of grace.

But lest when thou hearest of an High Priest, thou shouldst think that He standeth, he forthwith leads to the throne. But a Priest doth not sit, but stands. Seest thou that for Him to be made High Priest, is not of nature, but of grace and condescension, and humiliation?

This is it seasonable for us also now to say, "Let us draw near" asking "boldly": let us only bring Faith and He gives all things. Now is the time of the gift; let no man despair of himself. Then will be the time of despairing, when the bride-chamber is shut, when the King is come in to see the guests, when they who shall be accounted worthy thereof, shall have received as their portion the Patriarch's bosom: but now it is not as yet so. For still are the spectators assembled, still is the contest, still is the prize in suspense.

The blessed Paul wishes to show in the next place that this covenant is far better than the old. This then he does by first laying down remote considerations. For inasmuch as there was nothing bodily or that made a show, no temple for instance, nor Holy of Holies, nor Priest with so great apparel, no legal observances, but all things higher and more perfect, and there was nothing of bodily things, but all was in things spiritual, and things spiritual did not attract the weak, as things bodily; he thoroughly sifts this whole matter.

And observe his wisdom: he makes his beginning from the priest first, and continually calls Him an High Priest, and from this first point shows the difference of the two Dispensations. On this account he first of all defines what a Priest is, and shows whether He has any things proper to a Priest, and whether there are any signs of priesthood. It was however an objection in his way that He Christ was not even well-born, nor was He of the sacerdotal tribe, nor a priest on earth. How then was He a Priest? some one may say.

And just as in the Epistle to the Romans having taken up an argument of which they were not easily persuaded, that Faith effects that which the labor of the Law could not, nor the sweat of the daily life, he betook himself to the Patriarch and referred the whole question to that time: so now here also he opens out the other path of the Priesthood, showing its superiority from the things which happened before. And as, in the matter of punishment, he brings before them not Hell alone, but also what happened to their fathers, so now here also, he first establishes this position from things present. For it were right indeed that earthly things should be proved from heavenly, but when the hearers are weak, the opposite course is taken.

Up to a certain point he lays down first the things which are common to Christ and their High Priests, and then shows that He is superior. For comparative excellence arises thus, when in some respects there is community, in others superiority; otherwise it is no longer comparative.

"For every High Priest taken from among men," this is common to Christ; "is ordained for men in things pertaining to God," and this also; "that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for the people," and this too, yet not entirely: what follows however is no longer so: "who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way," from this point forward is the superiority, "inasmuch as himself also is encompassed with infirmity; and by reason hereof he ought as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins."

"Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears, to Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared." Seest thou that he sets forth nothing else than His care and the exceeding greatness of His love? For what means the expression "with strong crying"? The Gospel nowhere says this, nor that He wept when He prayed, nor yet that He uttered a cry. Seest thou that it was a condescension? For he could not merely say that He prayed, but also "with strong crying."

Be it with "crying," why also "strong crying and tears"?

"Having offered," (he says), "and having been heard in that He feared." What sayest thou? Let the Heretics be ashamed. The Son of God "was heard in that He feared." And what more could any man say concerning the prophets? And what sort of connection is there, in saying, "He was heard in that He feared, though He were Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered"? Would any man say these things concerning God? Why, who was ever so mad? And who, even if he were beside himself, would have uttered these things? "Having been heard," (he says), "in that He feared, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered." What obedience? He that before this had been obedient even unto death, as a Son to His Father, how did He afterwards learn? Seest thou that this is spoken concerning the Incarnation?

Tell me now, did He pray the Father that He might be saved from death? And was it for this cause that He was "exceeding sorrowful, and said, If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me"? Yet He nowhere prayed the Father concerning His resurrection, but on the contrary He openly declares, "Destroy this temple and within three days I will raise it up." And, "I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again. No man taketh it from Me, I lay it down of Myself." What then is it; why did He pray? And again He said, "Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death. And they shall deliver Him to the Gentiles, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him; and the third day He shall rise again" and said not, "My Father shall raise Me up again." How then did He pray concerning this? But for whom did He pray? For those who believed on Him.

And what he means is this, "He is readily listened to." For since they had not yet the right opinion concerning Him, he said that He was heard. Just as He Himself also when consoling His disciples said, "If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I go to My Father", and "My Father is greater than I." But how did He not glorify Himself, He who "made Himself of no reputation", He who gave Himself up? For, it is said, "He gave Himself" up "for our sins." And again, "Who gave Himself a ransom for us all." What is it then? Thou seest that it is in reference to the flesh that lowly things are spoken concerning Himself: So also here, "Although He were Son, He was heard in that He feared," it is said. He wishes to show, that the success was of Himself, rather than of God's favor. So great (he says) was His reverence, that even on account thereof God had respect unto Him.

"Of whom," he says, "we have many things to say and hard to be explained, seeing ye are dull of hearing." Because they do not hear, the doctrine is "hard to be explained." For when one has to do with men who do not go along with him nor mind the things that are spoken, he cannot well explain the subject to them.

But perhaps some one of you that stand here, is puzzled, and thinks it a hard case, that owing to the Hebrews, he himself is hindered from hearing the more perfect doctrines. Nay rather, I think that perhaps here also except a few, there are many such as they, so that this may be said concerning yourselves also: but for the sake of those few I will speak.

Did he then keep entire silence, or did he resume the subject again in what follows; and do the same as in the Epistle to the Romans? For there too, when he had first stopped the mouths of the gainsayers, and said, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?", he then subjoined the solution. And for my own part I think that he was not even altogether silent, and yet did not speak it out, in order to lead the hearers to a longing for the knowledge. For having mentioned the subject, and said that certain great things were stored up in the doctrine, see how he frames his reproof in combination with panegyric.

For this is ever a part of Paul's wisdom, to mix painful things with kind ones. Which he also does in the Epistle to the Galatians, saying, "Ye did run well; who did hinder you?" And, "Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain", and, "I have confidence in you in the Lord." Which he says also to these Hebrews, "But we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation." For these two things he effects, he does not overstrain them, nor suffer them to fall back; for if the examples of others are sufficient to arouse the hearer, and to lead him to emulation; when a man has himself for an example and is bidden to emulate himself, the possibility follows at the same time. He therefore shows this also, and does not suffer them to fall back as men utterly condemned, nor as being alway evil, but says that they were once even good; for "when for the time ye ought to be teachers," he says. Here he shows that they had been believers a long while, and he shows also that they ought to instruct others.

But what produces this dullness? This he pointed out especially in the Epistle to the Corinthians, saying, "For whereas there is among you envy and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal?" But observe, I beseech you, his great wisdom, how he always deals according to the distempers before him. For there the weakness arose more from ignorance, or rather from sin; but here not from sins only, but also from continual afflictions. Wherefore he also uses expressions calculated to show the difference, not saying, "ye are become carnal," but "dull": in that case "carnal," but in this the pain is greater. For they the Corinthians indeed were not able to endure his reproof, because they were carnal: but these were able. For in saying, "Seeing ye are become dull of hearing", he shows that formerly they were sound in health, and were strong, fervent in zeal, which he also afterwards testifies respecting them.

At all events observe him continually travailing to introduce the discourse concerning the High Priest, and still putting it off. For hear how he began: "Having a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens"; and omitting to say how He was great, he says again, "For every High Priest taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God." And again, "So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest." And again after saying, "Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech", he again puts off the subject, saying, "Who in the days of His Flesh offered prayers and supplications." When therefore he had been so many times repulsed, he says, as if excusing himself, The blame is with you. Alas! how great a difference! When they ought to be teaching others, they are not even simply learners, but the last of learners. "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God." Here he means the Human Nature of Christ. For as in external literature it is necessary to learn the elements first, so also here they were first taught concerning the human nature.

Thou seest what is the cause of his uttering lowly things. So Paul did to the Athenians also, discoursing and saying, "The times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." Therefore, if he says anything lofty, he expresses it briefly, while the lowly statements are scattered about in many parts of the Epistle. And thus too he shows the lofty; since the very lowliness of what is said forbids the suspicion that these things relate to the Divine Nature. So here also the safe ground was kept.

"And are become such as have need of milk, not of strong meat." He always calls the lowly doctrine "milk," both in this place and in the other. "When," he says, "for the time ye ought to be teachers": because of that very thing, namely the time, for which ye ought especially to be strong, for this especially ye are become backsliding. Now he calls it "milk," on account of its being suited to the more simple. But to the more perfect it is injurious, and the dwelling on these things is hurtful. So that it is not fitting that matters of the Law should be introduced now or the comparison made from them, such as that He was an High Priest, and offered sacrifice, and needed crying and supplication. Wherefore see how these things are unhealthful to "us"; but at that time they nourished them being by no means unhealthful to them.

So then the oracles of God are true nourishment. "For I will give unto them," he saith, "not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord."

"I gave you milk to drink, and not meat"; He did not say, I fed you, showing that such nourishment as this is not food, but that the case is like that of little children who cannot be fed with bread. For such have not drink given them, but their food is to them instead of drink.

Moreover he did not say, "ye have need," but "ye are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat." That is, ye willed it; ye have reduced yourselves to this, to this need.

"For every one that partaketh of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe." What is "the Word of righteousness"? He seems to me here to hint at conduct also. That which Christ also said, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees", this he says likewise, "unskilled in the word of righteousness," that is, he that is unskilled in the philosophy that is above, is unable to embrace a perfect and exact life. Or else by "righteousness" he here means Christ, and the high doctrine concerning Him.

That they then were "become dull," he said; but from what cause, he did not add, leaving it to themselves to know it, and not wishing to make his discourse hard to bear. But in the case of the Galatians he both "marveled" and "stood in doubt", which tends much more to encourage, as it is the language of one who would never have expected that this should happen. For this is what the doubting implies.

Thou seest that there is another infancy, Thou seest that there is another full age. Let us become of "full age" in this sense: It is in the power even of those who are children, and the young to come to that "full age": for it is not of nature, but of virtue.

"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even them who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." Those had not "their senses exercised," nor did they "know good and evil." He is not speaking now concerning life and conduct, when he says "to discern good and evil," for this is possible and easy for every man to know, but concerning doctrines that are wholesome and sublime, and those that are corrupted and low. The babe knows not how to distinguish bad and good food. Oftentimes at least it even puts dirt into its mouth, and takes what is hurtful; and it does all things without judgment; but not so the full grown man. Such babes are they who lightly listen to everything, and give up their ears indiscriminately: which seems to me to blame these Hebrews also, as being lightly "carried about," and now giving themselves to these, now to those. Which he also hinted near the end of the Epistle, saying, "Be not carried aside by divers and strange doctrines." This is the meaning of "to discern good and evil." "For the mouth tasteth meat, but the soul trieth words."

Let us then learn this lesson. Do not, when thou hearest that a man is not a Heathen nor a Jew, straightway believe him to be a Christian; but examine also into all the other points; for even Manichaeans, and all the heresies, have put on this mask, in order thus to deceive the more simple. But if we "have the senses" of the soul "exercised to discern both good and evil," we are able to discern such teachers.

But how do our "senses" become "exercised"? By continual hearing; by experience of the Scriptures. For when we set forth the error of those Heretics, and thou hearest today and to-morrow; and provest that it is not right, thou hast learnt the whole, thou hast known the whole: and even if thou shouldest not comprehend to-day, thou wilt comprehend to-morrow.

"That have," he says, their "senses exercised." Thou seest that it is needful to exercise our hearing by divine studies, so that they may not sound strangely. "Exercised," saith he, "for discerning," that is, to be skilled.

What is "the beginning of the doctrine"? He goes on to state it himself, saying, "not laying again" (these are his words) "the foundation of repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

But if this be "the Beginning," what else is our doctrine save to repent "from dead works," and through the Spirit to receive "the faith," in "the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment"? But what is "the Beginning"? "The Beginning," he says, is nothing else than this, when there is not a strict life. For as it is necessary to instruct one who is entering on the study of grammar, in the Elements first, so also must the Christian know these things accurately, and have no doubt concerning them. And should he again have need of teaching, he has not yet the foundation. For one who is firmly grounded ought to be fixed and to stand steady, and not be moved about. But if one who has been catechised and baptized is going ten years afterwards to hear again about the Faith, and that we ought to "believe" in "the resurrection of the dead," he does not yet have the foundation, he is again seeking after the beginning of the Christian religion. For that the Faith is the foundation, and the rest the building, hear him [the Apostle] saying; "I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereupon." (1 Cor. iii. 10.) "If any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble." (1 Cor. iii. 12.)

"Not laying again" (he says) "the foundation of repentance from dead works."

But what is, "let us go on unto perfection"? Let us henceforth proceed (he means) even to the very roof, that is, let us have the best life. For as in the case of the letters the Alpha involves the whole, and as the foundation, the whole building, so also does full assurance concerning the Faith involve purity of life. And without this it is not possible to be a Christian, as without foundations there can be no building; nor skill in literature without the letters. Still if one should be always going round about the letters, or if about the foundation, not about the building, he will never gain anything.

Do not however think that the Faith is depreciated by being called elementary: for it is indeed the whole power: for when he says, "For every one that useth milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe" (c. v. 13), it is not this which he calls "milk." But to be still doubting about these things is [a sign] of a mind feeble, and needing many discourses. For these are the wholesome doctrines. For we call him "a perfect man" [i.e. "of full age"] who with the faith has a right life; but if any one have faith, yet does evil, and is in doubt concerning [the faith] itself, and brings disgrace on the doctrine, him we shall with reason call "a babe," in that he has gone back again to the beginning. So that even if we have been ten thousand years in the faith, yet are not firm in it, we are babes; when we show a life not in conformity with it; when we are still laying a foundation.

But besides [their way of] life he brings another charge also against these [Hebrews], as being shaken to and fro, and needing "to lay a foundation of repentance from dead works." For he who changes from one to another, giving up this, and choosing that, ought first to condemn this, and to be separated from the system, and then to pass to the other. But if he intends again to lay hold on the first, how shall he touch the second?

What then of the Law (he says)? We have condemned it, and again we run back to it. This is not a shifting about, for here also [under the Gospel] we have a law. "Do we then" (he says) "make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea we establish the Law." (Rom. iii. 31.) I was speaking concerning evil deeds. For he that intends to pursue virtue ought to condemn wickedness first, and then go in pursuit of it. For repentance cannot prove them clean. For this cause they were straightway baptized, that what they were unable to accomplish by themselves, this might be effected by the grace of Christ. Neither then does repentance suffice for purification, but men must first receive baptism. At all events, it was necessary to come to baptism, having condemned the sins thereby and given sentence against them.

But what is "the doctrine of baptisms"? Not as if there were many baptisms, but one only. Why then did he express it in the plural? Because he had said, "not laying again a foundation of repentance." For if he again baptized them and catechised them afresh, and having been baptized at the beginning they were again taught what things ought to be done and what ought not, they would remain perpetually incorrigible.

"And of laying on of hands." For thus did they receive the Spirit, "when Paul had laid his hands on them" (Acts xix. 6), it is said.

"And of the resurrection of the dead." For this is both effected in baptism, and is affirmed in the confession.

"And of eternal judgment." But why does he say this? Because it was likely that, having already believed, they would either be shaken [from their faith], or would lead evil and slothful lives, he says, "be wakeful."

It is not open to them to say, If we live slothfully we will be baptized again, we will be catechised again, we will again receive the Spirit; even if now we fall from the faith, we shall be able again by being baptized, to wash away our sins, and to attain to the same state as before. Ye are deceived (he says) in supposing these things.