John Chrysostom

"If therefore" (he says) "perfection were by the Levitical priesthood." Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how much superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great difference between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the wide difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect and the other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the matters themselves, but first contends on the ground of the priesthood, and the tabernacle. For these things would be more easily received by the unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things already allowed, and believed.

He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he argues from a different point. What then is this? Why (he says) did he not say, "after the order of Aaron"? And observe, I pray you, the great superiority of his argument. For from the very circumstance which naturally excluded His priesthood, viz. that He was not "after the order of Aaron," from that he establishes Him, and excludes the others. For this is the very thing that I say (he declares); why has He "not been made after the order of Aaron"?

And the saying "what further need" has much emphasis. For if Christ had been "after the order of Melchisedec" according to the flesh, and then afterwards the law had been introduced, and all that pertained to Aaron, one might reasonably say that the latter as being more perfect, annulled the former, seeing that it had come in after it. But if Christ comes later, and takes a different type, as that of His priesthood, it is evident that it is because those were imperfect. For (he would say) let us suppose for argument's sake, that all has been fulfilled, and that there is nothing imperfect in the priesthood. "What need" was there in that case that He should be called "after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron"? Why did He set aside Aaron, and introduce a different priesthood, that of Melchisedec? "If then perfection," that is the perfection of the things themselves, of the doctrines, of life, "had been by the Levitical priesthood."

And observe how he goes forward on his path. He had said that He was "after the order of Melchisedec," implying that the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec" is superior: for he was far superior. Afterwards he shows this from the time also, in that He was after Aaron; evidently as being better.

"And inasmuch as not without an oath." What is "And inasmuch as not without an oath"? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). "For those priests were made without an oath, but This with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant." He lays down two points of difference, that it hath no end as the covenant of the Law had; and this he proves from its being Christ who exercises the priesthood; for he says "according to the power of an endless life." And he proves it also from the oath, because "He swore," and from the fact; for if the other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How? Because He is One only; and there would not have been One only, unless He had been immortal. For as there were many priests, because they were mortal, so here is The One, because He is immortal. "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant," inasmuch as He swore to Him that He should always be Priest; which He would not have done, if He were not living.

"Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." Thou seest that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when He appears as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, "who also maketh intercession for us," he hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He "that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them," and that "even as the Father" doth, how is it that when there is need to save, He "maketh intercession"? He that hath "all judgment," how is it that He "maketh intercession"? He that "sendeth His angels," that they may "cast" some into "the furnace," and save others, how is it that He "maketh intercession"? Wherefore (he says) "He is able also to save." For this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as "He ever liveth," He hath (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there under the Law indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was High Priest (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but "He" saves "to the uttermost."

What is "to the uttermost"? He hints at some mystery. Not here only (he says) but there also He saves them that "come unto God by Him." How does He save? "In that He ever liveth" (he says) "to make intercession for them." Thou seest the humiliation? Thou seest the manhood? For he says not, that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but continually, and whensoever it may be needful to intercede for them.

"To the uttermost." What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life. Does He then always need to pray? Yet how can this be reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimes accomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then is He throned with the Father? Thou seest that it is a condescension. The meaning is: Be not afraid, nor say, Yea, He loves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the Father, but He cannot live always. For He doth live alway.

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?

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.

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.