John Chrysostom

"Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission." Why the "almost"? why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case He says, "This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins."

Where then is "the book"? He purified their minds. They themselves then were the books of the New Testament. But where are "the vessels of the ministry"? They are themselves. And where is "the tabernacle"? Again, they are; for "I will dwell in them," He says, "and walk in them."

But they were not sprinkled with "scarlet wool," nor yet "with hyssop." Why was this? Because the cleansing was not bodily but spiritual, and the blood was spiritual. How? It flowed not from the body of irrational animals, but from the Body prepared by the Spirit. With this blood not Moses but Christ sprinkled us, through the word which was spoken; "This is the blood of the New Testament, for the remission of sins." This word, instead of hyssop, having been dipped in the blood, sprinkles all. And there indeed the body was cleansed outwardly, for the purifying was bodily; but here, since the purifying is spiritual, it entereth into the soul, and cleanseth it, not being simply sprinkled over, but gushing forth in our souls. The initiated understand what is said. And in their case indeed one sprinkled just the surface; but he who was sprinkled washed it off again; for surely he did not go about continually stained with blood. But in the case of the soul it is not so, but the blood is mixed with its very substance, making it vigorous and pure, and leading it to the very unapproachable beauty.

Henceforward then he shows that His death is the cause not only of confirmation, but also of purification. For inasmuch as death was thought to be an odious thing, and especially that of the cross, he says that it purified, even a precious purification, and in regard to greater things. Therefore the sacrifices preceded, because of this blood. Therefore the lambs; everything was for this cause.

"It was therefore necessary that the Patterns" (he says) "of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

And how are they "patterns of things in the heavens"? And what does he mean now by "the things in the heavens"? Is it Heaven? Or is it the Angels? None of these, but what is ours. It follows then that our things are in Heaven, and heavenly things are ours, even though they be accomplished on earth; since although angels are on earth, yet they are called Heavenly. And the Cherubim appeared on earth, but yet are heavenly. And why do I say "appeared"? nay rather they dwell on earth, as indeed in Paradise: but this is nothing; for they are heavenly. And, "Our conversation is in Heaven," and yet we live here.

"But these are the heavenly things," that is, the philosophy which exists amongst us; those who have been called thereto.

"With better sacrifices than these." What is "better" is better than something [else] that is good. Therefore "the patterns also of things in the heavens" have become good; for not even the patterns were evil: else the things whereof they are patterns would also have been evil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"For" (he says) "the Law having a shadow of the good things to come not the very image of the things"; i.e. not the very reality. For as in painting, so long as one only draws the outlines, it is a sort of "shadow" but when one has added the bright paints and laid in the colors, then it becomes "an image." Something of this kind also was the Law.

"For" (he says) "the Law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things," i.e. of the sacrifice, of the remission: "can never by those sacrifices with which they offered continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Thou seest again the superabundance of his proofs? This sacrifice (he says) is one; whereas the others were many: therefore they had no strength, because they were many. For, tell me, what need of many, if one had been sufficient? so that their being many, and offered "continually," proves that they (the worshipers) were never made clean. For as a medicine, when it is powerful and productive of health, and able to remove the disease entirely, effects all after one application; as, therefore, if being once applied it accomplishes the whole, it proves its own strength in being no more applied, and this is its business, to be no more applied; whereas if it is applied continually, this is a plain proof of its not having strength. For it is the excellence of a medicine to be applied once, and not often. So is it in this case also. Why forsooth are they continually cured with the "same sacrifices"? For if they were set free from all their sins, the sacrifices would not have gone on being offered every day. For they had been appointed to be continually offered in behalf of the whole people, both in the evening and in the day. So that there was an arraignment of sins, and not a release from sins; an arraignment of weakness, not an exhibition of strength. For because the first had no strength, another also was offered: and since this effected nothing, again another; so that it was an evidence of sins. The "offering" indeed then, was an evidence of sins, the "continually," an evidence of weakness. But with regard to Christ, it was the contrary: He was "once offered." The types therefore contain the figure only, not the power; just as in images, the image has the figure of the man, not the power. So that the reality and the type have somewhat in common with one another. For the figure exists equally in both, but not the power. So too also is it in respect of Heaven and of the tabernacle, for the figure was equal: for there was the Holy of Holies, but the power and the other things were not the same.

"For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."

What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that Sacrifice was once for all offered, and carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that sacrifice and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and to-morrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also He is one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (saith He) "do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke xxii. 19.) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.

Do you see that the law takes its force from the place? And, since the city is gone, there can no longer be a priesthood. There can be no emperor if there are no armies, no crown, no purple robe, none of the other things that weld together an empire. So, too, there can be no priesthood if sacrifice has been destroyed, if offerings are forbidden, if the sanctuary has been trampled into the dust, if everything that constituted it has disappeared. For the priesthood depended on all these things.…That great and wonderful prophet, David … made it clear that the one kind of sacrifice would be abolished and another brought in to take its place when he said, “You have multiplied, O Lord my God, your wondrous deeds and your thoughts toward us; none can compare with you! Were I to proclaim and tell of them, they would be more than can be numbered.” See how wise the prophet is. He said, “You have multiplied your wondrous deeds,” and he stood aghast at God’s power to work miracles. But he did not go on to tell us about the creation of the things we see—of heaven, earth, and oceans, of water in Egypt or of any other miracles like those. What did he say were wondrous works? “Sacrifice and offering you do not desire.” …
David went on to say, “But a body you have fitted to me.” By this he meant the Lord’s body which became the common sacrifice for the whole world, the sacrifice which cleansed our souls, canceled sin, put down death, opened heaven, gave us many great hopes and made ready all the other things which Paul knew well and spoke of when he exclaimed, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways.”56
David, then, foresaw all this when he said, “Many are the wondrous works you have done, O Lord my God.” He went on to say, speaking of the person of Christ, “In holocausts and sin offerings you had had no pleasure,” and then continued, “Then I said, ‘Lo, I come.’ ” When was “then”? When the time was ripe for more perfect instructions. We had to learn the less perfect lessons through his servants, but the loftier lessons which surpass the nature of humankind we had to learn from the lawgiver himself.

In what has gone before he had shown that the sacrifices were unavailing for perfect purification, and were a type, and greatly defective. Since then there was this objection to his argument, If they are types, how is it that, after the truth is come, they have not ceased, nor given place, but are still performed? he here accordingly labors at this very point, showing that they are no longer performed, even as a figure, for God does not accept them. And this again he shows not from the New Testament, but from the prophets, bringing forward from times of old the strongest testimony, that it comes to an end, and ceases, and that they do all in vain, "alway resisting the Holy Ghost."

And he shows over and above that they cease not now only, but at the very coming of the Messiah, nay rather, even before His coming: and how it was that Christ did not abolish them at the last, but they were abolished first, and then He came; first they were made to cease, and then He appeared. That they might not say, Even without this sacrifice, and by means of those, we could have been well pleasing unto God, He waited for these sacrifices to be convicted of weakness, and then He appeared; for (He says) "sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not." Hereby He took all away; and having spoken generally, He says also particularly, "In burnt-offerings and sacrifice for sin Thou hadst no pleasure." But "the offering" was everything except the sacrifice. "Then said I, Lo! I come." Of whom was this spoken? of none other than the Christ.

Here he does not blame those who offer, showing that it is not because of their wickednesses that He does not accept them, as He says elsewhere, but because the thing itself has been convicted for the future and shown to have no strength, nor any suitableness to the times. What then has this to do with the "sacrifices" being offered "oftentimes"? Not only from their being "oftentimes" offered (he means) is it manifest that they are weak, and that they effected nothing; but also from God's not accepting them, as being unprofitable and useless. And in another place it is said, "If Thou hadst desired sacrifice I would have given it." Therefore by this also he makes it plain that He does not desire it. Therefore sacrifices are not God's will, but the abolition of sacrifices. Wherefore they sacrifice contrary to His will.

What is "To do Thy will"? To give up, Myself, He means: This is the will of God. "By which Will we are sanctified." Or he even means something still further, that the sacrifices do not make men clean, but the Will of God. Therefore to offer sacrifice is not the will of God.

And why dost thou wonder that it is not the will of God now, when it was not His will even from the beginning? For "who," saith He, "hath required this at your hands?"

How then did He Himself enjoin it? In condescension. For as Paul says, "I would that all men were even as I myself" in respect of continence, and again says, "I will that the younger women marry, bear children"; and lays down two wills, yet the two are not his own, although he commands; but the one indeed is his own, and therefore he lays it down without reasons; while the other is not his own, though he wishes it, and therefore it is added with a reason. For having previously accused them, because "they had waxed wanton against Christ," he then says, "I will that the younger women marry, bear children." So in this place also it was not His leading will that the sacrifices should be offered. For, as He says, "I wish not the death of the sinner, as that he should turn unto Me and live": and in another place He says that He not only wished, but even desired this: and yet these are contrary to each other: for intense wishing is desire. How then dost Thou "not wish"? how dost Thou in another place "desire," which is a sign of vehement wishing? So is it in this case also.