Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
Thus far the Apostle has demonstrated from the pontiff, priesthood, and old testament that the old law had to cease and yield to Christ and His law; now he proves the same from the fabric and signification of the tabernacle, which was the figure of the Church of Christ.
First then, describing the Holy place and the Holy of Holies, and their vessels, he teaches that the old pontiff, once a year entering with the blood of goats into the Holy of Holies, signified Christ, who having entered into heaven through His own blood, opened it and obtained for us eternal redemption.
Secondly, in verse 15, he teaches that Christ is the Mediator of the new testament, because He sanctioned and confirmed it by His own blood and death, just as the old testament was sanctioned and confirmed by the blood of goats.
Thirdly, in verse 24, he teaches that Christ through His own blood has entered into heaven, that He may appear in the presence of God for us, and to those awaiting Him He may be unto salvation.
Vulgate Text: Hebrews 9:1-28
1. The former indeed had also justifications of worship, and a worldly Sanctuary. 2. For a tabernacle was made the first, in which were the candlesticks, and the table, and the showbread, which is called the Holy. 3. But after the second veil, the tabernacle, which is called the Holy of Holies: 4. having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every side with gold, in which was a golden urn having manna, and the rod of Aaron which had blossomed, and the tables of the testament; 5. and over it were the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the propitiatory: of which it is not necessary now to speak in detail. 6. With these things so arranged, into the first tabernacle the priests indeed always entered, accomplishing the offices of sacrifices: 7. but into the second the high priest alone goes once a year, not without blood, which he offers for his own and the people's ignorance: 8. the Holy Spirit signifying this, that the way of the holies was not yet made manifest, while the former tabernacle was yet standing. 9. Which is a parable of the present time: according to which gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot, as concerning the conscience, make him perfect that serveth, only in meats and in drinks, 10. and divers washings, and justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction. 11. But Christ, being come a high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation; 12. neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by His own blood, entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption. 13. For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: 14. how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered Himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? 15. And therefore He is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of His death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16. For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must of necessity come in. 17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is as yet of no strength, whilst the testator liveth. 18. Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood. 19. For when every commandment of the law had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20. saying: This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21. The tabernacle also and all the vessels of the ministry, in like manner, he sprinkled with blood. 22. And almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without shedding of blood there is no remission. 23. It is necessary therefore that the patterns of heavenly things should be cleansed with these: but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24. For Jesus is not entered into the holies made with hands, the patterns of the true: but into Heaven itself, that He may appear now in the presence of God for us. 25. Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others: 26. for then He ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world: but now once at the end of ages, He hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of Himself. 27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment: 28. so also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time He shall appear without sin to them that expect Him, unto salvation.
Verse 1: The Former Indeed Had Ordinances of Divine Service, and a Worldly Sanctuary
"The former," namely the tabernacle, says Erasmus: for so the Royal Greek has it, "hē prōtē skēnē," that is, the former tabernacle — but erroneously. For St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Photius and the Syriac do not read "skēnē," but only "hē prōtē," and supply "diathēkē," that is, testament. For of the Old Testament he has been treating thus far in the preceding chapter, especially in the last verse, and not of the tabernacle.
Ordinances of divine service. — "dikaiōmata latreias," that is, justifications of worship or of latria: namely, the commandments given by Moses for the right worship of God — the ceremonies and rites prescribed by the law — by which the Jews might worship God justly and in holiness, and by which they might be sanctified, both before men and before God, if they performed them out of faith in Christ and out of devotion and charity toward God; which however they could not do by the force of the law, but by the force of the Spirit and of grace. For these ceremonial laws are called in Hebrew "chuqqim," that is, statutes, decrees, sanctions: which our Translator, for the reasons already mentioned, is wont to render as justices or justifications, as is plain from Psalm CXVIII, verses 5, 8, 48, 68 and elsewhere.
And a worldly Sanctuary. — "to hagion kosmikon," that is, a worldly Holy place or sanctuary; or, as the Syriac renders it, "bet kudesca olmaiena," that is, a worldly or secular holy house.
You will ask, what is this "worldly and secular Holy place"? Firstly, St. Thomas and Cajetan reply that it is the holiness and sanctification of the Old Testament, which was only corporeal, secular and external, before the world, but not spiritual and internal before God, nor true holiness: for this is proper to the New Testament. But it is harsh and forced to call the holiness of the Old Testament a worldly Holy thing. Add that the Greek article, when it says "to hagion," points to some definite Holy thing, as will soon appear.
Secondly, St. Chrysostom, Theophylact and Haymo understand by this "Holy place" the courtyard of the tabernacle, which lay open to the Gentiles and to all the nations of the world, and was thence called worldly. But this does not seem true: for the Gentiles, being unbelievers and profane, were kept out of the court of the Jews; for that court was the "holy place" of the faithful people, that is, sanctuary and temple. And although Herod added to the court of the Jews another outermost court for the Gentiles and the unclean, yet that cannot be called "Holy." Add, why should Paul here have made mention of this court rather than the rest?
Thirdly, others understand "worldly Holy place" as the tabernacle or temple of the Jews, and say it is called "worldly" because it was to endure for many ages; but what has this to do with the Greek "kosmikon," that is, worldly? Why does the Apostle, who is wholly intent on disparaging the old tabernacle and priesthood, here commend it from its duration?
Fourthly, better and more aptly, Theodoret, Ambrose and Œcumenius say that the "Holy place" is the tabernacle, and that it is called worldly because it bore the figure of the world. For the Holy place was a type of the earth and of the life that is led on earth; the Holy of Holies was a type of the empyrean Heaven and of the life and glory of the Blessed; the veil dividing the Holy place from the Holy of Holies was a type of the firmament dividing the waters above from those below, and the heavens from the elements; the seven-branched candlestick was a type of the seven planets; the purple, scarlet, fine linen and hyacinth, of which the curtains of the tabernacle were made, signified the four elements. With a similar expression the Wise Man calls the high priest's vestment worldly, Wisdom XVIII, 24, when he says: "In the long robe which he (the high priest) had was the whole world," because forsooth by his vestment he represented the whole world, for which he interceded with God. This is a good interpretation, but it is not a plain or literal exposition.
Fifthly, Francis Ribera thinks that "worldly Holy place" is the same as what the Apostle a little after calls the first tabernacle: that is, the front part of the tabernacle, which was called the Holy place, together with the courtyard in which were the altar of holocausts and the brazen laver, in which sacrifices and purifications were performed. Hence it is called "worldly," because it represented the life of this age, or the worship which the holy ones offered to God in this age, before through Christ they could enter the Holy of Holies, that is, Heaven: for the Holy place was a type of the old law, for it daily offered its sacrifices in the Holy place; and the Holy of Holies was a type of Heaven, which was not yet open, but veiled while the old law stood. Whence into the Holy of Holies the high priest entered but once a year, and he alone; and thus the Holy place bore the figure of time and of this age, the Holy of Holies the figure of eternity; for thus the Apostle seems to explain Himself in verse 8. This too is a fitting, but only a partial and symbolic exposition, as will soon appear.
I say therefore sixthly, most excellently and most genuinely, that by this "worldly Holy place" you should take the whole old tabernacle or sanctuary, which is called "worldly," that is, temporary, perishable and fleeting. It is also called worldly, that is, earthly, and made of gold, silver, fine linen and other earthly things, says Anselm, and having earthly and typical ceremonies, sacrifices and worship. This exposition is proved first, because thus the Apostle explains himself in the following verses and onward. Secondly, because in the preceding chapter, verse 5, and here in verses 10, 11, 24, 25, this "worldly Holy place," or worldly, he calls made with hands, for offering carnal sacrifices. Again he calls it the exemplar (that is, type and figure) of the heavenly things: for he opposes this worldly Holy place to the heavenly sanctuary or tabernacle, that is, the Church of Christ, which has descended from Heaven, and by heavenly doctrine, life and Sacraments leads us into Heaven — as if to say: In the Holy place, that is, in the old sanctuary and tabernacle, all things were worldly, earthly, typical, shadowy, temporary and fleeting; but in the Church of Christ all things are heavenly, true, solid and eternal. Whence, explaining the parts of this Holy place or worldly Sanctuary, the Apostle presently subjoins: "For there was a tabernacle made the first," etc. — as if to say: This worldly Holy place had two parts, namely the Holy place and the Holy of Holies, as I will soon explain.
Verse 2: For There Was a Tabernacle Made the First, in Which Were the Candlesticks, and the Table, and the Shewbread, Which Is Called the Holy
Here he explains the "worldly Holy place" and its parts. He calls "the first tabernacle" the first part of the tabernacle, which in Hebrew is called "hechal" or "qodes," that is, holy or holiness. For it contained the golden candlestick, the table of the loaves of proposition, and the altar of incense. And so this place was sacred and venerable, and is called holiness, that is, a holy thing, or holy sanctuary. But the second or rear part of the tabernacle was called the Holy of Holies — of which in the following verse.
Note: The tabernacle, as Josephus says in book III of the Antiquities, chapter IV, was as it were the movable or portable temple of the Hebrews wandering through the desert and journeying toward Canaan, and was as it were the house of God in which the Hebrews worshipped God, and were in turn ruled and protected by God dwelling as it were among them; and so by this His tabernacle God signifies that He is the shade and protector of the Hebrews. Whence David, speaking of the temple which succeeded the tabernacle, in Psalm XXVI, verse 4: "That I may visit His temple, for He hath hidden me in His tabernacle; in the day of evils He hath protected me in the secret place of His tabernacle."
Note: Symbolically the tabernacle represented the whole world, which is as it were the house and palace of God, that it might be signified that the high priest is the minister of God the Creator, who in this His tabernacle prays and intercedes to the Creator on behalf of every creature and the whole world. Whence the tabernacle, made of fine linen, purple, hyacinth and scarlet as if of the four elements, was woven and constructed. For the fine linen signifies earth, because it is produced from the earth. The hyacinth represents air, because it is of an airy color. The purple represents the sea, because purple cloth is dyed and made purple by the blood of the shellfish, or marine fish, which is called purple. The scarlet, because it is of a fiery color, represents fire and aether. So from Philo, Josephus and others, St. Jerome to Fabiola, On the Priestly Vestments.
Note thirdly: This tabernacle and temple allegorically signified the body of Christ, as is plain from John II, 19: "Destroy this temple," He says, "and in three days I will raise it up." Explaining this, in verse 21, the Evangelist says: "But He (Christ) was speaking of the temple of His body." Whence Cyril, book IV on John, chapter XXVIII, beautifully applies to Christ both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the tabernacle: "Christ," he says, "although He is one, is yet understood by us in many ways. He is the tabernacle, on account of the covering of His flesh; He is the ark holding the law of God hidden away, because He is the Word of the Father; He is the table, because He is our food and life; He is the candlestick, because He is the spiritual light; He is the altar of incense, because He is the odor of sweetness in sanctification; He is the altar of holocaust, because He is the victim offered on the cross for the life of the whole world." And what follows.
Again, the tabernacle allegorically signified the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, and most aptly so: for the first or front part which was called the Holy Place signified the Church Militant, which is the tabernacle and house of God, 1 Timothy III, 15: this Church through the veil, that is, through faith and obscurely, contemplates God on earth: in this Church Aaron, that is, the high priest, is Christ. From this one passes into the second part of the tabernacle, which is called the Holy of Holies, that is, into heaven, which is the eternal house of the glory of God and of the Blessed.
Fourthly, tropologically the tabernacle signified the soul, which through penance, charity and other virtues becomes the tabernacle and temple of God, as I said on 1 Corinthians III, 16.
In which (the first tabernacle, that is, the Holy Place) were candlesticks, and a table, and the shewbread, which is called the Holy. — As if to say: In the Holy place, on the right side was the candlestick, on the left the table of the loaves of proposition, in the middle the altar of incense.
You will say: In the tabernacle there was only one candlestick; how then does the Apostle place several candlesticks in it here? Primasius and Haymo answer that the Apostle is speaking not of the tabernacle of Moses but of the temple of Solomon, in which there were several — ten in fact — candlesticks. But it is clear that the Apostle is speaking of the tabernacle, both from his very words in this chapter and the preceding ones, in which he always named the tabernacle, never the temple. For he compares Christ not with Solomon and Sadoc, but with Moses and Aaron. I say therefore that there was indeed one candlestick in the tabernacle, but it is called "candlesticks" because it was seven-branched: for it was composed of seven branches and lamps, which are here called candlesticks. Hence in the Greek it is "hē lychnia": by which name the Septuagint call this Mosaic candlestick, Exodus chapter XXV, 31; so also the Syriac has "menareta," that is, candlestick in the singular.
Note: This candlestick was on the southern or right side of the tabernacle, because it represented the noonday sun as the light and eye of the world; or rather, as Philo teaches, book III On the Life of Moses, and Josephus, book III of the Antiquities, chapter VIII, the candlestick, being seven-branched, was an image of the heavenly sphere of seven lights, or of the seven planets, among which the sun, in the middle, shines more brightly than the rest.
Tropologically, the candlestick signifies Christ or rather Christ's Church, inasmuch as it is the light and teacher of truth — that is, more properly, it signified the very faith and doctrine of the Church. For thus it is expounded by St. John, Apocalypse chapter I, last verse: "The seven candlesticks," he says, "are the seven Churches," namely inasmuch as by their faith and doctrine they shine forth before all Asia.
And a table, and the shewbread. — That is, the loaves set forth on the table, or the table of the loaves of proposition. It is a hendiadys and a Hebraism, by which the abstract is put for the concrete.
Note: The loaves of proposition are called the loaves which on every Sabbath were set forth fresh, or placed on the table before the Lord, that is, before the Ark of the Lord, in which God showed Himself present. Whence in Hebrew they are called "lechem panim," that is, loaves of the face; the Septuagint translate "artous enōpious," that is, facial loaves, because they were set forth before the face of God. Secondly, these loaves were twelve, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, that each tribe might give as it were its own loaf to God. By which ceremony the twelve tribes attested that they were continuously fed by God, and that they received the harvests and crops from which they made the loaves; and by this gratitude of offering of the Hebrews, God in turn signified that He remembered them, and held them as a memorial always before Himself, and would always bestow on them harvests and loaves.
Hence thirdly, they placed frankincense upon these loaves, as is said in Leviticus XXIII, 7, by which they signified that they owed all good things and harvests to God, and referred all things to Him and gave them back to Him. For the frankincense signified that these loaves were God's, and offered and consecrated to God.
The Chaldee and the Septuagint, in Exodus XXV, 30, and Philo, book III On the Life of Moses, add that the Hebrews placed salt on these loaves. For salt at the table seasons all foods and makes them more savory, and is, as it were, the relish of bread, if no other is at hand. For in Leviticus II, 13, it is thus prescribed: "In every offering of yours you shall offer salt." For this was God's table, at which God as it were feasted with the Hebrews.
Allegorically, the table of the loaves of proposition signified the table of the body and blood of Christ, as Cyril teaches, Catechesis 4 of the Mystagogical, and Jerome on the first chapter of Malachi, and Damascene, book IV On the Faith, chapter XIV.
Tropologically, however, this table of loaves represents the works of mercy, says Bede, by which we approach the Holy of Holies, that is, heaven. Hence these loaves are before the Lord, and incense is placed upon them, that it may be signified that these works ought to be done, not for the catching at name or vain glory, but with regard to God alone — namely, with this end, that we may please God alone, and offer to Him this sacrifice of almsgiving and charity.
Which is called the Holy. — In Greek "hētis legetai hagia." Where "hētis," that is, which, refers not to the table, nor to the proposition of loaves, but to "skēnē," that is, the tabernacle, as if to say: This (namely the first tabernacle) is called Holy, and, as the Syriac renders it, holy house, just as the second tabernacle, or the second part of the tabernacle, is called Holy of Holies. Where note that here is a Grecism and a Hebraism: for our Interpreter Grecizes, while imitating the feminine gender which was in Greek, saying "quae" (fem. which), not "quod" (neut. which): because the Greek "skēnē," that is, tabernacle, is feminine, as is also its relative "hētis," that is, which. Thus our Interpreter Grecizes in Apocalypse XI, 4, when he renders: "These (the two witnesses, namely Elijah and Enoch) are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing (stantes, fem.) in the presence of the Lord of the earth" — that is, "stantia" (neut. pl.): for in Greek it is "lychniai hestōsai," as if to say: standing lamps. So also he Grecizes Psalm LXXIV, 9, and elsewhere. It is a Hebraism, when he calls the holy place "holies" in the plural: for the Hebrews use the plural for amplification. "Holies" therefore means eminently and remarkably holy. That "sancta" here is plural is plain from the Greek: for in Greek it is not "hagia" with the accent on the penult, that is, sancta in the singular, but "hagia" with the accent on the antepenult, that is, sancta in the plural. To these he opposes "hagia hagiōn," that is, Holy of Holies, as if to say: the most holy places. So Chrysostom and Theodoret.
Verse 3: And After the Second Veil, the Tabernacle Which Is Called the Holy of Holies
Note: the word "second" does not refer to "tabernacle" but to "veil." For the Greek "deuteron," being neuter, refers to "katapetasma," that is, veil, and not to the feminine "skēnē," that is, tabernacle.
Whence note secondly: In the tabernacle there was a double veil: the first before the doors of the Holy Place, the second before the doors of the Holy of Holies, separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Both veils were woven with embroidery work from hyacinth, purple, twisted fine linen and twice-dyed scarlet, in Exodus chapter XXVI, verses 31 and 36.
Note thirdly: The second part of the tabernacle was called "Holy of Holies," in Hebrew "qodes haqqodashim," that is, holiness of holinesses, that is, most holy; thus in Hebrew is said "song of songs," that is, the most beautiful song; "vanity of vanities," that is, the greatest and purest vanity; "virgin of virgins," that is, the most excellent and purest virgin. For the second or inner part of the tabernacle was as it were the choir of the temple containing the ark, the propitiatory and the Cherubim, as it were the throne of God, from which God gave responses and oracles: for this reason it is called "holiness of holinesses," or "Holies of holies," or "Holy of Holies," that is, the most holy or most sacred temple, or tabernacle.
Verse 4: Having a Golden Censer, and the Ark of the Testament, in Which Was a Golden Urn Holding the Manna, and the Rod of Aaron That Had Blossomed, and the Tables of the Testament
You will ask, what is this censer of the Holy of Holies? Lyranus, St. Thomas, Anselm, Galenus here, Viegas on Apocalypse VIII, p. 385, and Villalpando in his work on the fabric of the temple, take it as a censer properly so called. But from Exodus XXV, Leviticus XVI, and 3 Kings chapter VI — in which passages the entire structure of the temple and tabernacle is exactly described — it is plain that in the Holy of Holies, whether of the temple or of the tabernacle, there was no censer; but only the ark, the propitiatory and the Cherubim. Some reply that this censer was the one with which the high priest entered the Holy of Holies censing once a year, on the day of expiation, Leviticus XVI. For although the high priest received this censer outside the Holy of Holies, yet upon entering the Holy of Holies, he seems to have left it there for the whole year; and after a year, when he again entered the Holy of Holies on the day of expiation with another censer, he seems to have brought out the previous censer, and again left there the latter one with which he was entering. But this seems to be said gratuitously and without foundation: for Scripture has nothing of the sort; indeed it sufficiently signifies that the high priest, just as he entered the Holy of Holies with the censer, so came out with the same. For only on this account was the high priest commanded to enter the Holy of Holies with censer and incense — namely, that the vapor of this incense might cover the ark and the propitiatory, which was as it were the throne of God, lest God could be seen by the high priest — that is, the angel acting for God by means of an assumed body, sitting on this throne and giving forth oracles. For God demanded this reverence to Himself from the high priest under penalty of death, as is plain from Leviticus XVI, 13. But for this it was not necessary that the high priest, when he came out from the Holy of Holies, should leave his censer in it for the whole year. Add that it would have been unseemly and squalid to leave in the most holy part of the temple, before God, for a whole year a spent censer, with ash and refuse.
I therefore say, with Origen, homily 9 on Exodus, Abulensis on Exodus XXV, Ribera and others, that this censer is the altar of incense. For this altar was as it were a great censer: for it was hollow, and contained only fire, by which the aromatics were burned and offered to the Lord, just as is done in a censer. This opinion is proved first, because St. Paul here does not mention the altar of incense, although He does mention the table and the candlestick, between which this altar was placed; therefore he understood it by this censer. For why would he pass over this one altar, so excellent, when he expresses here all the other vessels both of the Holy Place and of the Holy of Holies?
Secondly, for "censer" the Greek has "thymiatērion," that is, a fuming-vessel — whether this be an altar or a censer; whence this altar of incense is called "thymiatērion" by Josephus, book III of the Antiquities, chapter VIII, that is, a fuming altar. You will say: If the Holy of Holies had this altar of incense, then this altar was not in the Holy Place but in the Holy of Holies. Some admit the consequence, and so Œcumenius and St. Augustine think, Question CXIII on Exodus. But the contrary — namely, that this altar was in the Holy Place and not in the Holy of Holies — is plain from Exodus chapter XL, verse 24, as I have shown there.
I therefore reply by denying the consequence, for there are various modes of having. For just as the head is said to have a neck, a house to have a court, a city to have moats, a temple to have a cemetery — not in itself, but before itself: so also the Holy of Holies had this altar, not in itself, but before itself. For this altar was nearest to and plainly facing the Holy of Holies, in such a way that from this altar the smoke through the empty space left above it could penetrate and enter into the Holy of Holies itself. For since the Hebrews ought above all to worship and honor God residing as it were in the Holy of Holies, and yet could not do this in the Holy of Holies itself, since out of reverence none but the high priest, and he only once a year, could enter it: for this reason God ordained and commanded that this altar of incense be made outside the Holy of Holies, in the Holy Place, plainly facing the Holy of Holies, so that those daily burning incense on it might assiduously honor and venerate God residing in the Holy of Holies through its incense. And hence this altar is called of the oracle or of the Holy of Holies, because, namely, it was turned toward the oracle, and its use was none other than to burn incense to God residing in the oracle. Subtly therefore Paul here says that the Holy of Holies had this altar of incense, for the reason and meaning already stated.
Finally note that this altar was constructed of shittim wood, which is imperishable and incorruptible; yet it is called golden because it was clothed and covered with gold on all sides.
And the ark of the testament. — It is called the ark of the testament, or covenant, because it contained the tables of the law, which was the condition of the covenant between God and the Hebrews: hence it is also called the ark of the testimony, that is, of the law, which is the witness of the divine will, or of what God wishes to be done by us.
In which was a golden urn holding the manna, and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament. — "Of the testament," that is, of the law. For the law is metonymically called testament, because, as I have already said, it was the condition of the testament, that is, of the covenant entered into between God and the people.
You will say: in 3 Kings VIII, 9, it is said that in the ark there were only the two stone tables of Moses: how then does St. Paul here say that besides the tables there were also in the ark the rod of Aaron and the urn with manna? On account of this contradiction, to some, as I said at the beginning of the epistle, the faith and authority of this epistle has been suspect.
Chrysostom and Theophylact reply first, that in the time of Moses only the tables of the law were in the ark, but afterwards by Jeremiah the urn with manna and the rod of Aaron were also placed back in the ark: namely that they might be better preserved in it, and that Paul received this by tradition from Gamaliel. But Paul here speaks not of the time of Jeremiah, but of Moses and his tabernacle; and asserts that all these things were in the ark in the time of the tabernacle of Moses.
Secondly, Catharinus replies that in the time of Moses all these things were in the ark, but in the time of Solomon only the stone tables. But this also seems contrived; indeed Sacred Scripture suggests, and Josephus clearly signifies, book III, chapter VI, and Philo, book III On the Life of Moses, that in the time of Moses only the tables of the law were in the ark.
Thirdly, Ribera explains thus: "in which" refers not to the ark but to "skēnē," that is, to the tabernacle, so that it is a Grecism similar to the one I mentioned at verse 2; for the Apostle here enumerates all the vessels that were in the Holy of Holies, as in verse 2 he enumerates all that were in the Holy Place. But what follows obstructs this: "And above it were the Cherubim": where the pronoun "it" plainly seems to refer to the ark. For the Cherubim were above the ark, and consequently the pronoun "which" here ought to be considered to refer to the same ark, as if to say: In the ark were the tables, the urn and the rod, but above the ark were the Cherubim.
I therefore say that the preposition "in" here is taken broadly in the Hebrew manner, and embraces both those things which were properly in the ark, as were the tables of the law, and those which were beside the ark, as were the urn and the rod. For just as there are various modes of having, as I said above, so there are also of being-in: thus the Hebrews say that we have shoes on (in) our feet, that is, beside or about the feet. So Christ is said to have suffered "in Jerusalem," when He suffered beside it. So we commonly say that something happened "at Rome, at Antwerp, at Venice," which happened next to those cities. Paul therefore wishes to say the same here about the urn and the rod, as Moses says about the book of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy XXXI, 26: "Take this book," he says, "and place it in the side of the ark of the covenant." Just as therefore the book of Deuteronomy was placed not in the ark, but at the side of the ark: so also there were placed the urn and the rod, and it can rightly be said that all these were placed in the ark, that is, at the side of the ark. Whence it is likely that all these things were placed not on the pavement (for this would have been unbecoming), but on some shelf or case attached to the ark, having been so placed, as Lyranus, Cajetan, and Canus think, book II On Theological Loci, chapter XI; Bellarmine, tome I, book I, chapter XVII. Paul therefore says that all these things (namely the urn, the rod, and the tables of the law) were in the ark — that is, were placed on the ground in the ark, or beside the ark, so that the Cherubim might stand out above the ark in the urn. And this is what the Lord had commanded Moses, and Moses Aaron, regarding the manna, saying in Exodus XVI, 33: "Set it aside before the Lord." He does not say, in the ark, but before the Lord — that is, before the ark and the propitiatory, in which the Lord resides as on His throne.
Verse 5: And Over It Were the Cherubim of Glory Overshadowing the Propitiatory
Note: They are called "Cherubim of glory," that is, glorious and august. For the Cherubim were golden effigies, in the form of a winged and beardless youth — namely so that by this form they might represent the vigor, vivacity and eternity of the angels, who are as it were princes always attending and standing about God: just as for the same reason emperors of old were depicted beardless, as certain terrestrial gods who would never grow old.
Hence they are called "Cherubim," not from the Chaldee "rub" or "rabia," that is, boy, as if Cherub were the same as "kerub," that is, like a boy, as R. Kimchi maintains. For it is established that "Cherubim" is not a Chaldee but a Hebrew word. But they are called "Cherubim" from a multitude of strength, glory, knowledge and wisdom, as St. Dionysius teaches, chapter VII of the Celestial Hierarchy, and from him St. Jerome, and others everywhere — from the root "nachar" and "rab," that is, knew, or knew much; or rather and more simply from "ke" and "rab," that is, like a rabbi, wise, powerful, honored and glorious; for "rab" or "rabbi" signifies a great man, who is mighty in wealth, strength, knowledge and glory. Whence it is said of the king of Tyre, Ezekiel XXVIII, 14: "Thou, extended Cherub," as if to say: Thou, O king of Tyre, who art a glorious rab like the Cherubim, and who, with the wings of thy power and dominion extended, dost protect many subject peoples, just as the Cherubim protect the ark and the propitiatory. The name Cherub also alludes by metathesis to the root "kabbir," that is, manifold — namely, in knowledge, strength, form and figure. For the Cherubim had four faces, as I said on Ezekiel I.
Overshadowing the propitiatory. — "Obumbrantia," that is, overshadowing: for Cherubim in Hebrew is masculine; yet the Apostle says in the neuter "obumbrantia," because he understands the very images or effigies of the Angels. Others add that the Greeks treat all Hebrew names as if barbarous, and although they are masculine, employ them yet in the neuter gender. So in Isaiah VI, 6, one of the Seraphim is called by the Septuagint "hen tōn Seraphim," that is, one of the Seraphim. So in the Canon of the Mass they are called "beata Seraphim," beata (neut. pl.), that is, blessed. But it is very likely that Cherubim and Seraphim are employed in the neuter gender, as certain animals, as Josephus says, because the Cherubim had the appearance of four animals — namely the wings of an eagle, the manes of a lion, the hoof of a calf, and the other members of a man, as I said on Ezekiel I — in which, besides other things I adduced from Exodus chapter 25 and Ezekiel I, it was signified that the angels lack sex, are neither female nor male, but neuter, and that their form and nature are unknown to us.
Note first: The ark of the testament was like a small square chest, and was made of shittim wood overlaid with gold; the propitiatory was the very lid of the ark, raised high above the ark, made not of shittim wood but of solid gold. It was called propitiatory because God, being entreated there, showed Himself appeased and propitious. For from the propitiatory the Angel bearing the person of God answered Moses and the inquiring people vocally and gave forth oracles. Hence the propitiatory itself is called the oracle. The two Cherubim, springing from the propitiatory itself, held it up above the ark with their wings as it were with hands, so high that this lid or propitiatory was as it were the seat of God, and the ark was the footstool of His feet. Whence Psalm XCVIII says: "Adore His footstool," that is, adore the ark, prostrate yourselves before the ark, and consequently before God — in the same way, namely, in which Christians prostrate themselves before images, and in them worship and venerate God and the Saints whom the images represent. Again, these Cherubim with outspread wings overshadowed, that is, veiled, the propitiatory, and thus presented a certain appearance of a chariot. This appears more clearly in the similar vision shown in Ezekiel chapter I, in which he saw the chariot of the glory of God, which four Cherubim attended and drove, which is therefore called the chariot and quadriga of the Cherubim. Hence the name cherub, by metathesis, alludes to the Hebrew "rocheb," that is, riding — that is, prince, ruler and governor. For they of old were carried by horses; and as we govern a horse with reins, so do these govern their people with laws: such are the Angels, as the rulers of the world. Again, cherub alludes to the Hebrew "recheb," that is, chariot: for a prince is as it were a chariot bearing the burdens of the commonwealth. So Elijah is called "the chariot of Israel and his charioteer," 4 Kings chapter II, verse 12.
Hence note secondly: Paul here alludes to this chariot of the Cherubim and of the glory of God shown to Ezekiel in chapter I. For the Angels are as it were the royal, warlike, glorious and triumphal chariot in which God is borne, and by which He rules, commands, sustains and governs the whole world. For this reason, in the time of Moses, when God dwelt in the tabernacle, as if setting forth and leading His people with armed hand through the midst of enemies into Canaan, God was said to be borne and to ride upon the Cherubim; but after God had settled the people in Canaan, and dwelt with them peaceably in the temple, God was said to sit upon the Cherubim, because, as I have already said, the Cherubim supporting the propitiatory, as the seat of God, exhibited a certain appearance of a chariot-throne.
Whence note thirdly: By this phrase, in which God is said to be borne and to sit upon the Cherubim, it is signified first that God by far transcends in knowledge the most wise angelic spirits, and as it were treads upon them with His feet. For Scripture is wont especially to commend God's power and wisdom from this, that He is God of hosts, namely angelic ones, that thousands of thousands minister to Him, that He makes His angels spirits, etc. Again, the two Cherubim in the Holy of Holies, who with faces turned toward each other always looked mutually at one another, signified that God shows Himself to be seen by the blessed, both Angels and men, who burn with the highest mutual charity (which is signified by the pair, and by the faces turned toward each other), and beatifies them by this glorious vision of Himself.
Finally, that I may assign a brief allegory, tropology and anagogy of all these: the Holy Place is allegorically the very Church of Christ militant on earth. In the Holy Place are these three: first, the candlestick, that is, faith and Christian doctrine; second, the table of bread, that is, hope and the bestowal of the nourishment of the Eucharist, of grace and of blessedness; third, the altar of incense, that is, the ardor of charity.
Again, by these three may be understood the three good works. For the altar is prayer, the table is almsgiving, the candlestick is fasting, which purifies and illumines the mind. Finally, some quite aptly accommodate these three to the religious vows, so that the altar is obedience; the table is poverty, which offers itself and its things to God as on a table, and in turn is nourished by God Himself, not man, as it were on God's own table, care, and at His expense; the candlestick is chastity, of which it is said: "O how beautiful is the chaste generation with brightness!" Anagogically, the Holy of Holies is heaven, in which is the ark of the testament, that is, the Church of the Blessed; and the golden propitiatory, that is, the glorious humanity of Christ; finally the Cherubim, that is, the holy Angels: in these the glorious God and the Most Holy Trinity, which is here invisible to us, stands forth and dwells, and shows Himself clearly to be seen by all the blessed both Angels and men in heaven, and so, as I said, beatifies them. So Venerable Bede on Exodus XXV, and others.
Verse 6: With These Things So Arranged, the Priests Always Entered Into the First Tabernacle, Accomplishing the Offices of Sacrifices
"With these things so arranged" — that is, thus prepared, fabricated and ordered, for this is the Greek "kateskeuasmenōn" — "the priests indeed always (that is, daily) entered into the former tabernacle, completing the offices of the sacrifices."
You will say: The sacrifices were slain outside and in front of the tabernacle in the open court, so that the smoke and stench of the burnt victims might be dispersed into the air; for otherwise the stench would have been intolerable, if all these victims had been burned in the Holy Place, or in a tabernacle enclosed on every side: how then does Paul here say that these sacrifices were performed in the tabernacle itself? Ribera answers that Paul understands by tabernacle also the adjoining court, in which was the altar of holocausts. But since Paul mentions neither the court nor the altar of holocausts, but only the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, it can be more conveniently answered that, for the offices of the sacrifices, in Greek it is "latreias," that is, ceremonies, cultic acts and sacred rites: whence the Syriac translates "tesmestehun," that is, their ministry. It is now established that the ceremonies and sacred rites were customarily performed in the Holy Place, and these were threefold according to the three vessels and instruments of the Holy Place. For first, daily the priests had to tend the candlestick, kindling, extinguishing, cleaning and arranging its lamps. Second, on each Sabbath they had to set out new shewbread on the table. Third, on the altar of incense both morning and evening, after the completion of the perpetual sacrifice, they burned incense, which burning and offering of incense is properly called and is a sacrifice, just as the "mincha," or sacrifice of bread or grain, which was burned and consumed for God, Leviticus II. This offering of incense therefore (which Paul properly has in view here, for this was the consummation and conclusion of all the sacrifices of the whole day) our Interpreter here calls a sacrifice, or rather the consummation of the sacrifices. So Moses says in Numbers XVI: "Look not upon their sacrifices," that is, look not upon the incense-offering which Korah, Dathan and Abiram offer and burn with their censers. Add that, although the victims of the sacrifices were slain outside the Sanctuary in the court, yet the blood of the slain victims was sometimes brought into the Sanctuary, as happened in the calf-victim slain for the sin of the people, concerning which Leviticus IV, 16 says thus: "And when the calf has been slain in the sight of the Lord, the priest who is anointed shall bring some of its blood into the tabernacle of testimony, dipping his finger and sprinkling it seven times before the veil (of the Holy of Holies, in which God dwells, that it may be signified that this blood is sprinkled and offered to the Lord for sin), and shall put some of it on the horns of the altar, which is before the Lord in the tabernacle of testimony."
Verse 7: But Into the Second the High Priest Alone Once a Year, Not Without Blood, Which He Offers for His Own and the People's Ignorance
Note: The Holy of Holies, because it was a type of God's throne in the heavens, was so holy and venerable to the Hebrews that no one could enter it except the high priest alone, and that not without many ceremonies, and only once a year — namely, on the day of expiation, when of course he expiated by the blood of the victims the sins of the whole people committed throughout the entire year.
Note secondly: From the fact that Paul says "for his own and the people's ignorance," Œcumenius thinks that on the day of expiation, when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, only the sins committed through ignorance by the people were expiated and pardoned. But this conflicts with Leviticus XVI, 30: "On this day," He says, "there shall be expiation of you, and a cleansing from all your sins." Whence also on the same day the high priest took a he-goat, and laying his hands upon its head he imprecated upon it the sins of the whole people, and then through a certain man sent it away into the desert, to be there devoured by beasts. Hence this he-goat or buck is called the Emissary (scapegoat). Better therefore St. Thomas, Anselm and others understand by "ignorance" any sin whatsoever. For, as the Wise Man says, Proverbs XIV, 22: "They err who work evil"; and Aristotle, book III Ethics: "Every wicked man is ignorant"; for always some ignorance — not speculative, but practical, that is, some inconsideration or imprudence — is joined with sin. Hence Scripture often calls sin "ignorance," as in Psalm XXIV, 7: "Remember not my ignorances." So Wisdom V, 7, the wicked say: "But we have not known the way of the Lord." And in this epistle chapter V, verse 2, Paul says of Christ: "Who can have compassion on those who are ignorant and err."
Verse 8: The Holy Spirit Signifying That the Way of the Holies Was Not Yet Made Manifest, While the Former Tabernacle Was Yet Standing
He calls "the way of the holies" the way, access and entry into the Holy of Holies, as if to say: The Jews could not enter into the Holy of Holies except the high priest alone, and that once a year, namely on the day of expiation; that by this the Holy Spirit might signify that the way and access into heaven was not yet opened, which was represented by the Jewish Holy of Holies, and that it was to be opened by Christ. First then, just as the Holy of Holies was a type of heaven and of celestial and blessed life, so the Holy Place was a type of present life through which we tend toward heaven. Second, the Aaronic priests, who were excluded from the Holy of Holies and yet ministered in the Holy Place, signified that they could not by their sacrifices open the way into the Holy of Holies, that is, into heaven; and so the way of heaven was not to be unlocked, as long as this former tabernacle, namely the Holy Place, and its law and ceremonies stood and endured. Third, the high priest entering the Holy of Holies once with blood signified Christ entering through His own blood and opening heaven for us. Hence when Christ was dying on the cross, the veil of the temple was rent, Matthew XXVII, 51, by which it was indicated that heaven, previously veiled, closed and impervious to us, is by Christ's death thrown open and opened. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, Primasius and Œcumenius.
Verse 9: Which Is a Parable of the Time Present, According to Which Gifts and Victims Are Offered, Which Cannot Make the Worshipper Perfect According to Conscience
The Greek "hētis," that is, which, Theophylact refers to "skēnē," that is, tabernacle, as if to say: That tabernacle, namely, was a parable and type of the impending time. But whether you render it "which" (fem.) or "which" (neut.), the syntax in Latin is the same, as well as the sense and meaning. For the pronoun "which" can agree by Latin syntax with the following word "parable," even though it refers and looks back to "tabernacle," which preceded. Second, by "parable" the Apostle here understands a type and exemplar; otherwise, properly, a parable is of words and sayings, but a type and exemplar is of things. Therefore the things of the old tabernacle, which were types of things not so much future as present under the law of Moses, he here calls a parable.
Third, instead of "is," render more clearly "was." Again, by "time present" some, with the interlinear Gloss, take the present time of grace, of Christ and of Christianity. But far more rightly, with Chrysostom and others, you would take by "time present" the time of the old law, which, while the tabernacle was being built by Moses, was at hand and was beginning, and so was inchoately present. Whence Chrysostom and the Syriac understand by "time present" the present time — not of the Church and Christ, but of the tabernacle and Moses. So in 1 Corinthians VII, 26, the Apostle called the "impending necessity" the present necessity — as if to say: That construction and disposition of the first old tabernacle, that is, the Holy Place, and the entry of the priests into it, the ministry and occupation, were a parable, that is, a type and representation, of those things which throughout the whole time of the old law (which was then at hand and impending, and so was beginning) were to be: namely, it signified that throughout the whole time of the law the Aaronic priests would be occupied in the Holy Place with the victims of beasts, incense, breads and lamps, and would never open the way into the Holy of Holies, that is, into heaven, nor enter it. Whence, explaining this very thing, the Apostle adds:
According to which gifts and victims are offered, which cannot make the worshipper perfect according to conscience. — For "according to which" in Greek is "kath' hon," that is, "according to which" (neut.), namely the impending time of the old law. Now "kath' hon" is the same as "en hō," that is, "according to which," which is the same as "in which," namely in the time of the old law. Yet our Interpreter seems to have read "kath' hēn," that is, "according to which" (fem.), namely the parable, as if to say: This parable or type of the tabernacle is similar to, and as it were equally corresponds to, the gifts and victims which were offered in that tabernacle. For just as from the first tabernacle one could not go to the second — that is, from the Holy Place no layman or even priest could enter the Holy of Holies — so the victims of that time could not expiate the conscience and lead man into heaven.
Note, "according to conscience," that is, in conscience, as if to say: The legal victims could cleanse the body, but they could not expiate and sanctify the soul and the conscience. Secondly, for "serving" in Greek it is "latreuonta," that is, "worshipping," who namely, offering those victims to God, by them worshipped God and served God.
Verse 10: Only in Meats and in Drinks, and Divers Washings, and Justices of the Flesh, Imposed Until the Time of Correction
The sentence hangs, and is incomplete in our text; but in the Greek it is complete and perfect: for in Greek instead of "imposed" is "epikeimena," that is, "imposed," namely the gifts or offerings and victims, as if to say: These victims, these gifts did not expiate the conscience, but were only imposed for purifying the flesh, until Christ should come, who would institute sacrifices and sacraments expiating the soul. So Chrysostom. But the Latins consistently read "imposed," which cannot be referred to gifts. Hence Francisco Ribera takes the preposition "in" for "with," so that "in foods" is the same as "with foods," and he thinks this whole verse should be referred to the preceding one, so that the sense is: The gifts and victims cannot make a man perfect only with foods, drinks, etc. — as if to say: The gifts themselves are weak in themselves, nor do they have anything else from which they may receive virtue, because the other things which are commanded in the law pertain in large part to the uses of foods, drinks and various oblations, which since they are corporeal, cannot purge the soul.
But more plainly and aptly, this little verse will be referred to "the worshipper," as if to say: The legal gifts and sacrifices cannot expiate and make perfect the worshipper — that is, him who serves God and worships God — not in spirit and inner piety of mind, but only in foods, drinks and other justices of the flesh, that is, sacraments and sacrifices, which justify not the conscience and mind, but only the body and flesh: that is, cleanse from bodily uncleanness and legal and political irregularity, which kept men so unclean from the temple and the company of men.
You will say: The Jews served God not only in foods, drinks and washings, but also in the observance of the Decalogue, and of the precepts both moral and judicial. I answer: That is true, but the Apostle here by "serving" understands worshipping God. This service therefore is not placed in the observance of moral and judicial precepts, but only of ceremonial ones. For in these consisted God's service, worship, and, as it is in Greek, latria.
You will say secondly: The Jews served God not only with foods and drinks and other external ceremonies, but also with inward faith, hope and charity. I answer that there were some, like David, Samuel and other Prophets, who did this; but they did not do this by virtue of the law and Judaism, but by the virtue and grace of Christ, or of the Messiah to come, in whom they believed and hoped, and by that reason belonged to the New Testament, and so were sons not so much of the Old as of the New Testament, as St. Augustine teaches at length, book III Against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter IV. For Judaism, as it is pure and inasmuch as it is Judaism, sets aside the law of nature (which dictates God's inward direction and worship), and only prescribed to the Jews, and directed and compelled them to the external worship of God, so that by external ceremonies prescribed by God's law they might rightly worship God: but Judaism did not dictate to them inward piety and spirit, much less did it inspire it, but only faith and the grace of Christ.
In meats and in drinks. — Unclean and forbidden foods were swine, and all animals that do not chew the cud or do not divide the hoof, as I said on Leviticus XI. But drinks of themselves and commonly to all were not unclean and forbidden to anyone, as Chrysostom notes; yet accidentally, and to certain persons — e.g. wine and strong drink — were forbidden to Nazarites, as also wine was forbidden to priests about to enter the tabernacle. Again, if anything unclean — namely a corpse — had touched any clean vessel, the vessel and all the liquid contained in the vessel was unclean and had to be cast away, as prescribed in Leviticus XI, 32 and 33.
Until the time of correction — that is, until the time of Christ's coming, who was about to correct those legal and carnal rites, and abolishing them, was about to introduce in their place a spiritual worship of God, that we might adore God in spirit and in truth, and so really be justified and saved in conscience. So youthful manners are said to be corrected, not that they may remain, but that they may be removed, and changed into better and more weighty ones. So Theophylact.
Everywhere here the Apostle stings the old law, and accuses it of weakness and defect, in order that it may become cheap to the Hebrews, and that they may not wonder that God has abolished the law given by Himself, since He willed it to stand and endure only until the time of Christ.
Verse 11: But Christ Being Come a High Priest of the Good Things to Come, by a Greater and More Perfect Tabernacle
Thus far the Apostle has explained the structure of the tabernacle, the pontiff, the victims and the ceremonies, as shadows and types of Christ; now he explains their allegory by comparison, and teaches that Christ was prefigured by all these, and that He has exhibited all these things far more nobly and excellently, when He once entered the Holy of Holies, that is heaven, through His own blood, and dwells in it as our eternal Pontiff.
But Christ being come — namely, the Father in heaven; for Christ after His ascension into heaven always stands by the Father as our advocate, to intercede for us, that He may obtain future good things for us, says Anselm; for in this whole passage the Apostle urges the entry of the pontiff into the Holy of Holies, in order that from this type he may show that Christ, prefigured by the old pontiff, having entered heaven, stands by the Father as our pontiff, that He may always "appear to the face of God for us," as he himself says in verse 24.
But since in Greek it is not "the Father," but simply "paraginomenos," that is, "having become" or "coming," hence "assisting" seems to be the same as "approaching," or rather, "after He came and approached and was made pontiff": for "paragenomenos" is an aorist, which in order to express in Latin as far as possible, our Interpreter aptly translated "assisting," that is, existing, now standing, and standing by and ministering as a pontiff to the tabernacle, that is, the Church. And this aptly coheres with what follows, "He entered into the Holies." For otherwise He cannot properly "enter" the Holies, who already stands in them. The Apostle therefore here signifies that Christ, approaching and coming into the world and flesh, was made and born a pontiff, to this end that through His blood He might enter into the Holies, and find for us eternal redemption — as if to say: Christ, when He had come into His tabernacle, that is, the Church, and stood in it as the pontiff of good things to come, did not stop there, as did the Aaronic pontiffs, who throughout almost the whole year ministered only in the Holy Place: for Christ from the Holy Place penetrated into the Holy of Holies, and unlocked them for us all.
Pontiff of the good things to come — that He might merit and obtain for us future goods by His prayer and sacrifice.
Note first: The Apostle opposes future goods to the impending or present time — e.g. of the law; therefore He calls them future with respect to the law, as if to say: The law had Aaron and its pontiffs, who could obtain present and earthly goods for us, but they could not obtain spiritual and heavenly goods for us; but they showed that these goods, as future, were to be expected from Christ the pontiff.
Hence secondly, by future goods he calls the remission of sins, grace, virtues, and finally eternal glory and all the endowments and goods both of soul and of body, which we await in heaven: for these are properly future and are so called.
By a greater and more perfect tabernacle. — As if to say: The pontiff about to enter the Holy of Holies passed through the former tabernacle, that is, through the Holy Place: but Christ passed through a greater — in Greek "meizonos," that is, greater, more perfect and more august — tabernacle, or Holy Place, in order to enter the Holy of Holies, that is, heaven.
You will ask, what is this more perfect and more excellent tabernacle through which Christ passed?
First, St. Thomas and Anselm answer that it is the lower heavens, through which one passes to the empyrean heaven.
Second, Catharinus answers that it is the Blessed Virgin, through whom Christ passed into this world.
Third, Theodoret, Primasius and Haymo answer that it is the human nature of Christ, through which the Deity of the Word as it were passed into this world.
Fourth, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Œcumenius and Ribera answer that it is the body and flesh of Christ. For this is the "greater tabernacle," because in it dwells God, the Word, and all the fullness of the Holy Spirit; it is also "more perfect," because it does greater things than the old Mosaic tabernacle, and sanctifies and saves those who approach Him. This tabernacle is "not made with hands, neither of this creation," because the flesh of Christ was conceived and formed not by human work, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. And just as the pontiff trod the first tabernacle in order to enter into the second, so Christ as it were trod His own flesh, when He delivered it to be torn to pieces by the hands of the impious; and so through this tabernacle, namely His body — that is, through the oblation of His body, and, as the Apostle adds in explanation, "through His own blood" — He entered into the Holies.
This exposition seems sufficiently probable; but it stands against it, that the Apostle opposes the blood and flesh of Christ not to that old shadowy tabernacle, but to the blood and flesh of goats and calves, which were sacrificed in the old tabernacle; for he says: "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered once into the Holies." And the very nature of the things requires this, according to which the flesh and blood of Christ is not rightly represented through a tabernacle, but rightly through the blood and flesh of victims, with which it is compared and to which it is opposed as antitype to its type. Therefore another tabernacle must be sought, in which Christ offered Himself and His victim, just as the Aaronic priests in their tabernacle offered their goats and calves. Second, it cannot be said sufficiently aptly that Christ passed into heaven through His body as through a tabernacle, since He did not pass through the body, but remained in it, and so carried it with Himself into the heavens: for the body everywhere passed with Christ, and Christ with His body. Again, the tabernacle which was called the Holy Place could not be brought into and enter into the Holy of Holies itself; but the flesh of Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, that is, heaven: therefore the flesh of Christ could not be represented through the tabernacle which is called the Holy Place in the present figure and type, in which it is said that the pontiff passing through the Holy Place and entering the Holy of Holies represented Christ passing through His tabernacle into heaven: for in this the Apostle here places and grounds his similitude and allegory; and therefore the individual things which exist in this type ought to be aptly applied to the antitype, and to correspond by some fitting analogy and proportion: for that is required for this, that the allegory be apt and solid.
I say therefore: that this tabernacle is the Church of Christ gathered here on earth, pilgrim and militant, which Christ Himself founded: of which He said in chapter VIII, verse 2: "The tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man": for this is the same with what He says here, "the tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation," namely not of human artifice and fabrication, as was the former tabernacle fabricated by Bezalel. For the tabernacle aptly represents the Church, as I said on verse 3, in which Christ dying on the cross offered Himself to the Father as a victim for the sins of men; and just as from the Holy Place and through the Holy Place the pontiff went into the Holy of Holies, so Christ (and we with Christ) passed from His Church here militant to the celestial and triumphant Church. For since it is established that the Holy of Holies signifies the celestial Church, that we may speak consequentially and aptly, it must necessarily be said that the Holy Place itself represented the terrestrial and militant Church. So Cajetan.
Verse 12: Neither by the Blood of Goats or of Calves, but by His Own Blood He Entered Once into the Holies, Having Obtained Eternal Redemption
Neither by the blood of goats or of calves — as the Aaronic pontiff did, who when about to enter the Holy of Holies, sacrificed a goat for the sins of the people and a calf for his own sins, and bringing their blood into the Holy of Holies, sprinkled and expiated the Holies with it, as is plain from Leviticus XVI. But Christ, expiating the Church not with the blood of goats but with His own blood, entered into the Holies.
But by His own blood He entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption. — Note the word "obtained" (literally "found"), for this word signifies that this redemption was unexpected by us, and was procured by Christ with great zeal, sorrow and labor, like a gem lost on the bottom of the sea, sought out and found. Second, He adds "eternal," as if to say: The Levitical priests had to enter the Holies every year, and to expiate them along with the people, because their expiation was only temporary, namely annual; but Christ, once on the cross expiating all the sins of the whole world, entered heaven, and there dwells gloriously and will always dwell, because by the one oblation of the cross — as it is most precious and most efficacious — He merited for us and obtained eternal redemption, that is, which at no time will fail or diminish; but it will endure forever, and will exert its power in all ages, to expiate and purge the sins of all ages.
Verse 13: For If the Blood of Goats and of Oxen, and the Ashes of a Heifer Sprinkled, Sanctify the Unclean to the Cleansing of the Flesh
Note: The Lord had ordered in Numbers XIX that a heifer, or red cow, be burned, and the ashes of the burnt one be kept for the expiation of the unclean. By this rite this expiation was made: they cast these ashes into a pitcher, or other vessel full of living water — e.g. spring water; then some other clean person sprinkled the unclean person with this water, and so he was expiated: but in such a way that he was still considered unclean until sunset.
Hence secondly, this "ash" did not "sanctify the defiled unto the cleansing" of the conscience, but only "of the flesh," because it did not expiate sin, but only removed the legal uncleanness contracted from contact with a corpse or another unclean thing: and therefore by the Apostle it is here called the uncleanness of the flesh or carnal uncleanness, because, namely, it did not affect the conscience, but only the flesh and the external man, that he might be considered unclean, and therefore be excluded from divine offices and the temple.
Allegorically, this ashen and lustral water was a type of the blood of Christ, as the Apostle here insinuates; again it was a type of the lustral or blessed water, which we use in the Church for the expiation of venial sins. For, as rightly argues Pope Alexander I, who was the sixth from St. Peter, in Epistle I To all the Orthodox: "If the ash of a heifer sprinkled used to sanctify and cleanse the people, how much more does water, which is sprinkled with salt and consecrated with divine prayers, sanctify and cleanse the people?"
Verse 14: How Much More Shall the Blood of Christ, Who Through the Holy Spirit Offered Himself Unspotted to God, Cleanse Our Conscience from Dead Works to Serve the Living God
"By the Holy Spirit," that is, with the Holy Spirit moving and inciting Him, to offer Himself spontaneously to the Father for our sins. Some Greek codices have "dia pneumatos aiōniou," that is, "by the eternal Spirit": and so reads Theodoret and the Syriac. But Chrysostom and others read as our Interpreter reads, "by the Holy Spirit." Ribera notes that this can be taken of the Spirit both created and Creator, because in Greek the article is lacking, which is wont to be added to the Creator Spirit, as if to say: "By the Holy Spirit," that is, by the holiness of His own spirit, by which Christ thirsted for the salvation of all men, He offered Himself for them to God the Father. But you would better here take the Creator Spirit. For He often does not have the article in Greek, and He is properly understood when "Holy Spirit" is said; and finally He is the one to whom, as Christ's conception, so also His oblation and redemption, and all our sanctification must be attributed, as to the first source of all grace and sanctity.
From dead works. — That is, from sins, which are foul before God like corpses, and which defile the soul of him who touches them, just as in the old law corpses defiled the body of him who touched them: on which matter see Chrysostom here in the moral homily 15.
To serve the living God. — As if to say: Christ cleanses us from sins, which are dead works, not only that we may be clean, but also that we may be alive, and with a living spirit serve the living God. The Apostle insinuates that he who desires to serve the living God ought plainly to flee sins as dead works, which diametrically oppose the living God.
Verse 15: And Therefore He Is the Mediator of the New Testament
Note "therefore"; for he gives the cause why Christ is the mediator, namely because, as preceded, having entered into the Holies, He found and brought forth eternal redemption for us, when by His blood He cleansed our conscience from dead works.
Note: Christ is the mediator of the New Testament, or covenant and pact entered into between God and Christian men. First, because Christ reconciled this new covenant between God and men, and brought and united both parts, namely both God and men, in this covenant. So almost too Moses is called the mediator of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy V, 5, because he was an internuncio, an interpreter and as it were a conciliator of the covenant between God and the Hebrews.
Second, because Christ by His life, passion and death merited from God this new covenant, and all the goods which God promises to men by this covenant — namely the remission of sins, grace, glory and eternal inheritance: therefore Christ is the mediator of all these, because He obtained all these from God for us and reconciled them. Whence, explaining this work and office of the mediator, the Apostle adds: "That by the interposition of His death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."
You will say: Christ is the institutor, founder of the New Testament, and, as the Apostle says in verse 16, testator: therefore He is not its mediator. I answer by denying the consequence; for both are true. For Christ, for the reasons already said, is the mediator of the New Testament, inasmuch as He intervened as a middle, to bring and bind both God and men into this new covenant. Christ is also the founder and testator of the New Testament, because in God's stead and as one sent as a legate from God He founded and instituted this New Testament; for the Father gave all things into His hands, that whatever Christ established and sanctioned about this covenant, He Himself would ratify. For Christ in this covenant accomplished all things, and acted both the parts of God and of men: inasmuch as He acted the parts of God, He was the founder and testator of this covenant; inasmuch as He acted the parts of men, He was the advocate, interpreter and legate of men; but inasmuch as He intervened as middle and conciliator between God and men, to that extent He was mediator.
Whence the Syriac for "mediator" renders "metsaia," that is, "made halved" both in nature, because namely Christ in half of Himself was man, half God; and in office, because namely Christ acted partly God's parts, partly men's parts in this covenant, and constituted Himself as middle between our guilt and punishment, and between the Father's offense and wounded justice. For Christ thus acted the cause of His client men, that He yet defended God the Father's justice — namely, that He would not allow men's sins to go unpunished, but would atone for them by His blood and death, and so satisfy the Father's wounded justice.
That by means of death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament. — The Hebrews were offended by the passion and death of the Messiah, so reproachful, and they thought that the Messiah ought always to live and remain with them. Whence the Jews to Christ, John XII, 34: "We have heard out of the law," they say, "that Christ abideth forever; and how dost thou say: The Son of man must be lifted up?" (by "law" they call sacred Scripture) namely Psalm CIX, 4: "Thou art a priest forever." Hence the Apostle here demonstrates to them that this death was not a reproach to Christ, but a glory, inasmuch as it made Christ a mediator and redeemer, and by it He expiated our sins by His virtue, and procured for us life and eternal inheritance; and that, with the Father's justice so demanding and exacting — as if the Father had said to the Son: If you wish Me to spare men, O Son, who have so grievously sinned against Me, it is necessary that you die for them, and pour out your blood: for satisfaction must be made to My justice, My law, and My eternal decree concerning the punishment of sin. And the Son accepted this very thing, and by supreme right paid to the last farthing all our debts to the Father; and He brought it about that we might walk without fear and (as they say) bare-headed before God and the angels, and might lift our minds and hopes up to God.
For the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament. — He shows the Hebrews the weakness of the Old Testament and the necessity of the New, and consequently of the death of Christ, as if to say: Christ the expiator not only redeemed and expiated the sins of His own people and Testament, but also of yours, O Hebrews, the old people and old Testament. For neither could your testament and sacrifices expiate your sins, but they were only signs and figures of the sacrifice and Testament of Christ, who by His death and blood was about to redeem and expiate all the sins of all men, both of the New Testament and of the Old, and consequently of the law of nature too, which was weaker and more imperfect than either Testament.
They that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. — This is the end of the death, redemption, and mediation of Christ, and of the whole New Testament instituted by Christ: namely, that we may obtain the eternal inheritance promised through Christ. For "promise" the Greek has "epangelia," that is, promise: for Christ first merited, obtained and procured for us the promise of eternal inheritance — both because by His holiness, obedience and death He merited from God the Father that He should promise us the eternal inheritance for Christ's sake; and likewise because by the same right He merited for us the execution and granting of this promise, that is, that we might in fact see and obtain this eternal inheritance promised to us for Christ's sake.
Note: He calls "the called" both those who are under the Old and those who are under the New Testament. Again, the word "called" can be construed with "of eternal inheritance": for, as I said on Romans I, 1, "called" is a substantive, as if to say, the called-ones of the eternal inheritance — that is, as the Syriac renders it, "etkerif leiaretuta dalalam," that is, those called and belonging to the inheritance, whether temporal or eternal. More simply, however, you may refer "of the eternal inheritance" to "the promise," as if to say: that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance — that is, that the called may receive the eternal inheritance promised to them, to which they have been called.
Verse 16: For Where There Is a Testament, the Death of the Testator Must of Necessity Come In
This is the Apostle's argument, by which he proves that the Hebrews ought not to be scandalized at the death and Cross of Christ, since they were necessary for us and for our salvation: wherever there is a testament, in order for the testament to take its force, it must be confirmed and ratified by the death of the testator, and so the testator must necessarily die. But Christ established a new testament for us, and is the mediator and founder of the New Testament: therefore it was necessary for Christ to die, that by His death He might ratify and confirm this His new testament.
Verse 17: For a Testament Is of Force After Men Are Dead
"In the dead," that is, when the testators are dead, or after the death of the testators, then at last the testament is ratified and confirmed. For in the living, or so long as the testators live, they can always change and revoke their testament; whereas other compacts and donations made among the living, as soon as they have been made and entered upon, are by that very fact ratified and firm, and cannot be rescinded or revoked. For "a testament (as it is said in book I, ff. D. Testaments) is the just declaration of our will concerning what someone wishes to be done after his death."
Verse 18: Whence Neither Was the First Dedicated Without Blood
As if to say: in order that "the first," that is, the Old Testament, might signify the second, that is, the New Testament, which is confirmed by the death of Christ the testator, for this reason this first Testament, in the likeness of a properly so-called testament, had to be ratified by the death and blood of victims, so as to signify that the second or New Testament was to be ratified by the death of Christ. But just as the first or Old Testament was typical, so it had a typical death of the testator, namely the death and blood of victims, which represented the death of the testator, both of God and of Christ, as I shall say more fully on verse 20.
Note: For "dedicated" the Syriac renders "estarrat," that is, "was confirmed, received its strength." So too Chrysostom and his school. The Greek is "enkekainistai," that is, "was initiated, took its beginning, received its newness and inauguration." But because in sacred matters this beginning was taken from some sacred and solemn sacrifice, rite, and ceremony, by which a thing was as it were consecrated and dedicated to God and to holy uses, hence "enkainizein" in sacred contexts meant to consecrate and dedicate: whence "encaenia" are called the feasts of the dedication and consecration of the temple. So too here Paul says that the Old Testament, as something sacred by the blood of victims, was not only inaugurated and as it were begun, but also dedicated — that is, consecrated.
Verse 19: For When Every Commandment of the Law Had Been Read by Moses to All the People, He Took the Blood of Calves and Goats with Water and Scarlet Wool and Hyssop, and Sprinkled Both the Book Itself and All the People
Note: Moses, in God's stead, about to enter into a covenant with the people, read out before the people the laws of God given to him, which are recorded from chapter XX of Exodus to chapter XXIV. For these laws were the conditions of the covenant which God wished to ratify with the Hebrews: the people, by their silence accepting and consenting to these laws, entered into the covenant with God, and it was ratified by the blood of victims.
Note second: Moses sprinkled this blood of the victims partly on the altar and partly on the people; first, that it might be signified that whoever violated this covenant would, in like manner, pay the price of the violated faith of the covenant by his own blood and death — for the altar represented God. On this rite of covenants I have said more on 1 Corinthians XI, 23. Secondly, because this covenant, as I shall say on verse 20, was at the same time as it were a testament of God, and was a type of the New Testament which Christ established at the Last Supper and on the Cross. Hence this blood sprinkled on the altar represented symbolically as it were the blood and death of God the testator: for a testament and the last will of the testator are ratified by death. Again, the blood sprinkled on the people signified the blood of Christ sprinkled upon us, by whose sprinkling we are washed from all sins. For by this blood and death of His, Christ ratified His New Testament, and merited and obtained for us all the goods promised in it.
With water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop. — Moses omitted all these, as also the immolation of goats, in Exodus XXIV, because he narrates these things briefly; but the Apostle, partly by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, partly from the custom of the legal rite — which he had learned, both from holy Scripture and from actual practice, was wont to be employed in such purifications — supplied and expressed these very things. For that water was wont to be mixed with blood in the sacred sprinklings is plain from Exodus XXIX, 22. The same is plain concerning the scarlet, or scarlet wool, and the hyssop, Numbers XIX, 6 and 18.
Again, that goats were also offered together with the calves is plain, because the goat, as fittingly representing sin by its stench, is wont to be offered for sin, as is plain from Leviticus IX, 3 and 15. Therefore these goats, immolated in the Mosaic covenant and testament for the sins of the people, signified Christ to be immolated on the Cross for the sins of the whole world. By which immolation the new Testament of Christ was ratified.
Note: In the ancient lustrations of the Hebrews water was added to the blood, lest the blood should clot, but might become more liquid and capable of being sprinkled, and so suitable for sprinkling upon so great a people. Again, allegorically this water and blood of the victims were a figure and type of the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ, and consequently were a type of Baptism and the Eucharist. For water represents Baptism, blood the Eucharist.
Secondly, in the lustrations scarlet wool and hyssop were used, in order that an aspergillum might be made of them: for they are very suitable for this purpose, both because of their density and because of the retentive power they have; for they are absorbent of moisture, equally as a sponge. Again, allegorically the wool signifies the whiteness and innocence of Christ, or the flesh of Christ, of itself white, but on account of our sins scarlet — that is, reddened by the blood of His Passion. Hyssop was a type of the charity and grace of Christ; for hyssop is by its nature warm, whence it serves the mystery, and by its heat and fervor it denotes the most ardent burnings of the Holy Spirit by which the minds of the pious catch fire.
Secondly, hyssop was a type of the humility and humanity of Christ, by whom God healed our pride and other sins. For hyssop is a humble herb, and, as Dioscorides teaches, book III, chapter XXVIII, it heals swelling of the lungs, which is a symbol of pride, as Rupert noted.
And he sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. — This too Moses does not have, but Paul supplies it. The Hebrews understand by this book Genesis. But whether Genesis was at that time written by Moses is very uncertain. This is certain: that this book was not Genesis, but Exodus — that is, the laws of Moses given to the people by God, from chapter XX of Exodus to chapter XXIV, which Moses wrote down in a book, and from there read aloud to the people. For these laws were the condition of the covenant to be entered into between God and the people. All these things are plain from Exodus XXIV.
You will ask: Why did Moses sprinkle the book itself with the blood of the victims? I reply: First, in order to signify that both the laws and the covenant itself were ratified. Secondly, to signify that whoever violated these laws would pay for this violation with his own blood and death. Thirdly, to signify that the law of itself was weak for expiating sins committed against the law, and so for accomplishing this it needed the blood not so much of the victims as of Christ, whom this blood of the victims represented. For sprinkled with the blood and grace of Christ, we are not only expiated from all sins committed against the law, but are also strengthened and enkindled to keep and fulfill the whole law from then on.
Verse 20: Saying: This Is the Blood of the Testament, Which God Hath Enjoined Unto You
The Apostle quotes Exodus XXIV, 8.
You will object: There it is said: "This is the blood of berit," that is, of the covenant: therefore Paul translates badly in this place, saying "this is the blood of the testament," which is confirmed by the death of the testator; for other pacts and covenants are not confirmed by the death of those making them, just as the old covenant of God with the Hebrews, of which Moses speaks in chapter XXIV of Exodus, verse 8, was not confirmed by the death of God or of the Hebrews making the covenant: how then does Paul here so press the death of the testator as essential to the validity of this testament?
On account of this argument Erasmus and Cajetan judge this Epistle not to be canonical, but of uncertain and doubtful faith and authority. Calvin indeed judges it not to be St. Paul's; finally Beza asserts that it was written not in Hebrew but in Greek, on the ground that the Hebrew "berit" signifies nothing but "covenant," whereas the Greek "diathēkē" signifies both "testament" and "covenant"; but in this place, since it ought to be translated according to the Hebrew as "covenant," the author of this Epistle has translated it "testament."
Indeed, some Catholics think that Paul here, after the manner of rhetoricians, plays on the word "diathēkē," in such a way that, although he knew that in Exodus XXIV, 8 it signifies "pact" — since there it answers to the Hebrew "berit," that is, "pact" — yet here he takes the same word for "testament." But in this way Paul would weave a sophistical argument from the ambiguity of the word and would deceive, since he would attribute to any covenant or pact what belonged to a testament, namely that it be confirmed by the death of the testator.
By way of response, note first that the Septuagint commonly renders the Hebrew "berit" by "diathēkē," which properly signifies "testament," as our Latin Interpreter renders it; hence in the Scriptures these three — namely, the Hebrew "berit," the Greek "diathēkē," and the Latin "testamentum" — signify the same thing.
Again, these three are taken in two ways: first, generally, for any covenant, pact, and promise, as St. Jerome teaches on chapter III to the Galatians, and St. Augustine on Genesis, locution 94. Thus it is taken commonly when "new" or "old Testament" is said — that is, the new or old ordinance, disposition, or promise of God (which elsewhere is called the mercy and truth of God), the new or old pact and covenant entered upon between God and men under the condition of keeping the law of God. For this is the pact of God with men: I, God, stipulate and promise that I will be to you, O men, God and Father, and you will be to Me sons and heirs, if you keep My law. Thus "testament" is taken for "covenant" in Genesis IX, 13; Psalm LIV, 21; Psalm LXXXVIII, 4 and 29; Psalm CV, 45, and often elsewhere.
Secondly, these three are taken specifically for a testamentary covenant, or testamentary promise, which is most firm and most certain — that is, for the testament and last will, or disposition, of the testator. For this is what the Greek "diathēkē" properly signifies, and the Latin "testamentum"; the Hebrew "berit" also, although it signifies any pact, rightly signifies a testament too, or testamentary pact, which is the last and firmest, by synecdoche, by which the genus is wont to be taken for the species, especially the most perfect and noblest.
Note secondly, that both the old testament of Moses and the new testament of Christ were a testament in both significations and in both modes already mentioned. Of the new this is plain: for first, the new testament was a new covenant of God with men, entered upon through Christ; secondly, the new testament was also a properly so-called testament — that is, a testamentary and mortuary covenant — both because God willed that the promises of the New Testament concerning the remission of sins, grace and glory, or the heavenly inheritance to be given to us, should be ratified by the death of Christ the testator, in order that satisfaction be made for our sins by just expiation; and also because, in order that these things might be given to us, this was the last, supreme, most certain, and most firm will and promise of Christ, as the Apostle here sufficiently indicates.
This therefore is the new pact and testament of Christ: I, Christ, in the place and name of God the Father, promise you, O Christian, the pardon of sins, the grace and friendship of God, and finally the kingdom of heaven, under this condition: if you believe in Me, obey Me, and keep and fulfill My commandments to the end of life. This condition is expressed by Christ, Matthew XIX, 17; John XVII, 20 and 24.
Note thirdly: This was the old Mosaic pact and testament, as is sufficiently gathered from Exodus chapter XXIV, verse 8: I, God, promise to you, O Hebrews, My help, benevolence and protection; and I bequeath to you a kingdom and a peaceful and fertile inheritance in the land of Canaan, if you keep My laws, ceremonies and judicial precepts.
Whence it is plain that this old covenant and testament too was a "diathēkē" and testament in both significations and in both modes already mentioned. Of the former this is plain: it is a pact with a condition, as is plain from the formula of the pact already given. Of the latter signification and mode, it is proved because this old covenant of Moses was a typical testament, or a type of the New Testament, and the inheritance or kingdom of Canaan promised in the Old Testament was a type of the kingdom of heaven, which is promised in the New Testament. Again, the death of the victims by which the Old Testament was ratified, Exodus XXIV, was a type of the death of Christ the testator, who by His death and blood ratified the New Testament and His last will, as the Apostle here explains.
I respond therefore and say: Moses, when he said in Exodus chapter XXIV, "This is the blood of the covenant," understood what has just been said; and so the Apostle rightly interprets that Mosaic covenant here as "testament," because it was truly a testament, namely a typical one. For the whole Old Testament, and everything done in it, was a shadow and type of Christ and of the things to come in the New Testament; and so the whole scope and end of the Old Testament was to foreshadow and prefigure Christ and His New Testament: so that the whole rationale, condition, nature and institution of the Old Testament was nothing other than this — that it should be a figure and representation of Christ and the New Testament. Therefore, since the new Testament of Christ was a properly so-called testament, which was confirmed by the death of the testator, namely Christ, it follows that the Old Testament too was a type of the properly so-called New Testament, and consequently that it too was a typical testament, mortuary and properly so-called. For as a thing is in itself, such is its type in representation. Since therefore the New Testament in itself is a properly so-called testament, it follows that the Old Testament too, which was a type of the new, was, in representation or typically, a properly so-called testament.
Therefore the Old Testament was a mortuary and properly so-called testament: first, for the general reason which St. Augustine adduces, on chapter III to the Galatians, verse 17, where he says: "Every promise and covenant of God, even for granting earthly goods" — for instance the land of Canaan to the Hebrews — "can be called a testament, because what the death of the testator avails for confirming a testament, the immutability of God's promise avails for ratifying His covenants and promises."
Secondly, for the proper and special reason, namely, that this pact of God with the ancient Hebrews was, among those Hebrews, the greatest, supreme and last will of God, and was ratified by the death of victims, whom God, because He cannot die, as it were assigned to death in His stead, so that by their death He might, as testator, ratify His last will. For thus this old testament of God had a certain appearance of a properly so-called testament and last will, which is ratified by the death of the testator, when in place of God the testator there die the victims consecrated to God, by which this testament is ratified. To signify which, Moses poured part of the blood of the victims upon the altar, Exodus XXIV; for the altar here represents God. God therefore, here as it were sprinkled with His own blood, seemed thus by His own blood as it were to seal and confirm this testament. And this is what the Apostle here signifies, when he says: "Whence not even the first (Mosaic) was dedicated without blood."
Thirdly — most properly and genuinely according to the mind of the Apostle — the Old Testament was mortuary, but in a shadowy and typical way, as I had already begun to say, because the Old Testament was the shadow, type and representation of the properly so-called New Testament of Christ. Hence, just as the New Testament was ratified by the death of Christ the testator, so the Old was ratified by the slaying of the victims of God, as a typical death of God and Christ: in order that the Old Testament itself might signify that the New Testament was to be ratified by the real death of Christ. That this is the genuine mind of the Apostle is plain from verse 23, where, concluding, he says: "It is necessary therefore that the patterns of the heavenly things be cleansed with these (with the death and blood of victims), but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices (namely, with the death and blood of Christ) than these" — as if to say: the Old Testament, because it was a type of the new and heavenly Testament by which souls are expiated from sins, was therefore ratified with typical victims, namely with the death and blood of animals; but the new Testament of Christ, being solid, sublime and heavenly, and one which expiates and purges the souls themselves from sins, could be ratified by nothing less than the most noble blood and death of Christ. And this is what he said in verse 12, "that Christ entered once into the holies, not by the blood of goats or of calves, but by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." Again, that "the blood of goats and the ashes of a heifer sanctifies the flesh, but the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience from dead works." For this cleansing and remission of sins is a certain principal good, which Christ bequeathed to us by His testament, and sealed and delivered by His death and blood.
Finally, that this is the Apostle's meaning is plain from the fact that he, throughout this whole chapter and indeed throughout the whole Epistle, presses and explains that the things done in the Old Testament were shadows and types of Christ and of the things which are in the New Testament: therefore much more must he have pressed that the Old Testament itself, and its institution and sanction, was a type of the properly so-called New Testament, and consequently must have shown that the Old Testament too was, typically and representatively, a properly so-called testament.
And this is the reason why the Septuagint, in Exodus chapter XXIV, verse 8, and elsewhere, render the Hebrew "berit" not as "covenant" or "pact," but as "diathēkē," that is, "testament" — in order, namely, to suggest that this Mosaic covenant was a typical and figurative testament of the new Testament, which Christ the testator sealed with His death.
For this same reason we are accustomed commonly to call the new and old instrument not a new or old covenant or pact, but a "testament." The Greeks do the same; nay, even the Syriac in the Syriac text of Holy Scripture has kept the Greek word "diathēkē," that is, "testament." For it has "diiatiki": for among the Jews and Syrians, after the empires of Alexander and the other Greeks, the Greek language was so used and worn that many words passed from Greek into Syriac — such as "agoresa," Matthew XXVII, 8; "bouleutēs" as "buleuti," Mark XV, 43. So "Evangelium," "kephalaion," "namusa" from "nomos" (that is, law), and many others were carried over from Greek to Syriac. The same is plain from Philo, Josephus and St. Justin Martyr, who, although they were Hebrews, were yet most expert in Greek, and cite Scripture not in Hebrew but in the Greek of the Seventy interpreters, as being then most current and most renowned.
Matthaeus Galenus adds that Paul wrote here in Syriac "diiatiki," by which word the Septuagint render and translate the Hebrew "berit," Exodus XXIV, 8. For he himself thinks that the Syriac text which is extant in the Royal Bibles is the autograph of Paul. But this does not seem probable to me, for the reasons which I gave at the beginning of this Epistle.
Fourthly, another explanation and reason — why, for what Moses has, "this is the blood of the covenant," Exodus XXIV, Paul translated, "This is the blood of the testament," and so why Paul calls and interprets the old covenant a mortuary and properly so-called testament — is given here by Francisco Ribera: Because, he says, the Old Testament, though explicitly it promised to the Jews earthly goods, yet implicitly under them it promised heavenly goods and a heavenly inheritance; insofar as not only the New, but also the Old Testament was ratified by the death of Christ the testator: for heavenly goods fell to no Saint of the Old Testament except after and through the death of Christ, which the blood of the victims poured out in the institution of the Old Testament, Exodus XXIV, was figuring. For just as in that old Testament, by the promised land to the sons of Abraham, the heavenly inheritance was being promised, so by the blood of the victims the blood of Christ was being promised, through whom that inheritance was to be given. But in this sense Christ would be the mediator and testator of the Old Testament — yet the Apostle asserts that Christ is the mediator only of the New Testament. Again, the Apostle here teaches that only the New Testament was ratified by the death and blood of Christ, while the Old was ratified by the death of victims, as being earthly, imperfect, weak, and explicitly promising and granting only temporal goods; therefore he sufficiently implies that the Old Testament was not ratified by the death of Christ. For throughout this Epistle he constantly contrasts and prefers the New Testament to the Old, and teaches that the latter was annulled and excluded by the former. Yet tacitly the Apostle hints at this sense and reason, when he says that Christ died "for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former Testament, that they may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Where he sufficiently implies that not only the sons of the New Testament, but also the fathers of the Old Testament, were called to the eternal inheritance and that it was promised to them, but in such a way that it was to be given and shown forth not through Moses, but through Christ — not through the Old, but through the New Testament. And by this reckoning Christ was explicitly mediator and testator of the New, but implicitly also of the Old, as Lactantius teaches, book IV, chapter XX. This fourth exposition therefore the Apostle implicitly insinuates; but because he hands down and presses the third not only implicitly but also explicitly, the third one already given seems most of all genuine and according to the mind of the Apostle, as I have said.
Which He hath enjoined. — That is, which He ordained, disposed, and, as it is in Hebrew, "karat," that is, God covenanted with you. For thus the Hebrews call every ordinance and disposition of God a "commandment" and "precept" of God; as when David says, 2 Samuel XVI, verse 10: "The Lord hath commanded him (Shimei) to curse David" — commanded, that is, ordained and resolved to permit Shimei to vomit his venom and cursing upon me, and He disposes and ordains it for the punishment of me and of my sins. Thus God says to Elijah, 1 Kings XVII, 4: "I have commanded the ravens to feed thee" — I have commanded, that is, I have ordained, and by My ordinance I will bring it about that the ravens feed thee. Again, more properly, "which He hath enjoined," that is, of which covenant God commands and orders the conditions and laws to be kept by you, O Hebrews.
Verse 21: The Tabernacle Also and All the Vessels of the Ministry He Sprinkled in Like Manner with Blood
This too Moses again omitted, but Paul supplies it, and that this was so done is taught by Josephus, book III of the Antiquities, IX.
Note: The sprinkling was made not at that time when God entered into the covenant with the Hebrews — for at that time the tabernacle had not yet been built — but later, after the tabernacle had been made, erected and dedicated. Secondly, by "ministry" he here understands the sacred service by which they ministered to God in victims and oblations; for this is what the Greek "leitourgia" signifies. Thirdly, by this sprinkling of blood the tabernacle was expiated and as it were consecrated, so that it might be signified that the Church, which is the true tabernacle of God, was to be expiated, sanctified and as it were consecrated by the blood of Christ.
Verse 22: And Without Shedding of Blood There Is No Remission
Moses had commanded, Leviticus IV, that if anyone had sinned, he should immolate a victim for the sin: and if he did so, "the Lord," he says, "will be propitious to him" — that is, God will not inflict upon him the penalty of his life which He would otherwise have inflicted. Thus, then, through the blood of the victims there was made remission, not of fault and guilt before God, but a legal remission, removing legal fault and uncleanness, and the temporal penalty. For as to fault and the penalty of the other life, this was not removed by sacrifice or the prayer of the priest — since not even in the New Testament is fault removed by sacrifice, but by the Sacrament of Penance. Fault therefore was of old removed by the contrition of those who had sinned, joined with faith and hope in Christ to come, and to die for sins: the sign and protestation of which faith and contrition was the sacrifice which sinners offered for themselves. But on this matter I shall say more on chapter X, verse 4.
Verse 23: It Is Necessary Therefore That the Patterns of the Heavenly Be Cleansed with These, but the Heavenly Things Themselves with Better Sacrifices than These
By "patterns of the heavenly things" the Apostle understands the Mosaic tabernacle and testament, and the people themselves — that is, the Jews — and all the things that were in the tabernacle and testament. This is plain from the inferential word "therefore," as if to say: I have said that the Old Testament and tabernacle were expiated and dedicated with the blood of victims, and that the old law prescribes that all things be expiated with blood, and that without blood no remission takes place: therefore from this prescript of the old law it was necessary that all things which were in the Old Testament, as types and patterns of heavenly things, should be cleansed with such victims of beasts and with blood.
But it is doubtful what the Apostle understands by "heavenly things." St. Thomas, Lyranus and Ribera understand heaven itself. For thus the Apostle seems to expound it in the following verse, when he says: "Jesus is not entered into the holies made with hands, the patterns of the true, but into heaven itself." If you object: Heaven needs no cleansing — but the Apostle here asserts that the heavenly things are cleansed with better sacrifices, therefore by "heavenly things" he does not understand heaven itself — they reply that, although heaven in itself is most pure, so that it has no need of expiation, yet metaphorically heaven is said to be polluted through sins, because our sins, when they ascend into heaven through penance, by their fame, as it were by a foul odor, in some manner contaminate and pollute heaven itself; and consequently, when the sins themselves are expiated, heaven itself, polluted as I have said by sins, is said to be expiated. For thus the Mosaic tabernacle was said to be polluted by the sins of the Jews, and to be expiated and cleansed by them with the blood of goats offered for sin. For by sins injury was done both to God and to the tabernacle itself, in which God dwelt: just as the Church is polluted when she is contaminated by human blood or seed, or by some other sin committed in the Church.
But this seems sufficiently harsh, far-fetched and forced. For no one speaks thus, and nowhere else in the Scriptures is heaven itself, the place of the Blessed — being most pure — said to be expiated or cleansed. Secondly, this exposition is foreign to the mind and phrasing of the Apostle, as will soon appear.
I say therefore that by "heavenly things" is understood the Church, that is, the faithful and sons of Christ, of whom the Church — that is, the congregation of the faithful — is fashioned and arises. The Church is called "heavenly," or "heavenly things," because the Church of Christ is as it were a heavenly tabernacle, having a heavenly victim, namely the body of Christ, a heavenly doctrine, and finally a people of heavenly and angelic life, to which heaven itself is promised, set forth, and prepared as their dwelling and eternal reward. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Œcumenius, Primasius, Anselm, Haymo and Vasquez, who explain thus: "heavenly things" are our consciences, whose cleansing pertains not to the old, but to the heavenly temple — namely, to heaven itself. That this is the mind of St. Paul is proved first, because he plainly says the same thing here, and that in the same words, both Greek and Latin, as what he said in chapter VIII, 5, where he says: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things"; but there by "heavenly things" he understood the Church of Christ, as is plain and as all confess: therefore here too.
Secondly, because, concluding this discourse in the following chapter, verse 1, he says thus: "For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things" — where he calls "shadow" what here he calls "pattern," and the "good things to come" and "the image of the things" he calls what here he calls "heavenly things." But there by "good things to come" and "image of the things" he understands the remission of sins, and the other gifts and graces conferred upon the Church by Christ, as he himself explains in what follows: therefore here too by "heavenly things" he understands not those which are in heaven, but those which are in the Church.
Thirdly, because throughout all these chapters the Apostle opposes, compares and prefers Christ to Moses, the Gospel to the Law, the tabernacle to the Church — not to heaven — as if to say: From what has been said about the lustration of the old tabernacle and testament by the blood of victims, and of the new tabernacle and testament by the blood of Christ, it is plain that it was necessary that those things which belong to the old tabernacle and testament, as "patterns" — Greek "hypodeigmata," that is, certain obscure pictures (as I said on chapter VIII, verse 5) of heavenly things, that is, of the things and the faithful of the Church — should be cleansed by the blood of victims; but the heavenly things themselves, that is, the faithful and the things of the Church, should be cleansed by better sacrifices — namely, by the blood and sacrifice of Christ, both as performed on the Cross and as Eucharistic, which is daily performed and repeated in the Church: for these mysteries of the Eucharist, daily repeated, as they are called many Sacraments and sacrifices, so they are called not one, but many sacrificial victims, as Ribera noted.
Verse 24: For Jesus Is Not Entered into the Holies Made with Hands, the Patterns of the True, but into Heaven Itself, That He May Appear Now in the Presence of God for Us
Note: Here the Apostle does not call "patterns" the old tabernacle and testament themselves, and the things that were in them, as he called them in the preceding verse; but here he limits and confines "patterns" to the Holy of Holies; and he says that Jesus did not enter into the old and typical Holy of Holies, as the Aaronic pontiffs did, but into heaven itself, which was foreshadowed by that old Holy of Holies.
Note secondly: That ancient Holy of Holies the Apostle calls "patterns" — in Greek "antitypa" — of "the true," namely of the heavenly things, or of the empyrean heaven itself, which is the dwelling-place of the Blessed: for this is the truest Holy of Holies, of which the old Mosaic Holy of Holies was the antitype, because the latter was modeled on the former, that it might refer to and represent it, as I said on chapter VIII, verse 3.
Note thirdly, that these things may be connected with the preceding verse, for this clause gives the reason why in the preceding verse he called the Church "heavenly" or "heavenly things" — as if to say: I called the Church "heavenly things" for this reason, that Christ, having entered into heaven, has unlocked it for the Church, that is, for His faithful, and there as our pontiff He ever appears before the face of God for us, that He may obtain for us grace, virtues, glory and all heavenly goods. For this is what the Apostle repeatedly presses in these chapters, namely, that Christ — or our Messiah, the pontiff — ought not to have remained here on earth and to have always exercised His pontificate in the temple of Solomon, as the Jews thought and hoped; but, our redemption having been accomplished here on the Cross, He had to enter and unlock heaven, that there, sitting at the right hand of God, He might intercede for us and prepare a place for us in heaven. For this is what He said in chapter VIII, verse 1: "Such, he says, we have a pontiff, who is set on the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord hath fixed, and not man," — which He explains more clearly in what follows. Again, He said the same in this chapter, verse 12, when He said: "Christ entered by His own blood once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption." And in the last verse: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time He will appear without sin to those who await Him, unto salvation." Again, in chapter X, verse 12: "He, offering one sacrifice for sins, sits forever at the right hand of God." And concluding in verse 19, He says thus: "Therefore, brethren, having confidence to enter into the Holies (that is, heaven) by the blood of Christ, by a new and living way which He has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and a great Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart," etc.
That He may appear now in the presence of God for us. — "That," namely, as St. Cyprian says in his sermon On the Baptism of Christ, the wounds always reserved in the body of Christ may demand the price of human salvation, and require the gift of obedience. Secondly, "that He may appear," that is, by appearing may pray and intercede for us. For it is a catachresis.
Verse 25: Nor Yet That He Should Offer Himself Often, as the High Priest Enters into the Holies Every Year with the Blood of Others
There is here a threefold comparison and antithesis of Christ with the Aaronic high priests. First, the Aaronic priests entered into the Holy of Holies, but Christ entered into heaven. Now, lest the Hebrews think that Christ entered heaven for this reason, that He might there again and more often offer and sacrifice Himself to the Father, and so equate Christ with the Aaronic priests who often immolated their victims, the Apostle adds a second antithesis: The Aaronic priests, he says, repeated the offering yearly, because it was weak and insufficient; but Christ, offering Himself only once, abolished all sins, both of past and of future ages, and found eternal redemption for us all. Third, the Aaronic priests entered the Holies in — that is, with — blood not their own, namely of goats and calves: but Christ entered into heaven by His own blood.
Verse 26: For Then He Ought to Have Suffered Often from the Beginning of the World; but Now Once at the End of Ages He Has Appeared for the Destruction of Sin by the Sacrifice of Himself
He proves that Christ did not often offer and immolate Himself, but found eternal redemption for us by a single offering: because since sins can only be expiated by the blood of Christ the Redeemer, if His one death and shedding of blood did not suffice to expiate all the sins of all ages, but only expiated the sins of His own age, then Christ would have had to suffer often — namely in every age, so as to abolish the sins of each age by His death and blood: but this is absurd.
You will object: Apocalypse XIII, 8, Christ is said to be "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Aretas, Ticonius and others on that passage answer that the phrase "from the foundation of the world" refers not to "the Lamb" but to "whose names are not written in the book of life," as if to say: From the foundation of the world — indeed, from eternity — the names of those who will worship the beast are not written in the book of life, but in the book of death; that is, they are reprobate and to be damned.
More simply and plainly, however, you should refer these words to "the Lamb": Christ is therefore called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that is, from of old, from the beginning and before all things which were created in the world and with the world, because from eternity Christ was slain — that is, decreed, foreknown and predestined to be slain. For Christ's death was decreed from eternity, and proposed to men of all ages, so that by believing in it, hoping in it, and by it asking for the remission of sins, they might obtain the same. With a similar expression the Apostle says that God has given us — that is, decreed to give and predestined — His grace before the worldly times, 2 Timothy I, 9, and Titus I, 2. See Canon 36.
But now once in the consummation of the ages. — Some read, "into the consummation of the ages," and by "consummation" they understand perfection, as if to say: Christ died that He might expiate and perfect all ages by His blood. But the Greek "synteleia" throughout the Scriptures signifies not perfection, but consummation and end.
You will ask, how is Christ said to have suffered in the consummation, that is, the end of the ages, since 1600 years have already flowed since His passion, and many more will flow until the end of the world?
Chrysostom and Theophylact answer that the "consummation of the ages" is called that time of the world in which sins had thoroughly grown strong and reached as it were the summit, which was the time of Christ. Hence Gregory of Nyssa, in his sermon On the Nativity of Christ, teaches that Christ imitated the most excellent physician, who does not aid a feverish person while the fever is still growing and being kindled, but when it has exerted its whole force, vomited up all that it has, and reached its summit: for then it begins to subside and abate as its powers are exhausted: so also Christ, as the most skilled physician of souls, awaited the opportune time, so as not to apply His hand to our disease before all the sickness of malice should reveal and exert itself, lest He should leave any hidden and uncured poison of evil. But in this sense, the Apostle would rather have said that Christ appeared in the consummation not of the ages, but of sins.
Secondly, Ribera limits these ages, and understands not just any ages, but those preordained by God the Father for the incarnation of Christ, as if to say: When the times and ages which the Father had prefixed for Christ's nativity and passion were completed, then Christ was born and suffered. Hence this consummation of the ages the Apostle calls in Galatians IV, 4, the fullness of time: for in this, he says, Christ came. But because the Apostle does not limit these ages, hence thirdly, you may more plainly take them generally — namely so, that all ages, or the whole age, are divided into the age which was before the deluge; secondly, into the age which was from the deluge to Abraham; thirdly, into the age which was from Abraham to Moses; fourthly, into the age which was from Moses to David; fifthly, into the age which was from David to the Babylonian captivity; sixthly, into the age which was from the captivity to Christ. Or more briefly and forcefully, the first age is the age before the deluge; the second age is after the deluge while the law of nature still endured; the third age is that of the Mosaic law and of the Jews; the fourth and last is that of Christ. So Œcumenius, who divides the whole time from Adam to the end of the world into first, middle and last, and says the first is the age of the law of nature, the middle is the age of the Mosaic law, and the last is the age of the Evangelical law. For God willed that these ages should precede Christ, that the weakness both of the law of nature and of the Mosaic law might be shown; and so men might pant after Christ and the Evangelical law. With respect to these therefore, Christ's age is the last and the consummation of all preceding ages: because no other age will succeed Christ's age, until the judgment, but it will endure until the blessed age of eternity and immortality. Thus the Apostle in 1 Corinthians X, 11, calls this consummation of the ages "the ends of the ages"; St. John, in his first epistle, chapter II, 18, calls it "the last hour" — hour, that is, time, or age. And in this sense the Prophets call the time of Christ the last, because this is the last state of the world, the last age. So Isaiah calls it, chapter II, verse 2; Micah, chapter IV, 1, and others often.
For the destitution of sin. — Some here read "for the destruction of sin." But better the Roman Bibles and others everywhere read "destitution." For in Greek it is "eis athetēsin," that is, for the rejection, reprobation and overthrow (as Vatablus translates) of sin; namely, that sin may be deserted, rejected, reprobated and overthrown by all. Aptly therefore our Translator renders it "destitution": for "athetō" is opposed to "tithenai," which means to place, to set up; therefore it is the same as to put down, to desert. Anselm explains "destituere" so that it is the same as to set down. "Christ," he says, "offered Himself to set sin down below, that it might not be above us, but beneath us." This exposition is true, but does not capture the proper meaning of the Greek word. The Syriac translates "danbatteleha," that is, that He might shake, weaken and abolish sin; for "batal" means to so shake and weaken a man that he can scarcely move any limb.
By His own sacrifice He appeared — not on earth: for there before His sacrifice was offered on the cross, He was born and lived and appeared for thirty-three years; but in heaven after His death and ascension He appeared to God the Father, offering His blood, just as the high priest entering the Holy of Holies appeared before God seated on the propitiatory, with the blood of goats and calves. For He looks back to what He said in verse 24, namely that Christ entered into heaven, that He may appear before the face of God for us. This is the purpose: namely, that by His merits and prayers, which He offers and represents, He may obtain grace by which God may desert and overthrow sin from the human race, and by which men, prevented and inflamed by this grace of God and by such great charity of Christ suffering and dying for them, may of their own accord desert, repel and overthrow sin.
Verse 27: And as It Is Appointed for Men to Die Once, and After This the Judgment
(Supply: there remains): so also Christ, etc. — He removes from the Hebrews the scruple and scandal of the cross; for they were saying: If this is the Christ and our Messiah, how did He die and was crucified? The Apostle answers that this is the common law of nature, that all men are subject to death; therefore it is not strange if Christ died, since He willed, having become man with us and for us, to undergo this law.
Note: The "as" requires a comparison, as if to say: As all men tend toward death, toward judgment: so also Christ went to death, and will come to judgment, not to be judged as other men, but to judge them, and to save and bless His faithful who await Him.
Note secondly the "it is appointed," namely by the fixed, immovable and indispensable decree of God. For, as Ecclesiasticus chapter XIV, verse 12 says: "The covenant of this world is, by death he shall die." So to each of the patriarchs, who lived 900 years, it is added: "And he died," Genesis chapter V. Apelles painted, says Pliny, Alexander the Great holding a thunderbolt in his hand, as one who most swiftly penetrated by his empire from sunrise to sunset, but again most swiftly disappeared: namely, as Juvenal sings of him,
"One world is not enough for the youth of Pella,
He will be content with a sarcophagus. Death alone confesses
How small are the little bodies of men."
Peter Alphonsus relates that when Alexander was dead, many philosophers came together, and one of them said: "Yesterday the vastness of the whole earth did not suffice for Alexander; now a space of three or four cubits suffices for him." Another said: "Yesterday Alexander could free many from death; today he cannot free himself." Another, when he saw his golden coffin: "Yesterday Alexander made a treasure from gold; today gold has made a treasure from him." Another: "Yesterday Alexander oppressed the earth; today he is oppressed by the earth." What then is man? A plaything of fortune, an image of inconstancy, a mirror of corruption, a spoil of time, a passing traveler, a slave of death, a sport of the world. Whoever therefore you are who are mortal and about to die, learn to die.
Verse 28: So Also Christ Was Offered Once to Exhaust the Sins of Many; the Second Time He Shall Appear Without Sin to Those That Expect Him, Unto Salvation
"Of many," that is, of all men; who are many, says Theophylact. Secondly, for "to exhaust" the Greek is "anenegkein," which means to offer, to bear and to suffer, as if to say: Christ took upon Himself and bore the sins of men, when He offered Himself as it were as a victim for sin, and as it were laden with the sins of men, to the Father on the cross. So Chrysostom and Theodoret. Hence the Syriac translates, "and in Himself debach," that is, He immolated or sacrificed the sin of many, namely so that by sacrificing it He utterly removed and abolished it. Again, "anenegkein" means to lift up, and consequently to exhaust: as water from a well, when it is lifted up, is exhausted; or as a cup of wine, when it is lifted up to the mouth and drunk, is exhausted: so Christ lifted to His mouth, drank and exhausted the cup of suffering and of the punishments owed by us, and so consumed and abolished all guilt. This signification our Translator followed when he rendered "to be exhausted." Learn here, Christian, that through Christ's grace your sins are not to be scraped off, not cut off, not plucked away; but plainly to be drained out, rooted out and extirpated.
The second time He will appear without sin to those who await Him, unto salvation. — "Without sin," that is, with sin abolished. Secondly and better, "without sin," that is, not to offer Himself again as a victim for sin, so that it is a metonymy, by which "sin" is the same as "a victim for sin." And this aptly agrees with the preceding words, in which He said that Christ was offered to exhaust the sins of many — in Greek "anenegkein," that is, to bear, to atone for and to expiate, as a victim for sin, as Chrysostom and Theodoret have explained. "At the judgment," says Anselm, "Christ will appear not as a sacrifice, but as justice in rewarding — namely, in punishing and damning the infidels and wicked; and in rewarding, saving and glorifying the faithful and good." Therefore, O Hebrews, believe in Christ dead and crucified, constantly persist in the faith of Christ, and endure all hardships for it, because soon Christ will come to judgment, that He may bring destruction to your enemies, but eternal salvation to you and to all who await Him.