THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS

(C) Copyright 1995 William G. Most

Authorship:It is one thing to see that the Council of Trent (DS 
1503) declared this Letter is inspired or canonical; another thing 
to say it is by St. Paul.

In the first centuries there were doubts about the authorship. The 
churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Cappadocia considered it 
Pauline, but there were doubts in the Latin church. The Muratorian 
Canon, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus and Gaius of Rome did not 
consider it Pauline; Eusebius says it is clearly by Paul. A bit 
later Ambrosiaster did not include Hebrews among the Pauline 
Epistles on which he wrote commentaries.

St Jerome and St. Augustine seem to have swayed opinion in the west 
to considering it was by Paul. Augustine said he was influenced by 
the prestige of the Eastern churches. After the 6th Synod of 
Carthage in 419, it became usual in the west to consider it by 
Paul.

Many today would favor the view of Origen, who notes that the Greek 
is more literary than is usual for Paul, and that the style and 
composition differs from Paul's though the teaching is Paul's. We 
know at least often Paul dictated his Letters. For certain he would 
have had to do that with 2 Timothy, if we consider it his, for then 
Paul was in prison with no facilities for writing. But Popes and 
Presidents and other important people have often, in our time and 
before, used others to write documents for them, after telling them 
what content they want. Then they would go over it, perhaps make 
changes, and sign it. The names of Jude, Luke, Silvanus (Silas), 
Barnabas, and Apollo have been suggested as actual writers.

Recipients: If it was originally intended for Hebrew Christians, it 
should have been written before the fall of Jerusalem, especially 
since the writer speaks of the Temple ritual as still in effect -- 
though later rabbinic writings also do make rules as if the temple 
were at hand. It also presupposes that the first readers were 
familiar with the temple and its rituals.

In view of the fact that 13. 24 says those in Italy send greetings, 
it may have been written in Rome.

Genre of writing:It is very important to note that the literary 
genre, the pattern of writing, of this Letter is homiletic, that 
is, preaching style. In that style, many speakers will allow 
themselves some freedom, exaggeration, and lack of exactness. The 
Letter itself gives an indication, since it calls itself "a word of 
exhortation (in 13. 22). Also, it makes considerable use of a 
device common in Greek and Roman rhetoric called synkrisis, that is 
placing one person along side of another in order to praise the 
first one. So Jesus is compared to Moses and to angels. Also, when 
the Letter says that Jesus was tempted or tried in all things as we 
are, we should not conclude He had various diseases, nor that He 
was ignorant of many things. The Second General Council of 
Constantinople (DS 424) in 553 condemned "wicked Theodore of 
Mopsuestia" for "insanely" saying Jesus had disorderly emotions. 
The Church has repeatedly taught that Jesus was not ignorant in His 
human mind: DS 3812, 3905, 3924, and AAS 58 (1966) 659-60. And in 
5:8 we read that Jesus "learned obedience from the things He 
suffered." Of course this cannot mean He had been disobedient 
before. We will explain this line in the course of our comments 
below.

Also the way the Epistle comments on Melchizedek as being without 
father or mother or end of days, is homiletic freedom. And the 
comments on Esau in chapter 12 lean heavily on some loose rabbinic 
writings. These things are of course permissible in the homiletic 
genre, would not be likely to be used otherwise. We will notice 
these and other features in the course of our comments.

Summary: 1. 1-4


In many ways, in many places, God in the past spoke to the Fathers 
by the prophets. But in the end of ages, He spoke to us by His Son, 
whom He made the heir of all things. Through Him the Father created 
the ages. This Son shows us the glory, Father's glory: He is as it 
were the impression, as if from a seal, of the Father's nature. He 
is the bearer of authority, through His powerful word. Now that He 
has made purification for sins, He has taken His seat at the right 
hand of the Majesty on

high. He is as much greater than the angels, as He has inherited a 
nature higher than theirs.

Comments on 1:1-4

Ancient literary writers commonly used an elaborate and beautifully 
worded introduction to their works, in a loftiness of language they 
did not sustain, or intend to sustain throughout the whole of their 
work. Our author here does the same. the words "in many ways, in 
many places" stand for adverbs in the Greek, polymeros and 
polytropos, for which English has no precise equivalent. But the 
sense is a contrast between the old and the new regimes. 

Formerly the Father did speak to our race through the prophets. 
They gave us some information about the Father, without ever 
clearly telling us the Father had a Son. But they foretold the 
Messiah would come when at last a ruler had failed from the tribe 
of Judah (cf. Gen 49. 10), that He would appear at Bethlehem, would 
be born of a virgin, would, though Himself divine, have the 
fullness of the Holy Spirit, would suffer and die for the 
purification of all, and would rise after being slain.

But now, in the new age, the new regime, He has spoken no longer 
through the images the prophets gave us as in an imperfect mirror 
in a dark manner. In Isaiah 55. 9 God said His ways are as far 
above ours as the heavens are above the earth. How then could we 
know Him? (cf. 1 Cor 13:12). But now He has spoken through His own 
Son. Hence the message is now immeasurably greater and clearer.

This does not mean that inasmuch as the Son fully reveals the 
Father, there is nothing more to learn. Some foolish catechists 
have argued that since the Son fully reveals the Father, there is 
no need of doctrinal formulations! No, the Son comes as a Person, 
who only gradually, in His public life, revealed His true nature 
and character. Had He said on the first day of His public life the 
sort of things He said later, e.g.,"I and the Father are one", or 
"before Moses was I AM" - the Jews would have stoned Him at once. 
So He revealed Himself only gradually. Further although the 
substance of the revelation He brings is now complete, so that 
after the death of the last Apostle and the completion of the New 
Testament, there is no more public revelation to be expected until 
He returns at the end, yet, thanks to the Holy Spirit, whom He 
promised to send, His Church is led gradually to an ever deepening 
understanding and penetration of that original deposit of 
revelation. Thus, for example, the Immaculate Conception was not 
seen clearly until many centuries after His ascension; the 
Sacrament of Penance, given the first day after His Resurrection, 
in John 20, can be traced clearly only from the middle of the 
second century, although it was around earlier. (We know it was at 
hand before, since when we do get the first fully clear mention of 
it, there was no storm or strife, which would have been the case 
had it been invented at that time).

This Son is called the heir of all: for a Son as son does have a 
right to inherit. And this Son is more than any ordinary Son. He, 
as John 1 said, is the one through whom the Father made the ages. 
We know (DS 800) that all the works done by the Three Divine 
Persons outside the divine nature are common work to all three. Yet 
we suitably attribute certain things to one rather than to the 
others. Even the ages, time, is His creation. For in the Father 
there is no time, since there is no change. Time is a unceasing 
succession of future moments, changing to present moments, changing 
to past moments. But as one grows older and approaches the goal, 
these changes come faster and faster, as if anticipating passage 
into the realm in which there is longer any such change to come.

Colossians 1:15-20 beautifully expresses the same truth of the 
greatness of the Son, saying that He is the firstborn of all 
creation, the image of the invisible God, that is, the one through 
whom we can get to know what the Father is like ("He who sees me, 
sees the Father: 1 John 14:9). Here Hebrews says He like a gleaming 
mirror, that reflects the glory of the Father, and is as it were 
the impression in wax made by the seal, the Father: the impression 
is complete and perfectly faithful. So through this impression, the 
Son, we can perfectly know even the invisible Father.

In the OT Wisdom is finally personified, as in Proverbs 8. 22-31. 
In St. Paul, the Messiah is called the wisdom of the Father (1 Cor 
1. 24). In the OT book of Wisdom 7. 25-26 wisdom is called "the 
breath of God's power, a pure emanation (aporroia:"outflowing" ) of 
the glory of the All-powerful, a reflection (apaugasma) of eternal 
light, the spotless mirror of the divine working (energeia) of God, 
and the image of His goodness". It is easy to see the echo of these 
words in Hebrews 1. 2-3. (In passing, sophia, wisdom, is 
grammatically feminine in Greek, as is also Hebrew hochmah. But to 
anyone with even a slight knowledge of the languages, these are 
purely artificial grammatical genders, and have nothing whatever to 
do with sex or gender. Further, Christ is the wisdom of the Father, 
and He is not feminine).

This Son is before all things in rank (cf. Col 1. 15-20), and in 
time (though he is not as God in time), He is above every 
imaginable spirit power, whether thrones, dominations, 
principalities and powers (these seem to be terms used by the 
opponents of St. Paul against whom he writes in Colossians).

As will be explained later, He was sent to make, and has made the 
full and complete purification for sins, and now that that is 
accomplished once for all, He has taken His seat at the right hand 
of the Divine Majesty, the Father. (Majesty is one of several words 
used by the Hebrews to avoid saying the ineffable word, Yahweh). 
Even though angels are around that throne, this Son has inherited -
for Sons do inherit from parents -- a name greater than theirs. In 
Hebrew ways of speech, the name was often practically identified 
with the person or nature.

So this introduction gives us the first of the multiple contrasts 
we will see in the course of this letter: The Son is greater than 
the angels (1:5 to 2:18), is greater than Moses ( 3:1 to 4:16), is 
the only perfect High Priest, offering the only perfect Sacrifice ( 
5:1 to 10:39) in a new covenant greater than the old covenant. 
After these contrasts, the author will speak of faith, first that 
of those who waited through ages for the coming of the Son, and 
then the faith we should have, upon whom the fullness of ages has 
come (1 Cor 10. 11), who have been privileged to know that Son.

Summary of 1. 5 to 1. 14: Superior to angels

The Father never said to any one of the angels: "You are my

Son. Today I have begotten you." Rather, when He led His first born 
Son into the world, the Father said: "Let all the angels of God 
prostrate themselves before him". In speaking of the angels He 
said: "He makes winds his messengers, and his ministers, flames of 
fire. :" But to His Son: "Your throne, O God, is forever". The 
staff of righteousness is the staff of His kingdom. You loved all 
that is right and hated iniquity. So God, your God, anointed you 
with the oil of joy, more than all others around you." And again, 
the Father said to Him: "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the 
foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your 
hands. They indeed will perish, but you endure. They will grow old, 
and like a robe, you will roll them up, and they will be changed. 
But you are the same, your years will not end."

The Father never told one of the angels: "Sit at my right hand 
until I make your enemies your footstool". For the angels are all 
ministering spirits who are sent to serve those who are to attain 
eternal salvation.

Comments on 1. 4-14.

Hebrews here uses seven OT texts, most of them from the Psalms.

The first text,"You are my son, today I have begotten you," is from 
Psalm 2. 7. Angels could be called, in a group, sons of God 
(elohim) but never was an individual angel called a son of God as 
the Messiah was. This Messiah was eagerly prayed for in the century 
just before his coming, in the Psalms of Solomon. 21-26, In that 
same Psalm 2, in verse 9 the son is said to be going to rule the 
nations with an iron rod. That same expression,"iron rod" marks the 
child of Apocalypse/Revelation 12. 5 as the Messiah, and so His 
Mother must be Our Lady, even though the mother in Apoc 12 is said 
to have birth pains, which Our Lady did not. The reason seems to be 
a telescoping of images in Apoc 12 - common enough in Hebrew 
writing, in which an individual stands for and even embodies a 
group. Hence St. Pius X (ASS 36. 458-59; cf. John Paul II, Mother 
of the Redeemer #24) wrote: "No one of us does not know that that 
woman signifies the Virgin Mary... . John saw [her] already 
enjoying eternal happiness, and yet laboring from some hidden 
birth. With what birth? Surely ours, we who, being yet detained in 
exile, are still to be brought forth to ... eternal happiness."

Interestingly, the first Christian community of Jerusalem, after 
Peter and John were released by the Sanhedrin, spoke (Acts 4. 25-
27) these lines to refer to the Messiah as well as to the leaders 
of the Church:"Why do then nations rage?" And they added that in 
that very city Herod, Pilate and the people of Israel had raged 
against Jesus.

The word today, have I begotten you most likely refers to the never 
beginning, never ending day of eternity, the day on which the

Father eternally begets His eternal Son.

The second text; "I will be his Father and he shall be my son" 
comes from 2 Samuel 7:14. There David had considered building a 
house, a temple for the Lord. But the Lord told him through Nathan 
that He, the Lord, would build a house, a dynasty for David. He 
said that if the son was wicked-- which could not refer, of course 
to the messiah, but did refer most fully to so many later kings-- 
God would correct him, with the rod of men, but God said he would 
not take his hesed His faithfulness to the king's appointment as 
son of David, as He had taken it from Saul - whose dynasty was 
rejected after he sinned twice against God's commands.

Still more interestingly, Nathan said God would raise up a 
descendant for David,"after you have slept with your fathers." But, 
as St. Augustine keenly observed (City of God 17. 8) an indication 
was given that the son thus foretold was not Solomon, but a future 
son. For Solomon began to reign before the death of David, not 
after it. This promise was recalled in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q 
174, Florilegium), and is celebrated in the words of the Archangel 
to the Virgin Mary: "He will reign over the house of Jacob 
forever".

We can see, God's plans without effort span the centuries. A 
thousand years with Him is as one day, and one day as a thousand 
years: 2 Peter 3. 8.

Our third OT quotation said that when He brought His first born 
into the world He said: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." 
The text resembles somewhat Psalm 97. 7. Very interestingly in the 
intertestamental work, Life of Adam and Eve 12-17 (in: J. H. 
Charlesworth, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Doubleday, 
1985. The work dates from 100 BC to 200 AD, p. 262) we read that 
satan told Adam that God had ordered him and the other angels to 
worship Adam, as the image of God. Some refused, and fell and 
became devils. However, that story refers to the first Adam, not to 
the second, Christ. And that Life does not speak of a Messiah.

The fourth quotation is clearly from Psalm 104. 4. In regard to 
angels He says:" He makes His messengers [angels] winds [as fast as 
winds], and He makes His ministers flames of fire." Hebrews here 
seems to be following the understanding shown by the Septuagint of 
this line. The Hebrew text of the OT would seem to turn things 
around: "He makes winds His messengers, flames of fire He makes His 
ministers."

The Hebrew for wind is ruach , which can mean either the spirit, of 
God, or the wind, as in Genesis 1, where the spirit moved over the 
primeval waters. Now of course here Hebrews does not mean to 
compare the angels to the Spirit of God as a Divine Person, but may 
have in mind the spirit that moved over the waters.

The fifth quote is from Psalm 45. Commentators often say this as a 
song to celebrate a royal wedding. However, the Targum takes it to 
refer to the Messiah, e. g, in verse 2:"You, O KIng Messiah, are 
fairer than the children of men."

Hebrews quotes, as referring to the Son, the Messiah: "Your throne 
, O God, is ever and ever. A rod of righteousness is the rod of 
your reign. You have loved what is right, and hated evil, therefore 
God your God has anointed you with the oil of rejoicing." The word 
used for God in the Hebrew text is elohim, which could have been 
used merely for angels, or even human judges, but from the context 
here the author of Hebrews clearly intends the divine sense.

The rod of his reign brings to mind Psalm 2. 9, part of which was 
cited at the start of this chapter (let us recall the comments 
given there), which says the Messiah will rule the nations with an 
iron rod .

Samson Levey (The Messiah:An Aramaic Interpretation, Hebrew Union 
College, 1974) said that the word for king, melech, in verses 2, 6, 
12, 15 and 16, is understood as God. Quite an insight for a major 
Jew!

Hebrews continues, in v 10, with the sixth quotation, taken from 
Psalm 102. 25-27: "You, O Lord, in the beginning did found the 
earth, and the skies are the works of your hands. They will perish, 
but you will go on. All will grow old as a garment that wears 
out... but you are [ever] the same, and your years will not fail 
[run out].

The Psalmist is moved by the brevity of his life, or any human 
life, and contrasts this with the unending years of God. Really, 
God has no years: all is present to Him. We say, not wrongly, that 
He made the world -- a past statement. Yet to His eye, that is 
present. Similarly we say: Christ will return at the end - a future 
statement - but again, that is simply present to His eye.

We often wonder how it is that time picks up speed, that a year 
which in childhood seemed almost unending, seems little now. Could 
the reason be that we are approaching entry into a different kind 
of duration, called in Latin aevum (there is no English equivalent) 
in which the restless movement from future to present to past 
ceases. There will be no end, yet in a sense all is present to the 
soul. St. Augustine says well (City of God 10. 7) that those in 
heaven "participate" [a Platonic framework of thought] in the 
eternity of God, the duration in which all is present, no past, no 
future. The souls there have a future only in the sense that it 
will never end. And they have had a past. But their status with God 
is like His. He told Moses His name was "I AM", indicating He 
simply IS. The blessed simply ARE unspeakably filled with all the 
happiness their finite soul can take in of the bliss of God 
Himself.

Finally the last quote of this beautiful chapter is from Psalm 110, 
where the Father says to the Son: "Sit at my right hand, until I 
make your enemies your footstool." The NT generally took this Psalm 
as messianic: cf. Mk 12. 35-37 in which Jesus Himself used the 
opening words,"The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand... ." 
He then asked: How could David call Him Lord if He was David's son? 
The reason was that that Son, the Messiah, was and is divine, God 
Himself.

The chapter rounds off with the words: Are not all, the angels, 
administering spirits, sent to minister to those who will receive 
the inheritance of salvation? -- The word inheritance is 
significant: Sons as such have a claim to inherit. By grace we are 
adopted by God as His sons. So if we reach the house of our Father, 
we reach it not by earning it, but as an inheritance; not because 
we are or have been good enough to earn it - impossible -but 
because He is good, and wished to give it to us. We on our part 
must refrain from earning to lose it, as Romans 6:23 tells us: "The 
wages of sin [what we earn] is death; the free gift of God [what we 
do not earn] is eternal life."


Chapter 2: Obey this Son and His Higher Salvation

Summary 2. 1-9

This Son is so much higher than the angels, and the salvation He 
brought is so much more perfect than that which came through 
angels, hence, since the old law was strongly binding, all the more 
must we avoid slipping away from that which the Son brought us, 
given to us with such guarantees, first being told us by that Son, 
and confirmed with God as witness through various mighty works, as 
He willed.

It was not to angels that God made the world to come subject; His 
Son Himself did not take on an angel's nature, but a human nature 
in respect to which He was made a little less than the angels. Yet 
the Father has made all things without exception subject to this 
Son who even suffered death for us all.

It was fitting that the One for whom all things exist, through whom 
all are to be led to salvation, should be made perfect through 
suffering and so become the leader to salvation through suffering. 
He, the Son, who sanctifies, and those whom He sanctifies, are all 
from the one race. Hence He is not ashamed to call them brothers. 
In becoming like us even in suffering that conquered the devil and 
made true atonement for sins, He delivered those who all their life 
long were in the servitude of fear of death. For He did not take 
hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham. Hence He needed to be 
like His brothers in all things, to become a faithful high priest, 
to make atonement for the sins of His people. For in that He 
Himself suffered and was tried, He is able to help those who are 
being tried.

Comments 2. 1-9

This is a passage both simple and yet loaded with rich thought. The 
basic idea is that He who brought our salvation is so much higher 
and brought so much higher a salvation than that which the angels 
had brought became one of us, and suffered, so as to be a high 
priest able to know how to help us. All the more we must take care 
not to drift away from that salvation.

But now it is good to take a bit of time to put together into a 
sort of synthesis the chief points of Hebrews on this matter, to 
make it easier to follow individual things as they will come up 
later on.

Temporal salvation though the law was given through angels. There 
was even a rabbinic tradition that the angels were almost mediators 
of the old law. An echo of this appears in Galatians 3. 19, which 
spoke of a law "ordered through angels by the hand of a mediator," 
Moses. Josephus (Antiquities 15. 5. 136) spoke of the law as coming 
through angels. That law was strictly binding. Those who violated 
it "with a high hand" were "cut off from the people": Numbers 14. 
30. Deuteronomy 27. 26 pronounced: "Cursed is everyone who does not 
keep all the things written in the book of the Law". (Hence St. 
Paul even boldly says that Christ "became a curse for us" (Gal 3. 
13) by deliberately coming under the curse (Dt. 21. 23) so that in 
His overcoming the curse we too might overcome it. Atonement in 
that ancient regime was only for things not done with a high hand 
(Numbers 15. 30), but for sins of ignorance, sheggagah, of which 
Leviticus 4 speaks. Yet God's Holiness, which is His love of all 
that is right, insisted on reparation of the moral order when it 
was violated even in ignorance.

Hence Hebrews concludes: If that ancient law , even though given 
only through angels, had such force and power, what shall we say of 
the salvation given us through the Son? We must be careful not to 
"flow away" to even gradually depart from it.

The salvation He brought was first testified to by the Son Himself, 
and then through other witnesses, and mighty works. The mighty 
works were not only miracles- they were such- but also signs, that 
pointed further to the full meaning.

Hebrews does not at this point make clear the sense in which that 
word salvation is used. Since the genre of Hebrews is homiletic, we 
cannot and should not expect a systematic presentation of the full 
range of the idea. But we in the light of later and full revelation 
- to borrow an expression used by Vatican II (Lumen gentium #55) in 
speaking of the Church's higher understanding now of Genesis 3. 15 
and Isaiah 7. 14 - can fill in what a homiletic presentation could 
not be expected to give. It will help us to understand many things 
that lie further ahead in this Epistle if we take time at this 
point to make a more systematic picture than what the homiletic 
presentation of our Epistle gives.

At first sight, there seems to be a contradiction. 1)On the one 
hand, Hebrews 9. 28 and 10. 14 will say that the death of Jesus 
made atonement and sanctified us once for all. That one sacrifice 
made us perfect. 2) Yet on the other hand, we read in this chapter 
than we must take care not to drift away. The warning is given even 
more strongly in 3. 12 and 4. 1. In fact, in 10. 26 we read that 
now there is no further sacrifice for sin.

How solve the contradiction? First, we know there can be no 
contradiction, for the Holy Spirit is the chief Author of all of 
this Epistle and of all of Scripture. So we must find a way to make 
sense of all passages together.

But the solution to the seeming contradiction is simple: there must 
be two phases as it were. In the first, Jesus earns, and makes 
available final salvation. In the second, we need to avoid making 
ourselves unable, by repeated sin, to receive what He has earned. 
(This involves the syn Christo theme of St. Paul, of which we will 
speak later. Further, in our comments on 13. 10 we will see that 
there is still, in the second phrase, an altar of sacrifice, even 
though Jesus has made atonement once for all).

In the first phase, then, Jesus paid, once for all, the debt of 
sin. That concept, that sin is a debt, which the Holiness of God 
wants repaid -- that concept of debt runs all over the Old 
Testament, Intertestamental Literature, the New Testament, the 
Rabbis and the Fathers: Cf. Wm. Most The Thought of St. Paul, pp. 
289-301. As for that payment, Jesus had made it once for all, 
infinitely.

The Mass, in the second phase, is indeed a sacrifice since it 
contains the two elements of a sacrifice: outward sign, and 
interior dispositions (from Isaiah 29. 13 we easily see that the 
two elements are needed, for God there complained that they honored 
Him with their lips -- outward sign - but that their hearts - 
interior dispositions - were far from Him). The outward sign on 
Holy Thursday was the seeming separation of body and blood, 
standing for death; on Friday the outward sign was the physical 
separation of body and blood. In the Mass the outward sign goes 
back to that of Holy Thursday. But the interior disposition in all 
of these is simply obedience, with which He entered into this world 
(10. 7) and which He continued through all His life on earth, and 
which disposition He still retains now in the glory of heaven - for 
death makes permanent the attitude of heart with which one leaves 
this world. So it is not His interior disposition that is repeated 
or multiplied, but the outward sign is multiplied in the Mass.

The admonition of Hebrews shows the force of the warnings about the 
second phase, of not sinning further. If we do, we, as it were 
logically call on Him to die all over again. If the penalties for 
violating the ancient law, given only through angels, were so 
strong and severe, we must not expect to be able to sin "with a 
high hand" now, and get away with it.

But suppose someone does sin? Later in this Epistle we will read 
that there is no hope if one falls away. Yet the Church has 
understood from the beginning that she has the divinely given 
authority to forgive sins. Some of the earliest texts, such as 
those from the Shepherd by Hermas, seem to say we can get 
forgiveness only once if we sin again. But patrologists in general 
see that sort of saying as a psychological move to deter souls from 
sinning freely. Baptism is even spoken of as "the seal", by which 
God marks us as His property. One should never break the seal by 
sinning again. Yet, Jesus told Peter he must forgive seventy times 
seven times, that is, without limit. God Himself, having received 
the infinite price of redemption, which pays for all grace, cannot 
refuse to give that which His Son has so dearly and painfully 
earned: cf. Rom 8. 32.

What then do we say of the severe warning given in 10. 26 that if 
one falls away, there is no hope of pardon? This refers to those 
who sin not only gravely but so repeatedly that they become hard or 
blind. Then God may indeed be willing to give forgiveness, but the 
blind soul is incapable of taking it in. The great case of this is 
the passage in which Jesus, speaking of the sin against the Holy 
Spirit (of attributing His casting out of the devil to the devil) 
says this sin will never be forgiven, neither in this life, nor in 
the life to come. Even there, the words of Jesus did not mean God 
was unwilling to forgive. In fact, on His very first appearance to 
the Apostles after His death and resurrection, as if He was eager 
to give out what He had so dearly paid for, He told them (John 20. 
23): "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven then." He did 
not say except... . . - for, as we said, the price of redemption 
was infinite, so that after accepting it, the Father can deny 
nothing that that infinite price has earned: Romans 8. 32 -only 
that the sinners of whom He spoke had made themselves so fully hard 
and blind that even though God would send grace, they were closed, 
impervious to it. But again, the sense is that such souls may 
become so very hard that even though God on His part would still be 
willing to forgive - having accepted the infinite price of 
Redemption, He is always willing-- the soul has made itself 
incapable of receiving, for its blindness keeps it from perceiving 
the first movement of a grace that might lead to repentance.

How can it happen that a soul becomes unable to take in the 
forgiveness God is willing to give? The first thing an actual grace 
needs to do is to put not the mind the thing God wants to lead a 
soul to do. But if it has allowed the pulls of creatures to pull it 
so far and so tightly that the gentle movement of grace is drowned 
out, as it were, then that soul cannot be forgiven.

A comparison will help to clarify. We think of a galvanometer, that 
is, a compass needle on its pivot. We put a coil of wire around it, 
and send in a current. Then the needle dips the right direction and 
the right amount, measuring the current. It will do that correctly 
if there are no outside pulls, such as 33, 000 volt power lines or 
a mass of magnetic steel. Then two forces strike the needle: the 
outside pulls, and the current in the coil. Now that current in the 
coil stands for grace, in our mental meter. Grace is always gentle, 
in that it respects our freedom; the outside pulls, if one lets 
self be strongly caught or hooked by them, take away freedom. They 
drown out the pull of the current, grace, in the coil. Then the 
soul cannot register what God is trying to tell it: repent, be 
sorry. If grace cannot do the first thing, it cannot do the second 
and third either. So that soul is deprived of grace. Without grace, 
it is lost. Hence the stern words of 10. 26 saying it is impossible 
to be restored again.

(Even in the case of a hardened sinner, there is an extraordinary 
grace, comparable to a miracle, that could get through even such 
resistance. But God cannot make the extraordinary to be ordinary. 
It is only if some other soul - cf. Col 1. 24 -- puts into the one 
pan of the two-pan scales, as it were, an extraordinary weight by 
prayer and penance, then it will be quite in order for God to 
depart from the ordinary way, and to give an extraordinary movement 
of grace. So that soul could be rescued).

The error of Martin Luther is clearly nonsense, it supposes that 
after all these warnings of Hebrews, after the warning that it is 
virtually impossible to be restored if one once having received 
grace should fall away -- it is impossible to suppose that once 
Jesus has earned salvation, we may now sin as much as we want so 
that,"no sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit 
fornication and murder a thousand times a day" (Luther, Works, 
American Edition, Epistle to Melanchthon of Aug 1, 1521: Vol 48. p. 
282). If that were true, what would happen to the Holiness of God, 
the characteristic in virtue of which He loves all that is right, 
hates all evil, and acts accordingly, e.g., in Ezekiel 28. 22: 
"They shall know that I am the Lord when I inflict punishments on 
them, and I shall show myself holy in her [niqdashti]." Or in 
Isaiah 5. 15-16: "God, the Holy One, will show himself holy 
[niqdesh] by moral rightness [sedaqah]." How could a soul befouled 
with fornication and murder a thousand times a day be at once 
joined in eternal embrace to Him who is as Malachi 3. 2 says,"like 
a refiner's fire? Who can stand when He appears?" The just soul, 
says St. Paul (1 Cor 3. 16 and 6. 19) is a temple of the Holy 
Spirit. Would that Holiness dwell in such filth? Or why would St. 
Paul himself be hard on his body, fearing, as the context shows, he 
might lose, not just some added prize, but his eternal salvation if 
he did not tame that rebellious flesh? In 1 Cor 9. 27 he [in the 
literal version] says: "I beat my body under the eyes, and lead it 
around like a slave, so that after preaching to others, I may not 
be rejected" at the judgment.

(Actually, even the above does not show the depth of the error of 
Luther. In what he himself considered his best work, The Bondage of 
the Will, [trans. James I. Packer and O. R. Johnson, F. H. Revell 
Co. , Old Tappan, N. J. 1957] Luther insisted, on p. 273, that we 
have no free will, that our will is like a beast on which either 
God or satan will ride, so that the soul does good or evil and goes 
to heaven or hell, but has nothing to say about which one rides 
[pp. 103-04]. So that though God damns the great majority [p. 101] 
yet those damned are "undeserving" of being damned [. 314] To say 
that is blasphemy, that is, insulting to the Goodness and Holiness 
of God).

We move ahead after our prospective summary picture: We meet a 
remarkable expression in verse 6: "Someone has testified 
somewhere." Actually it was in Psalm 8. Did not the writer of 
Hebrews know it was Psalm 8 he was quoting?. He hardly would not 
have known it, the Psalms were so familiar to all Jews. But they 
did not have our handy system of chapter and verse. And also, it 
may reflect an attitude that as long as it is Scripture, it makes 
no difference from what part it comes. Still further, the author of 
Hebrews was not thinking in the Protestant mode whereby Jesus 
should have said to the Apostles: "Write some books - get copies 
made - pass them out tell people to figure them out for 
themselves." What errant nonsense! The Church depend on its own 
ongoing teaching, as Jesus Himself had done.


Verse 5 had introduced an interesting thought. God did not entrust 
the world-to come to angels, but only to the Son, of whom Hebrews 
has been speaking.

The world to come would be the Hebrew ha olam ha ba, that is the 
world that comes after this world. the future life. But as to the 
present world, God administers things through angels. It is 
interesting to notice the way the Septuagint renders Deuteronomy 
32. 8: "When the Most High distributed the nations, when He 
dispersed the sons of Adam, He set boundaries for the nations, 
according to the number of the angels of God."St. Thomas, in his On 
Separate Substances 79 says that angels are the "universal 
executors of divine providence."

It may be that there may be an echo of this idea in Daniel 10. 20-
21 which speaks of the "prince of Greece"and the prince of Persia. 
The great prince who speaks to Daniel is to fight against the 
prince of Persia. (In 12. 1 we hear that Michael is the great 
prince, who is the guardian of Israel). We must remember that the 
passage in Daniel is heavily apocalyptic, and so it is hard to 
determine what the sober content is. We could, if we wished, 
suppose with the Septuagint of Dt 32. 8 that God did assign 
different angels to different regions, that after some of them 
fell, they still retained some power - cf. St. Paul in Eph 6. 12 
speaking of the world-rulers of this darkness" and also the many 
mentions of spiritual powers in Colossians, which at one time were 
mistakenly understood to mean nine choirs of angels- -b ut if we 
watch the cont ext in

Colossians, we see, especially at Col 2. 15, that they are really 
evil spirit powers -- again, Paul is using the terms of his 
opponents in Colossians to combat them, and so we need to take 
these names as his own thought.

To leave these speculations behind, it does seem, with St. Thomas, 
that God uses angels to administer things in the present world. But 
Hebrews say that will not be the case in the world to come: there 
all is in the power of the Son.

To return to verse 7: That son was indeed "made a little lower than 
the angels", and suffered death. But at the end, the Father will 
subject all things to Him, who is then crowned with glory, all His 
enemies being made His footstool (cf. 1 Cor 15. 27-28, which even 
uses part of this passage of Psalm 8; and also Psalm 110. 1: "Until 
I make your enemies your footstool". All creation (cf. Romans 8. 19 
-25) will be made clearly subject to Him. But before that 
exaltation, He was made lower, and was "Son of Man". |That 
expression was sos often used by Jesus of Himself- it was, on the 
one hand, part of His gradual self-revelation; on the other hand, 
it would serve as a means of alluding to Daniel 7. 9-14 where one 
like a Son of Man is presented to the Ancient of Days, and receives 
everlasting dominion -surely it is Jesus, who identified Himself as 
son of Man so often, and not the Jewish nation as a whole, which 
never did receive universal, everlasting dominion.

He was indeed made lower for a time, for He emptied Himself (Phil. 
2. 7) and became obedient even to death on the cross. He followed 
the will of the Father in not using His divine power for His own 
comfort-- and so He "tasted death for all", suffering terribly - 
but after His resurrection that phase is all over. Then He 
announced (Mt 28. 18-20) to the Apostles: "All power has been given 
to me in heaven and on earth". As God He always has the power. He 
had it always even as man, but would not exercise it as man until 
the moment set by the Father when, as Romans 1. 4 says, He was 
"constituted Son-of-God-in-power."

Summary 2. 10-18

It was really suitable that God, for whom all things exist and 
through whom all things are, should make perfect through suffering 
the one who leads all to their salvation. For the Son who 
sanctifies and those who are sanctified come from the same human 
race. So He is not ashamed to call them brothers in saying:"I will 
declare your name to my brothers, and in the midst of the 
congregation I will sing your praises." And similarly the Son said: 
"I will place my trust in Him, the Father, and the Son adds: "Here 
I am, I and the children God has given me."

Since then the children of God have flesh and blood, the Son too 
partook of the same flesh and blood, so that through death He might 
bring to nothing the enemy who held the power of death, the devil, 
and might deliver those who were subject to lifelong bondage in 
fear of death. He took on not an angelic nature, but human nature, 
that of the children of Abraham. And so it was right that He become 
like His brothers in all respects, so as to be a merciful and 
faithful high priest for their responsibilities to God, so as to 
make atonement for their sins.

Since He Himself endured trial and suffering, He is fit to help 
those who endure trial.

Comments 2. 10-18

The words "it was fitting" do not mean that things had to be that 
way, merely that it was suitable in God's love of good order, of 
all that is right. Just as the Holiness of God --cf. our comments 
above on His Holiness -- loves all that is morally right, so too He 
loves all things in proper arrangement and order. This idea is 
expressed well by St. Thomas in I. 19. 5. c. We need to paraphrase 
(because of the clumsy Latin): In His love of all that is in right 
order, God is pleased to have one thing in place to serve as the 
reason or title for giving a second thing - even though that reason 
does not really move Him. (He cannot be moved).

(This principle helps explain why God wills the Mass, to provide a 
title or reason for giving out that which was once-for all fully 
earned, bought and paid for, by Jesus' death. It helps explain why 
it pleased Him also to involve the cooperation of the New Eve, Our 
Lady, in fulling the condition of the New Covenant, obedience (cf. 
Rom 5. 19 and Lumen gentium ## 56 and 61) -- similarly her 
obedience joins in the interior of His sacrifice, and in the 
rebalance of the objective order, giving obedience for 
disobedience. She was there by decree of Divine Providence (LG ## 
58 & 61) as the New Eve. And it helps to explain why the Father 
willed her cooperation also in the giving out of the fruits of the 
Great Sacrifice, (in the subjective redemption), and even joined 
ordinary Saints to the same process of giving out).

(Pope Paul VI, in his Constitution on Indulgences of Jan 1, 1967, 
explained the need of this rebalance of the scales, of the 
restoration of all the values of the objective order, damaged by 
sin. The essential work of rebalance of course is the once-for-all 
sacrifice of Jesus; yet in virtue of the syn Christo theme and 
principle of which we spoke in comments on 2. 1-9, His members are 
called upon to be like Him in this rebalancing for their own sins).


It is specially remarkable that Hebrews speaks of making the Son 
perfect. Was and is He not perfect precisely as the Son who is God 
also? Of course. Was there something lacking to His human nature? 
Of course not, it was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in 
the spotless womb of the Virgin Mary.

We begin by noting that the expression make perfect comes from the 
word the Septuagint uses (teleioo) in speaking of consecrating a 
High priest. We turn then to the Hebrew of the same passages, and 
we find that in Exodus 29. 9 and 29 where the Septuagint has 
teleioo, the Hebrew (mala' yad) literally means "fill the hand". -- 
The probable origin of the expression is to fill the hand of the 
priest with gifts to offer to God, as part of the ritual of 
ordination (cf. 1 Kings 13. 33, where however the Greek renders the 
Hebrew literally,"fill the hand"). Hebrews uses the same word 
teleioo in speaking of Jesus being made perfect also in 5. 9 and 7. 
28. It uses the word for the followers being sanctified in 7. 19 
and in 9. 9; 10. 1 and 14. To explain: Hebrew has a series of 
contrasts of Jesus and the old regime. The old regime had priests 
who could not make their people perfect (7. 19 and 9. 9). The old 
sacrifices gave merely legal purity for cultic purposes, and could 
remit sheggagah, involuntary sins. But they did not forgive sins 
committed be yad ramah, with a high hand: Numbers 15. 30: "Anyone 
who sins with a high hand... insults the Lord, and shall be cut off 
from among his people."

(Sheggagah means involuntary sin, a violation of the law of God 
committed when the doer does not realizing he is violating. Later 
when he finds out, he is obliged to offer a sacrifice to make up: 
cf. Leviticus chapter 4. The reason: The Holiness of God loves all 
that is good and right. A violation even one done in good faith is 
still objectively a violation, a disturbing of the scales of the 
objective order. Hence God wants it rebalanced. Cf. the case of 
Pharaoh who in good faith had the wife of Abraham. Genesis 12. 17 
says God struck Pharaoh and his household with severe plagues 
because of this. Jesus Himself in Lk 12. 47-48 said that the 
servant who violated orders knowingly would get a severe beating, 
but,"the servant who did not know his master's wishes, but did 
things [objectively] deserving blows, will get off with fewer 
stripes."

This theme sheggagah is abundant in OT, NT, Intertestamental 
Literature, Rabbinic literature As we said, it depends on the 
infinite Holiness of God. Cf. Simeon ben Eleazar, in Tosefta, 
Kiddushin, 1. 14: "'He [anyone] has committed a transgression. Woe 
to him. He has tipped the scales to the side of debt for himself 
and for the world."The sinner takes from one pan of the scale what 
he has no right to have. The Holiness of God wants it rebalanced. A 
creature could rectify only a finite imbalance. But the imbalance 
of even one mortal sin is infinite, so IF the Father willed perfect 
rebalance, only by sending a Divine Person to become man could it 
be done. Cf. also Paul VI, doctrinal introduction to Indulgentiarum 
doctrina of Jan 1, 1967. (Imagine then the attitude of God to 
someone who says it is all right, if one has faith, to commit 
fornication and murder a thousand times a day!) Cf. Wm. Most The 
Thought of St. Paul, pp. 80-82 and 294-300. The great Day of Yom 
Kippur could atone only for sheggagah, not for sins done be yad 
ramah, voluntarily: cf. Hebrews 9. 7. Rich Jews at the time of 
Christ used to have a sacrifice offered in the Temple every day, 
just in case they might have committed some violation without 
realizing even - even though they had not yet become aware of such 
[Leviticus required a sacrifice only when later on they actually 
became aware of having done such a thing]: cf. A. Buchler, Studies 
in Sin and Atonement, KTAV, 1967, p. 425.

In contrast, the priesthood of Jesus and His sacrifice really did 
make atonement for all sins.

In the old sacrifices, a person was required to be qadosh, holy, 
fit for cult. In that of Jesus, a person must also be qadosh, , but 
now it is not merely cultic fittingness but moral fittingness that 
is required. The sacrifice of Jesus does confer moral fitness. 

Verse 10 says that "It was fitting for Him through whom all things 
are, for whom all things are... to make perfect (teleiosai) Him who 
was the leader of [His people] to salvation, through suffering. For 
in His suffering, Jesus became both the priest and the victim of 
the perfect sacrifice. Hence suffering was called for.

We can fill in a bit. The redemption has three aspects: 1)sacrifice 
2) new covenant 3) payment of debt or rebalance of objective order.

In sacrifice, the essential is the interior without which all would 
be vain: cf. Isaiah 29. 13. That interior was obedience, in Jesus, 
obedience even to death on the cross: Phil 2. 8-9. That obedience 
involved suffering by the will of the Father. Actually, infinite 
atonement could have been had from any action of the God-man, yet 
by positive will of the Father, which He obeyed, He went so far as 
the painful suffering of death on the cross. And so He was made 
perfect or consecrated (for Greek teleioo does reproduce the idea 
of Hebrew mala' yad, to consecrate), by this suffering. In that He 
became the perfect High Priest. In the act of sanctifying, as the 
new propitiatory (Romans 3. 25) He won all forgiveness for all, not 
just a passing over (cf Rom 3. 25) of sins without a full atonement 
being made in the objective order.

This was the blood of the new covenant (Jer 31. 31-33), without 
which blood (Heb 9. 22) there is no remission, it was the sacrifice 
which could really remit sins, not just pass them over (Rom 3. 24-
25).

Further, sin is a debt, which the Holiness of God wants repaid (cf. 
Wm. Most, The Thought of St. Paul, pp. 289-301). He wanted the debt 
repaid even in the case of involuntary sheggagah, in Leviticus 4. 
But the repayment then was not full and there was no repayment for 
sins done be yad ramah. But the suffering of Jesus more than 
outbalanced the guilty pleasures of all sinners of all times.

The one who sanctifies (Heb. 2. 11), and those sanctified are all 
of the same race, human. Hence it counts for all. Cf. 2 Cor 5. 14: 
"since one died, all have died" , and most fully paid the debt. 
Hence He calls us His brothers: "I will announce your name to my 
brothers." Since the brothers all had flesh and blood, so He too, 
their leader to salvation, also had flesh and blood. Thus He 
overcame the curse (Gal. 3. 13, by becoming "a curse" for us, and 
by death He destroyed the rule of him who had the power of death, 
the devil. He delivered those who had been subject to the fear of 
death throughout all their lives - not just fear of physical death, 
but even eternal death.

He did not take on an angelic nature, but the nature of the seed of 
Abraham. And so it was fitting that He be like His brothers, and 
become a merciful and faithful High Priest before God for them, 
making propitiation for their sins. In that He too suffered, He can 
understand in an experiential way (and not just through the 
knowledge He had thorough the vision of God) what it is like to 
suffer, and so can help those who are tried. (Cf. also comments on 
5. 8 below).

Chapter 3. Summary

So, holy brothers, sharers in the heavenly calling, think of the 
divine envoy and high priest whom we confess, Jesus, who is 
faithful to Him who made Him, just as Moses was faithful in all 
God's house. Jesus was worthy of greater glory than Moses, just as 
the maker of a house has more glory than the house. For some 
creature makes a house, but it is God who created all things.

Moses indeed was faithful in all God's house as a servant, 
testifying to the things he was to say. But Christ is like the Son, 
in His own house -- we are that household, if only we keep our 
courage and hope of glory, which we hold onto as a firm foundation.

Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today if you hear His voice, 
do not harden your hearts, as they, the ancient Jews, did in the 
rebellion, in tempting God, as on the day of tempting in the 
desert." Your forefathers tried Me, and saw ny works. Hence I was 
angry with this generation and said: They are always going astray 
in their heart. They did not know my ways, and so I swore to them 
in my anger: "They will not enter into my rest."

Watch out brothers, so that there may not be in any of you a heart 
of faithlessness, so as to depart from the living God, but 
encourage one another each day, as long as it is still called 
"Today", so no one of you may be hardened in the deception of sin. 
For we are sharers of Christ, if only we hold to the firmness with 
which we began, even to the end.

For it is said: "Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your 
hearts, as they did in that tempting". Who were those who had heard 
and in spite of that were rebellious? Most of those who

left Egypt with Moses leading. With which ones was He angry for 
forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies were 
laid low in the desert? Which ones did He swear would never enter 
into His rest, if not those who were disobedient? We see it was 
because of lack of faith that they could not enter.

So, let us be afraid that, now while the offer of entering into 
that rest is still available, some might be judged to have failed. 
For that good promise came to them as it did to us. But that good 
news was of no benefit to them since it did not meet with faith in 
those who heard.

For we who have faith (i.e., if we have faith) enter that rest, as 
He said: "As I swore in my anger: They shall never enter into my 
rest."

And yet, His works were finished since the beginning of the world 
as He said in a certain passage about the seventh day: "And God 
rested on the seventh day from all His works. On the same subject, 
the Psalm says: "They shall not enter into my rest."

Since then there is still an opening for some to enter into this 
rest, while those who failed in former times failed because of 
disobedience, He sets a particular day again, saying,"Today" when 
he says in a Psalm of David, after so long a lapse of time, "If 
only you would listen to His voice Today. So do not harden your 
hearts. If Joshua, the successor of Moses had really given them 
rest, God would not have spoken of still another day after that. So 
then a sabbath rest is still open for the people of God. One who 
has entered God's rest has rested in his turn from his own works, 
as God did from His.

Comments on 3. 1-19

The writer calls them members of a holy brotherhood. For Jesus is 
the Son of God, but we are made His brothers - we recall 2. 13 
where Jesus calls us His brothers. We have a heavenly calling - 
that is a calling to be full members of the People of God. St. Paul 
commonly uses that word call in this sense.

We are members of the household of God. This is another Pauline 
thought, as we see it in Ephesians 2. 19: "You are no longer 
strangers and aliens, but citizens of the holy ones, members of the 
household of God." Although this Epistle is addressed to the 
Hebrews, it applies not only to the descendants of Abraham - for 
mere carnal descent from Abraham is not enough, as we saw in Romans 
4 - but to all those who have been made into one body in Christ 
(cf. Eph 3. 6), who broke down the wall of separation and made the 
two one (Eph 2. 14-16).

The author calls Jesus both apostle (one who is sent) and high 
priest. He was sent by the Father; He is appointed high priest - 
which will be developed more fully in 4. 14 - 6. 20.

In the Old Testament, only Moses seems to have had both roles, as 
envoy and as priest. But Moses was unique. In Numbers 12. 7-8, when 
Aaron and Miriam claimed they were sent by God as well as Moses, 
God called them before the Tent of Meeting, and proclaimed that 
with an ordinary prophet, He revealed Himself in visions and 
dreams: "But not so to my servant Moses, who is faithful in all of 
my house. I speak to him face to face, clearly , not in riddles. He 
sees the form of God."There is of course a bit of Semitic 
exaggeration here even it be words of God, for although Exodus 33. 
11 says also that God used to speak to Moses "face to face", yet 
that is clarified in 33. 18-22. For when Moses asks to really see 
God's face, God places Moses in the hollow of the rock, and covers 
Moses with His hand, so Moses might see only God's back, not His 
face.

In Dt 18. 18 God said that He would later raise up a prophet like 
Moses. The NT readily understood this to refer to Jesus. priests 
and levites asked John the Baptist (Jn. 1. 19-26 if he, John, was 
the prophet who was to come. In Acts 3, 22 Peter quotes this line 
of Dt, and says it refers to Jesus.

As we just noted, Exodus tells us that Moses did want to see the 
face of God, and was refused. But Jesus, far greater than Moses, 
always saw the face of God. For the Church has taught repeatedly- 
in spite of determined denials by unfaithful persons- that from the 
first instant of conception, Jesus' human mind saw the vision of 
God (cf. Wm. Most, The Consciousness of Christ, especially Chapter 
7).

Even without the help of the Church we can sees that His human soul 
not only happened to have that vision, but could not have lacked 
it. For just any soul will have that vision if its power to know is 
raised by grace, and if the divinity joins itself directly to the 
mind/soul without even an image in between. This had to be the case 
in Jesus, for not just His human mind, but His entire humanity was 
joined to the divinity even in the unity of one Person!

It is tragic that so many deny this truth today, for in doing so 
they miss a major part of His suffering for us. By that vision He 
knew from the first instant everything He was to suffer. That would 
wear on Him all through His life. He could not, as we could, say: 
Perhaps it will not come, perhaps it will not be so bad. No, that 
vision was infallible, and mercilessly clear on all the hideous 
details of pain. He let us look inside Himself, as it were, in Luke 
12. 50 and in John 12. 27.

We might add that Matthew's Gospel in various ways seems to intend 
to think of Jesus as that new Moses, especially in His exodus from 
Egypt, and in His giving the law: "You have heard it was said to 
them of old, but I say... ."

It is not only that Christ was faithful in all His house, but He 
Himself, as divine was the maker of that house, and thus far 
superior to Moses. For Christ is the maker of the house, He is the 
Son.

The Epistle continues saying that we are his house, provided that 
we hold on to our confidence and hope. If we suppose, as is most 
likely, that this Epistle was rather early, we may see in these 
words an exhortation to hold on-- they may have had the notion that 
the return of Christ was to be very soon. The Thessalonians, as we 
gather from St. Paul's Epistles to them, certainly had such a 
notion. Did Paul himself also think so?The reason advanced for 
saying that are not convincing. Chiefly commentators point to the 
words,"we the living" which come twice in 1 Thes 4. But there is no 
need to suppose Paul had a mistake here. Such language is only the 
sort of thing many teacher uses, speaking of first singular or 
plural, to make things concrete and vivid. Further, the Second 
Epistle to Thessalonica makes entirely clear that the author did 
not think the end was close. Of course, then those commentators who 
want to say Paul was in error will say Paul could not have written 
Second Thessalonians - what a weak reed on which to pin their 
belief, the mere possibility that "we the living" might imply such 
a thought. In contrast, the external witnesses saying Paul wrote 2 
Thes are as strong as they are for First Thessalonians.

Some of our greatest manuscripts add the words "firm until the 
end:" after speaking of our hope. In spite of such evidence, in 
spite of the fact that the words fit the situation, some say the 
words were added from the end of 3. 14. Not impossible, but neither 
is there any solid reason for thinking the words do not also belong 
here in 3. 6.

The passage 3. 7-19 points out that since it was so serious to 
reject the first Moses, how much more serious it is to reject 
Christ, the new and far greater Moses. Language and imagery are 
taken from the Exodus here.

The words of the Holy Spirit here are from Psalm 95. 8-1. |The 
Psalm, and Hebrews urge them not to harden their hearts as they did 
more than once in the desert wanderings. Special mention however is 
made of Meribah ("rebellion") and Massah ("testing" of God). The 
incident was the murmuring of the Hebrews in Exodus 17. 1-7. There 
the people had said: "Is the Lord in our midst ot not?" They had 
already seen the power of the Lord i miracles more than once, yet 
they still did not have faith. It reminds us of the call by the 
Pharisees to Christ for a sign - when they had already seen so very 
many. In this incident Moses is told to strike the rock with the 
rod which he had used in miracles before. The water did come out at 
once. There is a very similar incident- for the Israelites murmured 
so many times-- reported in Numbers 20. 1-13. Then Moses was told 
merely to speak to the rock, but instead he struck it, struck 
twice. It seems his faith weakened. At any rate, in Numbers 20, 12 
the Lord told Moses and Aaron that since they did not honor him by 
faith at that point, they would not be allowed to lead the 
community into the promised land. Therefore Aaron died soon after. 
Numbers 20. 27-28 tells how Moses, at command of God, took off the 
priestly garments from Aaron, and put them on his son Eleazar. 
Aaron himself then died. Moses later died, as narrated in 
Deuteronomy 34, on Mt. Nebo, form which he could see the promised 
land, but was not allowed to enter it.

The second incident seems to have taken place in the last year of 
their wanderings, the first, sometime earlier. The location of this 
first incident is said to be at Rephidim, and it seems to be close 
to Mt. Horeb-- which seems to be the same as Sinai.

There is a problem about the location of Rephidim. Numbers 13-14 
the Israelites stopped at Kadesh-barnea while spies scouted the 
land. Because of their faithless reaction there, after the false 
report of the spies, God condemned them to wander for years, so 
none of the generation there would enter the promised land, except 
Joshua and Caleb. There is a problem of lack of remains near the 
probable site of Kadesh-Barnea: Cf. R. Cohen,"Did I excavate 
Kadesh-Barnea" in BAR, May- June, 1981. pp 21-33. However, Frank 
Moore Cross, retired from Harvard, in an interview in Bible Review, 
August 1992, pp. 23-32, 61-62 thinks the Israelites really wandered 
in the area of Midian, where many remains have been found. Also, 
Moses had the vision of the Burning Bush in Midian, and seemingly 
Sinai was there. Moses married a woman from Midian.

God swore they would not enter into His rest. What would have been 
understood at the time of the desert wanderings by that word? Most 
likely the promised land. Later, around the end of the OT period, 
there was a tendency to reinterpret material images to make them 
stand for spiritual realities, as St. Paul does in Galatians 3. 15 
ff. But although the Jews did know of survival after death during 
the desert period, they may not have known much about retribution 
the future life then.

Many scholars today argue that the early Hebrews seem to have had a 
unitary concept of man - a body with the breath of life, so that 
after the breath goes into the air, and the body decays, nothing is 
left. Hence the modern conclusion of no survival. Yet we are 
certain that they did know of survival very early. Three times in 
the OT -- Lev 19. 31; 20. 6; Dt 8. 11 - necromancy is prohibited, 
which makes clear they did know of survival. Jesus Himself in 
replying to the Sadducees, appealed to the burning bush text:"I am 
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." He 
reasoned:He is not the God of the dead but of the living. While of 
course accepting His words, we still may ask: Did the early Hebrews 
pick up that implication in Exodus 3. 15.

How did they reconcile the two things? We do not know. It seems 
that they did not know, but most likely did not concern themselves 
about it. Semites could be quite comfortable with a pair of 
seemingly contradictory statements, without asking how to reconcile 
them. A fine example is found in Matthew 6. 6 tells them top ray in 
secret. But Matthew 5. 16 tells them to let their good works be 
seen so they may glorify the Father.

There are even some passages in the Psalms - admitted by all -which 
seem to speak of the vision of God after death: In Psalm 17. 15 the 
psalmist says that when he awakes: "I shall behold your face." 
Psalm 73. 24:"You guide me with your counsel, and afterwards will 
receive [laqah the same word used for the cases of Enoch in Gen 5. 
24 and Elijah in 2 Kings 9-10] me to glory [kabod]." Psalm 49. 
15:"God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for He will 
receive me" - Again, laqah is used.

Further, Mitchell Dahood, in the introductions to each of his three 
Anchor Bible volumes on the Psalms, argues for revising about 30 
Psalm lines with the help of the Ugaritic. If he is right, 
knowledge of retribution must have been found at least early in the 
period of the kings.

So, picking up on the word today, the author of Hebrews wants them 
to encourage one another, so long as it is still Today. In making 
the exhortation of the OT present to his own time, the author is 
following a very old tradition. In Dt. 5. 2 Moses told the 
people:"The Lord God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our 
fathers did the Lord make the covenant, but with us all, who are 
living today." The reason is clear: God intends each one of His 
children to make the covenant with Him. A similar thought appears 
in 2 Cor . 2:6 "Behold, now is the a acceptable time, now is the 
day of salvation."

The author urges them not to be taken by the deceit [apate] of sin. 
Sin deceives since it promises what is cannot give, since as St. 
Augustine (City of God 14. 4) explains well, to sin is to fail to 
be "true to form", the form or pattern God intends for each of us. 
To do that is to move in the direction of non-being, since one 
thereby recedes from Being and the source of being. That deceit is 
epitomized in the story of Eve in the garden. She looked at the 
fruit - or whatever command of God it may have been - and said in 
effect to herself; God may know what is good in some things, but 
right now, I can just SEE that this is good. I know better than 
God. -- What consummate deception!

The author says we have become sharers metochoi with Christ if only 
we hold on until the end. We are partners with Him, since as 
Hebrews said above, He is our brother, since by divine adoption He 
and we are sons of the Father. But this is valid only in the 
condition expressed in Romans 8:17: "We are heirs of God, fellow-
heirs with Christ, provided that we suffer with Him, so we may also 
be glorified with Him."

God was vexed with the Hebrews in the desert "for forty years", 
that is, for the entire period of their wandering. It is an 
evidence of the veracity of the author of that account that he does 
not hesitate to portray the people of Israel as murmuring and 
rebelling against God so very frequently, that Moses and God both 
called them several times "stiff-necked."

So it was because of lack of faith that they could not enter into 
the rest of God. The word used for their faithlessness is apistia 
which is explained by saying "they disobeyed" Again, Hebrews is in 
line with the certain Epistles of St. Paul, for whom faith includes 
not only belief in what God says and confidence in His promises, 
but also and especially obedience to His commands, as in Romans 1. 
5,"The obedience of faith', that is, the obedience that faith is.

The fact that our author thinks of faith as including obedience, 
like St. Paul in Romans 1. 5, is clear especially from the examples 
of faith he gives in chapter 11, especially of the faith of 
Abraham, who not only believed in His mind, had confidence in God's 
promises, but acted in obedience, in leaving his home land, and in 
being willing to sacrifice Isaac. What of the fact that St. Paul 
insistently says faith alone justifies, without works? We reply: 
Faith in the Pauline sense includes obedience, even as Hebrews does 
here and in chapter 11. St. Paul seems unwilling to mention these 
two examples -- leaving his home land, and sacrificing Isaac-- for 
they might be called works . But a distinction was in order: these 
works were things produced by the "obedience of faith", Romans 1. 
5, that is, the obedience that faith is. But they did not earn 
justification or salvation. That is a free gift of God, as we see 
in Romans 6. 23: "The wages of sin [what we earn] is death; the 
free gift of God [what we do not earn] is eternal life."

In line with all of this, the NT tends to picture the work of 
Christ as a new Exodus, by the new Moses. In Lk 9. 31 at the 
Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are speaking with Jesus about the 
exodos He is to fulfill in Jerusalem. That word fulfill may well 
point to the final words of Jesus on the Cross: "It is completed, 
fulfilled". St. John's Gospel (19. 30), so fond of working with 
evocative uses of words, has Jesus say:"tetelestai: it is teleios", 
reminding us of the words of Hebrews that He was made teleios (Heb. 
2. 10) by suffering. (We recall too our comments above on Heb. 2. 
10 that that word, teleioo in Greek was used to reproduce the 
Hebrew expression meaning to ordain).

Do Not Lose that Rest 4. 1-16:Summary

We still have the opening to enter into that rest. Let us be 
careful not to lose it, as the ancient Hebrews once did. It was 
lack of faith that caused them to lose it.

God has been at rest since the beginning, as Genesis says: "God 
rested on the seventh day from all His work". So He is still 
resting. It is into that rest that they could have entered, but 
they failed as we learn from the line: "They shall not enter into 
my rest." Hence the rest is still open, still available.

Since they failed by lack of faith, of obedience, he still sets a 
day, that is "Today", after so long a time. For the rest, the 
promised land, that Joshua had given them, was not the ultimate 
rest, If it were, Scripture could not continue to speak of 
something beyond that promised land.

A sabbath rest does remain open for us, the People of God. So we 
should hasten to get into that rest and not fall into the same 
pattern of lack of faith. For the word of God is effective, and 
cuts more than any two-edged sword, reaching even to the division 
of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and it knows the 
thoughts and intentions of the heart. No creature can hide from 
him, all are open and bare to His eyes.

But we can have confidence because our high priest has not just 
figuratively, but actually gone into the heavens. He has 
experienced our trouble, and so can be sympathetic to our needs. 
With him we can have confidence in coming before God, who sits on a 
throne of mercy.

Comments on 4. 1-16

The rest that was promised originally to the Jews was the land of 
Canaan. But they failed to enter since they did not believe God-- 
instead they believed the lying spies who had gone into see the 
land, and returned with impossible tales. They should have believed 
God's promise. That faith would include also obedience to the 
covenant. Hence the concept of faith here is really the same as 
that found in St. Paul, who includes under that word: belief in 
what God says, confidence in His promises, obedience to His 
commands.

In the late part of the OT period some Jews began to reinterpret 
God's promise of rest to mean the rest of eternal life in the 
vision of God. St. Paul clearly takes it this way in Galatians 3. 
15ff. But at the time of which this passage speaks, they thought 
only of the rest of the land of Canaan, and they did not believe 
God that He could and would bring them into there, nor did they 
obey His covenant. Instead they murmured against Him so many times 
over.

So the words 'His rest" could mean either "the rest He will give" 
or,"the rest He Himself enjoys." The latter was hardly thought of 
at the time of the desert wandering pictured here, for as we said, 
it was only much later than God's promises were reinterpreted to 
refer to eternal life with Him. Yet the author of Hebrews may well 
be reinterpreting that word rest at this point.

as St. Paul did. The way he speaks of the fact that God Himself 
rested as the model for their rest would tend to show that he had 
this reinterpreted idea in mind, even though at the time of the 
desert wandering it was hardly known to the Jews. Again, he says in 
v. 8 that if Joshua had given them the true rest there would be no 
talk of something further. Yet there is something further in 
reality-- as the author here reinterprets things.

The fact that the OT records all their tragic misbehavior show the 
honesty of the writers. The Pentateuch is probably something like 
an epic, the story of the beginnings of a great people. Yet what 
people would invent a tale in which they had for centuries been 
slaves in Egypt, and after being so marvelously rescued from there, 
would tell of their reiterated disobedience and ingratitude to God?

We note the dramatic stress on the word "Today" here, just as we 
saw it in the comments above on 3. 13. God is as it were making His 
promise and covenant not just with a past generation, but with the 
present generation.

The last verse says that a "sabbath rest" is open for the people of 
God. This might mean merely that there is a rest as complete as 
that of the sabbath - or it is just possible that the author was 
thinking of s schema of ages in which the previous time stood for 6 
days, and then the time to come would be the seventh. St. Augustine 
at the end of his great City of God speaks similarly of six ages - 
without meaning to suppose there were only 6900 years to al 
history. For the periods Augustine mentions are very uneven in 
length, and not periods of a thousand years each.

Naturally, an exhortation follows: Get busy so you can enter into 
this great rest. Do not think you can hide anything from God: His 
word is sharp, penetrates everywhere. Everything lies open and bare 
to His eyes. To Him all must given an account.

It is not likely that our author meant us to take strictly the 
divisions he mentions, soul and spirit, joints and marrow. Thee is 
in itself no difference between soul and spirit, just as the Word 
of God does not literally cut through joints and marrow.

For our help we have a great High Priest, Christ, who has actually 
penetrated into the heavens. He has had the experience of trial, 
and so is in a position to be sympathetic to us. Therefore we can 
come before the throne of mercy with confidence.

As to His experience of trials we will reserve comments for 5. 8 
which even says He learned obedience from the things He suffered. 
And as to the saying that He was tried in every way like we are-- 
we must remember that the genre of Hebrews is homiletic. We should 
not conclude that He must have had various illness or that he was 
lame, or that He was ignorant in His human mind (more on that point 
later).

Chapter 5: Christ's Priesthood compared with that of Melchisedek: 

Summary of 5. 1-14

A high priest is taken from among men, and is appointed for the 
sake of humans in their responsibility to God, so that he may offer 
gifts and sacrifices for sins. He needs to be able to deal in 
considerate way with the ignorant and with those who err, since he 
himself knows he is frail. As a result of this frailty, even he has 
to bring a sin offering for himself as well as for the people.

No one has a right to take this office on himself - it is for those 
called by God, as Aaron was.

Not even Christ exalted Himself to this dignity of the high 
priesthood. He was raised to it by the One who said to Him: "You 
are my Son, today have I begotten you". God also in another place 
said of Him: "You are a priest forever, in the line of 
Melchizedek".

[Just as ordinary priests make an offering for themselves, so 
Christ, though He had no need of a sin offering for himself] did 
make prayers and loud petitions with tears, to Him who could save 
Him from death. He was heard because of His reverence to the 
Father.

And even though He was the Father's Son, He still learned obedience 
by suffering. Then, after being made perfect, He became the source 
of eternal salvation to those who follow Him, He who was appointed 
by God as high priest in the line of Melchizedek.

There are many things to say about this Melchizedek, much of which 
is hard to understand, for you have become sluggish. Really, by now 
you ought to be able to be teachers, yet, you are not able, for you 
still need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's 
words all over again. You have become such as to need milk, not 
solid food. Now anyone who is fed on milk is not trained in the 
matter of what is right, so he is an infant. Solid food is for 
those who are mature, who by practice have had their senses trained 
to tell good from evil.

Comments on Chapter 5

At the end of the previous chapter, the author said we could have 
confidence to come before God's merciful throne, because we have a 
great Mediator. Now He expands on that Mediator, and contrasts Him 
with earlier priests.

All priests are taken from humanity, and given the assignment of 
offerings gifts and sacrifices to God for men. From the later part 
of this chapter we gather than the author has in mind especially 
the sin offering that had to be made for the Day of Atonement - a 
most important things, so much so that in Talmud Berachoth 1. 1, we 
read that for three days before that offering, the high priest had 
to be secluded, so that he might not even inadvertently incur 
levitical impurity, and so be unable to officiate.

These ancient priests had to be able to sympathize with those who 
sin, since they themselves were sinful, to such an extent that they 
had to make a sin offering for themselves as well as for the 
people. Historically, from the fall of the house of Zadok when 
Onias was killed in 171 BC, there were few high priests who showed 
these personal qualities. This was especially the case when men 
like Alexander Jannaeus, who was both king and high priest 103-76 
BC held the office.

The old high priest had to make offering for those who sinned in 
ignorance (cf. Leviticus, chapter 4 and our comments about on 
Hebrews 2. 10) - for, as we see in Hebrews 9. 7, there were no 
sacrifices provided for sins committed be yad ramah,"with a high 
hand."

But just as the ancient priests needed a divine call, like Aaron, 
Christ Himself, even though He was Son, did not take the dignity 
upon Himself: it was given Him by the Father who said: "You are my 
Son... . you are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek." Here 
Psalm 110. 4 is applied to Jesus. So far as we know, this is the 
first time that Jesus who was called the messiah from David in 
Psalm 2. 7 was also called high priest in the line of Melchizedek. 
Melchizedek appears in Genesis 14. 18 as king of Salem which was 
traditionally, and probably correctly, identified with Jerusalem. 
He was called a priest of El elyon, the most high God. In Gen 14. 
22 El elyon is identified with Yahweh. It seems that since David 
took Jerusalem, his line inherited the priesthood of Melchizedek, 
in perhaps a titular way, since the priesthood of Jerusalem later 
was from the family of Zadok, which seems distinct from the Davidic 
line. Both Jews and Christians did much speculation on Melchizedek. 
Yet Jewish unhappiness about the Christian use of this thought led 
them to take in time a less favorable view of Melchizedek in 
Talmud, Nedarim 32a, where it is said that since Melchizedek in 
Genesis 14. 19-20 blessed Abraham before he blessed God, therefore 
the priesthood was taken from Melchizedek (he remained a priest, 
but his sons would not be priests) and given to Abraham. Thus they 
wanted to counter the claim that Christ was a priest in the line of 
Melchizedek by claiming that there was no priesthood of the line of 
Melchizedek.

Really, putting the blessing of God in last place proves nothing. 
In a liturgical procession, the highest authority always walks in 
last position.

Such Jewish twisting to counter Christian claims is known 
elsewhere, and is even admitted by some major Jewish scholars, 
especially in commenting on a tendency to change the Targum of 
Isaiah 53, making the meek lamb into an arrogant conqueror, and 
attributing atoning efficacy to the binding of Isaac: cf. H. J. 
Schoeps, Paul, Westminster, 1961, p. 29; Jacob Neusner, Messiah in 
Context, Fortress, Phila. 1984. p. 190, and Samson Levey, The 
Messiah, An Aramaic Interpretation , Hebrew Union College, 
Cincinnati 1974, p. 152 and note 10.

Now a puzzling line: this high priest Jesus did offer loud prayers 
and tears to the Father who could save Him from death. Obviously 
true. We think of His anguished cry in Gethsemani: "Father, it is 
be possible, let this chalice pass from me." But what then of the 
following words, saying his prayer was heard because of His 
reverence? But He was not saved from death.

The answer is that He went willingly to death. Strictly speaking, 
as the Eastern Fathers of the Church understood so well, even the 
first moment of the incarnation was infinitely meritorious and 
infinite in giving satisfaction. Hence they spoke of physical 
mystical solidarity: all humanity formed a unit, a solidarity. The 
humanity of Jesus became part of that solidarity. But in Him, the 
humanity was joined in the unity of one Person to the divinity. So 
a power or force spread out from the divinity, through His 
humanity, and healed the rest of humanity.

That being the case, it would have been possible for the chalice to 
pass from Him. For He had already many times over provided infinite 
merit and satisfaction. Yet He obeyed the Father in His reverence. 
Already at His baptism by John (Mt. 3. 115) He had said that "it is 
right to do all that God requires".

The Father willed that He go beyond a deathless prayer - which He 
could have said during His brief stay in the world, and would have 
sufficed infinitely. The Father willed that instead of an 
incarnation in a palace to the stable and to the cross. Such was 
the Father's love of all that is morally right -for that is what 
the title Holy really means, and such was the Father's love of us 
humans, that as long as anything still richer could be found, He 
would not omit to provide it.

He was, then, heard, in His exaltation, as we find in Philippians 
2:5-10: "He did not consider equality with God something to be held 
onto, but He emptied Himself, took on the form of a slave, and 
became obedient to death, even to death on the cross. Therefore the 
Father highly exalted Him, and gave Him the name that is above 
every name."

What of the words saying that He learned obedience from the things 
He suffered? It surely could not mean He was in any way deficient 
in obedience before that point. The whole theme of His life, 
expressed in Hebrews 10. 7 was: "Behold, I come to do your will O 
God." And as He Himself said in John 4. 34,"my food is to do the 
will of Him who sent me." We think of the great Greek Tragedian, 
Aeschylus, who wrote (Agamemnon 176ff), pathei mathos -- "by 
suffering comes learning". But more than that, let us think of a 
man who all his life has been most devoted to the will of God, but 
has never yet had the experience of severe illness. Suddenly he 
does fall into that physical suffering. It takes some doing for Him 
to learn to acquiesce, as it were, to settle down

in pain. His will was always in accord with the will of God - but 
His bodily side had to learn to settle down in suffering.

Jesus then, made perfect by suffering is specially fitted to be the 
source of eternal salvation to those who obey Him, in the 
"obedience of faith" (Romans 1. 5). He was of course perfect from 
the beginning, being the divine son. But He acquired a special 
addition to that perfection by the learning that came from 
suffering. He won salvation by obeying, and so it is right that 
those who are to obtain salvation should follow Him in the 
obedience that faith is (cf. Rom 1. 5).

Our epistle adds that there is much to say about this. That word 
could mean about Jesus or about Melchizedek or about their 
relation. But he does not present it at once since they have become 
sluggish. They should have advanced enough to be teachers by this 
point, but have not done so: instead, they still need babyfood, 
milk. Solid food is for the mature. You do not know the "word of 
justice". Perhaps this means the way to reach justification taught 
by Jesus.

Chapter 6:Summary

But let us leave behind the beginnings of the message of Jesus and 
go on to speak of perfection. For we do not want to lay a 
foundation all over again-- which would include repentance from 
dead works, faith in God, the teaching about ritual ablutions and 
laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

So, if God is willing, we will do this ( give the explanations for 
which they are not yet mature enough).

For it is not possible for one to come back to this repentance who 
has once been enlightened in baptism, and has tasted the heavenly 
gift, and partaken of gift of the Holy Spirit, and has experienced 
the goodness of the word of God and the mighty works of the age to 
come- if it impossible for such, if they have fallen into apostasy, 
to ever come back again, needing to have Christ die all over again 
to restore them. This is like the case of the ground: Ground that 
drinks up the rain can produce good crops, but ground that brings 
forth thorns and thistles is worth nothing, is on the point of 
being cursed. There may be an allusion here to Genesis 3. 17-19 
which speaks of the land being cursed because of Adam's sin, so 
that it brings forth thorns and thistles.

But even in saying this, we are sure that you are not in that 
condition, for you show the signs that go along with salvation. God 
is not unrighteous; He will not forget your work and your love for 
His name, your service to the holy People of

God. You have done these things and continue to do them. So we 
desire that you should show the same eagerness as before, to 
fulfill the hope right up to the end. Instead of getting sluggish 
up should imitate those who by persevering faith received what was 
promised.

Abraham was a man of this sort. God gave him a promise. In doing 
so, God swore by Himself - for He had no one greater to swear by. 
God said; I will surely bless you and multiply you greatly. So 
Abraham in showing steadfastness received that which was promised.

Human beings, to show how firm is their word, take an oath by 
something greater than themselves. This settles things. Similarly 
God used an oath to show the absolute firmness of His purpose. We 
have twofold encouragement: God has promised, and God cannot lie, 
and so we are certain that we can depend on Him to whom we have 
fled for refuge. This hope is the anchor of our soul, secure, 
dependable, which will lead us even beyond the curtain of the 
sanctuary, where Jesus, our forerunner has already entered, Jesus, 
our high priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.

Chapter 6:comments

Our author says: Now it is time to leave behind the rudiments and 
go on to the perfection of the divine message. We should not go 
back to laying again the foundation all over. He mentions six pairs 
of rudiments, which he calls stoicheia, the same word St. Paul uses 
in Galatians 4. 3 & 9 (where the word is likely to mean early and 
insufficient religion): repentance from dead works by faith in God; 
instruction about ablutions and laying on of hands for acceptance 
into the Christian community; resurrection and eternal judgment.

What are the "dead works"? They mean all that cannot bring to the 
rest that is eternal life, or can even prevent it, i.e., the works 
of the old covenant which could not bring eternal salvation (cf. 9. 
14) and even personal sin. The second part of this pair helps to 
clarify, since it speaks of faith. But faith (as we have seen in 
comments on chapter 3) includes belief in God's word, confidence in 
His promises, and especially obedience to His commands (cf. Rom 1. 
5). It is this faith that causes one to enter into His rest.

Next there is mention of ablutions, baptismoi. Some have thought it 
refers to Christian Baptism. But the word

baptismoi is used instead of baptisma. The latter is the normal 
word in the NT for Baptism, but baptismoi occurs only twice in the 
NT: in Hebrews 9. 10, which surely refers to Jewish purifications, 
and in Mark 7. 4. which speaks of purifications of cups, pots etc.

As to the imposition of hands, the OT used such an imposition to 
commission someone for public office (Num 27. 18 & 23 and Dt 34. 
9), or as part of sacrificial ritual (Lev. 1. 4; 3. 2; 4. 4; 8. 
14). In late Judaism it was a regular rite for the ordination of 
Rabbis: cf. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4. 4. In the NT it is found in Acts 
6. 6 (ordination of deacons); 8. 17 (giving the Holy Spirit to 
Samaritan converts); 9. 12, 17 (Ananias to Paul); 19. 6 (Paul 
giving the Holy Spirit to converts at Ephesus).

What is the sense in mind here? Probably a preliminary ritual 
before baptism, and so it would be part of the rudiments, beyond 
which they should have passed, cf. Apostolic Tradition of St. 
Hippolytus.

The resurrection of the dead and judgment were already known in the 
OT period: cf. Isaiah 26. 19; Daniel 12. 2. The OT also spoke of 
God as the judge of all the earth: Genesis 18. 25; Isaiah 33. 22.

But all these were but preliminaries though which the ones Hebrews 
addresses had already passed. They should not need to go back to 
the rudiments again.

But more seriously: if they now fall away, after having been 
enlightened (Baptism was often spoken of as receiving light) there 
is no way they can be converted again. The mention of crucifying 
Jesus ("again") may mean that He would need to die all over to 
bring them back, when His already accomplished death has not 
succeeded).

There is a similar statement in The Shepherd by Hermas in 
Similitude 9. 26. 6: "It is impossible for him who now denies His 
Lord to be saved." Many think Hermas is using a psychological ploy 
to deter people from sinning after receiving the seal, Baptism. 
Pardon was given in the first centuries even to apostates, but only 
after years of long and difficult penance - in the thought that 
something so drastic was needed to really cause them to see the 
truth, especially if a Christian when called before the Roman judge 
thought to himself: "I will deny now, and then get pardon later". 
His repentance shortly after that would almost certainly not be 
real, not sincere. It would be preplanned, and so not involved a 
real change of heart. (More on this later in comments on 10. 36).

But what is the reason now why those who fall back into Judaism or 
paganism cannot be restored? Surely God Himself would not be 
unwilling to grant pardon even for such sins. For the death of 
Jesus infinitely earned forgiveness for every sin.

The answer is that such people had made themselves incapable of 
taking in what God would gladly offer. It is helpful to start with 
Matthew 6. 21: "Where your treasure is, there is your heart also." 
One can put his treasure in a hoard of money, or in eating, or in 
sex, or in travel, or in study, even studying Scripture. But all 
these things are lower than God Himself.

Further, some allow themselves to be pulled more than others by 
these outside attractions - even to habitual mortal sin. In such a 
case two factors work together: what they seek is much lower than 
God, and they have surrendered to the pull of creatures with 
abandon.

A modern comparison will help to supplement this thought. We think 
of a galvanometer, a compass needle on its pivot, with a coil of 
wire around, it through which we pass a current. The needle should 
swing the right direction and the right amount. But if there are 
powerful outside pulls, e.g., 33000 volt power lines or a mass of 
magnetic steel - then these outside forces may be so strong as to 
overwhelm the effect of the current in the coil. We are thinking of 
our mind as a sort of meter, which should register the movement of 
grace, that is, the current in its coil. But grace is gentle, in 
that is respects our freedom; outside pulls if one surrenders to 
them with abandon can take away freedom: then the needle, does not 
register the effect of grace which tries to put into a man's mind 
what God is trying to tell him to do.

Then if grace cannot do the first thing, it will not do the further 
things. So the man is left without grace, is blind or hardened. 
Then even though God gives grace, the man is incapable of taking it 
in. Then his conversion, is, humanly speaking, impossible.

We said "humanly speaking" because there is always the possibility 
of a grace comparable to a miracle that can cut through or 
forestall such resistance, and so cause the man to follow the 
movement of grace. But this is not given ordinarily - for then the 
extraordinary would become ordinary. It is given only when some 
other person by heroic prayer and penance, puts, as it were, an 
extraordinary weight into the one pan of the scales of the 
objective moral order: it can call for, and obtain, an 
extraordinary grace.

The case is similar with the classic unforgivable sin, of which Our 
Lord Himself spoke when the scribes attributed the work of the Holy 
Spirit to the devil. The Father and He would gladly grant pardon - 
but the hardness was so immense that they could not even perceive 
the first movement of grace.

This problem happens especially with those who have already had 
great light from grace -- if they become habituated to special 
favor, and even then reject, they make themselves hardened - they 
are harder to convert than a beginner who never felt the effects of 
grace.

These hard souls had already been enlightened in

Baptism, had tasted the heavenly gift - probably the Holy 
Eucharist, had received the Holy Spirit, and seen even the mighty 
works of the age-to-come, i.e., the miracles which at first were 
used to ground and spread the Church. If after all that they still 
fell away - what was there left to awaken them anew from their 
self-inflicted torpor?

So they are like land which has become hard and dry: the rains may 
come, but all in vain.

Cardinal Manning, in his great work, The Eternal Priesthood. wrote 
in his concluding chapter, on the death of a sinful priest: "Next 
to the immutable malice of Satan is the hardness of an impenitent 
priest... . They have been so long familiar with all the eternal 
truths": that the end of such a man is like that of one for whom 
medical science can do no more: He must die. Manning quotes St. 
Bonaventure (Pharetra 1. 22): "Laymen who sin can be easily 
restored; but clerics if they once go bad become incurable." We 
comment: satan could not repent because his clear intellect (not 
being hindered by junction with a material brain) saw everything at 
once with the maximum possible clarity. So there was no room for 
him later to go back on it, see it differently, and so repent. The 
more one grows in knowledge, the more he approaches that condition 
- though of course, still having a material brain, he does not 
reach it.

Then the author turns to a more cheerful note: God will not forget 
the good you have done. We hope you may imitate those who have 
persevered in faith, such as Abraham. St. Paul in proposing Abraham 
as a model of faith usually thought of Genesis 15. 6, where Abraham 
believed God, and his faith was the means of his justification. But 
here - in view of the comments in Hebrews 11. 19 -- he is more 
likely to have in mind Abraham's faith in being willing to 
sacrifice his son Isaac, even though he had to believe that he 
would be the father of a great nation by the same Isaac. We do not 
know how old Isaac was at this point. Some rabbis thought he was 
old enough to already have children. We do not know, and the 
example of faith is more powerful if we suppose he was still too 
young to start a line of descendants. In 11. 19 the author of 
Hebrews reduces greatly that demand of faith by supposing Abraham 
expected God would raise Isaac again from the dead. That could be 
true - but since the genre of Hebrews is homiletic, and since the 
idea of resurrection seems not to have been known among the Jews at 
so early a point, it is more likely that Abraham did not think of 
that possibility, even though of course it was true that God could 
raise Isaac from the dead.

St. Paul speaks of us as children of Abraham (Galatians 3. 29 and 
Romans chapter 4) not by carnal descent, but by imitating the faith 
of Abraham. So by imitating his faith we become heirs of the 
promise given to Abraham ( 6. 17).

Chapter 7:Jesus is greater than Melchizedek

Four kings had attacked five kings, including the king of Sodom. 
The four took spoils, and took Lot, nephew of Abraham as captive. 
When Abraham heard of it he gathered 318 of his retainers, and set 
out against the four kings, and defeated them. On his return the 
King of Sodom met him and suggested Abraham keep the goods, but 
give him the people. Abraham refused to keep anything, seemingly 
because of an oath he had taken when Melchizedek, king of Salem, 
met him. Melchizedek brought out bread and wine. Was that just a 
refreshment for Abraham, or was it meant as a sacrifice? Later 
Christian writers understood it as a sacrifice.

His name is taken to mean either King of Peace (Salem) or King of 
righteousness (sedeq). These are plausible etymologies.

Abraham gave him a tenth of all the spoils of the military 
expedition.

Melchizedek is described as without father or mother, without 
genealogy. Genesis indeed does not give any lineage for him. Thus 
he foreshadows the Son of God, a priest forever.

Then our author exclaims: How great is Melchizedek - Abraham gave 
him tithes, recognizing his superiority. The descendants of Levi 
received tithes too in later times, as the offspring of Abraham. 
Yet Melchizedek, who has not the same genealogy as them, received 
tithes from the father of the chosen people, Abraham. Further, 
Abraham received a blessing from Melchizedek - but one receives 
blessings only from a superior, not from an inferior. So again, 
Melchizedek, type of Christ, is superior to Abraham.

In fact since Levi who was to come from Abraham, was still in the 
body of Abraham, we can say that Levi too paid tithes to 
Melchizedek - and so the levitical priesthood is less than that of 
Melchizedek.

Melchizedek too is considered still "alive" since there is no 
record of his genealogy, birth, or death. This again foreshadows 
the priesthood of the Son of God.

If the levitical priesthood could have brought perfection, there 
would be no need of another priesthood, and another law. But it did 
not bring perfection.

Since another priest was to arise after Melchiwas to arise after 
Melchizedek there

must be a greater priesthood, one that is forever. But God said to 
Christ You are a priest forever. In this way the old regime was 
cancelled, since it was not able to make people perfect.

The old priesthood was made through an oath-- similarly the 
priesthood of Jesus is made with God's oath:The Lord has sworn, you 
are a priest forever according to the line of Melchizedek. So Jesus 
is the guarantor of a better covenant.

Further. there have been many high priests, for they all died and 
could not continue forever. But Jesus, since he continues forever 
has a priesthood that cannot be transferred to another.

Jesus as our high priest is what we needed, for he is holy, free of 
guile and defilement, separated from sinners. He has no need to 
offer sacrifice for his own sins- he has none-- as the old priest 
did before offering for those of the people. He made his offering 
once for all when he offered himself. The priests appointed by the 
old law were men subject to frailty, but now God's oath appoints 
one made perfect forever.


Comments on chapter 7

In what the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review of March-April, 
1995, p. 56) calls,"an extraordinary demonstration... a highly 
sophisticated analysis", Kenneth Kitchen of the University of 
Liverpool shows that what we know of the early second millennium 
fits well with the kinds of alliances of kings described in Genesis 
14, while from about the 18th century B.C. on the situation changed 
so drastically that such alliances would hardly occur (BAR pp. 56-
57).

The author of Hebrews, hardly meant to claim Melchizedek had no 
father or mother or without end of days. This is a looseness proper 
to homiletic genre. Also, he is interested in treating Melchizedek 
as a type, a foreshadowing of Jesus. (incidentally, in the early 
centuries A.D. some writers, since Melchizedek had no father or 
mother, assumed he was an angelic power, greater than all others: 
cf. Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 7. 36 [written before 
222 AD] and St. Epiphanius, Panarion 55). As we said above, the 
idea that Melchizedek should be greater than Abraham was irksome to 
Jewish exegetes, and they also disliked the Christian use of 
Melchizedek and reacted as we saw above, in comments on chapter 5.

In v. 8 Melchizedek is "attested as being alive" since we never 
read of him in Scripture as dead: without father, without mother, 
without end of days. In line with this, in v. 9. our author speaks 
of Levi, the father of the great priestly line, as paying tithes to 
Abraham, even though this was long before the birth of Levi - for 
he was "still... in the body of his forefather" Abraham. The same 
sort of concept appears in Genesis 25. 23 when God replied to 
Rebekah before the twins, Esau and Jacob were born: "Two nations 
are in your womb." Cf. also the version of Romans 5. 12 used by the 
Latin Fathers; "In whom [Adam] omnes peccaverunt" - "In whom all 
have sinned."

Our Epistle continues (7. 11) and reasons that if perfection could 
have been attained through the levitical priesthood, under which 
the Mosaic law came, there would have been no need for still 
another priest to arise, in the order of Melchizedek.

This is indeed an interesting thought: It does not mean that no 
individual could reach spiritual perfection during that period. Of 
course God was always generous with His graces, and gave them 
abundantly even before the coming of Christ, in anticipation of the 
merits of Christ - cf. the words of the definition of the 
Immaculate Conception which says she was free from sin from the 
first instant in view of His merits. 

To understand this situation we need to notice that there are two 
different scenarios or orders. We might call them the external and 
the internal scenarios. In the external, one can speak of people 
being in darkness before Christ. e.g., Mat 4. 14-16 cites Isaiah 
saying that the land of Zebulon and the land of Nephthali had been 
a people in darkness. Then Christ came to Capernaum. And the 
liturgy speaks of the world as being sunk in sin and guilt before 
Christ.

But that is the external picture. In the internal picture, as we 
indicated above, grace was offered, even abundantly, long before 
Christ, in view of His merits, for God wills that all be saved, and 
saved in a great abundance of graces. So some individuals could and 
did attain even heroic sanctity in those centuries.

Here however, our Epistle thinking of the fact that the ancient law 
did not of its own power bring eternal salvation - as St. Paul 
noted strongly in Galatians 3. 15-29, since only the grace of 
Christ given through justification by faith could do that. So he 
notes that the levitical law could not and did not of itself bring 
spiritual perfection or even full forgiveness of sins. Even the 
great Day of Atonement was for forgiveness of sins of ignorance, 
sheggagah, and not for sins committed be yad ramah:Numbers 15. 30: 
"Anyone who sins with a high hand... insults the Lord, and shall be 
cut off from among his people."(Cf. comments above on 2. 10 and, 
below, 9. 7).

So now, the law has been changed from that given through the 
levitical priests, and so has the priesthood. Priesthood is now 
given to Christ, who was not even of the tribe of Levi, but of 
Judah, no man of which tribe had ever ministered at the altar.


Another sign (7. 15) of the higher perfection of the priesthood of 
Christ is that He is "a priest forever, in the line of 
Melchizedek." So the old commandment which was unprofitable (v. 18) 
was cancelled, for as we just said, that law made nothing perfect. 
-- We comment that even though St. Paul in 1 Cor 6. 9-10 and 
elsewhere insists on keeping the law, as Jesus also insisted in 
Matthew 5. 17, this works out in such a way that we can say with 
St. Paul's words of Romans 6. 12: "The wages - what we earn - of 
sin is death;' the free gift of God - what we do not earn - is 
eternal life. We must be like children to get in at all. - Children 
know that they do not earn the love and care they receive. They get 
that because their parents are good, not because they are good. Yet 
they could earn to lose it. Hence too St. Paul several times speaks 
of eternal life as an "inheritance" (e.g., Romans 8. 17; 1 Cor. 6. 
10). What we receive from our parents we do not earn. As one 
student, who perfectly captured the nuance of St. Paul put it, in 
speaking of salvation: "You can't earn it, but you can blow it."

All levitical priests were not priests for ever, for they all died. 
Christ did indeed die, but that was temporary: Now He is always 
living to make intercession for us (Heb. 7. 25).

Further (7. 20), the new priesthood comes from God's oath (Psalm 
110. 4). The old priesthood involved no oath. God merely, without 
oath, told Moses to bring Aaron and his sons to Him to become 
priests: Exodus 28. 1.

So Jesus is the enguos, the guarantor of the better covenant. In 
the Sinai covenant, all depended on the obedience - so often poor - 
of the people. In the new covenant all again depends upon 
obedience, but it is the obedience of Jesus, which is always 
perfect. Of course, this does not mean that those who follow Him 
have no need to do anything, that they can even "commit fornication 
and murder a thousand times a day" (Luther, Epistle of August 1, 
1521 to Melanchthon, in Luther's Works, American Edition, 48. 281-
82). No, just as Hebrews warns so solemnly against falling away 
completely from Jesus by apostasy, so also it would not countenance 
the sins of those who would, as indicated above in 6. 6 crucify Him 
again, make void His crucifixion as far as they are concerned, so 
as to practically call for His death again. This is really the 
great syn Christo theme of St. Paul, expressed especially in Romans 
8. 17 saying that "we are heirs of God, fellow-heirs with Christ, 
provided that we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with 
Him." More of this theme is found in Romans 6. 1-6; 8. 9; and Col 
3. 1-4, and Eph 2. 5-6.

A further indication (7. 24) of the superiority of the priesthood 
of Jesus is that previous high priests were many since death 
prevented them from continuing. But the priesthood of Jesus is 
"forever". He has a priesthood that is aparabaton (7. 24), one that 
does not pass. It does not pass in the sense that the priesthood of 
Levi did pass on. both in that the individual priests died, whereas 
Jesus lives forever, and in that the levitical priesthood is 
supplanted, replaced by that of Jesus.

This does not mean that in the New Testament, as some 
uncomprehending writers have suggested, there is only one priest, 
Jesus. Those who make this mistake do not notice the analogical 
character of the word priest. Commonly in divine things we need to 
see the analogical character of words, in which in two uses of the 
word, there is something the same, and something different, e.g., 
when the young man asked Jesus what he needed to do, and addressed 
Jesus as "good Master", Jesus corrected him: One is good. God. Of 
course Jesus did not mean to say that all others are wicked or that 
He Himself was not good. No, He meant that the word good as applied 
to God and as applied to all others, has something in common - but 
much more difference. In this way St. Augustine wrote (On Christian 
Doctrine 1. 6. 6) that,"He [God] must not even be called 
inexpressible, for when we say that word, we say something." And 
Plotinus said (Enneads 6. 8. 9 echoing Plato, Republic 6. 509 B) 
that God is "beyond being." Further, 1 Timothy 2. 5 says there is 
only one Mediator. Yes, if we take the word univocally, only one 
fills the condition: only one is strictly necessary, only one can 
work by His own power, only one has both divine and human natures. 
Yet so many times in the OT Moses was a mediator between the people 
and God, and in the book of Job, God Himself told Job to be a 
mediator for the guilt of his friends (Job 42. 8).

Similarly there is only one priest who most fully is such, who is 
the principal analog, Jesus. But there can be and are others whom 
He Himself has designated to have an analogical share in His 
priesthood when He said, e.g.,"Do this in memory of me" and "Whose 
sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them", and,"He who hears 
you hears me." The fact that He does such things does not detract 
from His own unique priesthood, but rather shows its power in 
raising up participation even in mere men.

Jesus brings people to "complete and final" salvation (eis to 
panteles: 7. 25), that is, to heaven. There is no hint that Jesus 
was willing to let them commit "fornication and murder a thousand 
times a day" as we mentioned above, and yet after that, they could 
be joined face to face to the all holy God (without even an image 
in between, since no image can show what God is like) who is

"like a refiner's fire"- who can stand when He appears? (Malachi 3. 
2).

Jesus is "always living to make intercession for us" (7. 25) in the 
Heavens, as St. Paul says lyrically in Romans 8. 33-39. Just as 
Moses could appeal to the merits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in 
pleading with God, so we can plead the merits of Jesus. Jesus 
offered Himself "once for all" (7. 27:ephapax). That is, there is 
no need for Him to die again, or to die many times. Just as the 
merits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though finite, could be 
appealed to even though they acquired them only once, so also the 
death of Jesus, once for all, abundantly provides for us.

As we saw above, and will see further in commenting on the next 
chapter, this once-for-all character does not rule out the work of 
application of His merits to us, again, even as the merits of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could be as it were applied many times. 
Jesus gave His life "as a ransom for many" (Mark 14. 24-- cf. 
Isaiah 53. 10: rabbim).

Chapter 8: Summary

The point of our reasoning so far is this: Such is the high priest 
we have - one who has taken his place at the right hand of the 
Throne of Majesty in the heavens. He is a minister of the real tent 
or sanctuary, one pitched by the Lord, not by human hands.

Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. So 
Jesus had to have an offering to make. If He were still on earth, 
He would not be recognized as a priest at all, for the Levitical 
priests were there according to the law, and no one of His tribe, 
that of Judah, had ever ministered at the altar ( 7. 13 above). The 
place where these old priests ministered is only a copy of the true 
reality. For God once said to Moses: Make everything in the 
tabernacle according to the pattern you were shown on the mountain.

But as it really is, Christ has received a better ministry, He is 
the minister of a better covenant, based on better promises. If the 
first covenant had been without fault, there would be no need or 
room for a second covenant.

But God showed that it was not without fault, and so He said 
through Jeremiah (31. 31-33): The days are coming when I will make 
a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant I made with their 
ancestors when I took them out of Egypt. They did not obey my 
covenant, and I did not take care of them. But this is the covenant 
that I, God, will make in the days to come: I will put my laws into 
their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, 
and they will be my people. There will be no need for each one to 
teach another and say: Know the Lord. For they will all know me, 
from the least to the greatest. I will be merciful to their sins, 
and remember them no more.

(In passing, we note that in the new covenant, as in the old, there 
was a law to be obeyed, and on condition of that obedience, He 
would be their God. the obedience of the old was that of the people 
- very poor indeed. The essential obedience in the new was that of 
Jesus, the guarantor of the new covenant: cf. 7. 22).

When He spoke of a new covenant, He showed that the first one was 
old, and about to disappear.

Chapter 8:Comments

We rendered the opening word - kephalaiaon - as meaning: This is a 
summary of what we have seen. It could also mean,"the chief point".

Christ, our high priest, has gone even into the heavens, and 
instead of having to kneel or stand in petition, He is seated at 
the right hand of Divine Majesty. The sanctuary He has entered is 
not one made by human hands, like the old temple, after a model 
shown to Moses. It is the true one, made by the Lord.

A high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. So Jesus 
had to have something to offer: it was His own body, His life. If 
Jesus were still on earth, He would not be considered a priest: For 
He was not of the line of Levi. So He would be considered a layman.

But He is not on earth: He has completed His sacrifice once-for-
all.

The words once-for-all do not mean there is nothing more to be 
done. It is one thing for Him to have earned all graces and 
forgiveness; it is another thing to give out or apply these to 
those who obey Him.

While still on earth He made provision for that, in saying to His 
Apostles: "Do this in memory of me." They were to say over bread 
and wine, just as He had done: "This is my body... . this is my 
blood". In itself those words could speak of a mere symbolic 
presence. But His first followers did understand them to refer to 
His own real presence, His body and blood. St. Paul in 1 Cor 10. 
16-21 makes it parallel to Jewish and pagan sacrifices, and says 
that one who receives the body and blood of Jesus unworthily is 
guilty of [an offense] against the body and blood of the Lord (1 
Cor 11. 26-30) said too that by doing this rightly "we show forth 
the death of the Lord until He comes (1 Cor 11. 26).

If we compare this to words of God in Isaiah 23. 19 we can 
understand better. God said there that the people honored Him with 
their lips, but their hearts were far from Him. That is why God, so 
many times over in the great prophets, said He did not want the 
ancient sacrifices, even though he had ordered them. So in what 
sense could He say He did not want them? He meant that the work of 
the lips, the external sign, was empty. What was needed was that 
the lips should express the heart, the heart that obeyed God. Jesus 
did precisely that, as St. Paul said in Romans 5. 19: "Just as by 
the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so by 
the obedience of the one man, the many would be made just."

This lets us see why He said: "Do this in memory of me." If the 
people did not do as He did, if they did not obey the Father. then 
the Father would again say that they honored Him with their lips, 
but their hearts were far from Him. If they even committed 
fornication and murder a thousand times a day as that false, so-
called follower Luther said, God would still have to say: They 
honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. - And 
when they would come to join themselves to God's embrace forever, 
He who is Holiness, He who is "like a refiner's fire" so that no 
one can stand when He appears, unless He be pure - then the Father 
would reject them, or rather, burn out the corruption from them. .

It would still be true that the Son had earned forgiveness and all 
grace for them - but they would have closed themselves, made 
themselves incapable of taking it in. They would not fulfill what 
St. Paul said in Romans 8. 17: "We are heirs together with Him 
provided we suffer with Him", so we may be glorified with Him. (cf. 
also the other parts of this great syn Christo theme: Romans 6. 1-
6; 8. 9; Col 3. 1-4; Eph 2. 5-6).

Really what He told His Apostles to do in memory of Him, that which 
would "show forth the death of the Lord until He comes" was a 
sacrifice, not one to earn anew, but one to apply the fruits of 
that once-for-all offering. . We can get a hint of this in that St. 
Paul in 1 Cor 10. 21 speaks of the "table of the Lord", and 
compares it to the table of false worship - which is yet a 
sacrifice. Cf. also the altar in 13. 1. The two elements of which 
God spoke through Isaiah are present, in doing this in memory of 
Him, namely: there is an outward sign, the same as that which He 
Himself used on the first Holy Thursday, the seeming separation of 
Body and Blood, standing for death - as if He said to the Father: 
"I know the command you have you have given me: I should die 
tomorrow. Very good, I turn myself over to death. I accept. I obey"

The second element is of course the obedience of the same High 
Priest who is present on that altar. For if He said "where two or 
three are gathered together, there I am in the midst of them" how 
much more is He here when that community does what He commanded to 
be done: "Do this in memory of Me". In other words, He on the altar 
still has the obedience of His heart, of which He spoke on entering 
into this world, as we see in Hebrews 10. 7: "Behold I come to do 
your will O God." Hebrews 10. 10 speaks of that "will"

that, is disposition of obedience in His will. He still has that 
"will" by which He made His offering on entering into the world. He 
made that offering on entering into this world; He never took it 
back, and now after His death and resurrection, His heart has not 
changed. Death makes permanent the attitude of heart with which one 
leaves this world. So when He is present, He does not repeat or 
renew His obedience - it is simply continuous from the first moment 
of entering into this world.

We said it is one thing for Him to have earned most perfectly all 
forgiveness and grace by His once-for-all offering. It is another 
thing for Him t make provision for giving out the fruits of His 
offering. He did that, as we have been showing, by ordering: "Do 
this in memory of me." He made provision also when He commanded His 
Apostles to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He made provision 
when, on the very first visit to the Apostles after His 
resurrection, He at once told them: "Whose sins you shall forgive, 
they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retrain, they are 
retained." It was as if He wanted at once to give out the fruits 
for which He had so dearly paid. He arranged to give them out by 
commissioning His Apostles to give out His forgiveness.

When we read that His offering was once-for all does that conflict 
with what we have just said above? Not at all. WE explained this 
matter in advance in our comments above on chapter 2. 1-9. First, 
as we said, it is one thing for Him to earn, another thing to give 
out the fruits of that earning. Secondly, even in the Mass, it is 
not His obedience that is repeated - as we said, that obedience was 
continuous from His entry into the world when He said: "Behold I 
come to do your will, O God", up to the present day. His heart 
never changes. So what is multiplied in the Mass is only the 
outward sign, carried out by a priest to whom He gave a 
participation in His own priesthood, in fulfillment of His command: 
"Do this in memory of me." Still further, there is no additional 
merit or satisfaction the Mass: there is simply the giving out of 
the fruit of His merit and satisfaction by the means He Himself 
ordered. the Father, in His love of good order, is pleased to have 
something to serve as a title for giving something out, even though 
that title does not really move Him (cf. St. Thomas, Summa I. 19. 
5. c)

So our text continues: God found fault with the people, who did not 
obey, and with the inadequate covenant. Therefore He announced 
through Jeremiah (31. 31-33) that the time was coming when He would 
make a new covenant. In saying new, He indicated the previous one 
was old and about to fall away.

We had better note the comparison of this to St. Paul in Romans 
11;1 and 29: God as not rejected His people... . His call is 
without repentance, without change. So the Jews are still called to 
be part of His people. Some have accepted that call. But in the 
middle of that same chapter Paul makes a comparison of two olive 
trees: the tame one is the original people of God; the wild one is 
the gentiles. Many branches fell off from that original tree. 
Sadly, that means they stopped being part of the people of God. We 
recall the frightening words of Our Lord in the parable of the 
wicked tenants, in Matthew 21. 33-46. He told the Pharisees that 
the kingdom, that is membership in the people of God, or the Church 
or the messianic kingdom - all are the same - would be taken from 
them. So they would no longer be part of the people of

God. They would be the branches that fell off the original olive 
tree by their rejection of the long-promised Messiah. In their 
place the gentiles were engrafted , a things the Jews had never 
understood from the many OT prophecies of gentiles coming to 
Jerusalem. (They thought it meant all gentiles would become Jews. 
But St. Paul in Eph 3. 6 reveals a mystery not known before: the 
gentiles are to form one people with those Jews who remained 
faithful to the original covenant: one flock and one shepherd (John 
10. 16).

So the final picture is this: the new covenant is both a 
continuation and a fulfillment of the old, with the Messiah so long 
promised being accepted by those who were faithful to the original 
covenant. But the one flock and one shepherd consists of both Jews 
who accepted the Messiah, and of gentiles who also did so. They 
become one flock. They are spiritually children of Abraham, as St. 
Paul brings out in Romans 4. They are as some say today "spiritual 
Semites". Racial descent is unprofitable (cf. Matthew 7. 13-14; Lk 
13. 23-24 - which seem to tell the Jews that it not enough to be 
racially children of Abraham, who they thought would not let any 
circumcised Jew enter into Gehenna); it is following in the faith 
of Abraham that counts.

This covenant theme, quoting as it does Jeremiah 31. 31-33, was 
especially pertinent to the time of Jeremiah when in 621 BC the 
book of the law was found in the temple, and King Josiah solemnly 
renewed the covenant for himself and for his people - except that 
so many of the people merely went through the ceremony outwardly, 
as Jeremiah seemed to very soon (cf. Jeremiah, 3. 6-10 and chapter 
11).

What of the law being implanted in their hearts? This is the same 
as that of which St. Paul wrote in Romans 2. 14-16, where he cited 
this very text of Jeremiah: The gentiles who do not have the 
revealed law do naturally what the law requires, for they read what 
the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, writes on their hearts. In 
so doing, they are really Christian - as St. Justin Martyr wrote 
(Apology 1. 46) of Socrates and others like him.

Hosea lamented (4. 1 & 6) that there was no "knowledge" of God in 
the people. The usual translation is inadequate. It notes that the 
noun dath is used, which can be used to mean knowledge. Yet since 
it is really an infinitive of yada, which has broad meanings: know, 
love, obey etc. therefore knowledge would be better translated as 
obedience, obedience to the covenant. Hence in Hosea 6. 1 God says: 
I want hesed , obedience to the covenant - more than sacrifice, and 
knowledge of God rather than holocausts. Again, knowledge really 
stands for obedience, as indicated by the parallel part of the 
sentence calling for hesed, obedience to the covenant.

Further, if all "know" -- in the sense of obey - God, then there is 
no such thing as a permission to commit fornication and murder a 
thousand times a day and still be right with God because of the 
once-for-all sacrifice. That sacrifice earned all forgiveness - it 
still had to be accepted, by knowledge of God, that is, obedience 
to Him.

We may well wonder if Jeremiah understood the full objective import 
of his prophecy (Cf. Vatican II, Lumen gentium 55 which shows 
uncertainty of whether or not the authors of Genesis 3. 15 and 
Isaiah 7. 14 really saw in their lines what the Church today sees). 
He would naturally tend to think of the obedience to the law 
written on hearts as parallel to the obedience required at Sinai, 
that is, the obedience of the people. But it really referred 
essentially to the obedience of the coming high priest, obedience 
even to death. Hence that high priest was the guarantor, as we saw 
in 7, 22 of the new covenant. It was His obedience that validated 
it. The people still had to "know" God, and be like their high 
priest. Again, we think of the syn Christo theme we spoke of above.

Whether or not Jeremiah saw all the implications of His own words, 
yet the Holy Spirit, the chief author of all of Scripture, surely 
saw and intended them (cf. again Vatican II, Lumen gentium 55). Our 
present Epistle speaks of that obedience of the high priest so many 
times, especially in 10. 7.

Chapter 9:Summary

The old covenant had ordinances for worship: a first and a second 
tent. In that second tent was the Holy of Holies, with a golden 
incense altar and the Ark of the Covenant, having cherubim on its 
lid.

The ancient priests go many times into the first tent, but only the 
high priest, on Yom Kippur, once a year, goes into the second tent, 
the Holy of Holies. He goes with blood, to offer for the sins of 
ignorance (sheggaghah) of the people.

Thus the Holy Spirit shows that while the first tent stood, the way 
for full access to God was not to be had. The gifts that were 
offered could never make the worshippers perfect in their 
consciences. They cleansed only from the sheggagah. But now Christ 
has come, as the high priest, going into the greater and more 
perfect tent or sanctuary, not with the blood of animals, but with 
His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. If the blood of 
goats and bulls was good for bodily cleansing, how much more will 
the blood of Christ cleanse consciences from dead works, so as to 
worship the living God.

So He is the Mediator of the new covenant. Where there is a 
covenant, the death of the testator is necessary. for a last will 
and testament is valid only when the testator has died. In

the old covenant everything was cleansed with blood, and without 
the shedding of blood there was no forgiveness.

If the earthly copies of the heavenly things shown to Moses on the 
mountain are cleansed by such means, then the heavenly realities 
have to be cleansed by better sacrifices than the old ones. For 
Christ has entered not into just an earthly Holy of Holiness, but 
into the heavens themselves.

He did not need to come there many times over as did the ancient 
high priests -- if He had to do that He would have had to die many 
times since the beginning of the world. But He was offered once-
for-all to bear the sins of all. To those who look forward to His 
coming a second time, He will bring final salvation.

Chapter 9:Comments

Nothing certain is found about the Ark of the Covenant after 587 
BC, the fall of Jerusalem. It seems that the postexilic temple had 
nothing in the Holy of Holies, so that when Pompey the Roman 
conqueror forced his way into it in 63 BC. (Tacitus Histories 5. 
9), he was surprised to find nothing there. The spot for the ark 
was marked by a slab called the "stone of foundation".

In Second Maccabees 2. 4-8 we read that Jeremiah hid the ark and 
the altar of incense in a cave on Mount Nebo ( Dt 34. 1) where 
Moses had gone up and seen the inheritance of God. Later some 
followers of Jeremiah came and tried to find the place, but were 
unable. Jeremiah told them the place was to remain unknown until 
God would again gather His people together and show them mercy. The 
problem is that Scripture does not guarantee this account, for in 
2. 1 it merely says,"you will find this in the records", that is, 
in secular records, not in Scripture.

Fuller information on the involuntary sins, sheggagah is given in 
our comments on 2. 10 above.

In 9. 7 we heard again th