When he serves and ministers, it is for this purpose: to cleanse humans from their sins and to make them holy. For it is fitting for the minister and creator of the saints to sit at the right hand of the Father as true God and his Son.^[1]

He left till last the greatest honor, presenting him seated at the right hand of the throne of majesty. Aaron, the forebear of priests, remember, who was the first to receive the role of high priesthood, entered the divine sanctuary with fear and trembling, whereas this person has a seat at the right hand. He included the word minister, of course, because he is speaking of a high priest. What ministry does he discharge after offering him-self once and for all, and no longer offering a further sacrifice? How is it possible for him at one and the same time to be seated and to minister? Only if you were to say the ministry is the salvation of human beings, which he procures in lordly fashion.

The point in what we are saying, that is, the discussion which we have undertaken with regard to priesthood and the law, is now presented to you according to what I have said above. We have such a high priest of the high priests, who does not stand before the ark of alliance but who, by ascending, is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven.

Moreover, he, who was so entirely praised, was a minister in the sanctuary in the very tabernacle of truth—that is, either in the kingdom of heaven, as he promised, or in this world, as he actually did by washing the feet of his disciples.

He calls the heavens the tent in this passage. In my opinion he seems to then call the flesh of the Lord the true tent, which also the Lord himself fashioned when he was not yet man, considering that immaculate flesh did not come into existence by human coupling but by the Holy Spirit.

By tent he referred to heaven, where the apostle said he was ministering as man, though being its creator.

If one assigns to the Father the upper place by way of precedence and asserts that the only begotten Son sits below, he will find that all the consequent conditions of body attach to the creature of his imagination. And if these are the imaginations of drunken delusion and frenzied insanity, can it be consistent with true religion for people taught by the Lord himself that he that honors not the Son honors not the Father^[1] to refuse to worship and glorify with the Father him who in nature, in glory and in dignity is conjoined with him? What shall we say? What just defense shall we have in the day of the awful universal judgment of all creation, if, when the Lord clearly announces that he will come in the glory of his Father;^[2] when Stephen beheld Jesus standing at the right hand of God;^[3] when Paul testified in the Spirit concerning Christ that he is at the right hand of God;^[4] when the Father says, Sit at my right hand^[5]; when the Holy Spirit bears witness that he has sat down on the right hand of the majesty of God—what defense shall we have when we attempt to degrade him, who shares the honor and the throne, from his condition of equality to a lower state? Standing and sitting, I apprehend, indicate the permanence and entire stability of the nature, as Baruch, when he wishes to exhibit the immutability and immobility of the divine mode of existence, says, For you sit forever and we perish utterly.^[6] Moreover, the place on the right hand indicates, in my judgment, equality of honor. It is rash, then, to attempt to deprive the Son of participation in the doxology, as though worthy only to be ranked in a lower place of honor.

Let people therefore learn and understand why the Most High God willed that he should be clothed with mortal flesh, afflicted with torture and sentenced to death when he sent his ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of his righteousness. For since there was no righteousness on earth, he sent a teacher, as it were, a living law to found a new name and temple so that, by his words and example, he might spread throughout the earth a true and holy worship. However, in order that people might know for sure that he was sent by God, it was fitting that he should not be born as human beings are born, composed of a mortal on both sides. Rather, so that it might appear that he was heavenly even in the form of man, he was born without the office of a father. For he had a spiritual Father—God. And, as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father. He was therefore both God and man, being placed in the middle between God and man. From which the Greeks call him Mesitēs,^[1] that he might be able to lead humankind to God—that is, to immortality. For if he had been God only (as we have before said), he would not have been able to afford to people examples of goodness; if he had been man only, he would not have been able to compel people to righteousness, unless there had been added an authority and virtue greater than that of man.

I am very much surprised how they have ventured to entertain the idea that the Word became man in consequence of his nature. For, if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous. For nature has no conception of a virgin bearing apart from a man. By the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, he became man in the body for our salvation in order that, having something to offer for us he might save us all, as many as through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.^[1] For it was not some man that gave himself up for us; since every man is under sentence of death, according to what was said to all in Adam, earth you are and unto earth you shall return.^[2] Nor yet was it any other of the creatures, since every creature is liable to change. But the Word himself offered his own body on our behalf that our faith and hope might not be in man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word himself.

That you may understand that he used the word minister of humanity, observe how he again indicates it: For, he says, every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Do not now, because you hear that he sits, suppose that his being called high priest is mere idle talk. For clearly the former—his sitting—belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this [his being a priest] to his great lovingkindness and his tender care for us. On this account, he repeatedly urges this very thing and dwells more upon it, for he feared lest the other truth should overthrow it. Therefore, he again brings his discourse down to this, since some were inquiring why he died. He was a priest. But there is no priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that he also should have a sacrifice.

They do not understand that not even the proudest of spirits could themselves rejoice in the honor of sacrifices unless a true sacrifice was due to the one true God in whose place they desire to be worshiped. This sacrifice cannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous priest, and it also must be received by those for whom it is offered. And it also has to be without fault, so that it may be offered for cleansing those with faults. This is at least what everyone does who wants a sacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is so righteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God who had no need to purge his own sins by sacrifice, neither original sins nor those that are added by human life? And what could human beings more appropriately choose to be offered for themselves than human flesh? And what could be more fitting for this immolation than mortal flesh? And what could be cleaner for cleansing the faults of mortals than the flesh born in and from the womb of a virgin without any infection of carnal desires? And what could be more acceptably offered and taken than that the flesh of our sacrifice be the body of our priest? And so, where four things are to be considered in every sacrifice—(1) to whom it is offered, (2) by whom it is offered, (3) what is offered, (4) for whom it is offered—the same one and true mediator himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with him [the Father] to whom he offered, might make those one in himself for whom he offered, and he himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering.

It is proper for a high priest to offer gifts to the God of all. For this reason, the only begotten, when he was made man and assumed our nature, offered it for us.

He mentioned this by way of defense to stress that he was not criticizing the law but regarding it also as venerable for containing the type of the heavenly things. This was the reason he said it was pointless to refer to him as a priest while living on earth, there being priests according to the law discharging the worship prescribed by the law. So if the priesthood according to the law also came to an end, and the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek offered sacrifice and made further sacrifices unnecessary, why do the priests of the New Covenant perform the sacramental liturgy? It is clear to those versed in divine things, however, that it is not another sacrifice we offer; rather, we perform the commemoration of the one, saving sacrifice. The Lord himself, remember, required this of us, Do this in memory of me,^[1] so that we should recall with insight the type of the sufferings undergone for us, kindle love for the benefactor and look forward to the enjoyment of the good things to come.

Since they were in the darkness without a model, they managed their office according to a general affinity in divine matters. That is, all those ancient religious institutions were shadows and symbols of this institution of the church, which is established in its spirituality and divinity before him. And to Moses himself it was ordered, when he was about to build the tabernacle of the hour, See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.

Now if we correctly understand it, this is the statement Moses writes in the beginning of his book, when he says, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.^[1] For this is the beginning of all creation: to this beginning the end and consummation of all things must return. That is, that heaven and earth may be the dwelling place and rest of the pious, so that all the saints and the meek may first obtain an inheritance in that earth, for this is the teaching of the law and the prophets and the gospel. In that earth I believe there exist, the true and living forms of worship which Moses handed down under the shadow of the law. For it is said that they serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary—that is, those who were in subjection in the law. To Moses himself it was also said, See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.^[2] It seems to me, therefore, that on this earth the law was a kind of schoolmaster to those who by it were to be led to Christ^[3] and to be instructed and trained in order that, after the training of the law, they might more easily receive the more perfect precepts of Christ. So also that other earth, which receives into it all the saints, may first imbue and mould them by the precepts of the true and everlasting law, that they may more easily gain possession of those perfect precepts of heaven, to which nothing can be added. And in heaven there will truly be what is called the eternal gospel^[4] and that testament that is always new, which shall never grow old.

The divine apostle, by shadow of the heavenly things^[1] referred to the worship according to the law and confirms his statement with a scriptural testimony.

Here we must apply our minds attentively and consider the apostolic wisdom. For again he shows the difference of the priesthood, who, he says, serve a copy and shadow of heavenly things. What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain as a sacrifice, when the Spirit is with us, when he who sits on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the washing, when they are fellow citizens of those in heaven, when we have a country and a city and citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these be other than heavenly things? But what! Are not our hymns heavenly? Do not we also who are below utter in concert with them the same things that the divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar also heavenly? How? It has nothing carnal. All spiritual things become the offerings. The sacrifice does not disperse into ashes or into smoke or into steamy savor. It makes the things placed there bright and splendid. How again can the rites that we celebrate be other than heavenly? For when he says, If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained,^[1] when they have the keys of heaven, how can all be other than heavenly?

But who could more properly speak to us about who God is than the Son? For no one knows the Father except the Son.^[1] We too aspire to know how God is Spirit as the Son reveals it and to worship God in the Spirit that gives life and not in the letter that kills.^[2] We want to honor God in truth and no longer in types, shadows and examples, even as the angels do not serve God in examples and the shadow of heavenly realities but in realities that belong to the spiritual and heavenly order, having a high priest of the order of Melchizedek^[3] as leader of the saving worship for those who need both the mystical and secret contemplation.

It is now time to show that the very name of Jesus, and especially that of Christ, had already been honored by the ancient God-loving prophets. Moses himself, having been the first to make known the name of Christ as being especially revered and glorious, having handed down the types and symbols of heavenly things and the mysterious images according to the oracle which said to him, See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain,^[1] and having consecrated a man high priest of God insofar as it was at all possible, calls this man Christ.^[2] That is, to this dignity of the high priesthood, which surpassed all preeminence among humans, he attaches for additional honor and glory the name of Christ. Thus, then, he indeed knew Christ as a being divine. And the same Moses by divine inspiration foresaw the name Jesus very clearly and again also endowed this with special privilege. The name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among people before it was made known to Moses, Moses applied first to this one alone,^[3] whom he knew, again as a type and a symbol, would receive the rule over all after his death. His successor . . . had never before used the title Jesus but had been called by another name, Hoshea, which his parents had bestowed upon him. He himself [the successor] proclaims Jesus, as a privilege of honor far greater than a royal crown, giving him the name because Jesus, the son of Nun, himself bore a remembrance to our Savior, who alone, after Moses and the completion of the symbolic worship transmitted by him, received the rule of the true and pure religion. And in this way Moses bestowed the name of our Savior Jesus Christ as a mark of the greatest honor upon the two men who in his time surpassed all the rest of the people in virtue and glory—the high priest and him who would rule after him.

The apostle says with reference to the law that they who have circumcision in the flesh serve as the copy and shadow of heavenly things. And in another place, is not our life on earth a shadow?^[1] If then both the law that is on the earth is a shadow and all our life that is on earth is the same, and we live among nations under the shadow of Christ, we must consider whether the truth of all these shadows will be learned in that revelation when, no longer through a mirror and darkly, but face to face^[2] all the saints shall be counted worthy to behold the glory of God and the causes and truth of things. And the pledge of this truth being already received through the Holy Spirit,^[3] the apostle said, Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know him no more.^[4]

Since, however, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken,^[1] we must admit, as far as the literal meaning is concerned, that, after the Lord was raised from the dead, the disciples understood that the things said about the temple refer to his passion and resurrection, and they recalled that the saying, in three days I will raise it up^[2] indicated the resurrection. It was then that they believed both the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken, since there is no earlier testimony that they had believed the Scripture or this word which Jesus spoke. For faith is, strictly speaking, the acceptance with one’s whole soul of the object of faith at baptism. But as for the anagogical meaning, since we previously mentioned the resurrection from the dead of the whole body of the Lord, we must know that the disciples—once they were reminded through the fulfillments of the Scripture which they had not thoroughly understood when they were in this life and once it was brought before their eyes and made manifest that it contained an example and shadow of certain heavenly things—believed what they formerly did not believe, and believed the word of Jesus as he who spoke it intended, which they had not understood before the resurrection.

For how can one be said to believe the Scripture in the proper sense, when one does not perceive the meaning of the Holy Spirit in it which God wants to be believed, rather than the intent of the letter? According to this, we must say that none of those who walk according to the flesh^[3] believe in the spiritual meanings of the law, whose first principle they do not even imagine.

He concisely brought out the superiority: whereas the Old Covenant had corporeal promises associated with it—a land flowing with milk and honey, olive groves and vineyards, big families and suchlike things—the New had an eternal and heavenly kingdom.

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.^[1] Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the word better to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through him, better the hope in him and also the promises through him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because he who conducts this economy, is better than things originated.

Prophetic utterances are of three kinds: (1) some relating to the earthly Jerusalem; (2) some to the heavenly Jerusalem; (3) and some to both simultaneously. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict King David of heinous sin and predict what future evils would happen to him because of his sin. Who can question that this pertains to the earthly city? There are other instances, sometimes addressed to the public at large for their safety and benefit, and sometimes addressed to someone in private who merited an utterance from God in order to know in advance about some event to guide his temporal life.

The following prophecy, however, without a doubt references the heavenly Jerusalem. Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, says the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, says the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. Here, God himself is Jerusalem’s reward. Its chief and entire good is to possess him and to be possessed by him.

Both cities are indicated when the city of God is called Jerusalem and when it is prophesied that the house of God shall one day be in Jerusalem. This prophecy seems to be fulfilled when King Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. This kind of prophecy, as it were, blending both the others in the ancient canonical books devoted to historical narratives, is very common. It has exercised and continues to exercise greatly the talents of those who search holy Scripture.

[The Lord] ascended into the retirement of a neighboring mountain and called his apostles to him there. From the height of that mystical seat he could instruct them in the loftier doctrines, signifying from the very nature of the place and act that it was he who had once honored Moses by speaking to him. He spoke with Moses then, indeed, with a more terrifying justice, but now with a holier mercy in order that what had been promised might be fulfilled when the prophet Jeremiah says, Behold, the days are coming when I will complete a new covenant for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah. After those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their minds, and in their heart will I write them.^[1] He therefore who had spoken to Moses, spoke also to the apostles, and the swift hand of the Word wrote and deposited the secrets of the new covenant in the disciples’ hearts. There were no thick clouds surrounding him as of old, nor were the people frightened off from approaching the mountain by frightful sounds and lightning.^[2] Rather, quietly and freely his discourse reached the ears of those who stood by. In this way the harshness of the law might give way before the gentleness of grace, and the spirit of adoption might dispel the terrors of bondage.

No longer, he says, shall the covenant be in writings, but in hearts. Let the Jew, in that case, show if this was ever carried into effect, but he could not, for it was made a second time in writings after the return from Babylon. But I show that the apostles received nothing in writing, but received it in their hearts through the Holy Ghost. Therefore also Christ said, When he comes, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.^[1]

For that this is the case is clear from this reason: Who would have easily persuaded someone in the Old Testament to withdraw from the proper religion? To the contrary Israel, being full of unbelief, changed their knowledge of God for error.

This does not happen in this life, but will happen in that: those still beset with the gloom of unbelief will see the truth there, and will be smitten, in keeping with the divine oracle.

[He bestows] on us the truly great, divine and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying us by heavenly teaching, putting his laws into our minds and writing them on our hearts. What laws does he inscribe? That all shall know God, from small to great; and, I will be merciful to them, says God, and will not remember their sins. Let us receive the laws of life, let us comply with God’s exhortations; let us become ac-quainted with him, that he may be gracious. And though God needs nothing, let us give him the grateful compensation of a thankful heart and of a holy life as a kind of rental payment for our dwelling here below.

So then we also are new, or rather we were made new, but now have become old; therefore we are near to vanishing away, and to destruction. Let us scrape off this old age. It is indeed no longer possible to do it by washing, but by repentance it is possible here in this life. If there be in us anything old, let us cast it off; if any wrinkle, if any stain, if any spot, let us wash it away and become fair,^[1] that the king may desire our beauty.^[2]

For what is the meaning of John’s being born to elderly parents? Was it not to indicate the earthly birth of the one who was soon to follow, since by bringing forward the hidden spiritual mysteries of the new covenant, he would teach that the fleshly observance of the law and the priesthood of the old covenant were now to be brought to an end? For what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. And what does it mean that our Lord’s precursor came from a father who was mute, a leader of the priests of that time? Is it not that, by the time our Lord appeared, the tongue of the ancient priesthood had to a large extent become mute as regards the spiritual sense of the law’s teaching, since the scribes and those learned in the law were only concerned with teaching the keeping of the letter of the law? Moreover, in a number of instances, they were even falsifying the letter of the law by substituting their own traditions, as is proven by our Lord’s having rebuked them more than once in the Gospels. And what does it mean that he was born to a barren mother? Is it not that the law, which was ordered to beget spiritual issue for God with the help of the priestly office, led no one to perfection,^[1] undoubtedly because it was unable to open up the gates of the kingdom to its followers? The author of the law himself, born under the law,^[2] took away from the law the opprobrium of its barrenness, for he pointed out that it was to be understood spiritually; and he taught that in it was formerly prefigured and, as it were, conceived, the gift of happiness from on high which now shines out clearly in the gospel.

A covenant might be said to be new when it is different and shows some advantage over the old. Surely one might say it is new also when part of it has been taken away and part not. For instance, when an old house is ready to fall down, if a person, leaving the whole, has patched up the foundation, we say he has made it new when he has taken some parts away and brought others into their place. For even the heaven also is thus called new, when it is no longer of brass^[1] but gives rain; and the earth likewise is new when it is not unfruitful, not when it has been changed; and the house is likewise new, when portions of it have been taken away and portions remain. . . . But, do you see how this interpretation breaks down? I maintain that this covenant must be called new in the proper sense of the word.^[2] . . . In calling it new, Paul says, he treats the first as obsolete, and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. . . . Therefore it is done away with and is perishing and no longer exists.

Paul here used a familiar form of speech, as if one should say, the house is not faultless; that is, it has some defect, it is decayed. The garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not, therefore, here speak of the old covenant as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.

For I will be merciful to them, not with regard to their impurity but toward their iniquities, not with regard to the uncleanness of nocturnal dreams but to the sins which are performed in them through the power of the devil.

Therefore in the new covenant that Jeremiah announced, The first has become old. Now what decayed and became old is near to vanishing away.

How does it happen that wickedness is transcended in forgetfulness? From the remembrance of good things, from the remembrance of God. If we continually remember God, we cannot remember those things also. For, the psalmist says, When I remembered you upon my bed, I thought upon you in the morning dawn.^[1] We ought then to have God always in remembrance, but then especially, when thought is undisturbed and when by means of that remembrance one is able to condemn himself, when one can retain things in memory. For in the daytime, indeed, if we do remember, other cares and troubles, entering in, drive the thought out again; but in the night it is possible to remember continually, when the soul is calm and at rest; when it is in the harbor and under a serene sky. The things which you say in your hearts are grieved for on your beds, the psalmist says.^[2] For it were indeed right to retain this remembrance through the day also. But inasmuch as you are always full of cares and distracted amidst the things of this life, at least then remember God on your bed. At the morning dawn meditate upon God. If at the morning dawn we meditate on these things, we shall go forth to our business with much security. If we have first made God propitious by prayer and supplication, going forth thus we shall have no enemy. Or if you should, you will laugh him to scorn, having God propitious. There is war in the marketplace; the affairs of every day are a fight, they are a tempest and a storm. We therefore need arms, and prayer is a great weapon. We need favorable winds; we need to learn everything, so as to go through the length of the day without shipwrecks and without wounds. For every single day the rocks are many, and oftentimes the boat strikes and is sunk. Therefore have we especially need of prayer early and by night.

All Scripture is divided into two Testaments. What preceded the advent and passion of Christ—that is, the law and the prophets—is called the Old [Testament]; but what was written after his resurrection is named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New. Yet, they are not dissonant. The New Testament is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ who suffered death for us and made us heirs of his everlasting kingdom. . . . When, therefore, we who were in time past as it were blind, and as it were shut up in the prison of folly, were sitting in darkness, ignorant of God and of the truth, we have been enlightened by him, who adopted us by his testament; and having freed us from cruel chains, and brought us out to the light of wisdom, he admitted us to the inheritance of his heavenly kingdom.

Mighty Paul knew that the only begotten God, who has the preeminence in all things, is the author and cause of everything that is good. Paul witnesses to the fact that the creation of all that exists was formed by the only begotten God. On top of this he also testifies that when the original creation of man had decayed and vanished away (to use his own language), and another new creation was formed in Christ, in this too no other than he [the only begotten God] took the lead. But he is himself the firstborn of all that new creation of human beings which is effected by the gospel.

The law is suited to mortals, whereas the New Covenant guarantees us eternal life. It was therefore right for the former one to grow old, while the latter remains new forever in being associated with the ages that do not grow old.