Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 9

Having shown in general the dignity of the New Testament as compared to the Old, the Apostle now shows the same in particular by examining the details of each Testament. In regard to this, he does two things:

1. He compares things of the Old Testament with those of the New to show the dignity of the New.
2. He clarifies some things he had presupposed (Hebrews 10).

Regarding the first point, he does three things:

1. He explains what was present in the Old Testament.
2. He shows what it signified (Hebrews 9:8).
3. From these facts, he argues to his conclusion (Hebrews 9:15).

Regarding the first of these three points, he does two things:

1. He describes the qualities of the Old Testament.
2. He explains what he had said (Hebrews 9:2).

Concerning the first, it should be noted that both the Old and New Testaments were instituted so that through them the soul might come to God. But two things are needed for this: withdrawal from sin and union with God. The first is brought about by justification, and the second by sanctification. In both Testaments, justification and sanctification took place. Hence, he says that the former one had grown old.

But what were the qualities of that Old Testament? It had regulations for worship. In the Old Testament, there were washings by which people were cleansed not from the stain of sin, but from certain irregularities that hindered them from the worship of God. For example, after touching a corpse or anything unclean, they could not enter the tabernacle until they were purified by certain washings. Therefore, they were called the “justifications of worship,” because by them they were made fit for divine worship. This is treated in Leviticus 22. As Jerome notes, “Justifications, that is, washings, purified them so that they could approach.” But their sanctification was a worldly sanctuary.

Now, “worldly” is sometimes taken to mean any duration, as in for ever and ever (Psalms 109:3), and sometimes it signifies the world itself: Demas has left me, loving this world (2 Timothy 4:10). Therefore, that sanctification can be called “worldly” because it is temporal and not perpetual. But the Greek text does not take it that way, because it says, “mundane holy.”

Hence, a difference between the New Testament and the Old was that, although both are physical, the former contains grace and is holy, and in it the divine power works salvation under the cover of visible things. This was not so in the Old Testament, because it contained no grace in itself: How can you turn again to the weak and needy elemental spirits? (Galatians 4:9).

Then, when he says, For a tent was prepared, he explains what he has said, concerning first, the arrangement of the tabernacle, and secondly, the ministry of the priests (Hebrews 9:6).

To understand the literal meaning, it should be noted that the Lord commanded a tabernacle to be made in the desert. It was to be twenty cubits long and ten wide, with an entrance facing east. In front of the entrance, a curtain hung from four pillars. There was also a small tent containing the altar of burnt offerings. But the Apostle left all this unmentioned, because it did not contribute to his argument.

In the tabernacle, as you faced west, a veil hung before an area ten cubits long and ten wide, which divided it from the other area of twenty cubits. The twenty-cubit area is called the sanctuary and the first tabernacle; the other, ten-cubit area is called the Holy of Holies and the second tabernacle.

This distinction can be explained in two ways. First, the things of the Old Testament were a figure of the New, and the New is a figure of the heavenly country. Thus, the first tabernacle signified the Old Testament, and the second, the New. Second, the first tabernacle can signify the present Church, and the second, heavenly glory. Therefore, insofar as it signifies the Old Testament, it is a figure of a figure. But insofar as it signifies the present Church, which in turn signifies future glory, it is a figure of the truth in regard to each.

Concerning these, he does two things: first, he describes what was in the first tabernacle; secondly, what was in the second (Hebrews 9:3).

In the first tabernacle were three things. First, on the south side, was the golden candlestick. It was made in the following way: from a long shaft proceeded six branches, like six arms, with three on the right side and three on the left, so that at the top were seven branches, in each of which burned a lamp. In each arm were four things: the arm itself, which divided into three cups, bowls, and lilies. At the end of each part was a cup in which two cups were joined in the manner of a nut, with two revolving bowls and two leaves of a lily.

Then, in the northern area was a golden table upon which twelve freshly baked loaves were placed on the Sabbath, and over each one was incense burning on a paten of gold. Those loaves, which were called the Bread of the Presence, remained there until the next Sabbath, when they were removed and others put in their place. Furthermore, in the middle was a golden altar for burning sweet-smelling incense to prevent the house from smelling foul from the vast quantity of blood pouring from the sacrifices. By the candlestick, which gives light, and by the table, it was designated that those who serve the altar should live from the altar. Therefore, he says, for a tent was prepared, that is, the front part of the tabernacle, the first, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. This is called the Holy Place. All this is treated in detail in Exodus 25-27.

Then, when he says, Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies, he describes the things that were in the second tabernacle. These included the ark of the covenant, made of incorruptible acacia wood and overlaid on all sides, inside and out, with gold. In the ark were three things: a golden jar that held manna, in memory of the benefit bestowed on them; the rod of Aaron that had blossomed (Numbers 17:8), in memory of Aaron’s priesthood, so that no unauthorized person should presume to approach; and the tablets of the covenant, in memory of the Law.

Then, over the ark were two Cherubim, who touched each other with two wings and touched the two sides of the tabernacle with their other two wings. Between the two wings with which they touched each other was a golden table of the same length and width as the ark—two cubits in length and a cubit and a half in width—overshadowing the mercy seat. Hence, it served as a throne from which God would listen, to be merciful again toward the people: You who are enthroned upon the cherubim, shine forth before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh (Psalms 79:2). The ark was, so to speak, a footstool. The two cherubim, facing each other, looked at the mercy seat.

But the Apostle adds a fourth item: the golden altar of incense. Some say this was the altar between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. The priests entered the Holy Place, which was outside, every day to perform the mysteries; but the high priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year with blood. He would then fill that censer with incense, so that from the smoke a cloud ascended and covered the Holy of Holies, preventing it from being seen by anyone outside. Those, therefore, are the things which were beyond the veil, which was the second tabernacle and called the Holy of Holies on account of its dignity—just as the Blessed Mother is called the Virgin of virgins as the supreme example—having the golden censer and the ark of the covenant... In it was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. About these things it is not necessary to speak in detail now.

But in 1 Kings 8:9 it says that in the ark there was nothing but the two tablets of stone. I answer that this is true regarding its principal purpose, because that was what the ark was principally made for, as it says in Exodus 25:16.

Regarding what they signified, it should be noted that all the ceremonies of the Law were ordained for one purpose according to that state, but for another purpose insofar as they were figurative and represented Christ. As to the first, they were all instituted to represent God’s magnificence, which was represented only in its effects. Those effects have, so to speak, a twofold world: one is upper, namely, that of incorporeal substances, which was signified by the Holy of Holies; the other is the lower, physical world, which was represented by the Holy Place.

In the upper world are three things: God, the reasons of things, and the angels. But God is utterly incomprehensible; therefore, a seat was left unoccupied, because He cannot be comprehended by a creature except through His effects. That seat was the propitiatory, or mercy seat, as has been said. The angels were signified by the cherubim on account of their wisdom; hence, even the philosophers call angels intellectual substances. There were two, to designate that they were not set there to be adored, because it had been said in Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord. The fact that they looked at the mercy seat shows that they do not cease contemplating God: their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 18:10).

The reasons of things are signified by the ark. The reasons in this world pertain to wisdom, which is signified by the tablets; or to power, which is signified by the rod; or to goodness, which is signified by the manna, which is sweet, because whatever sweetness is found in the creature is from God’s goodness. But because the reasons of things, which exist intelligibly in God, exist in a physically perceptible manner in bodily creatures, therefore, just as there was an intellectual light in the tablets, so in the Holy Place there was a physical light. There the manna, here the loaves; there the rod, here the altar, which pertains to the priest’s office.

Insofar as Christ was prefigured by them, they are all found in Him. First, as to the Holy Place, He is a candlestick of light: I am the light of the world (John 8:12). In it are six orders: three on the left, namely, the perfect of the Old Testament; and three on the right, of the New Testament. They are designated in Ezekiel 14 by Noah (church leaders), by Daniel (contemplatives), and by Job (the actives). Those branches receive light and impart it: As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another (1 Peter 4:10). The cups furnish the drink of wisdom; the bowls, ready obedience; the lilies, the end of eternal life. The seven lamps are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Again, Christ is a table of refreshment. The twelve loaves are the doctrine of the Apostles and their successors; they are put out from the Sabbath of hope to the Sabbath of hope, and if in the meantime one is removed by death, another is substituted. But on the great Sabbath, all will be removed. In the interior was the propitiatory, and Christ is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2). The two angels are the two Testaments looking peacefully at Christ, or all the angels serving Christ in concord and unity of spirit: angels came and were ministering to him (Matthew 4:11); a thousand thousands served him (Daniel 7:10); Are they not all ministering spirits? (Hebrews 1:14). They desire to look on Christ, and they overshadow the propitiatory, that is, guard Christ’s Church. Or, it is because by their ministry, visions and apparitions occurred in which Christ was prefigured in a foreshadowing way.

The ark made of acacia wood is Christ’s pure and most precious flesh, which is called a gold jar because of His wisdom, full of the sweetness of the Godhead. The tablets are His wisdom. The rod is His eternal priesthood or Christ’s power. The manna is the sweetness of grace given by the priesthood of Christ or by obedience to His commandments, as a person obeys power. But because no one has grace without having sinned, except Christ and His mother, it is necessary to have a mercy seat.

Having described the elements of the Old Testament regarding the arrangement of the tabernacle, the Apostle now continues by discussing the office of the ministers: first, those whose duties concerned the holy place, and second, those whose duties concerned the most holy place (Hebrews 9:7).

To understand the literal meaning, it should be noted that, as stated previously, in the front part of the tabernacle near the center were the altar of incense and the golden lampstand. Opposite them, in the southern part, was the table of showbread. Every morning and evening, the priest entered the holy place for two reasons: to tend the lamps and to offer fresh incense, so that light and a pleasant aroma would be continually present there.

The author says, therefore, that with these preparations for the tabernacle's appearance thus made, the priests would go continually into the outer tent (the first tabernacle) to perform their ritual duties. They did not sacrifice in the holy place, because they sacrificed on the altar of burnt offerings, which was outdoors in front of the tabernacle's entrance. Instead, the author calls the renewal of the incense and the devotion of the offerers a "sacrifice."

Then, in verse 7, he mentions the duties of the ministers regarding the most holy place. It should be noted here, as it says in Leviticus 16:30, that on the Day of Atonement the high priest offered a calf for himself and his household and a goat for the sin of the people. This day occurred on the tenth day of the seventh month (September). The Jewish year began in the spring, as stated in Exodus 12:2: This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year.

After these animals were sacrificed, the high priest took some of their blood and filled a censer with burning coals from the altar of burnt offerings, which was in the court in front of the tabernacle. With these items, he entered the most holy place to make atonement for the tabernacle with blood, sprinkling some of it on the veil. After he came out, he used the same blood to anoint the altar of incense. He did this once a year.

Hence, the author says that only the high priest enters the second tabernacle, called the most holy place, and he does so only once a year. A gloss suggests that he could enter more often without blood, but only once with blood. However, this is recorded as happening only when the camp moved, for Aaron and his sons would enter to wrap the sanctuary and assign the load each man was to carry, as is clear from Numbers 4:16. Nevertheless, the high priest entered once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offered for his own and the people’s errors, that is, their sins: They err that work evil (Proverbs 14:22). For as it says in the Ethics, every wicked person is ignorant. This rite is described in Leviticus 16.

Mystically, the first tabernacle symbolizes the present Church, in which the faithful should sacrifice themselves: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God (Romans 12:1); A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit (Psalms 51:17). They should also sacrifice their property in giving alms: By such sacrifices God’s favor is obtained (Hebrews 13:16). But the high priest alone—that is, Christ in soul and body—entered the most holy place, which is the heavenly country.

Literally, however, the Apostle's intention is that the holy place signifies the Old Law, while the most holy place signifies the state of the New Testament and heaven, because one enters heaven through the New Law.

The author continues by explaining what the Holy Spirit signifies through this arrangement, first regarding the Old Testament, and second, regarding the New (Hebrews 9:11). He first describes the office of the ministers in relation to the first tabernacle and then gives the reason for this arrangement (Hebrews 9:9).

It should be noted that the priests entered the holy place every day, but the high priest alone entered the second part, which was beyond the veil, only once a year. The placement of the veil signified that heavenly things were hidden from them. Furthermore, the fact that the priests did not enter the most holy place signified that the Old Testament was not the way to enter heaven before Christ’s coming.

Therefore, the author says this was accomplished with the Holy Spirit indicating its meaning: Prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). This refutes the heretics who claim the Old Testament was not from the Holy Spirit but from an evil god. What did the Spirit indicate? That the way into the sanctuary was not yet opened as long as the first tabernacle—that is, the Old Testament symbolized by it—was still standing.

As long as the Old Testament was in effect, the way into the sanctuary, who is Christ, had not yet come. He is the one who says, I am the way (John 14:6), and He is the door by which one enters: I am the door (John 10:9). But He was not yet made manifest, because He was still hidden under the shadows and figures of the Law: For the law having a shadow of the good things to come (Hebrews 10:1). This arrangement is a symbol for the present age, leading us to the things that occur in our time.

Then, in Hebrews 9:9b, the author states the reason why the entrance into the most holy place was closed during the time of the Old Law. No one enters it unless he is perfect: It shall be called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it (Isaiah 35:8). Therefore, where there was no cleansing and no perfection, there was no entrance. The Old Testament was unable to make its servants perfect because the one sacrifice that could satisfy for the sin of the entire human race had not yet been offered.

Thus, the author says that according to this parable or figure, gifts and sacrifices are offered. These could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper who serves with the worship of latria (which is worship due to God alone). Cleansing is of two kinds. The first is cleansing the conscience from the stain of sin and the debt of punishment. The Law cannot do this: It is impossible that with the blood of the oxen and goats sin should be taken away (Hebrews 10:4); Offer sacrifices no more in vain (Isaiah 1:13); May the Lord be appeased with thousands of rams, or with many thousands of fat he-goats? (Micah 6:7).

The second kind of cleansing related to divine service, enabling a person to lawfully minister at such sacrifices. In this way, the Law did cleanse.

But were there not many perfect people under the Old Law? It seems so, for it was said to Abraham: Walk before me and be perfect (Genesis 17:1). Furthermore, Moses and many others were very saintly and perfect. I answer that although there were many holy and perfect people then, their perfection did not come from the works of the Law, for the law brought nothing to perfection (Hebrews 7:19). Rather, it came by faith in Christ: Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

Therefore, this perfection was not by virtue of the ceremonies and practices of the Law. This is why it is frequently stated, And the priest will pray for him (Leviticus 5:10), and in many other places. The cleansing they experienced was due to faith. In the New Testament, however, it says in Mark 16:16: He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. And there is no salvation without the sacraments of the New Law: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5).

But why did these sacrifices not cleanse the conscience? Because they consisted only of food and drink, and that which is entirely physical does not cleanse the soul, because it does not act on the soul. The author says they consisted of "food and drink," that is, in the distinctions between foods and drinks forbidden in the Old Law. Abstaining from these does not cleanse the conscience. Alternatively, this could refer to the use of the sacrifices, as the priests ate what was offered for sins. But these did not cleanse the conscience: Shall the holy flesh take away from your crimes? (Jeremiah 11:15).

They also consisted of "various washings." As it says in Mark 7:4, the Jews observed the washing of cups and pots, and when they returned from the market, they did not eat until they had washed. The Lord spoke against this practice, saying in Matthew 23:25: Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees: because you make clean the outside of the cup and dish, but within you are full of greed and uncleanness. Yet the Apostle is not speaking here about the superstitions of the Pharisees. Therefore, we must understand this to mean the other washings commanded in the Law, such as the water in which the priests washed themselves, or the water of purification used for cleansing from leprosy or defilement.

Hence, they are "regulations for the body." The author adds this as a general rule for all of them. He calls these ceremonies "regulations for the body," meaning they were physical because they related only to bodily cleanness and had no spiritual power in them. So that no one might ask why they were instituted if they could not bring perfection—for it would seem God instituted them for no reason—the author rejects this by adding they were imposed "until the time of correction."

It is as if to say: It is true they would have been instituted uselessly if they were meant to continue forever. But just as it is necessary to first give a child a tutor, and then, when he reaches maturity, to give him a code of conduct based on the judgment of the state's ruler, so too in the Old Law, things were instituted that reflected its own imperfection. When the time of perfection came, the things that lead to perfection had to be introduced.

Therefore, they were imposed "until the time of correction," meaning a time in which they would be corrected—not because they were evil, for the law is good (Romans 7:12), but because they were imperfect. As the Psalm says, Mildness is come upon us, and we shall be corrected (Psalms 90:10).

Having shown the significance of things related to the Old Testament and the first tabernacle, the Apostle now describes the condition of things related to the second tabernacle, which represented the New Testament. Here he does two things: first, he presents that significance; secondly, he proves something he had previously assumed, as mentioned in verse 13.

It should be noted that, considering what has already been said, five things have been mentioned concerning the second tabernacle:

1. Who entered it: the high priest.
2. The dignity and condition of the place he entered: it was called the holy of holies.
3. How he entered: with blood.
4. When he entered: once a year.
5. Why he entered: to atone for sins.

Here, the Apostle explains all of this. First of all, he explains who enters: Christ. For the high priest is the chief among the priests, and Christ was such: “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory” (1 Peter 5:4); “Having therefore a great high priest that has passed into the heavens” (Hebrews 4:14).

Every high priest is an administrator of a testament. In every testament, two things are to be considered: the end promised in that testament, and the things handed down in it. The blessings promised in the Old Testament were temporal: “If you are willing and will listen to me, you shall eat the good things of the land” (Isaiah 1:19). Therefore, the high priest of the Old Testament was a high priest of temporal blessings. But Christ is the high priest of heavenly blessings: “Rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven” (Matthew 5:12). Therefore, He is a high priest of the good things to come, because by His high priesthood we are brought to these future blessings: “We shall be filled with the good things of your house” (Psalms 65:4).

Furthermore, symbolic things were administered in the Old Testament, but Christ administers the spiritual things they prefigured: “Your Father from heaven will give the good Spirit to them that ask him” (Luke 11:13). Thus, “the good things to come” can be understood either as heavenly blessings, with respect to the New Testament, or as spiritual things, with respect to the Old, which was their figure.

This high priest is not negligent, but actively present. For a high priest is a mediator between God and the people, and Christ is a mediator: “The mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5); “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you” (Deuteronomy 5:5). Therefore, He assists the Father by interceding for us: “Christ Jesus who also makes intercession for us” (Romans 8:34). He also assists us with His help: “He is at my right hand that I be not moved” (Psalms 16:8); “Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55). Thus, it is clear who entered.

Secondly, he shows the dignity of the inner tabernacle when he says, by a greater, and its condition when he says, and more perfect tabernacle, because it is immovable: “Your eyes shall see Jerusalem, a rich habitation, a tabernacle that cannot be removed” (Isaiah 33:20). This is the tabernacle of heavenly glory: “Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle?” (Psalms 15:1). It is called a tabernacle because it is the dwelling of pilgrims, for it is not due to us because of our nature, but only through grace: “My people shall sit in the beauty of peace, and in the tabernacles of confidence, and in wealthy rest” (Isaiah 32:18). It is greater because of the immeasurable multitude of good things, which is indicated in the scripture cited: “My people shall sit in the beauty of peace” (Isaiah 32:18); “O Israel, how great is the house of God” .

The phrase by a greater can be read in two ways. In one way, it is a single phrase as if to mean “very great.” The reading would then be: When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered into the holy of holies, which is a very large tabernacle. In another way, “by” is a preposition, which is expressed better in Greek. The meaning is then: Christ entered into the holies by means of a greater, more spacious, and more perfect tabernacle. It was more perfect because all imperfection ceased there: “When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:10). Furthermore, it is of a different condition, because the old one was made by human hands, but this one by the hand of God: “Your sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17); “We know, if our earthly house of this habitation is dissolved, that we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven” (2 Corinthians 5:1); “For he looked for a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:10). Hence, he says, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, because it is not made with hands like the old one, nor is it of this creation—that is, it does not consist in sensible created goods, but in spiritual goods.

Alternatively, the tabernacle can be understood as Christ’s body, in which He fought against the devil: “He has set his tabernacle in the sun” (Psalms 19:4–5). This tabernacle is very large, because “in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9), and more perfect, because “we have seen his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). It is not made with hands because it was not conceived from human seed: “A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands” (Daniel 2:34).

Thirdly, he shows how He entered: not without blood. The old high priest entered with the blood of calves and goats, as it says in Leviticus 16. But Christ did not do so; that is, He did not enter with the blood of another. He took not the blood of goats or of calves but his own blood, which He offered on the cross for our salvation: “This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). The author uses the plural, “of goats and of calves,” not because more than one was offered at a time, but because the high priest entered many times over various years. Christ is signified by the goat because of the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3), and by the calf because of His strength and because He uses the two testaments as two horns: “Horns are in his hands” (Habakkuk 3:4).

Fourthly, when he entered: the old high priest entered once a year. But Christ, throughout all of time, which is like a single year, entered once for all into the holies and poured out His blood once: “Christ died once for our sins” (1 Peter 3:18); “For in that he died to sin, he died once” (Romans 6:10). Furthermore, He entered once; for from the fact that He entered heaven, He is there always. Hence, he says, he entered once for all into the holies.

Fifthly, he shows why He entered. The old high priest entered to make an offering for the sins of ignorance of the people, not for his own, because he had none. But the blood of Christ is more powerful, because by it He secured an eternal redemption. This is to say that we are redeemed by that blood, and this redemption is forever because His power is infinite: “By one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). The fact that he says secured can refer to God’s desire for our salvation: “I have found a ransom” (Job 33:24, KJV alternate reading); “I desire not the death of him that dies” (Ezekiel 18:32). Or it can refer to the desire of the fathers to be redeemed. Because no one found a way as suitable as Christ, the author says, quite significantly, secured.

Then, in verse 13, he proves one of the things he had assumed, namely, the statement, having obtained eternal redemption. It is as if to say: I have said that He secured eternal redemption by His own blood, in which His greatest effectiveness appears. That this is so, I prove by arguing from the lesser to the greater. In regard to this, he does two things: first, he presents the premise; secondly, the conclusion (v. 14).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that there were two cleansings in the Old Law. One took place on the Day of Atonement, as already stated, and seemed to be directly intended for cleansing from sin. The other was against legal impurity, as mentioned in Numbers 19:2, where the Lord commanded Eleazar to take from Moses a red cow without blemish, of full age, which had not carried the yoke, and bring her outside the camp and sacrifice her in the sight of all. Then, dipping his finger in her blood, he was to sprinkle it toward the door of the tabernacle seven times. Then he was to burn her flesh entirely—her flesh, hide, and even her dung. The priest was then to take cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool. After this was done, a man who was clean was to gather up the ashes of the cow and pour them in a clean place outside the camp. Some of these ashes were to be put in water, with which an unclean person who had touched a corpse was to be sprinkled on the third and seventh days with hyssop. In this way, and no other, could he be cleansed. This is the Apostle’s point. Therefore, regarding the first cleansing, he says, If the blood of goats and oxen; and as to the second, he says, and the ashes of a heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled. This sanctification did not confer grace, but led to the cleansing of the flesh—that is, from a physical impurity that prevented them, as unclean, from divine worship. But these rituals did not take away sins, because, as Augustine says, sometimes by virtue of that sprinkling they were cleansed from bodily leprosy. Hence, he says, to the cleansing of the flesh.

Then, when he says, how much more the blood of Christ... cleanses our conscience, he presents the conclusion. It is as if to say: If blood and ashes can do this, what can Christ’s blood do? Certainly much more. The Apostle then mentions three things that show the effectiveness of Christ’s blood.

1. First, he shows whose blood it is: it is Christ’s. From this it is evident that His blood cleanses: “For he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).
2. Secondly, he gives the reason why Christ shed His blood: this was done by the Holy Spirit. Through the Spirit’s movement and prompting—namely, by the love of God and neighbor—He did this: “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him” (Isaiah 59:19). But the Spirit cleanses: “If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning” (Isaiah 4:4). Therefore, he says, who by the Holy Spirit offered himself. As it is also written: “Christ has loved us and has delivered himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a fragrant aroma” (Ephesians 5:2).
3. Thirdly, he describes His condition: He is without blemish. “It shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year” (Exodus 12:5); “What can be made clean by the unclean?” .

But can an unclean priest cleanse? I answer: No, if he acted in his own power. But he acts by the power of Christ’s blood, which is the first cause. Therefore, Christ could not have acted unless He were clean.

It should be noted that the blood of those animals merely cleansed from external defilement, namely, from contact with the dead. But the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience inwardly, which is accomplished by faith: “Purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9), inasmuch as it makes one believe that all who adhere to Christ are cleansed by His blood. Therefore, He cleanses the conscience.

The old rituals also cleansed from contact with a corpse, but Christ’s blood cleanses from dead works—that is, sins, which remove God from the soul, whose life consists in union with Him by charity. The old rituals also cleansed them so that they might come to the symbolic ministry, but the blood of Christ cleanses us for the spiritual service of God: “The man that walked in the perfect way, he served me” (Psalms 101:6). Therefore, he says, to serve the living God.

Furthermore, God is life: “I am the life” (John 14:6); “I live forever” (Deuteronomy 32:40). Therefore, it is fitting that one who serves Him be alive. Hence, he says, living God, for “as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers” . Therefore, whoever would serve God worthily should be living, just as He is.

Having explained events in the Old Testament and revealed their mystical meaning, the Apostle now uses these facts to prove his thesis: namely, that the New Testament is superior to the Old because it can do what the Old could not. In this regard, he does two things: first, he states the intended conclusion; and second, he proves something he had presupposed. The first point is divided into two parts: he first concludes from the preceding points that Christ is a mediator, and second, that the Old Testament could not accomplish this (verse 15b).

He says, Therefore—that is, because Christ entered the holy places after having obtained eternal redemption, which means He leads us to eternal things that the Old Covenant could not provide. It was fitting that this covenant be distinct from the former, as the new is from the old: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31); Behold, I make all things new (Revelation 21:5). Therefore, He is the mediator of a new covenant between God and man: The mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

In every testament, something is promised, and something else confirms that testament. In the New Testament, heavenly and spiritual things are promised. Furthermore, that promise was confirmed by the death of Christ. And so, Christ is the mediator of the New Testament so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

He says they are called because this reward is not for our works but comes from God’s call: Whom he predestinated, them he also called (Romans 8:30); We testified to everyone of you that you could walk worthy of God who has called you unto his kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12). Thus, he speaks of the eternal inheritance, which is eternal glory and is our inheritance: He has regenerated us unto a living hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that cannot fade, reserved in heaven for you (1 Peter 1:3); Behold the inheritance of the Lord (Psalms 126:3); The Lord is the portion of my inheritance (Psalms 15:5). We receive that inheritance through the death of Christ; hence, the author says it comes since a death has occurred: Unto this you are called, that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9). The effect of this death is redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant: You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious blood of an unspotted lamb (1 Peter 1:18).

But could that redemption from sins have been accomplished in the Old Testament? The author answers no, because those transgressions were under the first covenant. It is as if to say that they could not be removed by the power of the sacraments of the former covenant: Because we have charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin (Romans 3:19).

But is it not a fact that David and many other saints obtained remission for their sins? I answer that as for entering heaven, they did not, because the door to life was opened only by the death of Christ. No one entered heaven before Christ’s death: You also by the blood of your testament have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit, wherein is not water (Zechariah 9:11). However, as for the stain of sin, they did obtain remission, not by the power of the sacraments of the Old Law, but by faith in Christ. Therefore, the New Testament is more excellent than the Old because it has been confirmed by the death of Christ, through which sins are remitted and the promise is fulfilled.

Then (in verse 16), he proves what he had presupposed—namely, that the New Testament was confirmed by the death of Christ. He proves this first from the authority of human law, and second, from the authority of divine law (in verse 18).

He argues that the New Testament was confirmed by the intervening death of Christ because, for a will (or testament) to be in force, the death of the testator must be established. The New Testament would have no strength unless the death of Christ had occurred: It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people (John 11:50).

The testator's death is necessary for two reasons. First, it makes the testament valid. Since a will expresses a person's final wishes, it can always be changed before death. Therefore, as the author says, a testament takes effect only at death. This is how the New Testament has been confirmed by the death of Christ: this is my blood of the new testament (Matthew 26:28), which confirms and dedicates it.

Second, the testator's death is necessary for the testament to be effective and enforceable. As the author notes, it has no force while the one who made it is alive, because no one, not even an heir, can claim an inheritance based on the testament until after the testator's death. Therefore, Christ willed to offer His death for our sake.

Next (in verse 18), he proves the same point from the authority of divine law, using an example from the Old Testament. In this, he does two things: first, he shows the agreement between the two covenants, and second, their difference (in verse 23). Regarding the first point, he again does two things: first, he makes a statement, and second, he proves it (in verse 19).

He says, therefore, that it has been stated that for a testament to have force, the death of the testator must necessarily occur. This should not seem strange, because the first covenant was not ratified—that is, confirmed—without blood. That blood prefigured the blood of Christ: All these things happened to them as symbolic representations (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Then (in verse 19), he proves his statement that the first covenant was not confirmed without blood. He demonstrates this with regard to three instances where blood was used:

1. In the presentation of the Law.
2. In the consecration of the tabernacle (verse 21).
3. In the purification of the vessels (verse 22).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the Apostle alludes to the historical account in Exodus 24. After Moses had read God’s commandments to the people and they had answered, All things that the Lord has spoken we will do, we will be obedient (Exodus 24:7), he took the blood of the twelve calves, which he had ordered them to save, and sprinkled the book of the Law and the people, as if to confirm the covenant. Hence, the author of Hebrews says that when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people—a necessary reading, as it was the promulgation of the Law—he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people.

Two objections arise here. First, Exodus 24 makes no mention of a goat, only of twelve calves. Second, no mention is made there of water, scarlet wool, or hyssop. There are two answers to these objections. One is that the Apostle had been brought up in the Law and therefore knew the customs for cleansing, namely, that sprinkling involved the blood of goats and calves, water mixed with hyssop, and scarlet wool as the sprinkler. Therefore, even though not all of these are mentioned in Exodus, the Apostle was familiar with the customs of the legal rites.

Alternatively, it can be said that this was the first consecration and that it virtually contained the other sanctifications that were to follow. The most important of these were the one on the Day of Atonement, described in Exodus 16, and the one concerning the red cow in Numbers 19. In the first of these, the blood of a goat and a calf was used; in the second, water, purple wool, and hyssop were used. Therefore, because that first consecration contained the elements of these two, the Apostle related all of them to it.

The author continues, saying that Moses took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you. This means God confirmed the covenant: Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice . That blood was a figure of Christ’s blood, by which the New Testament was confirmed. This is why Christ used these words in Matthew 26:28: This is my blood of the new testament.

The symbolism is as follows: the blood of a goat was used because of its likeness to sinful flesh, and that of a calf because of its courage. It is mixed with water because baptism derives its efficacy from the blood of Christ. It is sprinkled with hyssop, which cleanses the chest and signifies faith (By faith purifying their hearts, Acts 15:9), and with purple wool, which is red to signify charity (My beloved is white and ruddy, Song of Solomon 5:10). The people are cleansed by the faith and love of Christ. The book of the Law is sprinkled because the passion of Christ fulfilled the Law: It is finished (John 19:30); I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

Then, when the author says, the tabernacle also and all the vessels used in worship, in the same way he sprinkled with blood, he describes the consecration of the tabernacle. An objection arises: because the tabernacle had not yet been constructed at that time, the command to consecrate it was not given until Exodus 25. I answer that although the people were not sprinkled with the same blood as the tabernacle, the tabernacle was nevertheless sprinkled with blood. Hence, it can be understood to mean that Moses used blood when he sanctified the tabernacle at a later time.

But it says in Exodus 7 and Leviticus 8 that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. I answer that the author of Hebrews is not speaking of the initial consecration, but of the annual one that occurred on the Day of Atonement. Or, it might be better to say that even in the first consecration he used blood, because the text says he anointed it with oil and later sprinkled it with blood. Both are necessary for sanctification: the power of Christ’s blood and the oil of mercy, by which the tabernacle (that is, the Church) and the vessels (that is, the saints) are sanctified.

Then (in verse 22), he continues by discussing other cleansings in the Law. Cleansings were of two kinds: one for physical defilement, such as leprosy, and the other for spiritual defilement, namely sin. The first kind could apply to inanimate objects, such as leprosy in houses. The cleansing from that uncleanness was done with the blood of a sacrificed animal or with the water of expiation, which was mixed with the blood of a red calf. This is why the author says almost all things, and not absolutely all.

The word almost could modify the verb, meaning things "are almost cleansed," because they were not completely cleansed; this was accomplished only by a sacrament of the New Law. Or, almost could modify "all things," because not all things were cleansed with blood. For it says in Numbers 31, whatever can endure fire is purged by fire, whatever cannot, is purged by the water of expiation. For cleansing from the stain of sin, however, the shedding of blood is necessary because it was required for the sacrifice. Hence, the author says, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

This showed that the forgiveness of sin was to be accomplished by the blood of Christ. Therefore, in the Old Law, sins were forgiven not by the power of a sacrament, but by the power of faith in Christ. This is why it is frequently stated, The priest shall pray for him and for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him (Leviticus 5:10).

Having shown what is common to the Old and New Testaments, the Apostle now shows the difference between them. He does two things in this regard: first, he shows that there is a better cleansing in the New Testament; and second, that this cleansing is more complete (see verse 25). Concerning the first point, he again does two things: first, he shows that the cleansing in the New Testament is better, both in what is cleansed and in what effects the cleansing; and second, he clarifies what he has said (in verse 24).

He says, therefore, that it was necessary for the patterns of heavenly things to be purified with these rites, that is, with the sacrifices. These patterns refer to the tabernacle, which is a pattern from our perspective, though strictly speaking it is the reality being represented and its figure. It is therefore of less value, because the reality represented is superior to its figure, just as a body is superior to its shadow.

The heavenly things themselves, however—that is, the New Testament—required better sacrifices than these. They are better because the Old Testament cleansings were with the blood of animals, but in the New Testament, the cleansing is accomplished with the blood of Christ. For it is a principle that better things are always cleansed with better things.

One might object that there is no uncleanness in heaven. I answer that according to one interpretation, "heavenly things" are understood as things pertaining to the state of the present Church, which are called heavenly. In this sense, believers bear the image of heavenly things insofar as they mentally dwell in heaven.

Alternatively, and better, "heavenly things" can be understood as the heavenly home itself. The Apostle is speaking here in the same way the tabernacle was said to be cleansed in the Old Testament. The tabernacle did not have any uncleanness in itself, but the rites washed away certain impurities that hindered the people from approaching the sanctuary. Likewise, heavenly things are said to be cleansed insofar as a sacrament of the New Covenant cleanses the sins that prevent a person from entering heaven.

But he says "sacrifices" in the plural, even though there is only one sacrifice of Christ: By one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). I answer that although Christ's sacrifice is one in itself, it was prefigured by the many sacrifices of the Old Law. This text also shows that the sacrifices of the Old Law were good, for something can only be called "better" in relation to something that is already good.

Then, in verse 24, he shows that heavenly things are cleansed by better sacrifices. The high priest expiated the sanctuary made with hands, but Christ has entered a sanctuary not made with hands. It was not a mere pattern of the true one, but heaven itself, which He expiated not in itself but for our sake, as has been said.

He did not expiate it with fleshly sacrifices, because Christ did not come to offer such things: Burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require (Psalms 40:6); With burnt offerings you will not be delighted (Psalms 51:16); For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests (Hebrews 7:14). Instead, he entered heaven itself: And the Lord Jesus was taken up to heaven (Mark 16:19); This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come (Acts 1:11).

But for what purpose? To appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Here the Apostle alludes to a rite of the Old Law according to which the high priest, who entered the holy of holies, stood before the mercy seat to pray for the people. Similarly, Christ entered heaven to stand before God for our salvation. But their standing was not the same, because the high priest could not see the holy of holies or any face on account of the smoke ascending from the censer. Christ, however, appears before the face of God—not that there is a bodily face or a cloud there, but a clear vision.

One might ask: when Christ was on earth, could He not appear before the face of God, since God sees all things? I answer with Augustine, who says of God, "You were with me, but I was not with You." This is because God is in all things by His essence, power, and presence, but the wicked are not with God through grace. Thus, Christ is said to have entered to appear before the face of God because, although He always saw God clearly as one who is perfectly blessed, the state of our earthly pilgrimage does not grant this vision, but only the heavenly state does.

Therefore, when He ascended perfectly blessed, He entered, body and soul, to appear in the presence of God; that is, He entered the place where God is seen clearly. And this He did for us, for He entered heaven to prepare the way for us: I go to prepare a place for you. But I will come again and will take you to myself (John 14:2–3); He shall go up that shall open the way before them (Micah 2:13). For the body should follow the head: where the body is, there the eagles shall be gathered (Matthew 24:28).

Then, in verse 25, he shows that the cleansing effected by the New Testament is more complete than that of the Old. He demonstrates this in two ways. First, the old sacrifices were repeated daily, but this one was offered only once. Second, he shows this by its effects: the former sacrifices could not remove sin, but this one can. He addresses the first point here and the second point in chapter 10. It should be noted that the Apostle had previously said three things about Christ: first, that He is a high priest; second, the dignity of the place He entered; and third, how He entered, namely, with blood. Having already explained these three things, he now explains how He entered only once, just as the high priest entered only once a year.

In the Old Testament, although the high priest could lawfully enter only once a year, the Law required him to enter every year with the blood of others, as it says in Leviticus (chapter 16). But Christ has not entered a place made with hands, nor was it to offer himself often, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with the blood of others.

Then, when he says, For then he ought to have suffered repeatedly since the foundation of the world, he proves that it would have been unfitting for the same repetition to occur in the New Testament, because a great absurdity would follow. Since Christ entered with His own blood, it would follow that He would have had to suffer frequently from the foundation of the world. This is not the case with the Old Testament sacrifices, because they were offered for the sins of the children of Israel, and that nation began when the Law was given. Therefore, it was not fitting for those sacrifices to be offered from the beginning of the world. But Christ offered Himself for the sins of the whole world, because He was made the propitiation for our sins and for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Therefore, if He were offered frequently, it would have been necessary for Him to be born and to suffer from the beginning of the world, which would have been most unfitting.

Then, in verse 26b, he shows what is done in the New Testament. He does two things here: first, he shows why the sacrifice is not repeated; and second, he explains his reasoning (in verse 27).

He says, therefore, that now at the end of the age, Christ has appeared: We are the ones upon whom the ends of the ages are come (1 Corinthians 10:11). The ages of the world are understood according to the ages of a person's life, which are distinguished chiefly by their state of progress and not by the number of years. The first age was before the flood, in which there was no written law or punishment, as in infancy. Another was from Noah to Abraham, and so on through the ages, so that the final age is the present one. After this age, there is no other state of salvation, just as there is no other age of life after old age. But just as the other ages of a person's life have a definite number of years, old age does not; it may begin at sixty, yet some live to be 120. In the same way, it has not been determined how long this age of the world will continue. Yet it is the end of the ages, because no other age remains for salvation.

Christ appeared once during this age, and the author gives two reasons why He was offered only once. The first is that sins were not taken away in the Old Testament, but this was accomplished by the offering of Christ. The second is that the high priest of the Law did not offer his own blood, as Christ did. Hence, he says, Christ has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Therefore, the former sacrifices are repeated, but not this one: Christ died once for our sins (1 Peter 3:18).

Then, in verse 27, he explains these two reasons, addressing the second one first and the first one in chapter 10. He explains the second reason by drawing a likeness to other men. He first shows what happens to other men, and then what happened to Christ (in verse 28).

In every person we find two things: first, the necessity of dying; and second, that one should rise again, not to be cleansed but to be judged according to one's deeds. He touches on the first when he says, and just as it is appointed for men once to die.

One might object that death is not appointed by God, but that man brought it about by sinning, for it says in Wisdom, God made not death, neither has he pleasure in the destruction of the living ; and shortly after, But the wicked with works and words have called it to them. I answer that there are three things to consider in death. First is the material cause, and in this respect it has been appointed for men to die once because of the condition of human nature. Second is the gift that was bestowed, for man was given the gift of original justice, by which the soul sustained the body so that it would not die. Third is the obligation of dying; by sinning, man forfeited that gift and became subject to death. Hence, it says that the wicked called death to themselves by touching the forbidden fruit. Therefore, man is the cause of death by his failure, while God is the cause of death as the judge who enacts the penalty: The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Then, in verse 28, he shows how three things fit Christ. Regarding the first, he says, and so Christ having been offered once, in which He is similar to other men. But He differed in two respects. First, since Christ had not descended from Adam by way of human seed, but only as to bodily substance, He did not contract original sin. Consequently, He was not bound by that decree, For in what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death (Genesis 2:17). Instead, He underwent death by His own will: No man takes it away from me: but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18). Therefore, he says that he was offered: He was offered because it was His own will (Isaiah 53:7); Christ has died once for our sins (1 Peter 3:18). He differs, secondly, because our death is the effect of sin: The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). But Christ’s death destroys sin; therefore, he says, it was to bear the sins of many, that is, to remove them. He does not say "of all," because Christ’s death, even though sufficient for all, has its saving effect only in those who are to be saved, for not all are subject to Him by faith and good works.

Regarding the second point, he says, he shall appear a second time not to deal with sin. He says two things about the second coming. First, it differs from the first because the second will be "without sin." For even though He had no sin in His first coming, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). In the first coming, He was also made a victim for sin: Him who knew no sin, he has made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). But those things will not be found in the second coming; hence, he says that He will appear without sin. Second, he states what will be unique to the second coming: He will appear not to be judged, but to judge and to reward according to merits. And although He will appear in the flesh to all, even to those who wounded Him, He will appear in His divinity only to the elect who eagerly wait for Him by faith for their salvation: Blessed are all they that wait for him (Isaiah 30:18); We look for the Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who will reform the body of our lowliness, made like to the body of his glory (Philippians 3:20–21).