CONVERSATION 13

"If, then, perfection were to be attained by the Levitical priesthood, for the law of the people is bound up with it, what need would there be for any priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of Aaron? For with a change in the priesthood it is necessary to change the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one came to the altar. For it is known that our Lord shone forth out of the tribe of Judah, of which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood" (Hebrews 7:11-14).

1. "If, therefore," he says, "perfection were attained by the Levitical priesthood." Having spoken of Melchizedek, having shown how much higher he was than Abraham, and having explained the great difference between them, he now begins to show the difference of the covenants themselves, how one is imperfect, and the other is perfect. However, even now he does not yet proceed to the matter itself, but first discusses the priesthood and the covenant, because it was more convincing for the unbelievers to offer proofs from subjects already accepted and previously known. He proved that Melchizedek was far superior to Levei and Abraham by appearing to be a priest in relation to them. He now proves this from the other side. From which exactly? On the part of the priesthood of the present and the Jews. And look at his great wisdom: whereby Christ seems to have separated himself from the priesthood, since he was not "after the order of Aaron," he cites as a proof of His priesthood, and excludes the rest. He does this by presenting himself as if he were doubting why (Christ) is not called a priest after the order of Aaron, and then resolves the perplexity. And I, he says, wonder why He was not in the order of Aaron. This he expresses in the words: "if perfection were attained through the Levitical priesthood." And the words: "whatever other need there may be" strengthen the thought. If Christ according to the flesh had been a priest after the order of Melchizedek before, and then the law and (the priesthood) after the order of Aaron had appeared, then one might justly say that the latter is more perfect, and, being introduced afterwards, abolishes the former; but if Christ (appears) after and assumes a different form of priesthood, it is evident that because of the imperfection of all that was before. Suppose, he says, that all the former things have been fulfilled and there is nothing imperfect in the (former) priesthood: why was it still necessary "for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not to be called after the order of Aaron"? Why does (God), having left Aaron, introduce another priesthood - Melchizedek's? "If perfection were attained by means of the Levitical priesthood," i.e., if perfection in deeds, in doctrine, in life were attained by means of the Levitical priesthood. Notice how gradually he goes forward. By saying that Christ is "after the order of Melchizedek," he proved that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is higher, because he himself (Melchizedek) is higher; then he proves the same with regard to time, i.e., what (Christ) is after Aaron, and therefore higher. And what is the meaning of these words, "For the law of the people is bound up with it"? What does it mean, "with him"? It is guided, everything is done through it, and it cannot be said that it was given to others. "The law of the people is bound up with it," i.e. it is used and has been used, and it cannot be said that it, being itself perfect, did not lead the people. "The law of the people is conjugated", i.e. they were guided by it. What need is there for another priesthood, if it were perfect? "For with the change of the priesthood it is necessary to have a change in the law": if there must be a different priest, or better, another priesthood, then there must be another law. This is against those who say, What was the need of the new covenant? He could have given evidence from the prophecy: "Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God commanded unto your fathers" (Acts 3:25); but for the time being he discusses the priesthood. And see how I wanted to suggest this. By saying, "after the order of Melchizedek," he rejected the order of Aaron, since he would not have said, "after the order of Melchizedek," if it had been better. And when another priesthood is introduced, then there must be another covenant, because it is impossible for a priest to be without a covenant, laws, and ordinances, or for one who has received another priesthood to be guided by the former covenant. Here the objection was presented: how can one be a priest without being a Levite? But (the Apostle), having prepared an answer to this in what has been said above, now no longer offers permission, but speaks of it in passing: "I have said," he says, "that the priesthood is changed, therefore the covenant must also be changed; changed not only in the manner of actions and ordinances, but also in the tribe, as it should have been (changed) in the tribe, How? "By a change," he says, "of the priesthood," i.e., it passed from tribe to tribe, from priestly to royal, so that both royal and priestly would be one. And note the sacrament: first there was the royal tribe, and then the priestly tribe, just as in Christ, who was always king, and became a priest when he took flesh, when he offered sacrifice. Do you see the change? That which was the subject of the objection, he presents as a necessary consequence of events: "For He," he says, "of whom these things are spoken, belonged to another tribe, of which no one came to the altar. For it is known that our Lord shone forth from the tribe of Judah, of which Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood." The meaning of his words is this: And I know and say that this tribe had no priesthood, and none of them was a priest - this is the meaning of the words, "from which no one came to the altar" - but there was a change in everything. Thus, it was necessary to change the law and the Old Testament, because the tribe itself was changed. Do you see how he shows another difference (of covenants) from the difference of tribes? And not only by this he proves their difference, but also from the point of view of the person (the high priest), and the covenant, and the manner of action, and the type itself. "Who is such, not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh, but according to the power of life that does not cease" (Hebrews 7:16).

2. "Who is such," says the priest, "not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh," because that law had much of the flesh. And he well called it a carnal commandment: everything that he defined was carnal. Thus, the precepts: circumcise the flesh, anoint the flesh, wash the flesh, cleanse the flesh, shave the flesh, bind the flesh, nourish the flesh, rest the flesh - all these, tell me, are not carnal (commandments)? If you want to know what are the blessings that he promised, listen: longevity, he says, for the flesh, milk and honey for the flesh, rest for the flesh, delight for the flesh. By such a law Aaron received the priesthood; but Melchizedek was not. "And this is seen even more plainly, that in the likeness of Melchizedek another priest arises" (Hebrews 7:15). What is "more clearly seen"? The difference between the two priesthoods, the difference, the advantage of the one who was "not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh." Who? Melchizedek? No, it is Christ. "Who is such, not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh, but according to the power of life that does not cease. For it is testified: Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 7:16-17), i.e. not temporary, not limited by limits, "but according to the power of life that does not cease." By this (the Apostle) expresses that (Christ) became a priest by His own power and by the Father, by the power of endless life. Although this expression does not correspond to the expression: "not according to the law of the commandment of the flesh," because it should be said: but according to (the commandment) spiritual; but by the name of the flesh he means temporary, just as in another place he says: "Which, with food and drink, and various washings and ceremonies [pertaining] to the flesh, were instituted only until the time of correction (Heb. 9:10). "According to the power of life," i.e., because He lives by His own power. The Apostle said that "there must be a change in the law," and showed how; And then he gives the reason: the human mind is most satisfied when it knows the cause, and through this it is exalted in faith, because we believe more when we know both the cause and the reason why something happens. "But the abolition of the former commandment," he says, "is because of its weakness and uselessness" (Hebrews 7:18). Here heretics rise up against us, who say: "Behold, Paul also called the commandment evil." But listen carefully; He did not say, "Because it is neither good nor good," but "because of its weakness and uselessness." And in another place he proves her weakness when he says: "Weakened in the flesh, he was powerless" (Romans 8:3). Therefore it is not the commandment that is weak, but we. "For the law hath brought nothing to perfection" (Hebrews 7:19). What does it mean: "I have brought nothing to perfection"? He said that he did not bring anyone to perfection, because they did not obey him. Even if he were obeyed, he would not make anyone perfect and virtuous. However, (the apostle) does not say this here, but (says) that he had no power, and rightly so, because his writings commanded: "Do this, and do not do that," they offered only (commands), but did not give power. This is not our hope. What does "abolition" mean? Cancellation, rejection. And what exactly, he explains, continuing: "before the former commandment": so he calls the law, because it has already been abolished because of its weakness; it was before, but it passed away and became obsolete due to its weakness. "Abrogation" is the annulment of what was valid. From this it is evident that he had power, but was abandoned because he was completely unsuccessful. So, the law was completely useless? No, he was useful, and very useful, but he couldn't make people perfect.

For this reason (the Apostle) says: "The law brought nothing to perfection": everything in it was a type, everything was a shadow, and circumcision, and sacrifices, and the Sabbath, all could not penetrate into the soul, and therefore passed away and was abolished. "But a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And how [it was] not without an oath" (Hebrews 7:19,20). Do you see how necessary the oath was here? For this reason (the Apostle) reasoned much about the fact that God swore, and swore for greater assurance. "A better hope is being introduced." What does that mean? And the law, he says, had hope, but not such; those who were pleased (with God) hoped to inherit the earth and not suffer any calamity, but we, if we please God, hope to inherit not the earth, but the heavens; or even, which is much more important, we hope to become close to God, to draw near to the very throne of the Father, to serve Him together with the angels. And see how little by little he reveals these (truths); before, he said: "And he enters into the innermost beyond the veil" (Heb. 6:19); and here: "A better hope is introduced, by means of which we draw near to God. And how [it was] not without an oath." What does it mean, "And how [it was] not without an oath"? That is, not without an oath. Here is another difference. This is promised, he says, not easy. "For they were priests without an oath, but this one with an oath, because it is said of him, The Lord swore, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, then Jesus became the surety of a better covenant. Moreover, those priests were many, because death did not allow him to be alone; but this one, as he who abides forever, also has a priesthood that does not pass away" (Hebrews 7:21-24). (The Apostle) points out two advantages (of the New Testament priesthood): that it has no end, like that under the law, and that it is established with an oath. All this he proves by the person of Christ, who received (this priesthood): "according to the power," he says, "life without ceasing," also by an oath, because God "swore," and by the very deed, because that law, he says, was abolished, because it was weak, and this one stands, because it has power. He does the same on the part of the priest. How? Proving that He is one; and He would not be alone if He were not immortal; as there were many priests before because they were mortal, so He is one because He is immortal. "Of a better covenant Jesus was made a surety": God swore to Him that He would always be a priest; and God wouldn't have done it if He hadn't been alive. "Wherefore he is also able to save always, those who come to God through him, being always alive, to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25).

3. Do you see that (the apostle) says this (about Christ) according to the flesh? Having shown that He is a priest, He then says in good time that He intercedes. And in another place, when Paul says, "The Spirit himself intercedes for us" (Romans 8:26; 1 Tim. 2:5), he means that He intercedes as a high priest. Indeed, He who raises the dead whom He wills and lives like the Father, how can He intercede when it is necessary to save? How can He intercede, in whose power is the whole judgment (John 3:19)? How can He intercede who sends angels to cast some into the furnace and save others (Matthew 8:8)? "Wherefore," he says, "he is able to save always" (Heb. 7:25). He saves because He does not die, because He "always lives" and has no successor; and if he has no successor, then he can intercede for all. The local high priests, however glorious they may be, were there only for the time that Samuel and all the like existed, for example, and after that they were no more, because they died; but He is not so, but saves "always." What does "always" mean? (The Apostle) inspires a certain great mystery: not only here, he says, but also there He saves "those who come through Him to God." How does it save? "Always alive to intercede for them." Do you see how many despised things he said (about Christ) according to His human nature? He did not intercede once, he says, and received, but always when it is necessary to intercede for them; This is what the expression "always" means. "Always", i.e. not only in the present time, but also there in the future life. Therefore, does He need to pray without ceasing? But is this fair? Even righteous people often received everything by one petition: how will He pray without ceasing? And why does He sit with the Father? Do you see that what is said of Him here is despised by His condescension? The meaning of the words is as follows: fear nothing, do not say: yes, although He loves us and has boldness before the Father, He cannot live forever; He is always alive. "Such ought to be our High Priest: holy, untouched by evil, blameless, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26). Do you see that all this is said about humanity (Christ)? But when I say of humanity, I mean humanity united to the divinity, not separating them, but suggesting that they should be understood properly. And so, do you see the difference between the high priest (and the Old Testament)? All of the above (the Apostle) combined in the words: "Who, like [us], was tempted in all things, except sin" (Hebrews 4:15). "Such," he says, "is the High Priest we ought to have: venerable, not malicious." What does it mean: "not malicious"? Not involved in evil, not treacherous. And that He is really so, listen to the prophet who says: "There was no lie in His mouth" (Isaiah 53:9). Can anyone say this about God? Who is not ashamed to say that God is neither cunning nor flattering? And this can be said about Christ according to the flesh. "Venerable[2]", "undefiled[3]" and this cannot be said of God, because He is essentially blameless. "Separated from sinners." And is this the only proof of His superiority? Does not the sacrifice itself prove it? Yes, a victim. How? "Who hath not," he says, "need daily, as those high priests did, to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, for he did it once, offering himself" (Hebrews 7:27). What is it? Here (the Apostle) begins to speak of the superiority of spiritual sacrifice. He spoke about the difference between the priests (Old Testament and New Testament), he spoke about the difference between the covenants (Old and New), although he did not say it completely; here he finally begins to talk about the victim himself. When you hear that Christ is a priest, do not think that He performs the sacraments constantly; He performed a sacred act once, and then sat down (at the right hand of the Father). Lest you think that He stands on the mountain and performs the sacraments, (the Apostle) shows that this was a work of dispensation. As He was a slave, so too was a priest and a priest; just as He did not remain a slave as a slave, so as a priest He did not remain a priest, because it is characteristic of a priest not to sit but to stand. Here (the Apostle) expresses the greatness of the sacrifice, which alone, being offered once, had as much power as all the others did not have together. However, he does not yet speak of this, but for the time being only of the following: "I did it once." What is "this"? "It was necessary," he says, "that this one also should have something to offer" (Heb. 8:3), not for Himself, - how could He, being sinless, offer a sacrifice for Himself? - but for people. What do you say? Does He have no need to offer for Himself and is He so powerful? Yes, he does. Lest you think that the words, "He did these things once," also speak of Him, listen to what (the Apostle) says further: "For the law appoints high priests men who have infirmities" (Hebrews 7:28). Therefore, they always make sacrifices for themselves; but He, being strong and having no sin, why will He offer for Himself? Therefore, He did not offer a sacrifice for Himself, but for people, and that once. "And the word of the oath, after the law, [ordained] the Son, perfect for ever." What does "perfect" mean? See: Paul does not use literally opposite expressions; after the words, "having infirmities," he did not say, "the son of the mighty," but, "perfect," which may also be said to mean the strong. Do you see that the word "Son" is spoken in contrast to the servant? By weakness he means either sin or death. What does it mean, "forever"? Not only the sinless one, he says, but always. But if He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives faithfully, then why should He offer sacrifices for us many times? However, this (the apostle) does not yet prove, but only proves that he did not offer a sacrifice for himself. Therefore, if we have such a high priest, let us imitate Him and walk in His footsteps. There is no other victim; one has cleansed us; and then fire and hell. For this reason (the Apostle) often repeats: "One priest is one sacrifice," so that someone, thinking that there are many, would not sin without fear.

4. Therefore, we, who have been vouchsafed this seal, who have tasted this sacrifice that partakes of the immortal meal, will preserve our nobility and honor, since falling away is not safe. And those who have not yet been vouchsafed this, let them not be presumptuous, for whoever sins in order to receive holy baptism at his last breath, often does not receive it. Believe me, it is not to arouse fear in you that I will say what I intend to say. I know many with whom this has happened, who have sinned much in anticipation of enlightenment (by baptism); but on the day of his death they departed without receiving him. God gave baptism to destroy sins, not to multiply sins. But if anyone uses it in order to give himself over to greater sins more freely, then he is guilty of carelessness. Such a person, if there had been no baptism, would have lived more abstinently, without waiting for remission (of sins). Do you see how the words are fulfilled in us: "And shall we not do evil, that good may come out" (Romans 3:8)? Wherefore I exhort you who have not yet received the sacraments: Watch; let none of you approach virtue as a hireling, as ungrateful, as something difficult and unbearable; on the contrary, let us approach it with zeal and joy. If a reward had not been promised, would it not have been necessary to be virtuous? But let us be virtuous, at least because of the reward. Is it not shameful, is it not utterly unreasonable to say: if you do not give me a reward, then I will not be chaste? To this I can say this: Though you keep your chastity, you will never be chaste if you do it for the sake of reward; you do not value virtue in the least if you do not love it for its own sake. However, God, in our great weakness, is pleased to urge us to it, at least by reward; but even so we do not become virtuous. Suppose, if you will, that a man who has committed a multitude of sins departs after being vouchsafed to be baptized, although this, I think, does not happen often: how, tell me, will he go there? He will not be condemned for his works, but he will have no boldness, and justly. For if, having lived a hundred years, he does not do a single good deed, but only that he has not sinned, or even not even that, but only that he has been saved by grace alone, and sees others crowned, glorified, and exalted, then, tell me, can he not be discouraged, although he will not fall into hell? I will explain this with an example. Let's imagine two warriors; let one of them steal, offend, seize someone else's; and let the other do nothing of the kind, but behave well, show many virtues, win victories in war, staining his hand with blood; Afterwards, in the course of time, let him be raised from the rank in which he was with the thief to the king's throne, and put on purple, and let the thief remain where he was, but only by the grace of the king shall he be free from punishment for his transgressions, and shall be placed in the last place, and subject to the power of the king. Tell me, how to feel sorrows, seeing that the one who was equal to him, has reached the highest level of honors, has become glorified and rules the universe, and he remains in a low state, and received the very deliverance from punishment not with honor, but only by the mercy and love of humanity of the king? The king forgave him and released him from condemnation, but he himself will lead a life in shame. And others will not be surprised at him, because, with such mercies, we are amazed at those who have not received gifts, but who give them, and the higher these gifts, the more shameful are those who receive them, if they have been guilty of great sins. With what eyes will he look at those who are in the royal palaces, showing the multitude of their wounds and feats, while he himself has nothing to show, but has received deliverance itself solely through the love of God? As if a murderer, thief, or adulterer, led to execution, were released from it at someone's request and ordered to appear at the entrance of the king's palace, he would not be able to look at anyone, although he was released from punishment, so he would be.

5. However, when the kingdom is spoken of, do not think that all will be worthy of the same thing. If here in the royal palaces there are dioceses, and those close to the king, and even lower dignitaries, and those who occupy the place of the so-called desyats (δεκανών), although there is a great difference between the eparch and the desyats, then how much more so will it be in the heavenly royal monasteries. I do not say this on my own behalf; but Paul places an even greater difference there. As much as there is a difference, he says, between the sun and the moon and the stars, and the smallest of the stars, so will it be in the kingdom of heaven; and it is obvious to everyone that the difference between the sun and the smallest star is much greater than that between the so-called Desyatsky and the eparch. The sun suddenly illuminates the whole universe and makes it light, covering the moon and the stars; and the star is often invisible, even in darkness; There are many stars that we can't see. And so, when we see others who have become suns, and we ourselves take the place of the smallest stars, which are even invisible, what consolation will we have? No, I exhort you, let us not be so careless, let us not be so lazy, let us not carelessly accept the salvation given by God, but let us make a purchase of it and multiply it. Even if someone is only a catechumen, he knows Christ, knows the faith, hears the word of God, is not far from the knowledge of God, understands the will of his Master; Why does he delay, why does he wait and postpone?

There is nothing better than a virtuous life, both here and there, both among the enlightened and among the catechumens. And tell me, what is it that is prescribed for us to be difficult? Have a wife, says the commandment, and be abstinent. Is it difficult, tell me? And how (it may be difficult) when many are abstinent even without a wife, not only Christians, but also pagans? What a heathen does out of vanity, will you not do out of the fear of God? "Out of thy possessions," says (the Scriptures), "give alms" (Tob. 4:7). Is it really difficult? But even here the pagans will condemn us, who have squandered all their possessions out of vanity alone. Don't use foul language. Is it really difficult? But even if it had not been commanded, should we not have done it ourselves, so as not to appear dishonest? On the contrary, foul language is difficult, as is evident from the fact that a person is ashamed in his soul and blushes when he happens to say something like this, and does not even dare to say it if he is not drunk. Why, sitting in the marketplace, do you not do this, even if you do it at home? Is it not for the sake of those present? Why don't you suddenly do this in front of your wife? Was it not because he would not offend her? In order not to offend your wife, you do not do this; but when you insult God, are you not ashamed? And He is omnipresent and hears everything. "And do not be drunk with wine," it is said (Ephesians 5:18), and it is well (said), because is not drunkenness in itself a punishment? He did not say, "Exhaust the body," but what? "Do not get drunk," i.e. do not give it free rein so that it overthrows the power of the soul. Is it really not necessary to take care of the body? No, this is not what I say, but do not please his lusts. So Paul commands when he says: "And do not turn the care of the flesh into lusts" (Romans 13:14). Do not steal someone else's property, it is said, do not be covetous, do not swear. What labors does this require, what feats? Do not slander, it is said, do not slander.

No, nothing difficult, nothing difficult is commanded to us, if only we will; and if we do not want to, then even the easiest thing will seem difficult to us. What is easier to eat? But many, at least in effeminacy, are burdened by this as well. I hear many people say that food is also work. There is no difficulty in all of the above, if only you want to; In desire lies everything, after the highest grace. Let us desire what is good, so that we may be vouchsafed eternal blessings, by grace and love for mankind (our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit, glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen).

[1] To the Synod. translation "not involved in evil".

[2] To the Synod. translated as "holy".

[3] To the Synod. translation "immaculate".

CONVERSATION 14