HOMILY
VII
I) HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH of the fight against the Jews? Or do you wish me to take
up the same topic today? Even if I have already had much to say on it, I still think you
want
to hear
never
have
enough
of fighting against those who hate Christ. Besides, there is another reason
which
makes
a discourse on this theme necessary. These feasts of theirs are not yet over;
some
traces
still remain.
2)
Their trumpets were a greater outrage than those heard in the theaters; their
fasts were
more
disgracefull than any drunken revel. So, too, the tents which at this moment are
pitched
among them are no better than the inns where harlots and flute girls ply their
trades.
Let no one condemn me for the boldness of my words; it is the height of boldness
and
outrage not to suspect the Jews of these excesses. Since they stubbornly fight
against
GOD and resist the HOLY SPIRIT, how can we avoid the necessity of passing
such
sentence upon them?
3)
This festival used to be a holy one when it was observed according to the Law
and
at
God's command. But this is no longer true. All its dignity has been destroyed
because
it
is observed against God's will. Those who, above all others, treat the Law and
the
acient
festivals with the least respect are the very ones who are ready today to
observe
the
Law and festivals more than anyone else. But we are the one who honor the Law
above
all others, even if we let it rest like a man who has grown old and infirm, even
if we
do
not drag it, gray with age, to the arena, even if we do not force it to enter
the contests
which
are not suited to its years. In my past discourses I gave adequate proof that
today
is not the day of the Law nor of the old commonwealth and the old way of life.
4)
But come now, let me investigate what remains to be discussed. I did enough to
complete
my task when I proved from all the prophets that any such observance of
ritual
outside Jerusalem is transgression of the Law and sacrilege. But they never stop
whispering
in everybody's ear and bragging that they will get their city back again.
Even
if this were true, they could not escape the charge of transgressing the Law.
But
I
gave you abundant evidence to prove that the city will not be restored nor will
they
get
back their old commonwealth and way of life.
5)
Once that has been proved, there is no room for disagreement on any of the other
points.
For example, neither the form of sacrifice, nor of the holocaust, nor the
binding
force
of the Law, nor any other aspect of their old commonwealth and way of life can
stand.
To begin with, the Law commanded that three times each year every male go
up
to the temple. But they could not do this once the temple was destroyed. Then,
too,
the
Law commaded that sacrifices be offered by the man afficted with gonorrhea,
the
leper, the woman in her menstrual period, the woman who had given birth to a
child.
But this is impossible since the
place no longer exists nor is there an altar to
be
seen. The Law commanded them to sing sacred hymns but, as I showed before,
the
place they were living in prevented them; the prophets condemnet them and
said
(917) they were reading the Law and making their confession of praise to God
in
a foreign land. Since they could not even read the Law outside Jesusalem, how
could
they observe it outside Jerusalem?
6)
This is why God threatened them and said: 'Ishall not visit your daughters when
they
commit fornication nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery.'
What
does this mean? First, I whall read to you the old Law and then I shall try to
make
his meaning clearer. What, then, does the Law say? 'If a woman transgresses
against
her husband, disdaining and disregarding him, and if someone sleeps with
her
the sleep of intercourse, and if she escapes the eye of her husband and there
is
no witness against her, nor is she caught in the act, nor if a spirit of
jealousy
comes
over her husband when she has not been defiled...'
7)
This is what the Law means. If a woman commits adultery and her husband
suspects
it, or if he suspects her when she has not committed adultery, but
there
is no witness nor conception to prove the suspiction, 'he will bring her to
the
priest and take along barley meal as an offering for her.' Why, I ask, must it
be
barley
meal rather than fine flour or the meal of wheat? Since what happened was
a
source of pain, accusation, and wicked suspicion, the form of the sacrifice
imitaded
a household disaster. This is why the Lord said: 'You will not pour oil
on
it nor put frankincense over it.' ''Then'' (for I must cut the account short)
''The
priest shall lead her forward and will take pure water in an earthen vessel;
he
will pick up some of the dust which is on the floor and throw it into the water;
he
will make the woman stand, will make her swear an oath, and he will say to her:
'If
you did not transgress so as to become defiled for your husband, be immune from
the
water of reproof. But if you did transgress and you are defiled, if someone
other
than your husband did have intercourse with you, may the Lord make of you
an
execration and a curse among your people.'
8)
What is the meaning of 'an execration and a curse'? As the saying goes; May what
happened
to that poor woman not happen to me! 'By the Lord causing your belly to swell
and
the water that brings a curse will enter your belly to make it swell.' And the
woman
will
say: 'Amen, Amen'. And it will come to pass, if the woman is defiled, that the
water of the
curse
will enter her belly to make it swell, and the woman will be an execration. If
she is not
defiled,
she will be unharmed and will conceive offspring.' Once the Jews had gone off
into bondage,
none
of these things could be done because there was no temple, no altar, no Meeting
Tent,
no
sacrifice to be offered. Because this was the case, when God threatened them, he
said:
'I
shall not visit your daughters when they commit fornication nor your
daughters-in-law when
they
commit adultery.'
II
Do
you see that the Law takes its force from the place? And since the city is gone,
there can
no
longer be a priesthood. There can be no emperor if there are no armies, no
crown,
no
purple robe, none of the other things which weld together an empire. So, too,
there can
be
no priesthood if sacrifice has been destroyed, if offerings are forbidden, if
the sanctuary
has
been trampled into the dust, if everything which constituted it has disappeared.
For the
priesthood
depend on all these things.
2)
As I said before, it was enough for my purpose to prove that neither the
sacrifices, nor
the
holocausts, nor the other purifications, nor any other part of the (918) Jewish
commonwealth
and
way of life would return. It was enough, finally, to prove that the temple will
never rise
again.
Now that it is no more, everything has been taken away; if something ritualistic
seems to be
goin
on, it is against the Law and a reckless crime. In the same way, once I have
proved that
the
temple will never be restored to its former state, I have at the same time also
proved that
the
rest of the ritual of worship will not return to its former condition, that
there will be no priest,
there
will be no king. If not even a commoner of Jewish blood was allowed to be a
servant to
foreigners,
it would be all the more forbidden for their king himself to be subject to
others.
3)
But since my effort and zeal are here devoted not only to stopping up the mouths
of the
Jews
but also to instructing your loving assembly, come now and let me take another
authority
and prove this same point. Let me prove that both the sacrifices of the Jews and
their
priesthood have complitely ended that day will never again return to their
former status.
4)
Who says this? That great and wonderful prophet, David. He made it clear that
the one kind
of
sacrifice would be abolished and another brought in to take its place when he
said:
'Many
are the wondrous works you have done. O Lord my God: and in your thoughts there
is
no one like to you. I have declared and I have spoken.' See how wise the prophet
is.
He
said: 'Many are the wondrous works you have done,' and he stood aghast at God's
power
to work miracles. But he did not go on to
tell us about the creation of the
things we see:
of
heaven, earth, and ocean, of water and fire; he did not tell us of those strange
marvels
which
happened in Egypt, or of any other miracles like those. What did he say were
wondrous
works? 'Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire.'
5)
What do you mean, David? Is this a strange marvel? No, he said. For this was not
the
only
thing he saw. Inspired by heaven, he saw with prophetic eyes how God would lead
the
nations to him; he saw how those who were nailed to their gods, who worshipped
stones,
who were worse off than brute beasts suddenly looked up and recognized the
Master
of
all creation; he saw how these men put aside their foul worship of demons and
gave pure
and
bloodless worship to God. At the same time he saw that the Jews, too, who were
even more
imperfect
than the pagans, would put aside their worship through sacrifices, holocausts,
and
other material things and be led to our way of life. And he pondered on God's
ineffable
loving-kindness
which surpasses all understanding; he stood aghast at how greatly things
had
changed, how God had reshaped them, how he had made men from demons into angels,
and
how he had introduced a commonwealth and way of life worthy of heaven.
6)
All this was to take place after the old sacrifice had been abolished and after
God had brought
into
its place the new sacrifice through the body of Christ. This is why David stood
aghast
and
marvelled and said: 'Many are the wondrous works you have done, O Lord my God.'
To
show that he made this whole prophetic prediction in behalf of Christ when he
said:
'Sacrifice
and oblation you did not desire,' David went on to say: 'But a body you have
fitted
to me.' By this he meant the Lord's body which became the common sacrifice for
the
whole world, the sacrifice which cleansed our soul, canceled our sin, put down
death,
opened
heaven, gave us many great hopes, and made ready all the other things which
Paul
knew well and spoke of when he exclaimed: 'Oh, the depth of the riches and of
the
wisdom
and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and
how
unsearchable are his ways.'
7)
David, then, foresaw all this when he said: 'Many are the wondrous work you have
done,
O Lord my God.' He went to say, speaking in the person of Christ: 'In holocausts
and
sin offerings you had no pleasure, and then continued: 'Then I said, Behold I
came.'
When
was 'then'? When the time was ripe for more perfect instructions. We had to
learn
the
less perfect lessons through his servants, but the loftier lessons which surpass
the
nature
of man we had to learn from the Lawgiver himself.
8)
This is why Paul said: 'God, who at sundry times and in varied ways spoke in
times
past
to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us by
his Son,
whom
he appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.' And again,
John
said: 'For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through
Jesus
Christ.' And this is the highest panegyric for the Law, namely that it prepared
human
nature for the Teacher.
9)
But he did not want you to look on him as a new God or any kind of innovation.
Hear
what he said: 'In the head of the book it is written of me.' What he meant was
this:
'Long
ago the prophets foretold my coming and at the beginning of the Scriptures they
opened
them a little to give men a glimpse of the knowledge that I am God.'
III
An
so, at the beginning of creation, when God said: 'Let us make mankind in our
image
and
likeness,' he was revealing to us in a rather obscure way the divinity of his
Son,
to
whom he was then speaking. Later on the Psalmist showed that this new religious
way
of
life did not contradict the old, but that it was God's will that the old
sacrifice be abolished
and
the new sacrifice replace the old. The new was an extension of the right way of
worship;
it
did not oppose or fight with the old. He showed this when he said: 'In the head
of the book
it
is written of me,' and added: 'That I should do your will, O my God; I have
desired it and your
law
in the mist of my heart.' And when he explained what God's will was, he made no
mention
of
sacrifice or holocausts or offerings or toil and sweat, but said: 'I have
declared your justice
in
a great assembly.'
2)
What does he mean when he says: 'I have declared your justice?' He did not
simply say:
'I
have given,' 'I have declared.' What does this mean? That he has justified our
race not by
right
actions, nor by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too,
made this
clear
when he said: 'But now the justice of God has been made manifest independently
of the
Law.'
But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any
labor
and
suffering. And Paul took up again the testimony of this Psalm when he spoke as
follows:
'For
the Law, having but a shadow of the good things to came, and not the exact image
of
the
objects, is never able by the sacrifices which they offer continually, year
after year the
same,
to perfect those who draw near. Therefore in coming into the world, he says: 'Sacrifice
and
oblation you wished not, but a body you have fitted to me.' By this he meant the
entrance
into
the world of the Only-begotten, the dispensation through the flesh. For this is
the way he
came
to us. He did not change place-how could he since he is every-where and fills
all
things-but
he was made visible to us through the flesh.
3)
Here we are fighting not only against the Jews but also against the pagans and
many heretics.
So
let me uncover for you the deeper meaning here; let me search out the reason why
Paul
mentioned
this text when he had countless testimonies to show that the Law and the old
commonwealth
and way of life are no longer productive. He did not cite this simply by chance
but
he did it with good reason and ineffable wisdom. Everybody would agree that he
had on
this
subject other testimonies, both of greater lengh and more vehement, if he had
wished to bring them foreward.
4)
For example, Isaiah said: 'I have no pleasure in you. I have had enough of
whole-burnt rams. I
desire
not fat of fatlings and blood of bulls and goats, not even if you come into my
sight. Who
required
these things at your hands? If you offer me wheaten flour, it is in vain.
Incense is an
abomination
to me.' And again, in another place: 'I did not call you now, Jacob, nor,
Israel, did I make
you
weary. You did not honor me with sacrifices nor did you worship me with your
gifts; I did not
weary
you with frankincense, nor did you get incense for me with silver.' And Jeremiah
said: 'Why
do
you bring me incense from Sheba and cinnamon from a far country? Your holocausts
have not
pleased
me.' And again: 'Heap up your holocausts upon your sacrifices and eat up the
flesh.'
And
another prophet said: 'Take away from me the sound of your songs: I will not
hear the canticle
of
your harps.' And again, there was another text, where the Jews were saying: 'Will
the Lord recive
it
in place of holocausts if I give my first-born for my wickedness, the fruit of
my body for the sin
of
my souls?' And the prophet reproved them and said: 'It has been announced to you
what is
good
and what the Lord God requires of you, that you love mercy, do judgment and
justice, and
be
ready to walk behind your God.' David also spoke in the same vein when he said:
'I will not take
calves
from your house nor goats from your flocks.'
5)
When Paul had so many testimonies in which God surely rejects those sacrifices,
the times of
the
new moon, the sabbaths, the festivals, why did he omit all these and mention
just that one text?
Many
of the infidels and many of the Jews themselves who are now doing batle with me
maintain that
their
commonwealth and way of life was not abolished because it was imperfect or its
place taken by
a
greater way of life-I mean ours-but because of the sinfulness of those who
offered the sacrifices
in
those days. And Isaiah certainly did say: 'If you stretch out your hands, I will
turn away my eyes
from
you: and if you multiply your prayers, I will not hear.' Then, to give the
reason for this, he went
on
to say: 'For your hands are full of blood.' These words are not an accusation
made against the
sacrifices;
they are an indictment of the sinfulness of those who offered them. God rejected
their
sacrifices
because they offered them with bloodstained hands.
6)
Again, when David said: 'I will not take calves from your house nor goats from
your flocks,' he
went
on to add: 'But to the sinner God said: 'Why do you declare my justices and take
ny covenant
in
your mouth? You hated discipline and cast my words behind you. If you saw a
thief, you ran along
with
him and you threw in your lot with adulterers. Your mouth abounded with injstice
and your tongue wrapped up deceits in your words. You sat dow and spoke slander
against your brother and
set
a stumbling-block for your mother's son.' This makes it clear that in this
instance God did not
simply
reject sacrifices, but that he rejected them because those who offered them were
adulterers and
thieves
and plotted against theirs brothers. So these enemies of mine maintain that,
since each
prophet
accuses those who offer the sacrifices, his prophecy is saying that this is the
reason why
God
rejected their sacrifices.
IV
This
is what my opponents say to me. But Paul dealt them a knockout blow and said
enough to shut
their
shameless mouths when he cited as his witness the text I have discussed. When
Paul wished to
prove
that God had rejected the old commonwealth and way of life, because it was
imperfect, and
that
he had rendered it inoperative, he took as testimony that text in which no
accusation is made
against
those who offered the sacrifices. He used a text which makes it clear that the
sacrifice was in
itself
imperfect. For the prophet David made no accusation against the Jews; he simply
said: 'Sacrifice
and
oblation you did not desire, but a body you fitted to me: in holocausts and sin
offerings you had
no
pleasure.'
2)
In explanation of this text Paul said: ' He annuls the first covenant in order
to establish the second.'
If
David had said: 'Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire,' and than said no
more, their argument
would
have some place to defend itself. But since he also said: 'But a body you fitted
to me,' and
showed
that another sacrifice was brought in to replace it, he left no hope for the
future that the old sacrifice would return. And in explaining this, Paul said:
'Through this offering we have been sanctified in the will of Christ;' and also:
'If the blood of bulls and goats and the sprinkled ashes of a
heifer
sanctify the unclean for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the
blood of Christ,
who
through the Holy Spirit offered himself unblemished, cleanse our conscience from
dead works?
This
gives us abundant proof, then, that those old rituals have stopped, that a new
rite has been
brought
forward to replace them, and that the old will not hereafter be restored.
3)
What is left to discuss now? For some time I have been anxious to prove to you
that their kind
of
priesthood has disappeared and will never return. Let me make this expressly
clear from the Scriptures themselves. First I must preface this with a few
remarks, so that my explanation of the
scriptures
say may be even more obvious.
4)
On his return from Persia, Abraham begot Isaac; Isaac then begot Jacob; Jacob
begot the twelve
patriarchs
from whom arose the twelve tribes-or, rather, the thriteen, because, in Joseph's
place, his
two
sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, became leaders of tribes. A tribe was named after
each of Jacob's
sons:
for example, the tribe of ruben, of Simeon, of Levi, of Judah, of Naphthali, of
Gad, of Asher,
of
Benjamin. So also in Joseph's case, his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, gave
their names to
two
tribes; one was called the tribe of Ephraim and the other the tribe of Manasseh.
Of these thirteen tribes all but one had fields and large incomes, all but one
tilled the fields and devoted themselves to
all
the other secular persuits. But the tribe of Levi was honored with the
priesthood; it alone was freed
from
secular work. They did not till the farms, nor do anything else of the sort, but
devoted their attention exclusively to the priesthood. Form all the people they
recived tithes of wine and wheat and barley and everything else; all gave them
tithes and this was their income. No one from any other tribe could ever become
a priest. From this tribe-I mean the tribe of Levi-came Aaron, and by succession,
his descendants received the priesthood; no one from another tribe ever become a
priest. And so these Levites recived tithes from the restand, in this way,
supported themselves.
5)
But in the time of Abraham, before the day of Jacob and Isaac, before the coming
of Moses, when
the
Law had not yet been written, when the priesthood did not clearly to the Levites,
when there
was
no Meeting Tent or Temple, before the division of the people into tribes, before
Jerusalem existed, before anyone at all had yet taken control of the goverment
among the Jews, there was
a
man named Melchizedek, a priest of the Most High God. This Melchizedek was at
the same time
both
priest and king; he was to be a type of Christ, and Scripture makes clear
mention of this. For
Abraham
attacked the Persians, rescued his nephew Lot from their hands, seized all the
spoils, and
was
returning from his mighty victory over his foes. After describing those events
the Scripture had
this
to say about Melchizedek. 'Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out bread and
wine, for he
was
a priest of the Most High God. He blessed Abraham and said, 'Blessed by the Most
High God,
creator
of heaven and earth: blessed be the Most High God who has delivered your enemies
into your hand.' Then Abraham gave him a tenth of everything.'
6)
If, then, any prophet clearly says that after Aaron, after that priesthood,
after those sacrifices and oblations, there will rise up another priest, not
from Levi's tribe but from another tribe fromwhich no one ever became a priest,
a priest not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of
Melchizedek,
it is just as clear that the old priesthood has ceased to exist and another, a
new priesthood has been brought in to take its place. If the old priesthood were
going to remain effective, it would have to be called a priesthood according to
the order of Aaron and not according to the orther
of Melchizedek. Did any prophet speak of this new priesthood?
Yes, that same prophet who before spoke about the sacrifices and who was
speaking of Christ when he said: 'The Lord said to my Lord:
'Sit
at my righ hand.'
V
To
prevent anyone from suspecting that this was said about some ordinary man, it
was not Isaiah
nor
Jeremiah, nor any prophet who was a common man that said it, but King David
himself. But a
king
cannot call any man his Lord; it is God alone whom he can call Lord. If David
were a common man, perhaps one of those shameless people would have said that he
was talking about a mere human being. But now, since David was a king, he would
not have called a man his Lord. If David were talking about some ordinary person,
how could he have said that this person sat at the right hand of that ineffable
and mighty Majesty? That would have been impossible. But of this person said: '
The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your
footstool.'
2)
Then, to keep you from thinking that this person was weak and powerless, David
went on to say:
'With
you is the principality in the day of your strength.' And he made it still
clearer when he said:
'From
the whom before the daystar I begot you.' But
no mere man was begotter before the daystar.
'You
are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.' He did not say: 'According
to the order of Aaron.' So ask the Jews why David brought in another priest,
according to the order of Melchizedek, if the old priesthood was not going to be
abolish.
3)
At any rate, see how Paul made this clearer when he came to this text. After
Paul said of Christ:
'As
he (David) says also in another place. 'You are a priest forever according to
the order of Melchizedek,' the Apostle went on to say: 'On this point we have
much to say, and it is difficult to explain it.' After he reproved his
disiples-but I must cut the account short-he went on to tell them who
Melchizedek was and to tell the story. 'He met Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the kings and blessed him; to whom Abraham divided the tithes of
all.' Then, to give some insight into Melchizedek, the type, he said: 'Now
consider how great this man is, to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave tithes
of all.' He did not say this for no purpuse but because he wanted to show that
our priesthood is much greater than the Jewish priesthood. And the excellence of
the realities is shown beforhand in the very types which foreshadow them.
4)
Abraham was the father of Isaac, the granfather of Jacob, and the ancestor of
Levi, for Levi was Jacob's son. The priesthood among the Jews began with Levi.
So this man Abraham was the ancestor
of
the Levites and the Jewish priests. But in the time if Melchizedek, who is the
type of our priesthood, Abraham had the rank of a layman. Two things make this
clear. First, he gave tithes to Melchizedek, and it is the laymen who give
tithes to the priests. Second, he was blessed by Melchizedek, and laymen are
blessed by priests.
5)
We again see the excellence of our priesthood when we find Abraham, the
patriarch of the Jews, the ancestor of the Levites, receiving a blessig from
Melchizedek and giving tithes to him. Surely the Old Testament says that
Melchizedek blessed Abraham and exacted a tenth part from him. And Paul brought
these very points to the fore and said: 'Consider how great this man is.' Who is
'this man'? Paul told us. Melchizedek, 'to whom even Abraham their patriarch
gave tithes from the best portion of the spoils.' 'And indeed they who are of
the priestly sons of Levi have a commandment to take tithes from the people,
that is, from their brethren, though these also have come from the loins of
Abraham.'
6)
What Paul means in this. He said that the Levites, who were priests among the
Jews, received a commandment, according to the Law, to take tithes from the
other Jews. Although they all were descended from Abraham, both the Levites and
the rest of the people, nonetheless the Levites took tithes from their brothers.
But Melchizedek, who was not of their descent, because he was not a descendant
of Abraham, and who was not of the tribe of Levi but from another nation,
exacted a tenth part from Abraham, that is, he took tithes from him.
7)
Not only this, but he did something further. What is that? He again blessed
Abraham, even though it was Abraham who had recived the promises. What does this
show? That Abraham was much inferior to Melchizedek. How can this be? 'Beyond
all contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the superior, ' so that,
unless Abraham, the ancestor of the Levites, were inferior to Melchizedek,
Melchizedek woul not have blessed him, nor would Abraham have given tithes to
Melchizedek. But Paul wished to show that, because of the excellence of
Melchizedek, that inferiority might have continued, so he went on to say: 'Even
Levi, the reciver of tithes, was also, so to speak, made subject to tithes,
though Abraham.'
8)
What does he mean by 'was made subject to tithes'? Although Levi was not yet
born, through his father, he, too, gave tithes to Melchizedek. As Paul said: 'He
was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek meet him.' This is why
Paul was careful to say: 'So to speak.' He went on to tell why he said this. 'If
the perfection was by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received
the Law),
what
further need was there that another priest should rise, according to the order
of Melchizedek, and said not to be according of Aaron?'
9)
What is it that Paul Meant? He meant this. If the Jewish religion was perfect,
if the Law was not
a
foreshadowing of future blessing but had been efficacious in every respect, if
it was not going to
yield
to another Law, if the old priesthood was not going to disappear and make way
for another priesthood, why did the prophet say: 'You are a priest forever
according to the order of Melchizedek?' He should have said: 'according to the
order of Aaron.' This is why Paul said: 'If then perfection was by the Levitical
priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should rise,
according the order of Melchizedek, and said not to be according to the order of
Aaron.'
10)
This surely made it clear that the old priesthood was ended and that another
much better and more sublime priesthood has been brought in to replace it. When
we admit this, we whould also agree
that
another way of life suited to the new priesthood will be brought in and another
Law given, and clearly this is ours. Paul prepared us for this when he said: 'When
the priesthood is changed, it is necessary that a change of law be made also,
for the author of these is one.'
11)
Many of the prescriptions of the Law were devoted to the ministries of the
priesthood, and the old priesthood has been abolished. Since another priesthood
was brought in to replace the old, it is clear also that a greater Law had to be
brought in to replace the old. To make clear who it was of whom these words were
spoken, Paul said: 'For he of whom these things are said is from another tribe,
from which no one has ever done service at the altar. For it is evident that our
Lord has sprung out of Judah, and Moses spoke nothing at all about priests when
referring to this tribe.'
12)
Christ clearly is sprung from from that tribe, namely the tribe of Judah; Christ
surely is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek; Melchizedek is surely
much more venerable than Abraham. Then we must also admit from every angle that
one priesthood is being brought in to replace another and that it is much more
sublime than the old priesthood. If the type was such, if it was more
magnificent than the Jewish priesthood, the reality which it foreshadowed is
itself still much more magnificent. This is the point which Paul was making when
he said: 'And it is yet far more evident if there arise another priest,
according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become so not according to the
Law of carnal commandment, but according to a life that cannot end.'
13)
What did Paul mean when he said: 'Not according to the Law of carnal commandment,
but according to a life that cannot end'? He meant that none of Christ's
commandments are carnal commandments. He did not order the sacrifice of sheep
and calves; he ordered us to worship God through the virtue of our lives; as our
reward for this, he set the prize of a life that cannot end. And
again,
after he had died as the price of our sins, he came and rised us up; he saved us
by freeing us from a double death: the death from sin and the death of the flesh.
Since he came bringing us such gifts, Paul said: 'Not according to the Law of
carnal commandment, but according to a life that cannot end.'
VI
I
have, therefore, now proved what was left to be proved. I have proved that,
because the priesthood was changed, it was resonable and necessary that there
also be a change of Law. And again I was able to prove this very point by
bringing forward as my witnesses the prophets. They testified that the Law will
be changed, that the old commonwealth and way of life will be transformed for
the better, and that never again will a king arise for the Jews.
2)
But I must say only as much as my audience can listen to and heed; I must not
crowd everything together and say it all at once. Therefore, I will store up the
rest for another occasion and, for the present, I will stop my instruction at
this point. But let me first exhort you loving assembly to keep in
mind
what I have said and to connect it up with what I said before. And what I asked
you before, I shall now ask you again. Rescue your brothers and show great
concern for our members who have grown negligent. I do not undertake this great
task just to hear myself talk or to enjoy the tumult of your applause; I do it
to bring those who have been cut off back to the path of truth.
3)
Let no one say to me: 'I have nothing in common with him, I would be lucky to
manage well my own affairs.' No one can manage his own affairs if he does not
love his neighbor and work for his salvation. This is what Paul meant when he
said: 'Let no one seek his own interest, but those of his neighbor.' He knew
that your own interests lie in what benefits your neighbor. You are in good
health,
but
your brother is sick. So then, if you are in your righ mind, you will be
distressed over him who is in distress and you will, in this matter, follow the
example of that blessed soul who said: 'Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is
made to stumble, and I am not inflamed?'
4)
If we find joy in tossing down a couple of obols and
spending a little money on the poor, what great pleasure will we reap if
we can save men's souls? What recompense will we enjoy in the life to come?
Certainly, in this world, as often as we run into these men, we will derive
great pleasure from meeting them, because we recall the good turn we did for
them. When we see them in the next world before the dread tribunal of judgment,
we will experience a great confidence. When the unjust, the greedy, the
plunderers, and those who have inflicted countless evils on their neighbors go
before this tribunal and see their victims-and they surely will see them, as
Christ says, and as is clear from the strory of the rich man and Lazarus - they
will not be able to open their mouths nor to
say a word in their own defense. They will be overwhelmed with the great shame
of their condemnation and will be swept off from the sight of their victims into
the rivers of flame.
5)
But when those who taught and instructed their neighbors in this life stand
before the tribunal, they will see those whom they saved pleading in their
behalf. And they will be filled with great confidence and trust. Paul made this
clear when he said: 'We are your boast, as you will also be ours.' Tell me, when
will this be? 'In the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
6)
And, again, Christ gave good counsel when he said: 'Make friend for yourselves
with the mammon of wickednes, so that when you fail they may receive you into
the everlasting dwellings.' You see that much confidence will come to us from
those to whom we have done good in this life. But if there are so many prizes,
such great recompense, such ample repayment for the money we spent on others,
how will we fail to gain many great blessing when we help a soul? Tabitha
clothed widows and aided the poor and came back to life from the dead. If the
tears of those to whom she did good brought her departed soul back to her
body-and this before the day of resurrection-will not the tears of those whom you rescued and saved do somthing to help you? The
widows who stood around Tabitha's corps poited out that she who had died was
alive. In the same way, those whom you saved in this life will stand around you
on the day of judgement. They will snatch you from the fire of gehenna and to it
that you enjoy His loving-kindness in abundance.
7)
Knowing, then, what we now know, let us not be roused to fervor only for the
present hour; fan the fire you now have, go forth, and spread salvation over the
city; even if you do not know them, get busy and find those who have this
sickness. I shall be all the more eager to speak to you when I have found out
from your very deeds that I did not scatter my seed on rocky ground. And you
yourselves will be more eager to practice virtue. In money matters, the man who
has made a profit of two gold pieces gets a greater enthusiasm to collect and
amass a profit of ten or twenty pieces. This happens, too, in the matter of
virtue. The man who has succeeded in doing a good deed gets some encouragement
and motivation from doing this right action. The result is that he will
undertake other good deeds.
8)
Let us, then, rescue our brothers and store up beforehand pardon for our sins.
Much more, let us first store up abundant confidence and, before all else, let
us see to it that God's name is glorified. To do this, let us take our wives,
children, and households and go out after this game and quarry. Let us from the
snares of the devil those whom he hase made captive to his will. And let us not
stop until we have done everything in our power to rescue them, whether they
heed or reject our words. But it would be impossible, if they are Christians,
for them not to heed us.
9)
Still, I do not want you to have even the excuse that they would not heed you.
Let me say this. If you pour out many words and do everything in your power and
still see that he refuses to heed you, then bring him to the priests. By the
help of God's grace the priests will surely overcome their quarry. But it will
all be your doing, because is was you who took him by the hand and led him to us.
Let husbands talk to their wives and wives to their husbands, fathers to their
children and friends to friends.
10)
Let the Jews learn how we feel. Let it also become known to those who side with
the Jews, even though they pretend to be ranked with us. We have an eager and
vigilant concern for our brothers who have deserted over the Jewish side. When
the Jews find this out, it will be they, rather than we, who thrust out those of
our number who frequent their synagogue. I should say, there will be no one
hereafter who will dare to flee to them, and the body of the Church will be
unsullied and pure.
11)
It is God's will that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. May
he give you trength for this hunt and may he lead them back from this error. May
he save us all together and make us worthy of the kingdom of heaven for his
glory, since it is fitting that his
be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.