Fragmenta in epistulam ad Hebraeos

He did not write to those who were faithless, possessing implacable hatred toward him, but to those who had partaken of all that believers must share. Then, not simply to ordinary people, but to those who had shown in their works the confirmation of faith and the precision of virtue, as the contents of the epistle also demonstrate. So it was necessary that the epistle be delivered to them as Paul having written to them, just as also happened in the case of the others. For what was written could not benefit them unless this was done. Moreover, what is written near the end of the epistle shows what I say: "For I exhort you, brothers," he says, "to bear with the word of exhortation; for I have written to you briefly." To whom did he write, saying "I have written to you," if those to whom the letter had to be delivered were not present? Then he adds: "You know that brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes more quickly, I will see you." Do you see that the one who also ministered the delivery of the letter was known, with whom he clearly promises to see them if he returns more quickly? What then is the reason that his name is not placed at the beginning? It is quite clear and very obvious. Barnabas and he himself divided the proclamation with those around the blessed Peter, not so that some would teach one thing and others another—for their purpose was one—but so that some would lead those from the Gentiles, and others those from the Jews, to the faith, because of the contentiousness still prevailing at that time, as the Jews, from their custom in the law, did not tolerate mingling with those from the Gentiles, and they used this division more economically.

Thus some were apostles of the Gentiles, others of those from the circumcision; and those who had believed considered them, as is reasonable, common teachers and apostles. So when he wrote to those from the Gentiles, he naturally writes to them as their apostle, but when to those from the Hebrews, no longer. Through whom he also made the ages. The age is no nature having its being in a hypostasis, but is conceived as a certain interval. It is therefore conceived from some beginning of being up to the end of that, or of something else similarly having taken a beginning; for we do not think of temporal intervals in their own hypostasis, but we conceive them together with things that have taken a beginning of being, receiving the impression of both its beginning and its end from those things. Not as in the case of God, when they say that he alone was, since he always was, it is not possible for us to conceive intervals coexisting with his life. Therefore to say maker of the ages is nothing other than to say eternal, transcending every interval, having his own existence without limit. For the maker is prior to the things made, and an interval must be conceived together with that which has a beginning. Just as when the blessed David says, "the one existing before the ages," he does not mean that he pre-exists things that do not subsist, but to say that he is above every interval, always having being. So, when he says, "through whom he also made the ages," he does not mean to call him maker of things that do not subsist, but to say that he always is and is the cause of all things that have had a beginning. Who is the radiance of his glory and the character of his hypostasis.

He well did not say "of God" but "of glory," not permitting us to busy ourselves with the nature of that being because of the awe-inspiring character of the name, since it ought only to be glorified by us; he used the analogy of radiance for what he considered most necessary, and by the addition he dissolved the incongruity of the analogy. For it preserves, he says, the exact character of the nature, so that whatever you conceive that hypostasis to be, you conceive this also to be, bearing the exact characters of that one, since it differs from it in no respect. This is not only to call him maker of beings, but also to say that he makes them with great abundance of power, as if all things depend on his voice. For this differs in no way from calling non-existent things into existence, or from the account of the blessed Moses saying: "And he said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light; 'Let there be a firmament,' and there was a firmament." The one indicates the swiftness of service, the other the power of the ministry. Having said that these things came into being from that source, he demonstrated that they also have their power from that source. He distinguishes between "the one who makes" and "God," "throne," and "scepter of the kingdom," all of which are symbols of the highest honor and dignity; for "God" signifies the highest nature, and "throne" and "scepter," from human things, represent its stability. Then also "forever and ever": for "the one who makes" shows that those who have come into being began from a certain time, while this phrase represents the eternity of the kingdom.

From this it is possible to see that when the Old Testament speaks to us about the divine nature, it does not speak of the Father alone in a restricted sense, as the heretics suppose, attempting to take "I am God, and there is no other besides me" and all such statements as applying to him alone. On the contrary, whatever it says about God, expounding the highest nature, it speaks in such a way that these things can equally apply to both Father and Son because of the community of nature. For how did the Apostle draw the second testimony concerning him, which had nothing that could be indicative of the particularity of the person, just as he did with the earlier one? Or does he not appear to have done the same thing in the Epistle to the Romans, where he says: "For it is written: 'I live,' says the Lord, 'that every knee will bow to me'"? For one would not find that testimony either to have anything that indicated these things in a restricted sense. The fact that the spirits are ministering he had from the testimony at hand, and he himself then added the kind of service, saying that they do everything while ministering for the sake of our salvation; for it is no small addition to know the need of the service. Therefore we must pay more careful attention to what has been heard, lest we ever slip away. For this reason, he says, we must devote our zeal to what has been said by him, guarding ourselves lest we ever receive some perversion from better things. He also showed by the facts themselves the great difference between these things and those: there he spoke of a word, here of salvation.

For that was only the giving of laws, but here there is also the grace of the Spirit, the remission of sins, the promise of the kingdom of heaven, and the pledge of immortality. Hence he rightly spoke of such a great addition, showing its magnitude, and that there it was given through angels, but here through the Lord. And since there were miracles among them, so that they might not seem to be inferior in this respect either, he well added "with God bearing witness through signs and wonders and various powers," stating it in a progressive manner so that even in this the greater grace compared to the law might appear: for there it occurred only according to need, but here many even of those who are strangers are healed through us, whatever sufferings may happen to afflict them. Such is the abundance of miracles among us. The dead also rise, and we sometimes punish certain persons, if need be, by censures alone, making them blind, bringing deaths upon the ill-intentioned. Having thus set forth the difference and shown the superiority by the variety and manifold nature, he added the greater thing which was no longer present among those under the law: "and by distributions of the Holy Spirit." For each of the

It was proper for believers to partake of the things in the grace. And well did he add after all things the phrase "according to his will," that is, of God having once willed and approved to use great munificence toward us, so that his grace toward us is also immutable, no change of the things once given being feared, as in the earlier cases. They suffer something utterly ridiculous here, altering "without God" and making it "by the grace of God," not attending to the sequence of the scripture, but from not understanding what he meant by "without God," they indiscriminately erase that and put what seems to them easy for comprehension. For what was Paul's purpose here, that he should add "by the grace of God"? And what sequence led him to this? For it is not his custom to set down "by the grace of God" simply, but always from some sequence of argument: for either he says this when speaking of himself, as in "by the grace of God I am what I am," or when it is his purpose to speak of God's philanthropy toward men, and that he has done everything not because we were worthy to obtain it, as in "for by grace you are saved," to which he adds: "and this not from yourselves, God's gift; not from works, lest anyone boast," clearly showing through these things that he is speaking about the grace of God, which he has displayed toward all men. But here, his subject is evidently about Christ, what sort he is and what difference he has with respect to the angels, from which he was led to say, in what respect he seems to be inferior to them and that because of death.

What then was the need here of the grace of God? For it is not his purpose to speak of his goodness toward us. But the sequence of what follows shows this rather: for having said that he tasted death without God, with the divinity in no way harmed by this, and because of this he received from his own nature this diminution little by little, so that from this he appears also to share in the honor through his connection with another. Since it was consistent that those hearing these things would consider the dwelling of the Word of God in him superfluous at the time of the passion, contributing nothing to the matters at hand if indeed he tasted death without that experience, he adds: For it was fitting for him, on account of whom are all things and through whom are all things, having led many sons to glory, to perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings. Nor was the divinity ineffective, he says; for it was fitting for it to do its own things and those which were appropriate to it; for the matter of the passion was in no way appropriate to it. This "it was fitting" clearly established the "without God"; for as that was not fitting, he speaks of what is fitting, showing at once both what he was then doing and what these things were. For it was fitting for him, on account of whom are all things and through whom are all things—clearly speaking of the Word of God, since he imparted sonship to many and led them into this glory, to make perfect the leader of the salvation of all, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the man taken from him, through sufferings, so that both the nature of this one and the grace of that one appear.

Nor does it now, he says, befit me to advise you how, by withdrawing from the worse, you might incline toward the better through faith in Christ; for my discourse is addressed to those who already believe. So it was fitting to exhort you to the same things, namely, that you might persevere in what you once approved. Therefore he says this: that those who have believed and have partaken of the Spirit have become partakers of the hypostasis of Christ, as if having received a kind of natural communion with him. It remains, then, to preserve this beginning in an unimpaired disposition. He wishes to show that all those who went out through Moses perished because of unbelief, so that by comparison he might more greatly frighten those to whom he was speaking. But those who argue against this attended neither to the sequence of what follows—namely, with whom was he displeased, and to whom did he swear?—which, when read as a question, demands the same answer; nor to that point: who were those who, having heard, provoked? For that could be said in accordance with that meaning only if indeed few from among many had undergone this. For we say of actions, "Who did them?" cutting off a part from the multitude, when it happens that those who did it are fewer than those who did not. But here there are only two, Joshua and Caleb; so that it had no coherence to say who were the provokers, when only two from so great a multitude existed. He considered that the number did no harm to the statement of the two.

It was fitting to fear, he says, lest we, having received the promise of entry into the rest, should fall short through depravity of mind. For let no one think that the promise of future things suffices for him, any more than it did for them; for they were not united by faith to the things promised. Hence one must read thus: not being mingled by faith with what was heard, that is, with the promises made to them by God through Moses. This is the work of true rest: not to run back again to the old, undergoing change and transposition. For just as God is said to have rested from making the world, having once given completion to its construction, so it was fitting that one entering into rest should not run back to the old, dreading the labors of virtue as a transgression of laws; for change and removal from the state must necessarily follow these. The "today," he says, is neither indefinite, nor can it be said of the external interval of a day, as if "today" were applicable to each day. I thought it right to note this not only for the sake of apostolic clarity, but also for those who wish to take the "I have begotten you today" of the generation of the Only-begotten's divinity, who declare that "today" is indefinite, not even considering that "today" could not be spoken if there were no day. For that "today" would not be indefinite, the apostle clearly indicated by saying: again he defines a certain day in David, saying, or also elsewhere.

Exhort yourselves, he said, each day until the present day is called. First he showed that the present day is not spoken of outside the days, by saying each day, and thus adding until the present day is called. Then not even thus does he appear to be speaking about the present day as if it were indefinite, and capable of fitting both the past and the future. For what does he say? Thinking that the present day is spoken to you each day, thus take care to remain in the faith; for as the present day signifies the current day, so he advised them, using the meaning rather for the benefit of the exhortation. The point through two unchangeable things: both that God is the one who promised, who can in no way lie, and that he made the promise with an oath. 207 Adding that Christ has become a high priest for us eternally, by bringing all those who believe in each generation through himself to God in the hope of the resurrection.

He later recounted how the temple was constructed, and says that there were two sanctuaries, but that into the first the priests entered continually to perform the prescribed rites, while into the second only the high priest entered once a year. And indeed, wishing to teach the meaning signified by these things, he adds: the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way of the saints was not yet revealed. Just as, therefore, it was not the nature of the place that was inaccessible, upon which the inner house happened to be built, but the construction, the law, and the consecration of the place made the place inaccessible, yet he said this was a symbol of the heavens, so also here, wishing to show Christ as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, he speaks of the things concerning him not by explaining his nature, but by setting forth the account concerning him from divine scripture and from that revealing the similarity. Therefore he calls him fatherless and motherless, since divine scripture does not recount his parents; whence he added "without genealogy," showing that he speaks not of the man's nature but of the account of divine scripture. Then he adds: having neither beginning of days nor end of life, not in nature, but in divine scripture. And since it was possible for these things to be said also of another—for divine scripture mentioned many without stating their parents or setting forth their genealogy, especially those we have learned were born outside the Israelite race—he well added: but being likened to the Son of God, he remains priest forever; for this was no longer among the things that could be said of another.

He indicates from the narrative according to scripture how he also possessed the other attributes, including this one. For Christ was fatherless in the generation of human nature, and motherless in the generation of divine existence, but also without genealogy; for who could trace the genealogy of one who exists only from a father? That he has neither a beginning of days nor an end of life is also clear, but here in terms of realities, there in terms of the narrative. That he remains a priest perpetually he took from divine scripture by saying: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," as if that one also perpetually served as priest. And he called him a perpetual priest as if he did not transmit the priesthood to successors, which happened in the law. Hence he also said: "And he is likened to the Son of God," although the logical order would have been to say that this one is likened to that one—for the first is not likened to the second—but because the truth of the realities is with this one, while that one has nothing of the sort, he said that that one is well likened in the form of the narrative, as if divine scripture in the narrative intended to show us a likeness of what was to come. The difference between this one and that one, he says, is shown by the fact that he received the priesthood with an oath; for the others were made without oaths because they had to cease from the priesthood at some point, but this one with oaths, since he was to remain in the office. Thus he received an office far greater than those in the law, since he was to provide greater benefits to those who approached. For he speaks of "guarantor" as if by his establishment he guarantees us the benefit, and indeed it is so.

For the fact that he was the first to rise, just as he also calls him high priest, guarantees for us the likeness of the resurrection. He begins here to speak of how the symbols and types in the law correspond to those in grace, and how it is possible to discern these things prefigured in those, while at the same time showing by the juxtaposition the superiority of these, whatever it is. And he makes the beginning in a narrative of the teaching. He says, then, that the first covenant also had terms and ordinances of the service that was due to be rendered to God; for he calls the ordinances concerning these things "ordinances of worship." And the holy place is cosmic. He here calls the temple "holy" fittingly, in which the service to God happened to be rendered, or also the tabernacle, since they had this earlier in the place of the temple; for they called that a temple as well, as if God were present in it, and likewise the one later built by Solomon. And this can be learned clearly from the first book of Kings, which says: "And Samuel slept in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was," although the temple had not yet been built by Solomon. And just as God, commanding Moses to construct the tabernacle as a symbol of the world according to a certain type, ordered him to make an enclosure divided in the middle by another curtain, so also the temple was later made according to the same type. Now, he says, when he appeared, since sin happened to prevail, he necessarily received the death that prevailed because of sin; but then, when sin was, as is likely, dissolved, it is necessary that he also appear without suffering.

For he says "without sin" meaning that sin was not yet prevailing, and thus he himself will then be seen as free from every human passion. These things were said to those in Babylon who wished to speak to God, saying, "You did not demand a sacrifice from me, but only that I obey you and do your will; and straightaway the circumstances of my return were no longer doubtful for me." Therefore, changing it as if from the person of Christ, he says to her, instead of "ears," saying "body," "you prepared for me." It is necessary that those who have here passed from better to worse things, having risen, be then handed over to punishment, no longer admitting repentance. For he does not abolish repentance in the present life, but because there is then no forgiveness for one who has remained here in error and has received no perception of his error, completing every sin with some irrationality and great pleasure. 210 Knowing that the matter concerning faith is especially sought among the Jews from some sequence, he has used many proofs about it. For they put forward the law and justification from its works, while these put forward faith, saying that even if someone is entangled in countless evils, by merely believing in Christ he receives a swift release from all, being deemed worthy of justification from him. Therefore, having defined it, both so as to make it familiar from what was previously said, and also so as to be able to show it more clearly appearing among all the virtuous and ancient men, he adds: "For in this the elders were testified." Consequently, he obtained his own faith.

For, having believed in the resurrection through certain symbols, he conveyed him as one who had died. For the fact that one who was in great expectation of death suffered nothing was a symbol of the one who would truly rise, in that, having tasted death briefly, he rose, suffering nothing from death. So "in a parable" is used instead of "in symbols." He did not simply say that there is one time of recompense for all—for that was not his purpose—but to show that, although they had done so much and suffered so much through faith, they still await the fulfillment of the promises, not being displeased, since they will receive it together with us who come later, which demonstrated their greater endurance, if indeed even after death they still wait for those who must contend similarly to them, so that they may enjoy the good things together with them. Here he speaks of "witnesses" not as those who have suffered, but as those who bear witness to the faith. Where are those who say that the apostle in this epistle abolishes repentance by saying: "For it is impossible for those who have been enlightened and so forth to be renewed again to repentance"? How then do they understand these things? How does he command that slack hands and paralyzed knees be straightened? What healing of a lame man does he wish to occur, if he does not accept repentance from those who have sinned? For that he writes these things to the faithful is clear from what he says to them: "Remember the former days, in which, having been enlightened, you endured much struggle of sufferings.

He does not intend through these things to do away with repentance, but to teach that it is not possible for those who have not shown the appropriate correction at the proper time to recover it later, when the time of requital is about to be applied correspondingly to each person's character; for he has not been eager to contradict himself, and these things are so from the immediate context. One may understand this from the example he mentions. For first he recalled Esau, who was then disheartened when he did not obtain the blessing, but remained in the same wickedness of character also after that. Then, that man did not obtain forgiveness of sins by repenting; for he was not asking for that at the time, but for a blessing which, having been given to his brother according to the worthiness of his character, could by no means be taken away again and given to this one instead. Yet it is also possible to find that his tears were not entirely without benefit. At any rate, the father appears afterward to have been moved by him and to have given him some blessings. Thus he does not intend through these things to do away with repentance. Well does he establish, from the voice of the prophet, both the change of those now and the steadfastness of those later; for promising to shake them clearly indicates their transformation as something that will happen, while the addition of "once" indicates the immutability of what follows. The leaders among them who proclaimed the word of piety and were perfected by the Jews there. And there were many, not only Stephen and James who was slain by the sword, but also James the brother of the Lord, and very many others handed over to silence.

He called it "beneficence" in praise of the action, and "communion" because it occurs among fellow believers, so that we should consider such persons as partners in what belongs to us, thus choosing with eagerness to supply their needs. Instead of "persevere in reading," he said "bear the labor of attention.