Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Read Chapter 10
Thomas Aquinas
AD 1274
479. – Having considered the things done in both testaments to show the superiority of the New Testament over the Old, the Apostle now proves something he had presupposed, namely, that the Old was not able to cleanse sins. This is the last of the five things he had prefaced about Christ. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the failure of the Old Testament in regard to abolishing guilt; secondly, on this point he compares the priest of the New Testament with the priest of the Old Testament (v. 11). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he proves it on the authority of Scripture (v. 5). In regard to the first he does two things: First, he sets forth what he intends; secondly, he proves (v. 2).
480. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the Apostle concludes to this failing from the condition and rite of the Old Law. But sin deprived man of future goods; hence, as though that sin pertained to future goods, i.e., heavenly, the Old Law is related to those goods as a shadow to a body, but the New Law as an image. Now a shadow and an image agree in the fact that each represents something: but a shadow represents in general, and as to the nature of the species; an image, however, does so in particular and as to the nature of the individual, and specifically. So, too, the New Law, as far as future goods are concerned, represents more explicitly than the Old: first, because express mention and a promise of good things to come are found in the words of the New Testament, but not in the Old, which mentions only carnal goods; secondly, because the power of the New Testament consists in charity, which is the fulfillment of the Law. And although this charity is imperfect by reason of the faith in which it inheres, it is, nevertheless, similar to the charity of heaven. Hence, the New Law is called the law of love. Hence, it is called an image, because it has an expressed likeness to the goods to come. But the Old Law represented it by carnal things; hence it is called a shadow: ‘Which are a shadow of things to come’ (Col. 2:17). This therefore is the condition of the Old Testament, that it was but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities. Its rite consisted in offering the same sacrifice every year on the day of atonement, namely, the blood of goats and bulls, for sin, as is clear from Leviticus (chap. 25). From these two facts he draws his conclusion, namely, the law has but a shadow of the good things to come, instead of the true form of these realities; it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered every year made perfect those who draw near, i.e., the high priests: ‘The law brought nothing to perfection’ (Heb. 7:19). But that perfection is reserved for the New Law and consists in charity, which is the bond of perfection’ (Col. 3:14). Therefore, it says in Matthew (5:48): ‘Be you, therefore, perfect.’
481. – Then when he says, otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered? He proves his conclusion from two facts: first, from the rite; secondly, from the condition of the offerings (v. 4).
482. – To prove that the Law did not cleanse perfectly, he uses two facts: first, that there was frequent repetition of the same sacrifices in it. This is his reasoning: If the worshippers had once been cleansed by the same sacrifice, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin, so they would cease offering, because, as has been said, they offered the same sacrifices every year. Therefore, since they did not cease offering, it is a sign that they were not cleansed: ‘They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill’ (Mt. 9:12). But on the other hand, it could be said that that reasoning is not conclusive. For one could say that that offering cleansed from past sins, but not those to come. Therefore, because they sinned often, the offerings had to be repeated frequently. I answer that the way the Apostle speaks excludes this: for since sin is something spiritual, which is opposed to what is heavenly, it was necessary that whatever cleansed from sin should be spiritual and heavenly and, consequently, that it have everlasting power; hence, above (9:12), when he spoke about the power of Christ’s sacrifice, he attributed an everlasting power to it, saying, ‘having obtained eternal redemption.’ But the fact that it has eternal power is enough for sins already committed and sins still to be committed; therefore, it was not necessary to repeat it any more. Hence ‘Christ by one oblation perfected forever them that are sanctified’ (Heb. 10:14). But the fact that we offer the sacrifice every day seems to contradict the statement that it is not repeated. I answer that we do not offer something different from what Christ offered for us, namely, His blood; hence, it is not a distinct oblation, but a commemoration of that sacrifice which Christ offered: ‘Do this in commemoration of me’ (Lk. 22:19). The second thing he prefaced is that in the Old Testament a commemoration was made of his own sins and those of the people every year. Therefore, they were abolished. Hence, he says, in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. This is true, for mention was made of sins in general, namely, that he was conscious of sin; but special mention is made in the New: ‘Confess, therefore, your sins one to another’ (Jas. 5:16).
483. – Then when he says, For it is impossible that the blood of oxen and goats should take away sins, he proves the same thing by reason of the condition of the things offered. For the offering of oxen and goats, which took place on the day of atonement, was the most solemn of their offerings. And since it was an obscure and imperfect representation of heavenly things, as a shadow, it was impossible that sin be taken away by their blood. This is true, so far as their own power was concerned. But if any sins were remitted, it was due to the power of Christ’s blood: ‘Shall the holy flesh take away from you your crimes in which you have boasted?’ (Jer. 11:15). As if to say: No.
484. – Then (v. 5) he cites an authority from Scripture. In regard to this he does two things: first, he cites it;’ secondly, he explains it (v. 8). This authority can be divided into two parts according to a Gloss: first, it deals with Christ’s incarnation prefigured in the Law, secondly, with his passion (v. 7). Yet according to the Apostle’s intention it can be said differently that: first, he touches on what pertains to the rejection of the Old Testament; secondly, what pertains to the acceptance of the New Testament (v. 7b).
485. – This authority fits Christ, in so far as His coming into the world is concerned. He says, therefore: Because it would not remove sin, the Son of God coming into the world said. But on the other hand, it says in Jn (1:10): ‘He was in the world.’ I answer that it is true that He was in the world as ruling the whole world, inasmuch as He is said to be in all things by His essence, presence and power; but He is outside the world, because He is not comprehended by the world, but has a goodness separated from the entire world, by which the goodness of the universe is caused. Yet, because He assumed a human nature for us, He is said to enter into the world, as was stated above: ‘And again when he brings in the first begotten into the world’ (Heb. 1:6).
486. – Coming, therefore, into the world he said. But what did He say? Sacrifice and offering you did not desire. But he mentions four things that were in the Old Testament: because the sacrifice was either of inanimate things, such as bread or incense, and then it was called an offering; or of animate things, and then it was offered either to placate God, and was called a holocaust, which was most fitting, because it was completely burned and gave honor to God, or it was offered for cleansing from sin, and was called a sacrifice for sin. But this latter had two parts: for one part was burned on the altar and the other was granted to the ministers for their own use; or it was for God’s benefits and was less fitting, because only one third was burned, one third given to the ministers, and one third to the ones who made the offering: and this was called a holocaust of peace. Now the offering of Christ’s body in the New Testament corresponds to all of these, because God was placated by the body of Christ, i.e., in offering Himself on the cross: ‘When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son’ (Rom. 5:10). Furthermore, sin was removed by it: ‘Christ has died once for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:18). Then by it we are introduced to eternal goods, and merit God’s benefits.
487. – Hence, he says, sacrifice and offerings you did not desire, and then adds: but a body you have prepared for me, i.e., fit for immolation; and this for two reasons. First, because it was most pure, to wipe away all sin: ‘It shall be a lamb without blemish’ (Ex. 12:5); secondly, because it would suffer and be immolated: ‘God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Ron 8:3). But that body is a true sacrifice and a true oblation: ‘He has delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness’ (Eph. 5:2). In burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. It is a greater thing to please than to will, because those things please which something causes us to will; but sometimes we will certain things not for their own sake but for something else. Therefore, because holocausts were more fitting, but he says that they were not pleasing, then much less the others.
488. – But on the other hand it says in Leviticus (1:9): ‘The priest shall burn them upon the altar for a holocaust and a sweet savor to the Lord.’ Further, if He did not want them, why did He command them to be offered? I answer that the statement that the Lord did not want them can be understood in two ways: In one way, so that He does not want them at the time when, the truth coming, the shadow could cease; hence, a person would sin by offering them now. In another way, so that He does not want them for the sins of those who offer them: ‘Your hands are full of blood’ (Is. 1:15). The third answer toward which the Apostle is tending is that they were never pleasing to God of themselves, nor were they accepted. But they are said to be accepted for two reasons: first, because they were a figure of Christ Whose passion was accepted by God, for He was not pleased with the killing of animals but in faith in His passion: ‘For all things happened to them in figure’ (1 Cor. 10:11). Secondly, to restrain them from idolatry by means of those sacrifices; hence, the first time the Law was given, no mention was made of sacrifices, but only after they made the golden calf. Hence Jeremiah (7:22): ‘I spoke not of your fathers, and I commanded them not in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices.’
489. – Then when he says, then said I: Lo, I come, he continues to approve the New Testament. According to a Gloss it is read in the following way: Then, namely, when you did prepare a body for me, i.e., in the conception, I said: Lo, I come, i.e., I propose to come, namely, to the passion: ‘This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ’ (1 Jn. 5:6). Or it is better referred to His coming into the world, thus: Then, namely, when holocausts were not pleasing to you, I said: I come by the Incarnation: ‘I came forth from the Father and am come into the world’ (Jn. 16:28), and this in order to offer myself in the passion; therefore, he says, Lo.
490. – But was that sacrifice accepted? It certainly was, because in the roll [head] of the book it was written of me. This book is Christ according to His human nature, and in it were written all the things necessary for man’s salvation: ‘Take you a great book’ (Is. 8:1); ‘And the head of Christ is God’ (1 Cor. 11:3). In the head of the book, i.e., in the plans of God, Who is the head of Christ, Who is the book, it is written that the Son of God is to be incarnated and die. Or, the book, i.e., the Psalter, whose first psalm concerns Christ. Or better, the book of life, which is nothing else than the knowledge God has about the predestination of the saints, who are saved by Christ. Therefore, in that book it is written of me, because the saints are predestined by me: ‘He chose us in him before the foundation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4); ‘Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son’ (Rom. 8:29). Therefore, if predestination is called a book, it is obvious that Christ is the head of the book: ‘They that are written in the book of life of the Lamb’ (Rev. 21:27). Therefore, in the head of the book, i.e., in me, according to my divine nature, it is written of me, according to my human nature, I have come to do your will, i.e., this was foreordained that by Your grace I should do Your will, by offering Myself for the redemption of the human race.
491. – Then when he says, when he said above, he explains the authority he quoted. In regard to this he does two things: first, by assigning the order in which he shall speak, he states the difference between the Old and New Testaments; secondly, he explains in detail something presupposed by the authority (v. 10).
492. – We have said that two things were touched upon in the authority cited: one pertains to the rejection of the Old Testament; the other to the approval of the New. But the Old Testament was rejected in two ways: first, because God does not want its sacrifices; secondly, because they do not please Him. Hence, David the prophet is saying above, i.e., in the beginning. What does he say? Sacrifices and offerings and burnt for sin you desired not: ‘I desire not holocausts of rams, and fat of fatlings, and blood of calves and lambs and buck goats’ (Is. 1:11); neither are they pleasing to you (these are offered according to the law), i.e., You are not delighted with them: ‘With burnt offerings you will not be delighted’ (Ps. 50:18), unless it be because they are figures or inasmuch as they kept them from idolatry. Therefore, after saying this he continues: Then said I, namely, when You fitted to me a body for my passion, or when they did not please you, Lo, I have come, either to the incarnation or to the passion. To what end? To do you will, O God: ‘I came down from heaven to do the will of him that sent me (Jn. 6:38); ‘My meat is to do the will of him that sent me’ (Jn. 4:34). Therefore, the prophet in saying this, abolishes the first, in order to establish the second. With these words he shows the difference between the Old and New Testaments, because in speaking of the Old he says that God does not want them and that they do not please Him, i.e., of themselves; therefore, they are taken away. But when he speaks of the New he says that He wants it, because I have come to do your will. Therefore, the New is established and confirmed as being in accord with God’s will: ‘The new coming on, you shall cast out the old’ (Lev. 26:10).
493. – Then (v. 10) he explains what he had said about God’s will, for the fulfillment of which Christ came, namely, what that will is. But this will is described in 1 Thessalonians (4:5): ‘This is the will of God, your sanctification.’ Hence, he says, by that will we are sanctified, and this by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ: ‘He has delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God; (Eph. 5:2); once for all: ‘Jesus Christ died once for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:18).
494. – Then (v. 11) he compares the priest of the new and Old Testaments. Here it should be noted that there were two solemn sacrifices in the Law: one on the day of atonement offered by the high priest alone; the other was the continual sacrifice, where one lamb was offered in the morning and another in the evening (Num. 28). This is the one the Apostle intends to discuss here, and in regard to it he does three things: first, he lays down what pertains to the priest of the Old Testament; secondly, what pertains to the priest of the New (v. 12); thirdly, he supports all this with authority (v. 15).
495. – He says, therefore; every priest stands daily at his service. He says, every, to distinguish this sacrifice from the one of atonement offered by the high priest alone. But in the former, every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, because they always offered a lamb: which daily sacrifices can never take away sins, because they were repeated: ‘Shall the holy fleshy take away from you your crimes in which you have boasted?’ (Jer. 11:15). But that continual sacrifice prefigured Christ and the eternity of Him Who is the lamb without blemish.
496. – Then (v. 12) he shows what pertains to the priesthood of Christ. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his intent; secondly, the reason (v. 14).
497. – He says, therefore: but when this man, namely, Christ, offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins. But the Old Law offered many sacrifices without expiating for sins. This man, therefore, offered one sacrifice, because He offered Himself once for our sins, and sat down at the right hand of God, not as a minister always standing, as the priests of the Old Law, but as the Lord: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand’ (Ps. 109:1); ‘He sits on the right hand of God’ (Mk 16:19); at the right hand of God the Father with equal power in the divine nature, but with the more important goods in the human nature: ‘He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high’ (Heb. 1:3); and this forever, for He will not die again, because ‘Christ rising from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9); ‘His power is an everlasting power’ (Dan 7:14).
498. – From henceforth waiting [expecting] until his enemies be made a stool for his feet. This expecting does not imply any anxiety in Christ, as it does in men, because ‘hope that is deferred afflicts the soul’ (Pr. 13:12), but it designates His will to have mercy: ‘The Lord waits that he may have mercy only’ (Is. 30:18). Therefore, those who are willing are subjected under His feet, i.e., to His humanity; and in this their salvation consists, namely, in doing His will: ‘How long do you refuse to submit to me?’ (Ex. 10:3). But the wicked, who are unwilling submit to it because even though they do not accomplish His will per se, yet it is fulfilled in their regard as a work of justice. Consequently, all things are subject in one of those ways: ‘You have subjected all things under his feet’ (Ps. 8:8).
499. – Then (v. 14) he gives the reason why He sits as Lord and not as a minister similar to the priests of the Old Testament, who could not take away sin by one sacrifice and, consequently, had to offer many others frequently: ‘Every high priest is appointed to offer up gifts and sacrifices’ (Heb. 5:1); but the sacrifice which Christ offered takes away all sins: ‘Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many’ (Heb. 9:28). Hence, he says that by one offering he has perfected for all time. This He did by reconciling us and uniting us to God as to our principle; those who are sanctified, because Christ’s sacrifice, since He is God and man, has power to sanctify for every: ‘Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate (Heb. 13:12). For by Him we are sanctified and united to God: ‘By whom we have access to God’ (Rom. 5:12).
500. – Then when he says, and the Holy Spirit also bears witness to this, he confirms what he had said by citing and authority taken from Jeremiah (31:33). Since this text has been explained above in chap. 8, we pass over it at present. Yet it can be divided into two parts: first, he cites the authority; secondly, he argues from it (v. 18). He forms the following reason: Sins are remitted in the New Testament by Christ’s sacrifice, because the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins; therefore, in the New Testament, in which sins and iniquities are forgiven, as the authority indicates, there is no offering to be repeated for sins: ‘They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill’ (Mt. 9:12). Therefore, where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no longer any offering for sin. For this would be to demean Christ’s sacrifice.
