The Church's Consensus on Women and the Priesthood

The Church is not a democracy in which sacred tradition, doctrine, and discipline can be changed by consensus. The Church already has a consensus...the Apostolic Consensus. When it comes to the question of women priests, the consensus is clear. The matter was resolved early in the Church.

Consider what these Churchmen have said about women and the priesthood.

St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" (1.31.2) wrote, "After this he gave women mixed chalices and told them to give thanks in his presence. Then he took another chalice much larger than that on which the deceived woman gave thanks, and, pouring from the smaller... to the much later. . the larger chalice was filled from the smaller chalice and overflowed."

Tertullian, in "The Prescription of Heretics" (41), says: "How wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize."

In his work "On Veiling Virgins" (9.1), Tertullian wrote: "It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and least of all the office of priest."

Firmilian, in Epistle 75.1-5 to Cyprian, tells of a woman who went into an ecstasy (shamanism?) and came out a prophetess. "That woman who first through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things to deceive the faithful, among other things... she dared to do this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was sanctifying bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord."

Origen, in his commentary on 1 Cor 14:34 tells of the four daughters of Philip; who prophesied, yet they did not speak in the Churches. "We do not find that in the Acts of the Apostles... . For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."

St. Epiphanius states plainly: “Never has a woman been a priest or held the sacerdotal office.” (Panarion, 79.3)

In "Against Heresies" (79.304) St. Epiphanius wrote:

"If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary... . She was not even entrusted with baptizing... Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman's insanity?"

In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. He wrote:

The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white."Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference' For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female... '' [Gal. 3:28]

St. John Chrysostom, in his treatise "On the Priesthood" (2.2) points out that Jesus said, "Feed my sheep" only to Peter. "Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church... let the entire female sex retire."

In the same treatise (3.9) St. John Chrysostom wrote: "Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it."

St. Augustine, "On Heresies" (27) speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. "They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood."

ACNA Bishop William C. Wantland, an authority on canon law, said, "I do not know if a woman can be a priest but I know that only a priest (or bishop) may offer the Eucharist." He concludes, "It would therefore be a great spiritual danger to allow a celebrant of doubtful validity to function..." He also wrote, "We Anglicans believe that the Eucharist, like Baptism, is a Sacrament 'generally necessary for salvation'... We also believe that only a Priest (or Bishop as High Priest) may offer the Eucharistic sacrifice... If (for the sake of argument) a woman cannot, in God's will, be a priest, then she cannot validly offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, nor am I then fed on the Body and Blood of Christ if I partake of her offering. My soul, no longer sacramentally nourished, is in mortal danger." (W. C. Wantland, The Catholic Faith, the Episcopal Church and the Ordination of Women, Diocese of Eau Claire, 1977, pp. 20-21)

Evelyn Underhill said that the chief reason for opposing the ordination of women in the Anglican Communion was her belief that "so complete a break with Catholic tradition cannot be made save by the consent of a united Christendom." 

What has happened instead is a dangerous innovation initiated by the Episcopal Church which set aside catholicity when it broke with received tradition of at least 2000 years. Dr. Gerald McDermott, a widely published Anglican theologian, contends that Christian women's distinctive ministries ontologically cannot include the priesthood.

The late Thomas J. Talley, Professor Emeritus of Liturgics at The General Theological Seminary in New York, wrote, "The question is not whether a bishop can ordain a woman, finally, but whether the church will call a woman." (Reforming Tradition, p. 6)

In his address to the 1978 Lambeth Conference (July 31), Canon John Macquarrie pointed out that many in the Anglican Communion “conscientiously believe that a woman cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist.” He added, “And who can prove beyond doubt that such persons are mistaken?”

The late Dr. J. I. Packer wrote, “Jesus is the second man, the last Adam, our great high priest and sacrifice, our prophet, priest, and king (not prophetess, priestess, and queen), and he is all this precisely in his maleness. To minimize the maleness shows a degree of failure to grasp the space-time reality and redemptive significance of the incarnation.” (J. I. Packer, “Introduction,” in Man, Woman and Priesthood, ed. James Tolhurst (Gracewing, 1989), p. 13. This reflects the binary worldview of the Scriptures. In dualism, the entities in a binary set are equal, but in the biblical worldview one entity in the binary set is observed to be superior in some way to the other. Thus, in the male-female set, males are seen to be larger and stronger than females, and it is the stronger that stoops to save, not the weaker.

Anglicans claim that their priests belong to the one universal Church and that the Eucharist is offered not only for those immediately present, but also for the whole Church. This cannot be true where the priest is a woman since she is not recognized as a priest by the universal Church. “Since the Church is universal,” writes Dr. C. B. Moss (1888-1964), “she requires a ministry which is universally recognized.”

The 1973 "Ministry and Ordination" statement by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC I) states that “every individual act of ordination is therefore an expression of the continuing Apostolicity and Catholicity of the whole Church.” That cannot be true where women are concerned because women are not heirs of the Apostles and they are not universally recognized as priests.

Related reading: Ten Objections to Women Priests; Why Women Were Never Priests; Blood and Gender Distinctions; Men at the Altar, Woman at the Empty Tomb; The Priesthood in Anthropological Perspective; God as Male Priest; C. S. Lewis on Women Priests

Thoughts on "Rightly Dividing the Word"

Alice C. Linsley

In a letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul advises the younger man to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  II Tim. 2:15

What does it mean to "rightly divide" the word of truth?  Paul answers that question when he tells Timothy that it requires study motivated by the desire to please God.

What was Timothy to study since the New Testament did not yet exist?  He was to study the Old Testament, which along with Saint Paul's enlightened guidance, was all he needed. Today we have the New Testament and are blessed also to have the writings of the Church Fathers.

But how are we to interpret what we read in the Bible so that we too may find favor with God?

Some insist that only a literal interpretation leads to a proper understanding of biblical truth.  They pursue the "plain sense of the word."

Others insist that cultural context should be taken into consideration. They are interested in biblical history and in the discoveries of biblical archaeology.

Still others believe that "rightly dividing the word" involves study of how the various books came to be compiled. They recognize that each book represents a different type of literature and believe that sources and traditions influence what the authors have written.

Most people who pick up the Bible probably recognize that there is value in all of these approaches. They may not be committed to any one of them.  They read the Bible because they sense the Spirit speaking to them through its pages.  They come with sorrow, desperation, hopes and needs and God meets them in the Psalms or in the writings of the Evangelists.

The main thing is to read the Bible from cover to cover to gain a picture of the scope of God's work in the world.  Don't read it only once.  Read regularly and use different versions.  Read prayerfully and trust that God's word never fails.

Most of the difficult passages of the Bible are explained in other places in the Bible and have been expounded upon by the Church Fathers.  Therefore, private interpretation is not justified.  Interpreting the Bible contrary to what the Bible and the Church Fathers say is dangerous and the opposite of "rightly dividing the word."

Some accuse me of private interpretation in what I write at Just Genesis.  I admit to some speculation based on the information that is available, but I believe that the substance of Genesis is historically accurate and what is revealed there is truly of God. I attempt to do as Saint Paul says.  I study, trusting that God speaks through Genesis and that He holds me accountable for every word I write. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, I ask your prayers.


Related reading:  Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

Response to Fr. Behr's Talk on Women Disciples

Alice C. Linsley


I listened to Fr. John Behr's talk on Women Disciples and laughed (a dismayed laugh). How true it is that there is nothing new under the Sun! As a friend said, "After one has heard this stuff for so long in TEC it is now amazing to hear it cropping up in the Orthodox Church."  She's right.  I too hear echoes of Episcopal clergy who abandoned Holy Tradition 25 years ago in Fr. Behr's ruminations.

Here are key points of his argument:

1.The early Fathers don't say much about what it is to be Man and Woman. - False.

St. John Chrysostom says volumes about man and woman and the importance of a right relationship in marriage. His sermons are very deeply grounded in Scripture, unlike the message of Fr. Behr. He doesn't want to talk about praxis, only theoria. That means he wants to set aside the clarity of Scriptural teaching on being made Male and Female!

2. Times have changed. Understandings of science on "sexuality" require that we adjust our view of Male and Female. - False

People who lived in Abraham's time knew about homosex and condemned it as a violation of God's order in creation. As people of the Bible we don't accomodate the biblical worldview to pseudo-science. There are only two genders - Male and Female and these were created by God at the beginning. There is no continuum of sexuality. That is a myth perpetuated mainly by gay/lesbian activists. Male and Female are an aspect of the fixed order of creation. Those born with gential confusion are less than 1% of the world's population and most of these know which gender they are and can be helped through surgery. Homosex is regarded as a disease in many countries, like addiction to pornography. India's Minister of Health made this comment last week. He said that homosexuality is a disease introduced from the sex-obsessed West.


3. The focus should be on what it means to be Human "after the stature of Christ." - False.

The Gospel is about the Son of God who came into the world to save sinners, to crush the serpent's head, to make void the curse, to set Eve free, and to restore Paradise. He did this as the "Son" of God. His being male is of great significance. Only a son could receive a kingdom from his Father and Jesus' kingdom is an eternal one, as we recite in the Creed.

This view that Jesus Christ came to perfect a genderless Humanity is nonsense and demeaning to both men and women. At the day of Resurrection we will rise in our bodies as male and female, not as genderless angels.

The Eastern Orthodox churches historically have resisted modernism and egalitarianism. Orthodox resistance was heartily demonstrated at the 1978 Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission in Athens. Here the Orthodox delegates soundly rejected all possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. However, Church of England clergy, feeling pressure from their Episcopalian cousins in the United States, were ready to discuss the question and opened Pandora's box.

The Orthodox are again under pressure to accommodate to the world. While most are standing firm on the Church's teaching, St. Vladimir Seminary wavers. Some seminarians at St. Vladimir believe that women should be ordained priests. It is a good thing that I have no authority there. I would dismiss every seminarian of this mindset, seeing that they do not discern the foremost necessity for a Priest, which is to preserve Holy Tradition.

The seminarians hardly can be blamed when their professors and their Dean encourage them in this waywardness. Bishop Kallistos is credited with opening the door. Thomas Hopko wrote in the Forward to Woman and the Priesthood (St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1999) that Bishop Kallistos “has moved in the direction of greater tentativeness about the possible ordination of women as priests and bishops in the Orthodox Church. He demonstrates less conviction about the authority of the traditional Orthodox practice on the issue, and questions his own rather firm arguments against the ordination of women…” (work cited, p. 1)

Personally, I'm not impressed with the way things are heading at St. Vlads. If such nonsense isn't headed off now we'll be fighting to preserve the true Faith in Orthodoxy. As one who has been through "the Anglican wars" I don't relish the prospect of more battle wounds.

Related reading:  Women Priests by E.L. Mascall; Should St. Vlads Confer a Degree on Rowan Williams?; The Paradigm Shift in the Orthodox Priesthood; Luther Was Wrong About the Priesthood; Genesis on Homosex: Beyond Sodom; Passing Conversation with Priestess Kaeton; Ideologies Opposed to Holy Tradition; God as Male Priest; Sweeping Away Gender and the Biblical Worldview

Holy Tradition is Family Tradition

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy


Alice C. Linsley

As an Orthodox Christian I value Tradition, and as a biblical anthropologist I conceive of Tradition as a subject to be studied as objectively as possible. Such study is able to identify specific features and suggest an origin. This approach is likely to get me into trouble with my fellow Orthodox and so I ask them to forgive me if I offend. That is not my intention.

In Orthodoxy, Tradition is said to live in the Church as the continuous expression of the Spirit's guidance and revelation and is the basis for the Church's authority. For an anthropologist, this definition seems theoretical and raises more questions than it answers. What exactly is the substance of the revelation? Is it fixed or does it change?

Looking at Holy Tradition through the lens of anthropology one finds an unchanging tradition that was already well developed among Abraham's ancestors.  This is evidence that God has had witnesses to His divine nature and eternal power in every generation since Eden.

It also indicates that Holy Tradition is received, not invented, and that it has specific features that the followers of Jesus Christ would immediately recognize. These features include expectation of the appearing of the Son of God by a miraculous birth, His blood shed on a cross, His resurrection, and His oneness with the Father.

For an anthropologist, the Bible is a useful resource for understanding Holy Tradition because only here do we find a consistent and cogent account of the people who lived in expectation of the Son of God and taught their children to do so.  In other words, Holy Tradition is a family tradition. This is evident when one studies the genealogies and discovers that Abraham's ancestors and Abraham's descendants are a more homogeneous group than suggested by the different ethnic labels assigned to them.

Abraham and David are key figures in this unique family tradition. Strangely, the Bible does not identify their mothers. This should stir curiosity since, among Abraham's people, one's ethnicity or bloodline was traced through the mothers. Were we able to identify these two women, we could point to the core family around which Holy Tradition is built. That has been a pet project of mine these past 30 years.

The core of Christian Faith is found in kernel form in the Proto-Gospel of Abraham's Horite people. The origins of the faith of the Son or "Seed" of God came to Abraham, not as special revelation, but as a tradition received from his forefathers. The tradition is expressed in the first promise of Scripture: Genesis 3:15. Here we discover that the people who passed along the oldest material in Genesis believed that a woman of their ruler-priests lines would bring forth the Seed of the Creator and the Seed would crush the serpent's head.

The distinctive traits of Horite religion align remarkable well with the key features of catholic faith and practice:

Male priests
Sacrifice at altars
Expectation of the "Seed" of God, conceived by divine overshadowing of a Horite virgin
Expectation of the bodily resurrection of the Seed/Son

Article VII is one of the best of the Articles of Religion found in the Book of Common Prayer, especially this part: “Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.” Indeed.


Related reading:  Received Tradition: Pushing back the veil of time; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection; The Horite Ancestry of Jesus Christ; Mary's Ruler-Priest Lineage; Is it Possible to Speak of the Proto-Gospel?; Did Abraham Believe Isaac to be Messiah?; Who Were the Horites?

The Tree in the Middle of the Garden

Alice C. Linsley


The Church Fathers agree that Humans were created originally to enjoy perfect communion with God. That would be possible only without sin. So the first humans were innocent, but something happened to cause them to sin. What happened involved a serpent and a tree and humans making the wrong choice, which is called disobedience.

The Church Fathers don't agree on the question of original mortality. As the original humans were flesh, and therefore finite, they would experience death. If you follow this line of reasoning, St. Paul is speaking of spiritual death, not physical death, when he speaks of sin entering the world by Adam and by sin, death.

St. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.) held that the first humans were created midway between corruption and incorruption and were free to choose. It is like the story (Deut. 27:11-26) of the Israelites gathered in the valley between Mount Gerizim (of blessing) and the Mount Ebal (of cursing) and God telling them to "Choose life!"

The Fathers speak of the tree in the middle of the Garden as having both a material and geographical presence and as representing a state of being. Adam stretched out his hand and took of the fruit of that tree. Christ stretched out his arms on the Tree (Cross) and broke the curse of Adam. The Cross, like the tree in Paradise, had a material and geographical presence but is also a state of being. As Christians we take up the cross and in doing so we choose life.


Related reading:  Trees in Genesis; The Sacred Center in Biblical Theology

The Scarlet Cord Woven Through the Bible

Alice C. Linsley


The Apostle Paul reminds the Hebrew Christians that they may enter with boldness into the Most Holy Place "by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is His body..." (Hebrew 10:19, 20)  In this we follow Christ, our great High Priest, who "did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood..." (Hebrew 9:12)

The Blood of Jesus Christ is the source and substance of the Christian's life. Scripture teaches that life is in the blood. For Christians this has radical and profound implications. When one is born, there is water and blood. When our Lord died, there was water and blood. In Baptism and Communion there is water and blood. We humans are attracted to the water, but wary of the blood.

For years I didn't grasp the distinct yet interwoven nature of Baptism and Communion. I think this is because I thought of Baptism apart from His blood, even though the Apostle Paul makes it clear that we are baptized into Christ's Sacrifice and raised to new life with Him. Does this mean that we are free of passions that drive a wedge into our fellowship with Him? Certainly not. That is why we also need the Priesthood, confession and spiritual disciplines such as prayer, fasting, alms-giving and Scripture study.

I have never spoken of the vision I had inside the little church of St. Paul in West Whiteland, Pennsylvania.  I saw an angel pouring His blood from a golden pitcher into the baptismal font. Over the years I have pondered this and delved more into the mystery of the blood of Jesus by which we sinners are forgiven and cleansed. I was an Episcopal priest at the time and I associated the blood of Christ with Holy Communion, but somehow I had neglected the significance of His blood in reference to Baptism. I knew that the Scriptures hold forth this truth: "Life in in the blood."  Hebrews explains that no cleansing comes by the blood of beasts, but only by the blood of Christ, the true Priest.

That set me thinking.  If Christ is the Mediator of a new Covenant in His blood and I enter that covenant by baptism, then my life depends entirely on His once and for all sacrifice. Somehow in that vision beyond the mundane, I sensed a timeless dimension to His Sacrifice and I began to ponder the pleromic nature of His blood. The Apostle Paul explains that Jesus Christ is the fullness (pleroma in Greek) of all things in heaven and on earth, both invisible and visible. The term “pleroma” was used among the Gnostics to describe the metaphysical unity of all things, but Paul uses the term to speak about how all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ in bodily form (Col. 2:9).


Pondering the Pleromic Blood

There is a significant difference between the Gnostic application of “pleroma” and Paul’s application. For the Gnostics, the pleroma is vague and undifferentiated, but for Paul the pleroma is the manifestation of the benefits of the “blood of Jesus.” Paul never allows the churches he planted to wander far from the blood of Jesus that brings forgiveness, cleansing and eternal life.

Paul articulated his understanding of the pleroma as early as his second missionary journey when he preached to the Athenians that, “in Him [Jesus Christ] we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) His thoughts developed further as he continued to reflect on the Hebrew Scriptures, and as he prayed, fasted, and received greater illumination. We find the fullest expression of the pleroma in his latter writings, especially in Romans and in Ephesians.

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth. (Ephesians 1:7-10)

While not yet fully developed in the Church, the Trinity underlies Paul’s understanding of the pleroma. He speaks of the distinct Persons of the Trinity and of the oneness of the Body of Christ in the language of Shema: “There is one Body, one Spirit, ...one hope ...one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, and one God and father of all, over all, through all and within all” (Eph. 4:4-5).

These words follow Paul’s explanation of the saving work of Jesus Christ. He explained to the Ephesians:

But now in Christ Jesus, you that used to be so far apart from us have been brought very close, by the blood of Christ. For He is peace between us, and has made the two into one and broken down the barrier which used to keep them apart, actually destroying in His own person the hostility caused by the rules and decrees of the Law. This was to create one single man in Himself out of the two of them and by restoring peace through the Cross, to unite them both in a single body and reconcile them with God. In His own person He killed the hostility… Through Him, both of us have in one Spirit our way to come to the Father. (Eph. 2:13-14)

Paul moves the Christian faith toward a Trinitarian comprehensiveness that forever distinguishes it from polytheistic dynamism (Hinduism), henotheistic animism (tribal religions) and the mushiness of post-Christian theologians.


All Things through Him and in Him

Since God is not bound by the constraints of time and space, perhaps the blood of the Son of God is that substance by which the world was made. The Creed and the Apostle John affirm that "through Him all things were made."  All things were made by Him before the Incarnation and now all things are gathered in Him, the Incarnate One.

If life is in the blood and only His blood gives life, we might trace the scarlet cord from before time, were that possible. Then we pick it up in Genesis. The promise that the woman's Seed shall overcome death and restore Paradise came to be fulfilled through Jesus' sacrifice and His resurrection. Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 when he told his disciples about his death.  He said that unless a seed fall into the ground and dies it cannot give life. (John 12:24)

In tracing the scarlet thread, we discover the "deeper magic" (to use C.S. Lewis' words from The Magician Nephew). The sacrifice of God's Lamb is alluded to in many biblical images and the scarlet cord image weaves throughout the Bible.

We continue to trace the scarlet cord where we read of the birth of twin boys to Tamar (Gen. 38:28-20). The story is told that when it came time for Tamar to give birth, Zerah stuck out his hand and the midwife tied a scarlet cord around the infant's hand. As soon as she had done this, the baby withdrew his hand and his brother Perez was born first. St Jerome wrote, "What is one to say of Tamar, who brought to birth the twins Zerah and Perez? Their separation at the moment of birth was like a wall that divides two peoples, and the hand tied with the scarlet ribbon already then speckled the conscience of the Jews with the passion of Christ." (Letter 123.12)

Perez is the younger son, but he is remembered in Ruth as one of David's honored ancestors. We remember that David too was the youngest of many sons, yet chosen to rule in Israel. And from Perez and David would come the Promised Messiah.

What is the significance of this story? It speaks of the redemption of the one who is not chosen to rule. It speaks of God's grace shown to the other, just as God promised Abraham that He would bless Ishmael and Abraham's sons by Keturah. The chosen one, Isaac, is not the only one blessed. The chosen people of Israel are not the only people blessed. The Blood which gives life, symbolized by the scarlet cord, is for all people. And that we be looking in the right direction, the scarlet cord leads from Tamar to David and from David to Messiah.

The scarlet cord is found in Leviticus. Here it is used in a priestly ritual to cleanse lepers and to retore them to the community (Lev. 14:4-6; 49-52). This too points us to the Blood of Jesus, for we who were afar and rotting in our sins, have been cleansed by His Blood and brought home.

The cord is found in Egypt on the doorposts of the Hebrews preparing to depart. This is the first Passover.

The cord appears again at Rahab's house in Jericho.  This forebearer of David and of Jesus tied a scarlet cord outside her window so that she and all her family would be saved from destruction. This is a second Passover and it too speaks of the salvation for those who are obedient to God's call.

St. Ambrose wrote concerning Rahab that she "uplifted a sign of her faith and the banner of the Lord's Passion; so that the likeness of the mystic blood, which should redeem the world, might be in memory. So, outside, the name of Joshua [Jesus] was a sign of victory to those who fought; and inside, the likeness of the Lord's passion was a sign of salvation to those in danger." (On the Christian Faith, Book V, no. 127)

And finally, the cord is traced to a temporal end and perfection in Hebrews 9:11-26, which tells us:

(11-14) But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

(15-22) And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

(23-26) Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Christ suffered the sacrifice of Himself only once.  Its "innumerable benefits" are such that Thomas Cranmer wrote in the first Exhortation before Communion, "And above all things ye must give most humble and hearty thanks to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our Saviour Christ, both God and man; who did humble himself, even to death upon the Cross, for us, miserable sinners, who lay in darkness and the shadow of death; that he might make us the children of God, and exalt us to everlasting life."

What is our response to such great love shown to us while we were yet sinners? Cranmer continues, "And to the end that we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour, Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious blood-shedding he hath obtained for us; he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort. To him therefore, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, let us give, as we are most bounden, continual thanks; submitting ourselves wholly to his will and pleasure, and studying to serve him in true holiness and righteousness all the days of our life. Amen. ((First Exhortation before Communion, Book of Common Prayer, 1928)



Related reading:  Two Passovers and Two Drunken Fathers; The Messianic Priesthood of Jesus; The Pleromic Blood and Gnosticism; The Pleromic Blood and Gender Distinctions; Life is in the Blood; Blood and Crosses