Hebrews 7:1–6

On receiving this promise Abraham moved on and stayed in another place in the same land, Hebron, near the Oak of Mamre.… But he received at the same time a public blessing from Melchizedek, who was "a priest of the Most High God." Many important things are written about Melchizedek in the epistle entitled "To the Hebrews," which the majority attribute to the apostle Paul, though many deny the attribution. Here we certainly see the first manifestation of the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole world, in which is fulfilled what was said in prophecy, long after this event, to Christ who was yet to come in the flesh: "you are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." Not, it is observed, in the line of Aaron, for that line was to be abolished when the events prefigured by these shadows came to the light of day.

Just as our Redeemer, when he appeared in the flesh, deigned to become like a king to us by bestowing a heavenly kingdom, so too did he become a high priest by offering himself for us as a sacrifice to God with an odor of sweetness. Hence it is written, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.' " Melchizedek, as we read, was a priest of the Most High God long before the time of the priesthood of the law, and he offered bread and wine to the Lord. Our Redeemer is said to be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek" because he put aside the sacrificial victims stipulated by the law and instituted the same type of sacrifice to be offered in the new covenant in the mystery of his own body and blood.

This is Melchisedek — that so great priest of God most high, who received tithes from the priests under the Mosaic law. This is the King of peace and righteousness, and at the same time a priest of God most high, who was made like to the Son of God — who neither received the priesthood in succession to other priests, nor transmitted it to other priests. This is he who did not perform the rites of divine worship according to the law of Moses, but exercised his priestly office with other and more excellent symbols. This is he who blessed the patriarch Abraham, he who was without father and without mother and did not trace his descent from them; the only person who was priest and king, who was made like to the Son of God, and was held worthy to be the revealer of so many good things.

Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies and says, "And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine." Now he was a priest of the Most High God and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the psalms, saying from the person of the Father to the Son, "Before the morning star I begat you; you are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." That order is assuredly this, coming from that sacrifice and thence descending, that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God; that he offered wine and bread; that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood? And with respect to Abraham, that blessing going before belonged to our people. For if Abraham believed in God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness, assuredly whosoever believes in God and lives in faith is found righteous and already is blessed in faithful Abraham and is set forth as justified. This the blessed apostle Paul proves, when he says, "Abraham 'believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' So you see that it is people of faith who are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.' So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith." Thus in the Gospel we find that "children of Abraham are raised from stones, that is, are gathered from the Gentiles." And when the Lord praised Zacchaeus, he answered and said, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham." In Genesis, therefore, that the benediction, in respect of Abraham by Melchizedek the priest, might be duly celebrated, the figure of Christ's sacrifice precedes, namely, as ordained in bread and wine. The Lord, completing and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and so he who is the fullness of truth fulfilled the truth of the image prefigured.

These people honor Melchizedek, the one mentioned in the Scriptures, and regard him as some great power. They consider him to be [in the heavens] above, in places that cannot be named, and in their error they claim as truth not only that he is not just a power, but also that he is greater than Christ. Also, supposedly based on a literal reading of the saying "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," they believe that Christ merely came and was deemed worthy of the order [of Melchizedek]. Therefore, they say, Christ is inferior to Melchizedek. For if his status were not somehow secondary, he would not need the order of [Melchizedek].As for Melchizedek himself, they say that he came into being "without mother, without father, without genealogy," as they would like to show from St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews. They also fabricate spurious books for their own use, and so deceive themselves. Yet, their refutation comes from the very writings themselves. After all, at the same time David prophesies that the Lord will be established a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the sacred Scripture is also saying that Christ will be a priest. What we find is that [speaking of Melchizedek, St. Paul] adds immediately, "resembling the Son of God he remains a priest for ever." If he resembles the Son of God, he is not equal to the Son of God. For how can the servant be equal to the master? You see, Melchizedek was a man, and the designation "without father, without mother," is not said because he did not have a father or a mother, but because they were not explicitly named in the sacred Scripture.… Remember that, even though some give an account of Melchizedek's father and mother, there is no basis for this in the canonical and established Scriptures.… And of how many others is the genealogy not clearly given [in the Scriptures]? Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah the Tishbite—neither their fathers nor their mothers are mentioned anywhere in the canonical Scriptures.… What are we, then, to say? Will the examples of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego force our imagination to consider what we ought not and marvel with excessive owe, beyond all measure, at each of their cases, considering them to be without father and without mother? Let it not be so! After all, the traditions of the apostles and the holy Scriptures and the successions of teachers have been set as our boundaries and foundations for the building up of our faith; and the truth of God is has been protected from every side, so that no one would be deceived by empty myths.

But I return to the matter at hand, namely, the things these people imagine about Melchizedek. On the one hand, it is clear that he was a holy man, a priest of God, and the king of Salem, and on the other, that he was not of the heavenly order, nor did he descend from heaven; for, as the holy God, the Word, who does not lie, says: "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." As for the order of Melchizedek, when the divine Scripture proclaimed and the Spirit clearly taught about it, they revealed the transposition of the priesthood from the ancient synagogue and the nation onto the finest and best nation, which is not united by descent from the [same] flesh. You see, this holy man, Melchizedek, had neither descendants after him nor was his priesthood removed. For he remained a priest all the days of his life and even still he is praised in Scripture as a priest, since no one either succeeded him or abolished the priesthood during the time of his service. So also our Lord, though he was not a human being—but the holy divine Word of God, Son of God, begotten without beginning nor in time, being always with the Father, who for us became a human being, of Mary and not by the seed of man—offers the priesthood to the Father, having taken the clay from his humanity, so that, on our behalf, he may be established a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, which has no succession. And he remains [as such], forever offering gifts on our behalf, having first offered himself through the cross, so that he may abolish every sacrifice of the old covenant, offering the most perfect and living sacrifice on behalf of the whole world: he is the sacrificial victim, he is the offering, he is the priest, he is the altar, he is God, he is human, he is King, he is High Priest, he is sheep, he is lamb, having become all in all on our behalf, so that life may be ours in every way, and so that the unmovable foundation of his priesthood may be established forever, no longer allotting it according to the flesh and successions, but granting that it might be preserved by the Holy Spirit, according to his decree.

And then again, others come to imagine various things by what they say about this Melchizedek. You see, since they do not understand spiritually what is being said by the holy apostle in the same letter to the Hebrews, they are condemned to an [understanding that is] according to the flesh. The Egyptian heresiarch Hieracas considers this Melchizedek to be the Holy Spirit because of the phrase "Resembling the Son of God he remains a priest forever," as though this ought to be interpreted by the words of the apostle when he said, "the Spirit intercedes for us through wordless sighs." Yet, the one who is able to understand the mind of the Spirit knows that he intercedes with God on behalf of the elect. In this way [Hieracas] has fallen completely off the prescribed path. For the Spirit never took on flesh, and, not having taken on flesh, he could not be king of Salem and priest of any place.

And how many things about this Melchizedek others also imagine! The Samaritans, for example, consider him to be Shem, the son of Noah; but they, too, will be found to be absurd. For the sacred Scripture, which safeguards everything with good order, has fortified the truth from all sides, and it has not set the order of the times and the years of the lives of each of the patriarchs and enumerated their successions in vain. After all, when Abraham was eighty-eight or, more or less, ninety years old, Melchizedek met him and offered him loaves of bread and wine, prefiguring the mysteries through the types; types, that is, of the Lord's body—since the Lord himself says, "I am the living bread"—and types of his blood, which flowed from his side for the cleansing of those who have been defiled and the sprinkling and salvation of our souls.…Shem, however, of whom we spoke before, and whom the Samaritans imagine to be Melchizedek, fathered Arpachshad in the one hundred second year of his life, and altogether there were 1, years until the time of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek on his return from the slaughter of the kings, Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, and Tidal. And Shem did not live as many years as their silly imagination thinks, but he was 102 years old when he fathered Arpachshad, in the second year after the flood. "And after these events, he lived," as the sacred Scripture says, "for five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters, and he died." Now then, since he lived for 602 years and then died, how is it possible for him to reach the span of 1, years, so that Shem, the son of Noah, who preceded Abraham by ten generations, may be called Melchizedek by them, after ten generations, after 1, years? O, the great deceit of men! And according to the evidence of other manuscripts, from the age of Shem—from the time in which Shem lived—until the time at which Abraham met Melchizedek, as was stated before, which was during [Abraham's] eighty-eight or ninetieth year of life, 628 years passed, more or less. All of this evidence, therefore, means that it is impossible for Shem to have reached the period of Abraham, so as to be identified with Melchizedek. Thus, the nonsense of the Samaritans is destroyed in every way.

And then again, the Jews say that though he himself was a righteous man and good and a priest of the Most High, just as the sacred Scripture says, it is because he was the son of a prostitute that his mother is not recorded and his father is not known. But their silly assertion, too, has been deposed. After all, Rahab was a prostitute and she is recorded, so also Zimri, who committed fornication, is recorded, as well as Cozbi after him, even though she was a foreigner and she did not descent from the nation of Israel. … "Everyone who does not enter by the door," as the holy Gospel said, "is a thief and not a shepherd."

And even in the church there are some who consider this Melchizedek to be by nature different. That is, they consider him to be essentially the Son of God, who appeared to Abraham in the form of a man. They, too, fall away from the path; for no one ever became like [the Son of God] just as the sacred Scripture states, that "resembling the Son of God he remains a priest for ever." Indeed, "this man who does not belong to their genealogy collected tithes from Abraham"; and since he is not counted to have descended from the Israelites themselves, he is counted as having descended from other people.…And so the ideas of all the heresies are shown to be futile. See now, even these have denied their master who "bought them with his own blood," who did not begin to exist since Mary, as they think, but who is the divine Word, always with the Father, begotten of the Father without a beginning and not in time, just as the whole Scripture attests. It was him, and not to Melchizedek, that the Father also said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness." For even though he [Melchizedek] was a priest of God Most High in his own generation and had no successors who came after him, he did not come down from heaven. After all, the Scripture did not say that he "brought down" bread and wine, but that he "brought them out" to [Abraham] and those with him when he received the patriarch who was passing by, coming from [the battle with] the kings. And he blessed [Abraham] because of his righteousness and because of the faithfulness and the piety of the man. For, even though he was tested in all things, the patriarch did not fall away from righteousness in the slightest, but God was his helper even against those who truly fell upon the land of Sodom and carried away even his own nephew, the holy Lot, whom [Abraham] brought back with all the spoil and booty. Where, then, can we not find that the Son was always with the Father? For it says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and not "In the beginning was Melchizedek," or "Melchizedek was God."

Again, it has been reported to us that some, who have been deceived more than anything that we have said before and have been inflamed by greater pride of intellect, have dared to turn to an unthinkable notion and have arrived to a blasphemous idea, saying that this Melchizedek is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. O, what careless minds people have, and what deceitful hearts, not having a place for truth! Since the apostle says that Melchizedek is "without father" and "without mother" and "without genealogy," because of the exaggeration of the phrase these people misunderstand the notion and think that what is said corresponds to the Father of all, and thus describe for themselves a blasphemous error. Because the Father of all, God the almighty, has neither father nor mother nor beginning of days nor end of life—and this is confessed by all—they have fallen into the foolish blasphemy of comparing him to Melchizedek, because the apostle has spoken of him like this, not understanding the other things said about him. That is, concerning Melchizedek it is said that "he was a priest of the Most High." Now, if [Melchizedek] is the "Most High" and "Father," then, as the priest of another "Most High," he cannot be himself the "Father of all," for he serves another "Most High" as priest. O, the confusion of people, who do not understand what is true but bend themselves towards error! To give the final solution to the whole affair, the holy apostle brought together everything and said: "This man who does not have his descent from them" (clearly meaning "but from others"), "received tithes from Abraham," and again he said, "who, in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and petitions, to him who was able to save him"—it is obvious that the Father did not take on flesh. And now that we have discussed sufficiently, let us leave this heresy, for we have stuck it with the firm faith that is supported, as if we had struck down a field-mouse with a stone, and have avoided its deadly poison. For they say that the field-mouse does not harm immediately the one it bites but, in time, it destroys the body and infects with leprosy every limb of the one who is injured. Likewise, even though this heresy may not sound as much to the minds of those who first hear it, as it dwells in their minds, it creates questions and, from there, leads to the destruction of those who have not happened on the remedy of this antidote, namely, the refutation and counterargument I have given against it. The mouse is not seen readily. It walks about at night and so works its harm, especially in the land of the Egyptians. Those who know about the animal understand that I do not make mention it either incidentally or sycophantically, but from this they can compare the harm done by the heresy: for such is the damage it does.

An ancient priest of the Mosaic order could only be selected from the tribe of Levi. It was obligatory without exception that he should be of the family descending from Aaron and do service to God in outward worship with the sacrifices and blood of irrational animals. But he that is named Melchizedek, which in Greek is translated "king of righteousness," who was king of Salem, which would mean "king of peace," without father, without mother, without line of descent, not having, according to the account, "beginning of years or end of life," had no characteristics shared by the Aaronic priesthood. For he was not chosen by humans, he was not anointed with prepared oil, he was not of the tribe of those who had not yet been born; and, strangest of all, he was not even circumcised in his flesh, and yet he blesses Abraham, as if he were far better than he. He did not act as priest to the Most High God with sacrifices and libations, nor did he minister at the temple in Jerusalem. How could he? It did not yet exist. And he was such, of course, because there was going to be no similarity between our Savior Christ and Aaron, for he was neither to be designated priest after a period when he was not priest, nor was he to become priest, but be it. For we should notice carefully in the words, "You are a priest forever," he does not say, "You shall be what you were not before," any more than, "You were that before which you are not now"—but by him who said, "I am who I am," it is said, "You are, and remain, a priest forever." …And the fulfillment of the oracle is truly wondrous to one who recognizes how our Savior Jesus, the Christ of God, now performs through his ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, so in exactly the same way our Lord and Savior himself first, and then all his priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the church and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of his body and saving blood. This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says, "And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abraham." And thus it followed that to him only was the addition of an oath, "The Lord God has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.' " The psalm too, continuing, even shows in veiled phrase the passion of [Christ], saying, "He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head." And another psalm shows "the brook" to mean the time of temptations: "Our soul has passed through the brook; yes, our soul has passed through the deep waters." He drinks, then, in the brook, that cup of which he darkly spoke at the time of his passion, when he said, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." And also, "If this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."6 It was, then, by drinking this cup that he lifted up his head, as the apostle says, for when he was "obedient unto death, even death on a cross, therefore," he says, "God has highly exalted him," raising him from the dead and setting him at his right hand, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name which is named, not only in this world but in that which is to come. And he has put all things in subjection under his feet, according to the promise made to him, which he expresses through the psalmist, saying, "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.… Rule in the midst of your foes."8 It is plain to all that today the power of our Savior and the word of his teaching rule over all them that have believed in him, in the midst of his enemies and foes.

Paul wishing to show the difference between the New and Old Covenant, scatters it everywhere; and shoots from afar, and noises it abroad, and prepares beforehand. For at once even from the introduction, he laid down this saying, that "to them indeed He spake by prophets, but to us by the Son," and to them "at sundry times and in divers manners," but to us through the Son. Afterwards, having discoursed concerning the Son, who He was and what He had wrought, and given an exhortation to obey Him, lest we should suffer the same things as the Jews; and having said that He is "High Priest after the order of Melchisedec," and having oftentimes wished to enter into the subject of this difference, and having used much preparatory management; and having rebuked them as weak, and again soothed and restored them to confidence; then at last he introduces the discussion on the difference of the two dispensations to ears in their full vigor. For he who is depressed in spirits would not be a ready hearer. And that you may understand this, hear the Scripture saying, "They hearkened not to Moses for anguish of spirit." Therefore having first cleared away their despondency by many considerations, some fearful, some more gentle, he then from this point enters upon the discussion of the difference of the dispensations.

And what does he say? "For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God." And, what is especially noteworthy, he shows the difference to be great by the Type itself. For as I said, he continually confirms the truth from the Type, from things past, on account of the weakness of the hearers. "For" (he says) "this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all." Having concisely set down the whole narrative, he looked at it mystically.

I am not ignorant that you venture to expound this psalm as if it referred to king Hezekiah; but that you are mistaken, I shall prove to you from these very words forthwith. "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent," it is said; and, "Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek," with what follows and precedes. Not even you will venture to object that Hezekiah was either a priest, or is the everlasting priest of God; but that this is spoken of our Jesus, these expressions show. But your ears are shut up, and your hearts are made dull. For by this statement, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek," with an oath God has shown Him (on account of your unbelief) to be the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek; i.e., as Melchizedek was described by Moses as the priest of the Most High, and he was a priest of those who were in uncircumcision, and blessed the circumcised Abraham who brought him tithes, so God has shown that His everlasting Priest, called also by the Holy Spirit Lord, would be Priest of those in uncircumcision. Those too in circumcision who approach Him, that is, believing Him and seeking blessings from Him, He will both receive and bless. And that He shall be first humble as a man, and then exalted, these words at the end of the Psalm show: "He shall drink of the brook in the way," and then, "Therefore shall He lift up the head."

We therefore confess, dearly beloved, not rashly but with faith, that the Lord Jesus Christ is present in the midst of believers. Although he "sits at the right hand" of God the Father "until he makes of his enemies a footstool," the high priest has not left the assembly of his priests.Fittingly does this chant rise up to him from the mouth of the whole church and from that of all priests, "The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.' " He himself is the true and eternal bishop whose ministry can neither change nor end. He is the one prefigured by the high priest Melchizedek. Attached to oaths among human beings are certain conditions that have been made irrevocable by permanent guarantees. Surety for the divine oath can therefore be found in promises that have been fixed by immutable decrees. Since regret implies a change of will, God does not regret what, according to his eternal good pleasure, he cannot want to be otherwise than how he has wanted it.

It now also wishes to show the great excellence of the New Testament over the Old: and it demonstrates this through the priests. Saying, "According to the order of Melchizedek," (Heb. 7:17) he indicates that Melchizedek himself, the type of Christ (for he calls him a type of Christ), He surpassed the legal priests who were among the Jews: asserting this, he said that if the type of Christ was superior to those that were among the Jews, how much more the truth, that is, Christ himself. "king of Salem." Name of a city. "from the slaughter of the kings." When he returned after defeating the kings who had captured Lot. You know the history. (Gen. 14:1) "and having blessed him [εὐλογήσας]." Instead of "he blessed him [εὐλόγησεν]."

It is for a reason that we are reminded how Melchizedek met with Abraham after his victory over the Assyrians and gave him one-tenth of all the spoils. This indicates that Melchizedek, the priest, was a forefather of the tribe of the Levites. However, the priesthood without the law is greater than that under the law.

For whence was Noah "found righteous," if in his case the righteousness of a natural law had not preceded? Whence was Abraham accounted "a friend of God," if not on the ground of equity and righteousness, (in the observance) of a natural law? Whence was Melchizedek named "priest of the most high God," if, before the priesthood of the Levitical law, there were not levites who were wont to offer sacrifices to God? For thus, after the above-mentioned patriarchs, was the Law given to Moses, at that (well-known) time after their exode from Egypt, after the interval and spaces of four hundred years.

For to such a degree, he says, is he better than Christ, that he is a0pa/twr (fatherless), a0mh/twr (motherless), a0genealoghtoj (without genealogy), of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.

And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchisedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all priests of the Most High God; and from him the above-named city Hierosolyma was called Jerusalem. And from his time priests were found in all the earth.

The apostle's aim is to show the difference between the Old and New Testaments. And he already pointed to this at the very beginning, saying that to the ancients God spoke through His servants the prophets, but to us, the people of the New Testament, "in the Son" (Heb. 1:1–2). But since the listeners were weak, for they had shown faintheartedness under trials, he strengthened the weak in the middle of the epistle, and finally, after he had sufficiently encouraged them, he again begins to speak of the superiority of the New Testament over the Old. And observe his wisdom. He shows that Melchizedek, who was a type of Christ, surpassed Abraham. For if he had not surpassed him, he would not have blessed him and would not have received tithes from him. And since from Abraham descended the priests of the law, it is clear that Melchizedek surpasses them as well, as though blessing them too and receiving tithes from them, at the time when he blessed their forefather and received tithes from him. But if the type of Christ, Melchizedek, so greatly differs from the priests of the law, how much more so the true Melchizedek, Christ? Such is the general meaning of this passage. But having briefly set forth the narrative concerning Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20), he then proceeds to examine it, explaining the history of Melchizedek from its spiritual and mystical side.

326. – In Chapter 5 the Apostle proved that Christ is a priest, but in Chapter 6 he interposed certain considerations to prepare the minds of his hearers. Now he returns to his main theme: for he intends to prove the excellence of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the excellence of Christ's priesthood as compared to the priesthood of the Old Testament; secondly, he shows that believers should subject themselves reverently to the priesthood of Christ (c. 10). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the prerogative of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical on the part of the person of the priest; secondly, on the part of the minister (c. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proves the existence of Christ's priesthood by reason of a divine promise; secondly, the need for this priesthood (v. 26). But he shows this promise from the words of Ps. 109 (v. 4): 'The Lord has sworn and he will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.' Hence, he shows three things to prove his thesis: first, the phrase, 'according to the order of Melchizedek'; secondly, the statement 'He swore' (v. 20); thirdly, the statement, 'You are a priest forever' (v. 23). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the likeness of Christ to Melchizedek; secondly, on the basis of this likeness he chooses the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical (v. 4). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes Melchizedek's qualities; secondly, he shows how they fit Christ (v. 2b).

327. – He describes Melchizedek, first of all, by his name when he says, For this Melchizedek. For so the Scripture names him in Genesis (14:18), where his history, which the Apostle supposes here, is recorded. According to a Gloss the Hebrews say that was Shem, the first-born of Noah, and when Abraham obtained the victory, he was 390 or 309 years old, and met Abraham, his nephew.

328. – Secondly, he describes him from his dignity, for he was king and a priest. In regard to the first he says, king of Salem. Some say that Salem is called Jerusalem. But Jerome denies this in a letter, because, as he says, he could not run into him from Jerusalem, which he proves from its location. Others say that Salem is the place where John baptized (Jn. 3:23), and the walls of that place still existed in Jerome's time. In regard to the second he says, priest of the Most High God. For in olden times the elder brother was a priest. But it is true that in Abraham's time the worship of idols was on the increase. Therefore, lest anyone suppose that he was a priest of idols, he adds, of the Most High God, namely, God by essence not by participation or name. For God is the Creator of all who are gods either by participation or erroneously: 'The Lord is a great king above all gods' (Ps. 94:3); 'You shall be called priests of the Lord: to you it shall be said: You ministers of our God' (Is. 61:6).

329. – Thirdly, he describes him from his office: who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. For a priest is midway between God and the people. Therefore, he should confer something on the people, namely, spiritual things, and receive something from them, namely, temporal things: 'If we then have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter, if we reap your carnal things?' (1 Cor. 9:11). First, therefore, he should show strength by good advice; hence it says in Genesis (14) that the four kings are the four principal vices opposed to the four cardinal virtues which hold the emotions, the nephew of reason, captive after the five bodily senses are overcome. For a person who overcomes and frees the emotions deserves to be comforted by a priest: 'Meeting the thirsty, bring him water' (Is. 21:14); 'Strengthen the feeble hands, and confirm the weak knees' (Is. 35:3). Secondly, a priest should give strength by administering the sacraments with a blessing; hence, he blessed him: 'We have blessed you in the name of the Lord' (Ps. 117:26). But this is done by conferring the sacraments, by which a man is strengthened in grace: 'They shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them' (Num. 6:27), for God blesses by His authority, but the priest by his ministry. To him Abraham apportioned, i.e., distributed properly, a tenth part of everything [tithes] for his sustenance.

What need is there to say that He is the only High Priest, who alone possesses the knowledge of the worship of God? He is Melchizedek, "King of peace," the most fit of all to head the race of men. A legislator too, in as much as He gave the law by the mouth of the prophets, enjoining and teaching most distinctly what things are to be done, and what not.

For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Savior is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. And Melchizedek is interpreted "righteous king"; and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace.

Now the interpretation of the name Melchizedek is "king of justice" and "king of peace." The apostle indeed demonstrated that in this name the mystery of the grace and justice of the Son, Lord of Melchizedek, was inscribed.

Using the principles of pastoral science, he gathers us into his heavenly fold. He is called "sheep," because he was sacrificed, a "Lamb," because he was without blemish. He is the "high priest" because he presented the offering. "Melchizedek," because on the transcendent level he had no mother, on the human level no father, and his high estate is without genealogy. "Who," it says, "can recount his generation?" He is "Melchizedek" too, as king of Salem or peace, as king of righteousness, and because he tithes the patriarchs who prevailed over evil powers.

And first from the name. "First" (he says) "being by interpretation King of righteousness": for Sedec means "righteousness"; and Melchi, "King": Melchisedec, "King of righteousness." Seest thou his exactness even in the names? But who is "King of righteousness," save our Lord Jesus Christ? "King of righteousness. And after that also King of Salem," from his city, "that is, King of Peace," which again is characteristic of Christ. For He has made us righteous, and has "made peace" for "things in Heaven and things on earth." What man is "King of Righteousness and of Peace"? None, save only our Lord Jesus Christ.

"gave a tenth." That is, to Melchizedek, Abraham gave a tenth, he says. "first being interpreted." Therefore, he wants to show how Melchizedek is a type of Christ, and first he does this from the name. For, he says, his name is interpreted, king of righteousness; Melchizedek, king; Salem, peace. Of whom else could he be a type, except of Christ the true King of Righteousness? Then he also mentions the other interpretation from the city. Salem is peace. Therefore, he is not only a king of righteousness, but also of peace, as from the city of which he reigned; both of these Christ is, being both King of Righteousness and King of Peace.

Now, the comparison he had frequently gone to great trouble to develop he develops in the present case. Firstly, he recalls the story of Melchizedek. While he seems to conduct his treatment in narrative style, he is laying the groundwork for his thesis. The reason, you see, that he showed Abraham giving a blessing and offering a tenth of the spoils was to show the patriarchy yielding precedence even in type. Then he brings out his importance also from the names. This name, Melchizedek, in the Hebrew and Syriac language means "king of righteousness"; he ruled over Salem, and the word Salem is translated as peace. His intention, therefore, is to present him in this way as a type of Christ the Lord: according to the apostle he is our peace, and according to the Old Testament author he is our righteousness.

Here he shows in what sense Melchizedek is a prototype of Christ. And first of all, he says, learn the true meaning from the name itself. Namely: "Melchi" means king; "Sedek" means righteousness. Who else is the king of righteousness, if not our Lord Jesus Christ?

And from the name of the city, he says, this is clear. For Salem, by interpretation, means "peace." But who else is the king of peace, if not Christ, who reconciled the heavenly and the earthly? The title "king of righteousness and peace" befits no man, but Christ alone.

330. – But it seems from Numbers (18:21) that the giving of tithes dated from the Law; therefore, there was none before the Law. I answer that the ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament are amplifications of the precepts of the natural law and of the moral precepts; therefore, in regard to what they had from the natural law, they were observed before the Law without any precept. For the fact that something is offered to God in recognition of His creation and dominion is natural; but that He should be offered goats and heifers is a ceremonial precept. Similarly, it is according to natural law that ministers serving God be sustained by the people, for it is clear from Genesis (47:22) that this was observed among the Gentiles. Hence, priests, because they were fed from the public storehouses, were not compelled to sell their possessions. Therefore, there were tithes before the Law, but the determination of this amount was fixed by the law: 'All tithes are the Lord's' (Lev. 27:30). A sign of this was the fact that Jacob before the Law vowed that he would give tithes in the place where the temple was later built. And this was done particularly because the main reason for rendering worship to God is to signify that whatever a man has, he received from God and that he depends on Him for his entire perfection. For the number 'ten' is perfect, since it is the sum of its several parts, because the sum of one plus two plus three plus four is ten. Furthermore, one counts as far as ten and all other numbers are repetitions or additions to ten. Therefore, all numbers are imperfect until ten is reached. Likewise, all perfection is from God. Therefore, in order to signify that the fulfillment of all perfection is from God, he gave tithes.

331. – Then (v. 2b) he shows the likeness to Melchizedek. In regard to this he does two things: first, he suggests the likeness in regard to the condition of the person; secondly, in regard to the priesthood (v. 3b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states a likeness in regard to things commemorated in Scripture; secondly, in regard to things not mentioned in Scripture (v. 3).

332. – In Scripture two things are said of him: first, his name, namely, Melchizedek, who is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and signifies Christ, Who was a king: 'And a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth' (Jer. 23:5). He is not only called righteous, but king of righteousness, because He was made wisdom and righteousness for us (1 Cor. 1:30). Another thing said of him is his status; hence, he is called king of Salem, that is, king of peace. But this suits Christ: 'For he is our peace' (Eph. 2:14); 'In his days shall justice spring up and abundance of peace' (Ps. 71:7). And in this the Apostle teaches us to use the interpretation of names in preaching. He does well to join justice and peace, because no one can make peace who does not observe justice: 'The work of justice shall be peace' (Is. 32:17). In this world they are governed in justice, but in the world to come in peace: 'My people shall sit in the beauty of peace' (Is. 32:18).

Let no one claim Divinity resides in an order established by human beings when he encounters such an order. For the church does not consider even Melchizedek, by whose office Abraham offered sacrifice, an angel (as some Jewish interpreters do). It rather considers him a holy man and priest of God who, prefiguring our Lord, is described as "without father or mother, without history of his descent, without beginning and without end." It does this in order to show beforehand the coming into this world of the eternal Son of God who was likewise incarnate and then brought forth without any father, begotten as God without mother, and was without history of descent. For it is written: "Who shall declare his generation?"This Melchizedek, then, we have received as a priest of God based upon the model of Christ. However, the one we regard as the type, the other as the original. Now, a type is a shadow of the truth. We have accepted the royalty of the one [Melchizedek] in the name of a single city [Jerusalem], but that of the other [Jesus] as shown in the reconciliation of the whole world. For it is written: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," that is to say, the eternal Godhead was in Christ. Or, if the Father is in the Son, even as the Son is in the Father, then their unity in both nature and operation is plainly not denied.

Daniel told a story of another hermit who used to live in the lower parts of Egypt, and who said in his simplicity that Melchizedek was the Son of God. Now when the blessed man Theophilus, the archbishop of Alexandria, heard of it, he sent a message asking the monks to bring the hermit to him. When he saw him, he realized that he was a man of vision and that every thing that he had asked for God had given him, and that he had only said this out of simplicity. The archbishop dealt with him wisely in the following manner, saying, 'Abba, pray to God for me, because I have begun to think that Melchizedek was the Son of God,' and he added, 'It cannot be true, for the high priest of God was a man. But because I had doubts in my mind about this, I sent for you to pray to God for me that He may reveal the truth of the matter to you.' Then, because the hermit had confidence in the power of prayer, he said to him firmly, 'Wait three days, and I will ask God about this and then I shall be able to tell you who Melchizedek was.' So the hermit went away, and returned after three days, and said to the blessed Archbishop Theophilus, 'Melchizedek was a man.' The Archbishop said unto him, 'How do you know that, abba?' The hermit said, 'God showed me all the Patriarchs, one by one, and they passed before me one after the other, from Adam to Melchizedek, and an angel said to me, "This is Melchizedek." That is indeed how the truth of this matter appeared tome.' The hermit went away, and he himself proclaimed that Melchizedek was a man, and the blessed Theophilus rejoiced greatly.

Some say that this Melchizedek was actually Shem, son of Noah; in fact, they say the book of Genesis clearly shows that he lived in the days of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Moreover, from the sortitions of those tribes who inherited the land of the house of Shem, it looks clear that he lived in Salem in his own inheritance.Not only Melchizedek but also the name Melchizedek are "without father, and mother and without genealogy" because neither the name Melchizedek nor the name Israel were written in the genealogy, whereas Shem and Jacob had father and mother, and a beginning and an end, and were inscribed in the genealogy. But the names of Melchizedek and Israel did not have any of these things. God glorified them both with names equally imposed by him. He "was made similar to the Son of God" through his priesthood, so that the priesthood of Melchizedek might last forever, not in Melchizedek himself but in the Lord of Melchizedek. And the apostle highly praises the priesthood of all nations rather than that of his people, when he says, "Consider how great this man is to whom even our patriarch Abraham gave the tenth part of everything."

The old has passed away,behold all things have been made anew. The letter withdraws, the Spirit advances. The shadows flee, the truth breaks in. Melchizedek is summed up; the motherless becomes fatherless. The first without a mother, The second without a father, The laws of nature are abrogated that the cosmos above be brought to perfection.

The Jews say that Melchizedek was Shem, Noah's son, and, counting up the total years of his lifetime, they demonstrate that he would have lived up to the time of Isaac; and they say that all the firstborn sons of Noah were priests before Aaron performed the priestly office. Also, by "king of Salem" is meant the king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. And the blessed apostle writing to the Hebrews makes mention of Melchizedek as "without father or mother" and refers him to Christ and, through Christ, to the church of the Gentiles, for all the glory of the head is assigned to the members.… While he was uncircumcised, he blessed Abraham who had been circumcised; and in Abraham he blessed Levi; and through Levi he blessed Aaron from whom the priesthood afterwards descended. For this reason, he maintains, one should infer that the priesthood of the church, which is uncircumcised, blessed the priesthood of the synagogue, which is circumcised. And as to the Scripture which says, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," our mystery is foreshown in the word order; not at all, indeed, in the sacrifice of nonrational victims through Aaron's agency, but when bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, were offered in sacrifice.

Listen, you heretic, to the passage you have garbled: hear in full and completely, what you quoted mutilated and hacked about. The apostle wants to make clear to every one the twofold birth of God. In order to show how the Lord was born [both] in the Godhead and in flesh, he says, "Without father, without mother." The one belongs to the birth of divinity, the other to that of the flesh. For, as he was begotten in his divine nature "without mother," so he is in the body "without father." Though he is neither without father nor without mother, we must believe in him "without father and without mother." For, if you regard him as begotten of the Father, he is without mother. If you regard him as born of his mother, he is without father. And so in each of these births he has one [parent]: in both [births] together he is without each. For, the birth of divinity had no need of mother; and for the birth of his body, he was himself sufficient, without a father. Therefore says the apostle "Without [father or] mother, without genealogy."

He then adds another distinction, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually." Since then there lay in his way as an objection the words "Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec," whereas he Melchisedec was dead, and was not "Priest for ever," see how he explained it mystically.

"And who can say this concerning a man?" I do not assert this in fact (he says); the meaning is, we do not know when or what father he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And what of this (one says)? For does it follow, because we do not know it, that he did not die, or had no parents? Thou sayest well: he both died and had parents. How then was he "without father, without mother"? How "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"? How? Why from its not being expressed. And what of this? That as this man is so, from his genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the reality.

See the "without beginning"; see the "without end." As in case of this man, we know not either "beginning of days," or "end of life," because they have not been written; so we know them not in the case of Jesus, not because they have not been written, but because they do not exist. For that indeed is a type, and therefore we say "because it is not written," but this is the reality, and therefore we say "because it does not exist." For as in regard to the names also (for there "King of Righteousness" and "of Peace" are appellations, but here the reality) so these too are appellations in that case, in this the reality. How then hath He a beginning? Thou seest that the Son is "without beginning," not in respect of His not having a cause; (for this is impossible: for He has a Father, otherwise how is He Son?) but in respect of His "not having beginning or end of life."

"But made like unto the Son of God." Where is the likeness? That we know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. Here then just as in representations by painting or drawing, there is somewhat that is like and somewhat that is unlike. By means of the lines indeed there is a likeness of features, but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness.

Therefore the Most High God, and Parent of all, when He had purposed to transfer His religion, sent from heaven a teacher of righteousness, that in Him or through Him He might give a new law to new worshippers; not as He had before done, by the instrumentality of man. Nevertheless it was His pleasure that He should be born as a man, that in all things He might be like His supreme Father. For God the Father Himself, who is the origin and source of all things, inasmuch as He is without parents, is most truly named by Trismegistus "fatherless" and "motherless," because He was born from no one. For which reason it was befitting that the Son also should be twice born, that He also might become "fatherless" and "motherless." For in His first nativity, which was spiritual, He was "motherless," because He was begotten by God the Father alone, without the office of a mother. But in His second, which was in the flesh, He was born of a virgin's womb without the office of a father, that, bearing a middle substance between God and man, He might be able, as it were, to take by the hand this frail and weak nature of ours, and raise it to immortality.

"without father, without mother." Therefore, is it possible that this Melchizedek, being a man, is without father and without mother, and having neither beginning of days nor end of life? No. How then did he say this? Observe. For it could be objected to him: How is Christ according to the order of Melchizedek, who died and was not made a priest forever? See what he says: "We do not know," he says, "who he has as father or mother, or what lineage Melchizedek is, nor when he was born, or when he died." And what does this matter? Someone might say: "although we do not know these things, since they are not mentioned in Scripture, nevertheless he had both a father and lineage, and birth and death." How then is such a one without father and mother, and having no beginning or end of life? And he says: Just as Melchizedek, because he is not genealogically recorded in Scripture, appears to us who are ignorant to have no parents, nor beginning or end of life, so Christ truly is. For just as we do not know the beginning and end of Melchizedek, so neither truly do we know those of Christ; but the former because it is not written, the latter because of the truth; for the type is not equal in all things to the truth (since he himself is found to be truth, and identity rather than type); but he has certain images and likenesses; for example, Melchizedek is without father according to our ignorance, Christ is without father in his earthly birth; for according to the flesh he was born only of the Virgin Mary; Melchizedek is without mother, Christ is without mother in his heavenly birth, in which he had neither beginning of days; for how could the maker of time have a beginning? For he was begotten from the Father alone before all ages, ineffably and unthinkably. And thus understand all things that Melchizedek had, which we are ignorant of concerning him, these things Christ truly has. For Melchizedek is a king of peace and righteousness even to the bare names; but Christ truly is so.

"without genealogy." Melchizedek is without genealogy, as he is neither from the seed of Abraham nor is he traced through Moses, but his lineage is said to be unknown, and he is believed to spring from that cursed seed. It is just that he is declared righteous in himself, and not derived from righteous ancestors, nor from any righteous seed.It was therefore not right to uncover his genealogy, who in this way had reached the peak of righteousness.The lineage of Melchizedek was indeed of the Canaanites, as is shown. And it is indeed possible to demonstrate from those very things of which he held power and ruled over regions, and to which he drew near. For he was a neighbor of Sodom, and closer to Abraham who was dwelling near the oak of Mamre. You should think that there was also a king of Salem, which is Jerusalem.

"but made like the Son of God." And where is the similarity? That both Melchizedek and Christ, the end is unknown and the beginning. But for Melchizedek, it is because it has not been written, and for Christ, it is because it does not exist. "abides a priest forever." In this way, accept the eternal, as well as the others. For he says, as far as it relates to us who are ignorant of when he died, he has set aside the priesthood, he is a priest forever. For the type of indistinct images preserves the original; or that the manner of the priesthood of Melchizedek (you know what I mean) remains forever.

He calls Melchizedek "without genealogy" because he was not from the seed of Abraham nor was he given a genealogy by Moses, but his race was Canaanite and he sprang from that cursed seed. He was pronounced righteous in regards to his deeds. Yet because he had not sprung from righteous forebears or from some righteous seed, it was not proper to give the genealogy of this man who inclined to the epitome of righteousness. Now Melchizedek demonstrates that he was of Canaanite origin and it also can be proved positively from those regions that he ruled and reigned over and the regions with which he was associated. For he was a neighbor of Sodom, and he was very close to Abraham when he lived near "the oak of Mamre." And one must also reckon that he happens to be king of that "Salem," which is Jerusalem.

Without father, without mother, without genealogy, according to the Scripture. Later, among the Levites it is always clear who were the parents of a priest. They also had allotted times and periods of service, and the total length of their service and of their life is known. All these data exist for each priest under the law, even if not for every year. However, it is said that Melchizedek is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having no beginning and no end of life according to the word of Scripture. He does not belong to a priestly family; we do not know when he started his priesthood or what kind of a priest he was, or whether he was a priest all his life. We do not know any information that is available for those priests under the law. It is said that, likened to the Son of God, he continues his priesthood forever. And how does Melchizedek remain a priest? Here is a solution to that question. As Moses sometimes signifies the law, so Melchizedek, a human being, signifies the priesthood. Now, if he is likened [to the Son of God] through the priesthood in Christ, he remains forever, not as a mortal man but as a pattern of the priesthood.

The heretic Theodotus … says that the human being Christ was conceived and born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, but that he was inferior to Melchizedek because it is said of Christ, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." For this Melchizedek, he says, by special grace is a heavenly power, and what Christ does for human beings, having been made their intercessor and advocate, Melchizedek does for the heavenly angels and powers. For to such a degree, he says, he is better than Christ that he is fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.

God the Word was not generated from a woman; the one generated from a woman was the one fashioned in her by the power of the Holy Spirit. The one who is of one essence with the Father was not born from her womb, for he is "without mother," as blessed Paul's phrase has it. It was rather the one fashioned in his mother's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit who came in the last times. For this reason he is also called "without father."

When Paul wished to show that Christ was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, he speaks those things that pertain to him, not explaining his nature but putting forth the explanation about him found in the divine Scripture and demonstrating the similarity between Melchizedek and Christ from the Scripture.Thus, he calls him "fatherless" and "motherless," on the grounds that the divine Scripture does not narrate his genealogy. Then he adds, "being without genealogy," showing that he is not talking about the nature of the man but rather the account of the divine Scripture. Then he further connects in the thought "neither having a beginning of days nor an end of life"—not in his nature but in the divine Scripture. And since it was possible to also say these about another person—for the divine Scripture does not remember to note the parents of many people or to set forth their genealogy, especially as many as we have learned were born outside the Israelite race—he does well to add, "being likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." For no longer does this apply to the rest as it does to him. And he makes clear from this explanation of the Scripture how Christ has this property as well as the rest. For Christ was "without father" in the begetting of his humanity, and "without mother" in the origin of his divine essence, and really "without genealogy." For what genealogy would there be of him who exists from his Father alone? And it is also clear that "he has neither beginning of days nor an end of life." In the case of Christ it is actually the case, whereas in the case of Melchizedek it is what we find (or do not find) in the Scripture's account of him. Christ received his "priesthood forever" from the divine Scripture where it said, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," even as Melchizedek acts as priest eternally. And he calls him an "eternal" priest on the grounds that he has not passed on the priesthood to successors, which happened to be the case under Mosaic law. Therefore he also said, "Having been likened to the Son of God," and yet it was appropriate to say that the Son had been made like Melchizedek—for the first is not made like the second. Yet the truth took place in connection with Christ, but no such thing took place beforehand with Melchizedek. So he says that Melchizedek was made like Christ by the way that he appears in the narrative, since the divine Scripture wished to show to us in its narration of the life of Melchizedek the similarity with the one who was to be.

Christ the Lord, of course, has each of these by nature and in reality: while as God he is "without mother," being begotten only of the Father, as man he is "without father," being born only of a mother—the Virgin, I mean. As God he is "without genealogy": the one of the unbegotten Father does not require a family tree. "Without beginning of days": the begetting was eternal. "Without end of life": he has an immortal nature.This was the reason he likened not Christ the Lord to Melchizedek, but Melchizedek to Christ the Lord: one was type of the other, and the other the realization of the type. In respect of the priesthood, of course, Melchizedek did not imitate Christ the Lord; rather, Christ the Lord is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek: being a priest belongs to a human being, whereas accepting offerings belongs to God. Yet by becoming incarnate the only begotten Son of God also became our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not by aggregating to himself the position but by concealing the divine status and accepting the lowly condition for the sake of our salvation. This is why he was called lamb, sin, curse, way, door, and many other names like that.

He commented also on the term "without a genealogy." He said Melchizedek was not of their family tree. So it is clear that he was not really without a family tree but only to provide a type.

The text said of Melchizedek, of course, that "he continues a priest forever" since he did not transmit the priesthood to his children, like Aaron, Eleazar and Phineas; the one transmitting it to another as an heirloom seems somehow to be deprived of the position when someone else is performing it. It has another sense as well: just as we refer to Moses not just as the lawgiver but as the law itself, so too we use the name Melchizedek both of the person and the thing, namely, priesthood. Christ the Lord has it, enjoying eternal life.

Orth.—Do you say that according to the divine nature [the Lord] had a mother? Eran.—Certainly not. Orth.—For he was begotten of the Father alone before the ages? Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—And yet, as the generation he has of the Father is ineffable, he is spoken of as "without descent." "Who," says the prophet, "shall declare his generation?" Eran.—You are right. Orth.—Thus it becomes him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for he is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.Eran.—This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits the admirable Melchizedek. Orth.—As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Savior these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchizedek. For after telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and similarly of Jacob and of his sons, and exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, it records neither the father nor the mother of Melchizedek. It also does not teach that he traced his descent from any one of Noah's sons, to the end that he may be a type of him who is in reality without father and without mother. And this is what the divine apostle would have us understand, for in this very passage he says further, "But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises." Eran.—Then, since holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents, can he be called without father and without mother? Orth.—If he had really been without father and without mother, he would not have been an image, but a reality. But since these are his qualities not by nature, but according to the dispensation of the divine Scripture, he exhibits the type of the reality. Eran.—The type must have the character of the archetype. Orth.—Is man called an image of God? Eran.—Man is not an image of God but was made in the image of God. Orth.—Listen then to the apostle. He says, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God." Eran.—Granted, then, that he is an image of God. Orth.—According to your argument then he must have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and he must have been uncreated, uncompounded and infinite. He ought also to have been able to create out of the nonexistent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labor. In addition to this, he ought to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype. Eran.—Man is not an image of God in every respect. Orth.—Although he is truly an image in the qualities in which you would grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by a wide interval from the reality. Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says, "Who is the image of the invisible God?" Eran.—What then; does not the Son have all the qualities of the Father? Orth.—He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not unbegotten. Eran.—If he were he would not be Son. Orth.—Then does not what I said hold true; the image does not have all the qualities of the archetype? Eran.—True. Orth.—Thus too the divine apostle said that Melchizedek is made like unto the Son of God.

Eran.—Suppose we grant that [Melchizedek] is without Father and without mother and without descent, as you have said. But how are we to understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of life?Orth.—The holy Moses when writing the ancient genealogy tells us how Adam being so many years old begat Seth, and when he had lived so many years he ended his life. He writes the same of Seth, of Enoch, and of the rest. But he mentions neither beginning of existence nor end of life when speaking about Melchizedek. Thus as far as the story goes he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but in truth and reality the only begotten Son of God never began to exist and shall never have an end. Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—Then, so far as what belongs to God and is really divine is concerned, Melchizedek is a type of the Lord Christ; but as far as the priesthood is concerned, which belongs rather to man than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek. For, Melchizedek was a high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ has made the right holy offering of salvation for everyone. Eran.—We have spent many words on this matter. Orth.—Yet more were needed, as you know, for you said the point was a difficult one.

There is also another similarity. Namely, just as Melchizedek is without father and without mother — not, of course, because he had no father or mother, for as a man he did have them — but because Scripture does not indicate his genealogy and does not mention his parents. So too Christ is without father by His earthly birth, for according to the flesh He was born of the Virgin Mary alone. And without mother by His heavenly birth, for He was ineffably and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father alone before all ages. But beyond that, He is also "without genealogy," for "who shall declare His generation?" (Isa. 53:8; cf. Acts 8:33). Since the Father who begot Him is in heaven and incomprehensible, the very manner of His begetting is also incomprehensible. Nor can reason comprehend the Mother who gave birth on earth — specifically, the manner of birth, that is, how the Virgin gave birth without pangs, and the like. Thus Christ is in reality without father and without mother; Melchizedek, however, is without father and without mother not in reality, for that is impossible, but in the sense that Scripture does not mention his parents. Therefore the expression "without genealogy" serves as a kind of explanation of the other expression, "without father and without mother." The Apostle speaks as if to say: I said of Melchizedek that he is without father and mother because Scripture contains no genealogy of his and makes no mention of his lineage.

And understand this in the same sense as what was said before. As a man, Melchizedek had, of course, both a beginning of days and an end of life, but since we know neither when he was born nor when he died, in our understanding he as it were has neither beginning nor end. Christ, however, in reality, as God, has neither beginning, for He is without beginning in relation to the beginning of time, although He has the Father as a beginning, as a cause; nor end, for He is immortal; in a word, He is eternal. Where, then, are the Arians? Let them hear that the Son has no beginning. In this sense Paul resolves this question for us. And if anything causes us difficulty, it is this: how is Christ "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," when Melchizedek died and was not a priest "forever"? Let us resolve this difficulty as well, saying that Christ, as eternal and immortal, is truly "a Priest forever." For even now—we believe—He continually offers Himself for us through His ministers, and especially as our Advocate before the Father: at this time He performs for us the most exalted and most mysterious priestly service, offering Himself to us in bread and drink in a wondrous manner surpassing all understanding. Of Melchizedek it is said that he has an eternal priesthood, not because he is eternal, for he died; but because Scripture does not indicate his end, from which we could know when his priesthood ceased. And just as with regard to names, the first has only titles—Melchizedek, that is, king of righteousness, and king of Salem (king of peace)—while in Christ these are reality, so also the expression "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" applies to the first, Melchizedek, only because this was not recorded, for he was a type; but to Christ it applies in reality. If the likeness were in all respects, there would be neither type nor truth, but in both cases either a type or in both cases truth. Do we not see this also in paintings? There, too, a simple outline already has a likeness compared with the finished painting, since the characteristic features are faintly represented by lines; yet it also has a dissimilarity, since the painting through colors has received a more distinct and clearer appearance.

333. – Then when he says, without father or mother or genealogy, he presents a likeness in regard to the things not mentioned about him, because in Scripture no mention is made of his father or mother or genealogy. Hence, some of the ancients made this matter of their error, saying that since God alone is without beginning and without end, Melchizedek was the Son of God. But this has been condemned as heretical. Hence, it should be noted that the Old Testament, whenever mention is made of some important person, his father is named along with the time of his birth and death, as in the case of Isaac and many others. But here Melchizedek is suddenly introduced with no mention at all made of his birth or anything pertaining to it. This was not done without reason. For inasmuch as it is said, without father, the birth of Christ from the Virgin is signified, for it occurred without a father: 'That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit' (Mt. 1:20). Now that which is proper to God should not be attributed to a creature; but it is proper to God the Father to be the Father of Christ. Therefore, in the birth of the one who prefigured Him, no mention should be made of a carnal father. Also in regard to His eternal birth he says, without mother, lest anyone suppose that birth to be material, as the mother gives the matter to her begotten; but it is spiritual, as brightness from the sun: 'Who being the brightness of his glory and figure of his substance' (Heb. 1:3). Also, when generation proceeds from a father and a mother, it is not all from the father, but the matter is ministered by the mother. Therefore, to exclude all imperfection from Christ and to designate that all he has from the Father, no mention is made of a mother; hence, the verse: 'He is God without a mother; He is flesh without a father.' 'From the womb before the day star I begot you,' i.e., I alone (Ps. 109:3). Without genealogy: now there are two reasons why his genealogy is not given in the Scripture: one is because the generation of Christ is ineffable: 'Who shall declare his generation' (Is. 53:8); the other is because Christ, Who is introduced as a priest, does not pertain to the Levitical priesthood, nor to a genealogy of the Old Law. This is the Apostle's intention; hence, he says, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life. But he says this, not because Christ was not born in time or did not die, but because of His eternal generation, in which He was born without the beginning of any time: 'In the beginning was the Word' (Jn. 1:1), i.e., no matter what time you mention, the Word was before it, as Basil explains. Also, no end of life: this is true in regard to His divinity, which is eternal. But in regard to His humanity, He no longer has an end of life, because 'Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more' (Rom. 6:9); and below (13:8): 'Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever.'

334. – Then when he says, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever, he indicates a likeness in regard to the priesthood. Yet it should be noted that later things are said to be similar to earlier things, and vice versa. Consequently, lest anyone suppose that Christ's priesthood is later than that of Melchizedek, the Apostle dispels this, because, although Christ as man was born after him and existed in time, nevertheless, as God and as the Son of God, He exists from eternity. Therefore, Melchizedek was like Christ, the Son of God, in regard to all those features: and this inasmuch as He continues a priest forever, which can be explained in two ways: one way, because no mention is made of the end of his priesthood or of his successor: 'I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets' (Hos 12:10). He also says, a priest forever, because that which is prefigured, namely, Christ's priesthood, lasts forever. Hence, even in Scripture it is frequently referred to as perpetual: 'It shall be a perpetual observance' (Ex. 27:21): 'By a perpetual service and rite' (Lev. 24:3), because that which was symbolized by it is perpetual. In this matter the Apostle connects the following with the preceding.

This Melchizedek is Shem, who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, he was a priest. He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession. Shem lived not only to the time of Abraham, as Scripture says, but even to the time of Jacob and Esau, the grandsons of Abraham. It was to him that Rebekah went to ask and was told, "Two nations are in your womb, and the elder shall serve the younger." Rebekah would not have bypassed her husband, who had been delivered at the high place, or her father-in-law, to whom revelations of the divinity came continually, and gone straight to ask Melchizedek unless she had learned of his greatness from Abraham or Abraham's son. Abraham would not have given him a tenth of everything unless he knew that Melchizedek was infinitely greater than himself. Would Rebekah have asked one of the Canaanites or one of the Sodomites? Would Abraham have given a tenth of his possessions to any one of these? One ought not even entertain such ideas.Because the length of Melchizedek's life extended to the time of Jacob and Esau, it has been stated, with much probability, that he was Shem. His father Noah was dwelling in the east, and Melchizedek was dwelling between two tribes, that is, between the sons of Ham and his own sons. Melchizedek was like a partition between the two, for he was afraid that the sons of Ham would turn his own sons to idolatry.

So far, then, we have learned that they who are called "Christs" in the highest sense of the term are anointed by God, not by people, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, not with a prepared unguent.It is now time to see how the teaching of the Hebrews shows that the true Christ of God possesses a divine nature higher than humanity. Hear, therefore, David again, where he says that he knows an eternal priest of God and calls him his own Lord and confesses that he shares the throne of God Most High in the one hundred ninth psalm. … And note that David in this passage, being king of the whole Hebrew race and, in addition to his kingdom, adorned with the Holy Spirit, recognized that the being of whom he speaks, who was revealed to him in the Spirit, was so great and surpassingly glorious, that he called him his own Lord. He said, "The Lord said to my Lord," for he knows him as eternal high priest, priest of the Most High God, and throned beside almighty God and his offspring. Now it was impossible for Jewish priests to be consecrated to the service of God without anointing, which is why it was usual to call them Christs. The Christ, then, mentioned in the psalm will also be a priest, for how could he have been witnessed to as priest unless he had previously been anointed? It is also said that he is made a priest forever. Now this would transcend human nature, for it is not in humanity to last forever, since our race is mortal and frail. Therefore, the priest of God described in this passage, who by the confirmation of an oath received a perpetual and limitless priesthood from God, was greater than human. "For the Lord has sworn," he said, "and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest after the order of Melchizedek.' " … The object of the psalmist's prophecy, therefore, is presented distinctly as an eternal priest and Son of the Most High God, begotten by the Most High God and sharing the throne of his kingdom.… Thus I think I have clearly proved that the essential Christ was not man, but Son of God, honored with a seat on the right hand of his Father's Godhead, far greater not only than human and mortal nature, but greater also than every spiritual existence among things begotten.

"Now consider" (saith he) "how great this man is to whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Up to this point he has been applying the type: henceforward he boldly shows him Melchisedec to be more glorious than the Jewish realities. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? Thou seest how super-abundantly he shows the superiority.

"Now consider" (he says) "how great this man is to whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave a tenth out of the choice portions." Spoils taken in battle are called "choice portions." And it cannot be said that he gave them to him as having a part in the war, because (he said) he met him "returning from the slaughter of the kings," for he had staid at home (he means), yet Abraham gave him the first-fruits of his labors.

"Consider how great this man was." Since he applied the type to the truth, he wishes to show that the type of Christ himself, namely Melchizedek, was greater than those priests among the Jews. And what do I say about the priests? He was indeed greater than the patriarch Abraham himself. If the type of Christ, he says, is greater than the patriarch himself, what then could anyone say about Christ? In one way, Abraham was greater than Melchizedek, but the type was the one who conquers. Thus, Cyril among the saints in the second book concerning On Adoration in Spirit and Truth… "'to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth.' It is not to be said, he says, that he gave him tithes, as one who has shared in the war; (for this is why he said above, 'who met Abraham returning from the slaughter), but according to reverence and honor, just as giving first fruits. 'gave a tenth of the spoils.' From the loot and plunder. And if he is greater than the patriarch (and this is indicated by the giving of tithes), much more than those among the Jewish priests. For the patriarch is not brought forth without reason: but to show that if the patriarch, he says, has given, what is to be said about the priests?"

After he fitted the type to the truth, that is, what belongs to Melchizedek to Christ, he finally shows with confidence that the type, that is Melchizedek, is more glorious than the actual Jewish priests themselves, and not only them, but even the patriarch himself. And if the type surpasses them, then the true High Priest Christ will surpass them far more. So, "see," he says, "how great," that is, how superior is the one to whom gifts were offered not by an ordinary man, but by Abraham, so great a patriarch; he added the word "patriarch" not without purpose, but to elevate the person. And "from the best spoils," that is, from the most excellent and valuable spoil. And one cannot say that he set apart some compensation for labor as to one who fought alongside him and helped, but rather to one who stayed at home. Therefore he also said above: "met Abraham returning after the defeat of the kings." And if he is above the patriarch himself, which the giving of the tithe shows, then he is far above the priests of the law.

335. – Having showed how Melchizedek was likened to the Son of God, the Apostle now shows the pre-eminence of Melchizedek's priesthood over the Levitical. In regard to this he does two things: first, he attracts their attention; secondly, he states his thesis (v. 5).

336. – He attracts them by saying that he is about to speak of great and important matters: 'Hear, for I will speak of great things' (Pr. 8:5); hence, he says, see how great, i.e., of what great dignity, he is, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of the spoils: 'Cursed is the deceitful man, that has in his flock a male, and making a vow, offers in sacrifice that which is feeble, to the Lord' (Mal. 1:14). Abraham is called a patriarch, i.e., the chief of fathers, not because he had no father, but because the promise of being father of the Gentiles was made to him: 'You shall be a father of many nations' (Gen. 17:4); 'Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations' (Sir. 44:20); 'I have made you a father of many nations before God whom he believed' (Rom. 4:17).

Through Abraham, who gave him the tenth part, the house of Levi, which had to be generated by him, took the tenth part in him. The Levites, even though they took the tenth part, did not take it from strangers but received the tenth part from themselves; in fact, they took the tenth part from their brothers, the sons of Abraham. Therefore, Abraham, to whom the promise of priesthood was made, gave the tenth part to Melchizedek, who was not inscribed in the Levitic generation. And to Abraham it had been promised that all nations would have been blessed in him. So why did he need the blessing of an uncircumcised man? Does not this show and prove that, if Abraham had not been inferior to Melchizedek, he would not have demanded to be blessed by him? And so the mortal sons receive the tenth part, and in the same manner Melchizedek, who was mortal, lived at that time to be a witness for Abraham, for the indisputably true Melchizedek's blessing destined to the seed of Abraham.

"And verily they that are of the sons of Levi who receive the office of Priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham." So great (he would say) is the superiority of the priesthood, that they who from their ancestors are of the same dignity, and have the same forefather, are yet far better than the rest. At all events they "receive tithes" from them. When then one is found, who receives tithes from these very persons, are not they indeed in the rank of laymen, and he among the Priests?

And not only this; but neither was he of the same dignity with them, but of another race: so that he would not have given tithes to a stranger unless his dignity had been great. Astonishing! What has he accomplished? He has made quite clear a greater point than those relating to faith which he treated in the Epistle to the Romans. For there indeed he declares Abraham to be the forefather both of our polity and also of the Jewish. But here he is exceeding bold against him, and shows that the uncircumcised person is far superior. How then did he show that Levi paid tithes? Abraham (he says) paid them. "And how does this concern us?" It especially concerns you: for you will not contend that the Levites are superior to Abraham.

It confirms that he who was in the figure of Christ was greater than the priests of the Jews. The Levites, he says, being more honorable than the rest of the people, receive the tithes. For what is taken from brothers who have the same father? Therefore, it is evident that the tithes are a symbol of honor and of being more sacred. Thus, Melchizedek, being a foreigner and without genealogy, would not have received tithes from the patriarch unless he was greater than him. For Abraham would not have given to one who was not truly greater. If he is greater than the patriarch, it is evident that he is much greater than the priests among the Jews. "to tithe the people." To tithe means, for example, to take tithes from them; for the Levites were receiving tithes from the people.

He says, "even though they have come out of the loins of Abraham." Although the Levites are in all other respects equal in rank with the other tribes, nonetheless because the other tribes give tithes while the Levites receive them, the Levites are clearly superior. But if this is the case, then clearly also the same principle applies to Abraham and Melchizedek, the giver and recipient, respectively. Consequently, the type of Christ [Melchizedek] is greater than the patriarch Abraham. But if he is greater than Abraham, he is much greater than the priests. And if the type is greater than Abraham, what would anyone say concerning Christ himself?

Now he shows in what way Melchizedek is above Abraham, saying that the ministers from the tribe of Levi received tithes from the people (Lev. 27:30–32), evidently as better and more honorable men on account of the dignity of the priesthood. For why else does the people itself, enduring heavy labors and hardships, bring tithes of every kind to priests who do not undergo such labors and do not till the land, if not because they are more sacred and serve a higher purpose? Such is the dignity of the priesthood, and so much higher are those who hold it than their own brothers, even though they came from the same loins.

337. – Then (v. 5) he shows the pre-eminence of Melchizedek's priesthood over that of the Levitical. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, from this he concludes his thesis, namely, that Christ's priesthood is preferred to the Levitical (v. 11). The first is divided into two parts: in the first he states his proposition; in the second he rejects a certain response (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the pre-eminence in regard to that in which he used his priesthood; secondly, in regard to the state of the priesthood (v. 8). But two things pertain to the priest, namely, to receive and to bless. Therefore, he does two things: first, he shows its excellence as far as receiving tithes is concerned; secondly, in regard to blessing (v. 6b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows who is competent to accept tithes; secondly, how Melchizedek did this in a more excellent manner (v. 8).

338. – He says, therefore: And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people. In this he shows that it belongs to priests to take tithes. But it should be noted that the members of Levi's tribe were deputed to divine worship, but among them only the descendants of Aaron were priests: 'Take unto you also Aaron, your brother, with his sons from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest's office' (Ex. 28:1). Hence, those who belong to the tribe of Levi through Aaron took tithes. This would seem to indicate that the priests alone took tithes, which is contrary to what it says in Numbers (18:21): 'I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel.' I answer that the Levites received them, only because they ministered to the priests; consequently, they were given not for themselves but for the priests. Furthermore, the Levites received only one-tenth of the tithes, as it says in Numbers (18:26); therefore, only the priests received and did not pay.

339. – Secondly, he shows by what right they received them, namely, by a commandment of the Law; hence, he says, they have commandment in the law to take tithes. But if this is a commandment of the Law, then, since the observance of a commandment of the Law is now a sin, it seems unlawful to give or to receive tithes now. I answer that there were in the Law some precepts that were purely ceremonial, as circumcision, the immolation of the lamb, and so on. Such laws, since they were only figurative, it is no longer licit to observe, for they were a figure of something to come; hence, anyone who observes them now would be signifying that Christ is still to come. But others were purely moral, and these must be observed now. Among these was the giving of tithes, as was explained above. Hence, tithing was in vogue during the Law and under the New Testament: 'The worker is worthy of his food' (Mt. 10:10); 'The worker is worthy of his hire' (Lk. 10:7). But the determination of such a portion now is made by the Church, just as in the Old Testament it was determined by the Law. But others were partly ceremonial and partly moral, as the judicial precepts. These laws are no longer to be used in regard to what is ceremonial; but in regard to what is moral, they must be obeyed. Yet it is not necessary that they be observed in their proper form. Another objection: If it were a commandment still in vogue, then one who does not take tithes sins, and they sin where they are not taken. I answer that some say that no one may lawfully renounce his right to take tithes, but it is lawful to renounce the practice of taking them because of scandal; and this from the example of the Apostle who took no sustenance from anyone. So they say that they are commanded not to renounce the right. But it is better to say that they are not commanded to take; but they have this command introduced for themselves, so that they can take, and the others are bound to give.

340. – Thirdly, he shows from whom they received, namely, from the people, i.e., from their brethren, though these also are descended from the loins of Abraham. For since someone might say that just as Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, so, too, his sons, the Levites; therefore, that priesthood is not preferred to this one. Consequently, he excludes this and says that the Levites themselves were of the seed of Abraham and, consequently were inferior to Abraham, who paid the tithes.

"But he whose descent is not counted from them, received tithes of Abraham." And after that he did not simply pass on, but added, "and blessed him that had the promises." Inasmuch as throughout, this was regarded with reverence, he shows that Melchisedec was to be reverenced more than Abraham, from the common judgment of all men.

"who have come out." This is what it says: Although in all other respects they were equal in condition and honor, yet from the fact that these indeed gave tithes, while those received them, great excellence is shown. If this is so, it is clear that even in Abraham and Melchizedek, when Abraham gave tithes, Melchizedek received them. Therefore, he who was a type and figure of Christ was greater than the patriarch Abraham: and if Abraham himself, much more the priests. But if the type was greater, what can anyone say about Christ?

Hence Melchizedek too, who received a tithe from Abraham, and moreover not being of his lineage, for he was a foreigner, is superior and higher than he. For why would Abraham have given a tithe to a foreigner if great honor did not belong to him? And if Melchizedek, the type, surpasses even Abraham himself, how much more does the true High Priest surpass the priests of the law.

Since Abraham was exalted in every way by the fact that he received promises from God, he now adds that such a great man, who was deemed worthy of conversation with God and had God as his debtor, was blessed by a type of Christ.

341. – Then when he says, But this man who has not the genealogy received tithes of Abraham, he shows how it was more fitting for Melchizedek to receive tithes, because he was not of the stock of Abraham; hence, he has not their genealogy, namely, of the Levites. Furthermore, according to a commandment of the Law it was lawful for him to take tithes; consequently, their priesthood was subject to the observance of the Law. But he took tithes not by reason of any law but of himself; therefore, his priesthood was a figure of Christ's priesthood, which is not subject to the Law. Likewise, they received from a lowly people, namely, their brethren, but he from the highest, namely, from Abraham.

342. – Then when he says, and blessed him that had the promises, he shows his excellence from the viewpoint of the blessing. His reason is this: In Genesis (14:19) it says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham; but one who blesses is greater than the one blessed, therefore, etc. Hence, he says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, who had the promises. But on the other hand, it says below (11:39): 'They received not the promise.' I answer that Abraham did not receive the promise, i.e., the things promised, because he did not obtain it; but he possessed it in faith and hope, and to him specifically the promises were made.