Hebrews 7:7–17

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 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. "And without all contradiction," he says, "the less is blessed of the better," i.e. in the opinion of all men it is the inferior that is blessed by the superior. So then the type of Christ is superior even to "him that had the promises."

"But he whose genealogy is not counted among them." Among them, that is, among those. Therefore, he whose genealogy is not mentioned to among them, nor reckoned in the number with their kind, namely Melchizedek, received tithes. "and blessed the one who has the promises. He took up Abraham, so that Melchizedek might receive more. Since it was a great thing to Abraham to receive the promises from God, he now adds this, that Melchizedek, so great and so old, having been deemed worthy of divine fellowship, and having God as his debtor, was blessed by the type of Christ. The lesser is blessed by the greater. He said that Melchizedek blessed the aged Abraham; and we all commonly and unquestionably know that the one who blesses is greater than the one who is blessed. Therefore, Melchizedek, the type of Christ, is greater than the patriarch himself.

The Apostle said that Melchizedek blessed so great an Abraham. Yet we all agree without dispute that the one who blesses is greater than the one who is blessed. Therefore, Melchizedek too, the prototype of Christ, is greater than the patriarch.

343. – Then when he says, it is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior, he states the major premise of his reasoning. But here there are three objections: the first concerns the statement that the lesser is blessed by the better. On this score the Poor Men of Lyons claim that any just person is greater than a sinner; consequently, a just layman is not blessed by a wicked priest, but conversely. Hence, they would have it that every just man is a priest and no sinner is a priest. I answer that this error is most pernicious, because if a good minister is required for conferring the sacraments, in which salvation is found, it follows that no one is sure of his salvation or knows whether he was properly baptized, because he cannot know if the priest was just. For no one could be ministers, because 'no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or love' (Ec 9:1). Therefore, it should be noted that a person can do something in two ways: either by his own authority, or by someone else's. When it is by his own authority, it is required that he be just. But a priest is only a minister; hence, he acts only in virtue of Christ: 'Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God' (1 Cor. 4:1). Therefore, he does no harm whether he be good or bad, because it is Christ Who blesses in him. Hence, without any contradiction, the one who is greater, blesses. The second objection is that since Christ is greater than any priest, how can the body of Christ be consecrated by a priest? I answer that the priest blesses the matter and not the body of Christ. Furthermore, he does not act by his own authority, but by that of Christ, Who as God is greater than His body. The third objection is that it does not seem true that the greater always blesses the lesser, because the Pope is consecrated by a bishop, and an Archbishop by a suffragan, both of whom are lesser. I answer that a bishop does not consecrate the Pope nor the suffragan the Archbishop, but they consecrate this man to be Pope or Archbishop. Furthermore, they do this as the ministers of God, Who is greater than the Pope.

"And here men that die receive tithes: but there he of whom it is testified that he liveth." But lest we should say, Tell us, why goest thou so far back? He says, "And as I may so say" (and he did well in softening it) "Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes in Abraham." How? "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi.

Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest: the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority passes on also to the descendants.

It shows that there was great excellence in Melchizedek, and therefore he received tithes, and it says: Even the Levites receive; but this is not great, for they die; who, then, envies the honor of one who is about to die? However, Melchizedek, even if he received testimony that he lives, received tithes. And what it says about him receiving testimony that he lives, take according to the previously given understanding, namely because Scripture did not say the end of him, but only life, it seemed to testify only that he lived; as if to say: Abraham foresaw that the death of Melchizedek would not be revealed, nor was he moved to envy him the honor of tithes, for he knew his dignity.For he has superiority. The simpler way to accept what is said is that the priesthood of the Levites dies. For it has ceased. The truths have been revealed; but the one of Melchizedek lives. "that he lives." How then was he testified? In saying to God, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 7:17) And therefore, the distinction of Melchizedek from the priests among the Jews. "the men who die." For he says, it is not to be assumed that at any time he became greater, but after this he was established in a lesser portion. For in the law, the Levites receive tithes, and those who die pass on their value to others. So that the same ones are not always those who receive the tithe. But here, we have learned nothing of the sort. Therefore, he should always be regarded as superior, if indeed he remains always upon his own value. For he remains, as I said, an everlasting priest, having taken this from Scripture, as in the saying, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," (Heb. 7:17) showing that he is such an everlasting priest.

And another argument proving that Melchizedek is superior to the priests of the law. For "here," that is, in the law, those who receive tithes die; but "there," that is, in the case of Melchizedek, the one who received tithes is one of whom Scripture testifies that he "lives." For "You," it says, "are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 109:4). As for the fact that Melchizedek lives forever, understand this in the same way as was said above, that is, that Scripture makes no mention of his death. That the Levites die while Melchizedek lives, some understand as meaning that the form of the Levitical priesthood has become dead, for it has been rendered ineffective, whereas the form of the priesthood of Melchizedek, or of life according to Christ, lives and abides, and will exist forever.

344. – Then when he says, Here tithes are received by mortal men, he shows the pre-eminence of the priesthood on the part of the priest by reason of his state. His reasoning is this: That is the more excellent which is not corrupted. But in the Levitical priesthood mortal men, i.e., who succeed by death, receive tithes; but there, in the priesthood of Melchizedek, by one of whom it is testified from the Scripture, that he lives, i.e., it makes no mention of his death, not because he did not die, but because he signifies a priesthood that continues forever: 'Christ, rising again from the dead, dies now no more' (Rom. 6:9); 'I was dead, and behold I am living forever and ever' (Rev. 1:18).

Why is it that Scripture reports, for the sake of the tremendous difference between the priesthood of Christ and that of Levi, that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek when he was in the loins of Abraham, since Christ was also there, and so both Levi and Christ paid the tithe? Unless it is because we should understand that, in some other way, Christ was not there? But who would deny that Christ was there according to the flesh? Then he was not there according to the soul, for the soul of Christ did not originate through the transmission of the sin of Adam, or else he would have been there.…Levi was surely there in the loins of Abraham in accordance with the transmission of human seed by which he would enter into his mother; Christ was not there through that cause, although the flesh of Mary was. Thus, neither Levi nor Christ were present there according to the soul, but both of them were there according to the flesh. Levi was there according to fleshly desire, while Christ was there only according to his physical substance. For in a seed, there is both a visible physicality and an invisible principle. Both ran their course from Abraham, even from Adam himself, all the way to the body of Mary, since that too was conceived and born in the normal way. So Christ assumed the physical substance of flesh from the flesh of the virgin, but the reason for his conception did not come from a man's seed, but from a much different source—from above. So for this reason, the flesh which he assumed from his mother was also present in the loins of Abraham. So Levi paid a tithe in Abraham, who, although he was only there according to the flesh, was still there in the loins of Abraham, as Abraham also was once in the loins of his own father. In other words, he was born of his father Abraham in the same way that Abraham was born of his own father, namely through the law at work in his members fighting against the "law of his mind" and an invisible concupiscence, though the chaste and noble rights of marriage do not permit it to grow strong except insofar as these things are able to make provision for the continuation of the human race. But he who acquired his flesh not as a rotting wound, but as the source of healing, did not himself also pay a tithe in that way. Since the paying of the tithe served to prefigure the source of healing, the one who would be cured paid the tithe in the flesh of Abraham, but not the one from whom healing would come. For the same flesh, not only that of Abraham, but also that of the first man taken from the earth, contained in itself at the same time both the wound caused by transgression and the medicine for that wound. The wound of sin was at work in the law of the fleshly members fighting against the law of the mind; this law was being transcribed upon all flesh begotten by the principle of a human seed. But the medicine for the wound was also in that flesh, which was assumed without any deed of concupiscence, assumed only in the physical material of the flesh from the Virgin through a divine principle of conception and formation for the sake of a participation in our death not due to his own iniquity and as an example of resurrection that is not deceptive.… The soul of Christ is from the original soul only if it has not contracted the stain of sin; but if it could not be from that source without the guilt of sin, it has not come from that soul.

We now advance in reply to such as argue that one who is born of a baptized man ought himself to be regarded as already baptized. "For why," they ask, "could he not have been baptized in the loins of his father, when, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Levi was able to pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?" They who propose this argument ought to observe that Levi did not on this account subsequently not pay tithes, because he had paid tithes already in the loins of Abraham, but because he was ordained to the office of the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not to pay them; otherwise neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him, have been tithed—because they too, whilst in the loins of Abraham, had already paid tithes to Melchisedec.

How? "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi.

Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest: the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority passes on also to the descendants.

In a marvelous and triumphant way he cast out the Jewish system. On this account he said, "Ye are become dull," because he wished to lay these foundations, that they might not start away. Such is the wisdom of Paul, first preparing them well, he so leads them into what he wishes. For the human race is hard to persuade, and needs much attention, even more than plants. Since in that case there is only the nature of material bodies, and earth, which yields to the hands of the husbandmen: but in this there is will, which is liable to many alterations, and now prefers this, now that. For it quickly turns to evil.

"and so to speak." So that they may not say, "And what," he says, "was also tithing through Abraham?" Yes, he says. For Levi was in Abraham when he gave the tithes, even though he was not yet born. If therefore Levi was in the loins of Abraham when he gave the tithes, it is clear that Levi himself, the ancestor of the priests, gave tithes, when Abraham gave tithes. And the phrase, so to speak, means this, that, in short, or instead of saying, let me put it this way. For it seemed a bold statement to say that Levi, not yet born, was tithed by Melchizedek, and this was corrected.

Therefore, it is said that Abraham gave tithes, even Levi who receives tithes was himself tithed, that is, he gave tithes. Thus, concerning those words, "through Abraham," a distinction must be made so that the meaning becomes completely undeniable. For because of Abraham's tithing, in a certain way, Levi, who was still in his loins, was also tithing.

He says, that because Abraham paid tithes, also Levi "who receives tithes himself was made to tithe," that is, he gave a tithe. We must underscore the phrase "through Abraham," so that the meaning does not suffer violence. For because Abraham was made to tithe, in a certain sense also Levi, being still "in his loins" has been made to tithe.

So that the priests of the law could not say: what relation does it have to us if Abraham gave a tithe? – he says that through the mediation of Abraham, Levi too, the forefather of our priesthood, "who receives tithes,... paid tithes." Thus, is not Melchizedek superior even to Levi, when he evidently received a tithe from him as well, through the mediation of Abraham? The expression "so to speak" either means: to put it briefly, or instead of: so I will say. Since it seemed too bold to say that Levi, not yet having been born, paid tithes to Melchizedek, he softened this statement by using the figure of speech "so to speak."

345. – Then when he says, and one might say that even Levi who received tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, he answers an objection. For someone might say: it is true that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham who gave him tithes; but Levi is greater than Melchizedek. So the Apostle says that this is not valid, because one might say that through Abraham, i.e., through the medium of Abraham, even Levi paid tithes to him who received them, i.e., to Melchizedek. Therefore, he is still greater than Levi. But on the other hand, if the father of a bishop gives tithes, that is no reason why the bishop is less than the one who receives the tithes. Therefore, neither in the case at hand. I answer that the cases are not the same, because the entire dignity of the Jewish race and of its priests stemmed from Abraham; but in the case of a bishop, his entire dignity derives from Christ, not from his father.

"For he was still in the loins." The seed that was the beginning of Levi's life was within the loins of Abraham. Indeed, Isaac was the cause and origin of Levi.

He shows in what way Levi paid tithes, saying that since the forefather paid tithes, so too did he, by virtue of the fact that being already in the loins of Abraham, he was to be born from his seed, although he had not yet been born. And he did not say "the Levites," but Levi, in order to show the superiority. What boldness! He completely overturned everything Jewish. That is why he said before: "you have become dull of hearing" (Heb. 5:11), because he intended to set forth these truths and so that they would not turn away their hearing. So, having attuned and prepared them in advance, as he wished, he now says what he pleases. For the soul both retains and gives back the word not in the same way as the earth, having received a seed, will give it back. There it is nature, which is characterized by constancy; here it is free will, that which easily changes and is exceedingly varied. Therefore it is necessary for the teacher to prepare much in advance.

346. – Then (v. 10) he explains what he had said; and he says that Levi was still in the loins of his father, Abraham, when he gave tithes to Melchizedek, who met him. Consequently, when Abraham was tithed, Levi was tithed. But on the other hand: Christ, too, was in his loins, just as Levi: 'The son of David, the son of Abraham' (Mt. 1:1). Therefore, if the reason why Melchizedek is greater than Levi is that Levi was tithed, there seems to be no reason why Christ was not tithed; consequently, Melchizedek is still greater than Christ. And the same difficulty applies to original sin, because as it says in Romans (5:12): 'In whom all have sinned,' i.e., in Adam. Therefore, it seems that Christ, Who existed in him in the same way as we, should have contracted original sin. I answer that all this is understood in regard to those who were in Abraham or in Adam according to seminal reasons or bodily substance. For Christ was conceived in regard to His body from the most pure and holy matter of the Blessed Virgin, as it says in 3 Sent. d. 5.

"If therefore" (he says) "perfection were by the Levitical priesthood." Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how much superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great difference between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the wide difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect and the other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the matters themselves, but first contends on the ground of the priesthood, and the tabernacle. For these things would be more easily received by the unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things already allowed, and believed.

He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he argues from a different point. What then is this? Why (he says) did he not say, "after the order of Aaron"? And observe, I pray you, the great superiority of his argument. For from the very circumstance which naturally excluded His priesthood, viz. that He was not "after the order of Aaron," from that he establishes Him, and excludes the others. For this is the very thing that I say (he declares); why has He "not been made after the order of Aaron"?

And the saying "what further need" has much emphasis. For if Christ had been "after the order of Melchisedec" according to the flesh, and then afterwards the law had been introduced, and all that pertained to Aaron, one might reasonably say that the latter as being more perfect, annulled the former, seeing that it had come in after it. But if Christ comes later, and takes a different type, as that of His priesthood, it is evident that it is because those were imperfect. For (he would say) let us suppose for argument's sake, that all has been fulfilled, and that there is nothing imperfect in the priesthood. "What need" was there in that case that He should be called "after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron"? Why did He set aside Aaron, and introduce a different priesthood, that of Melchisedec? "If then perfection," that is the perfection of the things themselves, of the doctrines, of life, "had been by the Levitical priesthood."

And observe how he goes forward on his path. He had said that He was "after the order of Melchisedec," implying that the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec" is superior: for he was far superior. Afterwards he shows this from the time also, in that He was after Aaron; evidently as being better.

"For under it the people have received the Law [or have been legislated for]." What is "under it"? Ordereth itself by it; through it does all things. You cannot say that it was given to others, "the people under it have received the law," that is, have used it, and did use it. You cannot say indeed that it was perfect, it did not govern the people; "they have been legislated for upon it," that is, they used it.

When I compare the impoverishment of my insufficiency with the greatness of the gift I have received, I too should cry out in those words of the prophet, "Lord, I have heard your word and was afraid; I have considered your works and trembled." What indeed could instill as much anxiety and fear as labor for the frail, elevation for the lowly, dignity for the undeserving? Yet we do not despair or give up, since we do not depend on ourselves but on the one "who works in us." … So we have chanted with one voice the psalm of David, dearly beloved, not for our own exaltation but for the glory of Christ the Lord.He it is of whom it was said in prophetic manner, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," that is to say, "not according to the order of Aaron," whose priesthood passed down through the descent of his offspring and was a temporary ministry that ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but "after the order of Melchizedek," in whom the office of eternal high priest was prefigured. Since there is no mention of the parents he came from, he must be understood as standing for the one "whose genealogy cannot be told." Finally, since the mystery of this divine priesthood also extends to its implementation by people, it does not pass down through the course of generations. It is not what flesh and blood have created that is chosen. Rather, the privileges of paternity give way, and the social positions of families are disregarded, as the church accepts for its rulers those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared. Among the people of God's adoption, which is priestly and kingly when taken as a whole, the prerogative of earthly lineage does not obtain the anointing.

When Melchizedek had shown that he was superior to Levi and the priests, indeed even to the patriarch Abraham himself, he then demonstrated that this priesthood of the New Testament is superior to the Old, and that the new covenant is more perfect than the old covenant.If the Levitical priesthood had not been perfect, he says, what need was there for Christ to rise not according to the order of Aaron, who was also of the Levitical priesthood? But did he not need to rise according to the order ofMelchizedek? Is it not evident that this happened because of the imperfection, he says, through the Levitical priesthood? "for the people were constituted by it." For if the Levitical priesthood were perfect, it was necessary for Christ to arise from the lineage of Aaron, especially, he says, that the people are constituted to this Levitical priesthood, that is, to be used by it, to be arranged under it, to be led by it. Why then was it removed? Clearly because it was weak.

If the priesthood according to the law contained perfection, he is saying, on the grounds that through it everything according to the law was fulfilled, why is the giving of another one intended? Why on earth is the promise made to give it not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of Melchizedek? Actually, all the law's requirements were fulfilled in the former one: it offered sacrifices, it gave purification from defilement, through it the commandments about festivals were fulfilled, the text says, "for under it the people received the law."After thus demonstrating the change of priesthood, he shows also the cessation of the law. The law was liked to the priesthood; so with priesthood coming to an end, the law also suffered the same fate.

The mystery of the divine plan is worthy of admiration: as Christ the Lord, eternal king as he is, was styled our high priest, so the tribe of Judah, which was formerly kingly, attained the priesthood through the Lord.

He showed that Melchizedek in the priestly order was far superior to both Abraham and Levi. Now he again brings forth another proof, showing that the priesthood in Christ far surpasses the Levitical priesthood, and that the priesthood of Christ is a perfect priesthood, while that one was imperfect. For if the priesthood according to the law were perfect, then a priest would need to arise according to the order of Aaron, for Aaron was of the tribe of Levi. But it is said that a priest arises not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchizedek. Then, since that priesthood was imperfect, another is introduced in its place. And the expression "yet" has great significance; it is as if to say that if Christ according to the order of Melchizedek had come first, and then the law had been given, one could with all fairness say that the priesthood according to the law, that is, the priesthood of Aaron, was given on account of the priesthood of Melchizedek being, as it were, imperfect. But in reality Christ came afterward and received a different form of priesthood. From this it is evident that since the priesthood of Aaron was imperfect, another is introduced in its place. What then does the expression mean: "for under it the people received the law"? On this basis one cannot say that the priesthood of Aaron is perfect, that it was given for others and not for the Jews; on the contrary, it was given entirely to one people, and under it the people received the law, that is, it was ordained that they should use it, be guided by it, and accomplish all things through it. So why was it abolished? — evidently because it was powerless.

347. – Having proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek's priesthood over the Levitical, the Apostle now concludes to the excellence of Christ's priesthood over that of the Levitical. But as has been stated above from the beginning of ch. 7, the Apostle proves his proposition from three statements taken from the Psalmist: first, from the phrase, 'according to the order of Melchizedek.' Therefore, he proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek over Levi. Now according to the order of Melchizedek's priesthood, he proves Christ's pre-eminence over the Levitical. Hence, he lays great stress on the phrase, 'according to the order.' And he gives two reasons: the first concludes that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical; secondly, that it even makes it void (v. 15). In the first reason, which is conditional, he lays down two antecedents and two consequents: what further need would there have been for another priesthood to rise according to the order of Melchizedek?

348. – His reasoning is this: If the Levitical priesthood had been perfect, by whose ministry the Law was administered, there would have been no need for another priest according to another order through which another Law is administered, just as the Old Law was administered by the Levitical. But another priest has risen according to another order, namely, of Melchizedek. Therefore, the other was imperfect. Therefore, just as another priesthood has risen, so it is necessary that another Law arise. In this reasoning it is manifest that there are two antecedents, namely, one pertaining to the priesthood and the other pertaining to the Law. In regard to the first antecedent he says, if perfection was attainable by the Levitical priesthood. But in regard to the second he says that if a law is administered by a priesthood, which he proves, because under it, i.e., by its administration, the people received the law; not that the priesthood preceded the Law, but conversely. Hence, he states the second antecedent when he says, for under it the people received the law: 'The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth' (Mal. 2:7). But he makes mention of the priesthood specifically in order to pass to the Law, which was administered by the priestly office: for as a Gloss says, there can be no priest without a testament and a law and precepts. But the priesthood brought nothing to perfection, for its entire perfection was through the Law, which they administered; but as will be shown later: 'The law brought no one to perfection,' because it did not lead to the perfection of justice: 'Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven' (Mt. 5:20); likewise, it did not bring the perfection of heaven, because it did not bring one into life. A sign of this was that the lawgiver himself could not enter the promised land. But we have these two perfections through Christ: 'The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice' (Is. 10:22); 'A short word shall the Lord make upon the earth' (Rom. 9:28). These, therefore, are the antecedents.

349. – But he lays down the consequents when he says, what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron, i.e., he would not have said, according to the order of Melchizedek, but 'according to the order of Aaron.' Therefore, because He did not, it was imperfect. This is the entire first reason, through which it is clear that Christ's priesthood is preferred to the Levitical. The second reason proves that He even voided it, because the perfect voids the imperfect: 'When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away' (1 Cor. 13:10). Therefore, the priesthood of Christ does away with the Levitical.

What need was there then of another priesthood? "For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law also." But if there must be another priest, or rather another priesthood, there must needs be also another law. This is for those who say, What need was there of a new Covenant? For he could indeed have alleged a testimony from prophecy also. "This is the covenant which I made with your fathers." But for the present he contends on the ground of the priesthood. And observe, how he says this from the first. He said, "According to the order of Melchisedec." By this he excluded the order of Aaron. For he would not have said "After the order of Melchisedec," if the other had been better. If therefore another priesthood has been brought in, there must be also another Covenant; for neither is it possible that there should be a priest, without a covenant and laws and ordinances, nor that having received a different priesthood He should use the former covenant.

In the next place, as to the ground of objection: "How could He be a priest if He were not a Levite?" Having overthrown this by what had been said above, he does not even think it worth answering, but introduces it in passing. I said (he means) that the priesthood was changed, therefore also the Covenant is. And it was changed not only in its character, or in its ordinances, but also in its tribe. For of necessity it must be changed in its tribe also. How? "For the priesthood being changed [or transferred]," from tribe to tribe, from the sacerdotal to the regal tribe, that the same might be both regal and sacerdotal.

"For the priesthood being changed." See how skillfully he introduces the new covenant. Whenever, he says, there has been a change of the priesthood, so that it is no longer according to the order of Aaron, but a priest arises according to the order of Melchizedek, and no longer from the lineage of Levi but from the lineage of Judah (for from this lineage Christ became a priest according to the flesh), it is necessary, he says, for the law and the covenant to be changed, that is, to be altered, and for another newer one to be introduced.

Now he shows how the law is gradually abolished, and in its place another covenant is introduced. For if the priesthood is changed, then it is necessary that the law also be different, for a priest does not exist without a covenant and laws and ordinances. The priesthood was changed not only in form, that is, so that it was not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedek, but also in tribe. For it passed from the priestly tribe of Aaron to the royal tribe of Judah. Pay attention to the mystery. First there was the royal tribe, and then the priestly one: so also Christ was always King, but at the last became High Priest, when He assumed flesh and when He offered the sacrifice.

350. – The second consequent is that it also does away with the Law which was administered by it. He states this when he says, When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the Law was under the administration of the priesthood; therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that the Law be changed; just as a person who changes his mind about traveling by water, changes his mind about finding a ship. But every Law is ordained to leading one's life according to some rule. Hence, according to the Philosopher in the Politics, when the mode of life is changed, it is necessary for the law to be changed. But just as human law is ordained to human guidance, so a spiritual and divine law to divine guidance. But this guidance is regulated by a priesthood. Therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation be made of the Law.

351. – But he speaks carefully, because he does not say, 'The priest being translated': for the law does not regard the person of the priest. Hence, when the priest dies, the law is not changed, unless perchance the entire method and order of guidance is changed. Jeremiah speaks of change when he says: 'Behold, the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with your fathers' (Jer. 31:31); 'For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has delivered me from the law of sin and of death' (Rom. 8:2). For the Old Law is called the Law of sin and of death, because it did not confer grace ex opere operato, as the sacraments of the New Law do.

352. – But the Manicheans raise an objection here: If the Old Law was given by divine providence, which is immutable, the Law itself should be immutable; consequently, it should not be changed. Therefore, since it was changed, it was not given by divine providence. I answer, as Augustine says Against Faustus, that just as a wise dispenser by one and the same arrangement and providence gives different laws according as times and persons differ, one law for summer and another for winter, one for children and one for adults, one for perfect and another for imperfect, and yet is the same providence; so with divine providence remaining unchanged, the Law was changed to fit the times: because before the coming of Christ precepts were given to prefigure His coming, but after His coming, precepts were given to signify that He had come. Furthermore, the precepts were given to them as to children, but in the New Law as to the perfect. Hence, the Law is called a pedagogue, which is strictly for children. Therefore, if something given in the Law suggests perpetuity, this is by reason of the One prefigured.

353. – Likewise, a Gloss here states that this translation of the priesthood was prefigured in 1 Sam (2:28), when the priesthood was transferred to Samuel, who was not of the tribe of Levi. But because Samuel was not a priest, this transfer seems rather to have been prefigured by the transfer of the priesthood from Abiathar to Zadok, who was also a Levite. I answer that although Samuel was not a priest, he performed some priestly functions, because he offered sacrifices and anointed kings, namely, Saul and David. In this respect the priesthood had been transferred to him. Hence, it says in Ps. 98 (v. 6): 'Moses and Aaron among his priests: and Samuel among them that call upon his name.'

354. – Likewise, contrary to the Gloss is the fact that he was not of the tribe of Levi, because in 1 Chronicles (7:23) Elkanah, who was his father, is himself numbered among the sons of Levi. I answer that Samuel was in some sense from the tribe of Judah, namely, through his mother; but in regard to his father he was of the tribe of Levi, but not through Aaron; in regard to his place he was from Mount Ephraim. For although eleven tribes had their own provinces, the tribe of Levi did not, but he took possession among them, and so he dwelt in Mount Ephraim.

"For He of whom these things are spoken pertained to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests."

I myself also say it, I know that this tribe of Judah had nothing of priesthood. For there is a transferring.

And observe the mystery. First it was royal, and then it is become sacerdotal: so therefore also in regard to Christ: for King indeed He always was, but has become Priest from the time that He assumed the Flesh, that He offered the sacrifice. Thou seest the change, and the very things which were ground of objection these he introduces, as though the natural order of things required them.

"For he of whom these things are spoken." It is certainly said concerning Christ, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 7:17) "belongs to another tribe." And so great, he says, is the change and interchange of both the law and the old covenant, that even of that tribe, which administered the old priesthood, there has been a change. For Christ is of another tribe, not of Levi but of Judah, which tribe, neither at any time served as a priest at the altar.

He shows how the priesthood was changed according to tribe, and says that Christ ("of Whom" (ἐφ᾿ ὃν) instead of τον, περί ου – that is, "to Whom" the priesthood passed over) – is from another tribe, namely from Judah. "From which," namely from the tribe of Judah, "no one approached," that is, no one stood before the altar and performed priestly duties.

355. – Then when he says, he of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, he clarifies what he had said: first, that the priesthood was transferred; secondly, he explains this (v. 14).

356. – He says, therefore: It has been stated that the priesthood was transferred, because the one to whom the prophet said, 'You are a priest forever,' is of another tribe, namely, of Judah and not of Levi, as is clear from Matthew (1:3), from which tribe, namely, Judah, no one has served the altar. But on the other hand, King Uzziah entered the temple to burn incense, as it says in 2 Chronicles (26:16). I answer that no one could lawfully attend on the altar or even do so with impunity. For Uzziah was grievously punished, because he was a leper, until he died. If you say that it is wrong to say 'no one,' because the Blessed Virgin was of the tribe and family of Aaron, for she was related to Elizabeth, who was one of the daughters of Aaron (Lk. 1:5), I answer that among the families the most illustrious were the priestly and royal families. Hence, they were frequently joined in marriage, as is clear in the case of the first high priest, who took to wife the daughter of Aminadab, the sister of Nahshon, who was the leader of the tribe of Judah (Ex. 6:23). Furthermore, in 2 Kg (11) Jehoiada, a priest, took to wife Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram. Hence, it is possible that on one side, Elizabeth was of the tribe of Judah.

And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda.

For it is said, "that our Lord arose from Judah." The word "arose" is related to the fleshly birth of our Savior God. A crafted expression referring to the fleshly birth of our Savior, the word "arose," taken from the prophecy of Balaam, "A star shall rise out of Jacob," (Num. 24:17) saying; and also from Malachi (4:2), calling him the sun of righteousness. Through these, it is shown that the coming of the Lord was for the enlightenment of the world. "of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." For Moses was chosen from the tribe of Levi.

Significant is the expression "has dawned," taken both from the prophecy of Balaam, who says: "a star shall rise out of Jacob" (Num. 24:17), and also from the prophecy of Malachi, who calls Him "the Sun of righteousness" (Mal. 4:2). By this it is shown that the Lord appeared for the enlightenment of the world.

For all that pertains to the priesthood, Moses assigned to the tribe of Levi, while to the tribe of Judah he assigned what pertains to leadership in wars.

357. – Then he explains what he had said, saying, It is evident that our Lord descended from Judah: 'The lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered' (Rev. 5:5). In connection with that tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. For the Law commanded that no one be entrusted with the ministry of the tabernacle, except from the tribe of Levi only; hence, in the tribe of Judah, Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

"And it is yet far more evident, if after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest." What is evident? The interval between the two priesthoods, the difference; how much superior He is "who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment." (Who? Melchisedec? Nay; but Christ.)

And not only, he says, it is clear from this that the priesthood and the covenant have been changed from that of another tribe, and not from Levi, that the risen priest is from, but also it is evident from this more abundantly. Of which? From that according to the order of Melchizedek, and not according to the former priest Aaron, Christ became a priest. "if according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest." The "if," instead of "that," you will understand, or rather since; as if he said; And from this it is evident both the change and the transfer of the old covenant. Then according to the likeness. Since, he says, according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest, and not according to the likeness of Aaron.

What is "more clearly seen"? The middle ground between one priesthood and the other. Or that the change of priesthood and covenant is revealed not only from the fact that the priest arises from a different tribe, and by no means from that of Levi, but also, let us say this, is more fully revealed from this as well: that "after the likeness of Melchizedek" and so on. This means that after the order of Melchizedek a priest arises.

358. – Then when he says, This becomes even more evident, because above he had presented one reason to prove that Christ's priesthood is preferred over the Levitical and does away with it; he now presents the other reason, in which he shows why it is done away with and changed. To do this he makes use of a conditional, in the first of which he lays down two antecedents, and in the second two consequents. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he lays down those antecedents; secondly, he clarifies what he has said (v. 17).

Paul says, "If perfection had been attainable" through the Levitic house, "for under it the people received the law"—that is, through its agency the law of the people was declared—"what further need would there have been" to elevate another priest from another place, "rather than one named after the order of Aaron," who was the patriarch of those priests, "but after the order of" the uncircumcised "Melchizedek"?After thus proving the necessity to change priesthood, Paul begins again to prove that, with this change in the priesthood, the law is changed too. "When there is a change in the priesthood," he says, "there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Is there need of a sacrificial law, if sacrifices and priesthood have been abolished? So Melchizedek, "of whom these things are spoken" even though he was from that generation, came "from another tribe from which no one has ever served at the altar," and the one who received his priesthood was certainly not from the Levites, lest he might be estranged from Melchizedek because of his origin. In fact, "it is evident that our Lord" Jesus Christ "was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." For this reason Uzziah was stricken with leprosy, because he wanted to transfer priesthood by his action and move it to the house of Judah, before Jesus, who was from Judah, came and took it in his hour. "This becomes even more evident" because "another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent," that is, not by being appointed before the people through the aspersion, sanctification, and blood and anointment of priesthood, and through its garments. Our Lord, on the contrary, was appointed and accepted the priesthood "by the power of a life" which is not broken down by death. He accepted the priesthood through the oath proffered by David, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Therefore, "a former commandment is set aside," as well as the previous priesthood, "because of its weakness and uselessness" as a rule.

Yea and I am showing another difference also (he would say): not only from the tribe, nor yet only from the Person, nor from the character of the Priesthood, nor from the covenant, but also from the type itself. "Who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. He became" (he says) "a priest not according to the law of a carnal commandment": for that law was in many respects unlawful.

What is, "of a carnal commandment"? Circumcise the flesh, it says; anoint the flesh; wash the flesh; purify the flesh; shave the flesh; bind upon the flesh; cherish the flesh; rest as to the flesh. And again its blessings, what are they? Long life for the flesh; milk and honey for the flesh; peace for the flesh; luxury for the flesh. From this law Aaron received the priesthood; Melchisedec however not so.

"But according to the power of an endless life. For He testifieth, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"; that is, not for a time, nor having any limit, "but according to the power of an endless life," that is, by means of power, by means of "endless life."

And yet this does not follow after, "who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment": for what would follow would be to say, "but according to that of a spiritual one." However by "carnal," he implied temporary. As he says also in another place, "carnal ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

"According to the power of life," that is, because He lives by His own power.

"who has not become a priest according to the law of a fleshly commandment." For Christ has become a high priest, not according to the law of a commandment concerning flesh, but according to the power of an everlasting life. What is according to the law of a fleshly commandment? That the law had commandments concerning the flesh, such as circumcision, rest, this one to eat, and that one not to eat. Which was of the flesh and did not come to the purification of the soul, therefore he says, a priest according to the law of a fleshly commandments. For he knew the Levites as priests. But he says, Christ has become a priest, both by his own power and that of the Father, and by eternal life.

He is saying it is possible to bring out the likeness between the one and the other: as one did not have successors to his priesthood, so neither did the other transmit it to another—which he referred to as "bodily descent" because the law required on account of the mortality of human beings that after the death of the high priest his son would succeed to the priesthood. Now, in my view this phrase has another meaning as well: the priests cleansed the body in particular, sprinkling and washing it; they offered sacrifices for it. In other words, it was not for murderers or wreckers of others' marriages that they were in the habit of performing sacrifices, but for menstruating women, lepers and people who touched the bones of the dead.

He, Melchizedek, was not like the priests under the Law; they received the priesthood from the Law containing carnal commandments: circumcise the flesh, wash the flesh, rest in the flesh, and you shall be deemed worthy of carnal blessings. Melchizedek was not so, but by the power of God, which is why his priesthood is eternally living and indestructible. "Life" should be understood in the same way as above, namely, that his death is unknown. Or understand the word "who" as referring to the priest, as if he were saying: which other priest, that is, Christ, received the priesthood "not according to the law of a carnal commandment," but by the power of the Father, or by His own power, and His priesthood is indestructible. To the word "carnal" it would have been fitting to add the word "spiritual." Why then did he add "according to the power of an endless life"? Because through "carnal" he indicated what is temporal. And corresponding to the temporal, he added the expression "endless life." This means: Christ lives by His own power.

359. – His reasoning is this: If a new priest arises, this will not be according to the Law of a carnal commandment, but according to the Law of eternal and incorruptible life; the reason being that the first was according to that Law. It is proper, therefore, to say that the new one be according to another law, if a new one does actually arise. But a new one does arise. In the major premise are two statements: one pertains to the Old Testament, namely, that it is a carnal commandment, and this because it had certain carnal observances, as circumcision and purifications of the flesh, and because it promised carnal rewards and punishments: 'If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land' (Is. 1:19); 'Justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction' (Heb. 9:10). He lays down that antecedent when he says, and this becomes even more evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. It is clear that it pertains to the New Testament, which is not dispensed by carnal things, but consists of spiritual things: for it is founded upon a spiritual power, by which a perpetual life is produced in us; and this because perpetual goods and punishments are promised in it: 'But Christ, being come a high priest of the good things to come' (Heb. 9:11); 'And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just into life everlasting' (Mt. 25:46). Furthermore, it does not consist in carnal observances but in spiritual: 'The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life' (Jn. 6:64). And this is what he says, namely, that it is according to the power of an indestructible life.

And in the Apocalypse, John the apostle … says, "Who loved us and washed from us our sins in his blood." Not only did he wash away our sins in his blood when he gave his blood for us on the cross, or when each of us was cleansed in his baptism by the mystery of his most sacred passion. But he also takes away every day the sins of the world and washes us of our daily sins in his blood, when the memory of his blessed passion is reenacted on the altar, when a created thing, bread and wine, is transformed by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit into the sacrament of his flesh and blood. Thus his body and blood is not poured forth and slain by the hands of the unfaithful to their own ruin, but he is taken by the mouth of the faithful to their salvation.The lamb in the law of Passover rightly shows us a type of him, since, having once liberated the people from their Egyptian servitude, it sanctified the people every year by being immolated in memory of their liberation, until he came, to whom such a sacrificial offering gave testimony. When he was offered to the Father for us as a sacrificial offering and for a sweet savor, he transformed, by the lamb that was offered, the mystery of his passion into a created thing, bread and wine, having been made "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

It is better to be in doubt about hidden matters than to quarrel about what is uncertain. Let us turn to what is true and firm, to what most assuredly keeps any Christian and good Catholic from doubting or quibbling. That is, through the sacrament, bread and wine offered to God become for us the true body and blood of Christ, according to the words of the Lord himself and the sacred Scriptures composed by the Holy Spirit. This sacrament the Catholic church offers daily on its altar "after the order of Melchizedek" by the true pontiff, Jesus Christ, with mystical understanding and an ineffable dearth of speech, because surpassing grace goes beyond everything.

For it is testified of him, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Behold how in the clearest terms he speaks of Christ as a perpetual priest in virtue of His power and indissoluble life. How then is it possible for the Priest to be indissoluble whilst the Tabernacle, of which He is the minister, is subject to be dissolved? For he says: A minister of the sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man, thus here, as also in Heb. vi, 16, 17, and 20, and x, 34, expressly declaring it to be true and indissoluble.

"For it is testified." And that, he says, Christ has not become a priest according to the law of a fleshly commandment. The testimony indicates the Father; for the Father testifies to him, saying, a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. For if he says, according to the law he was made, he ought to have been made according to the order of Aaron.But now, since it is written according to the order of Melchizedek, it is evident that he is not made according to the law, but according to a different, more divine manner.

Just as the people of old, who were called the people of God, were divided into twelve tribes plus the levitical order, and this order itself, which engaged in service of the Divine, was divided into additional priestly and levitical orders, so, I think, all the people of Christ according to "the hidden person of the heart," who bear the name "Jew inwardly" and who have been circumcised "in spirit," possess the characteristics of the tribes in a more mystical manner.…Most of us who approach the teachings of Christ, since we have much time for the activities of life and offer a few acts to God, would perhaps be those from the tribes who have a little fellowship with the priests and support the service of God in a few things. But those who devote themselves to the divine Word and truly exist by the service of God alone will properly be said to be Levites and priests in accordance with the excellence of their activities in this work. And, perhaps, those who excel all others and who hold, as it were, the first places of their generation will be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but not according to the order of Melchizedek. If someone should object to this, thinking that we are impious when we prescribe the title of high priest for humans, since Jesus is proclaimed as great priest in many places—for we have "a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God"—we would have to say to him that the apostle indicated this when he said that the prophet said of Christ, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," and not after the order of Aaron. On this basis, we too say that humans can be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but only the Christ of God according to the order of Melchizedek.

He confirms why he said "of an endless life," and says that Scripture testifies that He is "a priest forever." Some, however, think that he is confirming not this, but that He is a priest not after the law of a carnal commandment. For if, he says, He were a priest according to the law, then it would be necessary to assert that He is after the order of Aaron. But now, since it is written, "after the order of Melchizedek," it is evident that it is not according to the law, but according to some other divine manner.

360. – Then when he says, For he testifies: 'You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek', he manifests what he had said; and he emphasizes the phrase forever, because if the priesthood is eternal, it is clear that it involves perpetuity.