Hebrews 7
Commentary from 31 fathers
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέρισεν Ἀβραάμ, πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ὅ ἐστι βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης,
є҆мꙋ́же и҆ десѧти́нꙋ ѿ всѣ́хъ ѿдѣлѝ а҆враа́мъ, пе́рвѣе ᲂу҆́бѡ сказꙋ́етсѧ цр҃ь пра́вды, пото́мъ же цр҃ь сали́мскїй, є҆́же є҆́сть, цр҃ь ми́ра,
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.
The Stromata Book 2
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.
The Stromata Book 4
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.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
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.
On the Son, Theological Oration 4(30).21
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.
Homily on Hebrews 12
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.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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).
Commentary on Hebrews
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές.
без̾ ѻ҆тца̀, без̾ ма́тере, без̾ при́чта ро́да, ни нача́ла днє́мъ, ни животꙋ̀ конца̀ и҆мѣ́ѧ, ᲂу҆подо́бленъ же сн҃ꙋ бж҃їю, пребыва́етъ сщ҃е́нникъ вы́нꙋ.
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.
Pseudo-Tertullian AGAINST ALL HERESIES 8
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.
The Divine Institutes Book 4, Chapter XIII
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.”
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
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.
On the Birth of Christ, Oration 38.2
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.
Exposition of the Christian Faith 3. [88-89]
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.
Homily on Hebrews 12
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.
Hebrew Questions on Genesis 14.18-19
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.
Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 7.3
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.”
Treatises Against Apollinaris 3.1
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.
Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 7.3
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.”
Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 7.14
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.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
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.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
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.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
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.
Dialogue 2
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.
Dialogue 2
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.
The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 7.3
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Θεωρεῖτε δὲ πηλίκος οὗτος, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην Ἀβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων ὁ πατριάρχης.
Ви́дите же, є҆ли́къ се́й, є҆мꙋ́же и҆ десѧти́нꙋ да́лъ є҆́сть а҆враа́мъ патрїа́рхъ ѿ и҆збра́нныхъ.
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.
Proof of the Gospel 4.15
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.
Commentary on Genesis 11.2.2-4
"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.
Homily on Hebrews 12
"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?"
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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).
Commentary on Hebrews
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the 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:
καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευῒ τὴν ἱερατείαν λαμβάνοντες ἐντολὴν ἔχουσιν ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαὸν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῶν, καίπερ ἐξεληλυθότας ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος Ἀβραάμ·
И҆ прїе́млющїи ᲂу҆́бѡ свѧще́нство ѿ сынѡ́въ леѵі̑инъ за́повѣдь и҆́мꙋтъ ѡ҆десѧ́тствовати лю́ди по зако́нꙋ, си́рѣчь, бра́тїю свою̀, а҆́ще и҆ ѿ чре́слъ а҆враа́мовыхъ и҆зше́дшꙋю:
5–10Through 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.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
"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.
Homily on Hebrews 12
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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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?
Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 7.5
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν δεδεκάτωκε τὸν Ἀβραάμ, καὶ τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελίας εὐλόγηκε.
не причита́емый же ро́домъ къ ни̑мъ, ѡ҆десѧ́тствова а҆враа́ма и҆ и҆мꙋ́щаго ѡ҆бѣтова̑нїѧ блгⷭ҇вѝ:
"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.
Homily on Hebrews 12
"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?
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
χωρὶς δὲ πάσης ἀντιλογίας τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται.
[Заⷱ҇ 316] без̾ всѧ́кагѡ же прекосло́вїѧ ме́ньшее ѿ бо́льшагѡ бл҃гословлѧ́етсѧ.
"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."
Homily on Hebrews 12
"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 Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
καὶ ὧδε μὲν δεκάτας ἀποθνήσκοντες ἄνθρωποι λαμβάνουσιν, ἐκεῖ δὲ μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ.
И҆ здѣ̀ ᲂу҆́бѡ десѧти̑ны человѣ́цы ᲂу҆мира́ющїи прїе́млютъ: та́мѡ же свидѣ́тельствꙋемый, ꙗ҆́кѡ жи́въ є҆́сть.
"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."
Homily on Hebrews 12
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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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).
Commentary on Hebrews
And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, διὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Λευῒ ὁ δεκάτας λαμβάνων δεδεκάτωται·
И҆ да си́це рекꙋ̀, а҆враа́момъ и҆ леѵі́й, прїе́млѧй десѧти̑ны, десѧти̑ны да́лъ є҆́сть:
9–10How? "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.
Homily on Hebrews 12
9–10Why 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.
On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10.19.34-21.37
9–10We now advance in reply to those who 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 it was not because he had paid tithes already in the loins of Abraham that Levi did not subsequently pay tithes, but because he was ordained to the office of the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not pay them. Otherwise, neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him, have been tithed—because they too, while in the loins of Abraham, had already paid tithes to Melchizedek.
On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism 2.39
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
9–10He 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.
Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 7.9-10
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."
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
ἔτι γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ πατρὸς ἦν ὅτε συνήντησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ.
є҆ще́ бо въ чре́слѣхъ ѻ҆́тчїихъ бѧ́ше, є҆гда̀ срѣ́те є҆го̀ мелхїседе́къ.
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν· ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο· τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
А҆́ще ᲂу҆́бѡ соверше́нство леѵі́тскимъ свѧще́нствомъ бы́ло, лю́дїе бо на не́мъ взако́нени бы́ша: ка́ѧ є҆щѐ потре́ба по чи́нꙋ мелхїседе́ковꙋ и҆но́мꙋ воста́ти свѧще́нникꙋ, а҆ не по чи́нꙋ а҆арѡ́новꙋ глаго́латисѧ;
"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.
Homily on Hebrews 13
"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.
Homily on Hebrews 13
11–12If 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.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
11–12The 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.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
11–12When 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.
Sermon 3.1
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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
μετατιθεμένης γὰρ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ νόμου μετάθεσις γίνεται.
прелага́емꙋ бо свѧще́нствꙋ, по нꙋ́жди и҆ зако́нꙋ премѣне́нїе быва́етъ.
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.
Homily on Hebrews 13
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.
Homily on Hebrews 13
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
ἐφ’ ὃν γὰρ λέγεται ταῦτα, φυλῆς ἑτέρας μετέσχηκεν, ἀφ’ ἧς οὐδεὶς προσέσχηκε τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ.
Ѡ҆ не́мже бо глаго́лютсѧ сїѧ̑, колѣ́нꙋ и҆но́мꙋ причасти́сѧ, ѿ негѡ́же никто́же пристꙋпѝ ко ѻ҆лтарю̀:
13–14"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.
Homily on Hebrews 13
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
πρόδηλον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξ Ἰούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, εἰς ἣν φυλὴν οὐδὲν περὶ ἱερωσύνης Μωϋσῆς ἐλάλησε.
ꙗ҆́вѣ бо, ꙗ҆́кѡ ѿ колѣ́на і҆ꙋ́дова возсїѧ̀ гдⷭ҇ь на́шъ, ѡ҆ не́мже колѣ́нѣ мѡѷсе́й ѡ҆ свѧще́нствѣ ничесо́же глаго́ла.
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.
The Epistle to Aristides
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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισεδὲκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος,
И҆ ли́шше є҆щѐ ꙗ҆́вѣ є҆́сть, ꙗ҆́кѡ по подо́бїю мелхїседе́ковꙋ востае́тъ сщ҃е́нникъ и҆́нъ,
"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.)
Homily on Hebrews 13
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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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).
Commentary on Hebrews
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
ὃς οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου·
и҆́же не по зако́нꙋ за́повѣди плотскі́ѧ бы́сть, но по си́лѣ живота̀ неразрꙋша́емагѡ.
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.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
16–17Yea 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.
Homily on Hebrews 13
16–17"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.
Homily on Hebrews 13
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.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
μαρτυρεῖ γὰρ ὅτι σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ.
Свидѣ́тельствꙋетъ бо, ꙗ҆́кѡ ты̀ є҆сѝ сщ҃е́нникъ во вѣ́къ по чи́нꙋ мелхїседе́ковꙋ.
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.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.1, 1.10-11
"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.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
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.
Letter 42
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.”
Homilies on the Gospels 1.15
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
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.
Commentary on Hebrews
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Ἀθέτησις μὲν γὰρ γίνεται προαγούσης ἐντολῆς διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές·
[Заⷱ҇ 317] Ѿлага́нїе ᲂу҆́бѡ быва́етъ пре́жде бы́вшїѧ за́повѣди за не́мощное є҆ѧ̀ и҆ неполе́зное:
18–19We may also ask what it means when it says in the law that Moses’ face was shining with glory, though covered with a veil, while his hand when put “into his bosom” became “leprous as snow.” In this it seems to me the form of the whole law is quite fully described. For his “face” is the word of the law, and by “hand” are described the works of the law. “For no human being will be justified by works of the law.” Nor could the law lead anyone to “perfection.” In the same way the “leprous” hand of Moses was hidden in his bosom, since it could not perform any perfect work; but his face shone, though covered with a veil, since his word has the glory of knowledge, but a hidden glory.
Homilies on Exodus 12.3
18–19Because of their earthly voluptuousness and desire for pleasure, which the former priests showed, and because of their infirmity, through which they made their people infirm before their cupidities, they did not bring any of them to that perfection, thanks to which we got rid of all our material goods. In fact, “the introduction” of the gospel made for the hope which surpassed what was previously preached to us, was also made for the introduction of this precept: through our own freedom from material possessions “we approach God,” whereas through the voluptuousness and pleasures of the law we were rejected and removed from God.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Here the Heretics press on. But listen attentively. He did not say "for the evil," nor, "for the viciousness," but "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," yea and in other places also he shows the weakness; as when he says "In that it was weak through the flesh." The law itself then is not weak, but we.
Homily on Hebrews 13
18–19The law ceases to have effect, he is saying, and the hope of better things is introduced. It ceases to have effect, not for being evil (the frenzied view of the heretics), but for being ineffective and incapable of providing the perfect benefit. It must be noted, of course, that he refers to the obsolete prescriptions of the law as ineffective and useless—circumcision, sabbath observance and similar things; the New Testament also bids us observe to a greater extent the commandments, you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, and suchlike things. In place of the former, therefore, we receive the hope of the good things to come: it relates us to God.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
He said that the new covenant is better. And this indicates, he says, the difference of the priests. He said that everything has changed. Therefore, he speaks of the reason for the change, and he says, "For annulment occurs of the preceding command." Therefore, an annulment occurs when the preceding commandment is in force, that is, of the older law. Not simply, but then when it was found to be weak and unprofitable. Since there is no fault, what need is there for the change? Therefore, he says, this is also the law. For this, the preceding commandment has been annulled due to weakness and uselessness.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
He said that the law undergoes a change, and he demonstrated this. Next he seeks out the reason as well. For we humans find rest only when we learn the reason. And he says: the annulment and rejection of the formerly existing commandment, that is, of the formerly existing covenant, occurred because it was found to be unprofitable and weak. So then, what? Did the law bring no one any benefit? Of course it brought benefit, but it proved useless for making people perfect.
Commentary on Hebrews
361. – Then when he says, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside, he lays down two consequents: first, in regard to the voiding of the Old Testament; secondly, the institution of the New.
362. – The first consequent is that the Old Testament came about by the law of carnal commandments, and the other is then introduced. The first, therefore, is changed: and this is what he says, namely, there is a setting aside of the former commandment. But nothing is set aside except what is evil: 'That he may know how to refuse the evil' (Is. 7:15). But the commandment is not evil: 'The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good' (Rom. 7:12). I answer that it was not evil in itself, but inasmuch as it was unsuited to the time. For the things of the Old Testament are not to be kept in the New Testament: 'Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire: then said I: behold, I come' (Ps. 39:8). Therefore, it is said to be set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. For that is said to be weak which cannot produce its effect; but the proper effect of the Law and of the priesthood is to justify. This the Law was unable to do: 'For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin has condemned sin in the flesh' (Rom. 8:3); 'How turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again?' (Gal. 4:9). Likewise, it is called useless, inasmuch as it prepared one for the faith: 'All these died according to the flesh, not having received the promises' (Heb. 11:13). But he shows why it is weak and useless when he says, it made nothing perfect in regard to justice or eternal life. Hence, it was imperfect, but it was made perfect by Christ.
Commentary on Hebrews
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, ἐπεισαγωγὴ δὲ κρείττονος ἐλπίδος, δι’ ἧς ἐγγίζομεν τῷ Θεῷ.
ничто́же бо соверши́лъ зако́нъ: привведе́нїе же є҆́сть лꙋ́чшемꙋ ᲂу҆пова́нїю, и҆́мже приближа́емсѧ къ бг҃ꙋ.
"For the Law made nothing perfect." What is, "make nothing perfect"? Made no man perfect, being disobeyed. And besides, even if it had been listened to, it would not have made one perfect and virtuous. But as yet he does not say this here, but that it had no strength: and with good reason. For written precepts were there set down, Do this and Do not that, being enjoined only, and not giving power within. But "the Hope" is not such.
What is "a disannulling"? A casting out. A "disannulling" is a disannulling of things which are of force. So that he implied, that it once was of force, but henceforward was of no account, since it accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of use; and of great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For in this respect he says, "The Law made nothing perfect." All were figures, all shadows; circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. Therefore they could not reach through the soul, wherefore they pass away and gradually withdraw. "But the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh unto God."
Homily on Hebrews 13
"But the bringing in of a better hope." For that system also had a hope, but not such as this. For they hoped that, if they were well pleasing to God, they should possess the land, that they should suffer nothing fearful. But in this dispensation we hope that, if we are well pleasing to God, we shall possess not earth, but heaven; or rather (which is far better than this) we hope to stand near to God, to come unto the very throne of the Father, to minister unto Him with the Angels. And see how he introduces these things by little and little. For above he says "which entereth into that within the veil", but here, "by which we draw nigh unto God."
Homily on Hebrews 13
For the law was not able to produce any perfection in virtue. For it only said, "Do this," and "Do not do that," and it was no longer able to strengthen and assist in bringing about what was said, which now happens to us through the Spirit. "but is a certain introduction." It is done in common. "of a greater hope." For the law had hope, but not such as that which was introduced. For those who were observing the law hoped to possess the land. "For you shall eat the good things of the land," (Is. 1:19) but the hope through Christ gives the kingdom of heaven, and the nearness to stand before God, and to serve Him with angels.He said above (Heb. 4:6): Entering into the inner part of the veil; but now: Through which we draw near to God, he says; for the hope that is with him leads us to the divine throne, and stands with the Cherubim.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
Why then was the law weak? Because in it only mere letters were proclaimed: do this and do not do that; but it imparted no power for the fulfillment of the commandments, which is now granted to us by the Spirit. However, here the heretics who revile the law attack, saying: even Paul himself disparages the law. But he, O fools, did not call it bad, but unprofitable and weak precisely for the purpose of making people perfect. For just as milk is beneficial to infants, suited to their age, yet is useless for the mature, so also the law was beneficial for the immature Jews, drawing them away from idols and leading them to God, imparting to them commandments suited to their condition, but for those who needed more perfect commandments it was not sufficient. For it prescribed fleshly sacrifices and purifications, which the spiritual do not need. Therefore it has now been annulled. And annulment is the annulment of that which had force. Thus the law held authority at the time when its time had come.
The commandment of the law, he says, has been annulled, and a hope has been introduced, such as the Jews did not have: for they too had a hope, that by pleasing God they would possess the land, overcome their enemies, and in general they placed their hope in bodily goods. But our hope is not of this kind; it is far superior: for we hope for heavenly things, that we shall be near God, that we shall stand before Him and serve Him with the angels. Above he said: "which enters into that within the veil" (Heb. 6:19), but now: "through which we draw near," he says, "to God." For hope brings us to the very throne of God and sets us together with the cherubim.
Commentary on Hebrews
363. – Then when he says, on the other hand a better hope is introduced, he lays down the second consequent from the second antecedent, saying, a better hope is introduced by the new priest, through which we draw near to God. For if a new priest arises, it is according to the power of an indestructible life (this is the antecedent); and the introduction of a better hope (this is the consequent): 'He has regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ' (1 Pt 1:3). Likewise, through Him we draw near to God, for through sin we are separated from Him: 'But your iniquities have divided you between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear' (Is. 59:2). He, therefore, is the one who removes this and makes us draw near to God. He is that new Priest, namely, Christ, Who takes away the sins of the world: 'Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access into this grace' (Rom. 5:1).
Commentary on Hebrews
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
καὶ καθ’ ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας· οἱ μὲν γὰρ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες,
И҆ по є҆ли́кꙋ не без̾ клѧ́твы:
20–25In the house of Levi, because “they became priests without an oath,” they did not last; he, on the contrary, lasts forever. In fact, it cannot happen that he speaks falsely about the oath, because he said, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’ ” of the priests according to the order of Melchizedek. And “Jesus Christ” was “a much better” mediator than the former priests in that thing, which he promised us through the New Testament.While before it was necessary that the priests were many, because death interrupted the older ones in the course of their office and they did not last forever, now there is no other high priest with our Lord, “who lives forever to make intercession for us,” not in the victims of the sacrifices but in prayers.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
20–25“And he is able for all time to save us,” not in the earthly delights, which nourish us for a few days, but “when we draw near to God through him” in eternity.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
"And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath." Thou seest that the matter of the oath becomes necessary for him here. Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much hereon, how that God swore; and swore for the sake of our fuller assurance.
Homily on Hebrews 13
20–22He says that it shows the difference between Christ and Aaron in that Christ received the priesthood with an oath. For those who became priests without oaths became so because of their need to cease being priests at some time, but Christ entered the priesthood with oaths, since he intended to remain based on his rank. He shows his rank is far greater than those under the law, since he intended also to furnish a greater high priest to those coming to him. For in this way he says he becomes “a surety” … for being the first to rise, just as he also calls him a “high priest,” so he pledges to us a similar resurrection.
Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 7.20-22
20–21Since he was the one who under the law appointed priests but brought them to an end and declared another in their place, he was obliged to say that he appointed them without taking an oath, but in his case included an oath as well. Do not think, then, that this priesthood will cease to have effect like that one, or that another one will take its place; the taking of an oath excludes such a false impression.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
"because the matter was not done without an oath." And so much, he says, the hope has been greatly improved, insofar as Christ has become a priest without an oath. For the oath indicates the unchangeable nature of his being a high priest forever.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
Here is another distinction of the new Priest from the ancient ones and of one covenant from the other. For the priesthood of Christ was promised not simply, but with an oath, so that the word of God would be fully believed, just as above, for greater persuasiveness, he said that God swore to Abraham (Heb. 6:13).
Commentary on Hebrews
364. – Having proved by the authority of the Psalmist that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical and does away with it, the Apostle now proves the same thing by two other authorities: first, from the fact that he says, 'The Lord has sworn'; secondly, that he says, 'You are a priest' (v. 23).
Commentary on Hebrews
(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν· ὤμοσε Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται· σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ·
ѻ҆ни́ бо без̾ клѧ́твы свѧще́нницы бы́ша, се́й же съ клѧ́твою чрез̾ глаго́лющаго къ немꙋ̀: клѧ́тсѧ гдⷭ҇ь и҆ не раска́етсѧ: ты̀ є҆сѝ сщ҃е́нникъ во вѣ́къ по чи́нꙋ мелхїседе́ковꙋ:
For also our Father, on beholding the Good One, and on being initiated with Him, preserved the mysteries respecting which silence is enjoined, and sware, as it has been written, "The Lord sware, and will not repent.". And this oath, (Justinus) says, our Father Elohim sware when He was beside the Good One, and having sworn He did not repent (of the oath), respecting which, he says, it has been written, "The Lord sware, and will not repent."
Refutation of All Heresies Book 5
Whence also the prophet says, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
21–24"And inasmuch as not without an oath." What is "And inasmuch as not without an oath"? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). "For those priests were made without an oath, but This with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant." He lays down two points of difference, that it hath no end as the covenant of the Law had; and this he proves from its being Christ who exercises the priesthood; for he says "according to the power of an endless life." And he proves it also from the oath, because "He swore," and from the fact; for if the other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How? Because He is One only; and there would not have been One only, unless He had been immortal. For as there were many priests, because they were mortal, so here is The One, because He is immortal. "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant," inasmuch as He swore to Him that He should always be Priest; which He would not have done, if He were not living.
Homily on Hebrews 13
"For they indeed became priests without an oath." Then, from the lesser, the comparisons of the priests among the Jews and our High Priest.For the legal priests, he says, were made priests without an oath; for God never found it necessary to swear: "You shall be a priest according to the law." But Christ, with an oath, made by the one who said to Him, as it were, by God; for God spoke through David: "You are a priest," in a certain new way; for He is not according to Aaron, but according to Melchizedek.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
For, he says, the priests of the law are appointed without an oath, and God swore concerning none of them, saying: you shall be a priest according to the law. But Christ with an oath, given through God, who says to Him: You are a priest according to a certain new order: not according to Aaron, but according to Melchizedek.
Commentary on Hebrews
365. – In regard to the first he forms the following argument: That which is instituted without an oath is less valid than that which is instituted with an oath. But the priesthood of Christ was instituted with an oath, as is clear from what he says, the Lord has sworn; but not the priesthood of Aaron, as is clear from Exodus (28:1): 'Take unto you also Aaron', therefore, etc. In regard to the major premise he says, and it was not without an oath. Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath. All this is set down to prove that the priesthood of Christ is firmer; because, as has been stated above, every promise made in the Old Testament by an oath is a sign of God's unchangeable plan. Therefore, because that promise about Christ was made with an oath of David and to Abraham, Christ is called their son in a special way (Mt. 1:1). But that oath designates the eternity of Christ's power: 'His power is an everlasting power' (Dan. 7:14); 'And of his kingdom there will be no end' (Lk. 1:33).
Commentary on Hebrews
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
κατὰ τοσοῦτον κρείττονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος Ἰησοῦς.
по толи́кꙋ лꙋ́чшагѡ завѣ́та бы́сть и҆спорꙋ́чникъ і҆и҃съ.
Since the New Covenant promised us the kingdom of heaven, resurrection from the dead and life everlasting, though none of these is in sight, he had to call the Lord Jesus its "surety," who through his own resurrection confirmed the hope of our resurrection, on the one hand, and on the other continued to give his own resurrection through the miracles worked by the apostles.
Interpretation of Hebrews 7
"by the one who said to him." As through God. For God spoke through David, "So much better is Jesus." "For," he says, "they indeed became priests without an oath, but Christ has become a high priest with an oath. And this would not have happened, he says, if the difference were not great. Therefore, there is also a great difference between the new and the old." "the Guarantor [Έγγυος]." Like a guarantor [ἐγγυητὴς], Mediator.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
That is, since He swore that He would always be a priest. For He would not have sworn if He were not superior. Hence the New Testament is also superior to the Old.
Commentary on Hebrews
366. – This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant, because His priesthood is firmer, which is evident, because it was set up with an oath. Therefore, it is necessary that something better and firmer be obtained by it. But it should be noted that a priest is a mediator between God and the people: 'I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you' (Deut. 5:5). But a priest should bring God and the people to concord. And this is done, as it were, by a pact dealing with temporal goods, in which only the affection for carnal things rested, as it says in Ps. 72 (v. 25): 'For what have I in heaven? and besides you what do I desire upon earth?' Consequently, it was fitting that another priest should come to be a surety, i.e., a promise, of a better testament and of a better pact, because it is concerned with spiritual and stable goods; and this is Jesus: 'I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers' (Jer. 31:31); 'Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Mt. 4:17).
Commentary on Hebrews
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
καὶ οἱ μὲν πλείονές εἰσι γεγονότες ἱερεῖς διὰ τὸ θανάτῳ κωλύεσθαι παραμένειν·
И҆ ѻ҆нѝ мно́жайши свѧще́нницы бы́ша, занѐ сме́ртїю возбране́ни сꙋ́ть пребыва́ти:
"And indeed, there were many." And according to another, he says, the high priest is greater than us, not only because of the oath, but also because he is immortal. "because they were prevented by death." For it is through death and change, namely of the priest.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
And here he shows the advantage that Christ has in comparison with the high priests according to the law, and says that there are many priests there, because they are mortal; but here there is one, because He is immortal.
Commentary on Hebrews
367. – Then when he says, the former priests were many in number, he uses another clause stated in the authority: You are a priest forever. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows why this phrase forever, is used; secondly, from this he shows that the priesthood of Christ has greater efficacy than the priesthood of the Old Testament (v. 25).
Commentary on Hebrews
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
ὁ δὲ διὰ τὸ μένειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην·
се́й же, зане́же пребыва́етъ во вѣ́ки, непрестꙋ́пное и҆́мать сщ҃е́нство,
"from continuing." in the priesthood, namely, "permanently." Lacking succession, forever, "Therefore." Since he always living. "always." Not only in this age, but also in the future. For this is what they want entirely and completely.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
"He has a priesthood that does not pass away," that is, one that is shared with no one and not transferable. Do you see how much higher it is? As much as the immortal is higher than the mortal.
Commentary on Hebrews
368. – He shows that he is the true priest, because the others were prevented by death from continuing, because all must die. Hence, when Aaron died, Eleazar succeeded, as is clear from Numbers (20:28) and so on. For as we notice in natural things, which are signs of spiritual things, incorruptible things are not multiplied under the same species; hence, there is but one sun: so in the spiritual things in the Old Testament, which was imperfect, the priests were multiplied. This was a sign that the priesthood was corruptible, because incorruptible things are not multiplied in the same species. But the priest who is Christ is immortal, for He remains forever as the eternal Word of the Father, from Whose eternity redounds an eternity to His body, because 'Christ rising from the dead, dies now no more' (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, because he continues forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. Therefore, Christ alone is the true priest, but others are His ministers: 'Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ' (1 Cor. 4:1).
Commentary on Hebrews
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
ὅθεν καὶ σῴζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους δι’ αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.
тѣ́мже и҆ спⷭ҇тѝ до конца̀ мо́жетъ приходѧ́щихъ чрез̾ него̀ къ бг҃ꙋ, всегда̀ жи́въ сы́й, во є҆́же хода́тайствовати ѡ҆ ни́хъ.
Jesus now stands “before the face of God interceding for us.” He stands before the altar to offer a propitiation to God for us. As he was about to approach that altar, moreover, he was saying, “I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you.” Therefore, he expects us to be converted, to imitate his example, to follow his footsteps, that he may rejoice with us and “drink wine with us in his Father’s kingdom.” For now, because “the Lord is merciful and gracious,” he “weeps with those who weep and desires to rejoice with those who rejoice” with greater feeling than this apostle. And how much more “this one mourns over many of those who sinned before and have not repented.” For we must not think that Paul is mourning for sinners and weeping for those who transgress, but Jesus my Lord abstains from weeping when he approaches the Father, when he stands at the altar and offers a propitiatory sacrifice for us. This is not to drink the wine of joy “when he ascends to the altar” because he is still bearing the bitterness of our sins. He, therefore, does not want to be the only one to drink wine “in the kingdom” of God. He waits for us, just as he said, “Until I shall drink it with you.” Thus we are those who, neglecting our life, delay his joy.
Homilies on Leviticus 7.2
Petition does not imply here, as it does in popular parlance, a desire for legal satisfaction; there is something humiliating in the idea. No, it means interceding for us in his role of mediator, in the way that the Spirit too is spoken of as “making petition” on our behalf. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Even at this moment he is, as human, interceding for my salvation, until he makes me divine by the power of his incarnate humanity. “As human,” I say, because he still has with him the body he assumed, though he is no longer “regarded as human,” meaning the bodily experiences, which, sin aside, are ours and his. This is the “advocate” we have in Jesus—not a slave who falls prostrate before the Father on our behalf. Get rid of what is really a slavish suspicion, unworthy of the Spirit. It is not in God to make the demand, nor in the Son to submit to it; the thought is unjust to God. No, it is by what he suffered as man that he persuades us, as Word and encourager, to endure. That, for me, is the meaning of his “advocacy.”
On the Son, Theological Oration 4(30).14
"Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." Thou seest that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when He appears as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, "who also maketh intercession for us," he hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He "that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them," and that "even as the Father" doth, how is it that when there is need to save, He "maketh intercession"? He that hath "all judgment," how is it that He "maketh intercession"? He that "sendeth His angels," that they may "cast" some into "the furnace," and save others, how is it that He "maketh intercession"? Wherefore (he says) "He is able also to save." For this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as "He ever liveth," He hath (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there under the Law indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was High Priest (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but "He" saves "to the uttermost."
What is "to the uttermost"? He hints at some mystery. Not here only (he says) but there also He saves them that "come unto God by Him." How does He save? "In that He ever liveth" (he says) "to make intercession for them." Thou seest the humiliation? Thou seest the manhood? For he says not, that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but continually, and whensoever it may be needful to intercede for them.
"To the uttermost." What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life. Does He then always need to pray? Yet how can this be reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimes accomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then is He throned with the Father? Thou seest that it is a condescension. The meaning is: Be not afraid, nor say, Yea, He loves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the Father, but He cannot live always. For He doth live alway.
Homily on Hebrews 13
"those who come to God." Through the faith that is in Him. For whoever believes in the Son, comes to the Father certainly; for he himself is the way to the Father, and whoever takes hold of this, dwells there. "always living." Therefore, He saves completely, because He always lives. Furthermore, He saves because He intercedes for those who approach God the Father. "to intercede for them." Concerning Christ, as He is according to the flesh, this humble word has been said. However, when I say according to the flesh, I do not mean division. Far from it: but I know Him to be worshiped indivisibly, without confusion in one hypostasis along with His flesh. But what does it mean, "to intercede for them "? For example, He asks his Father on our behalf. For when he called him a priest, it is characteristic of a priest to ask on behalf of the people; for this reason, he said, "to intercede." That this has been said for this reason is evident. For He who raises the dead by His own authority, forgives sins, does not need the Father to save, as if He were powerless to save by His own power.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
What he says: "to intercede," take as what is said: "We have an advocate with the Father." (1 Jn. 2:1) From His very incarnation, He asks and intercedes with the Father that He may have mercy on us.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
Since, he says, He is immortal, He can intercede for all and save to the uttermost, that is, He can grant salvation not temporary, but complete, and naturally, both here and in the life to come. For the high priest in the Old Testament, however illustrious he may have been, offered sacrifices to God during the time he lived, such as Samuel and those like him, but after that no longer, for he died. But here the High Priest is eternal and ever-living. Therefore He can always save those who come through Him, that is, through faith in Him. For whoever believes in the Son undoubtedly draws near to the Father, for He is the way to the Father, and whoever held to this way here receives rest there.
This is said in such a humble manner about Christ according to the flesh. For indeed, He is the High Priest according to the flesh; and inasmuch as He is the High Priest, it is said that He intercedes. How does He who raises the dead and gives life, as the Father does, intercede, when it is His to save? How does He intercede, in whose power is all judgment, who sends angels to cast some into the furnace and to save others? Of course, He said "to intercede" according to His humanity. Condescending to his listeners, Paul says: do not be afraid and do not say: yes, He loves us and has boldness before the Father, but He cannot always accomplish the high-priestly work on our behalf. When I speak of His humanity, I do not separate Him from the Divinity, for both have one hypostasis, but I give the listeners to understand what is proper concerning each nature. Moreover, the very fact that the Son sits with the Father in the flesh is itself an intercession for us: as it were, the flesh entreats the Father on our behalf; certainly, it was assumed for this very reason, namely for our salvation.
Commentary on Hebrews
369. – Then (v. 25) he shows His efficacy. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows His efficacy; secondly, the mode of His efficacy (v. 25b).
370. – His efficacy lies in the fact that the cause is more potent than its effect; therefore, a temporal cause cannot produce an eternal effect. But Christ's priesthood is eternal; but not the Levitical, as has been proved. Therefore Christ is able to save for all time. But this could not be done, unless He had divine power: 'Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation' (Is. 45:17).
371. – But the mode is that He goes by Himself to God. And he describes that mode from three standpoints, namely, from the excellence of His power, of His nature, and of His piety. Of His power, indeed, because by Himself. But on the other hand one who goes to another is distant from him. But Christ is not distant from God. I answer that in those words the Apostle shows forth the two natures: namely, the human according to which it befits Him to come to God, because in it He is distant from God (but He does not go from a state of guilt to a state of grace, but He goes by the intellect's contemplation and by love and by the attainment of glory), and the divine nature by the fact that he says that He goes to God by Himself. For if He were pure man, He could not go by Himself: 'No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him' (Jn. 6:44). Therefore, when the Apostle says that He comes by Himself, he is showing forth His power: 'Walking in the greatness of his strength' (Is. 63:1). Therefore, He comes as man, but by Himself as God.
372. – He shows the excellence of His nature when he says, always living; for otherwise His priesthood would come to an end: 'I was dead and behold I am living forever and ever' (Rev. 1:18).
373. – He shows the excellence of His piety when he says, to make intercession for them, because, although He is so powerful, so lofty, yet along with this He is pious, for He makes intercession for us: 'We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the just' (1 Jn. 2:1). He interposes for us, first, His human nature, which He assumed for us by representing; secondly, His most holy soul's desire, which He had for our salvation and with which He intercedes for us. Another version has, 'coming by Him,' and then those whom He saves are designated, because they come to God by faith in Him: 'Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access by faith into this grace' (Rom. 5:1).
Commentary on Hebrews
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς, ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος,
[Заⷱ҇ 318] Тако́въ бо на́мъ подоба́ше а҆рхїере́й: прпⷣбенъ, неѕло́бивъ, безскве́рненъ, ѿлꙋче́нъ ѿ грѣ̑шникъ и҆ вы́шше нб҃съ бы́вый,
For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners.
On Modesty
26–27“It was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners … who had no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself,” not for him but for the sins of humankind.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
"For such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from the sinners." Thou seest that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I say "the manhood," I mean the manhood having Godhead; not dividing one from the other, but leaving you to suppose what is suitable.) Didst thou mark the difference of the High Priest? He has summed up what was said before, "in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin." "For" (he says) "such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless." "Harmless": what is it? Without wickedness: that which another Prophet says: "guile was not found in His mouth," that is, He is not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning Him, however, in respect of the Flesh, it might be reasonable to say it. "Holy, undefiled." This too would any one say concerning God? For has He a nature capable of defilement? "Separate from sinners."
Homily on Hebrews 13
26–27Who then is so just and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need of a sacrifice for the washing away of his own sins, neither original sins nor those that are added from human life? And what could be so fittingly chosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so suitable for this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansing the vices of mortals as the flesh born in the womb without the contagion of carnal concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? And what could be so acceptably offered and received as the flesh of our sacrifice made the body of our priest? Four things are to be considered in every sacrifice: by whom it is offered, to whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered.
On the Trinity 4.14.19
It is obvious from these things that he is speaking about Christ according to the flesh in the preceding statements and these as well. For how could he say such things about divinity and not be ashamed, attributing these things to that incomprehensible nature? Therefore, he is holy, who neglects none of the things owed to him. He is innocent, blameless, and without deceit. "For no deceit," he says, "was found in His mouth." (Is. 53:9) "unstained."No one would call this a praise of God; for it is in his nature not to be defiled. But it is clear that this concerns the humanity of the one Christ. "separated from sinners." The chief priests among the Jews, he says, even if they were holy in other respects, as human beings they are still subject to evil and are not entirely separated from sinners; for how could they be, if they themselves are guilty of sins? "and exalted above the heavens." For He sat down on the throne of the Father. But does the term "exalted" not cry out that he speaks about His flesh? For the Word of God was always higher than the heavens.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
From these words it is clear that both above and now he speaks of the flesh. For who could say such a thing about God, and would he not be ashamed, applying this to the incomprehensible nature of God? So, He is "holy." Such a One Who leaves nothing undone that it is fitting for Him to accomplish; and "undefiled by evil," that is, free from guile and evil. "Neither was deceit found in His mouth" (Isa. 53:9; cf. 1 Pet. 2:22).
And this also, who can call it praise for God: for He has such a nature that He is not defiled. It is clear that he says this about the humanity of the one Christ.
The high priests according to the law, he says, even if they were holy in all other respects, nevertheless, being human, were not free from faults and not entirely "separated from sinners." For how could they be, if they themselves were partakers of transgressions? And besides, none of them was in heaven; but our High Priest, together with the fact that He is filled with every virtue and "separated from sinners," is also "exalted above the heavens," having sat down upon the very throne of the Father. The expression "exalted," as is evident, is used of Him according to the flesh. For, as God the Word, He was always "above the heavens."
Commentary on Hebrews
374. – Then when he says, for it was fitting that we have such a high priest, he shows from Christ's excellence the excellence of His priesthood. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that the perfections of the conditions required for the priesthood of the Old Law suited Him; secondly, that He has no imperfections (v. 27).
375. – So he sets down four qualities in Him that were supposed to be in the priesthood of the Law: first, that he is holy: 'They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy' (Lev. 21:6). But Christ had this perfectly. For holiness implies purity consecrated to God: 'Therefore, also the Holy which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God' (Lk. 1:35); 'That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit' (Mt. 1:20); 'The saint of saints will be anointed' (Dan. 9:24). Secondly, he should be innocent: 'Let them keep my precepts that they may not fall into sin' (Lev. 22:9). But, properly speaking, innocence is purity toward one's neighbor: 'The innocent in hands, and clean of heart: who has not taken his soul in vain, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbor' (Ps. 23:4). But Christ was completely innocent, being One Who did not sin: 'I have walked in my innocence' (Ps. 25:11). Thirdly, that he be unstained and this in regard to himself: 'Whosoever of our seed through their families has a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God' (Lev. 21:17). Of Christ it is said in a figure: 'It shall be a lamb without blemish' (Ex. 12:5). Fourthly, he must be separated from sinners: 'He shall not mingle the stock of his kindred with the common people of his nation' (Lev. 21:15). But Christ was perfectly separated from sinners: 'Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly nor stood in the way of sinners' (Ps. 1:1). This is, of course, true in regard to a like life: 'His life is not like other men's' (Wis. 2:15), but not in regard to His dealings with others, because 'He conversed with men' (Bar. 3:38) and this with a view to their conversion: 'Why does your master eat with sinners?' (Mt. 9:11). And to such a degree He was separated that He was made higher than the heavens, i.e., exalted above the heavens: 'He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high' (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, he is a sufficiently competent priest.
Commentary on Hebrews
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ· τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας.
и҆́же не и҆́мать по всѧ̑ дни̑ нꙋ́жды, ꙗ҆́коже первосвѧще́нницы, пре́жде ѡ҆ свои́хъ грѣсѣ́хъ жє́ртвы приноси́ти, пото́мъ же ѡ҆ людски́хъ: сїе́ бо сотворѝ є҆ди́ною, себѐ прине́съ.
Although we are not his brothers but have become his enemies by our transgressions, he who is not mere man, but God, after the freedom that he bestowed on us, also calls us his brothers. “I will tell of your name,” he says, “to my brethren.” Now, he who has redeemed us, if you examine his nature, is neither brother nor man; but if you examine his condescension to us through grace, he calls us brothers and descends to our human nature. He does not need a ransom, for he himself is the propitiation.
Homilies on the Psalms 19.4 (psalm 48)
Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself also? How? "He needeth not daily, as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself." "This," what? Here what follows sounds a prelude concerning the exceeding greatness of the spiritual sacrifice and the interval between them. He has mentioned the point of the priest; he has mentioned that of the faith; he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not entirely indeed, still he has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a prelude concerning the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He is a priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest's office. For He executed it once, and thenceforward "sat down." Lest thou suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he shows that the matter is part of a dispensation. For as He became a servant, so also He became a Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming a servant, He did not continue a servant, so also, having become a Minister, He did not continue a Minister. For it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to stand.
This then he hints at here, and also the greatness of the sacrifice, if being but one, and having been offered up once only, it affected that which all the rest were unable to do. But he does not yet treat of these points.
"For this He did," he says. "This"; what? "For it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat also to offer"; not for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the people. What sayest thou? And is He able to do this? Yea (he says). "For the Law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity." And doth He not need to offer for Himself? No, he says. For, that you may not suppose that the words "this He did once for all," are said respecting Himself also, hear what he says: "For the law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity." On this account they both offer continually, and for themselves. He however who is mighty, He that hath no sin, why should He offer for Himself, or oftentimes for others?
Homily on Hebrews 13
"He does not need, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices daily." Not only, he says, is the difference from the sinless one in relation to the Jewish priests, but also from the manner of the sacrifice, that He does not offer for Himself first, then for the people, and that He made the sacrifice once for the people only. "like the high priests." That is, of the Jews. "he did this once for all." What is this? To offer himself as a sacrifice for the people. For himself, he did not do so even once. For he had no need, being sinless, to offer for himself. Therefore, when you hear him called a high priest, think of him as always being a priest. For having done this once, he sat down at the right hand of the Father. For to minister is to stand. But to sit down indicates that having offered the sacrifice once, namely, his own body, he has sat down; ministering under the authority of spiritual powers.
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
Having said that our High Priest is "separated from sinners," he now expands on this and says that He is so free from sins that, even having offered His own body as a sacrifice, He did not offer it for Himself — for how is this possible when He committed no sin? — but for us. There is, however, also another advantage. The high priests under the law offered sacrifices daily, since they were unable to cleanse all at once; but He offered a sacrifice having such great power that through it He cleansed the world in a single time. Thus, Christ in this respect also surpasses the priests.
What does this mean? That He offered a sacrifice for the sins of men, and not for Himself. "Once," he says, He performed the sacred rite, and after this He sat down at the right hand of the Father, as Lord. Lest you, hearing that He is a priest, should think that He constantly stands and performs sacred rites, he shows that He became a priest according to the dispensation. And when the dispensation was completed, He again assumed His own majesty.
Commentary on Hebrews
27–28376. – Then when he says, He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins, he removes from Him anything that was imperfect in the priesthood of the Law. But what was imperfect was that he needed the sacrifices of atonement: 'He shall offer the calf for himself; and the goat for the people' (Lev. 16:11). Therefore, he prayed for himself; and not only once but frequently. The reason for this is that the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests: 'A weak man and of a short time' (Wis. 9:5). But the word of the oath established the Son (Who had none of these imperfections, but was completely perfect), Who is after the Law, a priest to continue forever. For He did not offer for His own sins but for ours: 'He was wounded for our iniquities' (Is. 53:5). Nor did He offer for us frequently, but only once: 'Christ died for our sins' (1 Pt. 3:18). For His one offering is enough to take away the sins of the entire human race.
Commentary on Hebrews
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
ὁ νόμος γὰρ ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν, ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον.
Зако́нъ бо человѣ́ки поставлѧ́етъ первосвѧще́нники, и҆мꙋ́щыѧ не́мощь: сло́во же клѧ́твенное, є҆́же по зако́нѣ, сн҃а во вѣ́ки соверше́нна.
“The law appointed” weak “men as high priests” who certainly needed to offer sacrifices for their sins. “The word of the oath,” however, “which” was provided in David “later than the law, appointed the Son” who remains “perfect forever.”
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
"But the word of the oath which was since the Law maketh the Son who has been consecrated for evermore." "Consecrated": what is that? Paul does not set down the common terms of contradistinction; for after saying "having Infirmity," he did not say "the Son" who is mighty, but "consecrated": i.e. mighty, as one might say. Thou seest that the name Son is used in contradistinction to that of servant. And by "infirmity" he means either sin or death.
What is, "for evermore"? Not now only without sin but always. If then He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives always, why shall He offer many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist strongly on this point: but what he does strongly insist upon is, His not offering on His own behalf.
Homily on Hebrews 13
"For the law appoints men."And for whose sake did he not need, he says, to offer a sacrifice for himself? Nor did he often offer for the people, as the high priests do, but having offered once, he was sufficient; why? Because the priests who are appointed from the law are under sin. Therefore, they must always offer a sacrifice for both themselves and the people. But God, by the oath made after the law, appointing the high priest Christ, who is the Son, established him as a perfect priest, and not subject to the same weakness and sin as those according to the law, once as the Son of God and God, "has been made perfect forever." In common. He established him as a priest, he says, for made perfect forever, that is, not only now being without sin, but also to be such for all time. If then he is both Son and perfect forever, for whose sake was he to need many sacrifices?
The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews
Lest you think that although He offered once, yet it was also for Himself, he now proves that He did not offer for His own sins. For "the law appoints as high priests" ordinary men "who have weaknesses," that is, those who cannot resist sin, but who themselves, being weak, are subject to falls. But He, as the Son, being so powerful, how could He have sin? And having no sin, why would He offer a sacrifice for Himself? But even for others, not many times, but "once." As almighty, He was able through a single offering of sacrifice to accomplish everything. By "weakness" understand, as Paul himself says in many places, sin and even death. For since the high priests under the law were mortal and weak, they themselves were not sinless, and they could not cleanse others. But He is immortal and powerful. Listen also to what follows next.
Observe the oppositions. There the law, here the word of oath, that is, the most certain, the most true; there men, of course servants, here the Son, that is to say, the Lord; there the weak, that is, those who stumble, who have sins, who are subject to death — but here the one who is perfect forever, that is, eternal, almighty, not only now but always sinless. Therefore, if He is perfect, if He never sins, if He is always alive, then for what reason would He have offered a sacrifice for Himself, or indeed many times for others?
Commentary on Hebrews
FOR this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, ὁ συναντήσας Ἀβραὰμ ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶν βασιλέων καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτόν,
[Заⷱ҇ 315] Се́й бо мелхїседе́къ, цр҃ь сали́мскїй, сщ҃е́нникъ бг҃а вы́шнѧгѡ, и҆́же срѣ́те а҆враа́ма возвра́щшасѧ ѿ сѣ́ча царе́й и҆ блгⷭ҇вѝ є҆го̀,