返回Chapter 7
Chapter 7
Chapter Seven
Heb. 7:1. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham and blessed him as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings,
Heb. 7:2. to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of everything, – (cf. Gen. 14:18)
The apostle's aim is to show the difference between the Old and New Testaments. And he already pointed to this at the very beginning, saying that to the ancients God spoke through His servants the prophets, but to us, the people of the New Testament, "in the Son" (Heb. 1:1–2). But since the listeners were weak, for they had shown faintheartedness under trials, he strengthened the weak in the middle of the epistle, and finally, after he had sufficiently encouraged them, he again begins to speak of the superiority of the New Testament over the Old. And observe his wisdom. He shows that Melchizedek, who was a type of Christ, surpassed Abraham. For if he had not surpassed him, he would not have blessed him and would not have received tithes from him. And since from Abraham descended the priests of the law, it is clear that Melchizedek surpasses them as well, as though blessing them too and receiving tithes from them, at the time when he blessed their forefather and received tithes from him. But if the type of Christ, Melchizedek, so greatly differs from the priests of the law, how much more so the true Melchizedek, Christ? Such is the general meaning of this passage. But having briefly set forth the narrative concerning Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20), he then proceeds to examine it, explaining the history of Melchizedek from its spiritual and mystical side.
Heb. 7:2. First, by the meaning of his name, king of righteousness,
Here he shows in what sense Melchizedek is a prototype of Christ. And first of all, he says, learn the true meaning from the name itself. Namely: "Melchi" means king; "Sedek" means righteousness. Who else is the king of righteousness, if not our Lord Jesus Christ?
Heb. 7:2. and then also the king of Salem, that is, the king of peace,
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.
Heb. 7:3. Without father, without mother, without genealogy,
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.
Heb. 7:3. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, he abides a priest forever.
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.
Heb. 7:4. See how great is the one to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the best of his spoils.
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.
Heb. 7:5. And those who receive the priesthood from among the sons of Levi have a commandment to take tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their own brothers, even though these also have come from the loins of Abraham.
Heb. 7:6. But he who does not trace his descent from them received a tithe from Abraham
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. 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.
Heb. 7:6. And he blessed the one who had the promises.
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.
Heb. 7:7. The lesser is blessed by the greater, beyond all contradiction.
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.
Heb. 7:8. And here men that die receive tithes, but there he of whom it is witnessed that he lives.
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.
Heb. 7:9. And so to speak, Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham:
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" – Ed. note).
Heb. 7:10. He was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
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.
Heb. 7:11. So then, if perfection were attained through the Levitical priesthood — for with it the law of the people is bound up — what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be named according to the order of Aaron?
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.
Heb. 7:12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
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.
Heb. 7:13. He to whom these things are said belonged to another tribe,
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.
Heb. 7:13. From which [tribe] no one served at the altar.
"From which," namely from the tribe of Judah, "no one approached," that is, no one stood before the altar and performed priestly duties.
Heb. 7:14. For it is evident that our Lord has sprung from the tribe of Judah,
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.
Heb. 7:14. "about whom Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood."
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.
Heb. 7:15. And this is even more clearly evident from the fact that in the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another Priest,
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.
Heb. 7:16. Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.
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.
Heb. 7:17. For it is witnessed: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 109:4)
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.
Heb. 7:18. Now the annulment of the former commandment takes place because of its weakness and uselessness,
Heb. 7:19. for the law made nothing perfect;
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. For he adds: "for the law made nothing perfect." 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.
Heb. 7:19. But a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
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.
Heb. 7:20. And as this was not without an oath, –
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).
Heb. 7:21. For those were made priests without an oath, but This One with an oath, because it is said of Him: The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, – (Ps. 109:4)
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.
Heb. 7:22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
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.
Heb. 7:23. And they truly were many priests, because death did not permit one to continue;
Heb. 7:24. But He, because He abides forever, has an untransferable priesthood,
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. So, "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.
Heb. 7:25. Therefore He is also able always to save those who come to God through Him,
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.
Heb. 7:25. Being ever alive to intercede for them.
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.
Heb. 7:26. Such a High Priest was fitting for us: holy, blameless,
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).
Heb. 7:26. undefiled,
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.
Heb. 7:26. Separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens,
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."
Heb. 7:27. He who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people.
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.
Heb. 7:27. For He accomplished this once, having offered Himself as a sacrifice.
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.
Heb. 7:28. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weaknesses;
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.
Heb. 7:28. But the word of the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, perfected forever.
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?
Heb. 7:1. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham and blessed him as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings,
Heb. 7:2. to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of everything, – (cf. Gen. 14:18)
The apostle's aim is to show the difference between the Old and New Testaments. And he already pointed to this at the very beginning, saying that to the ancients God spoke through His servants the prophets, but to us, the people of the New Testament, "in the Son" (Heb. 1:1–2). But since the listeners were weak, for they had shown faintheartedness under trials, he strengthened the weak in the middle of the epistle, and finally, after he had sufficiently encouraged them, he again begins to speak of the superiority of the New Testament over the Old. And observe his wisdom. He shows that Melchizedek, who was a type of Christ, surpassed Abraham. For if he had not surpassed him, he would not have blessed him and would not have received tithes from him. And since from Abraham descended the priests of the law, it is clear that Melchizedek surpasses them as well, as though blessing them too and receiving tithes from them, at the time when he blessed their forefather and received tithes from him. But if the type of Christ, Melchizedek, so greatly differs from the priests of the law, how much more so the true Melchizedek, Christ? Such is the general meaning of this passage. But having briefly set forth the narrative concerning Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20), he then proceeds to examine it, explaining the history of Melchizedek from its spiritual and mystical side.
Heb. 7:2. First, by the meaning of his name, king of righteousness,
Here he shows in what sense Melchizedek is a prototype of Christ. And first of all, he says, learn the true meaning from the name itself. Namely: "Melchi" means king; "Sedek" means righteousness. Who else is the king of righteousness, if not our Lord Jesus Christ?
Heb. 7:2. and then also the king of Salem, that is, the king of peace,
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.
Heb. 7:3. Without father, without mother, without genealogy,
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.
Heb. 7:3. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, he abides a priest forever.
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.
Heb. 7:4. See how great is the one to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the best of his spoils.
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.
Heb. 7:5. And those who receive the priesthood from among the sons of Levi have a commandment to take tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their own brothers, even though these also have come from the loins of Abraham.
Heb. 7:6. But he who does not trace his descent from them received a tithe from Abraham
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. 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.
Heb. 7:6. And he blessed the one who had the promises.
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.
Heb. 7:7. The lesser is blessed by the greater, beyond all contradiction.
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.
Heb. 7:8. And here men that die receive tithes, but there he of whom it is witnessed that he lives.
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.
Heb. 7:9. And so to speak, Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham:
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" – Ed. note).
Heb. 7:10. He was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
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.
Heb. 7:11. So then, if perfection were attained through the Levitical priesthood — for with it the law of the people is bound up — what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be named according to the order of Aaron?
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.
Heb. 7:12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
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.
Heb. 7:13. He to whom these things are said belonged to another tribe,
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.
Heb. 7:13. From which [tribe] no one served at the altar.
"From which," namely from the tribe of Judah, "no one approached," that is, no one stood before the altar and performed priestly duties.
Heb. 7:14. For it is evident that our Lord has sprung from the tribe of Judah,
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.
Heb. 7:14. "about whom Moses said nothing concerning the priesthood."
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.
Heb. 7:15. And this is even more clearly evident from the fact that in the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another Priest,
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.
Heb. 7:16. Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.
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.
Heb. 7:17. For it is witnessed: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 109:4)
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.
Heb. 7:18. Now the annulment of the former commandment takes place because of its weakness and uselessness,
Heb. 7:19. for the law made nothing perfect;
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. For he adds: "for the law made nothing perfect." 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.
Heb. 7:19. But a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
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.
Heb. 7:20. And as this was not without an oath, –
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).
Heb. 7:21. For those were made priests without an oath, but This One with an oath, because it is said of Him: The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, – (Ps. 109:4)
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.
Heb. 7:22. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
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.
Heb. 7:23. And they truly were many priests, because death did not permit one to continue;
Heb. 7:24. But He, because He abides forever, has an untransferable priesthood,
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. So, "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.
Heb. 7:25. Therefore He is also able always to save those who come to God through Him,
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.
Heb. 7:25. Being ever alive to intercede for them.
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.
Heb. 7:26. Such a High Priest was fitting for us: holy, blameless,
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).
Heb. 7:26. undefiled,
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.
Heb. 7:26. Separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens,
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."
Heb. 7:27. He who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people.
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.
Heb. 7:27. For He accomplished this once, having offered Himself as a sacrifice.
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.
Heb. 7:28. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weaknesses;
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.
Heb. 7:28. But the word of the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, perfected forever.
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?