Chapter 7

Theophylact of Ohrid, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews — Chapter Seven

¹ For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God the Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of all. The apostle’s aim is to show the difference between the Old and the New; and this he showed at once, even in the opening, when he said that to those of old God spoke through his servants, the prophets, but to us who are in the New, in the Son. But since the hearers were weak, as having grown faint-hearted in their trials, he restored their faint-heartedness in the meanwhile; and thereafter, when he had sufficiently restored them, he again introduces the discourse concerning the New surpassing the Old. And observe his wisdom. He shows that Melchizedek, who was a type of Christ, surpasses Abraham. For unless he surpassed him, he would not have blessed him, nor received tithes from him. And since the priests of the law were descended from Abraham, it is clear that Melchizedek surpasses these also, as one who both blesses them and takes tithes of them, in that he blessed and tithed their forefather. But if the type of Christ, Melchizedek, so far excels the priests of the law, how much more does the true Melchizedek, Christ? This, then, is the whole meaning of the passage. And having compressed the narrative concerning Melchizedek, he brings in the contemplation, allegorizing the history mystically and spiritually.

² First being interpreted king of righteousness. He shows here how Melchizedek is a type of Christ. And first, he says, from the very name learn the exactness. For “Melchi” means king, and “Sedek” righteousness. And who else is king of righteousness, but our Lord Jesus Christ?

³ And then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. And from the city, he says, this also is plain. For “Salem” is interpreted peace. And who else is king of peace but Christ, who made peace for the things in the heavens and the things on the earth? To no man does it belong to be king of righteousness and of peace, save to Christ alone.

⁴ Without father, without mother, without genealogy. You have yet another likeness. For just as Melchizedek is without father and without mother—not that he had no father or mother, for he too had them, as one of mankind, but because he was not genealogized in the Scripture, nor was the name of his parents made apparent—so also Christ is without father according to the birth below; for according to the flesh he was begotten of the Virgin Mary alone; and without mother according to the birth above, for he was begotten of the Father alone before all ages, ineffably and inconceivably. But he is also without genealogy. For who shall declare his generation? Since both the Father who begot him above is past interpreting, and the very manner of the begetting; and the mother who bore him below does not fall under reason, at least as to the manner of the begetting—such as, how a virgin gave birth, how without birth-pangs, and the like. Christ, then, is truly both without mother and without father. But Melchizedek is without father and without mother not truly—for this is impossible—but in that his parents are not brought forward in the Scripture; so that “without genealogy” is, as it were, explanatory of “without father and without mother,” the Apostle as it were saying: In this sense I called Melchizedek without father and without mother, namely as without genealogy, and as one whose lineage is not mentioned in the Scripture.

⁵ Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually. This too you will understand as the things said before. For as a man, Melchizedek altogether had both a beginning of days and an end of life; only, inasmuch as we know neither when he was born nor when he died, as regards our knowledge he has neither beginning nor end. Christ, however, truly, inasmuch as he is God, has neither beginning of days—for he is without beginning as to a beginning from time, even if he has the Father as beginning, in the sense of cause—nor end, for he is without end; and, to say the whole in a word, he is everlasting. Where, then, are the Arians? Let them hear that the Son has no beginning. Thus, then, Paul gives us to resolve that which one might be at a loss about: how Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, seeing that Melchizedek had died, and did not become a priest forever. For we shall resolve it from this point, saying this, that Christ, being eternal and without end, is ever a priest in truth. For even now he is believed to offer himself for us at every time through his ministers, and moreover as one interceding with the Father on our behalf; and then he will perform for us the more perfect and more mystical priestly rites, setting himself before us for food and drink in a new manner and beyond all conception. But Melchizedek is said to have an unending priesthood, not because he lives forever—for he had died—but inasmuch as his end is not brought forward in the Scripture, that from thence we might be able to know when his priesthood ceased. As, then, also in the names: in his case there were appellations only, both “Melchizedek” and “king of Salem,” but in the case of Christ the truth of the realities; so also the having neither beginning nor end, in his case is because of its not being written, for he was a type, but in the case of Christ according to truth. For if the likeness were to be everywhere, there would no longer be type and truth, but either both a type, or both truth. Or do we not observe this also in the case of images? For here too the outline-sketch has something like to the image already completed, inasmuch as it dimly delineates the character through its lines; and it has something unlike, inasmuch as the image, through its colors, has received the character more vividly and more manifestly.

⁶ But behold how great this man was, to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth out of the spoils. Since he had fitted the type to the truth—that is, the things of Melchizedek to Christ—he is thereafter confident, and demonstrates that the type, that is, Melchizedek, is more illustrious than the very true priests among the Jews; and not only than these, but also than their patriarch himself. And if the type is so, much more will the true High Priest, Christ, surpass these. See, then, he says, how great this man is, and how greatly he surpasses, to whom there offered gifts not some chance man, but Abraham, so great a one, the patriarch—for not without reason did he add “patriarch,” but that he might exalt the person—and “out of the spoils,” that is, out of the better and more honorable plunder. And it cannot be said that, as to one who had campaigned and toiled together with him, he apportioned some recompense for his labor; rather it was to one sitting at home. For on this account he said above that he met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings. And if he was greater than the patriarch—and this the giving of the tenth shows—much more was he greater than the priests of the law.

⁷ And those indeed from among the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, although these have come forth out of the loins of Abraham. But he who is not genealogized from among them has taken tithes of Abraham. Now he establishes how Melchizedek is greater than Abraham; and he says that those of the tribe of Levi who exercise the priesthood used to tithe the people, it being evident that they are better and more honorable because of the dignity of the priesthood. For on what other account do the people, who are themselves worn down and afflicted, offer to the priests, who do not toil nor till the soil, the tithes from every kind, save altogether as to men who are more divine and occupied with a greater work? So great is the dignity of the priesthood, and thus are those who have it loftier than their own brethren, who have come forth from the same loins. And Melchizedek therefore, since he tithed Abraham, and that without being genealogized from him—that is, not being of the same race, for he was of another tribe—is better and loftier than he. For how would Abraham have given tithes to one of another tribe, unless the honor were great? But if Melchizedek, the type, surpasses, and that, Abraham, much more does the true High Priest surpass the priests of the law.

⁸ And he has blessed him who had the promises. Since up and down this was the thing that magnified Abraham—the receiving of the promises from God—he adds this now, that the type of Christ blessed him who was counted worthy of so great and so high a converse with God, and who had God as a debtor.

⁹ But without any contradiction, the less is blessed by the better. He said that Melchizedek blessed so great a one as Abraham. And we all in common and indisputably know that the one who blesses is better than the one who is blessed; better, therefore, is Melchizedek also, who prefigured Christ, than the patriarch.

¹⁰ And here indeed men who die receive tithes; but there one of whom it is witnessed that he lives. And there is another reasoning, demonstrating Melchizedek to be greater than the priests of the law. For those here, that is, those who receive tithes in the law, die; but there, that is, in the order after Melchizedek, he received tithes of whom it is witnessed by the Scripture that he lives. For you, he says, are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. And the living forever of Melchizedek understand thus, as has been said above; that is, as of one whose death is not mentioned in the Scripture. But some understand the dying of the Levites, and the living of Melchizedek, thus: that the manner of the priesthood of the Levites was mortal, for it has been abolished; but that of Melchizedek—that is, of the life according to Christ—lives and abides, and shall be forever.

¹¹ And, so to speak, through Abraham, Levi also, who receives tithes, has been tithed. That the priests of the law might not be able to say, And what is it to us, if Abraham has been tithed? he says that through the medium of Abraham, Levi also has been tithed—Levi, the head of the priesthood that is among us, the one who receives tithes. So then, is not Melchizedek greater than Levi also, as one who is seen to have received tithes even from him, through the medium of Abraham? And the “so to speak” either signifies this, that he speaks summarily, or it stands for “if I may so say.” For since it seemed a daring thing to say that Levi, not yet brought forth into birth, was tithed by Melchizedek, he tempered this.

¹² For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him. He establishes how Levi was tithed, and says that, the forefather having been tithed, he too was potentially tithed, inasmuch indeed as he was in the loins of Abraham, and was destined to come to be of his seed, even if he had not yet been born. And he did not say “the Levites,” but “Levi,” that he might show the pre-eminence. Papai! what did he dare? He cast forth the Jewish things. On this account he foretold that they had become dull of hearing, since he was about to say such things, that they might not start away. Having therefore prepared them beforehand, and put them in readiness as he wished, he thus now says what he wishes. For not as the earth, which, receiving the seed, makes it grow, so also does the soul hold and nourish the word. For there is nature, which has the stable; but here free choice, a most versatile thing and easily shifting. Wherefore the teacher must arrange much beforehand.

¹³ If, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood—for the people had received the law upon it—what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? He showed that Melchizedek was much better than both Abraham and Levi, himself having come to be in the rank of priests. Now again he introduces another argument, showing that the priesthood according to Christ far surpasses that of the Levites, and that the one of Christ is perfect, but that of those others imperfect. For indeed, if the priesthood of the law were perfect, a priest ought to have arisen after the order of Aaron; for Aaron was of the Levitical tribe. But surely it is not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedek, that a priest is said to arise. It remains, then, that, as the one being imperfect, another is introduced in its place. And the word “yet” has much emphasis; for it is as if he says this: If Christ were after the order of Melchizedek first, and then the law were given, one might reasonably say that, the priesthood after Melchizedek being imperfect, the priesthood according to the law was given, that is, the one of Aaron. But now Christ is later, and takes another type of priesthood. It is plain, then, that, the one of Aaron being more imperfect, another is introduced in its place. And what is “the people had received the law upon it”? This is it: one cannot say that the priesthood according to Aaron is indeed perfect, but was given otherwise, and not to the Hebrews, but was altogether given to the people, and the people received the law upon it—that is, were appointed to use it, and to walk by it, and to do all things through it. Why, then, was it cast out, save evidently as being without strength?

¹⁴ For the priesthood being transferred, of necessity there comes to pass a transference of law also. Now he shows the law also being abolished accordingly, and another covenant introduced in its place. For if the priesthood was transferred, of necessity there is another law also, for a priest is not without a covenant and laws and ordinances. And the priesthood was transferred not only in its manner—that is, in its not being after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchizedek—but also in its tribe. For indeed it was transferred from the priestly tribe of Aaron to the royal tribe of Judah. And behold the mystery. First it was royal, and then it became priestly; as also Christ is ever king, but at the last became high priest, when he took the flesh, when he offered the sacrifice.

¹⁵ For he of whom these things are said has partaken of another tribe. He shows how the priesthood was transferred as to the tribe, and says that Christ, “he of whom”—in the sense of, concerning whom these things are said, and unto whom it issued—is of another tribe, that of Judah.

¹⁶ From which no one has given attendance at the altar. “From which,” that is, from the tribe of Judah, “no one has given attendance”—that is, has stood at the altar, and busied himself with the priestly works.

¹⁷ For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah. The word “has sprung” is a dignified one, and is taken from the prophecy of Balaam, who says, A star shall arise out of Jacob, and from Malachi, who calls him the Sun of righteousness. Through which it is shown that the coming of the Lord came to pass for the enlightenment of the world.

¹⁸ Of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. For all the things of the priesthood he assigned to the Levitical tribe; but to that of Judah, the things of leadership in wars.

¹⁹ And it is yet far more evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. What is evident? The distinction between the two priesthoods; or that the changing of both the priesthood and the covenant is shown not only from this, from the priest who arises being of another tribe, and no longer of the Levitical, but also from that which we shall mention it appears yet more abundantly: that is, “if after the likeness of Melchizedek,” and what follows—namely, since after the order of Melchizedek a priest arises.

²⁰ Who has become so not after a law of fleshly commandment, but after the power of an indissoluble life. “Who”—Melchizedek—did not become so as the priests of the law; for those received the priesthood from a law that had fleshly commandments. For circumcise the flesh, and wash the flesh, and let the flesh rest, and you will obtain fleshly goods. But Melchizedek not so, but by a divine power, so as to live forever, and that his priesthood should be indissoluble. And the “live” understand thus, as also above, namely because his death is unknown. Or take the “who” concerning the priest, as if he said: Whatever other priest, that is, Christ, received the priesthood not after a fleshly commandment of the law, but through the power of the Father, or rather his own, and has an indissoluble priesthood. And it were consequent, after “fleshly,” to bring in “spiritual”; how, then, did he bring in, “after the power of an indissoluble life”? Because the temporary was signified through the “fleshly.” And fittingly, over against the temporary, he brought in “of an indissoluble life”—that is, by his own power Christ lives.

²¹ For it is witnessed: You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. He establishes how he said “of an indissoluble life,” and says that the Scripture declares him to be a priest forever. But some understood the Scripture to establish not this, but the “how he has become so not after a law of fleshly commandment.” For if, he says, he had become so according to the law, he ought to have been called after the order of Aaron; but now, since he is written after the order of Melchizedek, it is plain that it is not according to the law, but in some other, more divine manner.

²² For there comes to pass a disannulling of the foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness. For the law made nothing perfect. He said that a transference of law comes to pass, and showed this; thereafter he seeks also the cause. For we men then find rest, when we learn the cause. And he says that on this account a disannulling came to pass—that is, a change, and a casting out of the foregoing commandment, that is, of the preceding Covenant, through which also it was weak. What then? It profited no one; rather, toward making men perfect it did not profit. For he adds: “For it made no one perfect.” And how was it weak? Because they were letters only, declaring, Do this, and do not this; but it put in no power toward the accomplishing, which now comes to pass for us through the Spirit. But the heretics who slander the law leap upon this: Behold, they say, Paul too slanders the law. But he did not say, O senseless men, that it is evil, but unprofitable and weak—namely, as toward making perfect. For just as milk is profitable to infants in the seasons that befit them, but to the perfect unprofitable, so also the law was profitable to the imperfect Jews, leading them away from the idols, and bringing them to God, and delivering commensurate commandments, but to those who needed more perfect things, no longer. For it enjoined fleshly things, both sacrifices and purifications, of which the spiritual have no need. On this account it has now been disannulled. And the disannulling is a disannulling of those who use it. So that the law once prevailed, when there was a season for it.

²³ But a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. The commandment of the law was disannulled, he says, but a hope was brought in, not such as the Jewish; for those too had a hope, namely, by being well-pleasing to God, to gain possession of the land, superiority over their enemies, and altogether they hoped for bodily goods. But our hope is not such, but better; for we hope for heaven, and to be near God, and to stand by him, and to minister to him with the angels. Above, then, he said, “Entering into that which is within the veil”; but now, “Through which we draw near,” he says, “to God.” For hope leads us to the very divine throne, and sets us with the Cherubim.

²⁴ And inasmuch as it was not without an oath. Behold yet another difference, both of the new priest from the old, and of the Covenant from the old Covenant. For the priesthood of Christ was not promised simply, but with an oath, that the word of God might be confirmed out of abundance; which also he said above, that “God swore to Abraham, for the sake of fuller assurance.”

²⁵ For those indeed have become priests without an oath; but he with an oath, through him who said to him: The Lord swore, and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. For the priests of the law, he says, are appointed without an oath; for in the case of none of them is God found to have sworn that you shall be a priest according to the law; but Christ with an oath, made through him who said to him, “You are a priest,” in a new manner. For not after Aaron, but after Melchizedek.

²⁶ By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better covenant. That is, inasmuch as he swore that it should be forever; for he would not have sworn, unless it were better. So that the New Covenant also is greater than the Old. And what is “surety”? A guarantor, a mediator.

²⁷ And those indeed have become many priests, because they were hindered by death from continuing; but he, because he abides forever, has an inviolable priesthood. Here too he shows the pre-eminence which Christ has over the high priests of the law; and he says that there they are many, because they are mortal; but here one, because he is immortal. He has, then, an inviolable priesthood—that is, an unbroken, an unsucceeded one. Do you see how much greater he is? as much as the immortal is than the mortal.

²⁸ Wherefore he is able also to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him. Since, he says, he is immortal, he is able to preside over all and to save to the uttermost—that is, to give not a temporary salvation, but a complete one, both here evidently, and in the life to come. For under the Old, the high priest, even if he was admirable, offered to God only up to that season in which he was, such as Samuel and the like; but after these things no longer, for they have died. But here the High Priest is eternal and ever-living. He is able, then, also to save completely—that is, everlastingly—those who come through him, that is, through faith in him. For he who believes in the Son comes altogether to the Father; for he himself is the way to the Father, and he who has laid hold of this way comes to rest there.

²⁹ Ever living to make intercession for them. Because of the flesh this has been said thus humbly. For according to the flesh he is high priest, surely; and inasmuch as he is high priest, in that respect he is said to intercede. Since how does he who raises the dead, and quickens as the Father does, intercede where he must save? How does he who has all judgment intercede? He who sends the angels, so as to cast some into the furnace, and to save others? Because of the manhood, then, he said “to intercede.” For Paul, condescending to the hearers, says: Fear not; do not say, Yes, he loves us indeed, and has boldness with the Father, but he cannot always preside over us. Do not say this. For he lives, and is ever able to do the high-priestly work on our behalf. And whenever I say “manhood,” I do not divide it from the Godhead; for one is the hypostasis of both; but I give the hearers to conceive the things befitting concerning each nature. And this very thing, that the Son, bearing flesh, sits together with the Father, is an intercession on our behalf; as if the flesh, on our behalf, were entreating the Father, as having been assumed for this very thing, altogether for our salvation.

³⁰ For such a high priest became us, holy, harmless. It is plain from these things that he speaks the things before this, and these, concerning that which is according to the flesh. For who would say such things concerning God, and not be ashamed, attributing these things to that incomprehensible nature? “Holy,” then, is he who leaves undone nothing of the things owed to him; and “harmless” is the guileless and free from malice. For there was found no guile in his mouth.

³¹ Undefiled. Neither would one call these the praises of God; for it is his nature not to be defiled. But it is plain that these things are concerning the manhood of the one Christ.

³² Separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. The high priests of the law, he says, even if they were holy in all else, yet, as men, draw to themselves something of evil, and are not wholly separated from sinners. For how could they be, who themselves also are liable to sins? And besides, none of them came to be in heaven; but our High Priest, together with being above all full of every virtue, and with being separated from sinners, has moreover become higher than the heavens, having sat upon the very paternal throne. And the “made” is plain to all, that it is concerning that which is according to the flesh. For as God the Word, he was ever higher than the heavens.

³³ Who has no need daily, as the high priests, to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for those of the people. Having said that our High Priest is separated from sinners, he enlarges upon this, and says that he is so free from sins that, even when he had offered for a sacrifice his own body, he did not offer this for himself—for how could he, who did no sin?—but for us. But also another thing. The high priests of the law offered every day, as not being able to cleanse once for all; but this one offered such a sacrifice, and one able to accomplish things so great, that through it he cleansed the world once for all. So then in this also he surpasses those.

³⁴ For this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. What is “this”? The offering for the sins of the people, not for himself. Once, he says, he offered; but after these things he sits as Master. For that you, hearing ‘priest,’ might not suppose that he ever stands, and is a minister, he shows that he became a priest by dispensation. And the dispensation being accomplished, he again laid hold of his own height.

³⁵ For the law appoints men high priests, having weakness. That you might not suppose that he indeed offered once, but yet also for himself, he now establishes that he did not offer for his own sins. For the law appointed mere men as high priests, having weakness—that is, not able to withstand sin, but themselves also, as weak, falling under faults. But he who is so mighty, as the Son, how could he have sin? or, having it, on what account would he have offered for himself? nor for the others many times, but once. For being mighty, it sufficed him through the once-offering to accomplish the whole. And you will understand by “weakness” sin itself, as in many places this same Paul says, or also death. For being mortal, and weak, the high priests of the law were neither themselves sinless, nor able to cleanse others; but he is immortal and strong. And hear also the things that follow.

³⁶ But the word of the oath, which was after the law, the Son, perfected forevermore. Behold the contrasts: there a law, here a word of an oath—that is, most sure, most true; there men, servants altogether, here the Son, Master surely; there weak ones—that is, stumbling, having sin, subject to death; here one perfected forevermore—that is, everlasting, mighty, not now only sinless, but ever. If, then, he is perfect, if he never sins, if he ever lives, on what account would he have offered for himself, or at all for others many times?