Hebrews 7 · The Lantern

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,

I am not ignorant that you venture to expound this psalm as if it referred to king Hezekiah; but that you are mistaken, I shall prove to you from these very words forthwith. "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent," it is said; and, "Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek," with what follows and precedes.

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

326. – In Chapter 5 the Apostle proved that Christ is a priest, but in Chapter 6 he interposed certain considerations to prepare the minds of his hearers. Now he returns to his main theme: for he intends to prove the excellence of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical priesthood.

to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace;

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

Now, the 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.

330. – But it seems from Numbers (18:21) that the giving of tithes dated from the Law; therefore, there was none before the Law.

without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God), remains a priest continually.

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…

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 t…

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.

Now consider how great this man was, to whom even Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the best spoils.

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.

"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.

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.

They indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest's office have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the Law, that is, of their brothers, though these have come out of the body of Abraham,

Through Abraham, who gave him the tenth part, the house of Levi, which had to be generated by him, took the tenth part in him. The Levites, even though they took the tenth part, did not take it from strangers but received the tenth part from themselves; in fact, they took the tenth part from their brothers, the sons of Abraham.

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.

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).

but he whose genealogy is not counted from them has accepted tithes from Abraham, and has blessed him who has the promises.

"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.

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?

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.

But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

And after that he did not simply pass on, but added, "and blessed him that had the promises." Inasmuch as throughout, this was regarded with reverence, he shows that Melchisedec was to be reverenced more than Abraham, from the common judgment of all men. "And without all contradiction," he says, "the less is blessed of the better," i.e.

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

343. – Then when he says, it is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior, he states the major premise of his reasoning. But here there are three objections: the first concerns the statement that the lesser is blessed by the better.

Here people who die receive tithes, but there one receives tithes of whom it is testified that he lives.

"And here men that die receive tithes: but there he of whom it is testified that he liveth." But lest we should say, Tell us, why goest thou so far back? He says, "And as I may so say" (and he did well in softening it) "Levi also who receiveth tithes payed tithes in Abraham." How? "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e.

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).

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.

We can say that through Abraham even Levi, who receives tithes, has paid tithes,

How? "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi. Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity.

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

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.

for he was yet in the body of his father when Melchizedek met him.

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

He shows in what way Levi paid tithes, saying that since the forefather paid tithes, so too did he, by virtue of the fact that being already in the loins of Abraham, he was to be born from his seed, although he had not yet been born. And he did not say "the Levites," but Levi, in order to show the superiority. What boldness! He completely overturned everything Jewish.

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).

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

"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.

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 accordin…

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.

For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.

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.

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.

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 he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.

"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.

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

355. – Then when he says, he of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, he clarifies what he had said: first, that the priesthood was transferred; secondly, he explains this (v. 14). 356.

For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, about which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

This is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest,

"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.)

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.

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.

who has been made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment, but after the power of an endless life:

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 o…

"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?

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.

for it is testified, "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."

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 ci…

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.

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.

For there is an annulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and uselessness

We 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.

The 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.

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.

(for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

"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.

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.

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.

Inasmuch as he was not made priest without the taking of an oath

(for they indeed have been made priests without an oath), but he with an oath by him that says of him, "The Lord swore and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'"

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." Having, then, in this way set the seal to these tenets, he seeks to inveigle (his followers) with more legends, (which are detailed) through a greater number of bo…

"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 Go…

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.

By so much, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

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.

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.

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).

Many, indeed, have been made priests, because they are hindered from continuing by death.

For the high priest being eternal, of necessity the salvation also and the Tabernacle are eternal, in accordance again with what is written: And they indeed are many priests, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.

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.

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).

But he, because he lives forever, has his priesthood unchangeable.

Therefore he is also able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, seeing that he lives forever to make intercession for them.

For such a high priest was fitting for us: holy, guiltless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

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.

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.

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.

who does not need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices daily, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. For he did this once for all, when he offered up himself.

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.

"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.

376. – 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).

For the Law appoints men as high priests who have weakness, but the word of the oath which came after the Law appoints a Son forever who has been perfected.

"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."

"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.

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?

Hebrews7