:
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter
[AD 165] Justin Martyr on Hebrews 7:1
And Melchizedek was priest of those who were in uncircumcision, and he blessed Abraham who was in circumcision, who offered him tithes. Thus God has shown that his eternal priest, also called “Lord” by the Holy Spirit, would become priest of those in uncircumcision.

Source: Dialogue with Trypho 33
[AD 185] Theophilus of Antioch on Hebrews 7:1
And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchisedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all priests of the Most High God; and from him the above-named city Hierosolyma was called Jerusalem. And from his time priests were found in all the earth.

Source: Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXXI
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 7:1
For whence was Noah "found righteous," if in his case the righteousness of a natural law had not preceded? Whence was Abraham accounted "a friend of God," if not on the ground of equity and righteousness, (in the observance) of a natural law? Whence was Melchizedek named "priest of the most high God," if, before the priesthood of the Levitical law, there were not levites who were wont to offer sacrifices to God? For thus, after the above-mentioned patriarchs, was the Law given to Moses, at that (well-known) time after their exode from Egypt, after the interval and spaces of four hundred years.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 7:1
For to such a degree, he says, is he better than Christ, that he is a0pa/twr (fatherless), a0mh/twr (motherless), a0genealoghtoj (without genealogy), of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.

Source: Pseudo-Tertullian Against All Heresies
[AD 258] Cyprian on Hebrews 7:1
Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies and says, “And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine.” Now he was a priest of the Most High God and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the psalms, saying from the person of the Father to the Son, “Before the morning star I begat you; you are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” That order is assuredly this, coming from that sacrifice and thence descending, that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God; that he offered wine and bread; that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood? And with respect to Abraham, that blessing going before belonged to our people. For if Abraham believed in God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness, assuredly whosoever believes in God and lives in faith is found righteous and already is blessed in faithful Abraham and is set forth as justified. This the blessed apostle Paul proves, when he says, “Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ So you see that it is people of faith who are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’ So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith.” Thus in the Gospel we find that “children of Abraham are raised from stones, that is, are gathered from the Gentiles.” And when the Lord praised Zacchaeus, he answered and said, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham.” In Genesis, therefore, that the benediction, in respect of Abraham by Melchizedek the priest, might be duly celebrated, the figure of Christ’s sacrifice precedes, namely, as ordained in bread and wine. The Lord, completing and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and so he who is the fullness of truth fulfilled the truth of the image prefigured.

Source: Epistle LXII.4
[AD 339] Eusebius of Caesarea on Hebrews 7:1
An ancient priest of the Mosaic order could only be selected from the tribe of Levi. It was obligatory without exception that he should be of the family descending from Aaron and do service to God in outward worship with the sacrifices and blood of irrational animals. But he that is named Melchizedek, which in Greek is translated “king of righteousness,” who was king of Salem, which would mean “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without line of descent, not having, according to the account, “beginning of years or end of life,” had no characteristics shared by the Aaronic priesthood. For he was not chosen by humans, he was not anointed with prepared oil, he was not of the tribe of those who had not yet been born; and, strangest of all, he was not even circumcised in his flesh, and yet he blesses Abraham, as if he were far better than he. He did not act as priest to the Most High God with sacrifices and libations, nor did he minister at the temple in Jerusalem. How could he? It did not yet exist. And he was such, of course, because there was going to be no similarity between our Savior Christ and Aaron, for he was neither to be designated priest after a period when he was not priest, nor was he to become priest, but be it. For we should notice carefully in the words, “You are a priest forever,” he does not say, “You shall be what you were not before,” any more than, “You were that before which you are not now”—but by him who said, “I am who I am,” it is said, “You are, and remain, a priest forever.” …And the fulfillment of the oracle is truly wondrous to one who recognizes how our Savior Jesus, the Christ of God, now performs through his ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek’s. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, so in exactly the same way our Lord and Savior himself first, and then all his priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the church and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of his body and saving blood. This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says, “And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abraham.” And thus it followed that to him only was the addition of an oath, “The Lord God has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’ ”
The psalm too, continuing, even shows in veiled phrase the passion of [Christ], saying, “He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.” And another psalm shows “the brook” to mean the time of temptations: “Our soul has passed through the brook; yes, our soul has passed through the deep waters.” He drinks, then, in the brook, that cup of which he darkly spoke at the time of his passion, when he said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” And also, “If this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”6
It was, then, by drinking this cup that he lifted up his head, as the apostle says, for when he was “obedient unto death, even death on a cross, therefore,” he says, “God has highly exalted him,” raising him from the dead and setting him at his right hand, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name which is named, not only in this world but in that which is to come. And he has put all things in subjection under his feet, according to the promise made to him, which he expresses through the psalmist, saying, “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.… Rule in the midst of your foes.”8
It is plain to all that today the power of our Savior and the word of his teaching rule over all them that have believed in him, in the midst of his enemies and foes.

Source: PROOF OF THE GOSPEL 5.3
[AD 403] Epiphanius of Salamis on Hebrews 7:1
These people honor Melchizedek, the one mentioned in the Scriptures, and regard him as some great power. They consider him to be [in the heavens] above, in places that cannot be named, and in their error they claim as truth not only that he is not just a power, but also that he is greater than Christ. Also, supposedly based on a literal reading of the saying “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” they believe that Christ merely came and was deemed worthy of the order [of Melchizedek]. Therefore, they say, Christ is inferior to Melchizedek. For if his status were not somehow secondary, he would not need the order of [Melchizedek].As for Melchizedek himself, they say that he came into being “without mother, without father, without genealogy,” as they would like to show from St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. They also fabricate spurious books for their own use, and so deceive themselves.
Yet, their refutation comes from the very writings themselves. After all, at the same time David prophesies that the Lord will be established a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the sacred Scripture is also saying that Christ will be a priest. What we find is that [speaking of Melchizedek, St. Paul] adds immediately, “resembling the Son of God he remains a priest for ever.” If he resembles the Son of God, he is not equal to the Son of God. For how can the servant be equal to the master? You see, Melchizedek was a man, and the designation “without father, without mother,” is not said because he did not have a father or a mother, but because they were not explicitly named in the sacred Scripture.…
Remember that, even though some give an account of Melchizedek’s father and mother, there is no basis for this in the canonical and established Scriptures.… And of how many others is the genealogy not clearly given [in the Scriptures]? Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah the Tishbite—neither their fathers nor their mothers are mentioned anywhere in the canonical Scriptures.…
What are we, then, to say? Will the examples of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego force our imagination to consider what we ought not and marvel with excessive owe, beyond all measure, at each of their cases, considering them to be without father and without mother? Let it not be so! After all, the traditions of the apostles and the holy Scriptures and the successions of teachers have been set as our boundaries and foundations for the building up of our faith; and the truth of God is has been protected from every side, so that no one would be deceived by empty myths.

Source: PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 1.1-3.8
[AD 403] Epiphanius of Salamis on Hebrews 7:1
But I return to the matter at hand, namely, the things these people imagine about Melchizedek. On the one hand, it is clear that he was a holy man, a priest of God, and the king of Salem, and on the other, that he was not of the heavenly order, nor did he descend from heaven; for, as the holy God, the Word, who does not lie, says: “No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” As for the order of Melchizedek, when the divine Scripture proclaimed and the Spirit clearly taught about it, they revealed the transposition of the priesthood from the ancient synagogue and the nation onto the finest and best nation, which is not united by descent from the [same] flesh. You see, this holy man, Melchizedek, had neither descendants after him nor was his priesthood removed. For he remained a priest all the days of his life and even still he is praised in Scripture as a priest, since no one either succeeded him or abolished the priesthood during the time of his service. So also our Lord, though he was not a human being—but the holy divine Word of God, Son of God, begotten without beginning nor in time, being always with the Father, who for us became a human being, of Mary and not by the seed of man—offers the priesthood to the Father, having taken the clay from his humanity, so that, on our behalf, he may be established a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, which has no succession. And he remains [as such], forever offering gifts on our behalf, having first offered himself through the cross, so that he may abolish every sacrifice of the old covenant, offering the most perfect and living sacrifice on behalf of the whole world: he is the sacrificial victim, he is the offering, he is the priest, he is the altar, he is God, he is human, he is King, he is High Priest, he is sheep, he is lamb, having become all in all on our behalf, so that life may be ours in every way, and so that the unmovable foundation of his priesthood may be established forever, no longer allotting it according to the flesh and successions, but granting that it might be preserved by the Holy Spirit, according to his decree.

Source: PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 4.1-7
[AD 403] Epiphanius of Salamis on Hebrews 7:1
And then again, others come to imagine various things by what they say about this Melchizedek. You see, since they do not understand spiritually what is being said by the holy apostle in the same letter to the Hebrews, they are condemned to an [understanding that is] according to the flesh. The Egyptian heresiarch Hieracas considers this Melchizedek to be the Holy Spirit because of the phrase “Resembling the Son of God he remains a priest forever,” as though this ought to be interpreted by the words of the apostle when he said, “the Spirit intercedes for us through wordless sighs.” Yet, the one who is able to understand the mind of the Spirit knows that he intercedes with God on behalf of the elect. In this way [Hieracas] has fallen completely off the prescribed path. For the Spirit never took on flesh, and, not having taken on flesh, he could not be king of Salem and priest of any place.

Source: PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 5.1-4
[AD 403] Epiphanius of Salamis on Hebrews 7:1
And how many things about this Melchizedek others also imagine! The Samaritans, for example, consider him to be Shem, the son of Noah; but they, too, will be found to be absurd. For the sacred Scripture, which safeguards everything with good order, has fortified the truth from all sides, and it has not set the order of the times and the years of the lives of each of the patriarchs and enumerated their successions in vain. After all, when Abraham was eighty-eight or, more or less, ninety years old, Melchizedek met him and offered him loaves of bread and wine, prefiguring the mysteries through the types; types, that is, of the Lord’s body—since the Lord himself says, “I am the living bread”—and types of his blood, which flowed from his side for the cleansing of those who have been defiled and the sprinkling and salvation of our souls.…Shem, however, of whom we spoke before, and whom the Samaritans imagine to be Melchizedek, fathered Arpachshad in the one hundred second year of his life, and altogether there were 1, years until the time of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek on his return from the slaughter of the kings, Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, and Tidal.
And Shem did not live as many years as their silly imagination thinks, but he was 102 years old when he fathered Arpachshad, in the second year after the flood. “And after these events, he lived,” as the sacred Scripture says, “for five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters, and he died.” Now then, since he lived for 602 years and then died, how is it possible for him to reach the span of 1, years, so that Shem, the son of Noah, who preceded Abraham by ten generations, may be called Melchizedek by them, after ten generations, after 1, years? O, the great deceit of men! And according to the evidence of other manuscripts, from the age of Shem—from the time in which Shem lived—until the time at which Abraham met Melchizedek, as was stated before, which was during [Abraham’s] eighty-eight or ninetieth year of life, 628 years passed, more or less. All of this evidence, therefore, means that it is impossible for Shem to have reached the period of Abraham, so as to be identified with Melchizedek. Thus, the nonsense of the Samaritans is destroyed in every way.

Source: PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 6.1-11
[AD 403] Epiphanius of Salamis on Hebrews 7:1
And then again, the Jews say that though he himself was a righteous man and good and a priest of the Most High, just as the sacred Scripture says, it is because he was the son of a prostitute that his mother is not recorded and his father is not known. But their silly assertion, too, has been deposed. After all, Rahab was a prostitute and she is recorded, so also Zimri, who committed fornication, is recorded, as well as Cozbi after him, even though she was a foreigner and she did not descent from the nation of Israel. … “Everyone who does not enter by the door,” as the holy Gospel said, “is a thief and not a shepherd.”

Source: PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 7.1-2
[AD 403] Epiphanius of Salamis on Hebrews 7:1
And even in the church there are some who consider this Melchizedek to be by nature different. That is, they consider him to be essentially the Son of God, who appeared to Abraham in the form of a man. They, too, fall away from the path; for no one ever became like [the Son of God] just as the sacred Scripture states, that “resembling the Son of God he remains a priest for ever.” Indeed, “this man who does not belong to their genealogy collected tithes from Abraham”; and since he is not counted to have descended from the Israelites themselves, he is counted as having descended from other people.…And so the ideas of all the heresies are shown to be futile. See now, even these have denied their master who “bought them with his own blood,” who did not begin to exist since Mary, as they think, but who is the divine Word, always with the Father, begotten of the Father without a beginning and not in time, just as the whole Scripture attests. It was him, and not to Melchizedek, that the Father also said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.” For even though he [Melchizedek] was a priest of God Most High in his own generation and had no successors who came after him, he did not come down from heaven. After all, the Scripture did not say that he “brought down” bread and wine, but that he “brought them out” to [Abraham] and those with him when he received the patriarch who was passing by, coming from [the battle with] the kings. And he blessed [Abraham] because of his righteousness and because of the faithfulness and the piety of the man. For, even though he was tested in all things, the patriarch did not fall away from righteousness in the slightest, but God was his helper even against those who truly fell upon the land of Sodom and carried away even his own nephew, the holy Lot, whom [Abraham] brought back with all the spoil and booty.
Where, then, can we not find that the Son was always with the Father? For it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and not “In the beginning was Melchizedek,” or “Melchizedek was God.”

Source: PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 7.3-9.6
[AD 403] Epiphanius of Salamis on Hebrews 7:1
Again, it has been reported to us that some, who have been deceived more than anything that we have said before and have been inflamed by greater pride of intellect, have dared to turn to an unthinkable notion and have arrived to a blasphemous idea, saying that this Melchizedek is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. O, what careless minds people have, and what deceitful hearts, not having a place for truth! Since the apostle says that Melchizedek is “without father” and “without mother” and “without genealogy,” because of the exaggeration of the phrase these people misunderstand the notion and think that what is said corresponds to the Father of all, and thus describe for themselves a blasphemous error. Because the Father of all, God the almighty, has neither father nor mother nor beginning of days nor end of life—and this is confessed by all—they have fallen into the foolish blasphemy of comparing him to Melchizedek, because the apostle has spoken of him like this, not understanding the other things said about him. That is, concerning Melchizedek it is said that “he was a priest of the Most High.” Now, if [Melchizedek] is the “Most High” and “Father,” then, as the priest of another “Most High,” he cannot be himself the “Father of all,” for he serves another “Most High” as priest. O, the confusion of people, who do not understand what is true but bend themselves towards error! To give the final solution to the whole affair, the holy apostle brought together everything and said: “This man who does not have his descent from them” (clearly meaning “but from others”), “received tithes from Abraham,” and again he said, “who, in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and petitions, to him who was able to save him”—it is obvious that the Father did not take on flesh. And now that we have discussed sufficiently, let us leave this heresy, for we have stuck it with the firm faith that is supported, as if we had struck down a field-mouse with a stone, and have avoided its deadly poison. For they say that the field-mouse does not harm immediately the one it bites but, in time, it destroys the body and infects with leprosy every limb of the one who is injured. Likewise, even though this heresy may not sound as much to the minds of those who first hear it, as it dwells in their minds, it creates questions and, from there, leads to the destruction of those who have not happened on the remedy of this antidote, namely, the refutation and counterargument I have given against it. The mouse is not seen readily. It walks about at night and so works its harm, especially in the land of the Egyptians. Those who know about the animal understand that I do not make mention it either incidentally or sycophantically, but from this they can compare the harm done by the heresy: for such is the damage it does.

Source: PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 9.11-18
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:1-3
"For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him: to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of Righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of Peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, abides a Priest continually."

1. Paul wishing to show the difference between the New and Old [Covenant], scatters it everywhere; and shoots from afar, and noises it abroad, and prepares beforehand. For at once even from the introduction, he laid down this saying, that "to them indeed He spoke by prophets, but to us by the Son" [c. i. 1, 2], and to them "at sundry times and in various manners," but to us through the Son. Afterwards, having discoursed concerning the Son, who He was and what He had wrought, and given an exhortation to obey Him, lest we should suffer the same things as the Jews; and having said that He is "High Priest after the order of Melchisedec" [Hebrews 6:20], and having oftentimes wished to enter into [the subject of] this difference, and having used much preparatory management; and having rebuked them as weak, and again soothed and restored them to confidence; then at last he introduces the discussion on the difference [of the two dispensations] to ears in their full vigor. For he who is depressed in spirits would not be a ready hearer. And that you may understand this, hear the Scripture saying, "They hearkened not to Moses for anguish of spirit." [Exodus 6:9] Therefore having first cleared away their despondency by many considerations, some fearful, some more gentle, he then from this point enters upon the discussion of the difference [of the dispensations].

2. And what does he say? "For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God." And, what is especially noteworthy, he shows the difference to be great by the Type itself. For as I said, he continually confirms the truth from the Type, from things past, on account of the weakness of the hearers. "For" (he says) "this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all." Having concisely set down the whole narrative, he looked at it mystically.

And first from the name. "First" (he says) "being by interpretation King of righteousness": for Sedec means "righteousness"; and Melchi, "King": Melchisedec, "King of righteousness." Do you see his exactness even in the names? But who is "King of righteousness," save our Lord Jesus Christ? "King of righteousness. And after that also King of Salem," from his city, "that is, King of Peace," which again is [characteristic] of Christ. For He has made us righteous, and has "made peace" for "things in Heaven and things on earth." [Colossians 1:20] What man is "King of Righteousness and of Peace"? None, save only our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. He then adds another distinction, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, abides a Priest continually." Since then there lay in his way [as an objection] the [words] "You are a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec," whereas he [Melchisedec] was dead, and was not "Priest for ever," see how he explained it mystically.

'And who can say this concerning a man?' I do not assert this in fact (he says); the meaning is, we do not know when [or] what father he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And what of this (one says)? For does it follow, because we do not know it, that he did not die, [or] had no parents? You say well: he both died and had parents. How then [was he] "without father, without mother"? How "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"? How? [Why] from its not being expressed. And what of this? That as this man is so, from his genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the reality.

See the "without beginning"; see the "without end." As in case of this man, we know not either "beginning of days," or "end of life," because they have not been written; so we know [them] not in the case of Jesus, not because they have not been written, but because they do not exist. For that indeed is a type, and therefore [we say] 'because it is not written,' but this is the reality, and therefore [we say] 'because it does not exist.' For as in regard to the names also (for there "King of Righteousness" and "of Peace" are appellations, but here the reality) so these too are appellations in that case, in this the reality. How then has He a beginning? You see that the Son is "without beginning," not in respect of His not having a cause; (for this is impossible: for He has a Father, otherwise how is He Son?) but in respect of His "not having beginning or end of life."

"But made like the Son of God." Where is the likeness? That we know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. [Here] then just as in representations [by painting or drawing], there is somewhat that is like and somewhat that is unlike. By means of the lines indeed there is a likeness of features, but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness.

Source: Homily 12 on Hebrews
[AD 425] Severian of Gabala on Hebrews 7:1
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.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.1-2
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Hebrews 7:1
On receiving this promise Abraham moved on and stayed in another place in the same land, Hebron, near the Oak of Mamre.… But he received at the same time a public blessing from Melchizedek, who was “a priest of the Most High God.” Many important things are written about Melchizedek in the epistle entitled “To the Hebrews,” which the majority attribute to the apostle Paul, though many deny the attribution. Here we certainly see the first manifestation of the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole world, in which is fulfilled what was said in prophecy, long after this event, to Christ who was yet to come in the flesh: “you are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” Not, it is observed, in the line of Aaron, for that line was to be abolished when the events prefigured by these shadows came to the light of day.

Source: City of God 16.22
[AD 461] Leo the Great on Hebrews 7:1
We therefore confess, dearly beloved, not rashly but with faith, that the Lord Jesus Christ is present in the midst of believers. Although he “sits at the right hand” of God the Father “until he makes of his enemies a footstool,” the high priest has not left the assembly of his priests.Fittingly does this chant rise up to him from the mouth of the whole church and from that of all priests, “The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’ ” He himself is the true and eternal bishop whose ministry can neither change nor end. He is the one prefigured by the high priest Melchizedek.
Attached to oaths among human beings are certain conditions that have been made irrevocable by permanent guarantees. Surety for the divine oath can therefore be found in promises that have been fixed by immutable decrees. Since regret implies a change of will, God does not regret what, according to his eternal good pleasure, he cannot want to be otherwise than how he has wanted it.

Source: SERMON 5.3
[AD 735] Bede on Hebrews 7:1
Just as our Redeemer, when he appeared in the flesh, deigned to become like a king to us by bestowing a heavenly kingdom, so too did he become a high priest by offering himself for us as a sacrifice to God with an odor of sweetness. Hence it is written, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ ” Melchizedek, as we read, was a priest of the Most High God long before the time of the priesthood of the law, and he offered bread and wine to the Lord. Our Redeemer is said to be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” because he put aside the sacrificial victims stipulated by the law and instituted the same type of sacrifice to be offered in the new covenant in the mystery of his own body and blood.

Source: Homilies on the Gospels 2.19
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Hebrews 7:2
He is Melchizedek, "King of peace"
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Hebrews 7:2
For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Savior is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. And Melchizedek is interpreted “righteous king”; and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace.

Source: STROMATEIS 4.25
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 7:2
Now the interpretation of the name Melchizedek is “king of justice” and “king of peace.” The apostle indeed demonstrated that in this name the mystery of the grace and justice of the Son, Lord of Melchizedek, was inscribed.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 390] Gregory of Nazianzus on Hebrews 7:2
Using the principles of pastoral science, he gathers us into his heavenly fold. He is called “sheep,” because he was sacrificed, a “Lamb,” because he was without blemish. He is the “high priest” because he presented the offering. “Melchizedek,” because on the transcendent level he had no mother, on the human level no father, and his high estate is without genealogy. “Who,” it says, “can recount his generation?” He is “Melchizedek” too, as king of Salem or peace, as king of righteousness, and because he tithes the patriarchs who prevailed over evil powers.

Source: ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 4(30).21
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:2
Now, the comparison he had frequently gone to great trouble to develop he develops in the present case. Firstly, he recalls the story of Melchizedek. While he seems to conduct his treatment in narrative style, he is laying the groundwork for his thesis. The reason, you see, that he showed Abraham giving a blessing and offering a tenth of the spoils was to show the patriarchy yielding precedence even in type. Then he brings out his importance also from the names. This name, Melchizedek, in the Hebrew and Syriac language means “king of righteousness”; he ruled over Salem, and the word Salem is translated as peace. His intention, therefore, is to present him in this way as a type of Christ the Lord: according to the apostle he is our peace, and according to the Old Testament author he is our righteousness.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 7:3
The heretic Theodotus … says that the human being Christ was conceived and born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, but that he was inferior to Melchizedek because it is said of Christ, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” For this Melchizedek, he says, by special grace is a heavenly power, and what Christ does for human beings, having been made their intercessor and advocate, Melchizedek does for the heavenly angels and powers. For to such a degree, he says, he is better than Christ that he is fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.

Source: Pseudo-Tertullian AGAINST ALL HERESIES 8
[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on Hebrews 7:3
Nevertheless it was His pleasure that He should be born as a man, that in all things He might be like His supreme Father; For God the Father Himself, who is the origin and source of all things, inasmuch as He is without parents, is most truly named by Trismegistus "fatherless "and "motherless"
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 7:3
Some say that this Melchizedek was actually Shem, son of Noah; in fact, they say the book of Genesis clearly shows that he lived in the days of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Moreover, from the sortitions of those tribes who inherited the land of the house of Shem, it looks clear that he lived in Salem in his own inheritance.Not only Melchizedek but also the name Melchizedek are “without father, and mother and without genealogy” because neither the name Melchizedek nor the name Israel were written in the genealogy, whereas Shem and Jacob had father and mother, and a beginning and an end, and were inscribed in the genealogy. But the names of Melchizedek and Israel did not have any of these things. God glorified them both with names equally imposed by him. He “was made similar to the Son of God” through his priesthood, so that the priesthood of Melchizedek might last forever, not in Melchizedek himself but in the Lord of Melchizedek.
And the apostle highly praises the priesthood of all nations rather than that of his people, when he says, “Consider how great this man is to whom even our patriarch Abraham gave the tenth part of everything.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 390] Gregory of Nazianzus on Hebrews 7:3
The old has passed away,behold all things have been made anew.
The letter withdraws, the Spirit advances.
The shadows flee, the truth breaks in.
Melchizedek is summed up; the motherless becomes fatherless.
The first without a mother,
The second without a father,
The laws of nature are abrogated
that the cosmos above be brought to perfection.

Source: ON THE BIRTH OF CHRIST, ORATION 38.2
[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on Hebrews 7:3
Let no one claim Divinity resides in an order established by human beings when he encounters such an order. For the church does not consider even Melchizedek, by whose office Abraham offered sacrifice, an angel (as some Jewish interpreters do). It rather considers him a holy man and priest of God who, prefiguring our Lord, is described as “without father or mother, without history of his descent, without beginning and without end.” It does this in order to show beforehand the coming into this world of the eternal Son of God who was likewise incarnate and then brought forth without any father, begotten as God without mother, and was without history of descent. For it is written: “Who shall declare his generation?”This Melchizedek, then, we have received as a priest of God based upon the model of Christ. However, the one we regard as the type, the other as the original. Now, a type is a shadow of the truth. We have accepted the royalty of the one [Melchizedek] in the name of a single city [Jerusalem], but that of the other [Jesus] as shown in the reconciliation of the whole world. For it is written: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,” that is to say, the eternal Godhead was in Christ. Or, if the Father is in the Son, even as the Son is in the Father, then their unity in both nature and operation is plainly not denied.

Source: Exposition of the Christian Faith 3. [88-89]
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:3
And what does Paul say? “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God.” And, what is especially noteworthy, he shows the difference to be great by the type itself. For as I said, he continually confirms the truth from the type, from things past, on account of the weakness of the hearers. “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek,” whereas Melchizedek was dead and was not “priest forever,” see how he explained it mystically.…“And who can say this concerning a man?” He does not assert this, in fact, Paul says; the meaning is that we do not know when or what father he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And what of this, one says? For does it follow, because we do not know it, that he did not die, or had no parents? You say well; he both died and had parents. How then was he “without father or mother”? How, “having neither beginning of days nor end of life”? How? From its not being expressed. And what of this? That as this man is, from his genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the reality.…
Where is the likeness to the Son of God? That we know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. Here then, just as in representations by painting or drawing, there is something that is like and something that is unlike. By means of the lines, indeed, there is a likeness of features, but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness.

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 12.2-3
[AD 420] Jerome on Hebrews 7:3
The Jews say that Melchizedek was Shem, Noah’s son, and, counting up the total years of his lifetime, they demonstrate that he would have lived up to the time of Isaac; and they say that all the firstborn sons of Noah were priests before Aaron performed the priestly office. Also, by “king of Salem” is meant the king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. And the blessed apostle writing to the Hebrews makes mention of Melchizedek as “without father or mother” and refers him to Christ and, through Christ, to the church of the Gentiles, for all the glory of the head is assigned to the members.… While he was uncircumcised, he blessed Abraham who had been circumcised; and in Abraham he blessed Levi; and through Levi he blessed Aaron from whom the priesthood afterwards descended. For this reason, he maintains, one should infer that the priesthood of the church, which is uncircumcised, blessed the priesthood of the synagogue, which is circumcised. And as to the Scripture which says, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” our mystery is foreshown in the word order; not at all, indeed, in the sacrifice of nonrational victims through Aaron’s agency, but when bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, were offered in sacrifice.

Source: HEBREW QUESTIONS ON GENESIS 14.18-19
[AD 425] Severian of Gabala on Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, according to the Scripture. Later, among the Levites it is always clear who were the parents of a priest. They also had allotted times and periods of service, and the total length of their service and of their life is known. All these data exist for each priest under the law, even if not for every year. However, it is said that Melchizedek is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having no beginning and no end of life according to the word of Scripture. He does not belong to a priestly family; we do not know when he started his priesthood or what kind of a priest he was, or whether he was a priest all his life. We do not know any information that is available for those priests under the law. It is said that, likened to the Son of God, he continues his priesthood forever. And how does Melchizedek remain a priest? Here is a solution to that question. As Moses sometimes signifies the law, so Melchizedek, a human being, signifies the priesthood. Now, if he is likened [to the Son of God] through the priesthood in Christ, he remains forever, not as a mortal man but as a pattern of the priesthood.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.3
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Hebrews 7:3
God the Word was not generated from a woman; the one generated from a woman was the one fashioned in her by the power of the Holy Spirit. The one who is of one essence with the Father was not born from her womb, for he is “without mother,” as blessed Paul’s phrase has it. It was rather the one fashioned in his mother’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit who came in the last times. For this reason he is also called “without father.”

Source: TREATISES AGAINST APOLLINARIS 3.1
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Hebrews 7:3
When Paul wished to show that Christ was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, he speaks those things that pertain to him, not explaining his nature but putting forth the explanation about him found in the divine Scripture and demonstrating the similarity between Melchizedek and Christ from the Scripture.Thus, he calls him “fatherless” and “motherless,” on the grounds that the divine Scripture does not narrate his genealogy. Then he adds, “being without genealogy,” showing that he is not talking about the nature of the man but rather the account of the divine Scripture. Then he further connects in the thought “neither having a beginning of days nor an end of life”—not in his nature but in the divine Scripture. And since it was possible to also say these about another person—for the divine Scripture does not remember to note the parents of many people or to set forth their genealogy, especially as many as we have learned were born outside the Israelite race—he does well to add, “being likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” For no longer does this apply to the rest as it does to him. And he makes clear from this explanation of the Scripture how Christ has this property as well as the rest. For Christ was “without father” in the begetting of his humanity, and “without mother” in the origin of his divine essence, and really “without genealogy.” For what genealogy would there be of him who exists from his Father alone? And it is also clear that “he has neither beginning of days nor an end of life.” In the case of Christ it is actually the case, whereas in the case of Melchizedek it is what we find (or do not find) in the Scripture’s account of him. Christ received his “priesthood forever” from the divine Scripture where it said, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,” even as Melchizedek acts as priest eternally. And he calls him an “eternal” priest on the grounds that he has not passed on the priesthood to successors, which happened to be the case under Mosaic law. Therefore he also said, “Having been likened to the Son of God,” and yet it was appropriate to say that the Son had been made like Melchizedek—for the first is not made like the second. Yet the truth took place in connection with Christ, but no such thing took place beforehand with Melchizedek. So he says that Melchizedek was made like Christ by the way that he appears in the narrative, since the divine Scripture wished to show to us in its narration of the life of Melchizedek the similarity with the one who was to be.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.3
[AD 435] John Cassian on Hebrews 7:3
Listen, you heretic, to the passage you have garbled: hear in full and completely, what you quoted mutilated and hacked about. The apostle wants to make clear to every one the twofold birth of God. In order to show how the Lord was born [both] in the Godhead and in flesh, he says, “Without father, without mother.” The one belongs to the birth of divinity, the other to that of the flesh. For, as he was begotten in his divine nature “without mother,” so he is in the body “without father.” Though he is neither without father nor without mother, we must believe in him “without father and without mother.” For, if you regard him as begotten of the Father, he is without mother. If you regard him as born of his mother, he is without father. And so in each of these births he has one [parent]: in both [births] together he is without each. For, the birth of divinity had no need of mother; and for the birth of his body, he was himself sufficient, without a father. Therefore says the apostle “Without [father or] mother, without genealogy.”

Source: INCARNATION OF THE LORD, AGAINST NESTORIUS 7.14
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:3
Christ the Lord, of course, has each of these by nature and in reality: while as God he is “without mother,” being begotten only of the Father, as man he is “without father,” being born only of a mother—the Virgin, I mean. As God he is “without genealogy”: the one of the unbegotten Father does not require a family tree. “Without beginning of days”: the begetting was eternal. “Without end of life”: he has an immortal nature.This was the reason he likened not Christ the Lord to Melchizedek, but Melchizedek to Christ the Lord: one was type of the other, and the other the realization of the type. In respect of the priesthood, of course, Melchizedek did not imitate Christ the Lord; rather, Christ the Lord is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek: being a priest belongs to a human being, whereas accepting offerings belongs to God. Yet by becoming incarnate the only begotten Son of God also became our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not by aggregating to himself the position but by concealing the divine status and accepting the lowly condition for the sake of our salvation. This is why he was called lamb, sin, curse, way, door, and many other names like that.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:3
He commented also on the term “without a genealogy.” He said Melchizedek was not of their family tree. So it is clear that he was not really without a family tree but only to provide a type.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:3
The text said of Melchizedek, of course, that “he continues a priest forever” since he did not transmit the priesthood to his children, like Aaron, Eleazar and Phineas; the one transmitting it to another as an heirloom seems somehow to be deprived of the position when someone else is performing it. It has another sense as well: just as we refer to Moses not just as the lawgiver but as the law itself, so too we use the name Melchizedek both of the person and the thing, namely, priesthood. Christ the Lord has it, enjoying eternal life.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 893] Photios I of Constantinople on Hebrews 7:3
He calls Melchizedek “without genealogy” because he was not from the seed of Abraham nor was he given a genealogy by Moses, but his race was Canaanite and he sprang from that cursed seed. He was pronounced righteous in regards to his deeds. Yet because he had not sprung from righteous forebears or from some righteous seed, it was not proper to give the genealogy of this man who inclined to the epitome of righteousness. Now Melchizedek demonstrates that he was of Canaanite origin and it also can be proved positively from those regions that he ruled and reigned over and the regions with which he was associated. For he was a neighbor of Sodom, and he was very close to Abraham when he lived near “the oak of Mamre.” And one must also reckon that he happens to be king of that “Salem,” which is Jerusalem.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.3
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Hebrews 7:3
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. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the excellence of Christ’s priesthood as compared to the priesthood of the Old Testament; secondly, he shows that believers should subject themselves reverently to the priesthood of Christ (c. 10). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the prerogative of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical on the part of the person of the priest; secondly, on the part of the minister (c. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proves the existence of Christ’s priesthood by reason of a divine promise; secondly, the need for this priesthood (v. 26). But he shows this promise from the words of Ps. 109 (v. 4): ‘The Lord has sworn and he will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ Hence, he shows three things to prove his thesis: first, the phrase, ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’; secondly, the statement ‘He swore’ (v. 20); thirdly, the statement, ‘You are a priest forever’ (v. 23). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the likeness of Christ to Melchizedek; secondly, on the basis of this likeness he chooses the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical (v. 4). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes Melchizedek’s qualities; secondly, he shows how they fit Christ (v. 2b).

327. - He describes Melchizedek, first of all, by his name when he says, For this Melchizedek. For so the Scripture names him in Genesis (14:18), where his history, which the Apostle supposes here, is recorded. According to a Gloss the Hebrews say that was Shem, the first-born of Noah, and when Abraham obtained the victory, he was 390 or 309 years old, and met Abraham, his nephew.

328. - Secondly, he describes him from his dignity, for he was king and a priest. In regard to the first he says, king of Salem. Some say that Salem is called Jerusalem. But Jerome denies this in a letter, because, as he says, he could not run into him from Jerusalem, which he proves from its location. Others say that Salem is the place where John baptized (Jn. 3:23), and the walls of that place still existed in Jerome’s time. In regard to the second he says, priest of the Most High God. For in olden times the elder brother was a priest. But it is true that in Abraham’s time the worship of idols was on the increase. Therefore, lest anyone suppose that he was a priest of idols, he adds, of the Most High God, namely, God by essence not by participation or name. For God is the Creator of all who are gods either by participation or erroneously: ‘The Lord is a great king above all gods’ (Ps. 94:3); ‘You shall be called priests of the Lord: to you it shall be said: You ministers of our God’ (Is. 61:6).

329. - Thirdly, he describes him from his office: who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. For a priest is midway between God and the people. Therefore, he should confer something on the people, namely, spiritual things, and receive something from them, namely, temporal things: ‘If we then have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter, if we reap your carnal things?’ (1 Cor. 9:11). First, therefore, he should show strength by good advice; hence it says in Genesis (14) that the four kings are the four principal vices opposed to the four cardinal virtues which hold the emotions, the nephew of reason, captive after the five bodily senses are overcome. For a person who overcomes and frees the emotions deserves to be comforted by a priest: ‘Meeting the thirsty, bring him water’ (Is. 21:14); ‘Strengthen the feeble hands, and confirm the weak knees’ (Is. 35:3). Secondly, a priest should give strength by administering the sacraments with a blessing; hence, he blessed him: ‘We have blessed you in the name of the Lord’ (Ps. 117:26). But this is done by conferring the sacraments, by which a man is strengthened in grace: ‘They shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them’ (Num. 6:27), for God blesses by His authority, but the priest by his ministry. To him Abraham apportioned, i.e., distributed properly, a tenth part of everything [tithes] for his sustenance.

330. - But it seems from Numbers (18:21) that the giving of tithes dated from the Law; therefore, there was none before the Law. I answer that the ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament are amplifications of the precepts of the natural law and of the moral precepts; therefore, in regard to what they had from the natural law, they were observed before the Law without any precept. For the fact that something is offered to God in recognition of His creation and dominion is natural; but that He should be offered goats and heifers is a ceremonial precept. Similarly, it is according to natural law that ministers serving God be sustained by the people, for it is clear from Genesis (47:22) that this was observed among the Gentiles. Hence, priests, because they were fed from the public storehouses, were not compelled to sell their possessions. Therefore, there were tithes before the Law, but the determination of this amount was fixed by the law: ‘All tithes are the Lord’s’ (Lev. 27:30). A sign of this was the fact that Jacob before the Law vowed that he would give tithes in the place where the temple was later built. And this was done particularly because the main reason for rendering worship to God is to signify that whatever a man has, he received from God and that he depends on Him for his entire perfection. For the number ‘ten’ is perfect, since it is the sum of its several parts, because the sum of one plus two plus three plus four is ten. Furthermore, one counts as far as ten and all other numbers are repetitions or additions to ten. Therefore, all numbers are imperfect until ten is reached. Likewise, all perfection is from God. Therefore, in order to signify that the fulfillment of all perfection is from God, he gave tithes.

331. - Then (v. 2b) he shows the likeness to Melchizedek. In regard to this he does two things: first, he suggests the likeness in regard to the condition of the person; secondly, in regard to the priesthood (v. 3b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states a likeness in regard t things commemorated in Scripture; secondly, in regard to things not mentioned in Scripture (v. 3).

332. - In Scripture two things are said of him: first, his name, namely, Melchizedek, who is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and signifies Christ, Who was a king: ‘And a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth’ (Jer. 23:5). He is not only called righteous, but king of righteousness, because He was made wisdom and righteousness for us (1 Cor. 1:30). Another thing said of him is his status; hence, he is called king of Salem, that is, king of peace. But this suits Christ: ‘For he is our peace’ (Eph. 2:14); ‘In his days shall justice spring up and abundance of peace’ (Ps. 71:7). And in this the Apostle teaches us to use the interpretation of names in preaching. He does well to join justice and peace, because no one can make peace who does not observe justice: ‘The work of justice shall be peace’ (Is. 32:17). In this world they are governed in justice, but in the world to come in peace: ‘My people shall sit in the beauty of peace’ (Is. 32:18).

333. - Then when he says, without father or mother or genealogy, he presents a likeness in regard to the things not mentioned about him, because in Scripture no mention is made of his father or mother or genealogy. Hence, some of the ancients made this matter of their error, saying that since God alone is without beginning and without end, Melchizedek was the Son of God. But this has been condemned as heretical. Hence, it should be noted that the Old Testament, whenever mention is made of some important person, his father is named along with the time of his birth and death, as in the case of Isaac and many others. But here Melchizedek is suddenly introduced with no mention at all made of his birth or anything pertaining to it. This was not done without reason. For inasmuch as it is said, without father, the birth of Christ from the Virgin is signified, for it occurred without a father: ‘That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit’ (Mt. 1:20). Now that which is proper to God should not be attributed to a creature; but it is proper to God the Father to be the Father of Christ. Therefore, in the birth of the one who prefigured Him, no mention should be made of a carnal father. Also in regard to His eternal birth he says, without mother, lest anyone suppose that birth to be material, as the mother gives the matter to her begotten; but it is spiritual, as brightness from the sun: ‘Who being the brightness of his glory and figure of his substance’ (Heb. 1:3). Also, when generation proceeds from a father and a mother, it is not all from the father, but the matter is ministered by the mother. Therefore, to exclude all imperfection from Christ and to designate that all he has from the Father, no mention is made of a mother; hence, the verse: ‘He is God without a mother; He is flesh without a father.’ ‘From the womb before the day star I begot you,’ i.e., I alone (Ps. 109:3). Without genealogy: now there are two reasons why his genealogy is not given in the Scripture: one is because the generation of Christ is ineffable: ‘Who shall declare his generation’ (Is. 53:8); the other is because Christ, Who is introduced as a priest, does not pertain to the Levitical priesthood, nor to a genealogy of the Old Law. This is the Apostle’s intention; hence, he says, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life. But he says this, not because Christ was not born in time or did not die, but because of His eternal generation, in which He was born without the beginning of any time: ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (Jn. 1:1), i.e., no matter what time you mention, the Word was before it, as Basil explains. Also, no end of life: this is true in regard to His divinity, which is eternal. But in regard to His humanity, He no longer has an end of life, because ‘Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9); and below (13:8): ‘Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever.’

334. - Then when he says, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever, he indicates a likeness in regard to the priesthood. Yet is should be noted that later things are said to be similar to earlier things, and vice versa. Consequently, lest anyone suppose that Christ’s priesthood is later than that of Melchizedek, the Apostle dispels this, because, although Christ as man was born after him and existed in time, nevertheless, as God and as the Son of God, He exists from eternity. Therefore, Melchizedek was like Christ, the Son of God, in regard to all those features: and this inasmuch as He continues a priest forever, which can be explained in two ways: one way, because no mention is made of the end of his priesthood or of his successor: ‘I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets’ (Hos 12:10). He also says, a priest forever, because that which is prefigured, namely, Christ’s priesthood, lasts forever. Hence, even in Scripture it is frequently referred to as perpetual: ‘It shall be a perpetual observance’ (Ex. 27:21): ‘By a perpetual service and rite’ (Lev. 24:3), because that which was symbolized by it is perpetual. In this matter the Apostle connects the following with the preceding.
[AD 339] Eusebius of Caesarea on Hebrews 7:4
So far, then, we have learned that they who are called “Christs” in the highest sense of the term are anointed by God, not by people, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, not with a prepared unguent.It is now time to see how the teaching of the Hebrews shows that the true Christ of God possesses a divine nature higher than humanity. Hear, therefore, David again, where he says that he knows an eternal priest of God and calls him his own Lord and confesses that he shares the throne of God Most High in the one hundred ninth psalm. … And note that David in this passage, being king of the whole Hebrew race and, in addition to his kingdom, adorned with the Holy Spirit, recognized that the being of whom he speaks, who was revealed to him in the Spirit, was so great and surpassingly glorious, that he called him his own Lord. He said, “The Lord said to my Lord,” for he knows him as eternal high priest, priest of the Most High God, and throned beside almighty God and his offspring. Now it was impossible for Jewish priests to be consecrated to the service of God without anointing, which is why it was usual to call them Christs. The Christ, then, mentioned in the psalm will also be a priest, for how could he have been witnessed to as priest unless he had previously been anointed? It is also said that he is made a priest forever. Now this would transcend human nature, for it is not in humanity to last forever, since our race is mortal and frail. Therefore, the priest of God described in this passage, who by the confirmation of an oath received a perpetual and limitless priesthood from God, was greater than human. “For the Lord has sworn,” he said, “and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest after the order of Melchizedek.’ ” … The object of the psalmist’s prophecy, therefore, is presented distinctly as an eternal priest and Son of the Most High God, begotten by the Most High God and sharing the throne of his kingdom.…
Thus I think I have clearly proved that the essential Christ was not man, but Son of God, honored with a seat on the right hand of his Father’s Godhead, far greater not only than human and mortal nature, but greater also than every spiritual existence among things begotten.

Source: PROOF OF THE GOSPEL 4.15
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 7:4
This Melchizedek is Shem, who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, he was a priest. He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession. Shem lived not only to the time of Abraham, as Scripture says, but even to the time of Jacob and Esau, the grandsons of Abraham. It was to him that Rebekah went to ask and was told, “Two nations are in your womb, and the elder shall serve the younger.” Rebekah would not have bypassed her husband, who had been delivered at the high place, or her father-in-law, to whom revelations of the divinity came continually, and gone straight to ask Melchizedek unless she had learned of his greatness from Abraham or Abraham’s son. Abraham would not have given him a tenth of everything unless he knew that Melchizedek was infinitely greater than himself. Would Rebekah have asked one of the Canaanites or one of the Sodomites? Would Abraham have given a tenth of his possessions to any one of these? One ought not even entertain such ideas.Because the length of Melchizedek’s life extended to the time of Jacob and Esau, it has been stated, with much probability, that he was Shem. His father Noah was dwelling in the east, and Melchizedek was dwelling between two tribes, that is, between the sons of Ham and his own sons. Melchizedek was like a partition between the two, for he was afraid that the sons of Ham would turn his own sons to idolatry.

Source: COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 11.2.2-4
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:4
4. "Now consider" (says he) "how great this man is to whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Up to this point he has been applying the type: henceforward he boldly shows him [Melchisedec] to be more glorious than the Jewish realities. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? You see how super-abundantly he shows the superiority.

"Now consider" (he says) "how great this man is to whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave a tenth out of the choice portions." Spoils taken in battle are called "choice portions." And it cannot be said that he gave them to him as having a part in the war, because (he said) he met him "returning from the slaughter of the kings," for he had staid at home (he means), yet [Abraham] gave him the first-fruits of his labors.

Source: Homily 12 on Hebrews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:4
“Now consider,” Paul says, “how great this man is to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” Up to this point he has been applying the type; henceforward, he boldly shows Melchizedek to be more glorious than the Aaronic priesthood. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? You see how superabundantly he shows the superiority.… Have you seen the superiority? Have you seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchizedek, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest; the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority passes on also to the descendants.

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 12.4
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 7:5-10
Through Abraham, who gave him the tenth part, the house of Levi, which had to be generated by him, took the tenth part in him. The Levites, even though they took the tenth part, did not take it from strangers but received the tenth part from themselves; in fact, they took the tenth part from their brothers, the sons of Abraham. Therefore, Abraham, to whom the promise of priesthood was made, gave the tenth part to Melchizedek, who was not inscribed in the Levitic generation. And to Abraham it had been promised that all nations would have been blessed in him. So why did he need the blessing of an uncircumcised man? Does not this show and prove that, if Abraham had not been inferior to Melchizedek, he would not have demanded to be blessed by him? And so the mortal sons receive the tenth part, and in the same manner Melchizedek, who was mortal, lived at that time to be a witness for Abraham, for the indisputably true Melchizedek’s blessing destined to the seed of Abraham.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:5-6
"And verily they that are of the sons of Levi who receive the office of Priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham."

So great (he would say) is the superiority of the priesthood, that they who from their ancestors are of the same dignity, and have the same forefather, are yet far better than the rest. At all events they "receive tithes" from them. When then one is found, who receives tithes from these very persons, are not they indeed in the rank of laymen, and he among the Priests?

And not only this; but neither was he of the same dignity with them, but of another race: so that he would not have given tithes to a stranger unless his dignity had been great. Astonishing! What has he accomplished? He has made quite clear a greater point than those relating to faith which he treated in the Epistle to the Romans. For there indeed he declares Abraham to be the forefather both of our polity and also of the Jewish. But here he is exceeding bold against him, and shows that the uncircumcised person is far superior.  How then did he show that Levi paid tithes? Abraham (he says) paid them. 'And how does this concern us?' It especially concerns you: for you will not contend that the Levites are superior to Abraham. [Hebrews 7:6] "But he whose descent is not counted from them, received tithes of Abraham."

Source: Homily 12 on Hebrews
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Hebrews 7:5-10
Why is it that Scripture reports, for the sake of the tremendous difference between the priesthood of Christ and that of Levi, that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek when he was in the loins of Abraham, since Christ was also there, and so both Levi and Christ paid the tithe? Unless it is because we should understand that, in some other way, Christ was not there? But who would deny that Christ was there according to the flesh? Then he was not there according to the soul, for the soul of Christ did not originate through the transmission of the sin of Adam, or else he would have been there.…Levi was surely there in the loins of Abraham in accordance with the transmission of human seed by which he would enter into his mother; Christ was not there through that cause, although the flesh of Mary was. Thus, neither Levi nor Christ were present there according to the soul, but both of them were there according to the flesh. Levi was there according to fleshly desire, while Christ was there only according to his physical substance. For in a seed, there is both a visible physicality and an invisible principle. Both ran their course from Abraham, even from Adam himself, all the way to the body of Mary, since that too was conceived and born in the normal way. So Christ assumed the physical substance of flesh from the flesh of the virgin, but the reason for his conception did not come from a man’s seed, but from a much different source—from above. So for this reason, the flesh which he assumed from his mother was also present in the loins of Abraham.
So Levi paid a tithe in Abraham, who, although he was only there according to the flesh, was still there in the loins of Abraham, as Abraham also was once in the loins of his own father. In other words, he was born of his father Abraham in the same way that Abraham was born of his own father, namely through the law at work in his members fighting against the “law of his mind” and an invisible concupiscence, though the chaste and noble rights of marriage do not permit it to grow strong except insofar as these things are able to make provision for the continuation of the human race.
But he who acquired his flesh not as a rotting wound, but as the source of healing, did not himself also pay a tithe in that way. Since the paying of the tithe served to prefigure the source of healing, the one who would be cured paid the tithe in the flesh of Abraham, but not the one from whom healing would come. For the same flesh, not only that of Abraham, but also that of the first man taken from the earth, contained in itself at the same time both the wound caused by transgression and the medicine for that wound. The wound of sin was at work in the law of the fleshly members fighting against the law of the mind; this law was being transcribed upon all flesh begotten by the principle of a human seed. But the medicine for the wound was also in that flesh, which was assumed without any deed of concupiscence, assumed only in the physical material of the flesh from the Virgin through a divine principle of conception and formation for the sake of a participation in our death not due to his own iniquity and as an example of resurrection that is not deceptive.…
The soul of Christ is from the original soul only if it has not contracted the stain of sin; but if it could not be from that source without the guilt of sin, it has not come from that soul.

Source: ON THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 10.19.34-21.37
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Hebrews 7:5-10
We now advance in reply to those who argue that one who is born of a baptized man ought himself to be regarded as already baptized. “For why,” they ask, “could he not have been baptized in the loins of his father, when, according to the epistle to the Hebrews, Levi was able to pay tithes in the loins of Abraham?” They who propose this argument ought to observe that it was not because he had paid tithes already in the loins of Abraham that Levi did not subsequently pay tithes, but because he was ordained to the office of the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not pay them. Otherwise, neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him, have been tithed—because they too, while in the loins of Abraham, had already paid tithes to Melchizedek.

Source: ON THE MERITS AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND ON INFANT BAPTISM 2.39
[AD 893] Photios I of Constantinople on Hebrews 7:5-10
He says, “even though they have come out of the loins of Abraham.” Although the Levites are in all other respects equal in rank with the other tribes, nonetheless because the other tribes give tithes while the Levites receive them, the Levites are clearly superior. But if this is the case, then clearly also the same principle applies to Abraham and Melchizedek, the giver and recipient, respectively. Consequently, the type of Christ [Melchizedek] is greater than the patriarch Abraham. But if he is greater than Abraham, he is much greater than the priests. And if the type is greater than Abraham, what would anyone say concerning Christ himself?

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.5
[AD 893] Photios I of Constantinople on Hebrews 7:5-10
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.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.9-10
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:7
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. [Hebrews 7:7] "And without all contradiction," he says, "the less is blessed of the better," i.e. in the opinion of all men it is the inferior that is blessed by the superior. So then the type of Christ is superior even to "him that had the promises."

Source: Homily 12 on Hebrews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:8-10
[Hebrews 7:8] "And here men that die receive tithes: but there he of whom it is testified that he lives." But lest we should say, Tell us, why are you going so far back? He says, [Hebrews 7:9] "And as I may so say" (and he did well in softening it) "Levi also who receives tithes payed tithes in Abraham." How? [Hebrews 7:10] "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.

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

In a marvelous and triumphant way he cast out the Jewish [system]. On this account he said, "You have become dull," [Hebrews 5:12], because he wished to lay these foundations, that they might not start away. Such is the wisdom of Paul, first preparing them well, he so leads them into what he wishes. For the human race is hard to persuade, and needs much attention, even more than plants. Since in that case there is [only] the nature of material bodies, and earth, which yields to the hands of the husbandmen: but in this there is will, which is liable to many alterations, and now prefers this, now that. For it quickly turns to evil.

5. Wherefore we ought always to "guard" ourselves, lest at any time we should fall asleep. For "Lo" (it is said) "he that keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep" [Psalm 121:4], and "Do not suffer your foot to be moved." [Psalm 121:3] He did not say, 'be not moved' but "do not thou suffer," etc. The suffering depends then on ourselves, and not on any other. For if we will stand "steadfast and unmoveable" [1 Corinthians 15:58], we shall not be shaken.

What then? Does nothing depend on God? All indeed depends on God, but not so that our free-will is hindered. 'If then it depend on God,' (one says), 'why does He blame us?' On this account I said, 'so that our free-will is not hindered.' It depends then on us, and on Him. For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.

How is it then that Paul says, "not of him that wills," if it depend on ourselves also "nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." [Romans 9:16]

In the first place, he did not introduce it as his own opinion, but inferred it from what was before him and from what had been put forward [in the discussion]. For after saying, "It is written, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" [Romans 9:15], he says, "It follows then that it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy." "You will say then unto me, why does He yet find fault?" [Romans 9:16-19]

And secondly the other explanation may be given, that he speaks of all as His, whose the greater part is. For it is ours to choose and to wish; but God's to complete and to bring to an end. Since therefore the greater part is of Him, he says all is of Him, speaking according to the custom of men.  For so we ourselves also do. I mean for instance: we see a house well built, and we say the whole is the Architect's [doing], and yet certainly it is not all his, but the workmen's also, and the owner's, who supplies the materials, and many others', but nevertheless since he contributed the greatest share, we call the whole his. So then [it is] in this case also. Again, with respect to a number of people, where the many are, we say All are: where few, nobody. So also Paul says, "not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy."

And herein he establishes two great truths: one, that we should not be lifted up: even should you run (he would say), even should you be very earnest, do not consider that the well doing is your own. For if you obtain not the impulse that is from above, all is to no purpose. Nevertheless that you will attain that which thou earnestly strivest after is very evident; so long as you run, so long as you will.

He did not then assert this, that we run in vain, but that, if we think the whole to be our own, if we do not assign the greater part to God, we run in vain. For neither has God willed that the whole should be His, lest He should appear to be crowning us without cause: nor again our's, lest we should fall away to pride. For if when we have the smaller [share], we think much of ourselves, what should we do if the whole depended on us?

6. Indeed God has done away many things for the purpose of cutting away our boastfulness, and still there is the high hand. With how many afflictions has He encompassed us, so as to cut away our proud spirit! With how many wild beasts has He encircled us! For indeed when some say, 'why is this?' 'Of what use is this?' They utter these things against the will of God. He has placed you in the midst of so great fear, and yet not even so are you lowly-minded; but if you ever attain a little success, you reach to Heaven itself in pride.

For this cause [come] rapid changes and reverses; and yet not even so are we instructed. For this cause are there continual and untimely deaths, but are minded as if we were immortal, as if we should never die. We plunder, we over-reach, as though we were never to give account. We build as if we were to abide here always. And not even the word of God daily sounded into our ears, nor the events themselves instruct us. Not a day, not an hour can be mentioned, in which we may not see continual funerals. But all in vain: and nothing reaches our hardness [of heart]: nor are we even able to become better by the calamities of others; or rather, we are not willing. When we ourselves only are afflicted, then we are subdued, and yet if God take off His hand, we again lift up our hand: no one considers what is proper for man, no one despises the things on earth; no one looks to Heaven. But as swine turn their heads downwards, stooping towards their belly, wallowing in the mire; so too the great body of mankind defile themselves with the most intolerable filth, without being conscious of it.

7. For better were it to be defiled with unclean mud than with sins; for he who is defiled with the one, washes it off in a little time, and becomes like one who had never from the first fallen into that slough; but he who has fallen into the deep pit of sin has contracted a defilement that is not cleansed by water, but needs long time, and strict repentance, and tears and lamentations, and more wailing, and that more fervent, than we show over the dearest friends. For this defilement attaches to us from without, wherefore we also speedily put it away; but the other is generated from within, wherefore also we wash it off with difficulty, and cleanse ourselves from it. "For from the heart" (it is said) "proceed evil thoughts, fornications, adulteries, thefts, false witnesses." [Matthew 15:19] Wherefore also the Prophet said, "Create in me a clean heart, O God." [Psalm 51:10] And another, "Wash your heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem." [Jeremiah 4:14] (You see that it is both our [work] and God's.) And again, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." [Matthew 5:8]

Let us become clean to the utmost of our power. Let us wipe away our sins. And how to wipe them away, the prophet teaches, saying, "Wash you, make you clean, put away your wickedness from your souls, before My eyes." [Isaiah 1:16] What is "before My eyes"? Because some seem to be free from wickedness, but only to men, while to God they are manifest as being "whited sepulchers." Therefore He says, so put them away as I see. "Learn to do well, seek judgment, do justice for the poor and lowly." "Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord: and though your sins be as scarlet, I will make you white as snow, and if they be as crimson, I will make you white as wool." [Isaiah 1:17-18] You see that we must first cleanse ourselves, and then God cleanses us. For having said first, "Wash you, make you clean," He then added "I will make you white."

Let no one then, [even] of those who have come to the extremest wickedness, despair of himself. For (He says) even if you have passed into the habit, yea and almost into the nature of wickedness itself, be not afraid. Therefore taking [the instance of] colors that are not superficial but almost of the substance of the materials, He said that He would bring them into the opposite state. For He did not simply say that He would "wash" us, but that He would "make" us "white, as snow and as wool," in order to hold out good hopes before us. Great then is the power of repentance, at least if it makes us as snow, and whitens us as wool, even if sin have first got possession and dyed our souls.

Let us labor earnestly then to become clean; He has enjoined nothing burdensome. "Judge the fatherless, and do justice for the widow." [Isaiah 1:17] You see everywhere how great account God makes of mercy, and of standing forward in behalf of those that are wronged. These good deeds let us pursue after, and we shall be able also, by the grace of God, to attain to the blessings to come: which may we all be counted worthy of, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, power, honor, now and for ever and world without end. Amen.

Source: Homily 12 on Hebrews
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Hebrews 7:10
335. - Having showed how Melchizedek was likened to the Son of God, the Apostle now shows the pre-eminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical. In regard to this he does two things: first, he attracts their attention; secondly, he states his thesis (v. 5).

336. - He attracts them by saying that he is about to speak of great and important matters: ‘Hear, for I will speak of great things’ (Pr. 8:5); hence, he says, see how great, i.e., of what great dignity, he is, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of the spoils: ‘Cursed is the deceitful man, that has in his flock a male, and making a vow, offers in sacrifice that which is feeble, to the Lord’ (Mal. 1:14). Abraham is called a patriarch, i.e., the chief of fathers, not because he had no father, but because the promise of being father of the Gentiles was made to him: ‘You shall be a father of many nations’ (Gen. 17:4); ‘Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations’ (Sir. 44:20); ‘I have made you a father of many nations before God whom he believed’ (Rom. 4:17).

337. - Then (v. 5) he shows the pre-eminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over that of the Levitical. In regard to this he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, from this he concludes his thesis, namely, that Christ’s priesthood is preferred to the Levitical (v. 11). The first is divided into two parts: in the first he states his proposition; in the second he rejects a certain response (v. 9). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the pre-eminence in regard to that in which he used his priesthood; secondly, in regard to the state of the priesthood (v. 8). But two things pertain to the priest, namely, to receive and to bless. Therefore, he does two things: first, he shows its excellence as far as receiving tithes is concerned; secondly, in regard to blessing (v. 6b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows who is competent to accept tithes; secondly, how Melchizedek did this in a more excellent manner (v. 8).

338. - He says, therefore: And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people. In this he shows that it belongs to priests to take tithes. But it should be noted that the members of Levi’s tribe were deputed to divine worship, but among them only the descendants of Aaron were priests: ‘Take unto you also Aaron, your brother, with his sons from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest’s office’ (Ex. 28:1). Hence, those who belong to the tribe of Levi through Aaron took tithes. This would seem to indicate that the priests alone took tithes, which is contrary to what it says in Numbers (18:21): ‘I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel.’ I answer that the Levites received them, only because they ministered to the priests; consequently, they were given not for themselves but for the priests. Furthermore, the Levites received only one-tenth of the tithes, as it says in Numbers (18:26); therefore, only the priests received and did not pay.

339. - Secondly, he shows by what right they received them, namely, by a commandment of the Law; hence, he says, they have commandment in the law to take tithes. But if this is a commandment of the Law, then, since the observance of a commandment of the Law is now a sin, it seems unlawful to give or to receive tithes now. I answer that there were in the Law some precepts that were purely ceremonial, as circumcision, the immolation of the lamb, and so on. Such laws, since they were only figurative, it is no longer licit to observe, for they were a figure of something to come; hence, anyone who observes them now would be signifying that Christ is still to come. But others were purely moral, and these must be observed now. Among these was the giving of tithes, as was explained above. Hence, tithing was in vogue during the Law and under the New Testament: ‘The worker is worthy of his food’ (Mt. 10:10); ‘The worker is worthy of his hire’ (Lk. 10:7). But the determination of such a portion now is made by the Church, just as in the Old Testament it was determined by the Law. But others were partly ceremonial and partly moral, as the judicial precepts. These laws are no longer to be used in regard to what is ceremonial; but in regard to what is moral, they must be obeyed. Yet it is not necessary that they be observed in their proper form. Another objection: If it were a commandment still in vogue, then one who does not take tithes sins, and they sin where they are not taken. I answer that some say that no one may lawfully renounce his right to take tithes, but it is lawful to renounce the practice of taking them because of scandal; and this from the example of the Apostle who took no sustenance from anyone. So they say that the are commanded not to renounce the right. But it is better to say that they are not commanded to take; but they have this command introduced for themselves, so that they can take, and the others are bound to give.

340. - Thirdly, he shows from who they received, namely, from the people, i.e., from their brethren, though these also are descended from the loins of Abraham. For since someone might say that just as Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, so, too, his sons, the Levites; therefore, that priesthood is not preferred to this one. Consequently, he excludes this and says that the Levites themselves were of the seed of Abraham and, consequently were inferior to Abraham, who paid the tithes.

341. - Then when he says, But this man who has not the genealogy received tithes of Abraham, he shows how it was more fitting for Melchizedek to receive tithes, because he was not of the stock of Abraham; hence, he has not their genealogy, namely, of the Levites. Furthermore, according to a commandment of the Law it was lawful for him to take tithes; consequently, their priesthood was subject to the observance of the Law. But he took tithes not by reason of any law but of himself; therefore, his priesthood was a figure of Christ’s priesthood, which is not subject to the Law. Likewise, they received from a lowly people, namely, their brethren, but he from the highest, namely, from Abraham.

342. - Then when he says, and blessed him that had the promises, he shows his excellence from the viewpoint of the blessing. His reason is this: In Genesis (14:19) it says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham; but one who blesses is greater than the one blessed, therefore, etc. Hence, he says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, who had the promises. But on the other hand, it says below (11:39): ‘They received not the promise.’ I answer that Abraham did not receive the promise, i.e., the things promised, because he did not obtain it; but he possessed it in faith and hope, and to him specifically the promises were made.

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

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 the more excellent which is not corrupted. But in the Levitical priesthood mortal men, i.e., who succeed by death, receive tithes; but there, in the priesthood of Melchizedek, by one of who it is testified from the Scripture, that he lives, i.e., it makes no mention of his death, not because he did not die, but because he signifies a priesthood that continues forever: ‘Christ, rising again from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9); ‘I was dead, and behold I am living forever and ever’ (Rev. 1:18).

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

346. - Then (v. 10) he explains what he had said; and he says that Levi was still in the loins of his father, Abraham, when he gave tithes to Melchizedek, who met him. Consequently, when Abraham was tithed, Levi was tithed. But on the other hand: Christ, too, was in his loins, just as Levi: ‘The son of David, the son of Abraham’ (Mt. 1:1). Therefore, if the reason why Melchizedek is greater than Levi is that Levi was tithed, there seems to be no reason why Christ was not tithed; consequently, Melchizedek is still greater than Christ. And the same difficulty applies to original sin, because as it says in Romans (5:12): ‘In whom all have sinned,’ i.e., in Adam. Therefore, it seems that Christ, Who existed in him in the same way as we, should have contracted original sin. I answer that all this is understood in regard to those who were in Abraham or in Adam according to seminal reasons or bodily substance. For Christ was conceived in regard to His body from the most pure and holy matter of the Blessed Virgin, as it says in 3 Sent. d. 5.
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:11-14
"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood; (for under it the people have received the law?' ) what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 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 spoke nothing concerning priests."

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

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

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

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

2.  And what is the meaning of what follows? "For" (he says) under [or "upon"] it the people have received the Law [or "have been legislated for"]. What is "under it" [&c.]? Orders itself by it; through it does all things. You cannot say that it was given to others, "the people under it have received the law," that is, have used it, and did use it. You cannot say indeed that it was perfect, it did not govern the people; "they have been legislated for upon it," that is, they used it.

What need was there then of another priesthood? "For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change of the law also." But if there must be another priest, or rather another priesthood, there must needs be also another law. This is for those who say, What need was there of a new Covenant? For he could indeed have alleged a testimony from prophecy also. "This is the covenant which I made with your fathers" [&c.]. [Hebrews 8:10] But for the present he contends on the ground of the priesthood. And observe, how he says this from the first. He said, "According to the order of Melchisedec." By this he excluded the order of Aaron. For he would not have said "After the order of Melchisedec," if the other had been better. If therefore another priesthood has been brought in, there must be also [another] Covenant; for neither is it possible that there should be a priest, without a covenant and laws and ordinances, nor that having received a different priesthood He should use the former [covenant].

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

And observe the mystery. First it was royal, and then it has become sacerdotal: so therefore also in regard to Christ: for King indeed He always was, but has become Priest from the time that He assumed the Flesh, that He offered the sacrifice. You see the change, and the very things which were ground of objection these he introduces, as though the natural order of things required them. "For" (he says) "He of whom these things are spoken pertained to another tribe." I myself also say it, I know that this tribe [of Judah] had nothing of priesthood. For there is a transferring.

3. Yea and I am showing another difference also (he would say): not only from the tribe, nor yet only from the Person, nor from the character [of the Priesthood], nor from the covenant, but also from the type itself. [Hebrews 7:16] Who was made ["became" so], not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. He became (he says) "a priest not according to the law of a carnal commandment": for that law was in many respects unlawful.

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

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:11-12
If the priesthood according to the law contained perfection, he is saying, on the grounds that through it everything according to the law was fulfilled, why is the giving of another one intended? Why on earth is the promise made to give it not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of Melchizedek? Actually, all the law’s requirements were fulfilled in the former one: it offered sacrifices, it gave purification from defilement, through it the commandments about festivals were fulfilled, the text says, “for under it the people received the law.”After thus demonstrating the change of priesthood, he shows also the cessation of the law. The law was liked to the priesthood; so with priesthood coming to an end, the law also suffered the same fate.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:11-12
The mystery of the divine plan is worthy of admiration: as Christ the Lord, eternal king as he is, was styled our high priest, so the tribe of Judah, which was formerly kingly, attained the priesthood through the Lord.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 461] Leo the Great on Hebrews 7:11-12
When I compare the impoverishment of my insufficiency with the greatness of the gift I have received, I too should cry out in those words of the prophet, “Lord, I have heard your word and was afraid; I have considered your works and trembled.” What indeed could instill as much anxiety and fear as labor for the frail, elevation for the lowly, dignity for the undeserving? Yet we do not despair or give up, since we do not depend on ourselves but on the one “who works in us.” … So we have chanted with one voice the psalm of David, dearly beloved, not for our own exaltation but for the glory of Christ the Lord.He it is of whom it was said in prophetic manner, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” that is to say, “not according to the order of Aaron,” whose priesthood passed down through the descent of his offspring and was a temporary ministry that ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but “after the order of Melchizedek,” in whom the office of eternal high priest was prefigured. Since there is no mention of the parents he came from, he must be understood as standing for the one “whose genealogy cannot be told.”
Finally, since the mystery of this divine priesthood also extends to its implementation by people, it does not pass down through the course of generations. It is not what flesh and blood have created that is chosen. Rather, the privileges of paternity give way, and the social positions of families are disregarded, as the church accepts for its rulers those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared. Among the people of God’s adoption, which is priestly and kingly when taken as a whole, the prerogative of earthly lineage does not obtain the anointing.

Source: SERMON 3.1
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:13-15
Orth.—Do you say that according to the divine nature [the Lord] had a mother? Eran.—Certainly not. Orth.—For he was begotten of the Father alone before the ages? Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—And yet, as the generation he has of the Father is ineffable, he is spoken of as “without descent.” “Who,” says the prophet, “shall declare his generation?” Eran.—You are right. Orth.—Thus it becomes him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for he is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.Eran.—This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits the admirable Melchizedek. Orth.—As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Savior these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchizedek. For after telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and similarly of Jacob and of his sons, and exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, it records neither the father nor the mother of Melchizedek. It also does not teach that he traced his descent from any one of Noah’s sons, to the end that he may be a type of him who is in reality without father and without mother. And this is what the divine apostle would have us understand, for in this very passage he says further, “But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.”
Eran.—Then, since holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents, can he be called without father and without mother? Orth.—If he had really been without father and without mother, he would not have been an image, but a reality. But since these are his qualities not by nature, but according to the dispensation of the divine Scripture, he exhibits the type of the reality. Eran.—The type must have the character of the archetype.
Orth.—Is man called an image of God? Eran.—Man is not an image of God but was made in the image of God. Orth.—Listen then to the apostle. He says, “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” Eran.—Granted, then, that he is an image of God.
Orth.—According to your argument then he must have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and he must have been uncreated, uncompounded and infinite. He ought also to have been able to create out of the nonexistent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labor. In addition to this, he ought to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype. Eran.—Man is not an image of God in every respect. Orth.—Although he is truly an image in the qualities in which you would grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by a wide interval from the reality. Eran.—Agreed.
Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says, “Who is the image of the invisible God?” Eran.—What then; does not the Son have all the qualities of the Father? Orth.—He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not unbegotten. Eran.—If he were he would not be Son. Orth.—Then does not what I said hold true; the image does not have all the qualities of the archetype? Eran.—True. Orth.—Thus too the divine apostle said that Melchizedek is made like unto the Son of God.

Source: DIALOGUE 2
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:13-15
Eran.—Suppose we grant that [Melchizedek] is without Father and without mother and without descent, as you have said. But how are we to understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of life?Orth.—The holy Moses when writing the ancient genealogy tells us how Adam being so many years old begat Seth, and when he had lived so many years he ended his life. He writes the same of Seth, of Enoch, and of the rest. But he mentions neither beginning of existence nor end of life when speaking about Melchizedek. Thus as far as the story goes he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but in truth and reality the only begotten Son of God never began to exist and shall never have an end. Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—Then, so far as what belongs to God and is really divine is concerned, Melchizedek is a type of the Lord Christ; but as far as the priesthood is concerned, which belongs rather to man than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek. For, Melchizedek was a high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ has made the right holy offering of salvation for everyone.
Eran.—We have spent many words on this matter. Orth.—Yet more were needed, as you know, for you said the point was a difficult one.

Source: DIALOGUE 2
[AD 240] Julius Africanus on Hebrews 7:14
And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda.

Source: Julius Africanus The Epistle to Aristides
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:15-17
"And it is yet far more evident, if after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises 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.) "But according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies, You are a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"; that is, not for a time, nor having any limit, "but according to the power of an endless life," that is, by means of power, by means of "endless life."

And yet this does not follow after, "who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment": for what would follow would be to say, "but according to that of a spiritual one." However by "carnal," he implied temporary. As he says also in another place, carnal ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. [Hebrews 9:10]

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

4. He had said, that there is also a change of law, and up to this point he has shown it; henceforward he enquires into the cause, that which above all gives full assurance to men's minds, [I mean] the knowing the cause thoroughly; and it leads us more to faith when we have learned also the cause, and the principle according to which [the thing] comes to pass.

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 7:16
Paul says, “If perfection had been attainable” through the Levitic house, “for under it the people received the law”—that is, through its agency the law of the people was declared—“what further need would there have been” to elevate another priest from another place, “rather than one named after the order of Aaron,” who was the patriarch of those priests, “but after the order of” the uncircumcised “Melchizedek”?After thus proving the necessity to change priesthood, Paul begins again to prove that, with this change in the priesthood, the law is changed too. “When there is a change in the priesthood,” he says, “there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Is there need of a sacrificial law, if sacrifices and priesthood have been abolished?
So Melchizedek, “of whom these things are spoken” even though he was from that generation, came “from another tribe from which no one has ever served at the altar,” and the one who received his priesthood was certainly not from the Levites, lest he might be estranged from Melchizedek because of his origin.
In fact, “it is evident that our Lord” Jesus Christ “was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.”
For this reason Uzziah was stricken with leprosy, because he wanted to transfer priesthood by his action and move it to the house of Judah, before Jesus, who was from Judah, came and took it in his hour.
“This becomes even more evident” because “another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent,” that is, not by being appointed before the people through the aspersion, sanctification, and blood and anointment of priesthood, and through its garments. Our Lord, on the contrary, was appointed and accepted the priesthood “by the power of a life” which is not broken down by death.
He accepted the priesthood through the oath proffered by David, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Therefore, “a former commandment is set aside,” as well as the previous priesthood, “because of its weakness and uselessness” as a rule.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:16
He is saying it is possible to bring out the likeness between the one and the other: as one did not have successors to his priesthood, so neither did the other transmit it to another—which he referred to as “bodily descent” because the law required on account of the mortality of human beings that after the death of the high priest his son would succeed to the priesthood. Now, in my view this phrase has another meaning as well: the priests cleansed the body in particular, sprinkling and washing it; they offered sacrifices for it. In other words, it was not for murderers or wreckers of others’ marriages that they were in the habit of performing sacrifices, but for menstruating women, lepers and people who touched the bones of the dead.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Hebrews 7:17
Just as the people of old, who were called the people of God, were divided into twelve tribes plus the levitical order, and this order itself, which engaged in service of the Divine, was divided into additional priestly and levitical orders, so, I think, all the people of Christ according to “the hidden person of the heart,” who bear the name “Jew inwardly” and who have been circumcised “in spirit,” possess the characteristics of the tribes in a more mystical manner.…Most of us who approach the teachings of Christ, since we have much time for the activities of life and offer a few acts to God, would perhaps be those from the tribes who have a little fellowship with the priests and support the service of God in a few things. But those who devote themselves to the divine Word and truly exist by the service of God alone will properly be said to be Levites and priests in accordance with the excellence of their activities in this work.
And, perhaps, those who excel all others and who hold, as it were, the first places of their generation will be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but not according to the order of Melchizedek. If someone should object to this, thinking that we are impious when we prescribe the title of high priest for humans, since Jesus is proclaimed as great priest in many places—for we have “a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God”—we would have to say to him that the apostle indicated this when he said that the prophet said of Christ, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” and not after the order of Aaron. On this basis, we too say that humans can be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but only the Christ of God according to the order of Melchizedek.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.1, 1.10-11
[AD 651] Braulio of Zaragoza on Hebrews 7:17
It is better to be in doubt about hidden matters than to quarrel about what is uncertain. Let us turn to what is true and firm, to what most assuredly keeps any Christian and good Catholic from doubting or quibbling. That is, through the sacrament, bread and wine offered to God become for us the true body and blood of Christ, according to the words of the Lord himself and the sacred Scriptures composed by the Holy Spirit. This sacrament the Catholic church offers daily on its altar “after the order of Melchizedek” by the true pontiff, Jesus Christ, with mystical understanding and an ineffable dearth of speech, because surpassing grace goes beyond everything.

Source: LETTER 42
[AD 735] Bede on Hebrews 7:17
And in the Apocalypse, John the apostle … says, “Who loved us and washed from us our sins in his blood.” Not only did he wash away our sins in his blood when he gave his blood for us on the cross, or when each of us was cleansed in his baptism by the mystery of his most sacred passion. But he also takes away every day the sins of the world and washes us of our daily sins in his blood, when the memory of his blessed passion is reenacted on the altar, when a created thing, bread and wine, is transformed by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit into the sacrament of his flesh and blood. Thus his body and blood is not poured forth and slain by the hands of the unfaithful to their own ruin, but he is taken by the mouth of the faithful to their salvation.The lamb in the law of Passover rightly shows us a type of him, since, having once liberated the people from their Egyptian servitude, it sanctified the people every year by being immolated in memory of their liberation, until he came, to whom such a sacrificial offering gave testimony. When he was offered to the Father for us as a sacrificial offering and for a sweet savor, he transformed, by the lamb that was offered, the mystery of his passion into a created thing, bread and wine, having been made “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Source: Homilies on the Gospels 1.15
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Hebrews 7:18-19
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. “For no human being will be justified by works of the law.” Nor could the law lead anyone to “perfection.” In the same way the “leprous” hand of Moses was hidden in his bosom, since it could not perform any perfect work; but his face shone, though covered with a veil, since his word has the glory of knowledge, but a hidden glory.

Source: HOMILIES ON EXODUS 12.3
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 7:18-19
Because of their earthly voluptuousness and desire for pleasure, which the former priests showed, and because of their infirmity, through which they made their people infirm before their cupidities, they did not bring any of them to that perfection, thanks to which we got rid of all our material goods. In fact, “the introduction” of the gospel made for the hope which surpassed what was previously preached to us, was also made for the introduction of this precept: through our own freedom from material possessions “we approach God,” whereas through the voluptuousness and pleasures of the law we were rejected and removed from God.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:18
"For there is verily" (he says) "a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Here the Heretics press on. But listen attentively. He did not say "for the evil," nor, "for the viciousness," but "for the weakness and unprofitableness [thereof]," yea and in other places also he shows the weakness; as when he says "In that it was weak through the flesh." [Romans 8:3] [The law] itself then is not weak, but we.

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:18-19
Was the law then of no use? It was indeed of use and of great use, but to make humans perfect it was of no use. For in this respect he says, “the law made nothing perfect.” All were figures, all shadows: circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. Therefore they could not reach through the soul, and thus they pass away and gradually withdraw. But “a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.”

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.4
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:18-19
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. It must be noted, of course, that he refers to the obsolete prescriptions of the law as ineffective and useless—circumcision, sabbath observance and similar things; the New Testament also bids us observe to a greater extent the commandments, you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, and suchlike things. In place of the former, therefore, we receive the hope of the good things to come: it relates us to God.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:19
"For the Law made nothing perfect." What is, "make nothing perfect"? Made no man perfect, being disobeyed. And besides, even if it had been listened to, it would not have made one perfect and virtuous. But as yet he does not say this here, but that it had no strength: and with good reason. For written precepts were there set down, Do this and Do not that, being enjoined only, and not giving power within. But "the Hope" is not such.

What is "a disannulling"? A casting out. A "disannulling" is a disannulling of things which are of force. So that he implied, that it [once] was of force, but henceforward was of no account, since it accomplished nothing. Was the Law then of no use? It was indeed of use; and of great use: but to make men perfect it was of no use. For in this respect he says, "The Law made nothing perfect." All were figures, all shadows; circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. There fore they could not reach through the soul, wherefore they pass away and gradually withdraw. "But the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw near unto God."

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Hebrews 7:19
347. - Having proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical, the Apostle now concludes to the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical. But as has been stated above from the beginning of ch. 7, the Apostle proves his proposition from three statements taken from the Psalmist: first, from the phrase, ‘according to the order of Melchizedek.’ Therefore, he proved the pre-eminence of Melchizedek over Levi. Now according to the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood, he proves Christ’s pre-eminence over the Levitical. Hence, he lays great stress on the phrase, ‘according to the order.’ And he gives two reasons: the first concludes that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical; secondly, that it even makes it void (v. 15). In the first reason, which is conditional, he lays down two antecedents and two consequents: what further need would there have been for another priesthood to rise according to the order of Melchizedek?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

359. - His reasoning is this: If a new priest arises, this will not be according to the Law of a carnal commandment, but according to the Law of eternal and incorruptible life; the reason being that the first was according to that Law. It is proper, therefore, to say that the new one be according to another law, if a new one does actually arise. But a new one does arise. In the major premise are two statements: one pertains to the Old Testament, namely, that it is a carnal commandment, and this because it had certain carnal observances, as circumcision and purifications of the flesh, and because it promised carnal rewards and punishments: ‘If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land’ (Is. 1:19) ‘Justices of the flesh laid on them until the time of correction’ (Heb. 9:10). He lays down that antecedent when he says, and this becomes even more evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest. It is clear that it pertains to the New Testament, which is not dispensed by carnal things, but consists of spiritual things: for it is founded upon a spiritual power, by which a perpetual life is produced in us; and this because perpetual goods and punishments are promised in it: ‘But Christ, being come a high priest of the good things to come’ (Heb. 9:11); ‘And these shall go into everlasting punishment; but the just into life everlasting’ (Mt. 25:26). Furthermore, it does not consist in carnal observances but in spiritual: ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life’ (Jn. 6:64). And this is what he says, namely, that it is according to the power of an indestructible life.

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.

361. - Then when he says, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside, he lays down two consequents: first, in regard to the voiding of the Old Testament; secondly, the institution of the New.

362. - The first consequent is that the Old Testament came about by the law of carnal commandments, and the other is then introduced. The first, therefore, is changed: and this is what he says, namely, there is a setting aside of the former commandment. But nothing is set aside except what is evil: ‘That he may know how to refuse the evil’ (Is. 7:15). But the commandment is not evil ‘The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’(Rom. 7:12). I answer that it was not evil in itself, but inasmuch as it was unsuited to the time. For the things of the Old Testament are not to be kept in the New Testament: ‘Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire: then said I: behold, I come’ (Ps. 39:8). Therefore, it is said to be set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. For that is said to be weak which cannot produce its effect; but the proper effect of the Law and of the priesthood is to justify. This the Law was unable to do: ‘For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin has condemned sin in the flesh’ (Rom. 8:3); ‘How turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again?’ (Gal. 4:9). Likewise, it is called useless, inasmuch as it prepared one for the faith: ‘All these died according to the flesh, not having received the promises’ (Heb. 11:13). But he shows why it is weak and useless when he says, it made nothing perfect in regard to justice or eternal life. Hence, it was imperfect, but it was made perfect by Christ.

363. - Then when he says, on the other hand a better hope is introduced, he lays down the second consequent from the second antecedent, saying, a better hope is introduced by the new priest, through which we draw near to God. For if a new priest arises, it is according to the power of an indestructible life (this is the antecedent); and the introduction of a better hope (this is the consequent): ‘He has regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1 Pt 1:3). Likewise, through Him we draw near to God, for through sin we are separated from Him: ‘But your iniquities have divided you between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear’ (Is. 59:2). He, therefore, is the one who removes this and makes us draw near to God. He is that new Priest, namely, Christ, Who takes away the sins of the world: ‘Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access into this grace’ (Rom. 5:1).
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:20
5. [Hebrews 7:20] "And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath." You see that the matter of the oath becomes necessary for him here. Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much [hereon], how that God swore; and swore for the sake of [our] fuller assurance.

"But the bringing in of a better hope." For that system also had a hope, but not such as this. For they hoped that, if they were well pleasing [to God], they should possess the land, that they should suffer nothing fearful. But in this [dispensation] we hope that, if we are well pleasing [to God], we shall possess not earth, but heaven; or rather (which is far better than this) we hope to stand near to God, to come unto the very throne of the Father, to minister unto Him with the Angels. And see how he introduces these things little by little. For above he says "which enters into that within the veil", [Hebrews 6:19], but here, "by which we draw near unto God."

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Hebrews 7:20-22
He says that it shows the difference between Christ and Aaron in that Christ received the priesthood with an oath. For those who became priests without oaths became so because of their need to cease being priests at some time, but Christ entered the priesthood with oaths, since he intended to remain based on his rank. He shows his rank is far greater than those under the law, since he intended also to furnish a greater high priest to those coming to him. For in this way he says he becomes “a surety” … for being the first to rise, just as he also calls him a “high priest,” so he pledges to us a similar resurrection.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.20-22
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:20-22
Since he was the one who under the law appointed priests but brought them to an end and declared another in their place, he was obliged to say that he appointed them without taking an oath, but in his case included an oath as well. Do not think, then, that this priesthood will cease to have effect like that one, or that another one will take its place; the taking of an oath excludes such a false impression.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 7:20-22
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.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7
[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on Hebrews 7:21
For also our Father, on beholding the Good One, and on being initiated with Him, preserved the mysteries respecting which silence is enjoined, and sware, as it has been written, "The Lord sware, and will not repent.".
And this oath, (Justinus) says, our Father Elohim sware when He was beside the Good One, and having sworn He did not repent (of the oath), respecting which, he says, it has been written, "The Lord sware, and will not repent."

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book V
[AD 380] Apostolic Constitutions on Hebrews 7:21
Whence also the prophet says, The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec.

Source: CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:21-24
"And inasmuch as not without an oath." What is "And inasmuch as not without an oath"? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). "For those priests were made without an oath," [Hebrews 7:21-22] "but This with an oath, by Him that said to Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, You are Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant." He lays down two points of difference, that it has no end as the [covenant] of the Law had; and this he proves from [its being] Christ who exercises [the priesthood]; for he says "according to the power of an endless life." And he proves it also from the oath, because "He swore," etc., and from the fact; for if the other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How? Because He is One [only]; and there would not have been One [only], unless He had been immortal. For as there were many priests, because they were mortal, so [here is] The One, because He is immortal. "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant," inasmuch as He swore to Him that He should always be [Priest]; which He would not have done, if He were not living.

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Hebrews 7:25
Jesus now stands “before the face of God interceding for us.” He stands before the altar to offer a propitiation to God for us. As he was about to approach that altar, moreover, he was saying, “I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you.” Therefore, he expects us to be converted, to imitate his example, to follow his footsteps, that he may rejoice with us and “drink wine with us in his Father’s kingdom.” For now, because “the Lord is merciful and gracious,” he “weeps with those who weep and desires to rejoice with those who rejoice” with greater feeling than this apostle. And how much more “this one mourns over many of those who sinned before and have not repented.” For we must not think that Paul is mourning for sinners and weeping for those who transgress, but Jesus my Lord abstains from weeping when he approaches the Father, when he stands at the altar and offers a propitiatory sacrifice for us. This is not to drink the wine of joy “when he ascends to the altar” because he is still bearing the bitterness of our sins. He, therefore, does not want to be the only one to drink wine “in the kingdom” of God. He waits for us, just as he said, “Until I shall drink it with you.” Thus we are those who, neglecting our life, delay his joy.

Source: HOMILIES ON LEVITICUS 7.2
[AD 390] Gregory of Nazianzus on Hebrews 7:25
Petition does not imply here, as it does in popular parlance, a desire for legal satisfaction; there is something humiliating in the idea. No, it means interceding for us in his role of mediator, in the way that the Spirit too is spoken of as “making petition” on our behalf. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Even at this moment he is, as human, interceding for my salvation, until he makes me divine by the power of his incarnate humanity. “As human,” I say, because he still has with him the body he assumed, though he is no longer “regarded as human,” meaning the bodily experiences, which, sin aside, are ours and his. This is the “advocate” we have in Jesus—not a slave who falls prostrate before the Father on our behalf. Get rid of what is really a slavish suspicion, unworthy of the Spirit. It is not in God to make the demand, nor in the Son to submit to it; the thought is unjust to God. No, it is by what he suffered as man that he persuades us, as Word and encourager, to endure. That, for me, is the meaning of his “advocacy.”

Source: ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 4(30).14
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:25
6. [Hebrews 7:25] "Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them." You see that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when He [appears] as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, "who also makes intercession for us" [Romans 8:34], he hints the same thing; the High Priest makes intercession. For He "that raises the dead as He will, and quickens them," [John 5:21], and that "even as the Father" [does], how [is it that] when there is need to save, He "makes intercession"? [John 5:22] He that has "all judgment," how [is it that] He "makes intercession"? He that "sends His angels" [Matthew 13:41-42], that they may "cast" some into "the furnace," and save others, how [is it that] He "makes intercession"? Wherefore (he says) "He is able also to save." For this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as "He ever lives," He has (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there [under the Law] indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was [High Priest] (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but "He" saves "to the uttermost."

What is "to the uttermost"? He hints at some mystery. Not here only (he says) but there also He saves them that "come unto God by Him." How does He save? "In that He ever lives" (he says) "to make intercession for them." You see the humiliation? You see the manhood? For he says not, that He obtained this, by making intercession once for all, but continually, and whenever it may be needful to intercede for them.

"To the uttermost." What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life. 'Does He then always need to pray? Yet how can [this] be reasonable? Even righteous men have oftentimes accomplished all by one entreaty, and is He always praying? Why then is He throned with [the Father]?' You see that it is a condescension. The meaning is: Be not afraid, nor say, Yea, He loves us indeed, and He has confidence towards the Father, but He cannot live always. For He does live always.

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:25
You see that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when he appears as priest, then he also intercedes. Wherefore also, when Paul says, “who indeed intercedes for us,” he hints the same thing; the high priest makes intercession. For he that “raises the dead and gives them life” and does so “as the Father,” how is it that, when there is need to save, he “makes intercession”? He that has “all judgment,” how is it that he “makes intercession”? He that “sends his angels” that they may “throw” some into “the furnace” and save others, how is it that he “makes intercession”? Wherefore, he says, “he is able to save.” For this cause then he saves, because he dies not. Inasmuch as “he always lives,” he has, he means, no successor; and if he has no successor, he is able to aid all people. For there under the law indeed, the high priest, although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was high priest as Samuel, for instance, and any other such, but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but “he” saves “to the uttermost.” What is “to the uttermost”? He hints at some mystery. Not here only, he says, but there also he saves them that “draw near to God through him.” How does he save? “Since he always lives,” he says, “to make intercession for them.” Do you see the humiliation? Do you see the manhood? For he says not that he obtained this by making intercession once for all, but continually and whenever it may be needful to intercede for them. “To the uttermost.” What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life.

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.6
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Hebrews 7:25
He intercedes as “we have him as an advocate with the Father.” He says that from his incarnation itself he advocates for us and exhorts the Father to have mercy on us.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.25
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 7:26
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.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 7:26-28
In the house of Levi, because “they became priests without an oath,” they did not last; he, on the contrary, lasts forever. In fact, it cannot happen that he speaks falsely about the oath, because he said, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’ ” of the priests according to the order of Melchizedek. And “Jesus Christ” was “a much better” mediator than the former priests in that thing, which he promised us through the New Testament.While before it was necessary that the priests were many, because death interrupted the older ones in the course of their office and they did not last forever, now there is no other high priest with our Lord, “who lives forever to make intercession for us,” not in the victims of the sacrifices but in prayers.
“And he is able for all time to save us,” not in the earthly delights, which nourish us for a few days, but “when we draw near to God through him” in eternity.
“It was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners … who had no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself,” not for him but for the sins of humankind.
“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.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on Hebrews 7:26-28
Although we are not his brothers but have become his enemies by our transgressions, he who is not mere man, but God, after the freedom that he bestowed on us, also calls us his brothers. “I will tell of your name,” he says, “to my brethren.” Now, he who has redeemed us, if you examine his nature, is neither brother nor man; but if you examine his condescension to us through grace, he calls us brothers and descends to our human nature. He does not need a ransom, for he himself is the propitiation.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE PSALMS 19.4 (PSALM 48)
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:26-28
You see that the whole passage is said of the humanity. But when I say the humanity, I mean the humanity having divinity, not dividing one from the other, but leaving you to suppose what is suitable.… He says, “such a high priest also became us, who is holy, blameless.” “Blameless”—what is that? Without wickedness, about which another prophet says, “there was no deceit in his mouth.” That is, he is not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning him, however, in respect of the flesh, it might be reasonable to say it.

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.7
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:26
7. "For such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless, unde filed, separate from the sinners." You see that the whole is said with reference to the manhood. (But when I say 'the manhood,' I mean [the manhood] having Godhead; not dividing [one from the other], but leaving [you] to suppose what is suitable.) Did you mark the difference of the High Priest? He has summed up what was said before, "in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin." [Hebrews 4:15] "For" (he says) "such an High Priest also became us, who is holy, harmless." "Harmless": what is it? Without wickedness: that which another Prophet says: "guile was not found in His mouth" [Isaiah 53:9], that is, [He is] not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning Him, however, in respect of the Flesh, it might be reasonable [to say it]. "Holy, undefiled." This too would any one say concerning God? For has He a nature capable of defilement? "Separate from sinners."

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Hebrews 7:26-28
Who then is so just and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need of a sacrifice for the washing away of his own sins, neither original sins nor those that are added from human life? And what could be so fittingly chosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so suitable for this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansing the vices of mortals as the flesh born in the womb without the contagion of carnal concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? And what could be so acceptably offered and received as the flesh of our sacrifice made the body of our priest? Four things are to be considered in every sacrifice: by whom it is offered, to whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 4.14.19
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:27
8. Does then this alone show the difference, or does the sacrifice itself also? How? [Hebrews 7:27] "He needs not" (he says) "daily, as the High Priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins, for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself." "This," what? Here what follows sounds a prelude concerning the exceeding greatness of the spiritual sacrifice and the interval [between them]. He has mentioned the point of the priest; he has mentioned that of the faith; he has mentioned that of the Covenant; not entirely indeed, still he has mentioned it. In this place what follows is a prelude concerning the sacrifice itself. Do not then, having heard that He is a priest, suppose that He is always executing the priest's office. For He executed it once, and thenceforward "sat down." [Hebrews 10:12] Lest thou suppose that He is standing on high, and is a minister, he shows that the matter is [part] of a dispensation [or economy]. For as He became a servant, so also [He became] a Priest and a Minister. But as after becoming a servant, He did not continue a servant, so also, having become a Minister, He did not continue a Minister. For it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to stand.

This then he hints at here, and also the greatness of the sacrifice, if being [but] one, and having been offered up once only, it affected that which all [the rest] were unable to do. But he does not yet [treat] of these points.

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 7:28
"For this He did," he says. "This"; what? "For" (he says) "it is of necessity that this [Man] have somewhat also to offer" [Hebrews 8:3]; not for Himself; for how did He offer Himself? But for the people. What do you say? And is He able to do this? Yea (he says). "For the Law makes men high priests, which have infirmity." [Hebrews 7:28] And does He not need to offer for Himself? No, he says. For, that you may not suppose that the [words, "this"] "He did once for all," are said respecting Himself also, hear what he says: "For the law makes men high priests, which have infirmity." On this account they both offer continually, and for themselves. He however who is mighty, He that has no sin, why should He offer for Himself, or oftentimes for others?

"But the word of the oath which was since the Law [makes] the Son who has been consecrated for evermore." "Consecrated": what is that? Paul does not set down the common terms of contradistinction; for after saying "having Infirmity," he did not say "the Son" who is mighty, but "consecrated": i.e. mighty, as one might say. You see that the name Son is used in contradistinction to that of servant. And by "infirmity" he means either sin or death.

What is, "for evermore"? Not now only without sin but always. If then He is perfect, if He never sins, if He lives always, why shall He offer many sacrifices for us? But for the present he does not insist strongly on this point: but what he does strongly insist upon is, His not offering on His own behalf.

9. Since then we have such an High Priest, let us imitate Him: let us walk in His footsteps. There is no other sacrifice: one alone has cleansed us, and after this, fire and hell. For indeed on this account he repeats it over and over, saying, "one Priest," "one Sacrifice," lest any one supposing that there are many [sacrifices] should sin without fear. Let us then, as many as have been counted worthy of The Seal, as many as have enjoyed The Sacrifice, as many as have partaken of the immortal Table, continue to guard our noble birth and our dignity for falling away is not without danger.

And as many as have not yet been counted worthy these [privileges], let not these either be confident on that account. For when a person goes on in sin, with the view of receiving holy baptism at the last gasp, oftentimes he will not obtain it. And, believe me, it is not to terrify you that I say what I am going to say. I have myself known many persons, to whom this has happened, who in expectation indeed of the enlightening sinned much, and on the day of their death went away empty. For God gave us baptism for this cause, that He might do away our sins, not that He might increase our sins. Whereas if any man have employed it as a security for sinning more, it becomes a cause of negligence. For if there had been no Washing, they would have lived more warily, as not having [the means of] forgiveness. You see that we are the ones who cause it to be said "Let us do evil, that good may come." [Romans 3:8]

Wherefore, I exhort you also who are uninitiated, be sober. Let no man follow after virtue as an hireling, no man as a senseless person, no man as after a heavy and burdensome thing. Let us pursue it then with a ready mind, and with joy. For if there were no reward laid up, ought we not to be good? But however, at least with a reward, let us become good. And how is this anything else than a disgrace and a very great condemnation? Unless thou give me a reward (says one), I do not become self-controlled. Then am I bold to say something: you will never be self-controlled, no not even when you live with self-control, if you dost it for a reward. Thou esteemest not virtue at all, if you dost not love it. But on account of our great weakness, God was willing that for a time it should be practiced even for reward, yet not even so do we pursue it.

But let us suppose, if you will, that a man dies, after having done innumerable evil things, having also been counted worthy of baptism (which however I think does not readily happen), tell me, how will he depart there? Not indeed called to account for the deeds he had done, but yet without confidence; as is reasonable. For when after living a hundred years, he has no good work to show, but only that he has not sinned, or rather not even this, but that he was saved by grace only, and when he sees others crowned, in splendor, and highly approved: even if he fall not into hell, tell me, will he endure his despondency?

10. But to make the matter clear by an example, Suppose there are two soldiers, and that one of them steals, injures, overreaches, and that the other does none of these things, but acts the part of a brave man, does important things well, sets up trophies in war, stains his right hand with blood; then when the time arrives, suppose that (from the same rank in which the thief also was) he is at once conducted to the imperial throne and the purple; but suppose that the other remains there where he was, and merely of the royal kindness does not pay the penalty of his deeds, let him however be in the last place, and let him be stationed under the King. Tell me, will he be able to endure his despair when he sees him who was [ranked] with himself ascended even to the very highest dignities, and made thus glorious, and master of the world, while he himself still remains below, and has not even been freed from punishment with honor, but through the grace and kindness of the King? For even should the King forgive him, and release him from the charges against him, still he will live in shame; for surely not even will others admire him: since in such forgiveness, we admire not those who receive the gifts, but those who bestow them. And as much as the gifts are greater, so much the more are they ashamed who receive them, when their transgressions are great.

With what eyes then will such an one be able to look on those who are in the King's courts, when they exhibit their sweatings out of number and their wounds, while he has nothing to show, but has his salvation itself of the mere loving-kindness of God? For as if one were to beg off a murderer, a thief, an adulterer, when he was going to be arrested, and were to command him to stay at the porch of the King's palace, he will not afterwards be able to look any man in the face, although he has been set free from punishment: so too surely is this man's case.

For do not, I beseech you, suppose that because it is called a palace, therefore all attain the same things. For if here in King.' courts there is the Prefect, and all who are about the King, and also those who are in very inferior stations, and occupy the place of what are called Decani (though the interval be so great between the Prefect and the Decanus) much more shall this be so in the royal court above.

And this I say not of myself. For Paul lays down another difference greater even than these. For (he says) as many differences as there are between the sun and the moon and the stars and the very smallest star, so many also between those in the kingdom [of Heaven]. And that the difference between the sun and the smallest star is far greater than that between the Decanus (as he is called) and the Prefect, is evident to all. For while the sun shines upon all the world at once, and makes it bright, and hides the moon and the stars, the other often does not appear, not even in the dark. For there are many of the stars which we do not see. When then we see others become suns, and we have the rank of the very smallest stars, which are not even visible, what comfort shall we have?

Let us not, I beseech you, let us not be so slothful, not so inert, let us not barter away the salvation of God for an easy life, but let us make merchandise of it, and increase it. For even if one be a Catechumen, still he knows Christ, still he understands the Faith, still he is a hearer of the divine oracles, still he is not far from the knowledge; he knows the will of his Lord. Wherefore does he procrastinate? Wherefore does he delay and postpone? Nothing is better than a good life whether here or there, whether in case of the Enlightened or of the Catechumens,

11. For tell me what burdensome command have we enjoined? Have a wife (it is said) and be chaste. Is this difficult? How? When many, not Christians only but heathens also, live chastely without a wife. That which the heathen surpasses for vainglory, thou dost not even keep for the fear of God.

Give (He says) to the poor out of what you have. Is this burdensome? But in this case also heathen condemn us who for vainglory only have emptied out their whole possessions.

Use not filthy communication. Is this difficult? For if it had not been enjoined, ought we not to have done right in this, to avoid appearing degraded? For that the contrary conduct is troublesome, I mean the using filthy communication, is manifest from the fact that the soul is ashamed and blushes if it have been led to say any such thing and would not unless perhaps it were drunk. For when sitting in a public place, even if you do it at home, why do you not do it there? Because of those that are present. Why do you not readily do the same thing before your wife? That you may not insult her. So then thou dost it not, lest you should insult your wife; and do you not blush at insulting God? For He is everywhere present, and hears all things.

Be not drunken, He says. For this very thing of itself, is it not a chastisement? He did not say, Put your body on the rack, but what? Do not give it free rein so as to take away the authority of the mind: on the contrary "make not provision for the lusts thereof." [Romans 13:14]

Do not (He says) seize by violence what is not your own; do not overreach; do not forswear yourself. What labors do these things require! What sweatings!

Speak evil of no man (He says) nor accuse falsely. The contrary indeed is a labor. For when you have spoken ill of another, immediately you are in danger, in suspicion, [saying] Did he of whom I spoke, hear? Whether he be great or small. For should he be a great man, immediately you will be indeed in danger; but if small, he will requite you with as much, or rather with what is far more grievous; for he will say evil of you in a greater degree. We are enjoined nothing difficult, nothing burdensome, if we have the will. And if we have not the will, even the easiest things will appear burdensome to us. What is easier than eating? But from great effeminacy many feel disgust even at this, and I hear many say, that it is weariness even to eat. None of these things is wearisome if you have but the will. For everything depends on the will after the grace from above. Let us will good things that we may attain also to the good things eternal, in Christ Jesus our Lord, whom to the Father together with the Holy Ghost be glory, might, honor, now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.

Source: Homily 13 on Hebrews
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Hebrews 7:28
364. - Having proved by the authority of the Psalmist that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical and does away with it, the Apostle now proves the same thing by two other authorities: first, from the fact that he says, ‘The Lord has sworn’; secondly, that he says, ‘You are a priest’ (v. 23).

365. - In regard to the first he forms the following argument: ‘That which is instituted without an oath is less valid than that which is instituted with an oath. But the priesthood of Christ was instituted with an oath, as is clear from what he says, the Lord has sworn; but not the priesthood of Aaron, as is clear from Exodus (28:1): ‘Take unto you also Aaron’, therefore, etc. In regard to the major premise he says, and it was not without an oath. Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath. All this is set down to prove that the priesthood of Christ is firmer; because, as has been stated above, every promise made in the Old Testament by an oath is a sign of God’s unchangeable plan. Therefore, because that promise about Christ was made with an oath of David and to Abraham, Christ is called their son in a special way (Mt. 1:1). But that oath designates the eternity of Christ’s power: ‘His power is an everlasting power’ Dan (7:14); ‘And of his kingdom there will be no end’ (Lk. 1:33).

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’ (Date: 5:5). But a priest should bring God and the people to concord. And this is done, as it were, by a pact dealing with temporal goods, in which only the affection for carnal things rested, as it says in Ps. 72 (v. 5): ‘For what have I in heaven? and besides you what do I desire upon earth?’ Consequently, it was fitting that another priest should come to be a surety, i.e., a promise, of a better testament and of a better pact, because it is concerned with spiritual and stable goods; and this is Jesus: ‘I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the convenient which I made with their fathers’ (Jer. 31:31); ‘Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Mt. 4:17).

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 Old Testament (v. 25).

368. - He shows that he is the true priest, because the others were prevented by death from continuing, because all must die. Hence, when Aaron died, Eleazar succeeded, as is clear from Numbers (20:28) and so on. For as we notice in natural things, which are signs of spiritual things, incorruptible things are not multiplied under the same species; hence, there is but one sun: so in the spiritual things in the Old Testament, which was imperfect, the priests were multiplied. This was a sign that the priesthood was corruptible, because incorruptible things are not multiplied in the same species. But the priest who is Christ is immortal, for He remains forever as the eternal Word of the Father, from Whose eternity redounds an eternity to His body, because ‘Christ rising from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9). Therefore, because he continues forever, he holds his priesthood permanently. Therefore, Christ alone is the true priest, but others are His ministers: ‘Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ’ (1 Cor. 4:1).

369. - Then (v. 25) he shows His efficacy. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows His efficacy; secondly, the mode of His efficacy (v. 25b).

370. - His efficacy lies in the fact that the cause is more potent than its effect; therefore, a temporal cause cannot produce an eternal effect. But Christ’s priesthood is eternal; but not the Levitical, as has been proved. Therefore Christ is able to save for all time. But this could not be done, unless He had divine power: ‘Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation’ (Is. 45:17).

371. - But the mode is that He goes by Himself to God. And he describes that mode from three standpoints, namely, from the excellence of His power, of His nature, and of His piety. Of His power, indeed, because by Himself. But on the other hand one who goes to another is distant from him. But Christ is not distant from God. I answer that in those words the Apostle shows forth the two natures: namely, the human according to which it befits Him to come to God, because in it He is distant from God (but He does not go from a state of guilt to a state of grace, but He goes by the intellect’s contemplation and by love and by the attainment of glory), and the divine nature by the fact that he says that He goes to God by Himself. For if He were pure man, He could not go by Himself: ‘No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him’ (Jn. 6:44). Therefore, when the Apostle says that He comes by Himself, he is showing forth His power: ‘Walking in the greatness of his strength’ (Is. 63:1). Therefore, He comes as man, but by Himself as God.

372. - He shows the excellence of His nature when he says, always living; for otherwise His priesthood would come to an end: ‘I was dead and behold I am living forever and ever’ (Rev. 1:18).

373. - He shows the excellence of His piety when he says, to make intercession for them, because, although He is so powerful, so lofty, yet along with this He is pious, for He makes intercession for us: ‘We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the just’ (1 Jn. 2:1). He interposes for us, first, His human nature, which He assumed for us by representing; secondly, His most holy soul’s desire, which He had for our salvation and with which He intercedes for us. Another version has, ‘coming by Him,’ and then those whom He saves are designated, because they come to God by faith in Him: ‘Being justified, therefore, by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom also we have access by faith into this grace’ (Rom. 5:1).

374. - Then when he says, for it was fitting that we have such a high priest, he shows from Christ’s excellence the excellence of His priesthood. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that the perfections of the conditions required for the priesthood of the Old Law suited Him; secondly, that He has no imperfections (v. 27).

375. - So he sets down four qualities in Him that were supposed to be in the priesthood of the Law: first, that he is holy: ‘They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy’ (Lev. 21:6). But Christ had this perfectly. For holiness implies purity consecrated to God: ‘Therefore, also the Holy which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God’ (Lk. 1:35) ; ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:20); ‘The saint of saints will be anointed’ (Dan 9:24). Secondly, he should be innocent: ‘Let them keep my precepts that they may not fall into sin’ (Lev. 22:9). But, properly speaking, innocence is purity toward one’s neighbor: ‘The innocent in hands, and clean of heart: who has not taken his soul in vain, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbor’ (Ps. 23:4). But Christ was completely innocent, being One Who did not sin’ ‘I have walked in my innocence’ (Ps. 25:11). Thirdly, that he be unstained and this in regard to himself: ‘Whosoever of our seed through their families has a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God’ (Lev. 21:17). Of Christ it is said in a figure: ‘It shall be a lamb without blemish’ (Ex. 12:5). Fourthly, he must be separated from sinners: ‘He shall not mingle the stock of his kindred with the common people of his nation’ (Lev. 21:15). But Christ was perfectly separated from sinners: ‘Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly nor stood in the way of sinners’ (Ps. 1:1). This is, of course, true in regard to a like life: ‘His life is not like other men’s’ (Wis. 2:15), but not in regard to His dealings with others, because ‘He conversed with men’ (Bar. 3:38) and this with a view to their conversion: ‘Why does your master eat with sinners?’ (Mt. 9:11). And to such a degree He was separated that He was made higher than the heavens, i.e., exalted above the heavens: ‘He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high’ (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, he is a sufficiently competent priest.

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). Therefore, he prayed for himself; and not only once but frequently. The reason for this is that the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests: ‘A weak man and of a short time’ (Wis. 9:5). But the word of the oath established the Son (Who had none of these imperfections, but was completely perfect), Who is after the Law, a priest to continue forever. For He did not offer for His own sins but for ours: ‘He was wounded for our iniquities’ (Is. 53:5). Nor did He offer for us frequently, but only once: ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Pt 3:18). For His one offering is enough to take away the sins of the entire human race.