Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
From the type of Melchisedech, he teaches by seven arguments that the priesthood of Christ has succeeded the Aaronic priesthood, as more excellent and more perfect.
The first is, in verse 4, because Abraham, who was the father of Levi and Aaron, gave tithes to Melchisedech, as to his own high priest and type of Christ.
The second, in verse 6, because Melchisedech blessed Abraham, and consequently Aaron.
The third, in verse 5, because Melchisedech is introduced without father and mother, as it were eternal, while the Aaronic priests are temporal.
The fourth, in verse 11, because Christ's priesthood, as more perfect, succeeded the Aaronic, that it might supply what was lacking to it.
The fifth, in verse 20, not the priesthood of Aaron, but that of Christ was promised by God with an oath, in Psalm 109.
The sixth, in verse 23, Christ is immortal, the Aaronic priests are mortal.
The seventh, in verse 27, Christ by one sacrifice expiated all sins, the Aaronic priests by many sacrifices expiate not even one sin.
Note: All these arguments are founded on that verse of Psalm 109: The Lord has sworn, You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech. For the Apostle urges and presses this verse here.
Vulgate Text: Hebrews 7:1-28
1. For this Melchisedech, 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 divided tithes of all: who first indeed is interpreted king of justice, and then also king of Salem, that is, king of peace, 3. without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, remains a priest forever. 4. But behold how great this man is, to whom also Abraham the patriarch gave tithes of the spoils. 5. And indeed those of the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren: although they themselves also came forth from the loins of Abraham. 6. But he whose pedigree is not numbered among them received tithes from Abraham, and blessed him who had the promises. 7. And without all contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the better. 8. And here indeed men who die receive tithes: but there it is witnessed, that he lives. 9. And (as it may be said) through Abraham, even Levi, who received tithes, was tithed: 10. for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedech met him. 11. If then perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12. For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there must be made a change of the law also. 13. For he of whom these things are spoken is of another tribe, of which no one attended at the altar. 14. For it is manifest that our Lord sprang out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing about priests. 15. And it is yet far more manifest, if according to the likeness of Melchisedech there arises another priest, 16. who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life. 17. For He testifies: Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech. 18. There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof: 19. for the law brought nothing to perfection: but a bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh to God. 20. And inasmuch as it is not without an oath (for the others indeed were made priests without an oath; 21. but this one with an oath, by Him that said to Him: The Lord has sworn, and He will not repent: Thou art a priest forever), 22. by so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23. And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not allowed to continue: 24. but this one, because He continueth forever, hath an everlasting priesthood. 25. Whereby He is able also to save forever them that come to God by Him: always living to make intercession for us. 26. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: 27. who needeth not daily, as the other priests, to offer sacrifices first for His own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, by offering Himself. 28. For the law maketh men priests, who have infirmity: but the word of the oath, which is after the law, the Son who is perfected forevermore.
Verse 1: For This Melchisedech, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God
Conveniently at the end of the preceding chapter the Apostle introduced mention of Melchisedech, that he might pass over to him and explain his priesthood as the antitype of Christ: for he had said of him in chapter V, verse 11: "Of whom we have great matters to speak." Therefore he undertakes here to set forth and to expound that great, subtle, and allegorical discourse about Melchisedech, that he may show in what matters Melchisedech bore the type of Christ, and from this may demonstrate the dignity and excellence of Christ and Christ's priesthood above the legal and Aaronic priesthood.
King of Salem. — "Salem," says St. Jerome, in epistle 126 to Evagrius, is not Jerusalem, but a town near Scythopolis (which by another name is called Shechem, or Sichima, where Jacob pastured his flocks, and Dinah was carried off and violated, as the same Jerome says in his Places in Hebrew), in which the palace of Melchisedech is shown, displaying its magnificence by the size of the ruins of the ancient work. Near this Salem also St. John the Baptist baptized in Aenon, John chapter III, 23. But Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Eustathius, whom in the same place St. Jerome cites, also Josephus, in book VII of the Wars, chapter 18, and the Hebrews everywhere, and very many of the ancient Fathers — also more recent ones, such as the Abulensis, Pererius, Ribera, and in the first place Andreas Masius, an exact investigator of the cities and the Holy Land, in chapter X of Joshua, teach that this Salem is Jerusalem. Whence the Chaldee at Genesis chapter XIV, verse 18, translates, "and Melchisedech, king of Jerusalem." Indeed, Josephus in the place cited reports that Jerusalem was founded by Melchisedech, by whom it was called Salem, then by others Jebus, and finally from Salem and yirah, it was called Jerusalem, as I said on Galatians IV, 26. Therefore that palace of Melchisedech, which Jerome says is shown at Shechem, was not built by Melchisedech, but only marked with his name — by Jeroboam or by some other of the later kings — is likely. And this, as it seems, for this reason: namely, that they might claim Melchisedech for themselves, as if he had not been in Salem but in Shechem, where they themselves reigned. For so concerning the homeland of Homer seven cities of Greece contend, and each claims him for itself, and contends that he is its own citizen.
This second opinion better corresponds to the allegory of Christ. For fittingly Melchisedech was king and priest in Jerusalem, in order to foreshadow Christ, who would reign in the same city from the wood, and would sacrifice Himself on the altar of the cross for the redemption of the whole world.
You will say: Abraham pursued his enemies as far as Dan, which was afterwards called Caesarea: but this is near to Shechem, and not to Jerusalem.
I answer: Abraham, returning from the slaughter of the kings, was returning to the valley of Mamre, where he dwelt; and from there he was not far from Jerusalem, to which, though somewhat more remote, he willed to go, both that he might give thanks to God for the victory obtained, and that at Jerusalem, where the true God was worshipped, while in the rest of Canaan idols were worshipped; and also moved by the fame of Melchisedech, who was king and priest of the most high God, most celebrated at that time. And Melchisedech, hearing that Abraham was approaching, met him for the sake of goodwill and honor. Again, in Salem, namely in Jerusalem, reigned Solomon, who was a type of Christ, and from Salem or Shalom, that is peace, he was called Solomon, that is peaceful. Whence the Arab kings and the Turks call their Emperors after Solomon, Solymans or Selims, and from Salem or Shalom they call the Turks themselves Musulman, as if to say, those who are saved, who have peace and salvation. For when Mohammed propagated his teaching, he ordered all who were unwilling to embrace this his symbol to be killed by the sword: Alla illa Alla, Mehammed rassul Alla, (which even now the Mohammedans cry out with great voices), that is, There is no God but God, and Mohammed is His Apostle. Whoever therefore embraced it was called musulman, that is, freed from the sword and danger of death, which Mohammed threatened against those who resisted.
Priest of the most high God. — In Greek hupsistou, that is, of the most high. He cites the words of Genesis XIV, verse 18, where although Calvin and the Innovators translate the Hebrew cohen as "prince," as if to say, Melchisedech was a prince of the most high God; nevertheless that it must be translated "priest," not "prince," is clear from Paul here, and it is the [priest] of the most high God, that is, dedicated and consecrated to God, which befits a priest, not a prince. Again, from the fact that he offered bread and wine in sacrifice, in which he was a type of Christ. For from this in Psalm 109, the Father says to Christ: "You are (not a prince, but) a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech."
Verse 2: To Whom Also Abraham Divided Tithes of All
"To whom also Abraham divided tithes of all" (of the spoils, which he had taken from the five slain kings). — Abraham, although he was a priest and had often sacrificed, nevertheless recognized Melchisedech to be his priest and high priest, whence he gave to him, as to one superior to himself and as high priest, the tithes.
Who is interpreted king of justice. — For Melchisedech in Hebrew is composed of melech, that is, king: whence with the addition of yod (not affixed but paragogic) it becomes melchi, so that the compound becomes more elegant, and sedec, that is, of justice, as if to say, A just king or most just. Whence Josephus writes thus about him: "The first founder of Jerusalem was a Canaanite ruler, who in his native language was called Justus, for indeed he was such." Whence it is clear that Melchisedech was the proper name of that king, and not the common name of the kings of that city: just as the common name of the kings of Palestine in Abraham's time was Abimelech, of the kings of Egypt Pharaoh, and later Ptolemy.
Verse 3: Without Father, Without Mother, Without Genealogy
From the fact that Melchisedech is here called apator kai ametor, that is, without father and without mother, some have thought that Melchisedech was the Holy Spirit: for He is produced not by generation, but by spiration, and so is not a son having a father, but is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. So thought the Author of the Questions on the New and Old Testament, Question 109, which is found in volume IV of the works of St. Augustine. But from this dogma and other similar ones it is clear that this book is not of St. Augustine, but of an author suspected of heresy. The Melchisedechians thought almost the same thing, who taught that Melchisedech was a certain power of God, greater than Christ, from the fact that Christ is called "a priest according to the order of Melchisedech," as if Christ were the advocate of men with the Father, but Melchisedech the advocate of angels. So Epiphanius reports, book II, heresy 55.
Secondly, Origen and Didymus, as St. Jerome witnesses in the cited epistle to Evagrius, supposed Melchisedech to be an angel. But both of these opinions are erroneous. For from what is here narrated, and in Genesis XIV, about Melchisedech, it is clear that he was a true man.
Thirdly, the Samaritans, as Epiphanius witnesses, and certain Hebrews, as St. Jerome above witnesses, whom Lyranus, the Abulensis, and others follow, supposed that Melchisedech was Shem, the son of Noah: for it is certain that Shem, indeed Noah himself, lived and reached down to the times of Abraham: for Abraham was born in the 292nd year after the flood, and Noah lived 350 years after the flood; for in the 600th year of Noah the flood took place: but Noah lived 950 years, therefore he survived the flood by 350 years, and consequently lived 58 years with Abraham. Likewise Shem lived 502 years after the flood; for at the time of the flood he was nearly 100 years old; but he lived altogether 600 years, therefore he survived Abraham by 35 years. For Abraham died in his 175th year, in the 467th year after the flood. If you say it is falsely said of Shem that he is without father and mother, for he had a father Noah, expressed in the Scriptures, they reply: Shem under the name of Shem is said in Scripture to have a father, namely Noah, but not under the name of Melchisedech: because in Genesis, where his genealogy is woven, he is not called Melchisedech, but Shem. But this is too thin, subtle, and frigid: for the Sacred Scripture understands and is concerned not with the name, but with the man and the person. Add that, not Shem, but Cham possessed Jerusalem, and all Canaan. For it was so called from the Canaanite inhabitants, who sprang from Canaan, the son of Cham: but Shem and his posterity dwelt beyond the Euphrates, in the East, as Josephus teaches, book I Antiquities, chapter VII.
Fourthly, a certain more recent writer judges that Melchisedech is Henoch, who was caught up into paradise, and therefore that it is here said of him that he has no end of days: for Henoch is not dead, but still lives in paradise. But this is a plainly new and unheard-of opinion, unknown to all the Fathers and Interpreters, and at variance with Holy Scripture, which narrates that Henoch was caught up into paradise, so that at the end of the world he might return to fight against Antichrist, and give repentance to the nations. See our Salianus in the Preface of volume V of the Annals, where he refutes this opinion with many strong arguments.
I answer therefore, and say with Josephus, St. Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, chapter IX; Epiphanius, heresy 31; Theodoret, on Genesis, Question LXIII, and other Fathers cited at verse 1; that Melchisedech was someone of the petty kings of the Canaanites, namely the king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and that he was sprung from them; he is however said to be without father and mother, not as though he lacked them, but because his father, mother and genealogy are not described in the Scriptures; and because in Genesis chapter XIV, Scripture suddenly introduces him, without first setting forth his stock and genealogy, nor indicating his birth or death, indeed without any mention being made of him anywhere else, either before or after, so that from his very history Melchisedech may seem fallen from Olympus and received back into Olympus. For this is what the Greek agenealogetos signifies, namely, one whose genealogy is not enumerated, and not one who lacks stock and family: for genealogein is the same as to enumerate and describe a genealogy. Whence the Apostle plainly explaining this, verse VI, says: "But whose generation is not reckoned." Hence the Syriac also here clearly renders, whose neither father nor mother are written in the generations, nor the beginning of his days, nor the end of his life. So we call him a son of the earth who is unknown, of obscure birth and unknown lineage. For since Scripture in the Old Testament is wont to enumerate the family, father and mother of others, especially of illustrious men, Melchisedech did not do this same thing; and that not without cause and mystery, which the Apostle here explains. Epiphanius, heresy 55 and 67, from tradition, but uncertain as it seems, writes that the father of Melchisedech was named Heracla, and his mother Astaroth or Asteria.
You will ask, by what mystery, or for what cause does Scripture pass over in silence the name of the father and mother of Melchisedech? The Jews answer that this was done for honor's sake, because, they say, Melchisedech was born of fornication and of a harlot. But this is their incredible fiction. For how could such a one have been raised to kingship and pontificate? I answer therefore, according to the letter this cause may be given, that Scripture almost entirely traces only the history and lineage of the Jews down to Christ, that it may be established that He was born of Abraham, Judah and David, just as God had promised these same. Whence Scripture does not enumerate the births of all the Jews: for it does not name the parents of Elias, of Daniel, of the three young men, and of others: but the genealogy of the Gentiles Scripture neglects, and scarcely cares about. Now Melchisedech was a Gentile, not a Jew. In like manner Job, although he was a most famous man, indeed a king, has father, mother and genealogy not enumerated. Secondly, Melchisedech is said to be without genealogy, not absolutely, but in respect of the priesthood: because Melchisedech entered upon the priesthood not by hereditary right, nor by succession of flesh (as also Christ did not), nor perhaps even from the doctrine or example of his parents; because he was sprung from Gentiles, namely Canaanites, who at that time were of most corrupt morals, and most impious toward God, and worshippers not of God but of idols; but especially that his priesthood, in which offering bread and wine he was a type of Christ, Melchisedech received not from father or mother, but from God alone, so that in respect of this priesthood he can rightly be said to be without father, mother and genealogy, because he himself first entered upon it and originated it.
But the allegorical and chief cause of this silence is, that for this reason Melchisedech might be a type of Christ, and that in two ways. First, that, while his father and mother are passed over in silence, by this very fact it might signify Christ, who on earth as man is apator, that is, without father, in the heavens as God and the Son of God, ametor, that is, without mother. So Chrysostom and Theophylact here, Gregory of Nazianzus at the beginning of oration 38, and Ambrose, epistle 82. Secondly, that, while his father and mother are passed over in silence, he may seem from his own family and stock to be not mortal, but immortal and eternal: not that Melchisedech really was such, but that he is introduced and appears in Scripture as such, not for his own sake, but in order that he may be a type of the eternity of Christ. Whence follows: "Having neither beginning, nor end of days;" so that the without father and mother pertains to the same point, and all these things signify and inculcate nothing other than the eternity of Christ. For the Apostle often inculcates this in what follows, that through it he may prefer Christ to the Aaronic priests, who were mortal, and one after another died.
Such therefore does Scripture propose Melchisedech to us, as if having suddenly slipped down from heaven he had appeared on earth, and presently had withdrawn himself into heaven and to his throne, no mention being made, namely, of his parents, of his birth, or of his death: that for this reason he might be a type of Christ, our heavenly and eternal pontiff.
Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. — Namely in Scripture, as if to say: Scripture does not mention when Melchisedech was born and died, as it does mention the birth and death of Aaron; and that for this end, that Melchisedech, to whom these words apply only thinly and faintly, might foreshadow Christ, who truly and really has neither beginning nor end of days, but is eternal. Whence the Apostle in explanation adds: "He abides a priest forever," namely Melchisedech, the antitype of Christ; because, namely, in Scripture no mention is made of his death, and consequently of the end of the priesthood of Melchisedech. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius. Secondly, because no successor is read of in his priesthood, as Aaron had Eleazar. So Theodoret.
But being likened to the Son of God, he abides a priest forever. — The Syriac renders, but in the likeness of the Son of God his kumerute, that is, his pontificate, abides forever, as if to say: Since Melchisedech is introduced in Scripture as having neither beginning nor end of days, but as a continuing and perpetual priest, by this very fact he bears the likeness and type of Christ, who in actuality has neither beginning nor end of days, but abides a priest forever, as I explained at the preceding verse. So Chrysostom with his followers.
That all these things may be gathered into one, It is asked, in what respects Melchisedech was a type of Christ? I answer: First, in the name and the etymology of the name. For Melchisedech is the same as king of righteousness, that is, most just. For Christ alone is the true king of righteousness: for Christ as God, by essence is the king of righteousness, indeed righteousness itself; but Christ as man is the lord and head of righteousness, inasmuch as out of perfect righteousness He has made satisfaction to God for all the sins of men, and has been appointed avenger of righteousness, that as a most equitable, most wise, and most powerful judge He may judge the world in all righteousness.
Secondly, in office and state. For Melchisedech was king of Salem, that is, of peace: so Christ is the peaceful king, who made peace between God and men, and who reigned in Salem or Jerusalem from the wood, and in the heavenly Jerusalem, where there is most true peace, He shall reign with His own forever.
Thirdly, in generation. For just as Melchisedech is introduced, so Christ truly is without father on earth, and without mother in the heavens. St. Ignatius adds, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, that Melchisedech remained without wife, ever a virgin: so a virgin, indeed the bridegroom of virgins, is Christ.
Fourthly, in age and duration. For just as Melchisedech is set forth, so Christ in actual fact lacks every beginning and end of time whatsoever.
Fifthly, in priesthood and pontificate. For just as Melchisedech was king and priest or pontiff, so also is Christ. Again, just as Melchisedech is not read of as having been consecrated with oil, like Aaron, and was principally a priest of the Gentiles, but accompaniedly of the Hebrews: for he offered sacrifice for Abraham, the parent of the Hebrews; so also Christ, as Chrysostom, Photius, Theophylact note.
Sixthly, just as Melchisedech is introduced as the first priest of his kind, and likewise the last; for no one is read to have succeeded him: so also Christ has a new and eternal priesthood, both because no other succeeds Him, and because He continually offers from heaven to the Father the sacrifice of His passion for us, through the eternal commemoration, praise, and giving of thanks for it: and so its fruit and merit always endures and operates; and finally most properly, because in His Church Christ through His ministers, namely through the priests instituted by Him, perpetually offers and shall offer forever, that is, until the end of the world (for so the "eternal" is taken, Leviticus XXV, 46; Exodus XV, 18, and elsewhere), the sacrifice of the Mass, as the Council of Trent explains, session XXII, chapters I and II; for according to the prior reasons even the conception, nativity, temptation, flight, hunger, thirst, and other afflictions of Christ would be called eternal, because these Christ offers to the Father in heaven forever: but in this way no one speaks. Again, so the sacrifice of Noah would be called eternal, because its fruit, namely the prohibition of the deluge, lasts forever.
Wherefore rightly does the Council of Trent in the cited passage prove from this passage of the Apostle that the Mass is a sacrifice. And it proves thus: The priesthood of Christ was not extinguished by His death, but always endures, as the Apostle here says; therefore the sacrifice of Christ also always endures and shall endure: but it cannot be the sacrifice of the cross, because this long since has passed away and ceased: therefore this ever-enduring sacrifice of Christ is that of the Eucharist and of the Mass: for no other can be given or imagined here. Again, both Christ the priest, and Christ's Church and commonwealth, cannot be without public worship of God and a sacrifice properly so called, which on stated days it offers to God. For such worship and sacrifice has every Church and commonwealth always had, both before the deluge and after it, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles even ignorant of the true God; but in the Christian Church no other sacrifice can be found than that of the Eucharist: therefore the Eucharist is the sacrifice which Christ always offers and shall offer until the end of the world.
For it must be noted, that Christ in the Mass is the principal offerer, both because He instituted the sacrifice of the Mass, and because in heaven He actually and really offers to His Father the Masses which we celebrate. For He is our mediator and advocate, who pleads our cause before God, and intercedes for us; and because by His omnipotence in each Mass He works and accomplishes the transubstantiation of bread and wine into His body and blood, in which the essence of our sacrifice consists.
Seventhly, Melchisedech was a type of Christ in the blessing and tithing of Abraham, because just as Melchisedech the pontiff was greater than Abraham, who nevertheless was also a priest and pontiff (for Melchisedech as the more worthy blessed Abraham, and received tithes from him): so Christ is greater than Aaron, who in the loins of his father Abraham was hidden, tacitly and virtually was blessed by Melchisedech, when he himself blessed Abraham, and gave tithes to him as to a greater, that it might be signified that he was to be truly and efficaciously blessed by Christ, of whom Melchisedech was a type. And this is what the Apostle here principally aims at, namely, to demonstrate that the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ are far more excellent than the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood and sacrifice, in which the Hebrews had been nourished, and from which therefore they could scarcely be torn away.
Eighthly and finally, Melchisedech was most especially and most perfectly a type of Christ in the victim, because, namely, he offered bread and wine, just as Christ offered the same and offers them in the Eucharist: for this is the rite or order of the sacrifice of Melchisedech, according to which Christ is called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. For the order, rite and species of priesthood and sacrifice properly and essentially depend on and are derived from the very thing offered, or from the victim, which is offered to God and immolated in a certain manner and reason, such as here is bread and wine, as all the Fathers teach, and the whole Church, by the common consent of all ages. Of which more at verse 27.
Verse 4: Now Consider How Great This Man Is, to Whom Abraham the Patriarch Gave Tithes of the Chief Spoils
For "consider" the Greek is theoreite, that is contemplate, gaze at the allegory, contemplatively and allegorically expound the mysteries which lie hidden in the bark of the history and person of Melchisedech. For thus far the Apostle has set forth the external letter and historical narration concerning Melchisedech: now, having set this forth, willing to expound its allegory, he exhorts the Hebrews to gaze and contemplate within themselves with sublime eyes of the mind the inmost and sublime allegorical senses lying hidden in him concerning Christ and Christ's ministers. So Chrysostom.
Note the "tithes": Abraham therefore did not give gifts, as Cajetan would have it (for gifts are given not only to laymen, but also to peers, indeed even to inferiors), but he gave priestly tithes to Melchisedech as to a priest and pontiff.
Secondly, for "of the chief" the Greek is ton akrothinion; akrothinia, says Theophylact, are the chief and best spoils; thence the firstfruits of spoils which were offered to the gods, are by Herodotus and others called akrothinia, as it were ta akra thinos, that is, the tops of the heap, because the firstfruits are usually taken from the top of the heap; or, as Erasmus, the choice spoils stripped from leaders are called akrothinia, as if from the touching of the tops: for akrothinazo, on the testimony of Hesychius, is the same as I touch the topmost part.
Abraham the patriarch. — The word "patriarch" carries emphasis. For patriarch is the same as prince of fathers, or one from whom many fathers with their families descend. Thus Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons are called the twelve patriarchs, because these were the heads and parents of the 12 tribes of Israel: thence the name of patriarch was attributed to anyone who is the parent and head of a great family. Thus David, Acts II, 29, is called a patriarch. Hence in the Church the first and most exalted Bishops, to whom Bishops, Archbishops and Metropolitans are subject, are called Patriarchs; such Patriarchs are the Roman Pontiff, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Constantinopolitan. By this word the Apostle meets a tacit objection. For the Hebrews would have said: Granted that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedech as to one greater than himself, what is this to Aaron? Is Aaron therefore, and his priesthood, less than Melchisedech? For although Aaron was a son of Abraham, yet he was singularly chosen by God and raised to the new pontificate of the whole people, and consequently Aaron the pontiff seems to have been greater than his father Abraham, just as the son of some Christian, when he is created Bishop or Pontiff, by this very fact becomes greater than his parent. The Apostle here parries this by the word "patriarch," as if to say: Abraham, the first and great patriarch, and so the parent of all patriarchs and priests, and consequently of Aaron himself and his posterity, by giving tithes to Melchisedech, by this very fact acknowledged himself to be less than Melchisedech; therefore much more must Aaron himself acknowledge the same, and all the other sons of Abraham: for Abraham was far more worthy than Aaron and all his posterity. For he was patriarch by excellence, patriarch, I say, not only as regards natural generation, but also as regards priesthood. For just as Abraham was the father and patriarch of his whole family and of all the twelve tribes: so also was he the supreme priest and pontiff of the same; for the heads of families were also their priests. For the right of priesthood at that time was handed down by carnal generation to posterity, namely to the firstborn and to the heads of families; and consequently every priesthood of the Hebrews descends from Abraham and his priesthood, and the individual sons of Jacob could have been priests of their tribes; but in order that out of all there might be welded together one people, and one Church, God appointed that one family, namely that of Levi and Aaron, should perform this priesthood for all the rest. The priesthood of Abraham and Aaron therefore was the same: and so Aaron's priesthood (which is very much to be noted) descends from Abraham's priesthood, just as Aaron descends from Abraham, and consequently was less than it. For Aaron was pontiff in Abraham's family, and so was pontiff of only one family of Abraham, namely Jacob's, or of the twelve tribes. For Abraham and Isaac had other sons besides Jacob (from whom the twelve tribes descended), of whom Aaron was not pontiff, but Abraham himself. The matter stands otherwise in the priesthood of Christ and of Christians: for that priesthood does not descend from parents by carnal generation, but is spiritual, and flows immediately from Christ Himself. Whence if anyone's son becomes Pontiff, by this very fact he is constituted by Christ as head, Bishop and prince, not only of his own family and parents, but of absolutely all the faithful.
Verse 5: And Indeed Those of the Sons of Levi Who Receive the Priesthood
For not all the sons of Levi received the priesthood, but Aaron alone and his posterity: the other sons of Levi became Levites, and ministered to the priests, just as our deacons now minister to them.
Have a commandment to take tithes of the people, that is, of their brethren: although they also (namely the brethren, as is plain from the Greek) came out of the loins of Abraham. — He proves that he who gives tithes is less than the one who receives them, namely that Abraham is less than Melchisedech; he proves it, I say, by the example of the Aaronic priests, as if to say: God commanded all the Jews, even the Levites, Numbers XVIII, 26, to give tithes to the Aaronic priests, willing by this means to honor and prefer the priests, and to subject the rest of the Jews to them, although the Jews were brethren of the priests, inasmuch as they were begotten of the same Abraham and Jacob. If therefore the Jews, although brethren, are subject to their brethren, namely the priests, by this very fact that by the law they are bound to give tithes to them: therefore likewise Abraham, in giving tithes to Melchisedech, by this very fact confessed himself to be less than him, and by this very fact subjected himself to him.
Note the Hebraism: To come out of the loins of someone is the same as to be begotten of him. For in the loins is the origin of the seed: for from the loins descend two arteries, through which the matter of the seed is conveyed to the parts destined for generation, that there it may be formed, ripened, and become prolific seed; hence the loins are the origin and seat of concupiscence, and therefore in Scripture we are commanded to gird up our loins, that is, to subdue concupiscence, as St. Gregory teaches, homily 13 on the Gospels.
Verse 6: But He Whose Generation Is Not Reckoned Among Them Received Tithes from Abraham
That is, Melchisedech, whose family and genealogy is not woven in among the Hebrews, the sons of Abraham, that is, who did not arise from the Hebrews, this man received tithes from Abraham. So the Syriac, Anselm and the Greeks. The Apostle adds this, in order to signify that Melchisedech, just as he had a different family from Aaron and Abraham, so also had a different priesthood, and that greater than the Aaronic, inasmuch as Abraham, in whose loins Aaron was contained, gave him tithes as to a pontiff more worthy than himself. The Apostle here begins to gather seven arguments by which he proves that Melchisedech, who was a type of Christ, and consequently Christ Himself, was greater than the Aaronic priests. The first is this verse, of this kind: He who receives tithes is greater than the one giving them; but Melchisedech received, Abraham gave him tithes: therefore Melchisedech is greater than Abraham.
Note, that the cause why Abraham so honored Melchisedech and gave him tithes, although he did not pertain to him and to his jurisdiction, seems to have been the great dignity, authority, fame, and virtue of Melchisedech; inasmuch as he alone among the impious Canaanites was a public priest of the true God, and likewise a most just king.
The second and chief cause was, that Melchisedech was a type of Christ; the Holy Spirit therefore moved Abraham to honor Melchisedech, in order that the Jews, the posterity of Abraham, might know that Christ was to be honored by them above Aaron, whose type Melchisedech was, as they knew from David, Psalm CIX, where he says: "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech." Now Abraham seems to have known this very thing, inasmuch as he was a prophet and familiar with God, and for this cause he seems so reverently and intensely to have honored Melchisedech, because by a prophetic spirit he foresaw that He was a type of Christ, so that he seems to have wished to honor and worship not so much Melchisedech, as Christ represented in Melchisedech.
And he blessed him who had the promises. — As if to say: Melchisedech blessed Abraham, as one less than himself, to whom however God had promised such great goods, and so that in him all nations should be blessed, Genesis chapter XII.
Verse 7: And Without Any Contradiction, What Is Less Is Blessed by the Better
"By the better" (Greek kreittonos, that is greater, more worthy, more excellent). — This is the second argument by which he proves that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham, and consequently than Aaron, as if to say: Melchisedech, who was a type of Christ, blessed Abraham and his whole progeny, and consequently also the Levites and Aaronic priests: therefore both he himself and Christ whom he represented, was more worthy and more excellent than they. The consequence is proved, because by the confession of all, he who blesses is greater than he who is blessed.
You will object: The Bishop of Ostia consecrates the Pope, than whom however he is less; Suffragans consecrate the Archbishop, than whom however they are less: therefore he who blesses is not always greater; nor he who is blessed, less. St. Thomas answers in two ways: First, that the Bishop and the suffragans do not consecrate the Pope, or the Archbishop; but this man, say Peter, or Paul, that he may be Pope, or Archbishop: for while they consecrate him, he is not yet Pope, or Archbishop; and consequently he is not yet greater than those consecrating, but rather less, inasmuch as from them he receives the papal or archiepiscopal consecration.
Secondly, he answers that the Bishop of Ostia and the Suffragans thus consecrate and bless not by their own power, dignity and authority, but by God's: for in this blessing each of them bears the place of God, who instituted these blessings to be performed in such a manner and through such persons (for they cannot conveniently be done otherwise), and conducts himself as a minister and vicar of God, who is greater than the one who is blessed, whoever and however great that one may be.
You will object secondly: The priest in the Mass often blesses the body of Christ with the sign of the cross, although he is far less than Him. I answer that these blessings are nothing other than formations of the sign of the cross over the body of Christ, which are employed not for this purpose, that we may bless Christ Himself, but that by these as it were by ceremonies we represent the cross of Christ, and through it, and through Christ Himself crucified as our victim, we silently petition and ask God that He Himself may bless us. Thus, then, we bless Christ not in Himself, but inasmuch as He is our victim. For through these blessings we ask that Christ, blessed in Himself, may become for us a saving and blessed victim. Add to this that the priest, insofar as he bears the person of Christ sacrificing, is in some way greater than Christ Himself sacrificed: for in every sacrifice the priest is greater than the victim he offers.
Verse 8: And Here Indeed Dying Men Receive Tithes, But There It Is Witnessed That He Lives
"Here," that is, in Judaism, among our Levites, of whom I spoke in verse 5, the Aaronic priests receive tithes, who are mortal and die. But "there," that is, in the history and account of Melchisedech, of whom I spoke in verse 6, "it is witnessed," namely by Scripture, that he lives, that is, the one who receives tithes, namely Melchisedech; he lives, I say, always — not in reality, but symbolically and allegorically, because indeed his death is not narrated in Scripture, so that by this very fact he may represent Christ, who in reality is a priest forever.
Note: For "contestatur" the Greek is marturoumenos, which, since it is in the middle voice, can be rendered either passively as "attested" or actively as "attesting." Here, however, it is more fitting, with the Syriac and the Greeks, to render it "attested," and so it is highly likely that our Interpreter rendered it thus, and that "contestatur" is a corruption of "contestatus." For if you read "contestatus," then both the antithesis and the sentence will be most concise and most clear, requiring no supplement; in this way: "And here indeed (under the law) dying men (the Aaronic priests) receive tithes, but there (in the tithing of Abraham, supply: he received tithes) attested (that is, the one of whom Scripture testifies) that (because) he lives," namely Melchisedech, who is brought into Scripture as if always living, in order to signify Christ the High Priest always living.
This is the third argument by which the Apostle proves that Melchisedech, and consequently Christ, is greater than Abraham and Aaron, as if to say: The Aaronic priests are mortal, but Melchisedech is presented as immortal, namely because he is a type of Christ, who is an eternal priest: therefore both Christ and Melchisedech are more worthy than the Aaronic priests.
Verse 9: And, As It May Be Said, Through Abraham Even Levi, Who Received Tithes, Was Tithed
"Levi" (any Levitical priest), "who received tithes" (was accustomed to receive them in the Old Testament), "was tithed," that is, paid tithes. For just as in verses 6 and 7 the Apostle put dekatosai, that is, "to tithe," for "to receive tithes," so here he puts dedekatotai for "to pay" or "to render tithes," as if to say: When Abraham — and in Abraham himself, still hidden, Levi and every Levitical priest (to whom however the right of tithes belongs in the Old Law) — paid tithes to Melchisedech himself, because he was a type of Christ, as if confessing that he and his priesthood were less than the priesthood of Melchisedech and of Christ; nay rather, that with respect to them he was not so much a priest (whose part it is to receive tithes) as a layman (whose part it is to give tithes).
Verse 10: For He Was Still in the Loins of His Father When Melchisedech Met Him
The word "for" gives the reason for that softening by which he said, "that it may so be spoken," as Erasmus says, as if the Apostle were saying: I said that Levi was in some way tithed in Abraham, for he had not yet been born so that he could properly and of himself be tithed, but he was still hidden in Abraham's loins; and thus he was not properly, but in some manner, tithed in him. Yet it rather seems that the word "for" gives the reason why he said that Levi was tithed in Abraham himself, as if to say: Abraham, recognizing that Melchisedech was greater than himself and a type of Christ, gave him tithes and received a blessing from him, in order to profess that he himself and all his posterity, and consequently the Levites and Aaronic priests to be born from him, were less than Melchisedech and subject to Christ. For Abraham conducted himself with Melchisedech as a prince does, who on behalf of himself and his whole posterity offers and renders obedience to the king. For Abraham was prince of the people, author, parent and patriarch of the whole Jewish nation, as he said in verse 4, and the whole nation was reckoned to be virtually hidden in his loins, and through him to subject itself to Melchisedech and to Christ Himself; and consequently the Levitical priests were likewise reckoned to subject themselves both to Melchisedech and to Christ, and with respect to them they professed themselves to be not priests, but laymen. The Apostle so insistently presses this preeminence of Christ's priesthood, that he transfers the Hebrews — accustomed to and trusting in the Aaronic sacrifices — to Christ the High Priest; and teaches them to fix all hope in Christ, and to suffer any adversity for His sake, as One who promises and bestows greater goods than Aaron, who in good faith pleads our cause before God, and who knows how to have compassion not only on the fallen but also on the tempted and on those suffering persecution, to succor them, and to prepare for them victory and an eternal crown in the heavens.
Note: To be in Abraham's loins is the same as to be in the seminal or generative power of Abraham, which originally resides in the loins, in which, as I have said, is the first origin of the seed. For Abraham by this power begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Levi, from whom Aaron and the legal priests were begotten.
And, that it may so be spoken, — hos epos eipein, that is, so to speak, that with one new and subtle word I may touch and embrace the knot of the matter. For what he here says and adds could seem strange and absurd, namely that the Levites not yet born were tithed in Abraham; therefore the Apostle softens his statement by this phrase, in the way we are accustomed to soften our speech when we wish to say something new, sharp, unusual, and unheard of. So Theophylact.
You will object: Christ also was in this way in Abraham's loins, since He descended from him and was begotten of him; therefore Christ too in Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedech. I reply, denying the antecedent. For only those are said to be in Abraham's loins and to be tithed, who by the power of generation, by the natural generation of male and female, were sown from him and procreated; or (what follows from this) those who, as St. Augustine says, descend from Abraham not only according to bodily substance but also according to carnal concupiscence — in the way Levi, Aaron, and the rest descended. But Christ was not so sown forth, and consequently was not in Abraham's loins according to generative power and carnal concupiscence, but only according to bodily substance or matter, which He drew from Abraham: for the conception and generation of Christ was not human, but far loftier, namely divine, from the Holy Spirit. In the same way, if anyone now were to descend from Adam not by the natural generation of male and female, but by divine operation — for example, one formed by God from the flesh, blood, or rib of some man descending from Adam, in the way Eve was formed — such a one would not contract original sin. By this reasoning also, Christ, by virtue of His conception, which took place by the Holy Spirit, did not contract original sin; because the transmission of original sin embraces only those who naturally, that is by natural generation, descend from Adam. For these alone are reckoned as the proper and natural sons of Adam, and consequently Adam's will is reckoned to have been their will: hence the law of original sin is this: All and only those who descend from Adam by natural generation as natural sons shall contract original sin. Therefore in the same way here, Christ — and any other who would descend from Abraham not by natural generation but by miraculous formation, e.g. from a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit — would not be reckoned a son of Abraham, properly and naturally begotten of him; and consequently Abraham would not be reckoned to have willed, or to have been able, to pay tithes for him. So St. Augustine, book X On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 20, and following him St. Thomas, III part, Question XXXI, article 8, and the Scholastics there.
Note secondly, from what the Apostle says, that Levi was in the loins of Abraham, Tertullian, in his book On the Soul, chapter 27 and following, was of opinion that Levi's soul was in the loins of Abraham, and consequently that the soul of every man is not immediately created by God, but is by traduction — that is, transmitted, going forth and propagated from the parent's soul through its seminal power by which it generates a son — just as the light of the air is transmitted and propagated from the light of the sun. But Tertullian rests on a false foundation: he thought the human soul to be corporeal, and even to have its sex, so that the soul of a man is distinguished by sex from the soul of a woman, just as the body is. His reasoning therefore was this: The soul of man is corporeal, and man is generated by man, as horse by horse, ox by ox; but the soul of an ox and a horse is transmitted and propagated from the soul of the generating ox and horse, and so is drawn out of the potency of matter, namely of the equine and bovine seed: therefore the soul of man too is transmitted from the soul of the parent.
But the major proposition is false. For the human soul is spiritual and immaterial, but the soul of a horse is material, and is drawn out of the potency of matter, and so depends on it that, when the equine body perishes, the soul also perishes. St. Augustine likewise, although He did not doubt that the human soul is incorporeal and immaterial, nevertheless doubted, and remained in this doubt until the end of his life, whether the soul of man is by traduction from the parent, or whether it is created by God. This appears from the books I and II which he wrote late in life On the Origin of the Soul, and from the book II of the Retractationes, chapter 45 and 56. The reason which compelled St. Augustine into this doubt was this, that St. Augustine did not see how the soul of a son could contract original sin from a parent, if it did not descend from and was not transmitted by the parent.
Hence this was the Achilles of the Pelagians: Levi's soul is not by traduction, but is created by God; therefore he cannot contract original sin from his parent. But Pope Zosimus and the whole Church condemned this consequence: for in order that a soul contract this sin, it suffices that it be the soul of a man who by natural generation and seminal power descends from Adam. For by this very fact he is reckoned a son of Adam, and consequently is reckoned to have been in Adam, to have willed and done what Adam willed and did, when he ate the forbidden fruit. Hence St. Jerome and other later writers attack and condemn this opinion of the traduction of the soul: and so it is now certain by the consensus of the whole Church, that the human soul is not transmitted from the parent, but is created immediately from nothing by God, who creates the same by infusing it, and by creating infuses it into the human body.
Secondly, the Master of the Sentences, book II, distinction 30, from the fact that Levi is said to have been in the loins of Abraham, and from like sayings and phrases, supposed that each of Abraham's sons drew from Abraham himself, and in like manner each man from Adam himself (as being the first parent of all), a particle of flesh which truly, properly, and numerically the same had been in Adam. For he thinks that otherwise they would not be sons of Adam, unless they had in themselves some particle of Adam's substance plainly the same and individual; nay, he thinks that this particle alone is of the substance of the begotten man: so that this particle is not increased by food, but multiplies in itself and grows into a great human body. Whence he holds that foods are not turned into the substance of man, but only nourish it, and presently flow out from man himself, or are excreted, so that nothing of food remains in man that could rise again; and consequently he holds that only that flesh will rise which was in Adam, and which each man drew from Adam. But this is a monstrous opinion, and so in all Philosophy and Theology it is like a monster, which experience alone most clearly refutes and convicts of falsity. For we experience that the bodies of men, just as those of other animals, are nourished and increased by the taking of food, and conversely, when food is withdrawn, that nutrition and growth too immediately cease.
I say therefore that Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and every man was in the loins of his father, not according to the soul, but according to the body — because by the power of Abraham's seed Levi's body was formed and organized, and thus, by the force of the seed, into the organized body the soul was infused by God from a natural requirement. For the body of man, when it is thus organized, by that very fact becomes a human body, and demands the human soul as if its own form: which, since the parent cannot give it through seed or any other natural cause and power, hence God, supplying the defect of the parent and of nature in His own way, as the first and universal cause, produces such a soul as such a body demands; and in producing it infuses and unites it to the body: whence it comes about that not only the body, but the whole man so begotten, is reckoned to be a son not of God but of his father, inasmuch as it was brought about by him that the son should receive not only the body properly from himself as from a father, but also the soul from God through this natural requirement, as I said, of the body formed and organized from paternal seed. And in this sense, Genesis xlvi, verses 26 and 27, seventy souls (that is, animated offspring) are said to have come forth from the thigh of Jacob. On this question more is to be seen in the Physicists in their books On Generation and in the books On the Soul.
Verse 11: If Then Perfection Was by the Levitical Priesthood
For "consummatio" the Greek is teleiosis, that is perfection, as if to say: If the old Aaronic priesthood had the power of perfecting, that is, of justifying men, saving them and bringing them to eternal life, which is the ultimate end and highest perfection of man; if the Levitical priesthood — especially with the addition of the Law of Moses, which was given along with it, and which the Jews most boast of as if they were justified from it and its observance — could make a man perfect, just, and blessed: what need was there that another priest should arise, namely Christ, whose priesthood is not according to the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedech? For when God promised Christ in Psalm 109, saying: "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech," and now in fact has exhibited Him, that He might succeed the Aaronic priests, by this very fact He declared that something was lacking to them, which had to be supplied by Christ, namely that they could not perfect and sanctify man, but that this was to be expected from Christ.
Note first: The Apostle interjects mention of the Law saying: "For under it the people received the Law," both because the order, rites, victims, ministers, and every perfection of the priesthood was to be sought and was prescribed by the Law; and because the Jews trusted equally in the Law and in the priesthood; and finally because Law and priesthood are necessarily connected: and as the Law is, such must the priesthood be; and as the priesthood is, such must the Law be — namely, suited to such a people and such a time. And this is what the Apostle here says: "For under it (ep' aute, that is, in it, i.e. at the time of that priesthood) the people received the Law," because when the people received the Law on Sinai through Moses, in the same place they likewise received the priesthood. For at Sinai Aaron and his sons were established as priests by God, who were to teach the people the Law and the worship of God, the sacrifices and expiations prescribed by the Law. Hence from this connection of Law and priesthood, the Apostle here tacitly contends that the change of both the old Law and the priesthood must have taken place, and was brought about by Christ and the new Law, namely the Evangelical. Hence he clearly adds, saying: "For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also of the Law be made."
Here is the fourth argument, by which the Apostle proves that the priesthood of Melchisedech and of Christ was nobler and more worthy than the Aaronic. He proves it thus: After the Aaronic priesthood, Christ, given by God, arose as priest according to the order of Melchisedech; therefore the prior priesthood, namely the Aaronic, was imperfect and insufficient, and so had to yield to the priesthood of Christ succeeding it, as being far more perfect. For the Aaronic was carnal and temporary, but Christ's was spiritual and eternal. So Theophylact and others.
Verse 12: For the Priesthood Being Translated, It Is Necessary That a Translation Also of the Law Be Made
By Law here understand not the natural law (the Decalogue): for this binds Christians equally as Jews; but the positive and Mosaic law, namely the ceremonial and judicial. This is an anticipation. For the Hebrews would have said: Granted that Christ introduced a new priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, as God promised in Psalm 109, yet He should not have introduced a new Law, abrogating the Law of Moses given by God. The Apostle replies that the latter follows from the former: for, the priesthood being changed, the Law also must be changed; and so Christ, when He changed the old priesthood into a new one, must likewise have changed the old Law into a new one. The cause of this saying is that which I have already brought forward in the preceding verse, namely that the priesthood is proportioned to the Law and indissolubly connected with it: for there cannot be a priesthood without certain and congruent laws, precepts, ceremonies, promises, and penalties prescribed by the Law. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact.
St. Thomas brings forward another reason: when the priesthood is changed, he says, the Law too must be changed, because, when the end is changed, the means too must be changed: but the Law of Moses, as divine, is ordered as a means to divine governance, as to its end: but this divine governance is brought about and designated through the priesthood: therefore, when the priesthood and the divine governance are changed, the Law too must be changed. Hence that of Jeremiah xxxi: "I will make a new covenant with you."
Verse 13: For He of Whom These Things Are Said Is of Another Tribe
For "praesto fuit" the Greek has proseschken, that is, "stood by," "presided." Therefore "praesto fuit" is the same as he constantly stood by in the manner of those ministering, as is clear from chapter X, verse 11. He proves what he said in verse 11, that Christ was another priest from Aaron and the Aaronic priests. He proves it thus: all Aaronic priests had to be sprung from the tribe of Levi: but Christ was not from Levi, but begotten from Judah: therefore Christ could not be a Levitical priest, that is, according to the order and rite of Aaron; but was wholly different from him, indeed opposite, and consequently by His new priesthood He excluded the old Aaronic, and likewise by His new Law He excluded the old, which had established the priesthood in Levi but had barred the tribe of Judah from the priesthood. For Christ, since He was not from Levi but from Judah, entered upon a priesthood, and propagated it to those after Him by succession not hereditary but elective.
Verse 14: For It Is Evident That Our Lord Sprang Out of Juda
Namely Jesus Christ. Hence it is evident that it is a Jewish fiction and insipid delirium, that which Suidas relates, under the word Jesus Christus, from Theodosius the Jew: namely that Christ, because on His mother's side He was sprung from the tribe of Levi, and because He was born without a father, of His Virgin Mother alone, was admitted by the Jews and enrolled among the Aaronic priests. This story a certain imprudent and unskilled person recently published and spread here in Belgium. For the Apostle here directly overthrows this, who teaches here that Christ could not be a Levitical priest, because He was sprung from Judah. Wherefore the Blessed Virgin, the mother of Christ, was sprung from the tribe of Judah, because her father Joachim was of the tribe of Judah.
You will say: The mother of the Blessed Virgin was of the tribe of Levi, for she was a kinswoman of Elizabeth, who was the wife of Zachariah the priest; therefore through her grandmother Christ could be reckoned of the tribe of Levi, and become a Levitical priest. I answer: The antecedent is uncertain, and would be without foundation; indeed it is denied by Ribera and many others: for Elizabeth could be a kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin from the fact that Elizabeth's mother was sprung from the tribe of Judah, and was a kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin, as St. Ambrose teaches, book III on Luke, near the beginning; not however from the fact that the mother of the Virgin was sprung from the stock of Levi and from Elizabeth's family. For the priests could take a wife from the tribe of Judah, as being royal. Just as Aaron took to wife Aminadab's daughter, sister of Naasson (who was prince of the tribe of Judah), from whom all the priests were begotten. Secondly, even if the antecedent were true, the consequence is nevertheless false: for those who descended from Levi by the maternal line could not be priests, but only those who descended from him by the paternal line. For families, especially the Levitical, were reckoned and constituted by males, not by females: nor was a woman capable of the priesthood, as she was of an inheritance or kingdom. Therefore, although in the Maccabees, sprung from Levi, the scepter of David and of Judah could subsist and be preserved, because the Maccabees descended on the maternal side from Judah and David, yet this could not happen in the priesthood. For since the mother was not capable of the priesthood, the right of the priesthood could not be derived through her to the son.
Note thirdly: That Christ was born of the tribe of Judah was established among the Jews, first, from the tables of genealogies, which they themselves wrote and preserved most accurately. Secondly, from the genealogy of Christ, which St. Matthew wove together in chapter I, and St. Luke in chapter III. Thirdly, Jacob had tacitly foretold the same in xlix, 10; for although there Jacob expressly predicts only that the scepter shall not depart from Judah until Christ comes, yet because he assigns this blessing of Christ — to be born from him — to Judah alone, he by that very fact implicitly signifies that Christ was to be born of Judah alone. Therefore the Jews always understood this prophecy of Jacob, whose common voice was this: Christ shall be born of Judah. Lastly, that Christ would be born and was born of Judah, is clear from the fact that Christ was born of David: for David was of the family and tribe of Judah. Now it was established among all that Christ was promised to David, and that Christ would be born of David, from II Kings chapter VII, verses 12 and 13.
In which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests, — as if to say: Moses, instituting the priesthood by God's command, chose Levi, not Judah, and by this very fact excluded Judah from his priesthood.
Verse 15: And It Is Yet Far More Evident, If According to the Similitude of Melchisedech There Arises Another Priest
He proved that Christ is another priest from the Aaronic priests, and that He succeeded them and consequently abolished them, from the fact that Christ arose from Judah, not from Levi, from whom all the Aaronic priests had to descend. Here secondly, he proves the same from the fact that Christ, in Psalm 109, is called a priest not according to the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedech.
Verse 16: Who Is Made Not According to the Law of a Carnal Commandment, But According to the Power of an Indissoluble Life
He calls the Mosaic Law a "carnal commandment," concerning the flesh to be circumcised and purified, because it cleansed and sanctified not the soul but only the flesh from a certain legal and political uncleanness and irregularity consisting in men's opinion; and that through carnal ceremonies, namely washings, sacrifices, fumigations, and the rest, which touch only the flesh, not the fibers of the soul, as Theodoret notes. And consequently he calls the Law "carnal," that is, temporary, because it was dying with the flesh: for the ceremonies and purifications of the carnal Law were occupied about the flesh, and when this was withdrawn and dying, they ceased, came to an end, and ended along with man. To this he opposes the commandment, that is, the Law of Christ, which is "according to the power of an indissoluble life," that is, which gives and bestows eternal life, both of grace and of glory. And this is what he adds in verse 25: "Whence also He is able to save forever," as if to say: The Aaronic priests were carnal, temporal, and mortal: but Christ, by the power and virtue of the Father, was made a priest always living, eternal, immortal, who bestows on us the spiritual life of grace, and through it the eternal life of glory: therefore Christ far surpasses the Aaronic priests.
You will object: Leviticus VI, 18 and 20, and often elsewhere, the sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus are said to be offered with an everlasting rite: therefore those are as eternal as Christ's sacrifice is eternal.
I reply: I deny the consequence, for in Leviticus an absolute eternity is not signified, but only a relative one, namely those things being to endure always, that is, throughout the whole time of the Law, or as long as the old Law shall endure, until the Messiah comes, who shall introduce a new and absolutely eternal priesthood. This is clear both from other places, and from the fact that after these Levitical sacrifices to be offered with an everlasting rite, the Lord promised David another priesthood of Christ absolutely eternal, saying Psalm CIX: "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech." By which He sufficiently signifies that the Aaronic priesthood would be eternal only up to Christ, and was to be abolished through Christ; but Christ's sacrifice would endure up to the end of the world.
Verse 17: Thou Art a Priest Forever According to the Order of Melchisedech
Not as if Christ had a priesthood formally of the same kind, or instituted by Melchisedech. For it is clear that Christ's priesthood was much more excellent, of a higher order and origin, than Melchisedech's was.
Hence note: For "according to the order" the Hebrew has al dibrat, that is, according to the business, manner, rite, type, analogy, similitude (as Paul translates in verse 15) of Melchisedech, as if to say: Christ is a priest in a most excellent kind of eternal priesthood, of which Melchisedech was a singular type and likeness. This sense is clear from this verse and the preceding.
Note, that Christ is said to be a priest according to the order and type of Melchisedech for many reasons, as I said in verse 3; but the strongest and proper reason and likeness is in the victim, because, just as Melchisedech first offered bread and wine to God in thanksgiving for Abraham's victory, then those things offered to God he distributed to Abraham's soldiers to be partaken of and eaten: so also Christ, in the Last Supper, offered bread and wine, consecrating them and transubstantiating them into the Eucharistic sacrifice, and then distributed them to the Apostles to be partaken of, and likewise commanded them to be offered and partaken of. For the rite, principle, and likeness of the priesthood is properly to be considered, and properly consists in the very function of the priesthood, that is, in the very oblation of the victim and sacrifice, which here are bread and wine: for the rest are circumstances, and do not pertain to the proper principle and species and order of the sacrifice and priesthood.
Hence it is evidently demonstrated that the Mass is a sacrifice, because in no other place did Christ declare Himself to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedech (such as David foretold and promised He would be in Psalm 109) except in the Supper, in which He offered Himself under the species of bread and wine, and commanded us to offer the same in the Mass in like manner: for the sacrifice of the cross, as bloody, was not according to the order of Melchisedech, but rather of Aaron, who used to immolate to God by slaying oxen and sheep. For that Melchisedech offered nothing else than bread and wine, just as Christ in the Supper, is clear both from Genesis XIV, 18, and because nowhere else does Scripture mention that he immolated oxen, sheep, or anything else: so that, unless you gather the order of Melchisedech's priesthood and the offering, rite, and species of his sacrifice and victim from Genesis XIV, 18, you could not gather them anywhere. But if anyone rashly admits this, and asserts that those things can be gathered nowhere, I shall infer: Therefore in vain is Christ called by David and proposed to us as a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, since we could nowhere find, divine, or understand this order. On which more is to be said in Genesis XIV. This is the common opinion and exposition of the Fathers and of all antiquity, including even the ancient Rabbis. On which see Bellarmine, book I De Missa, chapter VI.
You will object: Why then does Paul here keep silence and omit this principal likeness in the victim of the sacrifice of Melchisedech and of Christ? I reply: Because this was outside the Apostle's scope. For the Apostle cites that of Psalm 109: "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech," only for this end, that he may from it prove and demonstrate to the Hebrews that Christ's priesthood is different, that it has succeeded and abolished the Aaronic priesthood. He proves it thus: David, 400 years after the Aaronic priesthood was instituted, promises another priest, namely Christ, who is to be the perpetual priest according to the order of Melchisedech, which Melchisedech preceded the Law and the priesthood of Aaron by 400 years: therefore by this very fact David signifies that the prior Aaronic priesthood, as temporary, carnal, and weak, was to be abolished by the later priesthood of Christ, as eternal, spiritual, and most effective in abolishing sins, in obtaining for us grace, glory, and eternal life. For this it was not necessary for the Apostle to explain what Melchisedech's victim had been, which he knew was sufficiently known and manifest to the Hebrews from Genesis. Add that the Apostle here urges only those things by which Melchisedech, and consequently Christ, surpasses the Aaronic priests — of which kind especially is the symbolic eternity in Melchisedech, the true and proper in Christ: but to this the mention of Melchisedech's victim was clearly impertinent and useless, because in this respect Melchisedech was not nobler but rather less than the Aaronic priests. For they offered living animals, namely oxen and sheep, but he offered only dry bread; and animals are far more excellent than bread. Finally, the Apostle was silent on it because many Hebrews, rude and weak, were not yet capable of so great a mystery and secret as the Eucharist, as I have shown from Paul in chapter V, verses 11 and 12.
Verse 18: There Is Indeed a Setting Aside of the Former Commandment Because of Its Weakness and Unprofitableness
In verse 12 the Apostle proved that the old Law was abolished, from the fact that the old priesthood was abolished by the new one of Christ; but the Law is connected with the priesthood: therefore, when the old priesthood was abolished and changed, it was necessary that the old Law also be abolished and changed into the new one of Christ. Now lest anyone wonder and say: What was the cause why God abrogated the Law once instituted by Himself? Paul replies here, as if to say: Do you wish to know the cause of the abolished Law and priesthood? why "there was a reprobation of the preceding commandment," that is, abrogation of the old Law? The cause is the weakness and unprofitableness of that Law, because that Law could not expiate sins, save and beatify men.
Verse 19: For the Law Brought Nothing to Perfection, But a Bringing in of a Better Hope, By Which We Draw Nigh to God
That is, the Law could perfect no one, that is, could not justify and lead to beatitude, which is the supreme perfection of man. For the Law was occupied only in external things, about the justice of the flesh and outward cleanness, which made us pure and holy before men, but not before God. If anyone touched a dead body or anything unclean, the Law commanded him to wash; if anyone committed a homicide and a true crime, the Law commanded him to be killed: but the Law did not purge and expiate sin itself, the soul itself.
Note: ouden is put for oudeis, that is, "nothing" is put for "no one": for instead of the masculine, the neuter is used, because the neuter gender more fully signifies all-encompassing universality, as Theophylact says. So in John VI, 37, it is said: "Everything (that is, every man) that the Father gives Me shall come to Me." So in Matthew last chapter, Christ commands the Gospel to be preached to every creature, that is, to every man.
But a bringing in of a better hope (supply: takes place, or has taken place, through Christ) through which we draw nigh to God, — as if to say: Through Christ entered, and, as the Syriac translates, al, that is "ascended," a "better," that is, greater and more excellent hope of justice and salvation, because Christ introduced new sacrifices, Sacraments, laws, and promises of the New Testament, by which we hope to attain God's grace here and in the future glory and beatitude, and so to draw as near as possible to God, and to ascend to Him into the Holy of Holies, that is, into heaven itself. The Apostle so often inculcates Evangelical hope, that the Hebrews, almost despairing in their afflictions, may lift up their spirits by considering so many and so great goods which the Gospel promises, and which we hope to obtain through Christ.
Verse 20: And Inasmuch As It Is Not Without an Oath
This sentence depends on verse 22, where the Apostle completes it saying: "By so much is Jesus made surety of a better testament," as if to say: Inasmuch as this matter, namely that Christ should become priest, was not accomplished without an oath, by so much Jesus is a more excellent priest, lawgiver, and mediator than Moses and Aaron were.
It is the fifth argument proving the preeminence of Christ over Moses and Aaron, and it is this: The Law, testament, and priesthood of Christ — but not the old of Moses and Aaron — was promised by God with an oath, and that in order that both the priesthood of Christ and our reconciliation, and all the goods promised and to be bestowed through Christ, might be more certain and firm; therefore in so far as Christ's priesthood is confirmed by an oath, when David says: "The Lord hath sworn, and He will not repent: Thou art a priest," etc., by so much is Christ's priesthood more excellent than the Aaronic.
Verse 21: The Others Indeed Without an Oath
As if to say: To Aaron and his descendants God gave the priesthood without an oath, as a thing of less moment and temporary, which God did not deign to confirm with an oath. These words explain the antithesis and the force of the argument latent in what preceded: "And inasmuch as it is not without an oath." The Greek indicates this more clearly, having hoi men gar, that is, for those (Aaronic priests) indeed were made priests without an oath: but Christ with an oath, as the matter and business of Christ the High Priest, namely the reconciliation and salvation of men, was of great moment, and although difficult, with most certain proof nevertheless they must be believed and hoped for by men; for this reason the Lord swore, saying: "Thou art a priest forever." So Theophylact.
Hence it is clear that these words and those following up to verse 22 are to be enclosed and included within a parenthesis.
Verse 22: By So Much Is Jesus Made a Surety of a Better Testament
"Testament" and the Greek diatheke are the same as the Hebrew berit, that is a covenant and pact, namely entered into between God and men through Christ, as I said on 1 Corinthians chapter XI, verse 25.
Secondly, "surety," or guarantor, here is the same as mediator, who pledges his own faith, promises and guarantees that the goods which are promised in this new covenant of God with men shall be ratified and certainly fulfilled. For since Christ and the new Testament promise to men, on God's behalf, the resurrection and heavenly rewards, divine things, which we do not yet see, and which are far removed from us, and therefore are with difficulty believed and hoped for by men: for this reason Christ pledged Himself for them, as if He had said: I am willing to be considered worthless, unless what I pledge in My Father's name regarding heaven and the heavenly glory to be given to My faithful, be ratified, certain and firm; and the pledge of this His promise, by which Christ wonderfully confirmed our hope, He gave us when He actually rose and ascended into heaven, by this very fact as it were opening and showing us the way to heaven, and demonstrating that He holds the keys of heaven, and is the Lord of heaven. So Anselm.
Verse 23: And the Others Indeed Were Made Many Priests
This is the sixth argument showing that Christ surpasses the Aaronic priests, and it is as follows: The Aaronic priests were mortal, and one succeeded another in the priesthood after death: but Christ is immortal, for although He died, yet He soon rose as conqueror of death to a glorious and immortal life: therefore Christ surpasses the Aaronic priests. So Theophylact, drawing from Chrysostom, whence the Apostle adds:
Verse 24: But This One, Because He Continues Forever, Has an Everlasting Priesthood
"Christ, because He continues forever, has an everlasting" (aparabaton, that is, what cannot pass away or be successively transferred to another) "priesthood," — as if to say: Christ has no successor, as Aaron had, because He Himself always lives as our priest and mediator unto eternity.
You will say: St. Peter succeeded Christ in the pontificate, just as Eleazar succeeded Aaron.
I reply that this is false, for Eleazar did not succeed Aaron as an equal, nay rather, in the same rank and dignity of the pontificate: for Eleazar the pontiff was of equal dignity with Aaron the pontiff, but St. Peter succeeded Christ, not as an equal, but as vicar and minister: just as in war, when the captain is absent, the lieutenant succeeds him on the battlefield. Christ therefore alone is our supreme and eternal pontiff, who on earth administers this His pontificate through the Roman Pontiffs, as His vicars and stewards: therefore the Roman Pontiffs detract nothing from the glory and honor of Christ the pontiff, but rather illustrate and promote His pontificate, since they profess to be only His administrators, servants and vicars, that they may everywhere propagate the glory of Christ.
Verse 25: Whence He Is Able Also to Save Forever Those Who Come to God Through Him
In Greek, eis to panteles, which Vatablus and Erasmus translate, completely, perfectly, fully: but our [Vulgate], the Syriac, and the Greek Fathers more correctly translate, forever. For Paul wishes to teach that Christ, as eternal priest, saves His faithful not only in this life but also in the life to come, and confers eternal salvation upon them, whereas the Aaronic priests obtained for theirs only the temporal goods of this life.
Note: He calls "those who come" (for so it must be read with the Romans, the Greek and the Syriac, not however "one coming") the faithful, who through the faith and obedience which they render to Christ, come to God the Father, and to His grace and friendship.
Ever living to make intercession for us. — Hence it is clear that Christ in heaven intercedes and prays for us, and this is proper to Christ, that as pontiff He should pray for us: for the other Saints, even those who were priests in this life, pray for us in heaven, not as priests, but as private Saints and friends of God: for they no longer exercise the priesthood in heaven. See what was said on Romans VIII, 34.
Verse 26: For It Was Fitting That We Should Have Such a High Priest
Namely, one who, always living, would always intercede for us, and consequently, one who would be holy, innocent, etc., that thus He might save us forever.
Note the "it was fitting," as if to say (says Primasius): We were not worthy, nor did we deserve to have such a pontiff, but it was necessary for us that we should have such a one as would be holy, etc.
Holy. — Hosios, that is, pure and free from every blemish, that is holy: for purity is holiness, as I said on 1 Corinthians VII, 24. Hence Theophylact says: "hosios is one who omits none of those things which he ought to do, namely upright in morals, and perfect in all his acts."
Secondly and better, hosios is the same as pious toward God, fearing and worshipping God, devoted to God, sacred and holy, and by his very piety and holiness venerable and to be reverenced.
Innocent. — Akakos, that is, lacking malice and harm, that is, innocent, one who harms no one, wishes evil to no one, but strives to benefit and do good to all. Hence Chrysostom and Oecumenius translate akakos as "free from guile," one who knows not how to deceive, knows not how to mislead. For fraud and guile, as well as a mind eager to harm, are properly called malice, in Greek kakia; and akakos is one who is free from it. So Cicero, Tusculan IV, and book III On the Ends: "The opposite of virtue," he says, "is viciousness: for so I prefer to call it rather than malice, which the Greeks call kakian. For malice is the name of a certain particular vice, viciousness is the name for all of them."
Undefiled. — Note here that the pontiff must be entirely holy and unblemished, namely, that he be "holy," that is pious toward God, "innocent" toward his neighbor, "undefiled" toward himself. For "undefiled" the Greek is amiantos, that is uncorrupted, immaculate, unharmed, inviolable. Hence the stone called amianthus (to which Paul here seems to allude) is so named because it is not damaged by fire, and because from it, being flexible, they weave cloths and veils, which when cast into fire indeed burn, but come out from it more brilliant, as Dioscorides teaches in book V, chapter LXIII, and Pliny in book XXXVI, chapter XIX. Such is purity, and especially chastity, which can be corrupted neither by the fire of concupiscence, nor by bodily fire; but remains both in mind and body unharmed and incorrupt amid any fires. Hence in Isaiah chapter XLIII, verse 2, through Christ God promises this very thing to every pure and holy Christian, saying: "When thou shalt walk in the fire, thou shalt not be burnt, and the flame shall not burn in thee, for I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior." Where Leo Castrius, drawing from St. Athanasius, says: "As from the amianthus stone cloths are made inviolable by fire, so the Blessed Virgin bore the Lamb, from whose glorious fleece a garment of immortality has been made for us, clothed in which we can neither be burnt by fire, nor enclosed by waters, nor by any other thing, but pass through all torments unharmed to incorruption and immortality." Indeed, in this very way the angel, as if with his amianthus garment, protected from the Babylonian fire the three pure and chaste Hebrew youths — an angel, I say, like to the Son of God, and a type of Christ, Daniel III, 92. So St. John, St. Vincent, St. Cecilia, Lucy, Agnes, and many other saints remained unharmed in flames by Christ's protection, and by no lesser miracle, though tempted on every side by the fire of lust, did not burn, but rather obtained from their Spouse Christ an angel as the perpetual guardian and defender of their virginity; and so, what is noteworthy and memorable, although we read that many of the holy virgins were condemned by tyrants and pagan rulers to the brothel, yet we read that none of them was violated, but that all by God's help miraculously escaped the hands of the procurers, and remained inviolate virgins. Such even now are very many priests, religious, and others who live angelically in the flesh, and among the fires of concupiscence and the temptations of the flesh, endure as if amianthus, and shine forth more brightly. Our pontiff Christ therefore is amianthus, and especially wills His priests to be amianthus, and demands of them angelic purity and chastity, because incorruption makes one near to God: and priests must approach God on behalf of the people.
Separated (not only from sins, but also) from sinners, (and) made higher than the heavens, — so that He is most distant not only from sinners but also from all men, and surpasses all angels and the Blessed, both in place and in grace and glory, "for He ascended above all the heavens," Ephesians IV, 10.
Secondly, St. Anselm explains all these things thus: "Holy" interiorly, "innocent" in His hands, "undefiled" in body, "separated from sinners," that is free from all sin, and set apart from the flock of sinners, and consequently separated from the flock of the rest of the priests, among whom there is none without sin; "and made higher than the heavens," that He might minister there at the heavenly altar. Or, "made higher than the heavens," that is, raised above all heavenly creatures, so that His greatness or sublimity so transcends the greatness of the highest angels, that between Him and the angels no comparison can be made according to greatness and excellence. So far Anselm.
Verse 27: Who Has No Need Daily, as the Priests, to Offer Sacrifices First for His Own Sins, Then for the People's
"Who has no need daily, as the (Levitical) priests, first to offer victims for His own sins, then for the people's: for this" (namely, to offer not for His own, but for the sins of the people) "He did once, by offering Himself." — This is the seventh argument proving Christ to surpass the Aaronic priests, and it is as follows: The Aaronic priests offer victims for their own sins as well as for those of the people, and that frequently, indeed daily: but Christ offers not for His own, but for the sins of others, namely of the whole world, and that only once, and by one oblation has expiated all the sins of all men: therefore Christ is nobler and more efficacious than the Aaronic priests.
From this Beza infers and objects to us: Therefore Christ's sacrifice is unique: therefore the daily sacrifice of the Mass must be abolished, as being repugnant to the unique sacrifice of Christ. I reply: Christ's sacrifice as expiatory, redemptive and satisfactory for all sins is unique, namely the sacrifice of the Cross: for in it Christ offered a price sufficient for the faults and debts of all the sins that have ever been committed, or shall hereafter be committed. But the Mass is a sacrifice that is not redemptive and satisfactory, but applicative of the redemption and satisfaction of Christ accomplished on the cross. For in the Mass we do not offer a new price for sins, but we apply to ourselves the original price and ransom of the cross: just as we apply that very thing to ourselves through baptism, the other Sacraments, and through good works.
I reply secondly: The sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice of the Cross, first, representatively, just as an image is the same as the thing whose image it is: for the Mass represents the sacrifice of the Cross. Secondly, really: for both in the Mass and on the Cross the principal offering priest is the same, namely Christ; the victim and host is also the same in both, namely the body of Christ, the same I say in substance, though differing in mode: for in the Mass it is unbloody, whereas on the Cross it was bloody; but the unbloody in the Mass signifies and represents the bloody on the Cross. So the Council of Trent, session XXII, chapter 1.
Verse 28: For the Law Appoints Men Priests Having Infirmity, But the Word of the Oath, Which Is After the Law, the Son Perfected Forever
"For the law appoints men priests" (in Greek archiereis, that is pontiffs, princes of sacred things and of the priests) "having infirmity," — that is, mortal, wretched and sinful, and who cannot expiate sins by their sacrifices.
But the word of the oath, which is after the law, (appoints) the Son, perfected forever, — namely as a priest through the pontiff; for this must be supplied from the antithesis of the preceding sentence.
Note: The "word of the oath" is the oath by which in Psalm CIX, "the Lord swore" to Christ: "Thou art a priest forever"; it is clear from verse 17.
Secondly, this oath was given through David, after the law was given to Moses and Aaron, that it might be signified that the old priesthood would yield to the new one of Christ, who would perfect those things which were lacking in the old.
Thirdly, for "perfect" the Greek is teteleiomenon, that is consummate (as our [Vulgate] translates in chapter II, verse 10), and that forever, namely that Christ should be eternally consummate, both in grace and holiness, so that He can never sin: both in life and glory, so that He should be immortal, impassible and glorious; both in priesthood and sacrifice, so that He should not need to offer many victims, but with one victim and sacrifice should have expiated all men; and should have paid the price for all the sins of all men. For the Apostle opposes these perfections and consummations of Christ to the infirmity of the ancient priests.
Note: Each word of the Apostle here contains an effective antithesis of Christ and the Aaronic priests. Christ was made pontiff with God's oath, the Aaronic priests without an oath; Christ entered the priesthood after the Law, as though to succeed it and fulfill it, the Aaronic priests with the Law; Christ is a son, they are servants; Christ remains forever, they are temporary and succeed one another; Christ is consummate in grace, glory and beatitude, they lie subject to the infirmity of death, sorrows and sin. So St. Chrysostom.