Ephrem the Syrian — Commentary on Scripture

Hebrews 6:13-20

“Through this” oath “God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise” that God’s promise, because indeed it is God’s, will never be changed. God’s oath was infallible in its being interposed, that is, between God, the angel and Abraham.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

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.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

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…

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.”

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

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 tim…

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.

COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 11.2.2-4

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.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

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”…

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.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

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.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

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 of…

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.”

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 8:1-2

“The point in what we are saying,” that is, the discussion which we have undertaken with regard to priesthood and the law, is now presented to you according to what I have said above. “We have such a high priest” of the high priests, who does not stand before the ark of alliance but “who,” by ascending, “is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven.”Moreover, he, who was so entirely praised, was “a minister in the sanctuary” in the very tabernacle of truth—that is, either in the kingdom of heaven, as he promised, or in this world, as he actually did by washing the feet of his disciples.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 8:4-6

Since they were in the darkness without a model, they managed their office according to a general affinity in divine matters. That is, all those ancient religious institutions were shadows and symbols of this institution of the church, which is established in its spirituality and divinity before him. And to Moses himself it was ordered, when he was about to build the tabernacle of the hour, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.”

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 8:12-13

“For I will be merciful” to them, not with regard to their impurity but “toward their iniquities,” not with regard to the uncleanness of nocturnal dreams but to the sins which are performed in them through the power of the devil.Therefore in the new covenant that Jeremiah announced, “The first has become old. Now what decayed and became old is near to vanishing away.”

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 9:1-5

Now “even the first covenant had” in it some rules in addition to “regulations” of the ministry of “worship,” because sin exacted the punishment of the sword. However, this sanctification—this law that sanctifies us by means of water—does not pass away like those rules; in fact, it remains forever hereafter, because Jesus rejected that law for a new covenant, which was earlier proclaimed through Jeremiah.Then Paul turns his attention to the temporary tabernacle and to all the things which were in it in order to prove and reveal that they also have passed away, together with the abrogation of their law. It could not happen that they remained after the cessation of the law, because they also were shadows and symbols of this true ministry, which will last. Therefore, he begins again to deprive of its authority the service of the ministry held in the temporary tabernacle, of which the priests were proud in their overconfidence, by saying, “The first tent was prepared” so, because “in it were the lampstand and the table” and the other things. In the inner tent, “called the Holy of Holies…

Now “even the first covenant had” in it some rules in addition to “regulations” of the ministry of “worship,” because sin exacted the punishment of the sword. However, this sanctification—this law that sanctifies us by means of water—does not pass away like those rules; in fact, it remains forever hereafter, because Jesus rejected that law for a new covenant, which was earlier proclaimed through Jeremiah.Then Paul turns his attention to the temporary tabernacle and to all the things which were in it in order to prove and reveal that they also have passed away, together with the abrogation of their law. It could not happen that they remained after the cessation of the law, because they also were shadows and symbols of this true ministry, which will last. Therefore, he begins again to deprive of its authority the service of the ministry held in the temporary tabernacle, of which the priests were proud in their overconfidence, by saying, “The first tent was prepared” so, because “in it were the lampstand and the table” and the other things. In the inner tent, “called the Holy of Holies,” under its veil, there was placed one “golden altar of incense and the ark covered on all sides with gold,” together with the other things. However, is there now any need to describe these objects in detail, one by one? In fact, even though each of these things had been set in their proper place for the service of religious ministry, they were nonetheless symbolic shadows of this heavenly ministry; since the truth has now come, it is not necessary anymore that we deal with shadows.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 9:11

All these things, as I have said, were performed according to rules by infirm priests up to the time when God made a correction. From that time “Christ” came “as a high priest” not of sacrifices but of “good things.” And he entered “the tent”—not a small one “made with hands” but a huge and perfect one, which is not the product of human work—“that is, not of this creation,” because it was made out of nothing, unlike that tent which was erected with the spoils of the Egyptians.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 9

Hebrews 9:12-14

Our Lord did not enter yearly like their high priest. After his coming he entered only once, not into the shrine which ceases, like their priesthood, but “into the Holy” of Holies of eternity, and he made a propitiation through his blood for all nations.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 9:27-28

“But now once by coming at the end of times” he has suffered, so that through his sacrifice he might destroy sin, which killed the people and all nations together.In fact “as it is appointed for men to die once” because of their first sin, and “after” death their “judgment” comes, “so Christ too,” by coming, was revealed once and “offered” himself for the sins of everybody. Then “he will appear a second time,” not in order to die for the sins, for which he has already died once, but in order to appear in a new world, where there will be no sins on the part of those who in hope expect salvation through him.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 10:3-11

If they had become perfect, their priesthood would have ceased, because they should have abstained from their sacrifices. And if their conscience was cleansed from sin, at the same time they would have been cleansed from the impurity of flesh. But “in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin” every day. “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.” Therefore our Lord, who came to this world, said through the mouth of David, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me,” so that the victims of sacrifices might be abolished through his sacrifice.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 10:19-21

“Therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the sanctuary,” which is faith. In his blood he renewed for us the way of faith that the former priests had already. But since it had become obsolete among them, he renewed it for us at that time “through the curtain, that is, through his flesh.”

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 10:28-29

And who have “outraged the Spirit of grace,” which is in us? These are the people who consider the gospel to be equal to the law of Moses.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 10:30-34

Then, after he discouraged them from sinning, Paul returned to talk to them about the first topic, that is, that of the joy which was at the beginning of their discipleship. “Recall,” he says, “the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings.”

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Hebrews 10:30-34

Now “exposures to abuse and persecutions” they had to endure, because the law imposed on them the requirement to reveal their sins over their offerings. However, these exposures to abuse discouraged people from revealing their sins. These difficulties, he says, that you had in revealing your sins, and the shames that prevented you from revealing them, these fumes of the consciousness, which were like fierce pains and great sufferings of bitterness—all these have been taken away from you through the baptism of the waters and with the single expiation that you received.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS