John Chrysostom — Commentary on Scripture

Hebrews 7:4

"Now consider" (saith he) "how great this man is to whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Up to this point he has been applying the type: henceforward he boldly shows him Melchisedec to be more glorious than the Jewish realities. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? Thou seest how super-abundantly he shows the superiority.

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

Homily on Hebrews 12

Hebrews 7:5

"And verily they that are of the sons of Levi who receive the office of Priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham." So great (he would say) is the superiority of the priesthood, that they who from their ancestors are of the same dignity, and have the same forefather, are yet far better than the rest. At all events they "receive tithes" from them. When then one is found, who receives tithes from these very persons, are not they indeed in the rank of laymen, and he among the Priests? And not only this; but neither was he of the same dignity with them, but of another race: so that he would not have given tithes to a stranger unless his dignity had been great. Astonishing! What has he accomplished? He has made quite clear a greater point than those relating to faith which he treated in the Epistle to the Romans. For there indeed he declares Abraham to be the forefather both of our polity and also of the Jewish. But here he is exceeding bold against him, and shows that the unc…

"And verily they that are of the sons of Levi who receive the office of Priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham." So great (he would say) is the superiority of the priesthood, that they who from their ancestors are of the same dignity, and have the same forefather, are yet far better than the rest. At all events they "receive tithes" from them. When then one is found, who receives tithes from these very persons, are not they indeed in the rank of laymen, and he among the Priests?

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

Homily on Hebrews 12

Hebrews 7:6

"But he whose descent is not counted from them, received tithes of Abraham." And after that he did not simply pass on, but added, "and blessed him that had the promises." Inasmuch as throughout, this was regarded with reverence, he shows that Melchisedec was to be reverenced more than Abraham, from the common judgment of all men.

Homily on Hebrews 12

Hebrews 7:7

"And without all contradiction," he says, "the less is blessed of the better," i.e. in the opinion of all men it is the inferior that is blessed by the superior. So then the type of Christ is superior even to "him that had the promises."

Homily on Hebrews 12

Hebrews 7:8

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

Homily on Hebrews 12

Hebrews 7:9-10

How? "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi. Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest: the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority passes on also to the descendants. In a marvelous and triumphant way he cast out the Jewish system. On this account he said, "Ye are become dull," because he wished to lay these foundations, that they might not start away. Such is the wisdom of Paul, first preparing them well, he so leads them into what he wishes. For the human race is hard to persuade, and needs much attention, even more than plants. Since in that case there is only the nature of material bodies, and earth, which yields to the hands of the husbandmen: but in this there is will, which is liable to many alterations, an…

How? "For he was yet in his loins when Melchisedec met him," i.e. Levi was in him, although he was not yet born. And he said not the Levites but Levi.

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

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

Homily on Hebrews 12

Hebrews 7:11

"For under it the people have received the Law [or have been legislated for]." What is "under it"? Ordereth itself by it; through it does all things. You cannot say that it was given to others, "the people under it have received the law," that is, have used it, and did use it. You cannot say indeed that it was perfect, it did not govern the people; "they have been legislated for upon it," that is, they used it.

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:11

"If therefore" (he says) "perfection were by the Levitical priesthood." Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how much superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great difference between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the wide difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect and the other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the matters themselves, but first contends on the ground of the priesthood, and the tabernacle. For these things would be more easily received by the unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things already allowed, and believed. He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he argues from a different point. What then is this? Why (he says) did he not say, "after the order of Aaron"? And observe, I pray you, the great superiority of his argument. For from the very circumstance which naturally excluded His priesthood, viz. that He was not "after the order of Aaron," from that he establishes Him, and excludes the ot…

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

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

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

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:12

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:12

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:13-14

"For He of whom these things are spoken pertained to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests."

I myself also say it, I know that this tribe of Judah had nothing of priesthood. For there is a transferring.

And observe the mystery. First it was royal, and then it is become sacerdotal: so therefore also in regard to Christ: for King indeed He always was, but has become Priest from the time that He assumed the Flesh, that He offered the sacrifice. Thou seest the change, and the very things which were ground of objection these he introduces, as though the natural order of things required them.

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:15

"And it is yet far more evident, if after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest." What is evident? The interval between the two priesthoods, the difference; how much superior He is "who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment." (Who? Melchisedec? Nay; but Christ.)

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:16-17

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

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:16-17

"But according to the power of an endless life. For He testifieth, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec"; that is, not for a time, nor having any limit, "but according to the power of an endless life," that is, by means of power, by means of "endless life."

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

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:18

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Here the Heretics press on. But listen attentively. He did not say "for the evil," nor, "for the viciousness," but "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," yea and in other places also he shows the weakness; as when he says "In that it was weak through the flesh." The law itself then is not weak, but we.

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:19

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

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:19

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:20

"And forasmuch as not without the taking of an oath." Thou seest that the matter of the oath becomes necessary for him here. Accordingly for this reason he previously treated much hereon, how that God swore; and swore for the sake of our fuller assurance.

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:21-24

"And inasmuch as not without an oath." What is "And inasmuch as not without an oath"? That is, Behold another difference also. And these things were not merely promised (he says). "For those priests were made without an oath, but This with an oath, by Him that said unto Him, The Lord swore and will not repent, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant." He lays down two points of difference, that it hath no end as the covenant of the Law had; and this he proves from its being Christ who exercises the priesthood; for he says "according to the power of an endless life." And he proves it also from the oath, because "He swore," and from the fact; for if the other was cast out, because it was weak, this stands firm, because it is powerful. He proves it also from the priest. How? Because He is One only; and there would not have been One only, unless He had been immortal. For as there were many priests, because they were mortal, so here is The One, because He is immortal. "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better c…

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

Homily on Hebrews 13

Hebrews 7:25

"Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." Thou seest that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when He appears as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, "who also maketh intercession for us," he hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He "that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them," and that "even as the Father" doth, how is it that when there is need to save, He "maketh intercession"? He that hath "all judgment," how is it that He "maketh intercession"? He that "sendeth His angels," that they may "cast" some into "the furnace," and save others, how is it that He "maketh intercession"? Wherefore (he says) "He is able also to save." For this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as "He ever liveth," He hath (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there under the Law indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time…

"Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." Thou seest that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when He appears as Priest, then He also intercedes. Wherefore also when Paul says, "who also maketh intercession for us," he hints the same thing; the High Priest maketh intercession. For He "that raiseth the dead as He will, and quickeneth them," and that "even as the Father" doth, how is it that when there is need to save, He "maketh intercession"? He that hath "all judgment," how is it that He "maketh intercession"? He that "sendeth His angels," that they may "cast" some into "the furnace," and save others, how is it that He "maketh intercession"? Wherefore (he says) "He is able also to save." For this cause then He saves, because He dies not. Inasmuch as "He ever liveth," He hath (he means) no successor: And if He have no successor, He is able to aid all men. For there under the Law indeed, the High Priest although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was High Priest (as Samuel for instance, and any other such), but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but "He" saves "to the uttermost."

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

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

Homily on Hebrews 13