Oecumenius

It was necessary, therefore, he says, to believe in God who had promised without an oath, but since God wanted to do something more, he mediated the promise by an oath.
"to show the firmness of His counsel." He also came to us. For we are the heirs of the promise, being the seed of Abraham; and if we are the seed, then we are also heirs.
“He mediated with an oath.” See what he prepares. That the Son was thereafter the mediator of God and men (for he has also become a mediator in the incarnation); and then he mediated with the Father and with Abraham, confirming him with an oath; for the Word was he who both spoke to Abraham and swore. The meaning of the interpretation is well-founded, so that it may be thus. God, that is, the Word, wanting to show the unchangeable nature of those glorifying the Father, mediated with the Father and with Abraham with an oath, that is, he became a mediator in the oath. For through him, as the Word, God and the Father swore.
"that by two unchangeable things." Two things, both that God has promised, and that He has added an oath to the promise. For since among men the oath seems more trustworthy, on account of this He also added it Himself.
"In which it is impossible." In which, instead of "from which," from these two things, the promise is shown to be most trustworthy, and it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, just as He swore by us (although it is unworthy of Him to swear), so also understand the "from which" He learned what He suffered. For men also consider it more credible to come through experience.
"we might have a strong encouragement," That is, a great exhortation and urging.
"who have fled." To him, he says. "to hold,” let us have strong encouragementto lay hold to the hope set before us. From those, he says, that were said to Abraham, let us be faithful also to the things to come, and to the kingdom of heaven. For this is our hope, which now is set before us in expectation, but then will be realized, as it was said; From those things, this will be understood. There it was made true, that in these things we may believe. And that for this reason he swore then, that now we may believe concerning the things to come. For there was nothing else, he says, and the things then promised with oaths, or the future hope of the faithful.
"we have as an anchor," which stabilizes the wavering ships, and hope makes those who are shaken by temptations brave, committed, and patient.
"safe and committed." Not simply an anchor, but also safe and secure. For there is an anchor that does not keep the ship unshaken when it is smaller than it ought to be.
"which enters." In order that, he says, while we are still here, hope may enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, so that we may already be in our hopes. See what hope does. It anticipates what is to come.
“enters into the inner sanctuary behind the curtain.” The inner part of the curtain is called heaven.
“where Jesus has entered as a forerunner on our behalf.” Having said that our hope enters into heaven, he confirms what has been said, trusting this by the facts. For Christ himself entered there; and not only did he enter, but he entered on our behalf. And where our forerunner has entered, there it is necessary for us also to enter. For the forerunner is the forerunner of those who follow; and the difference between the forerunner and those who follow is not very great, just as between John and Christ. Do not be disturbed, then; as long as we have not yet entered, we will enter where our forerunner is. The "on our behalf" is extended so that he may be called our forerunner. The fact that he entered in the flesh is on our behalf, so that we also, having flesh, may obtain entrance.
“Having become a high priest.” And this is a great encouragement, if indeed our high priest is above and much better than those among the Jews; first, in manner; for he is not according to their order, but according to the order of Melchizedek; then, in place and tabernacle; for he is above and in heaven; third, in the covenant; for it is upon greater and more perfect promises; likewise, in permanence; for he is eternal, and not temporary; lastly, in person; for he is the Son of God. Therefore, do not lose heart. And well is the term "having become," because it was according to the flesh that he became a high priest.

It now also wishes to show the great excellence of the New Testament over the Old: and it demonstrates this through the priests. Saying, "According to the order of Melchizedek," (Heb. 7:17) he indicates that Melchizedek himself, the type of Christ (for he calls him a type of Christ), He surpassed the legal priests who were among the Jews: asserting this, he said that if the type of Christ was superior to those that were among the Jews, how much more the truth, that is, Christ himself.
“king of Salem.” Name of a city.
"from the slaughter of the kings." When he returned after defeating the kings who had captured Lot. You know the history. (Gen. 14:1)
"and having blessed him [εὐλογήσας]." Instead of "he blessed him [εὐλόγησεν]."
"gave a tenth." That is, to Melchizedek, Abraham gave a tenth, he says.
"first being interpreted.” Therefore, he wants to show how Melchizedek is a type of Christ, and first he does this from the name. For, he says, his name is interpreted, king of righteousness; Melchizedek, king; Salem, peace. Of whom else could he be a type, except of Christ the true King of Righteousness?
Then he also mentions the other interpretation from the city. Salem is peace. Therefore, he is not only a king of righteousness, but also of peace, as from the city of which he reigned; both of these Christ is, being both King of Righteousness and King of Peace.
“without father, without mother.” Therefore, is it possible that this Melchizedek, being a man, is without father and without mother, and having neither beginning of days nor end of life? No. How then did he say this? Observe. For it could be objected to him: How is Christ according to the order of Melchizedek, who died and was not made a priest forever? See what he says: “We do not know,” he says, “who he has as father or mother, or what lineage Melchizedek is, nor when he was born, or when he died.” And what does this matter? Someone might say: “although we do not know these things, since they are not mentioned in Scripture, nevertheless he had both a father and lineage, and birth and death.”
How then is such a one without father and mother, and having no beginning or end of life? And he says: Just as Melchizedek, because he is not genealogically recorded in Scripture, appears to us who are ignorant to have no parents, nor beginning or end of life, so Christ truly is. For just as we do not know the beginning and end of Melchizedek, so neither truly do we know those of Christ; but the former because it is not written, the latter because of the truth; for the type is not equal in all things to the truth (since he himself is found to be truth, and identity rather than type); but he has certain images and likenesses; for example, Melchizedek is without father according to our ignorance, Christ is without father in his earthly birth; for according to the flesh he was born only of the Virgin Mary; Melchizedek is without mother, Christ is without mother in his heavenly birth, in which he had neither beginning of days; for how could the maker of time have a beginning? For he was begotten from the Father alone before all ages, ineffably and unthinkably. And thus understand all things that Melchizedek had, which we are ignorant of concerning him, these things Christ truly has. For Melchizedek is a king of peace and righteousness even to the bare names; but Christ truly is so.

"but made like the Son of God." And where is the similarity? That both Melchizedek and Christ, the end is unknown and the beginning. But for Melchizedek, it is because it has not been written, and for Christ, it is because it does not exist.
"abides a priest forever." In this way, accept the eternal, as well as the others. For he says, as far as it relates to us who are ignorant of when he died, he has set aside the priesthood, he is a priest forever. For the type of indistinct images preserves the original; or that the manner of the priesthood of Melchizedek (you know what I mean) remains forever.
"Consider how great this man was." Since he applied the type to the truth, he wishes to show that the type of Christ himself, namely Melchizedek, was greater than those priests among the Jews. And what do I say about the priests? He was indeed greater than the patriarch Abraham himself. If the type of Christ, he says, is greater than the patriarch himself, what then could anyone say about Christ? In one way, Abraham was greater than Melchizedek, but the type was the one who conquers. Thus, Cyril among the saints in the second book concerning On Adoration in Spirit and Truth…
"‘to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth.’ It is not to be said, he says, that he gave him tithes, as one who has shared in the war; (for this is why he said above, ‘who met Abraham returning from the slaughter), but according to reverence and honor, just as giving first fruits. ‘gave a tenth of the spoils.’ From the loot and plunder. And if he is greater than the patriarch (and this is indicated by the giving of tithes), much more than those among the Jewish priests. For the patriarch is not brought forth without reason: but to show that if the patriarch, he says, has given, what is to be said about the priests?"

It shows that there was great excellence in Melchizedek, and therefore he received tithes, and it says: Even the Levites receive; but this is not great, for they die; who, then, envies the honor of one who is about to die? However, Melchizedek, even if he received testimony that he lives, received tithes. And what it says about him receiving testimony that he lives, take according to the previously given understanding, namely because Scripture did not say the end of him, but only life, it seemed to testify only that he lived; as if to say: Abraham foresaw that the death of Melchizedek would not be revealed, nor was he moved to envy him the honor of tithes, for he knew his dignity.For he has superiority. The simpler way to accept what is said is that the priesthood of the Levites dies. For it has ceased. The truths have been revealed; but the one of Melchizedek lives.
"that he lives." How then was he testified? In saying to God, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Heb. 7:17) And therefore, the distinction of Melchizedek from the priests among the Jews.
"the men who die." For he says, it is not to be assumed that at any time he became greater, but after this he was established in a lesser portion. For in the law, the Levites receive tithes, and those who die pass on their value to others. So that the same ones are not always those who receive the tithe. But here, we have learned nothing of the sort. Therefore, he should always be regarded as superior, if indeed he remains always upon his own value. For he remains, as I said, an everlasting priest, having taken this from Scripture, as in the saying, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," (Heb. 7:17) showing that he is such an everlasting priest.
"and so to speak." So that they may not say, "And what," he says, "was also tithing through Abraham?" Yes, he says. For Levi was in Abraham when he gave the tithes, even though he was not yet born. If therefore Levi was in the loins of Abraham when he gave the tithes, it is clear that Levi himself, the ancestor of the priests, gave tithes, when Abraham gave tithes. And the phrase, so to speak, means this, that, in short, or instead of saying, let me put it this way. For it seemed a bold statement to say that Levi, not yet born, was tithed by Melchizedek, and this was corrected.

He said that the new covenant is better. And this indicates, he says, the difference of the priests. He said that everything has changed. Therefore, he speaks of the reason for the change, and he says, "For annulment occurs of the preceding command.” Therefore, an annulment occurs when the preceding commandment is in force, that is, of the older law. Not simply, but then when it was found to be weak and unprofitable. Since there is no fault, what need is there for the change? Therefore, he says, this is also the law. For this, the preceding commandment has been annulled due to weakness and uselessness.
For the law was not able to produce any perfection in virtue. For it only said, "Do this," and "Do not do that," and it was no longer able to strengthen and assist in bringing about what was said, which now happens to us through the Spirit.
"but is a certain introduction." It is done in common.
"of a greater hope." For the law had hope, but not such as that which was introduced. For those who were observing the law hoped to possess the land. "For you shall eat the good things of the land," (Is. 1:19) but the hope through Christ gives the kingdom of heaven, and the nearness to stand before God, and to serve Him with angels.He said above (Heb. 4:6): Entering into the inner part of the veil; but now: Through which we draw near to God, he says; for the hope that is with him leads us to the divine throne, and stands with the Cherubim.
"because the matter was not done without an oath." And so much, he says, the hope has been greatly improved, insofar as Christ has become a priest without an oath. For the oath indicates the unchangeable nature of his being a high priest forever.
"For they indeed became priests without an oath." Then, from the lesser, the comparisons of the priests among the Jews and our High Priest.For the legal priests, he says, were made priests without an oath; for God never found it necessary to swear: "You shall be a priest according to the law." But Christ, with an oath, made by the one who said to Him, as it were, by God; for God spoke through David: "You are a priest," in a certain new way; for He is not according to Aaron, but according to Melchizedek.
"by the one who said to him." As through God. For God spoke through David, "So much better is Jesus." "For," he says, "they indeed became priests without an oath, but Christ has become a high priest with an oath. And this would not have happened, he says, if the difference were not great. Therefore, there is also a great difference between the new and the old."
"the Guarantor [Έγγυος]." Like a guarantor [ἐγγυητὴς], Mediator.
"And indeed, there were many." And according to another, he says, the high priest is greater than us, not only because of the oath, but also because he is immortal.
"because they were prevented by death." For it is through death and change, namely of the priest.
"from continuing." in the priesthood, namely, "permanently." Lacking succession, forever, "Therefore." Since he always living. "always." Not only in this age, but also in the future. For this is what they want entirely and completely.
"those who come to God." Through the faith that is in Him. For whoever believes in the Son, comes to the Father certainly; for he himself is the way to the Father, and whoever takes hold of this, dwells there.
"always living." Therefore, He saves completely, because He always lives. Furthermore, He saves because He intercedes for those who approach God the Father.
"to intercede for them." Concerning Christ, as He is according to the flesh, this humble word has been said. However, when I say according to the flesh, I do not mean division. Far from it: but I know Him to be worshiped indivisibly, without confusion in one hypostasis along with His flesh. But what does it mean, "to intercede for them "? For example, He asks his Father on our behalf. For when he called him a priest, it is characteristic of a priest to ask on behalf of the people; for this reason, he said, “to intercede." That this has been said for this reason is evident. For He who raises the dead by His own authority, forgives sins, does not need the Father to save, as if He were powerless to save by His own power.

It is obvious from these things that he is speaking about Christ according to the flesh in the preceding statements and these as well. For how could he say such things about divinity and not be ashamed, attributing these things to that incomprehensible nature? Therefore, he is holy, who neglects none of the things owed to him. He is innocent, blameless, and without deceit. "For no deceit," he says, "was found in His mouth." (Is. 53:9)
“unstained.”No one would call this a praise of God; for it is in his nature not to be defiled. But it is clear that this concerns the humanity of the one Christ.
“separated from sinners.” The chief priests among the Jews, he says, even if they were holy in other respects, as human beings they are still subject to evil and are not entirely separated from sinners; for how could they be, if they themselves are guilty of sins?
"and exalted above the heavens." For He sat down on the throne of the Father. But does the term "exalted" not cry out that he speaks about His flesh? For the Word of God was always higher than the heavens.
"He does not need, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices daily." Not only, he says, is the difference from the sinless one in relation to the Jewish priests, but also from the manner of the sacrifice, that He does not offer for Himself first, then for the people, and that He made the sacrifice once for the people only.
"like the high priests." That is, of the Jews.
"he did this once for all." What is this? To offer himself as a sacrifice for the people. For himself, he did not do so even once. For he had no need, being sinless, to offer for himself. Therefore, when you hear him called a high priest, think of him as always being a priest. For having done this once, he sat down at the right hand of the Father. For to minister is to stand. But to sit down indicates that having offered the sacrifice once, namely, his own body, he has sat down; ministering under the authority of spiritual powers.
"For the law appoints men."And for whose sake did he not need, he says, to offer a sacrifice for himself? Nor did he often offer for the people, as the high priests do, but having offered once, he was sufficient; why? Because the priests who are appointed from the law are under sin. Therefore, they must always offer a sacrifice for both themselves and the people. But God, by the oath made after the law, appointing the high priest Christ, who is the Son, established him as a perfect priest, and not subject to the same weakness and sin as those according to the law, once as the Son of God and God, "has been made perfect forever." In common. He established him as a priest, he says, for made perfect forever, that is, not only now being without sin, but also to be such for all time. If then he is both Son and perfect forever, for whose sake was he to need many sacrifices?