Theodoret of Cyrus — Commentary on Scripture

Hebrews 5:1-6 · 2 passages

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

The one receiving appointment from God is the lawful high priest; this was the way Aaron, the first high priest, received the honor. The divine apostle said this, of course, not intending to inform us now of the norms for high priesthood, but to lay the groundwork for a treatment of the Lord’s high priesthood.

Even under the law it was not an angel that was appointed to act as priest for human beings but a human being for human beings, with the same nature, affected by the same passions, understanding the weakness of nature, assigning pardon to the recalcitrant, offering a hand to sinners, treating what affects the neighbor as his own. This is the very reason he is appointed to offer sacrifices not for the people alone but also for himself.

Hebrews 5:7-10 · 3 passages

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

For the divinity allowed the humanity to suffer this so that we might learn that he truly became man and assumed a human nature and that the mystery of the incarnation was not perfected in appearance or seeming.

By “being made perfect” he referred to resurrection and immortality, this being the completion of the incarnation.

How would it be possible for God the Word to fear death, since he is the Creator of the ages, unchangeable, immutable, free of passion? Certainly it would be the height of folly to go on at length about the point. For the extreme humiliation that marks the theme of the passage compels even those who blaspheme the divinity to recognize that none of these things are suitable to the divinity.

Hebrews 5:11-13

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

To those still lacking perfect faith the heralds of the truth propose only things to do with the humanity. This is the way followed by blessed Peter in addressing Jews. He accommodated his teaching to the limitations of the listeners, saying, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God,” and so on in keeping with this theme. The divinely inspired Paul in proposing the message to the Athenians called Christ the Lord not God but a man.

Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

It is out of the question, he is saying, for those who have approached all-holy baptism, shared in the grace of the divine Spirit and received the type of the eternal goods to make their approach again and be granted another baptism. This is no different, in fact, from fixing the Son of God to the cross again and besmirching him again with the dishonor already shown. As he in his own case endured the passion once, we too likewise ought share the passion with him once. We are buried with him in baptism, and we rise with him; so it is not possible for us to enjoy the gift of baptism again.… Our former self was crucified with him in baptism by receiving the type of death. By “goodness of the Word of God” he meant the promise of good things; “powers of the age to come” is the term he used of baptism and the grace of the Spirit: through them it is possible to attain the promised goods.Now, the apostle said this to teach the believers from Jews not to think all-holy baptism is like the Jewish baptisms: they did not wash away sins, but cleansed the body of apparent defilement—hence they wer…

It is out of the question, he is saying, for those who have approached all-holy baptism, shared in the grace of the divine Spirit and received the type of the eternal goods to make their approach again and be granted another baptism. This is no different, in fact, from fixing the Son of God to the cross again and besmirching him again with the dishonor already shown. As he in his own case endured the passion once, we too likewise ought share the passion with him once. We are buried with him in baptism, and we rise with him; so it is not possible for us to enjoy the gift of baptism again.… Our former self was crucified with him in baptism by receiving the type of death. By “goodness of the Word of God” he meant the promise of good things; “powers of the age to come” is the term he used of baptism and the grace of the Spirit: through them it is possible to attain the promised goods.Now, the apostle said this to teach the believers from Jews not to think all-holy baptism is like the Jewish baptisms: they did not wash away sins, but cleansed the body of apparent defilement—hence they were applied many times and frequently. This baptism of ours, on the contrary, is one only, for the reason that it involves the type of the saving passion and resurrection and prefigures for us the resurrection to come. The followers of Novatian use these words to contest the truth, failing to understand that the divine apostle, far from prohibiting the remedies of repentance, set the limit for divine baptism.… After all, his writings to the Corinthians and the Galatians testify to the fact that he preaches repentance everywhere, and he disseminates these teachings everywhere.

Hebrews 6:7-8

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

By “rain” he referred metaphorically to instruction.

Hebrews 6:13-20 · 4 passages

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

By “curtain” he referred to heaven: the Lord promised to give the kingdom of heaven to those believing in him.

He augmented their confidence with the name forerunner: if he is our forerunner and has gone up for us, we too must follow and be granted ascent.

As God has no one superior to him (he is saying), his oath was witness; he swore by himself, in fact. Yet though making a promise and doing it with an oath, he did not immediately fulfill the promise; instead, the patriarch needed great patience, and only with the passage of a great length of time did he thus see the realization of the promise.

He is a high priest forever, not in offering sacrifices (having offered his own body once), but in being a mediator leading the believers to the Father; through him (he says, remember) we both have had access to the Father. The Lord himself says in the sacred Gospels, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” We must be aware, of course, that the divine apostle made mention of the oaths sworn to Abraham so that the unchanging character of the divine will should be brought out; it endures in advance the stability of high priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, the oath being linked to the word at this place.

Hebrews 7:2

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

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

Hebrews 7:3 · 3 passages

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

He commented also on the term “without a genealogy.” He said Melchizedek was not of their family tree. So it is clear that he was not really without a family tree but only to provide a type.

Christ the Lord, of course, has each of these by nature and in reality: while as God he is “without mother,” being begotten only of the Father, as man he is “without father,” being born only of a mother—the Virgin, I mean. As God he is “without genealogy”: the one of the unbegotten Father does not require a family tree. “Without beginning of days”: the begetting was eternal. “Without end of life”: he has an immortal nature.This was the reason he likened not Christ the Lord to Melchizedek, but Melchizedek to Christ the Lord: one was type of the other, and the other the realization of the type. In respect of the priesthood, of course, Melchizedek did not imitate Christ the Lord; rather, Christ the Lord is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek: being a priest belongs to a human being, whereas accepting offerings belongs to God. Yet by becoming incarnate the only begotten Son of God also became our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not by aggregating to himself the position but by concealing the divine status and accepting the lowly condition for the sak…

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

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

Hebrews 7:11-12 · 2 passages

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The mystery of the divine plan is worthy of admiration: as Christ the Lord, eternal king as he is, was styled our high priest, so the tribe of Judah, which was formerly kingly, attained the priesthood through the Lord.

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

Hebrews 7:13-15 · 2 passages

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

Eran.—Suppose we grant that [Melchizedek] is without Father and without mother and without descent, as you have said. But how are we to understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of life?Orth.—The holy Moses when writing the ancient genealogy tells us how Adam being so many years old begat Seth, and when he had lived so many years he ended his life. He writes the same of Seth, of Enoch, and of the rest. But he mentions neither beginning of existence nor end of life when speaking about Melchizedek. Thus as far as the story goes he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but in truth and reality the only begotten Son of God never began to exist and shall never have an end. Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—Then, so far as what belongs to God and is really divine is concerned, Melchizedek is a type of the Lord Christ; but as far as the priesthood is concerned, which belongs rather to man than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek. For, Melchizedek was a high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ has made the right holy offering of salvation f…

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

Orth.—Do you say that according to the divine nature [the Lord] had a mother? Eran.—Certainly not. Orth.—For he was begotten of the Father alone before the ages? Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—And yet, as the generation he has of the Father is ineffable, he is spoken of as “without descent.” “Who,” says the prophet, “shall declare his generation?” Eran.—You are right. Orth.—Thus it becomes him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for he is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.Eran.—This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits the admirable Melchizedek. Orth.—As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Savior these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchizedek. For after telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and similarly of Jacob and of his sons, and exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, it records ne…

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