Hebrews 7:3

The heretic Theodotus … says that the human being Christ was conceived and born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, but that he was inferior to Melchizedek because it is said of Christ, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” For this Melchizedek, he says, by special grace is a heavenly power, and what Christ does for human beings, having been made their intercessor and advocate, Melchizedek does for the heavenly angels and powers. For to such a degree, he says, he is better than Christ that he is fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.

Therefore the Most High God, and Parent of all, when He had purposed to transfer His religion, sent from heaven a teacher of righteousness, that in Him or through Him He might give a new law to new worshippers; not as He had before done, by the instrumentality of man. Nevertheless it was His pleasure that He should be born as a man, that in all things He might be like His supreme Father. For God the Father Himself, who is the origin and source of all things, inasmuch as He is without parents, is most truly named by Trismegistus "fatherless" and "motherless," because He was born from no one. For which reason it was befitting that the Son also should be twice born, that He also might become "fatherless" and "motherless." For in His first nativity, which was spiritual, He was "motherless," because He was begotten by God the Father alone, without the office of a mother. But in His second, which was in the flesh, He was born of a virgin's womb without the office of a father, that, bearing a middle substance between God and man, He might be able, as it were, to take by the hand this frail and weak nature of ours, and raise it to immortality.

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.”

The old has passed away,behold all things have been made anew.
The letter withdraws, the Spirit advances.
The shadows flee, the truth breaks in.
Melchizedek is summed up; the motherless becomes fatherless.
The first without a mother,
The second without a father,
The laws of nature are abrogated
that the cosmos above be brought to perfection.

Let no one claim Divinity resides in an order established by human beings when he encounters such an order. For the church does not consider even Melchizedek, by whose office Abraham offered sacrifice, an angel (as some Jewish interpreters do). It rather considers him a holy man and priest of God who, prefiguring our Lord, is described as “without father or mother, without history of his descent, without beginning and without end.” It does this in order to show beforehand the coming into this world of the eternal Son of God who was likewise incarnate and then brought forth without any father, begotten as God without mother, and was without history of descent. For it is written: “Who shall declare his generation?”This Melchizedek, then, we have received as a priest of God based upon the model of Christ. However, the one we regard as the type, the other as the original. Now, a type is a shadow of the truth. We have accepted the royalty of the one [Melchizedek] in the name of a single city [Jerusalem], but that of the other [Jesus] as shown in the reconciliation of the whole world. For it is written: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,” that is to say, the eternal Godhead was in Christ. Or, if the Father is in the Son, even as the Son is in the Father, then their unity in both nature and operation is plainly not denied.

He then adds another distinction, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a Priest continually." Since then there lay in his way as an objection the words "Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec," whereas he Melchisedec was dead, and was not "Priest for ever," see how he explained it mystically.

"And who can say this concerning a man?" I do not assert this in fact (he says); the meaning is, we do not know when or what father he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And what of this (one says)? For does it follow, because we do not know it, that he did not die, or had no parents? Thou sayest well: he both died and had parents. How then was he "without father, without mother"? How "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"? How? Why from its not being expressed. And what of this? That as this man is so, from his genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the reality.

See the "without beginning"; see the "without end." As in case of this man, we know not either "beginning of days," or "end of life," because they have not been written; so we know them not in the case of Jesus, not because they have not been written, but because they do not exist. For that indeed is a type, and therefore we say "because it is not written," but this is the reality, and therefore we say "because it does not exist." For as in regard to the names also (for there "King of Righteousness" and "of Peace" are appellations, but here the reality) so these too are appellations in that case, in this the reality. How then hath He a beginning? Thou seest that the Son is "without beginning," not in respect of His not having a cause; (for this is impossible: for He has a Father, otherwise how is He Son?) but in respect of His "not having beginning or end of life."

"But made like unto the Son of God." Where is the likeness? That we know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. Here then just as in representations by painting or drawing, there is somewhat that is like and somewhat that is unlike. By means of the lines indeed there is a likeness of features, but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness.

Paul wishing to show the difference between the New and Old Covenant, scatters it everywhere; and shoots from afar, and noises it abroad, and prepares beforehand. For at once even from the introduction, he laid down this saying, that "to them indeed He spake by prophets, but to us by the Son," and to them "at sundry times and in divers manners," but to us through the Son. Afterwards, having discoursed concerning the Son, who He was and what He had wrought, and given an exhortation to obey Him, lest we should suffer the same things as the Jews; and having said that He is "High Priest after the order of Melchisedec," and having oftentimes wished to enter into the subject of this difference, and having used much preparatory management; and having rebuked them as weak, and again soothed and restored them to confidence; then at last he introduces the discussion on the difference of the two dispensations to ears in their full vigor. For he who is depressed in spirits would not be a ready hearer. And that you may understand this, hear the Scripture saying, "They hearkened not to Moses for anguish of spirit." Therefore having first cleared away their despondency by many considerations, some fearful, some more gentle, he then from this point enters upon the discussion of the difference of the dispensations.

And what does he say? "For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God." And, what is especially noteworthy, he shows the difference to be great by the Type itself. For as I said, he continually confirms the truth from the Type, from things past, on account of the weakness of the hearers. "For" (he says) "this Melchisedec, King of Salem, Priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all." Having concisely set down the whole narrative, he looked at it mystically.

The Jews say that Melchizedek was Shem, Noah’s son, and, counting up the total years of his lifetime, they demonstrate that he would have lived up to the time of Isaac; and they say that all the firstborn sons of Noah were priests before Aaron performed the priestly office. Also, by “king of Salem” is meant the king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. And the blessed apostle writing to the Hebrews makes mention of Melchizedek as “without father or mother” and refers him to Christ and, through Christ, to the church of the Gentiles, for all the glory of the head is assigned to the members.… While he was uncircumcised, he blessed Abraham who had been circumcised; and in Abraham he blessed Levi; and through Levi he blessed Aaron from whom the priesthood afterwards descended. For this reason, he maintains, one should infer that the priesthood of the church, which is uncircumcised, blessed the priesthood of the synagogue, which is circumcised. And as to the Scripture which says, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” our mystery is foreshown in the word order; not at all, indeed, in the sacrifice of nonrational victims through Aaron’s agency, but when bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, were offered in sacrifice.

Without father, without mother, without genealogy, according to the Scripture. Later, among the Levites it is always clear who were the parents of a priest. They also had allotted times and periods of service, and the total length of their service and of their life is known. All these data exist for each priest under the law, even if not for every year. However, it is said that Melchizedek is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having no beginning and no end of life according to the word of Scripture. He does not belong to a priestly family; we do not know when he started his priesthood or what kind of a priest he was, or whether he was a priest all his life. We do not know any information that is available for those priests under the law. It is said that, likened to the Son of God, he continues his priesthood forever. And how does Melchizedek remain a priest? Here is a solution to that question. As Moses sometimes signifies the law, so Melchizedek, a human being, signifies the priesthood. Now, if he is likened [to the Son of God] through the priesthood in Christ, he remains forever, not as a mortal man but as a pattern of the priesthood.

God the Word was not generated from a woman; the one generated from a woman was the one fashioned in her by the power of the Holy Spirit. The one who is of one essence with the Father was not born from her womb, for he is “without mother,” as blessed Paul’s phrase has it. It was rather the one fashioned in his mother’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit who came in the last times. For this reason he is also called “without father.”

When Paul wished to show that Christ was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, he speaks those things that pertain to him, not explaining his nature but putting forth the explanation about him found in the divine Scripture and demonstrating the similarity between Melchizedek and Christ from the Scripture.Thus, he calls him “fatherless” and “motherless,” on the grounds that the divine Scripture does not narrate his genealogy. Then he adds, “being without genealogy,” showing that he is not talking about the nature of the man but rather the account of the divine Scripture. Then he further connects in the thought “neither having a beginning of days nor an end of life”—not in his nature but in the divine Scripture. And since it was possible to also say these about another person—for the divine Scripture does not remember to note the parents of many people or to set forth their genealogy, especially as many as we have learned were born outside the Israelite race—he does well to add, “being likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” For no longer does this apply to the rest as it does to him. And he makes clear from this explanation of the Scripture how Christ has this property as well as the rest. For Christ was “without father” in the begetting of his humanity, and “without mother” in the origin of his divine essence, and really “without genealogy.” For what genealogy would there be of him who exists from his Father alone? And it is also clear that “he has neither beginning of days nor an end of life.” In the case of Christ it is actually the case, whereas in the case of Melchizedek it is what we find (or do not find) in the Scripture’s account of him. Christ received his “priesthood forever” from the divine Scripture where it said, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,” even as Melchizedek acts as priest eternally. And he calls him an “eternal” priest on the grounds that he has not passed on the priesthood to successors, which happened to be the case under Mosaic law. Therefore he also said, “Having been likened to the Son of God,” and yet it was appropriate to say that the Son had been made like Melchizedek—for the first is not made like the second. Yet the truth took place in connection with Christ, but no such thing took place beforehand with Melchizedek. So he says that Melchizedek was made like Christ by the way that he appears in the narrative, since the divine Scripture wished to show to us in its narration of the life of Melchizedek the similarity with the one who was to be.

Listen, you heretic, to the passage you have garbled: hear in full and completely, what you quoted mutilated and hacked about. The apostle wants to make clear to every one the twofold birth of God. In order to show how the Lord was born [both] in the Godhead and in flesh, he says, “Without father, without mother.” The one belongs to the birth of divinity, the other to that of the flesh. For, as he was begotten in his divine nature “without mother,” so he is in the body “without father.” Though he is neither without father nor without mother, we must believe in him “without father and without mother.” For, if you regard him as begotten of the Father, he is without mother. If you regard him as born of his mother, he is without father. And so in each of these births he has one [parent]: in both [births] together he is without each. For, the birth of divinity had no need of mother; and for the birth of his body, he was himself sufficient, without a father. Therefore says the apostle “Without [father or] mother, without genealogy.”

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 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.

Daniel told a story of another hermit who used to live in the lower parts of Egypt, and who said in his simplicity that Melchizedek was the Son of God. Now when the blessed man Theophilus, the archbishop of Alexandria, heard of it, he sent a message asking the monks to bring the hermit to him. When he saw him, he realized that he was a man of vision and that every thing that he had asked for God had given him, and that he had only said this out of simplicity. The archbishop dealt with him wisely in the following manner, saying, ‘Abba, pray to God for me, because I have begun to think that Melchizedek was the Son of God,’ and he added, ‘It cannot be true, for the high priest of God was a man. But because I had doubts in my mind about this, I sent for you to pray to God for me that He may reveal the truth of the matter to you.’ Then, because the hermit had confidence in the power of prayer, he said to him firmly, ‘Wait three days, and I will ask God about this and then I shall be able to tell you who Melchizedek was.’ So the hermit went away, and returned after three days, and said to the blessed Archbishop Theophilus, ‘Melchizedek was a man.’ The Archbishop said unto him, ‘How do you know that, abba?’ The hermit said, ‘God showed me all the Patriarchs, one by one, and they passed before me one after the other, from Adam to Melchizedek, and an angel said to me, “This is Melchizedek.” That is indeed how the truth of this matter appeared tome.’ The hermit went away, and he himself proclaimed that Melchizedek was a man, and the blessed Theophilus rejoiced greatly.

He calls Melchizedek “without genealogy” because he was not from the seed of Abraham nor was he given a genealogy by Moses, but his race was Canaanite and he sprang from that cursed seed. He was pronounced righteous in regards to his deeds. Yet because he had not sprung from righteous forebears or from some righteous seed, it was not proper to give the genealogy of this man who inclined to the epitome of righteousness. Now Melchizedek demonstrates that he was of Canaanite origin and it also can be proved positively from those regions that he ruled and reigned over and the regions with which he was associated. For he was a neighbor of Sodom, and he was very close to Abraham when he lived near “the oak of Mamre.” And one must also reckon that he happens to be king of that “Salem,” which is Jerusalem.

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.

"without genealogy." Melchizedek is without genealogy, as he is neither from the seed of Abraham nor is he traced through Moses, but his lineage is said to be unknown, and he is believed to spring from that cursed seed. It is just that he is declared righteous in himself, and not derived from righteous ancestors, nor from any righteous seed.It was therefore not right to uncover his genealogy, who in this way had reached the peak of righteousness.The lineage of Melchizedek was indeed of the Canaanites, as is shown. And it is indeed possible to demonstrate from those very things of which he held power and ruled over regions, and to which he drew near. For he was a neighbor of Sodom, and closer to Abraham who was dwelling near the oak of Mamre. You should think that there was also a king of Salem, which is Jerusalem.

"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?"

326. - In Chapter 5 the Apostle proved that Christ is a priest, but in Chapter 6 he interposed certain considerations to prepare the minds of his hearers. Now he returns to his main theme: for he intends to prove the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the excellence of Christ’s priesthood as compared to the priesthood of the Old Testament; secondly, he shows that believers should subject themselves reverently to the priesthood of Christ (c. 10). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the prerogative of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical on the part of the person of the priest; secondly, on the part of the minister (c. 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proves the existence of Christ’s priesthood by reason of a divine promise; secondly, the need for this priesthood (v. 26). But he shows this promise from the words of Ps. 109 (v. 4): ‘The Lord has sworn and he will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ Hence, he shows three things to prove his thesis: first, the phrase, ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’; secondly, the statement ‘He swore’ (v. 20); thirdly, the statement, ‘You are a priest forever’ (v. 23). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the likeness of Christ to Melchizedek; secondly, on the basis of this likeness he chooses the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical (v. 4). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he describes Melchizedek’s qualities; secondly, he shows how they fit Christ (v. 2b).

327. - He describes Melchizedek, first of all, by his name when he says, For this Melchizedek. For so the Scripture names him in Genesis (14:18), where his history, which the Apostle supposes here, is recorded. According to a Gloss the Hebrews say that was Shem, the first-born of Noah, and when Abraham obtained the victory, he was 390 or 309 years old, and met Abraham, his nephew.

328. - Secondly, he describes him from his dignity, for he was king and a priest. In regard to the first he says, king of Salem. Some say that Salem is called Jerusalem. But Jerome denies this in a letter, because, as he says, he could not run into him from Jerusalem, which he proves from its location. Others say that Salem is the place where John baptized (Jn. 3:23), and the walls of that place still existed in Jerome’s time. In regard to the second he says, priest of the Most High God. For in olden times the elder brother was a priest. But it is true that in Abraham’s time the worship of idols was on the increase. Therefore, lest anyone suppose that he was a priest of idols, he adds, of the Most High God, namely, God by essence not by participation or name. For God is the Creator of all who are gods either by participation or erroneously: ‘The Lord is a great king above all gods’ (Ps. 94:3); ‘You shall be called priests of the Lord: to you it shall be said: You ministers of our God’ (Is. 61:6).

329. - Thirdly, he describes him from his office: who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. For a priest is midway between God and the people. Therefore, he should confer something on the people, namely, spiritual things, and receive something from them, namely, temporal things: ‘If we then have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter, if we reap your carnal things?’ (1 Cor. 9:11). First, therefore, he should show strength by good advice; hence it says in Genesis (14) that the four kings are the four principal vices opposed to the four cardinal virtues which hold the emotions, the nephew of reason, captive after the five bodily senses are overcome. For a person who overcomes and frees the emotions deserves to be comforted by a priest: ‘Meeting the thirsty, bring him water’ (Is. 21:14); ‘Strengthen the feeble hands, and confirm the weak knees’ (Is. 35:3). Secondly, a priest should give strength by administering the sacraments with a blessing; hence, he blessed him: ‘We have blessed you in the name of the Lord’ (Ps. 117:26). But this is done by conferring the sacraments, by which a man is strengthened in grace: ‘They shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them’ (Num. 6:27), for God blesses by His authority, but the priest by his ministry. To him Abraham apportioned, i.e., distributed properly, a tenth part of everything [tithes] for his sustenance.

330. - But it seems from Numbers (18:21) that the giving of tithes dated from the Law; therefore, there was none before the Law. I answer that the ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament are amplifications of the precepts of the natural law and of the moral precepts; therefore, in regard to what they had from the natural law, they were observed before the Law without any precept. For the fact that something is offered to God in recognition of His creation and dominion is natural; but that He should be offered goats and heifers is a ceremonial precept. Similarly, it is according to natural law that ministers serving God be sustained by the people, for it is clear from Genesis (47:22) that this was observed among the Gentiles. Hence, priests, because they were fed from the public storehouses, were not compelled to sell their possessions. Therefore, there were tithes before the Law, but the determination of this amount was fixed by the law: ‘All tithes are the Lord’s’ (Lev. 27:30). A sign of this was the fact that Jacob before the Law vowed that he would give tithes in the place where the temple was later built. And this was done particularly because the main reason for rendering worship to God is to signify that whatever a man has, he received from God and that he depends on Him for his entire perfection. For the number ‘ten’ is perfect, since it is the sum of its several parts, because the sum of one plus two plus three plus four is ten. Furthermore, one counts as far as ten and all other numbers are repetitions or additions to ten. Therefore, all numbers are imperfect until ten is reached. Likewise, all perfection is from God. Therefore, in order to signify that the fulfillment of all perfection is from God, he gave tithes.

331. - Then (v. 2b) he shows the likeness to Melchizedek. In regard to this he does two things: first, he suggests the likeness in regard to the condition of the person; secondly, in regard to the priesthood (v. 3b). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states a likeness in regard t things commemorated in Scripture; secondly, in regard to things not mentioned in Scripture (v. 3).

332. - In Scripture two things are said of him: first, his name, namely, Melchizedek, who is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and signifies Christ, Who was a king: ‘And a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth’ (Jer. 23:5). He is not only called righteous, but king of righteousness, because He was made wisdom and righteousness for us (1 Cor. 1:30). Another thing said of him is his status; hence, he is called king of Salem, that is, king of peace. But this suits Christ: ‘For he is our peace’ (Eph. 2:14); ‘In his days shall justice spring up and abundance of peace’ (Ps. 71:7). And in this the Apostle teaches us to use the interpretation of names in preaching. He does well to join justice and peace, because no one can make peace who does not observe justice: ‘The work of justice shall be peace’ (Is. 32:17). In this world they are governed in justice, but in the world to come in peace: ‘My people shall sit in the beauty of peace’ (Is. 32:18).

333. - Then when he says, without father or mother or genealogy, he presents a likeness in regard to the things not mentioned about him, because in Scripture no mention is made of his father or mother or genealogy. Hence, some of the ancients made this matter of their error, saying that since God alone is without beginning and without end, Melchizedek was the Son of God. But this has been condemned as heretical. Hence, it should be noted that the Old Testament, whenever mention is made of some important person, his father is named along with the time of his birth and death, as in the case of Isaac and many others. But here Melchizedek is suddenly introduced with no mention at all made of his birth or anything pertaining to it. This was not done without reason. For inasmuch as it is said, without father, the birth of Christ from the Virgin is signified, for it occurred without a father: ‘That which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit’ (Mt. 1:20). Now that which is proper to God should not be attributed to a creature; but it is proper to God the Father to be the Father of Christ. Therefore, in the birth of the one who prefigured Him, no mention should be made of a carnal father. Also in regard to His eternal birth he says, without mother, lest anyone suppose that birth to be material, as the mother gives the matter to her begotten; but it is spiritual, as brightness from the sun: ‘Who being the brightness of his glory and figure of his substance’ (Heb. 1:3). Also, when generation proceeds from a father and a mother, it is not all from the father, but the matter is ministered by the mother. Therefore, to exclude all imperfection from Christ and to designate that all he has from the Father, no mention is made of a mother; hence, the verse: ‘He is God without a mother; He is flesh without a father.’ ‘From the womb before the day star I begot you,’ i.e., I alone (Ps. 109:3). Without genealogy: now there are two reasons why his genealogy is not given in the Scripture: one is because the generation of Christ is ineffable: ‘Who shall declare his generation’ (Is. 53:8); the other is because Christ, Who is introduced as a priest, does not pertain to the Levitical priesthood, nor to a genealogy of the Old Law. This is the Apostle’s intention; hence, he says, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life. But he says this, not because Christ was not born in time or did not die, but because of His eternal generation, in which He was born without the beginning of any time: ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (Jn. 1:1), i.e., no matter what time you mention, the Word was before it, as Basil explains. Also, no end of life: this is true in regard to His divinity, which is eternal. But in regard to His humanity, He no longer has an end of life, because ‘Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more’ (Rom. 6:9); and below (13:8): ‘Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever.’

334. - Then when he says, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever, he indicates a likeness in regard to the priesthood. Yet is should be noted that later things are said to be similar to earlier things, and vice versa. Consequently, lest anyone suppose that Christ’s priesthood is later than that of Melchizedek, the Apostle dispels this, because, although Christ as man was born after him and existed in time, nevertheless, as God and as the Son of God, He exists from eternity. Therefore, Melchizedek was like Christ, the Son of God, in regard to all those features: and this inasmuch as He continues a priest forever, which can be explained in two ways: one way, because no mention is made of the end of his priesthood or of his successor: ‘I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets’ (Hos 12:10). He also says, a priest forever, because that which is prefigured, namely, Christ’s priesthood, lasts forever. Hence, even in Scripture it is frequently referred to as perpetual: ‘It shall be a perpetual observance’ (Ex. 27:21): ‘By a perpetual service and rite’ (Lev. 24:3), because that which was symbolized by it is perpetual. In this matter the Apostle connects the following with the preceding.