ACC ~ Hebrews 7 v11 - 28

OVERVIEW:

This pericope contrasts the priesthood of the Old Testament law with the priesthood of Christ, of which Melchizedek is a type. Under a perfect priesthood, the further priesthood of Christ would be unnecessary. The law did not present the perfect sacrifice (CHRYSOSTOM). Melchizedek was a high priest of his people, but the Lord made the offering for the salvation of the whole of the human race (THEODORET). With the change in priesthood, the law is changed too; now there is no need of sacrificial law. The law was of use, but not to make humans perfect. While before it was necessary to have many priests, because death would take them, now there is no other high priest than our Lord, “who lives forever … and makes intercession for us,” not in sacrifices but in prayers (EPHREM). He does not need a ransom, for he himself is the propitiation (BASIL). The only Son who became man is our priest forever (BASIL, AUGUSTINE, EPHREM). Earthly lineage does not obtain this anointing (LEO THE GREAT). Our Lord was appointed and accepted the priesthood by the power of a life that is not broken down by death (EPHREM). Humans can be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but only Christ according to the order of Melchizedek (ORIGEN). By this better hope in Christ, our intercessor, we draw near to God (ORIGEN, CHRYSOSTOM). He intercedes for us as a man and as the appointed Son (ORIGEN, GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, CHRYSOSTOM). Speech is surpassed by grace in attempting to understand this sacrifice celebrated in the Eucharist (BRAULIO, BEDE).

7:11-12 | If Perfection Had Been Attainable

EARTHLY LINEAGE DOES NOT OBTAIN THE ANOINTING. LEO THE GREAT: When I compare the impoverishment of my insufficiency with the greatness of the gift I have received, I too should cry out in those words of the prophet, “Lord, I have heard your word and was afraid; I have considered your works and trembled.” What indeed could instill as much anxiety and fear as labor for the frail, elevation for the lowly, dignity for the undeserving? Yet we do not despair or give up, since we do not depend on ourselves but on the one “who works in us.” … So we have chanted with one voice the psalm of David, dearly beloved, not for our own exaltation but for the glory of Christ the Lord.

He it is of whom it was said in prophetic manner, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” that is to say, “not according to the order of Aaron,” whose priesthood passed down through the descent of his offspring and was a temporary ministry that ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but “after the order of Melchizedek,” in whom the office of eternal high priest was prefigured. Since there is no mention of the parents he came from, he must be understood as standing for the one “whose genealogy cannot be told.”

Finally, since the mystery of this divine priesthood also extends to its implementation by people, it does not pass down through the course of generations. It is not what flesh and blood have created that is chosen. Rather, the privileges of paternity give way, and the social positions of families are disregarded, as the church accepts for its rulers those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared. Among the people of God’s adoption, which is priestly and kingly when taken as a whole, the prerogative of earthly lineage does not obtain the anointing. SERMON 3.1.

THE LAW COMES TO AN END. THEODORET OF CYR: 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. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7.

JUDAH BECOMES PRIESTLY. THEODORET OF CYR: 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. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7.

7:13-15 | Another Priest in the Likeness of Melchizedek

CHRIST AN ARCHETYPE OF MELCHIZEDEK CONCERNING THE HUMAN NATURE. THEODORET OF CYR: Orth.—[C]all to mind the words used of Melchizedek in the epistle to the Hebrews. Eran.—What words? Orth.—Those in which the divine apostle, in comparing the levitical priesthood with that of the Christ, likens Melchizedek in other respects to the Lord Christ and says that the Lord had the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Eran.—I think the words of the divine apostle are as follows—“For this Melchizedek, 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; first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; remains a priest continually.” I presume you spoke of this passage.

Orth.—Yes, I spoke of this; and I must praise you for not mutilating it but for quoting the whole. Tell me now, does each one of these points fit Melchizedek in nature and reality? Eran.—Who has the audacity to deny a fitness where the divine apostle has asserted it? Orth.—Then you say that all this fits Melchizedek by nature? Eran.—Yes. Orth.—Do you say that he was a man, or assumed some other nature? Eran.—A man. Orth.—Begotten or unbegotten? Eran.—You are asking very absurd questions. Orth.—The fault lies with you for openly opposing the truth. Answer then. Eran.—There is one only unbegotten, who is God and Father. Orth.—Then we assert that Melchizedek was begotten? Eran.—Yes. Orth.—But the passage about him teaches the opposite. Remember the words which you quoted a moment ago, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” How then do the words “Without father and without mother” fit him; and how the statement that he neither received beginning of existence nor end, since all this transcends humanity?

Eran.—These things do in fact overstep the limits of human nature. Orth.—Then shall we say that the apostle told lies? Eran.—God forbid. Orth.—How then is it possible both to testify to the truth of the apostle and apply the supernatural to Melchizedek? Eran.—The passage is a very difficult one and requires much explanation. Orth.—For any one willing to consider it with attention it will not be hard to attain perception of the meaning of the words. After saying “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” the divine apostle adds “made like unto the Son of God, he abides as a priest continually.” Here he plainly teaches us that the Lord Christ is archetype of Melchizedek in things concerning the human nature. And he speaks of Melchizedek as “made like unto the Son of God.” Orth.—Now let us examine the point in this manner. Do you say that the Lord had a father according to the flesh? Eran.—Certainly not. Orth.—Why? Eran.—He was born of the holy Virgin alone. Orth.—He is therefore properly styled “without father”? Eran.—True. DIALOGUE 2.

MADE LIKE UNTO THE SON OF GOD. THEODORET OF CYR: 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. DIALOGUE 2.

HAVING NO BEGINNING, NO ENDING. THEODORET OF CYR: 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. DIALOGUE 2.

7:16 | The Power of an Indestructible Life

NOT BROKEN DOWN BY DEATH. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: Paul says, “If perfection had been attainable” through the Levitic house, “for under it the people received the law”—that is, through its agency the law of the people was declared—“what further need would there have been” to elevate another priest from another place, “rather than one named after the order of Aaron,” who was the patriarch of those priests, “but after the order of” the uncircumcised “Melchizedek”?

After thus proving the necessity to change priesthood, Paul begins again to prove that, with this change in the priesthood, the law is changed too. “When there is a change in the priesthood,” he says, “there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Is there need of a sacrificial law, if sacrifices and priesthood have been abolished?

So Melchizedek, “of whom these things are spoken” even though he was from that generation, came “from another tribe from which no one has ever served at the altar,” and the one who received his priesthood was certainly not from the Levites, lest he might be estranged from Melchizedek because of his origin.

In fact, “it is evident that our Lord” Jesus Christ “was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.”

For this reason Uzziah was stricken with leprosy, because he wanted to transfer priesthood by his action and move it to the house of Judah, before Jesus, who was from Judah, came and took it in his hour.

“This becomes even more evident” because “another priest arises in the likeness of Melchi-zedek, who has become a priest not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent,” that is, not by being appointed before the people through the aspersion, sanctification, and blood and anointment of priesthood, and through its garments. Our Lord, on the contrary, was appointed and accepted the priesthood “by the power of a life” which is not broken down by death.

He accepted the priesthood through the oath proffered by David, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Therefore, “a former commandment is set aside,” as well as the previous priesthood, “because of its weakness and uselessness” as a rule. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

NOT BY BODILY DESCENT. THEODORET OF CYR: He is saying it is possible to bring out the likeness between the one and the other: as one did not have successors to his priesthood, so neither did the other transmit it to another—which he referred to as “bodily descent” because the law required on account of the mortality of human beings that after the death of the high priest his son would succeed to the priesthood. Now, in my view this phrase has another meaning as well: the priests cleansed the body in particular, sprinkling and washing it; they offered sacrifices for it. In other words, it was not for murderers or wreckers of others’ marriages that they were in the habit of performing sacrifices, but for menstruating women, lepers and people who touched the bones of the dead. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7.

7:17 | A Priest Forever, in the Order of Melchizedek

AARON AND MELCHIZEDEK AS PRIESTLY TYPES. ORIGEN: Just as the people of old, who were called the people of God, were divided into twelve tribes plus the levitical order, and this order itself, which engaged in service of the Divine, was divided into additional priestly and levitical orders, so, I think, all the people of Christ according to “the hidden person of the heart,” who bear the name “Jew inwardly” and who have been circumcised “in spirit,” possess the characteristics of the tribes in a more mystical manner. …

Most of us who approach the teachings of Christ, since we have much time for the activities of life and offer a few acts to God, would perhaps be those from the tribes who have a little fellowship with the priests and support the service of God in a few things. But those who devote themselves to the divine Word and truly exist by the service of God alone will properly be said to be Levites and priests in accordance with the excellence of their activities in this work.

And, perhaps, those who excel all others and who hold, as it were, the first places of their generation will be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but not according to the order of Melchizedek. If someone should object to this, thinking that we are impious when we prescribe the title of high priest for humans, since Jesus is proclaimed as great priest in many places—for we have “a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God”—we would have to say to him that the apostle indicated this when he said that the prophet said of Christ, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” and not after the order of Aaron. On this basis, we too say that humans can be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but only the Christ of God according to the order of Melchizedek. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.1, 1.10-11.

THE TRUE PONTIFF, JESUS CHRIST. BRAULIO OF SARAGOSSA: It is better to be in doubt about hidden matters than to quarrel about what is uncertain. Let us turn to what is true and firm, to what most assuredly keeps any Christian and good Catholic from doubting or quibbling. That is, through the sacrament, bread and wine offered to God become for us the true body and blood of Christ, according to the words of the Lord himself and the sacred Scriptures composed by the Holy Spirit. This sacrament the Catholic church offers daily on its altar “after the order of Melchizedek” by the true pontiff, Jesus Christ, with mystical understanding and an ineffable dearth of speech, because surpassing grace goes beyond everything. LETTER 42.

THE MYSTERY OF HIS SACRIFICE IS REENACTED IN THE EUCHARIST. BEDE: And in the Apocalypse, John the apostle … says, “Who loved us and washed from us our sins in his blood.” Not only did he wash away our sins in his blood when he gave his blood for us on the cross, or when each of us was cleansed in his baptism by the mystery of his most sacred passion. But he also takes away every day the sins of the world and washes us of our daily sins in his blood, when the memory of his blessed passion is reenacted on the altar, when a created thing, bread and wine, is transformed by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit into the sacrament of his flesh and blood. Thus his body and blood is not poured forth and slain by the hands of the unfaithful to their own ruin, but he is taken by the mouth of the faithful to their salvation.

The lamb in the law of Passover rightly shows us a type of him, since, having once liberated the people from their Egyptian servitude, it sanctified the people every year by being immolated in memory of their liberation, until he came, to whom such a sacrificial offering gave testimony. When he was offered to the Father for us as a sacrificial offering and for a sweet savor, he transformed, by the lamb that was offered, the mystery of his passion into a created thing, bread and wine, having been made “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” HOMILIES ON THE GOSPELS 1.15.

7:18-19 | We Draw Near to God

THROUGH FREEDOM FROM MATERIAL POSSESSIONS. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: Because of their earthly voluptuousness and desire for pleasure, which the former priests showed, and because of their infirmity, through which they made their people infirm before their cupidities, they did not bring any of them to that perfection, thanks to which we got rid of all our material goods. In fact, “the introduction” of the gospel made for the hope which surpassed what was previously preached to us, was also made for the introduction of this precept: through our own freedom from material possessions “we approach God,” whereas through the voluptuousness and pleasures of the law we were rejected and removed from God. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

FOR PERFECTION THE LAW WAS OF NO USE. CHRYSOSTOM: Was the law then of no use? It was indeed of use and of great use, but to make humans 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, and thus they pass away and gradually withdraw. But “a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.4.

THE LAW WAS INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE PERFECT BENEFIT. THEODORET OF CYR: The law ceases to have effect, he is saying, and the hope of better things is introduced. It ceases to have effect, not for being evil (the frenzied view of the heretics), but for being ineffective and incapable of providing the perfect benefit. It must be noted, of course, that he refers to the obsolete prescriptions of the law as ineffective and useless—circumcision, sabbath observance and similar things; the New Testament also bids us observe to a greater extent the commandments, you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, and suchlike things. In place of the former, therefore, we receive the hope of the good things to come: it relates us to God. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7.

THE INTRODUCTION OF A BETTER HOPE. ORIGEN: We may also ask what it means when it says in the law that Moses’ face was shining with glory, though covered with a veil, while his hand when put “into his bosom” became “leprous as snow.” In this it seems to me the form of the whole law is quite fully described. For his “face” is the word of the law, and by “hand” are described the works of the law. “For no human being will be justified by works of the law.” Nor could the law lead anyone to “perfection.” In the same way the “leprous” hand of Moses was hidden in his bosom, since it could not perform any perfect work; but his face shone, though covered with a veil, since his word has the glory of knowledge, but a hidden glory. HOMILIES ON EXODUS 12.3.

7:20-22 | An Oath and Surety

THIS PRIESTHOOD WILL NOT END. THEODORET OF CYR: Since he was the one who under the law appointed priests but brought them to an end and declared another in their place, he was obliged to say that he appointed them without taking an oath, but in his case included an oath as well. Do not think, then, that this priesthood will cease to have effect like that one, or that another one will take its place; the taking of an oath excludes such a false impression. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7.

HIS RESURRECTION CONFIRMS OUR HOPE. THEODORET OF CYR: Since the New Covenant promised us the kingdom of heaven, resurrection from the dead and life everlasting, though none of these is in sight, he had to call the Lord Jesus its “surety,” who through his own resurrection confirmed the hope of our resurrection, on the one hand, and on the other continued to give his own resurrection through the miracles worked by the apostles. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 7.

PRIESTS NEED TO CEASE BEING PRIESTS. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: He says that it shows the difference between Christ and Aaron in that Christ received the priesthood with an oath. For those who became priests without oaths became so because of their need to cease being priests at some time, but Christ entered the priesthood with oaths, since he intended to remain based on his rank. He shows his rank is far greater than those under the law, since he intended also to furnish a greater high priest to those coming to him. For in this way he says he becomes “a surety” … for being the first to rise, just as he also calls him a “high priest,” so he pledges to us a similar resurrection. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.20-22.

7:25 | He Always Lives to Make Intercession

HE STANDS BEFORE THE ALTAR. ORIGEN: Jesus now stands “before the face of God interceding for us.” He stands before the altar to offer a propitiation to God for us. As he was about to approach that altar, moreover, he was saying, “I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you.” Therefore, he expects us to be converted, to imitate his example, to follow his footsteps, that he may rejoice with us and “drink wine with us in his Father’s kingdom.” For now, because “the Lord is merciful and gracious,” he “weeps with those who weep and desires to rejoice with those who rejoice” with greater feeling than this apostle. And how much more “this one mourns over many of those who sinned before and have not repented.” For we must not think that Paul is mourning for sinners and weeping for those who transgress, but Jesus my Lord abstains from weeping when he approaches the Father, when he stands at the altar and offers a propitiatory sacrifice for us. This is not to drink the wine of joy “when he ascends to the altar” because he is still bearing the bitterness of our sins. He, therefore, does not want to be the only one to drink wine “in the kingdom” of God. He waits for us, just as he said, “Until I shall drink it with you.” Thus we are those who, neglecting our life, delay his joy. HOMILIES ON LEVITICUS 7.2.3.

AS MAN HE INTERCEDES. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS: Petition does not imply here, as it does in popular parlance, a desire for legal satisfaction; there is something humiliating in the idea. No, it means interceding for us in his role of mediator, in the way that the Spirit too is spoken of as “making petition” on our behalf. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Even at this moment he is, as human, interceding for my salvation, until he makes me divine by the power of his incarnate humanity. “As human,” I say, because he still has with him the body he assumed, though he is no longer “regarded as human,” meaning the bodily experiences, which, sin aside, are ours and his. This is the “advocate” we have in Jesus—not a slave who falls prostrate before the Father on our behalf. Get rid of what is really a slavish suspicion, unworthy of the Spirit. It is not in God to make the demand, nor in the Son to submit to it; the thought is unjust to God. No, it is by what he suffered as man that he persuades us, as Word and encourager, to endure. That, for me, is the meaning of his “advocacy.” ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 4(30).14.

HE THAT HAS ALL JUDGMENT ALSO INTERCEDES. CHRYSOSTOM: You see 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 indeed intercedes for us,” he hints the same thing; the high priest makes intercession. For he that “raises the dead and gives them life” and does so “as the Father,” how is it that, when there is need to save, he “makes intercession”? He that has “all judgment,” how is it that he “makes intercession”? He that “sends his angels” that they may “throw” some into “the furnace” and save others, how is it that he “makes intercession”? Wherefore, he says, “he is able to save.” For this cause then he saves, because he dies not. Inasmuch as “he always lives,” he has, he means, no successor; and if he has no successor, he is able to aid all people. 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 “draw near to God through him.” How does he save? “Since he always lives,” he says, “to make intercession for them.” Do you see the humiliation? Do you see the manhood? For he says not that he obtained this by making intercession once for all, but continually and whenever 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. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.6.

FROM HIS INCARNATION HE ADVOCATES FOR US. OECUMENIUS: He intercedes as “we have him as an advocate with the Father.” He says that from his incarnation itself he advocates for us and exhorts the Father to have mercy on us. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 7.25.

7:26-28 | The Appointed Son

IS IT REASONABLE TO CALL GOD CRAFTY? CHRYSOSTOM: You see that the whole passage is said of the humanity. But when I say the humanity, I mean the humanity having divinity, not dividing one from the other, but leaving you to suppose what is suitable. … He says, “such a high priest also became us, who is holy, blameless.” “Blameless”—what is that? Without wickedness, about which another prophet says, “there was no deceit in his mouth.” That is, he is not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning him, however, in respect of the flesh, it might be reasonable to say it. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.7.

HE BECAME US. BASIL THE GREAT: Although we are not his brothers but have become his enemies by our transgressions, he who is not mere man, but God, after the freedom that he bestowed on us, also calls us his brothers. “I will tell of your name,” he says, “to my brethren.” Now, he who has redeemed us, if you examine his nature, is neither brother nor man; but if you examine his condescension to us through grace, he calls us brothers and descends to our human nature. He does not need a ransom, for he himself is the propitiation. HOMILIES ON THE PSALMS 19.4 (PSALM 48).

THE ONLY SON OF GOD. AUGUSTINE: Who then is so just and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need of a sacrifice for the washing away of his own sins, neither original sins nor those that are added from human life? And what could be so fittingly chosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so suitable for this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansing the vices of mortals as the flesh born in the womb without the contagion of carnal concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? And what could be so acceptably offered and received as the flesh of our sacrifice made the body of our priest? Four things are to be considered in every sacrifice: by whom it is offered, to whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered. ON THE TRINITY 4.14.19.

HE IS A PRIEST FOREVER. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: In the house of Levi, because “they became priests without an oath,” they did not last; he, on the contrary, lasts forever. In fact, it cannot happen that he speaks falsely about the oath, because he said, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’” of the priests according to the order of Melchizedek. And “Jesus Christ” was “a much better” mediator than the former priests in that thing, which he promised us through the New Testament.

While before it was necessary that the priests were many, because death interrupted the older ones in the course of their office and they did not last forever, now there is no other high priest with our Lord, “who lives forever to make intercession for us,” not in the victims of the sacrifices but in prayers.

“And he is able for all time to save us,” not in the earthly delights, which nourish us for a few days, but “when we draw near to God through him” in eternity.

“It was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners … who had no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself,” not for him but for the sins of humankind.

“The law appointed” weak “men as high priests” who certainly needed to offer sacrifices for their sins. “The word of the oath,” however, “which” was provided in David “later than the law, appointed the Son” who remains “perfect forever.” COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.