ACC ~ Hebrews 7 v13 - 15

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.

Heb