Hebrews 7:15Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Christ trains us for unfading life through mystical priestly rites, although Aaron also served as priest according to the flesh. Through Aaron there were offerings of bulls, the slaughtering of sheep, and the ashes of heifers. These sprinkled those who partook of them for the purity of the flesh.

There were also all the other things besides these, which did not perfect the worshipers in conscience. “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb 10:4).

Therefore, when another manner of priestly service has been introduced among us, removing us from the first and most ancient customs, there must certainly also be another Priest. God promised a New Covenant, since the first had grown old.

Thus the Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, who fittingly is shown as existing forever, can be none other than our Lord Jesus Christ. Through Him and with Him be glory to God the Father, with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Then the Apostle again returns to his discourse about the law.

Orthodox: Do you consider Melchizedek a man, or do you think that he assumed another nature?

Eranistes: A man.

Orthodox: Begotten, or unbegotten?

Eranistes: You are proposing very absurd questions.

Orthodox: But you yourself are to blame, for you are plainly fighting against the truth. Therefore answer.

Eranistes: There is only one unbegotten, God and the Father.

Orthodox: Therefore we must call Melchizedek begotten?

Eranistes: Begotten.

Orthodox: But from what is said about him, the opposite is seen. Recall what you have just read: "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb 7:3). How can these features befit Melchizedek, when they exceed human nature?

Eranistes: They do indeed exceed the measure of human nature.

Orthodox: What then? Did the Apostle speak falsely?

Eranistes: By no means.

Orthodox: How then shall we proceed, so as to preserve the truth for the Apostle and also the features exceeding human nature for Melchizedek?

Eranistes: This passage is very obscure and requires the most careful interpretation.

Orthodox: For the attentive, it will not be difficult to grasp its meaning. After saying, "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb 7:3), the Apostle added, "being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever" (Heb 7:3).

By this he clearly teaches us that Christ the Lord is the archetype of Melchizedek in the features that exceed human nature. But we shall consider the matter in the following way. Tell me, did our Lord have a father according to the flesh?

Eranistes: No.

Orthodox: Why?

Eranistes: Because He was born of the Holy Virgin.

Orthodox: Therefore He is rightly called fatherless?

Eranistes: Rightly.

Orthodox: Further, do you affirm that He had a mother according to the divine nature?

Eranistes: By no means.

Orthodox: Because He was begotten before the ages from the Father alone?

Eranistes: Correctly.

Orthodox: For this same reason He is called without genealogy, since He has an ineffable birth from the Father. For, as the prophet says, "Who shall declare His generation?" (Isa 53:8).

Eranistes: Your reasoning is correct.

Orthodox: Therefore it befits Him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life. For He is without beginning and without end, and, in short, eternal and coeternal with the Father.

Eranistes: I also think this. But we must find the reason why these same things befit the wondrous Melchizedek.

Orthodox: They befit him as image and type. An image, as we said before, does not possess everything that the archetype possesses.

What belongs to the Savior by nature and in truth, ancient history attributed to Melchizedek by silence concerning his genealogy. That history names Abraham's father, and the father and mother of Isaac, as well as Jacob and his sons.

It also enumerates the forefathers in an uninterrupted order. But when speaking of Melchizedek, it names neither his father nor his mother. It does not say from which of Noah's children he derived his lineage.

All this was done in order to inscribe beforehand in him the image of Him Who in reality has neither mother nor father. The divine Apostle himself teaches us to understand it this way, when in the same place he adds the following: "He who does not derive his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises" (Heb 7:6).

Eranistes: But can it be said of Melchizedek that he is without father and without mother merely because divine Scripture did not mention his parents?

Orthodox: If he were in reality without father and without mother, then he would no longer be an image, but the truth. Since this belongs to him not by nature, but by the ordering of divine Scripture, he shows in himself the image of the truth.

Eranistes: But an image must have the features of the archetype.

Orthodox: Is man not called the image of God?

Eranistes: Man is not the image of God, but was created according to the image of God.

Orthodox: Hear what the Apostle says: "A man ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God" (1 Cor 11:7).

Eranistes: Let it be so.

Orthodox: Therefore, if one followed your judgment, man would have to preserve the clear features of the archetype. That is, he would have to be neither created, nor composite, nor circumscribed.

He would have to create from nothing and produce all things without labor, by a word alone. Besides this, he would have neither sickness, nor grief, nor anger, nor sin, but would be immortal and incorruptible, and have everything the archetype has.

Eranistes: Man is not the image of God in every respect.

Orthodox: But in whatever respect you agree to recognize man as the image of God, you will always find an immeasurable distance between image and truth.

Eranistes: I agree.

Orthodox: Consider also the following. The divine Apostle called the Son the image of the Father, saying of Him: "Who is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15).

Eranistes: What then? Does the Son not have everything that the Father has?

Orthodox: Not everything. The Son is not the Father. He is not altogether without cause. He is not unbegotten. If He had these things, He would not be Son. Therefore I rightly said that the image does not have everything the archetype has.

Eranistes: Correctly.

Orthodox: In this sense the divine Apostle also said of Melchizedek that he was "made like the Son of God."

Let us suppose that in this sense it is said of Melchizedek, "without father, without mother, without genealogy." But how are we to understand the following words, "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"?

Orthodox: The God-inspired Moses, when setting forth the genealogy of the forefathers, tells us that Adam, when he was so many years old, begot Seth, and after living so many years, died. We read the same in him concerning Seth, Enosh, and the others.

But he was silent about Melchizedek's birth and the end of his life. Therefore Melchizedek has neither beginning of days nor end of life only in the history. In reality, the Only-begotten Son of God is without beginning and without end.

Eranistes: All agree on this.

Orthodox: In these God-befitting and truly divine features, Melchizedek is an image of Christ the Master. But in the priesthood, which belongs more to man than to God, Jesus Christ became High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20; Ps 109:4).

For just as Melchizedek was priest of the nations, so Christ the Master offered the all-holy and saving sacrifice for all men.

Eranistes: We have already spoken too much about this subject.

Orthodox: We ought to have said even more, because you yourself said that this passage is difficult to understand.

The Law contains, on the one hand, the demand of God’s holiness and righteousness. On the other hand, it indicates how this demand was to be fulfilled according to the conditions and circumstances of the time.

The Law of God would be destroyed if both were abolished. But if the demand remains the same, while a better path to its realization is indicated, then the Law cannot be considered destroyed.

Its divine and eternal aspect remains the same. Only its temporary and, as it were, human aspect is changed. In this change, the demand of God’s holiness and righteousness receives still better and more perfect satisfaction.

Thus the Law, while being changed, is not destroyed, but established.

Let us apply this to the Apostle’s subject in the seventh chapter of Hebrews. The eternal demand of God’s holiness consists in there being a priesthood and priests.

But the Law of Moses, besides this demand, also contained an indication of the manner of its realization. This indication corresponded to the conditions of the Old Testament age.

It required that the priests be from the tribe of Levi, from the house of Aaron, and that at their head there should be a high priest, Aaron and his successors.

In the New Testament, the eternal divine demand concerning the existence of the priesthood remained the same. Therefore the Law was not destroyed.

But another, eternal High Priest arose according to the order of Melchizedek, the High Priest and King; see vv. 1-4. He has “an unchanging priesthood” (v. 24), according to the power of “an endless life” (v. 16).

He is “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (v. 26). Has the Law been destroyed? No, it has been established, insofar as we have as High Priest the Son of God, “perfected forever” (v. 28).

In the same way one must reason about all the other ordinances of the Law of Moses. For example, the ordinances concerning sacrifices contained, on the one hand, the basic demand of God’s holiness and righteousness.

That demand was that men cleanse themselves by sacrifices and offerings, although God, as the all-sufficient One, has no need of our good things; Ps 16:1.

On the other hand, they contained particular indications for fulfilling this demand. These were fulfilled through the slaughter of sacrificial animals on the altar of the tabernacle or temple, and through offering in the tabernacle or temple the fruits of righteous labor (Prov 3:9).

In the New Testament, in fulfillment of this demand, the most perfect sacrifice of Christ has been offered and is offered in the Eucharist. Through this also the Old Testament Law is not destroyed, but fulfilled in the most perfect way, and therefore established.

Thus, by the light of the Word of God and under the guidance of Holy Tradition, one must distinguish what is enduring in the ordinance of Moses and what has ceased. One must distinguish what belonged to the Old Testament age and what was appointed for all times.

Rather, He received it “according to the power of an indestructible life.” That is, after His resurrection He became an immortal Priest, having no need to transmit His priesthood by succession.

This again happened according to the type of Melchizedek, as was foretold concerning the Messiah: “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Rather, Christ became High Priest by virtue of the indestructible life inherent in Him. This power was, of course, always in Jesus (Jn 10:18). Since He possesses it, there is no need to observe all the ordinances and commandments relating to mortal priests.