Hebrews 7:16Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

According to such a law Aaron received the priesthood, but Melchizedek did not. “Who became such not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For it is testified: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

That is, He is not temporary and not limited by a boundary, but exists “according to the power of an endless life.” By this the Apostle declares that Christ became Priest by His own power and by the Father’s, the power of infinite life.

Although this expression does not correspond to “not according to the law of a fleshly commandment,” for he should have said, “but according to a spiritual commandment,” he understands by “fleshly” what is temporary.

So he says elsewhere: “with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10). “According to the power of life” means that He lives by His own power.

The Apostle said that “there is necessarily a change of the Law,” and he showed how. Then he gives the reason. The human mind is most satisfied when it knows the reason, and by this it is raised in faith.

For we believe more firmly when we know both the reason and the ground by which something takes place.

His priesthood is indestructible. To the word “fleshly” it would have been fitting to add “spiritual.” Why then did he add, “according to the power of an endless life”?

Because by “fleshly” he designated what is temporary. Corresponding to what is temporary, he added the expression, “of an endless life.” This means: Christ lives by His own power.

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.

Orthodox: Do you regard Melchizedek as a man, or do you think he received another nature?

Eranistes: As a man.

Orthodox: Begotten or unbegotten?

Eranistes: You are putting very absurd questions.

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

Eranistes: There is only one Unbegotten, God the Father.

Orthodox: Therefore we must call Melchizedek begotten?

Eranistes: Begotten.

Orthodox: Yet the things said about him show the contrary. 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 traits belong to Melchizedek, when they surpass human nature?

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

Orthodox: What then? Did the Apostle speak falsely?

Eranistes: By no means.

Orthodox: What shall we do, then, to preserve both the Apostle’s truth and, for Melchizedek, traits that surpass human nature?

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

Orthodox: For attentive readers its meaning will not be hard to grasp. After saying, “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7:3), the Apostle added: “likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” (Heb 7:3).

By this he clearly teaches us that Christ the Lord is Melchizedek’s archetype in the traits that surpass human nature.

But let us examine the matter in this 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: Next, 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: Correct.

Orthodox: For this same reason He is called without genealogy, since His generation from the Father is ineffable. As the prophet says, “Who shall declare His generation?” (Isa 53:8).

Eranistes: Your reasoning is correct.

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

Eranistes: I also think this. But we must find why this same thing belongs to the wondrous Melchizedek.

Orthodox: It belongs to him as to an image and type. As we said before, an image does not possess everything that the archetype possesses.

What belongs to the Savior by nature and in truth was ascribed to Melchizedek by the ancient history through silence about his genealogy.

That history names Abraham’s father, the father and mother of Isaac, and likewise Jacob and his sons. It numbers the forefathers in uninterrupted order.

But when it speaks of Melchizedek, it names neither his father nor his mother. It does not say from which of Noah’s children he traced his descent.

All this was done in order to prefigure 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. In the same place he adds: “one not descended from their genealogy received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises” (Heb 7:6).

Eranistes: But can Melchizedek be called without father and without mother simply because divine Scripture did not mention his parents?

Orthodox: If he were truly without father and without mother, he would no longer be an image, but the truth itself.

Since this belongs to him not by nature but by the arrangement of divine Scripture, he displays in himself an 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, since he is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor 11:7).

Eranistes: Let it be so.

Orthodox: Then, if we follow your judgment, man would have to preserve the clear marks of the archetype. He would have to be neither created, nor composite, nor circumscribed.

He would have to create from nothing and bring all things into being without toil, by a single word. Besides this, he would have neither sickness, sorrow, anger, nor sin.

He would have to be immortal and incorruptible, and to possess everything that the archetype possesses.

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

Orthodox: Yet in whatever respect you agree to call man the image of God, you will always find an immeasurable distance between the image and the 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 possess everything the Father possesses?

Orthodox: Not everything. The Son is not the Father. He is not without cause in every respect. He is not unbegotten, for if He possessed this, He would not be Son.

Therefore I rightly said that an image does not possess everything that the archetype possesses.

Eranistes: Correct.

Orthodox: In this sense the divine Apostle also said of Melchizedek that he was “likened to the Son of God.”

Let us grant 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, being so many years old, begot Seth, and after living so many years, died.

We read the same in him about Seth, Enosh, and the others. But he kept silence 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: Everyone agrees on this.

Orthodox: In these God-befitting and truly divine traits, 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 110:4).

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

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

Orthodox: We ought to have spoken still more, since you yourself said that this passage is hard to understand.

“But according to the power of an indestructible life.” He is able to live always and to be eternal according to His Godhead, for it is without beginning and immortal.

Thus His likeness to Melchizedek also appears, since Melchizedek too is without beginning and immortal, insofar as the beginning of his life and his death are unknown, as was said above.

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.