{"author":null,"canonical_references":[],"database_sha256":"8cfbe7284c6936871d57c02dc6aa63ebbdfd4722422d539dd9f716e46e91112e","date_end":null,"date_start":null,"edition_year":null,"id":"sermonindex-ecf-6709","native_reference":{"book_number":650,"chapter_from":7,"chapter_to":7,"system":"MyBible module coordinates (mapping unverified)","verse_from":11,"verse_to":11},"public_import_allowed":false,"record_kind":"verse-keyed-module-record","review_required":["English edition and exact text","author/work attribution","dating","verse mapping and citation kind","reuse and attribution","split author quotations and deduplicate"],"review_status":"unreviewed","source_html":"<p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: \"If therefore\" (he says) \"perfection were by the Levitical priesthood.\" Having spoken concerning Melchisedec, and shown how much superior he was to Abraham, and having set forth the great difference between them, he begins from this point forward to prove the wide difference as to the covenant itself, and how the one is imperfect and the other perfect. However he does not even yet enter on the matters themselves, but first contends on the ground of the priesthood, and the tabernacle. For these things would be more easily received by the unbelieving, when the proof was derived from things already allowed, and believed.</p><p>He had shown that Melchisedec was greatly superior both to Levi and to Abraham, being to them in the rank of the priests. Again he argues from a different point. What then is this? Why (he says) did he not say, \"after the order of Aaron\"? And observe, I pray you, the great superiority of his argument. For from the very circumstance which naturally excluded His priesthood, viz. that He was not \"after the order of Aaron,\" from that he establishes Him, and excludes the others. For this is the very thing that I say (he declares); why has He \"not been made after the order of Aaron\"?</p><p>And the saying \"what further need\" has much emphasis. For if Christ had been \"after the order of Melchisedec\" according to the flesh, and then afterwards the law had been introduced, and all that pertained to Aaron, one might reasonably say that the latter as being more perfect, annulled the former, seeing that it had come in after it. But if Christ comes later, and takes a different type, as that of His priesthood, it is evident that it is because those were imperfect. For (he would say) let us suppose for argument's sake, that all has been fulfilled, and that there is nothing imperfect in the priesthood. \"What need\" was there in that case that He should be called \"after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron\"? Why did He set aside Aaron, and introduce a different priesthood, that of Melchisedec? \"If then perfection,\" that is the perfection of the things themselves, of the doctrines, of life, \"had been by the Levitical priesthood.\"</p><p>And observe how he goes forward on his path. He had said that He was \"after the order of Melchisedec,\" implying that the priesthood \"after the order of Melchisedec\" is superior: for he was far superior. Afterwards he shows this from the time also, in that He was after Aaron; evidently as being better.<br/><i>— Homily on Hebrews 13</i></p><p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: \"For under it the people have received the Law [or have been legislated for].\" What is \"under it\"? Ordereth itself by it; through it does all things. You cannot say that it was given to others, \"the people under it have received the law,\" that is, have used it, and did use it. You cannot say indeed that it was perfect, it did not govern the people; \"they have been legislated for upon it,\" that is, they used it.<br/><i>— Homily on Hebrews 13</i></p><p><b>Leo the Great</b>: 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.\"<br/>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.<br/><i>— SERMON 3.1</i></p><p><b>Oecumenius</b>: When Melchizedek had shown that he was superior to Levi and the priests, indeed even to the patriarch Abraham himself, he then demonstrated that this priesthood of the New Testament is superior to the Old, and that the new covenant is more perfect than the old covenant.If the Levitical priesthood had not been perfect, he says, what need was there for Christ to rise not according to the order of Aaron, who was also of the Levitical priesthood? But did he not need to rise according to the order ofMelchizedek? Is it not evident that this happened because of the imperfection, he says, through the Levitical priesthood?<br/>\"for the people were constituted by it.\" For if the Levitical priesthood were perfect, it was necessary for Christ to arise from the lineage of Aaron, especially, he says, that the people are constituted to this Levitical priesthood, that is, to be used by it, to be arranged under it, to be led by it. Why then was it removed? Clearly because it was weak.<br/><i>— The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews</i></p><p><b>Theodoret of Cyrus</b>: 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.<br/><i>— INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 7</i></p><p><b>Theodoret of Cyrus</b>: 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.<br/><i>— INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 7</i></p>","source_html_sha256":"bc78252a72b0b8815c59b796c77b7620a731ab2bdd5a3fcf7f214ce592584c5f","source_module":"ECF","source_row_id":6709,"source_url":"https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/ecf/","text_sha256":"bbc75f07396cbe7963ffcd940e7e1cb9c8179aba9ba63afa00aebd046072412f","translator":null,"work":null}