Lectio 3 Lecture 3 Ordo Melchisedech The order of Melchisedech ^7:11 Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici? [n. 347] ^7:11 If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech: and not be called according to the order of Aaron? [n. 347] ^7:12 Translato enim sacerdotio, necesse est ut et legis translatio fiat. [n. 350] ^7:12 For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law, [n. 350] ^7:13 In quo enim haec dicuntur, de alia tribu est, de qua nullus altari praesto fuit. [n. 355] ^7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken is of another tribe, of which no one attended on the altar. [n. 355] ^7:14 Manifestum est enim quod ex Juda ortus sit Dominus noster: in qua tribu nihil de sacerdotibus Moyses locutus est. [n. 357] ^7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Judah: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. [n. 357] ^7:15 Et amplius adhuc manifestum est: si secundum similitudinem Melchisedech exsurgat alius sacerdos, [n. 358] ^7:15 And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there arises another priest, [n. 358] ^7:16 qui non secundum legem mandati carnalis factus est, sed secundum virtutem vitae insolubilis. ^7:16 Who is made, not according to the law of a law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life. ^7:17 Contestatur enim: quoniam tu es sacerdos in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech. [n. 360] ^7:17 For he testifies: you are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. [n. 360] ^7:18 Reprobatio quidem fit praecedentis mandati, propter infirmitatem ejus, et inutilitatem: [n. 361] ^7:18 There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof: [n. 361] ^7:19 nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex: introductio vero melioris spei, per quam proximamus ad Deum. ^7:19 For the law brought nothing to perfection: but a bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw near to God. 347. Supra probavit Apostolus praeeminentiam sacerdotii Melchisedech ad Leviticum, hic ab eodem concludit excellentiam sacerdotii Christi, respectu sacerdotii Levitici. Sicut etiam supra dictum est, a principio huius septimi capitis, Apostolus per tria probat ex auctoritate Psalmistae propositum suum. Primo per illud secundum ordinem Melchisedech, probavit ergo praeeminentiam Melchisedech ad Levi. Et ideo secundum ordinem sacerdotii Melchisedech, probat praeeminentiam Christi ad sacerdotium Leviticum. Unde facit hic magnam vim de isto verbo, secundum ordinem. 347. Having proved the preeminence of Melchisedech’s priesthood over the Levitical, the Apostle now concludes to the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical. But as has been stated above from the beginning of Chapter 7, the Apostle proves his proposition from three statements taken from the Psalmist: first, from the phrase, according to the order of Melchisedech. Therefore, he proved the preeminence of Melchisedech over Levi. Now according to the order of Melchisedech’s priesthood, he proves Christ’s preeminence over the Levitical. Hence, he lays great stress on the phrase, according to the order. Et facit duas rationes, quarum And he gives two reasons: una concludit quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur sacerdotio Levitico. the first concludes that the priesthood of Christ is preferred to the Levitical; Secunda, quod etiam evacuat illud, et illam ponit ibi et amplius adhuc manifestum est, et cetera. the second, that it even makes it void, and this is noted at and yet it is far more evident. In prima ratione, quae est conditionalis, ponit duo antecedentia, et per consequens duo consequentia, ibi quid adhuc, et cetera. In the first reason, which is conditional, he lays down two antecedents and two consequents: what further need was there. 348. Et ratio sua talis est: si sacerdotium Leviticum fuisset perfectum, per cuius ministerium erat administratio legis, non fuisset necessarium quod surgeret alius sacerdos secundum alium ordinem, per quem etiam alia lex ministraretur, sicut per Leviticum lex vetus. Sed surgit alius sacerdos secundum alium ordinem, scilicet secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Ergo illud imperfectum erat. Sicut ergo surgit aliud sacerdotium, ita necesse est surgere aliam legem. 348. His reasoning is this: if the Levitical priesthood had been perfect, by whose ministry the law was administered, there would have been no need for another priest according to another order through which another law is administered, just as the old law was administered by the Levitical. But another priest has risen according to another order, namely, of Melchisedech. Therefore, the other was imperfect. Therefore, just as another priesthood has risen, so it is necessary that another law arise. In ista ratione manifestum est quod sunt duo antecedentia, unum pertinens ad sacerdotium, aliud ad legem. Dicit ergo, quantum ad primum antecedens, quod si esset consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum. Quantum vero ad secundum dicit, quod si per sacerdotium lex administraretur, quod probat, quia sub ipso, id est, per eius administrationem, populus legem accepit, non quod sacerdotium praecederet legem, sed magis e converso. Unde istud secundum antecedens ponit ibi, cum dicit sub ipso enim, et cetera. Mal. II, 7: labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem de ore eius requirent. In this reasoning it is manifest that there are two antecedents, namely, one pertaining to the priesthood and the other pertaining to the law. In regard to the first antecedent he says, if then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood. But in regard to the second he says that if a law is administered by a priesthood, which he proves, because under it, i.e., by its administration, the people received the law; not that the priesthood preceded the law, but conversely. Hence, he states the second antecedent when he says, for under it the people received the law: the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth (Mal 2:7). Facit autem mentionem specialiter de sacerdotio, ut transferat se ad legem, quae per officium sacerdotale administrabatur: non enim, ut dicit Glossa, potest esse sacerdos sine testamento et lege et praeceptis. But he makes mention of the priesthood specifically in order to pass to the law, which was administered by the priestly office; for as a Gloss says, there can be no priest without a testament and a law and precepts. Sacerdotium vero non consummabat, id est, perficiebat. Tota enim perfectio sua erat per legem quam administrabat. Sed, ut iam dicetur, nullum ad perfectum adduxit lex, quia nec ad perfectionem iustitiae. Matth. V, v. 20: nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plusquam Scribarum, et cetera. Item non dabat consummationem patriae, quia non introducebat in vitam. Et in huius signum ipse legislator non potuit intrare terram promissionis. Deut. ult. Has autem duas perfectiones habemus per Christum. Is. X, 22: consummatio abbreviata inundabit iustitiam. Rom. c. IX, 28: verbum consummans et abbrevians in aequitate. Haec sunt ergo antecedentia. But the priesthood brought nothing to perfection, for its entire perfection was through the law, which they administered; but as will be shown later, the law brought nothing to perfection because it did not lead to the perfection of justice: unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20); likewise, it did not bring the perfection of heaven, because it did not bring one into life. A sign of this was that the lawgiver himself could not enter the promised land. But we have these two perfections through Christ: the consumption abridged shall overflow with justice (Isa 10:22); a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth (Rom 9:28). These, therefore, are the antecedents. 349. Consequentia vero ponit, cum dicit quid adhuc, et cetera. Et hoc quantum ad primum, quasi dicat: si illud fuisset consummatum et perfectum, quid adhuc fuit necessarium surgere alium, et cetera. Id est, non dixisset secundum ordinem Melchisedech, sed secundum ordinem Aaron, quod quia non fecit, ergo erat imperfectum. Haec est tota prima ratio, per quam patet, quod sacerdotium Christi praefertur Levitico. 349. But he lays down the consequents when he says, what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech: and not be called according to the order of Aaron, i.e., he would not have said, according to the order of Melchisedech, but according to the order of Aaron. Therefore, because he did not, it was imperfect. This is the entire first reason, through which it is clear that Christ’s priesthood is preferred to the Levitical. Secunda ratio probat quod etiam ipsum evacuat, quia perfectum evacuat imperfectum. I Cor. XIII, 10: cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Ergo sacerdotium Christi evacuat sacerdotium Leviticum. Est ergo primum consequens, quod sacerdotium Christi evacuat sacerdotium Leviticum. The second reason proves that he even voided it, because the perfect voids the imperfect: when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away (1 Cor 13:10). Therefore, the priesthood of Christ does away with the Levitical. 350. Secundum consequens est quod etiam evacuatur lex quae per illud administrabatur. Et istud ponit cum dicit quod translato enim sacerdotio, necesse est, ut legis translatio fiat. Erat enim lex sub administratione sacerdotii; ergo mutato sacerdotio, necesse est quod lex mutetur. 350. The second consequent is that it also does away with the law which was administered by it. He states this when he says, for the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law. For the law was under the administration of the priesthood; therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that the law be changed. Et huius ratio est, quia mutato fine, necesse est quod mutentur ea quae sunt ad finem, sicut qui mutat propositum eundi per aquam, mutat propositum quaerendi navem. Omnis autem lex ordinatur ad conversationem humanam secundum aliquod regimen. Unde secundum Philosophum in Politicis, mutata conversatione, necesse est mutari legem. Sicut autem lex humana ordinatur ad regimen humanum, ita spiritualis et divina ad regimen divinum. Hoc autem regimen designatur per sacerdotium. Translato ergo sacerdotio, necesse est transferri legem. And the reason for this is that because of a change in the end, it is necessary that those things that are for the end also be changed, just as a person who changes his mind about traveling by water, changes his mind about finding a ship. But every law is ordained to leading one’s life according to some rule. Hence, according to the Philosopher in the Politics, when the mode of life is changed, it is necessary for the law to be changed. But just as human law is ordained to human guidance, so a spiritual and divine law to divine guidance. But this guidance is regulated by a priesthood. Therefore, the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation be made of the law. 351. Signanter autem loquitur, quia non dicit: sacerdote translato. Lex enim non respicit personam sacerdotis. Unde mortuo sacerdote, non mutatur lex, nisi forte sit illa introducta propter personam eius; sed mutato sacerdotio mutatur totus modus, et ordo regiminis. 351. But he speaks carefully, because he does not say, the priest being translated: for the law does not regard the person of the priest. Hence, when the priest dies, the law is not changed, unless perchance the entire method and order of guidance is changed. Et de ista mutatione habetur Ier. III: feriam domui Israel, et domui Iuda foedus novum, non secundum pactum quod pepigi cum patribus vestris, et cetera. Rom. VIII, 2: lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis. Lex enim vetus dicitur lex peccati et mortis, per occasionem acceptam, quia scilicet gratiam non conferebat ex opere operato; sicut sacramenta novae legis. Jeremiah speaks of change when he says: behold, the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with your fathers (Jer 31:31); for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has delivered me from the law of sin and of death (Rom 8:2). For the old law is called the law of sin and of death, because it did not confer grace ex opere operato, as the sacraments of the new law do. 352. Sed obiicit hic Manichaeus: si lex vetus fuit data per divinam providentiam, cum illa sit immutabilis, etiam ipsa lex esset immutabilis, et per consequens non debuit mutari. Cum ergo mutata sit, ergo non est data per divinam providentiam. 352. But the Manicheans raise an objection here: if the old law was given by divine providence, which is immutable, the law itself should be immutable; consequently, it should not be changed. Therefore, since it was changed, it was not given by divine providence. Respondeo. Dicendum est, secundum quod dicit Augustinus Contra Faustum, sicut sapiens dispensator una et eadem dispositione et providentia secundum diversitatem temporum et personarum dat alia et alia praecepta: sicut et alia hyeme, alia aestate, alia pueris, alia senibus, alia perfectis, alia imperfectis, et tamen est eadem providentia, ita divina providentia immobili permanente, mutata est lex propter mutationem temporum; quia ante adventum debuerunt dari praecepta, quae figurarent venturum, sed post adventum, quae significent venisse. Item data sunt illis praecepta sicut pueris: in novo vero sicut perfectis. Unde lex dicitur paedagogus, quod est proprie puerorum. Unde si in lege dicitur aliquid, quod sonet perpetuitatem, hoc est ratione figurati. I answer, as Augustine says Against Faustus, that just as a wide dispenser by one and the same arrangement and providence gives different laws according as times and persons differ, one law for summer and another for winter, one for children and one for adults, one for perfect and another for imperfect, and yet is the same providence; so with divine providence remaining unchanged, the law was changed to fit the times; because before the coming of Christ precepts were given to prefigure his coming, but after his coming, precepts were given to signify that he had come. Furthermore, the precepts were given to them as to children, but in the new law as to the perfect. Hence, the law is called a pedagogue, which is strictly for children. Therefore, if something given in the law suggests perpetuity, this is by reason of the one prefigured. 353. Item Glossa dicit hic quod ista translatio sacerdotii fuit figurata I Reg. II, quando sacerdotium fuit translatum ad Samuelem, qui non fuit de tribu Levi. 353. Likewise, a Gloss here states that this translation of the priesthood was prefigured in 1 Samuel, when the priesthood was transferred to Samuel, who was not of the tribe of Levi (1 Sam 2:28). Contra: quia Samuel non fuit sacerdos, immo magis hoc fuit figuratum in translatione sacerdotii Abiathar ad Sadoch, qui etiam erat Levita. But because Samuel was not a priest, this transfer seems rather to have been prefigured by the transfer of the priesthood from Abiathar to Zadok, who was also a Levite. Et dicendum est, quod licet Samuel non esset sacerdos, tamen aliquid sacerdotale egit; quia et sacrificium obtulit, et reges unxit, scilicet Saul et David. Et quantum ad hoc, translatum est ad ipsum sacerdotium. Et sic dicitur in Ps. XCVIII, 6: Moyses et Aaron in sacerdotibus eius, et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen eius. I answer that although Samuel was not a priest, he performed some priestly functions because he offered sacrifices and anointed kings, namely, Saul and David. In this respect the priesthood had been transferred to him. Hence, it says in the Psalm: Moses and Aaron among his priests: and Samuel among those who call upon his name (Ps 99:6). 354. Item contra illud quod dicit Glossa quod non erat de tribu Levitica, quia Helcana qui fuit pater eius, et ipse numeratur inter filios Levi. 354. Likewise, contrary to the Gloss saying that he was not of the tribe of Levi is the fact that in 1 Chronicles, Elkanah, who was his father, is himself numbered among the sons of Levi (1 Chr 7:23). Respondeo. Dicendum est, quod Samuel quantum ad aliquid fuit de tribu Iuda, et hoc quantum ad matrem; sed quantum ad patrem de tribu Levi, non tamen de Aaron; sed quantum ad locum, fuit de monte Ephraim. Licet enim undecim tribus habuerint certas provincias, non tamen tribus Levi; sed inter ipsas accepit possessionem, et sic habitabat in monte Ephraim. I answer that Samuel was in some sense from the tribe of Judah, namely, through his mother; but in regard to his father he was of the tribe of Levi, but not through Aaron; in regard to his place he was from Mount Ephraim. For although eleven tribes had their own provinces, the tribe of Levi did not, but he took possession among them, and so he dwelt in Mount Ephraim. 355. Deinde cum dicit in quo enim, etc., manifestat quod dixit, et 355. Then when he says, he of whom these things are spoken, he clarifies what he had said: primo quod sacerdotium sit translatum; first, that the priesthood was transferred; secundo hoc exponit, ibi manifestum est enim. second, he explains this, at for it is evident that our Lord.