Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 7:4-10

"Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils. And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the priest`s office have commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises. But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes; for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him." — Hebrews 7:4-10 (ASV)

Having shown how Melchizedek was likened to the Son of God, the Apostle now shows the preeminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical. Regarding this, he does two things: first, he captures their attention; second, he states his thesis (verse 5).

He captures their attention by saying that he is about to speak of great and important matters: Hear, for I will speak of great things (Proverbs 8:6). Therefore, he says, see how great—that is, of what great dignity—he is, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tithe of the spoils. Cursed is the deceitful man, that has in his flock a male, and making a vow, offers in sacrifice that which is feeble, to the Lord (Malachi 1:14).

Abraham is called a patriarch—that is, the chief of fathers—not because he had no father, but because the promise of being the father of the Gentiles was made to him: You shall be a father of many nations (Genesis 17:4); Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations ; I have made you a father of many nations before God whom he believed (Romans 4:17).

Then, in verse 5, he shows the preeminence of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical. In this regard, he does two things: first, he states his proposition; second, from this he concludes his thesis: that Christ’s priesthood is superior to the Levitical (verse 11). The first part is divided into two sections: in the first, he states his proposition; in the second, he rejects a certain response (verse 9). Regarding the first, he does two things:

1. He shows the preeminence regarding the exercise of his priesthood.
2. He shows the preeminence regarding the nature of the priesthood (verse 8).

Two things pertain to a priest: to receive tithes and to bless. Therefore, the author does two things: first, he shows Melchizedek’s excellence regarding the reception of tithes; second, regarding blessing (verse 6b). Concerning the first, he shows who is qualified to accept tithes, and then how Melchizedek did this more excellently (verse 8).

He says, therefore: And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people. In this, he shows that it belongs to priests to take tithes. It should be noted that the members of Levi’s tribe were appointed for divine worship, but among them, only the descendants of Aaron were priests: Take to you also Aaron, your brother, with his sons from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest’s office (Exodus 28:1). Hence, those who belonged to the tribe of Levi through Aaron took tithes.

This would seem to indicate that the priests alone took tithes, which is contrary to what is said in Numbers 18:21: I have given to the sons of Levi all the tithes of Israel. I answer that the Levites received them only because they ministered to the priests; as a result, the tithes were given not for themselves but for the priests. Furthermore, the Levites received only one-tenth of the tithes, as it says in Numbers 18:26; therefore, only the priests received tithes and did not pay them.

Secondly, he shows by what right they received them: by a commandment of the Law. Hence, he says, they have a commandment in the law to take tithes. But if this is a commandment of the Law, then, since the observance of such a commandment is now a sin, it seems unlawful to give or to receive tithes now. I answer that there were some precepts in the Law that were purely ceremonial, such as circumcision and the sacrifice of the lamb. Since such laws were only figurative, it is no longer permissible to observe them, for they were a figure of something to come. Anyone who observes them now would be signifying that Christ is still to come.

Other precepts were purely moral, and these must be observed now. Among these was the giving of tithes, as was explained above. Hence, tithing was practiced under the Law and under the New Testament: The worker is worthy of his food (Matthew 10:10); The worker is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7). The determination of such a portion is now made by the Church, just as in the Old Testament it was determined by the Law. Still others were partly ceremonial and partly moral, such as the judicial precepts. These laws are no longer to be used in regard to what is ceremonial, but in regard to what is moral, they must be obeyed. Yet it is not necessary that they be observed in their original form.

Another objection arises: If this commandment were still in effect, then one who does not take tithes sins, and those who do not give them also sin. I answer that some say that no one may lawfully renounce his right to take tithes, but it is lawful to renounce the practice of taking them to avoid causing scandal, following the example of the Apostle who took no sustenance from anyone. So they say that they are commanded not to renounce the right. But it is better to say that they are not commanded to take them; rather, they have this command established for their benefit, so that they are permitted to take tithes, and the people are bound to give them.

Thirdly, he shows from whom they received tithes: from the people, that is, from their brethren, even though these brothers also descended from the loins of Abraham. He anticipates an objection: someone might say that just as Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, so too did his descendants, the Levites, and therefore, Melchizedek's priesthood is not superior to theirs. The author refutes this by stating that the Levites themselves were of Abraham's seed and were therefore inferior to Abraham, who paid the tithes.

Then when he says, But this man who does not have their genealogy received tithes from Abraham, he shows how Melchizedek was more worthy to receive tithes because he was not of Abraham’s lineage; hence, he does not share their genealogy—that is, the Levites'. Furthermore, it was lawful for the Levites to take tithes according to a commandment of the Law; consequently, their priesthood was subject to the observance of the Law. But Melchizedek took tithes not by reason of any law, but from his own authority. Therefore, his priesthood was a figure of Christ’s priesthood, which is not subject to the Law. Likewise, the Levites received tithes from a lesser people—namely, their own brethren—but Melchizedek received them from the highest, the patriarch Abraham.

Then when he says, and blessed him that had the promises, he shows Melchizedek’s excellence from the standpoint of the blessing. His reasoning is this: in Genesis 14:19 it says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, but one who blesses is greater than the one blessed; therefore, Melchizedek is greater. Hence, he says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, who had the promises. However, it says below in Hebrews 11:39: They received not the promise. I answer that Abraham did not receive the fulfillment of the promise, because he did not obtain it in his lifetime; but he possessed it in faith and hope, and the promises were made specifically to him.

Then when he says, it is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior, he states the major premise of his reasoning. But here there are three objections. The first concerns the statement that the lesser is blessed by the better. On this point, the Poor Men of Lyons claim that any just person is greater than a sinner; consequently, a just layman is not blessed by a wicked priest, but the reverse. They would have it that every just man is a priest and no sinner is a priest.

I answer that this error is most destructive, because if a good minister is required for conferring the sacraments, in which salvation is found, it follows that no one could be sure of his salvation or know whether he was properly baptized, because he cannot know if the priest was just. For no one could be a minister, because no one knows whether he is worthy of hatred or love (Ecclesiastes 9:1). Therefore, it should be noted that a person can do something in two ways: either by his own authority or by someone else’s. When it is by his own authority, it is required that he be just. But a priest is only a minister; hence, he acts only in the power of Christ: Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1). Therefore, it does no harm whether the priest is good or bad, because it is Christ Who blesses through him. Hence, without any contradiction, the one who is greater blesses.

The second objection is this: since Christ is greater than any priest, how can a priest consecrate the body of Christ? I answer that the priest blesses the elements, not the body of Christ. Furthermore, he does not act by his own authority, but by that of Christ, Who as God is greater than His body.

The third objection is that it does not seem true that the greater always blesses the lesser, because the Pope is consecrated by a bishop, and an archbishop by a suffragan, both of whom are of lower rank. I answer that a bishop does not consecrate the Pope, nor the suffragan the archbishop; rather, they consecrate this man to be Pope or archbishop. Furthermore, they do this as ministers of God, Who is greater than the Pope.

Then when he says, Here tithes are received by mortal men, he shows the preeminence of the priesthood regarding the priest's own state. His reasoning is this: That which is not corrupted is more excellent. But in the Levitical priesthood, mortal men—that is, men whose office passes on through death—receive tithes. But there, in the priesthood of Melchizedek, they are received by one of whom Scripture testifies that he lives. Scripture makes no mention of his death, not because he did not die, but because he signifies a priesthood that continues forever: Christ, rising again from the dead, dies now no more (Romans 6:9); I was dead, and behold I am living forever and ever (Revelation 1:18).

Then when he says, and one might say that even Levi who received tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, he refutes a potential objection. For someone might say: it is true that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham who gave him tithes, but Levi is greater than Melchizedek. The Apostle argues that this is not a valid counterargument, because one might say that through Abraham, even Levi paid tithes to him who received them, that is, to Melchizedek. Therefore, Melchizedek is still greater than Levi.

However, an objection could be raised: if a bishop's father gives tithes, that does not make the bishop lesser than the one who receives them. Therefore, the same should hold true here. I answer that the situations are not the same, because the entire dignity of the Jewish race and of its priests stemmed from Abraham; but in the case of a bishop, his entire dignity derives from Christ, not from his father.

Then, in verse 10, he explains what he had said. He says that Levi was still in the loins of his father, Abraham, when Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, who met him. Consequently, when Abraham paid tithes, Levi also paid tithes in him. However, another objection arises: Christ was also in Abraham's loins, just as Levi was: The son of David, the son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1). Therefore, if the reason Melchizedek is greater than Levi is that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, there seems to be no reason why Christ did not also pay tithes; consequently, Melchizedek would be greater than Christ.

The same difficulty applies to original sin, because as it says in Romans 5:12, In whom all have sinned—that is, in Adam. Therefore, it seems that Christ, Who existed in Adam in the same way as we, should have contracted original sin. I answer that all this is understood in regard to those who were in Abraham or in Adam according to seminal reasons or bodily substance. For Christ, with respect to His body, was conceived from the most pure and holy substance of the Blessed Virgin, as it says in the Sentences (Book 3, Distinction 5).