Fragmenta in epistulam ad Hebraeos

The heretics say that the epistle is not by Paul, and they offer as their first proof that his name is not placed at the beginning as in the other epistles; second, that the phrasing is different, that is, foreign to Paul's style and composition. It is necessary, therefore, to know that Paul was hated by the Jews as one teaching apostasy from the law, and for this reason, having been in danger in Jerusalem and barely escaping, he was sent to Rome. Therefore, writing useful things to the Hebrews, he does not set his own name at the beginning, so that the hatred toward him might not cause them to lose the benefit from the epistle. He writes to them, as the blessed Severianus says, in the Hebrew language, which was translated by one of his disciples, by Luke, or rather by Clement, whom he also mentions. For this reason the phrasing is foreign. And this has been investigated by those before us, and Eusebius, the son of Pamphilus, who was more historical than those before and after him, made mention of the investigation, and that it seemed to our ancient fathers among the bishops that the epistle was by Paul. In a manifold manner according to the differences of the times in which the matters concerning us were administered, for example, in the generation of Adam, in the matters concerning Cain, in those concerning Noah, in those concerning Abraham, in those before the law, in those after the law; for the parts of God's administration on our behalf are many. And in various ways, because one commandment was given to Adam, another to Noah, another to Abraham, and another through Moses, and various ones through the prophets. He spoke to us in a son, that is, through a son.

For not in him as in an instrument, but through him as one administering flesh, so that the hearing of the Jews, beginning from this point and as if grasping the word by some groping, might thus be led up to the pre-eternal existence. For having said earlier: "He spoke to us in a son, whom he also appointed heir"—instead of "made"—he led the word up to the pre-eternal existence. And he does this continually, at one time ascending to theology, at another descending to the incarnation. Seeking to present more clearly that the Word was born from the essence of the Father, he mentioned the radiance; for the radiance is from the essence of that of which it is a radiance, and is continuous and from it and never conceived without that of which it is a radiance. But since the radiance shows the nature to be lesser than that of which it is a radiance and not in its own hypostasis, he presented this with another expression, saying: "and character of the hypostasis," having placed the first as a demonstration of being from the essence without division, and the second, that it is not without hypostasis. For just as John, having named the Word, added: "it was toward God and it was God," so also Paul, having said "radiance," added: "and character of the hypostasis." This is what Jeremiah says: "the mighty works of his words." Even if the Word became flesh, yet it was in glory and nature of divinity and did not depart from the highest thrones of God the Father; and though diminished a little compared to angels on account of the measure of humanity—for the nature of man sits below the glory of the angels—yet it was also thus above every name that is named.

Just as in the case of the radiance and the character he imitated the mind of John, who named the Word and said it was with God, so also here he imitates John. Just as he said: this one was in the beginning, all things came to be through him, instead of: this one was, these things were not, so also Paul: to the angels, "the one who makes," but to the Son, "your throne"—in order to show: that which is made was not, but the one who has a throne eternal was always with the Father. He does not speak of a change of nature taking place, but by way of comparison, that it is possible for these things to perish rather, and as they perish in relation to the juxtaposition with the eternity of the Son. For the Lord, foretelling the second coming, says that stars will fall, but no longer the sun or moon or heaven. To which of the angels has he ever spoken? Leaving aside all creation, he speaks of what is higher than this, the angels: for if there is a difference between the Son and the angels in that the latter came to be while the former did not come to be, how much more so with respect to all invisible things? It must be noted that through the phrase "but you are the same," he indicated both the pre-eternal and the unchangeable nature, and through saying "not all are liturgical spirits for service," he indicated that the Son is not a minister but a co-worker. He does not speak of law, but of that which was often administered through angels. It was confirmed to us by those who heard. This is similar to that in the Epistle to the Galatians, the "I went up according to a revelation, and I set before them the gospel, lest I run or had run in vain.

It was confirmed not because we asked, but because all the others were fully assured that what I proclaim, I proclaim rightly. He speaks of the coming age. Immediately at the end he added: but now we do not yet see all things subjected to him; but we see Jesus diminished a little compared to angels. So what is it that he mentions him? He says it pertains to Jesus; for the things of common humanity pertained to him. But as the Son himself says, "You have prepared praise from the mouths of infants and sucklings for the sake of your enemies, and I will see the heavens, works of your fingers," no one would say that the man whom God mentioned has made the praise prepared from the mouths of infants and sucklings for the sake of your enemies, and I will see the heavens, works of your fingers; this one mentioned the man and diminished him a little compared to angels. Who is the man? Jesus. Because of the suffering of death he is diminished a little compared to angels. Just as he introduces the present age as one day. He speaks of a division of soul and spirit, when the soul is affected by the body, but the grace of the Holy Spirit draws it toward the heavenly. Since the beginning of Christ was from Judaism—for he lived according to the law—for this reason he says: leaving this behind, let us be carried toward perfection, knowing that according to the order of Melchizedek one must be who is to be a priest without law. From dead works, and faith in God, of baptisms. For Christians, earthly things are dead.

It is absurd, then, he says, for those who have withdrawn from this way of life—whether the one according to faith or that of being dead to all things—to return again to the baptisms according to the law. The Lord came and proclaimed repentance, saying: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; and repentance from dead works. Thus one must read: repentance from dead works, that is, the repentance that comes from dead works. What he says, then, is this: It is not necessary, having abandoned the repentance from dead works and the faith in God and the baptism—which he named in the plural because of the multitude of those deemed worthy. He spoke of baptisms, and also the teaching, and the laying on of hands through which ordinations occur, and the hope of resurrection, and so forth—to run back to the law. He prepares this in advance, because the priests under the law defended the law, but Melchizedek was outside the law; and he who came was according to the order of Melchizedek. It is not necessary, he says, having abandoned the order of Melchizedek, to defend the priesthood under the law, so that the things under the law may remain standing. He called the things under the law a foundation, because they have become a prelude to piety for men. The apostles raised the dead. This was the power of the resurrection. He said "disparaging" because if baptism is a mystery, once is sufficient. But if the thing happens a second time, it is contempt and disparagement. He took an example, not for baptism—for how would he forbid a second baptism?—but for the power of the Holy Spirit, which often bestows benefits.

Having stated above the assurance of hope, he made clear that God provided Abraham with assurance—not the kind through works that pertains to the way of life, but the kind through divine economy. It is impossible for God, having sworn, to change; it was impossible for the power of the promise to be changed. He does not simply recall how Melchizedek met Abraham after he had overcome the Assyrians and gave him tithes from everything, but he shows that the forefather of the Levitical tribe used Melchizedek as a priest. Therefore, the priesthood without law is superior to the priesthood within the law. Without father, without mother, without genealogy according to the principle of priesthood, since in the Levitical tribe it was evident who was whose priest or whose priestess's son. There were also times of priesthood, and some had annual rotations, while others served as priests throughout their whole life. And both of these are found among the priests within the law, even if not at the same times. He calls Melchizedek fatherless, motherless, and without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life according to the principle of priesthood: for he had no priestly lineage, nor did he begin from somewhere as succeeding another, nor from a rotation, nor as having a law to be a priest for life. And altogether everything said is by way of comparison with the priests within the law. It is said about Melchizedek: "And being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." And how does Melchizedek remain a priest? The statement is a question, and the solution is this: just as he calls Moses the law, so here he sometimes calls Melchizedek the man, sometimes the priesthood itself.

If, then, Melchizedek has been likened through the priesthood that is according to Christ, it remains perpetually—not the mortal man, but the dignity of the priesthood. Just as the tabernacle was constructed in the time of Moses so that the liturgies might take place, so this greater tabernacle, the constitution of grace, is the body of Christ, having Christ as its head. By faith concerning future things, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau. He placed Jacob first, then Esau, not according to the order of birth, but according to the order of the blessing. Of whom the world was not worthy. He does not say this about all, but about these last ones whom he also knows as martyrs. He recalls those who pitched camps and, for the usefulness of the people, received grace. Having laid aside all bulk. Bulk is the sin of carnal enjoyment, from which easily besetting sin is born. He called sin "easily besetting" that which easily surrounds us and leads us into its own will. For a panegyris and feast of angels is the glory to God, and an assembly of firstborn enrolled in the heavens, with God as judge of all. This is what Paul says elsewhere: for he brings forward the form of this world, so that the temporary things may pass away and the eternal things may come. That is, those under the law do not have this gift of which we partake. And "outside the camp" means outside the legal ordinances and the Israelite camp.