Hebrews 5

Hebrews 5:1

Ignatius of Antioch: “Honour widows that are widows indeed.” Be the friend of orphans; for God is “the Father of the fatherless, and the Judge of the widows.” Do nothing without the bishops; for they are priests, and thou a servant of the priests. They baptize, offer sacrifice, ordain, and lay on hands; but thou ministerest to them, as the holy Stephen did at Jerusalem to James and the presbyters. Do not neglect the sacred meetings [of the saints]; inquire after every one by name. “Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example to the believers, both in word and conduct.” — Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch

John Chrysostom: The blessed Paul wishes to show in the next place that this covenant is far better than the old. This then he does by first laying down remote considerations. For inasmuch as there was nothing bodily or that made a show, no temple for instance, nor Holy of Holies, nor Priest with so great apparel, no legal observances, but all things higher and more perfect, and there was nothing of bodily things, but all was in things spiritual, and things spiritual did not attract the weak, as things bodily; he thoroughly sifts this whole matter.

And observe his wisdom: he makes his beginning from the priest first, and continually calls Him an High Priest, and from this first point shows the difference of the two Dispensations. On this account he first of all defines what a Priest is, and shows whether He has any things proper to a Priest, and whether there are any signs of priesthood. It was however an objection in his way that He Christ was not even well-born, nor was He of the sacerdotal tribe, nor a priest on earth. How then was He a Priest? some one may say.

And just as in the Epistle to the Romans having taken up an argument of which they were not easily persuaded, that Faith effects that which the labor of the Law could not, nor the sweat of the daily life, he betook himself to the Patriarch and referred the whole question to that time: so now here also he opens out the other path of the Priesthood, showing its superiority from the things which happened before. And as, in the matter of punishment, he brings before them not Hell alone, but also what happened to their fathers, so now here also, he first establishes this position from things present. For it were right indeed that earthly things should be proved from heavenly, but when the hearers are weak, the opposite course is taken.

Up to a certain point he lays down first the things which are common to Christ and their High Priests, and then shows that He is superior. For comparative excellence arises thus, when in some respects there is community, in others superiority; otherwise it is no longer comparative.

“For every High Priest taken from among men,” this is common to Christ; “is ordained for men in things pertaining to God,” and this also; “that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for the people,” and this too, yet not entirely: what follows however is no longer so: “who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way,” from this point forward is the superiority, “inasmuch as himself also is encompassed with infirmity; and by reason hereof he ought as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.” — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: He wants to show here that the New Testament is greater than the Old. And this he does by introducing a comparison from the priests. That one had priests taken from among men, but this one has Christ. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “taken from among men.” That is, being presented. If the one deals gently with those who are ignorant and going astray, how much more will the one who is both man and God deal gently with those who are ignorant and going astray? If this is understood, then the term “being taken” will be more readily accepted instead of “being set apart.” As one of the men, and being taken from them as a priest, he says… — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God.” Among men, he says, being appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining, he becomes in the things pertaining to God. And what are the things pertaining to God? He himself says, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins of the people. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Theodoret of Cyrus: Even under the law it was not an angel that was appointed to act as priest for human beings but a human being for human beings, with the same nature, affected by the same passions, understanding the weakness of nature, assigning pardon to the recalcitrant, offering a hand to sinners, treating what affects the neighbor as his own. This is the very reason he is appointed to offer sacrifices not for the people alone but also for himself. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 5

Hebrews 5:2

Ephrem the Syrian: And in consequence of his weakness Jesus “felt a proper compassion” for sins, because he had clothed himself with the flesh of sin. And he had the duty “to offer a sacrifice both for his people and for himself and his sins.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 5

Oecumenius: “To deal gently.” That is, to be sympathetic, to accommodate, and to forgive those who are ignorant, that is, those who sin out of ignorance and are misguided. And for those going astray, he says, from the people. “he himself is also surrounded by weakness.” The simple interpretation, which I think is also the truer one, is this: that for this reason the high priest is gentle toward those who are ignorant; because he himself is subject to weakness; and knowing the measure of human weakness in himself, he also measures out mercy. Or the high priest differs from the people only in this, that he is gentle and shows sympathy toward those who go astray; since in other respects he too is perhaps subject to weakness like the many. By weakness he means sins, or afflictions and temptations. But the phrase, “for sins,” he clearly stated that he called weakness sin. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 5:3

Oecumenius: “And because of this, he is obligated,” since he himself, he says, is under sin, and he must make the offering common for both his own and the sins for the people. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 5:4

Apostolic Constitutions: Neither do we permit the laity to perform any of the offices belonging to the priesthood; as, for instance, neither the sacrifice, nor baptism, nor the laying on of hands, nor the blessing, whether the smaller or the greater: for “no one taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God.” For such sacred offices are conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop. But a person to whom such an office is not committed, but he seizes upon it for himself, he shall undergo the punishment of Uzziah. — Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 3

Ephrem the Syrian: He did not obtain the high priesthood by usurpation, but just like Aaron, whom God elected with the leafy staff. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 5

John Chrysostom: Then also there are other points: He is made Priest (he says) by Another and does not of Himself intrude into the office. This too is common, “And no man taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.”

Here again he conciliates them in another point, because He was sent from God: which Christ was wont to say throughout to the Jews. “He that sent Me is greater than I,” and, “I came not of Myself.”

He appears to me in these words also to hint at the priests of the Jews, as being no longer priests, but intruders and corrupters of the law of the priesthood… — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: “To offer for sins.“The sacrifice concerning sins, he says, “And no one takes this honor upon himself.” He speaks of another characteristic of a priest, that he does not take it upon himself to approach the honor of the priesthood. This he also hinted at when he spoke of the priests of the Jews at that time, who were not priests by power, because they approached and had made the priesthood a service. “just as Aaron.” For Aaron was often appointed high priest by God. For indeed, at the beginning, he was called by God through Moses and thus consecrated, not by himself taking the office (Ex. 28:1). And again, when the rod budded (Num. 17:8), it was shown that he was divinely appointed; and when fire consumed those who improperly intruded upon the priesthood. (Num. 16) — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Theodoret of Cyrus: The one receiving appointment from God is the lawful high priest; this was the way Aaron, the first high priest, received the honor. The divine apostle said this, of course, not intending to inform us now of the norms for high priesthood, but to lay the groundwork for a treatment of the Lord’s high priesthood. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 5

Hebrews 5:5

Apostolic Constitutions: And as Uzziah the king, who was not a priest, and yet would exercise the functions of the priests, was smitten with leprosy for his transgression; so every lay person shall not be unpunished who despises God, and is so mad as to affront His priests, and unjustly to snatch that honour to himself: not imitating Christ, “who glorified not Himself to be made an high priest;” but waited till He heard from His Father, “The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.” If, therefore, Christ did not glorify Himself without the Father, how dare any man thrust himself into the priesthood who has not received that dignity from his superior, and do such things which it is lawful only for the priests to do? — Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 2

Cosmas Indicopleustes: The Apostle also mentions this passage, saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Even as Aaron, so Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee; as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec; thus extracting all that referred to the humanity of Christ. — The Christian Topography, Book 5

Gregory of Nazianzus: He whom presently you scorn was once transcendent over even you. He who is presently human was incomposite. He remained what he was; what he was not he assumed. No “because” is required for his existence in the beginning, for what could account for the existence of God? But later he came into being because of something, namely, your salvation, yours who insult him and despise his Godhead for that very reason, because he took on your thick corporeality. Through the medium of the mind he had dealings with the flesh, being made that God on earth which is human. Human and God blended; they became a single whole, the stronger side predominating, in order that I might be made God to the same extent that he was made man. He was begotten—yet he was already begotten—of a woman. — ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 3(29).19

John Chrysostom: He appears to me in these words also to hint at the priests of the Jews, as being no longer priests, but intruders and corrupters of the law of the priesthood; “So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest.”

How then was He appointed (one says)? For Aaron was many times appointed as by the Rod, and when the fire came down and destroyed those who wished to intrude into the priesthood. But in this instance, on the contrary, they the Jewish Priests not only suffered nothing, but even are in high esteem. Whence then His appointment? He shows it from the prophecy. He has nothing to allege perceptible by sense, nothing visible. For this cause he affirms it from prophecy, from things future; “But He that said unto Him Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.” What has this to do with the Son? Yea (he says) it is a preparation for His being appointed by God. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: So also Christ did not glorify himself to become a high priest. He also says this: “Christ is the first high priest, that he did not enter into the priesthood from himself, but was ordained by the Father.” Therefore, showing in clear terms that he was a priest according to the custom of the priests, in other respects he indicates how much he ought to excel as God of men. “but it was He who said to him.” He says, God having said this to him, ordained him as high priest… — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Tertullian: But the “Jesus” there alluded to is Christ, the Priest of God the most high Father; who at His First Advent came in humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made, through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was"clad with a garment down to the foot,” and named the Priest of God the Father unto eternity. So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-day. — An Answer to the Jews

Hebrews 5:6

John Chrysostom: “As He saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedech.” Unto whom now was this spoken?

Who is “after the order of Melchisedech”? No other than He. For they all were under the Law, they all kept sabbaths, they all were circumcised; one could not point out any other than Him. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: “As he says also in another place.” The “And,” as regards the sequence of the interpretation, is omitted. “according to the order of Melchizedek.” This one first offered an unbloody sacrifice to God, bread and wine. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: The reason is that Christ also offered an unbloody sacrifice, for first He offered this, and then later His own body. For this reason, it is accordingly said that Christ is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: That Melchizedek was not anointed into the priesthood by oil, as Aaron, and that he did not offer sacrifices by blood, and that he was a high priest of the nations, and that he blessed Abraham with bread and wine. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: The meaning of the word is that if Christ himself did not offer an unbloody sacrifice (for he offered his own body), then those priests who are deemed worthy by God and the high priest will offer an unbloody sacrifice from him. For this indicates, “forever.” For he would not have said “forever” regarding the one-time sacrifice and offering made by God, but he refers to the present priests through whom Christ ministers and is ministered to, having also given them in the mystical supper the manner of such ministry. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 5:7

Cyril of Alexandria: It was not while bare and not participating in the limits of his emptying that God the Word became our model, but “in the days of his flesh.” Then, quite legitimately, he could employ human limits and pray insistently and shed tears and even appear somehow to need a savior and learn obedience, though a Son. The inspired author is, so to speak, stupefied by the mystery that the Son, existing by nature truly and endowed with the glories of divinity, should so abase himself that he endured the low estate of our impoverished humanity. But this was for us, as I have said, a fine and useful example. — ON THE UNITY OF CHRIST 755

Cyril of Alexandria: For he gave voice to a strong cry and supplication when he became like us; and he was heard because he did not disobey, since by nature he was truly Son. — LETTER TO PULCHERIA AND EUDOXIA

Cyril of Alexandria: Consider the fact that the only begotten spoke these words only when he had become man and insofar as he was one of us and spoke on our behalf. It was just as though he had said, “The first man sinned by falling into disobedience; he paid no attention to the command which had been given.… But you have established me as a second beginning for those on earth, and I have been named a second Adam. In me you see human nature purified, established sinless, holy and pure. From now on bestow the good things of your mercy, loose despair, rebuke corruption, and put an end to the effects of your wrath. I have conquered even Satan, the ancient ruler, for he found in me absolutely nothing of his own.” — ON THE UNITY OF CHRIST 757

Cyril of Alexandria: Iron or any other like material, when joined to the impact of fire, receives it and nourishes the flame. If then it happens to be struck by someone, the material receives damage, but the nature of the fire is in no way harmed by the one who strikes. In the same way, you may understand the Son can be said to suffer in the flesh but not to suffer in his divinity. — ON THE UNITY OF CHRIST 776

Cyril of Alexandria: He wept in a human manner in order to suppress your tears. He experienced fear in virtue of the economy, at times allowing his flesh to feel what is proper to it in order to fill us with courage.… He slept in order that you might learn not to sleep in times of temptation but rather to apply yourself to prayer. Offering his life as a model of saintly existence to be used by earthly beings, he took on the weaknesses of humanity, and what was his purpose in doing this? That we might truly believe that he became man, although he remained what he was, namely, God. — LETTER TO EUOPTIUS, ANATHEMA 10

Ephrem the Syrian: Jesus’ prayers were granted, but how were his prayers granted if he had demanded to be delivered from death? To be sure, he was not saved. He wanted to fulfill in himself the will of the Father. And for this reason it was evident that he was the Son of God, because in behalf of human creatures he exposed his own soul for the rest of the soul of the one who sent him, and his obedience was made evident by the hands of those who crucified him. If, therefore, the crucifiers testify that his prayers were granted, if it is so, I say, he certainly wanted to die, and he demanded that the will of his Father was fulfilled. He offered supplications with loud claims to the one who was able to save him from death; he who was about to die did not ask for delivery from death nor demand to be resurrected after his death because this had been promised to him earlier, but he prayed for his crucifiers lest they might die in him. And his prayers were granted, because the door was opened so that his crucifiers might live in him. And the one who did these things, that is, the one who abased himself to such humility and suffering for his murderers is the Son of God; and from this it was evident that he was satisfied in those sufferings which he endured. In fact, some of his murderers were converted, and through their repentance they were the heralds of his resurrection. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Gregory of Nazianzus: Connected with this general view are the facts that he “learned obedience through what he suffered,” his “loud cries and tears,” the fact that he “offered up prayers,” that he “was heard” and he was “God-fearing.” These things are marvelously constructed drama dealing with us. As Word, he was neither obedient nor disobedient—the terms apply to amenable subordinates or inferiors who deserve punishment. But as the “form of a servant” he comes down to the same level as his fellow servants; receiving an alien “form,” he bears the whole of me, along with all that is mine, in himself, so that he may consume within himself the meaner element, as fire consumes wax or the sun ground mist, and so that I may share in what is his through the intermingling. — ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 4(30).6

John Chrysostom: “Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears, to Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared.” Seest thou that he sets forth nothing else than His care and the exceeding greatness of His love? For what means the expression “with strong crying”? The Gospel nowhere says this, nor that He wept when He prayed, nor yet that He uttered a cry. Seest thou that it was a condescension? For he could not merely say that He prayed, but also “with strong crying.”

Be it with “crying,” why also “strong crying and tears”?

“Having offered,” (he says), “and having been heard in that He feared.” What sayest thou? Let the Heretics be ashamed. The Son of God “was heard in that He feared.” And what more could any man say concerning the prophets? And what sort of connection is there, in saying, “He was heard in that He feared, though He were Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered”? Would any man say these things concerning God? Why, who was ever so mad? And who, even if he were beside himself, would have uttered these things? “Having been heard,” (he says), “in that He feared, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.” What obedience? He that before this had been obedient even unto death, as a Son to His Father, how did He afterwards learn? Seest thou that this is spoken concerning the Incarnation?

Tell me now, did He pray the Father that He might be saved from death? And was it for this cause that He was “exceeding sorrowful, and said, If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me”? Yet He nowhere prayed the Father concerning His resurrection, but on the contrary He openly declares, “Destroy this temple and within three days I will raise it up.” And, “I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again. No man taketh it from Me, I lay it down of Myself.” What then is it; why did He pray? And again He said, “Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death. And they shall deliver Him to the Gentiles, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him; and the third day He shall rise again” and said not, “My Father shall raise Me up again.” How then did He pray concerning this? But for whom did He pray? For those who believed on Him.

And what he means is this, “He is readily listened to.” For since they had not yet the right opinion concerning Him, he said that He was heard. Just as He Himself also when consoling His disciples said, “If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice, because I go to My Father”, and “My Father is greater than I.” But how did He not glorify Himself, He who “made Himself of no reputation”, He who gave Himself up? For, it is said, “He gave Himself” up “for our sins.” And again, “Who gave Himself a ransom for us all.” What is it then? Thou seest that it is in reference to the flesh that lowly things are spoken concerning Himself: So also here, “Although He were Son, He was heard in that He feared,” it is said. He wishes to show, that the success was of Himself, rather than of God’s favor. So great (he says) was His reverence, that even on account thereof God had respect unto Him. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: Who in the days of his flesh, he offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

— [OECUMENIUS] “Who in the days of his flesh.” Therefore, he did not say the days of the flesh, in which the Lord visibly lived on earth, as if he had now left the flesh itself. Far from it! For he has it, although incorruptible: but he calls the days of the flesh, that is, the days in which his life, which was in the flesh, lived. [end of the Oecumenius excerpt] —

“prayers and supplications.” Not only prayers and supplications, but also he offered them with cries and tears. However, Paul said that he was lowering himself to save them.

“and he was heard.” So much was he heard that he even rose again: this he said because of the weakness of the listeners, who had not yet conceived a glorious opinion of Christ.

“because of his reverent submission.” He said that he was heard not only out of the grace of the Father but also because of his own reverence. For his reverence was so great, he said, that the Father also revered him. However, there is a double reason for these humble words, namely the flesh and the weakness of the listeners.

“Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” Therefore, he says, He was so obedient (and He obeyed as is fitting for a Son to the Father) that after He was incarnate, He even endured the cross to death.

“And He learned from what He suffered.” He indeed says, What is death, being God? For what has God not known? But also from what he suffered, he learned. Not only, he says, as he was God, but also as he was man, having experienced death.

In another way. — [PHOTIUS] Two things are sought here, one, how it is said that he was heard, and yet he himself needed to pass by death, but he did not pass by. For he was indeed crucified and died. Secondly, from what kind of reverence does he say he was heard? And thirdly, although being the Son, to whom is he to be joined? To the one who was heard from reverence, or to those that follow, so that he may learn obedience from what he suffered, although being the Son. For there is not a small difference between these. As for the first, it is clear that the request was not one, but a certain double one: one rejecting death, the other requesting it. For he also says in the same prayer and supplication: “But let not my will be done, but yours.” (Luke 22:42) And to clarify this more clearly, John says that the Son asks, saying, “Father, glorify Your Son, that Your Son may also glorify You,” (Jn. 17:1) referring to the glory of the cross and death as he indicates. Thus, the divine Paul rightly says, “He was heard.” And this, from reverence, has come close to what has been said about being made clear. For we have mentioned two requests, one for the avoidance of death, the other for the acceptance of what was truly a matter of great reverence; “But not my will, but Yours.” (Luke 22:42) Therefore, Christ was heard, not from the avoidance, but from the reverence, that is, that request of His came forth, not according to the avoidance, but according to the reverence. For this reason, he says, and having been made perfect, that is, having been fully recognized through sufferings and the cross and death, he is exceedingly good and generous. This was also indicated above; speaking of prayers and supplications, he hinted at the duality of the request. Then, having spoken of prayers and supplications, he did not bring about the passing of death, but rather, towards the one who was able to save him from death, adding this well and wisely, so that when you contemplate him being crucified and buried, you should not think that he was held back by the power of the Father, but that it was a common will for Christ to suffer these things for the salvation of the world. This can also be said in relation to the resurrection. For in many places, the divine Paul, speaking, says that the Father raised Christ. Therefore, having raised him, he delivered him from death and saved him. But thus, in my opinion, these things are. As for the statement, “Although he was a Son,” if anyone were to take it in an extraordinary way (for the use of this is infinite to the divine Paul), the thought would be naturally advanced as follows: that in the days of his flesh, although he was a Son, he offered prayers and supplications, and moreover, that is, though having the greatest privilege as a Son, to do all things without supplication and request by the sovereign will, as the Father does, nevertheless, since he was in the days of the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications. It can also be accordingly connected with, “and he was heard because of his reverent submission,” as if he were saying, “He was heard,” although he was a Son, and did not need to be heard, having a will in harmony with the Father’s will, and being fulfilled without any request. If you connect it with what follows, the mind will benefit. But first, what does it mean to consider that He learned obedience from what He suffered? For He learned to obey the Father from what He suffered, and through experience, He gained knowledge of being subject to Him; or rather, He learned through experience the extent of obedience, how much He obeyed the Father, such as being crucified and dying, and rising again, and lifting up the human nature at the right hand of the Father, and saving humanity? For these things are from that obedience which was generated in saying, “Father, glorify Your Son.” (Jn. 17:1) For this obedience, however great and however much, before obeying the Father, Christ knew as Son and God, just as the Father did; and having been heard, He learned it through what He suffered and experienced. Therefore, as someone might grasp, my second interpretation seems more likely. Thus, it has no uncertainty in saying, “Although He was a Son.” [end of the Photius excerpt] — — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “Who in the days of his flesh.” Therefore, he did not he say the days of the flesh, in which the Lord visibly lived on earth, as if he had now left the flesh itself. Far from it! For he has it, although incorruptible: but he calls the days of the flesh, that is, the days in which his life, which was in the flesh, lived. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “prayers and supplications.” Not only prayers and supplications, but also he offered them with cries and tears. However, Paul said that he was lowering himself to save them. “and he was heard.” So much was he heard that he even rose again: this he said because of the weakness of the listeners, who had not yet conceived a glorious opinion of Christ. “because of his reverent submission.” He said that he was heard not only out of the grace of the Father but also because of his own reverence. For his reverence was so great, he said, that the Father also revered him. However, there is a double reason for these humble words, namely the flesh and the weakness of the listeners. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Photios I of Constantinople: Two things are most in need of investigation here. First, how can he say, “He was heard,” and yet he himself begged not to enter into death? He did not avoid death, for he was crucified and died. Second, on the basis of what sort of “godliness” was he heard? And third, to what should the phrase “although he was a Son” be adjoined? Does it belong to the clause “he was heard because of his godliness” or to the clause that follows, so that it would read, “although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered”? For it is not a small difference between those two. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 5.7-9

Photios I of Constantinople: Now as regards the first matter we say that he did not make one petition but a twofold one. For the one petition asked to avoid death, the other petition asked for death. For he also says in the same prayer and petition, “However, not my will but yours be done.” And John, showing this more clearly, says that the Son prayed by saying, “Father, glorify your Son, in order that your Son may glorify you,” calling the cross and death glory, as is clear. So the excellent Paul says quite well, “He was heard.” — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 5.7-9

Photios I of Constantinople: The phrase “on the basis of his godliness” comes closer to being understood from the things that have already been spoken. For we said that there were two petitions, the petition to be delivered from the death, and the petition of consent, which was really of much “godliness,” namely, the petition, “however, not my will, but yours, be done.” Therefore, Christ was heard not on the basis of his prayer to avoid death but on the basis of his “godliness,” that is, that petition of his came to pass, not the petition that sought to avoid death but the godly petition. Therefore, he says, “And having been made perfect,” that is, he was acknowledged as perfect and good beyond description and loving of humankind through his sufferings and cross and death. And he also hinted at this above, when he said, “petitions and supplications,” speaking rather enigmatically by doubling the petition. Then also when he said, “petitions and supplications,” he did not append the words about avoiding death but rather “to the One who was able to save him from death.” [He added this] well and very wisely, in order that whenever you think of him who was crucified and buried, you may not think that he endured this owing to the helplessness of his Father but because it was the common will (of the Father and the Son) that the Christ suffer these things for the salvation of the world. And this can be said also because of his resurrection. For the excellent Paul having uttered rather humble things in many places, says that the Father raised Christ. Therefore, having raised him, he rescued and delivered him from death. This is how these things are understood in my opinion. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 5.7-9

Tertullian: With regard also to the very dress and food, it commands (the penitent) to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to cover his body in mourning, to lay his spirit low in sorrows, to exchange for severe treatment the sins which he has committed; moreover, to know no food and drink but such as is plain,-not for the stomach’s sake, to wit, but the soul’s; for the most part, however, to feed prayers on fastings, to groan, to weep and make outcries unto the Lord your God; to bow before the feet of the presbyters, and kneel to God’s dear ones; to enjoin on all the brethren to be ambassadors to bear his deprecatory supplication (before God). — On Repentance

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Even if he [the Word] gave a certain exceptional cooperation to the one who was assumed, this does not mean that the divinity took the place of the mind. If the divinity did take the place of his mind in the assumed man, as you say, how is it that he felt fear in his passion? Why did he need strong prayers in the face of necessity, the strong prayers that he offered to God with a loud voice and many tears, according to blessed Paul? — TREATISES AGAINST APOLLINARIS 3.4

Theodoret of Cyrus: How would it be possible for God the Word to fear death, since he is the Creator of the ages, unchangeable, immutable, free of passion? Certainly it would be the height of folly to go on at length about the point. For the extreme humiliation that marks the theme of the passage compels even those who blaspheme the divinity to recognize that none of these things are suitable to the divinity. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 5

Theodoret of Cyrus: For the divinity allowed the humanity to suffer this so that we might learn that he truly became man and assumed a human nature and that the mystery of the incarnation was not perfected in appearance or seeming. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 5

Hebrews 5:8

John Chrysostom: “He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.” What obedience? He that before this had been obedient even unto death, as a Son to His Father, how did He afterwards learn? Seest thou that this is spoken concerning the Incarnation?

…“He learned,” he saith, to obey God. Here again he shows how great is the gain of sufferings. “And having been made perfect,” he says, “He became the Author of salvation to them that obey Him.” But if He, being the Son, gained obedience from His sufferings, much more shall we. Dost thou see how many things he discourses about obedience, that they might be persuaded to it? For it seems to me that they would not be restrained. “From the things,” he says, “which He suffered He” continually “learned” to obey God. And being “made perfect” through sufferings. This then is perfection, and by this means must we arrive at perfection. For not only was He Himself saved, but became to others also an abundant supply of salvation. For “being made perfect He became the Author of salvation to them that obey Him.” — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” Therefore, he says, He was so obedient (and He obeyed as is fitting for a Son to the Father) that after He was incarnate, He even endured the cross to death. “And He learned from what He suffered.” He indeed says, What is death, being God? For what has God not known? But also from what he suffered, he learned. Not only, he says, as he was God, but also as he was man, having experienced death. In another way. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Photios I of Constantinople: Now as far as the phrase “although being a Son” is concerned, if someone should understand it as a transposition—and such a trope is uncustomary for the excellent apostle—the natural reading of the passage would be something like this: “Who in the days of his flesh, although being a Son, made petitions and supplications,” etc. That is, although having the very great advantage of being a Son, which enabled him to do all things by his own autocratic opinion without any petition or request, even as the Father does, nonetheless, since he was in the days of the flesh, he offered petitions and supplications. And according to this understanding it can also be understood how the phrase was soon joined to “and being heard because of his godliness,” inasmuch as he says that he was heard, although being a Son, and not asking to be heard, inasmuch as he made his will concurrent to his Father’s will and it was fulfilled without any petition. But if you conjoin this clause with what follows, the understanding will also be guided in the right way in the manner that I will show. But first we ought to examine the meaning of the clause “he learned obedience from the things which he suffered.” It really cannot be that he himself learned from the things he suffered to obey his Father and that by testing he acquired knowledge of how to obey him, can it? Or is it not rather that by testing he learned such was the greatness of the obedience, with which the Father hearkened to him, in that he was crucified and died and rose and exalted the human race to be at the right hand of the Father and to save our race? For these sort of things pertain to that obedience which took place when he said, “Father, glorify your Son.” Christ, being the Son and God just as much as the Father, already knew this obedience and how great it was, even before he rendered obedience to the Father, but “having been heard” he learned it through the things he suffered and through the testing he underwent. Then, however one wishes to understand it—although to me the second way of understanding seems particularly well suited—the phrase “although being a Son” presents no difficulty. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 5.7-9

Tertullian: And this species of the divine patience indeed being, as it were, at a distance, may perhaps be esteemed as among “things too high for us; " but what is that which, in a certain way, has been grasped by hand among men openly on the earth? God suffers Himself to be conceived in a mother’s womb, and awaits the time for birth; and, when born, bears the delay of growing up; and, when grown up, is not eager to be recognised, but is furthermore contumelious to Himself, and is baptized by His own servant; and repels with words alone the assaults of the tempter; while from being” Lord” He becomes" Master," teaching man to escape death, having been trained to the exercise of the absolute forbearance of offended patience. He did not strive; He did not cry aloud; nor did any hear His voice in the streets. — Of Patience

Hebrews 5:9

Ephrem the Syrian: “He became the source of our eternal salvation” by replacing Adam, who had been the source of our death through his disobedience. But as Adam’s death did not reign in those who did not sin, so life reigns in those who do not need to be absolved. Even though he is a liberal giver of life, life is given to those who obey, not to those who fall away from him. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

John Chrysostom: “Being called,” he says, “of God an High Priest after the order of Melchisedech”: “Of whom we have many things to say and hard to be uttered or explained.” When he was about to proceed to the difference of the Priesthood, he first reproves them, pointing out both that such great condescension was “milk,” and that it was because they were children that he dwelt longer on the lowly subject, relating to the flesh, and speaks about Him as about any righteous man. And see, he neither kept silence as to the doctrine altogether, nor did he utter it; that on the one hand, he might raise their thoughts, and persuade them to be perfect, and that they might not be deprived of the great doctrines; and on the other, that he might not overwhelm their minds. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Leo the Great: Our origin, corrupted right after its start, needed to be reborn with new beginnings. A victim had to be offered for reconciliation, a victim that was at one and the same time both related to our race and foreign to our defilement. In this way alone could the plan of God—wherein it pleased him that the sin of the world should be wiped away through the birth and passion of Jesus Christ—in this way alone could the plan of God be of any avail for the times of every generation. Nor would the mysteries—as they pass through various developments in time—disturb us. Instead, they would reassure us, since the faith by which we live would not have differed at any stage.Let them stop complaining, those who speak up against the divine arrangements with a disloyal murmuring and object to the lateness of our Lord’s nativity—as if that which was done in the last age of the world was not applied to previous eras as well. For the incarnation of the Word accomplished by being about to take place the very same thing that it did by having taken place—as the mystery of human salvation never ceased to be active in any earlier age. What the apostles preached, the prophets had also announced. Nor was it too late in being fulfilled, since it has always been believed. But the wisdom and “kindness of God”—by this delay in his salvific work—has made us better disposed to accept his calling. That way, what had been foretold through so many ages by numerous signs, numerous words and numerous mysteries would not be open to doubt in these days of the gospel. That way, the birth of the Savior—which was to exceed all wonders and the whole measure of human intelligence—would engender in us a faith all the more steadfast, the more often and the earlier it had been proclaimed beforehand. No, indeed, it is not that God has just recently come up with a plan for attending to human affairs, nor that it has taken him this long to show compassion. Rather, he laid down from the very “foundation of the world” one and the same “cause of salvation” for all. For the grace of God—by which the entire assembly of saints has always been justified—was not initiated at the time when Christ was born, but augmented. This “mystery of great compassion,” with which the whole world has now been filled, was so powerful even in its prefigurations that those who believed it when promised attained to it no less than those who received it when actually given. — SERMON 23.3-4

Oecumenius: “And having been made perfected.” This then is perfection among men, to attain perfection through sufferings. And he has spoken all things becoming of a man, behold, also becoming of God; “he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” That is, not only was he himself saved, but he also brought salvation to others; and not temporary, derived from wars, but eternal. To whom is this? To those who obey. How then do you disobey and risk falling away from the grace? Do you see that the whole argument is thus shaped because of the faint-heartedness of the hearers? But look here, how exalted it is! For he says he became the cause of salvation; which belongs to divinity; for no one else is the cause of such salvation except God. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Theodoret of Cyrus: By “being made perfect” he referred to resurrection and immortality, this being the completion of the incarnation. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 5

Hebrews 5:10

Oecumenius: “being designated by God a High Priest.” And having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." Therefore, this is perfection in humans, that through sufferings they attain completeness. And He has said everything fitting for a human. “the source of eternal salvation.” — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: Behold also that which responds to divinity. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Tertullian: For whence was Noah “found righteous,” if in his case the righteousness of a natural law had not preceded? Whence was Abraham accounted “a friend of God,” if not on the ground of equity and righteousness, (in the observance) of a natural law? Whence was Melchizedek named “priest of the most high God,” if, before the priesthood of the Levitical law, there were not levites who were wont to offer sacrifices to God? For thus, after the above-mentioned patriarchs, was the Law given to Moses, at that (well-known) time after their exode from Egypt, after the interval and spaces of four hundred years. — An Answer to the Jews

Hebrews 5:11

John Chrysostom: “Of whom,” he says, “we have many things to say and hard to be explained, seeing ye are dull of hearing.” Because they do not hear, the doctrine is “hard to be explained.” For when one has to do with men who do not go along with him nor mind the things that are spoken, he cannot well explain the subject to them.

But perhaps some one of you that stand here, is puzzled, and thinks it a hard case, that owing to the Hebrews, he himself is hindered from hearing the more perfect doctrines. Nay rather, I think that perhaps here also except a few, there are many such as they, so that this may be said concerning yourselves also: but for the sake of those few I will speak.

Did he then keep entire silence, or did he resume the subject again in what follows; and do the same as in the Epistle to the Romans? For there too, when he had first stopped the mouths of the gainsayers, and said, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”, he then subjoined the solution. And for my own part I think that he was not even altogether silent, and yet did not speak it out, in order to lead the hearers to a longing for the knowledge. For having mentioned the subject, and said that certain great things were stored up in the doctrine, see how he frames his reproof in combination with panegyric.

For this is ever a part of Paul’s wisdom, to mix painful things with kind ones. Which he also does in the Epistle to the Galatians, saying, “Ye did run well; who did hinder you?” And, “Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain”, and, “I have confidence in you in the Lord.” Which he says also to these Hebrews, “But we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation.” For these two things he effects, he does not overstrain them, nor suffer them to fall back; for if the examples of others are sufficient to arouse the hearer, and to lead him to emulation; when a man has himself for an example and is bidden to emulate himself, the possibility follows at the same time. He therefore shows this also, and does not suffer them to fall back as men utterly condemned, nor as being alway evil, but says that they were once even good; for “when for the time ye ought to be teachers,” he says. Here he shows that they had been believers a long while, and he shows also that they ought to instruct others.

But what produces this dullness? This he pointed out especially in the Epistle to the Corinthians, saying, “For whereas there is among you envy and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal?” But observe, I beseech you, his great wisdom, how he always deals according to the distempers before him. For there the weakness arose more from ignorance, or rather from sin; but here not from sins only, but also from continual afflictions. Wherefore he also uses expressions calculated to show the difference, not saying, “ye are become carnal,” but “dull”: in that case “carnal,” but in this the pain is greater. For they the Corinthians indeed were not able to endure his reproof, because they were carnal: but these were able. For in saying, “Seeing ye are become dull of hearing”, he shows that formerly they were sound in health, and were strong, fervent in zeal, which he also afterwards testifies respecting them. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: “Concerning this Christ, there is much to say and it is hard to explain.” He says it is because of you, that you are sluggish, and you do not grasp the more perfect things about Him. For having spoken so many humble things about the incarnation, he wished to move on to the divine matters. Therefore, because of your cause, he says, that you are sluggish and do not allow for the perfect things, the word concerning how Christ is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek is hard to explain. And because you do not understand, for this reason I am not able to interpret it well. “since you have become sluggish.” Trials and tribulations, he says, have made you sluggish, and you are not able to listen perfectly to the words. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Tertullian: What was the subject-matter which led the apostle to write such (words)? The inexperience of a new and just rising Church, which he was rearing, to wit, “with milk,” not yet with the “solid food” of stronger doctrine; inexperience so great, that that infancy of faith prevented them from yet knowing what they were to do in regard of carnal and sexual necessity. — On Monogamy

Theodoret of Cyrus: To those still lacking perfect faith the heralds of the truth propose only things to do with the humanity. This is the way followed by blessed Peter in addressing Jews. He accommodated his teaching to the limitations of the listeners, saying, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God,” and so on in keeping with this theme. The divinely inspired Paul in proposing the message to the Athenians called Christ the Lord not God but a man. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 5

Hebrews 5:12

Clement of Alexandria: For there were certainly, among the Hebrews, some things delivered unwritten. “For when ye ought to be teachers for the time,” it is said, as if they had grown old in the Old Testament, “ye have again need that one teach you which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that par-taketh of milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe, being instructed with the first lessons. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, who by reason of use have their senses exercised so as to distinguish between good and evil. Wherefore, leaving the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection.” — The Stromata Book 5

Clement of Alexandria: For Paul too, in the Epistles, plainly does not disparage philosophy; but deems it unworthy of the man who has attained to the elevation of the Gnostic, any more to go back to the Hellenic “philosophy,” figuratively calling it “the rudiments of this world,” as being most rudimentary, and a preparatory training for the truth. Wherefore also, writing to the Hebrews, who were declining again from faith to the law, he says, “Have ye not need again of one to teach you which are the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat?” So also to the Colossians, “Beware lest any man spoil you by philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ,"-enticing them again to return to philosophy, the elementary doctrine. — The Stromata Book 6

John Chrysostom: At all events observe him continually travailing to introduce the discourse concerning the High Priest, and still putting it off. For hear how he began: “Having a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens”; and omitting to say how He was great, he says again, “For every High Priest taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God.” And again, “So Christ also glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest.” And again after saying, “Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech”, he again puts off the subject, saying, “Who in the days of His Flesh offered prayers and supplications.” When therefore he had been so many times repulsed, he says, as if excusing himself, The blame is with you. Alas! how great a difference! When they ought to be teaching others, they are not even simply learners, but the last of learners. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God.” Here he means the Human Nature of Christ. For as in external literature it is necessary to learn the elements first, so also here they were first taught concerning the human nature.

Thou seest what is the cause of his uttering lowly things. So Paul did to the Athenians also, discoursing and saying, “The times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead.” Therefore, if he says anything lofty, he expresses it briefly, while the lowly statements are scattered about in many parts of the Epistle. And thus too he shows the lofty; since the very lowliness of what is said forbids the suspicion that these things relate to the Divine Nature. So here also the safe ground was kept.

“And are become such as have need of milk, not of strong meat.” He always calls the lowly doctrine “milk,” both in this place and in the other. “When,” he says, “for the time ye ought to be teachers”: because of that very thing, namely the time, for which ye ought especially to be strong, for this especially ye are become backsliding. Now he calls it “milk,” on account of its being suited to the more simple. But to the more perfect it is injurious, and the dwelling on these things is hurtful. So that it is not fitting that matters of the Law should be introduced now or the comparison made from them, such as that He was an High Priest, and offered sacrifice, and needed crying and supplication. Wherefore see how these things are unhealthful to “us”; but at that time they nourished them being by no means unhealthful to them.

So then the oracles of God are true nourishment. “For I will give unto them,” he saith, “not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord.”

“I gave you milk to drink, and not meat”; He did not say, I fed you, showing that such nourishment as this is not food, but that the case is like that of little children who cannot be fed with bread. For such have not drink given them, but their food is to them instead of drink.

Moreover he did not say, “ye have need,” but “ye are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat.” That is, ye willed it; ye have reduced yourselves to this, to this need. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: “For although you ought to be teachers.” He brings forth the accusation with praise. For you are sluggish and careless, he says, although you should also teach others according to the reason of the time. Thus, it shows that they had believed a long time ago,and have heard mysteries; both of these things are worthy of praise, provided they themselves have not been careless. Time, he says, makes people stronger; but you have used this in vain, having been set free. “since you have become sluggish in hearing.” The trials and tribulations, he says, have made you sluggish, and you are not able to listen to perfect words. “For although you ought to be teachers by this time.” Then he brings the accusation with praise. For he says you are dull and lazy, though you ought to be teaching others by now because of the length of time. Thus he shows that they had trusted much and had heard the mysteries; both of these things are worthy of praise if they themselves had not become lazy. Time, he says, makes stronger; but you have wasted this opportunity after being set free. For though you ought to be teachers, you are not only not teachers, but you are also unable to learn anything except the elementary, humble, and simple things; and even these not simply, but the weaker still, the elements of the beginning of the words of God. He does not say the elements of words, but the elements of the beginning of words. The elements of the words of God would reasonably be the words concerning the incarnation; but the elements of the beginning of words, which he goes on to say, are: “Not again a foundation,” and so forth. For you are indeed ought to be teachers, not only are you not teachers, but you are also unable to learn, unless it be the most elementary, humble, and simplest things. And these not simply, but he who is still weaker, the basic principles of the oracles of God. He does not say the oracles, but the basic principles of the oracles of God. And if there are basic principles of the oracles of God, those concerning the incarnation. But the basic principles of the oracles, which he says, “You need again a foundation,” and so forth. “You need again to be taught something.” What to teach? The principles, he says. “The basic principles.” The basic principles, he speaks of the incarnation.but the elements of the beginning of words, which he goes on to say, are: “Not again a foundation,” and so forth. For just as we first learn the letters in writing, so also with divine oracles it was necessary to first teach about the incarnation. For these are suitable for the unbelieving and still infant ears. As for philosophizing about the divinity of Christ, it was therefore complete. Do you see the reason why it accommodates the humble? Because of the weakness of the listeners, who are not strong enough to receive the perfect things. Therefore, even at the beginning of the Epistle, having briefly philosophized about the divinity of Christ, he immediately ceased his discourse. The Epistle is indeed filled with the humble. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: Basic principles of the oracles of God, he called the humbler sayings about Christ. For those who have not yet attained perfect faith, the only things offered were about humanity, the preachers of the truth. Thus, the blessed Peter measured his teaching to the weakness of the listeners while speaking to the Jews. “Jesus,” he said, “the Nazarene, a man approved by God among you.” (Acts 2:22) And the following things happened according to this account. And the divine Paul, offering the proclamation to the Athenians, did not call Christ God, but a man, the master. (Acts 17:31) — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “And you have become in need.” He did not say that you have a need, but that you yourselves have become such, that is, you have made yourselves so out of laziness, not being such by nature. “Of milk and not solid food.” He refers to the humble sayings about Christ as milk, those concerning the flesh; but solid food refers to the perfect ones concerning his divinity. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Origen of Alexandria: For we do everything in our power to see that our gathering consists of intelligent people, and we dare to bring forward in common discourse at the time of our gathering our most noble and divine beliefs when we have an intelligent audience. But we conceal and pass over the more profound truths whenever we see that the meeting consists of simple-minded folk who are in need of that teaching which is figuratively called milk. — AGAINST CELSUS 3.52

Hebrews 5:13

Clement of Alexandria: Philosophers, then, are children, unless they have been made men by Christ. “For if the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free,” at least he is the seed of Abraham, though not of promise, receiving what belongs to him by free gift. “But strong meat belongeth to those that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” “For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe,” and not yet acquainted with the word, according to which he has believed and works, and not able to give a reason in himself. “Prove all things,” the apostle says, “and hold fast that which is good,” speaking to spiritual men, who judge what is said according to truth, whether it seems or truly holds by the truth. — The Stromata Book 1

Ephrem the Syrian: “Every one who lives on milk” as food … whose hope of salvation is in the promises of the earthly law, is “unskilled in the word of righteousness,” that is, in the crucifixion of our flesh, by which the righteousness of God is proclaimed. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 5

John Chrysostom: “For every one that partaketh of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.” What is “the Word of righteousness”? He seems to me here to hint at conduct also. That which Christ also said, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees”, this he says likewise, “unskilled in the word of righteousness,” that is, he that is unskilled in the philosophy that is above, is unable to embrace a perfect and exact life. Or else by “righteousness” he here means Christ, and the high doctrine concerning Him.

That they then were “become dull,” he said; but from what cause, he did not add, leaving it to themselves to know it, and not wishing to make his discourse hard to bear. But in the case of the Galatians he both “marveled” and “stood in doubt”, which tends much more to encourage, as it is the language of one who would never have expected that this should happen. For this is what the doubting implies.

Thou seest that there is another infancy, Thou seest that there is another full age. Let us become of “full age” in this sense: It is in the power even of those who are children, and the young to come to that “full age”: for it is not of nature, but of virtue. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Oecumenius: To those who are still infants, faith is seen in humble words, (for milk is suitable for infants), but to the perfect, faith is in solid food and the high thinking concerning Christ. “For everyone who lives on milk.” For everyone, he says, who partakes of humble words, concerning the humanity of the Lord, (for these are the milk), is unskilled and lacks the word of righteousness. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 5:14

Augustine of Hippo: If anyone wanted to take everything that was said according to the letter … and could avoid blasphemies and explain everything in harmony with the Catholic faith, we should not only bear him no hostility but also regard him as a leading and highly praiseworthy interpreter. But if there is no way in which we can understand what has been written in a manner that is pious and worthy of God without believing that these things have been set before us in figures and in enigmas, we have the apostolic authority by which so many enigmas from the books of the Old Testament are solved. So let us hold on to the manner of exposition that we have taken up, with the help of him who urges us to ask, to seek and to knock, in order to explain all those figures of things according to the Catholic faith, both those that pertain to history and those that pertain to prophecy. We do this without prejudice to a better and more careful treatment, whether God should deign to make it known through us or through others. — ON GENESIS, AGAINST THE MANICHEANS 2.2.3

Clement of Alexandria: Philosophers, then, are children, unless they have been made men by Christ. “For if the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free,” at least he is the seed of Abraham, though not of promise, receiving what belongs to him by free gift. “But strong meat belongeth to those that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” “For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe,” and not yet acquainted with the word, according to which he has believed and works, and not able to give a reason in himself. “Prove all things,” the apostle says, “and hold fast that which is good,” speaking to spiritual men, who judge what is said according to truth, whether it seems or truly holds by the truth. “He who is not corrected by discipline errs, and stripes and reproofs give the discipline of wisdom,” the reproofs manifestly that are with love. “For the right heart seeketh knowledge.” “For he that seeketh the Lord shall find knowledge with righteousness; and they who have sought it rightly have found peace.” — The Stromata Book 1

Clement of Alexandria: Just as we say that it is possible to have faith without being literate, so we assert that it is not possible to understand the statements contained in the faith without study. To assimilate the right affirmations and reject the rest is not the product of simple faith but of faith engaged in learning. Ignorance involves a lack of education and learning. It is teaching that implants in us the scientific knowledge of things divine and human. It is possible to live uprightly in poverty. It is also possible in wealth. We admit that it is easier and quicker to track down virtue if we have a preliminary education. It can be hunted down without these aids, although even then those with learning, “with their faculties trained by practice,” have an advantage. — The Stromata Book 1

Clement of Alexandria: It is, then, our purpose to prove that the Gnostic alone is holy and pious, and worships the true God in a manner worthy of Him; and that worship meet for God is followed by loving and being loved by God. He accordingly judges all excellence to be honourable according to its worth; and judges that among the objects perceived by our senses, we are to esteem rulers, and parents, and every one advanced in years; and among subjects of instruction, the most ancient philosophy and primeval prophecy; and among intellectual ideas, what is oldest in origin, the timeless and unoriginated First Principle, and Beginning of existence-the Son-from whom we are to learn the remoter Cause, the Father, of the universe, the most ancient and the most beneficent of all; not capable of expression by the voice, but to be reverenced with reverence, and silence, and holy wonder, and supremely venerated; declared by the Lord, as far as those who learned were capable of comprehending, and understood by those chosen by the Lord to acknowledge; “whose senses,” says the apostle, “were exercised.” — The Stromata Book 7

Ephrem the Syrian: “Solid food is for the mature,” that is, the passion written in the new gospel, and about them it was written, “make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” In their own taste, thanks to the right measure of their faith, “they have been trained to distinguish good from evil,” that is, by themselves and not by the law. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

John Chrysostom: “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even them who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” Those had not “their senses exercised,” nor did they “know good and evil.” He is not speaking now concerning life and conduct, when he says “to discern good and evil,” for this is possible and easy for every man to know, but concerning doctrines that are wholesome and sublime, and those that are corrupted and low. The babe knows not how to distinguish bad and good food. Oftentimes at least it even puts dirt into its mouth, and takes what is hurtful; and it does all things without judgment; but not so the full grown man. Such babes are they who lightly listen to everything, and give up their ears indiscriminately: which seems to me to blame these Hebrews also, as being lightly “carried about,” and now giving themselves to these, now to those. Which he also hinted near the end of the Epistle, saying, “Be not carried aside by divers and strange doctrines.” This is the meaning of “to discern good and evil.” “For the mouth tasteth meat, but the soul trieth words.”

Let us then learn this lesson. Do not, when thou hearest that a man is not a Heathen nor a Jew, straightway believe him to be a Christian; but examine also into all the other points; for even Manichaeans, and all the heresies, have put on this mask, in order thus to deceive the more simple. But if we “have the senses” of the soul “exercised to discern both good and evil,” we are able to discern such teachers.

But how do our “senses” become “exercised”? By continual hearing; by experience of the Scriptures. For when we set forth the error of those Heretics, and thou hearest today and to-morrow; and provest that it is not right, thou hast learnt the whole, thou hast known the whole: and even if thou shouldest not comprehend to-day, thou wilt comprehend to-morrow.

“That have,” he says, their “senses exercised.” Thou seest that it is needful to exercise our hearing by divine studies, so that they may not sound strangely. “Exercised,” saith he, “for discerning,” that is, to be skilled. — Homily on Hebrews 8

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom, which they who worship frail objects, or maintain an empty philosophy, deride as folly and vanity, because we are not accustomed to defend and assert it in public, since God orders us in quietness and silence to hide His secret, and to keep it within our own conscience; and not to strive with obstinate contention against those who are ignorant of the truth, and who rigorously assail God and His religion not for the sake of learning, but of censuring and jeering. For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. — The Divine Institutes Book 7, Chapter XXVI

Oecumenius: And he speaks of the word of righteousness, which concerns the divinity of the Lord. “solid food.” The lofty word, and the high doctrines concerning Christ. “by constant practice.” He refers to habit, perfection, the well-trained, having their senses exercised, such as hearing, tongue, eyes. Indeed, he speaks of the senses of the soul. To distinguish, he says, what is good, and high doctrines, and what are the spurious and corrupt. He hints at those who teach anything to everyone, giving themselves and being persuaded. For he who receives everything simply, has indiscriminately both good and evil. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Origen of Alexandria: For in the words of the Song of Songs there is that food of which the Apostle speaks: “But solid food belongs to the perfect” … And indeed the little ones whom we have mentioned, if they should come to these passages, it may be that they will gain nothing from this Scripture, yet neither will they be greatly harmed … For, not knowing how to hear the names of love with pure and chaste ears … For this reason, therefore, I give warning and counsel to everyone who is not yet free from the troubles of flesh and blood … that he abstain wholly from the reading of this little book … For they say that among the Hebrews this too is observed: that unless a man has arrived at a perfect and mature age, he is not even permitted to hold this little book in his hands … together with those which they call deuteroseis, these four things are reserved to the last — that is, the beginning of Genesis … and the beginnings of the prophet Ezekiel … and the end, in which the building of the temple is contained; and this book of the Song of Songs. — COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS, PROLOGUE

Shepherd of Hermas: If you serve good desire, and be subject to it, you will gain the mastery over evil desire, and make it subject to you even as you wish. — Shepherd of Hermas, Commandment 12

Symeon the New Theologian: We ought to evaluate well all the thoughts that come upon us and compare and contrast them to the testimonies from the divinely inspired Scriptures and from the teaching of the spiritual and holy fathers. If we find that our thoughts are in tune with these testimonies and have an equivalent meaning, then we ought to hold fast to them with all our might and confidently carry them out in action. But if they are not in harmony with “the word of truth,” then we ought to put them away from ourselves with great anger, just as it is written, “Be angry and do not sin.” For we must flee the attack which springs up from passionate thoughts, as something defiled and bearing the sting of death. Accordingly, we have need of great sober-mindedness, great zeal, much searching of the divine Scriptures. For the Savior used to say, “Search the Scriptures,” indicating to us their usefulness. Search and hold fast with great precision and faith the things that are said, so that, understanding the will of God accurately from the divine Scriptures, you may be able without stumbling to distinguish the noble from the inferior, and not obey every spirit, nor be carried about by harmful thoughts. Be fully convinced, my brothers, that there is nothing so prone to save us as closely following the divine commands of our Savior. All the same, we need many tears, much fear, much perseverance and continual prayer, that the force of even one of the Master’s sayings might be revealed to us, so that we may know the great mystery hidden in little words and lay down our lives unto death even for a single stroke of a letter of the commandments of God. For the word of God is “like a two-edged sword,” cutting off and separating the soul from every bodily craving and sensation. And not only that, it also becomes like a burning fire, arousing our soul’s eagerness and causing us to despise all of life’s painful experiences, and to consider all joy trial when it comes upon us, and to desire and greet death, which is fearful to other people, as life and that which produces life. — DISCOURSE 3.8