Hebrews 7:1

The foregoing chapter ended with a repetition of what had been cited once and again before out of Psa 110:4, Jesus, a high priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. Now this chapter is as a sermon upon that text; here the apostle sets before them some of the strong meat he had spoken of before, hoping they would by greater diligence be better prepared to digest it.

I. The great question that first offers itself is, Who was this Melchisedec? All the account we have of him in the Old Testament is in Gen 14:18, etc., and in Psa 110:4. Indeed we are much in the dark about him; God has thought fit to leave us so, that this Melchisedec might be a more lively type of him whose generation none can declare. If men will not be satisfied with what is revealed, they must rove about in the dark in endless conjectures, some fancying him to have been an angel, others the Holy Ghost; but,

1. The opinions concerning him that are best worthy our consideration are these three: - (1.) Therabbin, and most of the Jewish writers, think he was Shem the son of Noah who was king and priest to their ancestors, after the manner of the other patriarchs; but it is not probable that he should thus change his name. Besides, we have no account of his settling in the land of Canaan. (2.) Many Christian writers have thought him to be Jesus Christ himself, appearing by a special dispensation and privilege to Abraham in the flesh, and who was known to Abraham by the name Melchisedec, which agrees very well to Christ, and to what is said, Joh 8:56, Abraham saw his day and rejoiced. Much may be said for this opinion, and what is said in Heb 7:3 does not seem to agree with any mere man; but then it seems strange to make Christ a type of himself. (3.) The most general opinion is that he was a Canaanite king, who reigned in Salem, and kept up religion and the worship of the true God; that he was raised to be a type of Christ, and was honoured by Abraham as such.

2. But we shall leave these conjectures, and labour to understand, as far as we can, what is here said of him by the apostle, and how Christ is represented thereby, Heb 7:1-3. (1.) Melchisedec was a king, and so is the Lord Jesus - a king of God's anointing; the government is laid upon his shoulders, and he rules over all for the good of his people. (2.) That he was king of righteousness: his name signifies the righteous king. Jesus Christ is a rightful and a righteous king - rightful in his title, righteous in his government. He is the Lord our righteousness; he has fulfilled all righteousness, and brought in an everlasting righteousness, and he loves righteousness and righteous persons, and hates iniquity. (3.) He was king of Salem, that is, king of peace; first king of righteousness, and after that king of peace. So is our Lord Jesus; he by his righteousness made peace, the fruit of righteousness is peace. Christ speaks peace, creates peace, is our peace-maker. (4.) He was priest of the most high God, qualified and anointed in an extraordinary manner to be his priest among the Gentiles. So is the Lord Jesus; he is the priest of the most high God, and the Gentiles must come to God by him; it is only through his priesthood that we can obtain reconciliation and remission of sin. (5.) He was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, Heb 7:3. This must not be understood according to the letter; but the scripture has chosen to set him forth as an extraordinary person, without giving us his genealogy, that he might be a fitter type of Christ, who as man was without father, as God without mother; whose priesthood is without descent, did not descend to him from another, nor from him to another, but is personal and perpetual. (6.) That he met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him. The incident is recorded Gen 14:18, etc. He brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his servants when they were weary; he gave as a king, and blessed as a priest. Thus our Lord Jesus meets his people in their spiritual conflicts, refreshes them, renews their strength, and blesses them. (7.) That Abraham gave him a tenth part of all (Heb 7:2), that is, as the apostle explains it, of all the spoils; and this Abraham did as an expression of his gratitude for what Melchisedec had done for him, or as a testimony of his homage and subjection to him as a king, or as an offering vowed and dedicated to God, to be presented by his priest. And thus are we obliged to make all possible returns of love and gratitude to the Lord Jesus for all the rich and royal favours we receive from him, to pay our homage and subjection to him as our King, and to put all our offerings into his hands, to be presented by him to the Father in the incense of his own sacrifice. (8.) That this Melchisedec was made like unto the Son of God, and abideth a priest continually. He bore the image of God in his piety and authority, and stands upon record as an immortal high priest; the ancient type of him who is the eternal and only-begotten of the Father, who abideth a priest for ever.

II. Let us now consider (as the apostle advises) how great this Melchisedec was, and how far his priesthood was above that of the order of Aaron (Heb 7:4, Heb 7:5, etc.): Now consider how great this man was, etc. The greatness of this man and his priesthood appears, 1. From Abraham's paying the tenth of the spoils unto him; and it is well observed that Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham, Heb 7:9. Now Levi received the office of the priesthood from God, and was to take tithes of the people, yet even Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec, as to a greater and higher priest than himself; therefore that high priest who should afterwards appear, of whom Melchisedec was a type, must be much superior to any of the Levitical priests, who paid tithes, in Abraham, to Melchisedec. And now by this argument of persons doing things that are matters of right or injury in the loins of their predecessors we have an illustration how we may be said to have sinned in Adam, and fallen with him in his first transgression. We were in Adam's loins when he sinned, and the guilt and depravity contracted by the human nature when it was in our first parents are equitably imputed and derived to the same nature as it is in all other persons naturally descended from them. They justly adhere to the nature, and it must be by an act of grace if ever they be taken away. 2. From Melchisedec's blessing of Abraham, who had the promises; and, without contradiction, the less is blessed of the greater, Heb 7:6, Heb 7:7. Here observe, (1.) Abraham's great dignity and felicity - that he had the promises. He was one in covenant with God, to whom God had given exceedingly great and precious promises. That man is rich and happy indeed who has an estate in bills and bonds under God's own hand and seal. These promises are both of the life that now is and of that which is to come; this honour have all those who receive the Lord Jesus, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. (2.) Melchisedec's greater honour - in that it was his place and privilege to bless Abraham; and it is an uncontested maxim that the less is blessed of the greater, Heb 7:7. He who gives the blessing is greater than he who receives it; and therefore Christ, the antitype of Melchisedec, the meriter and Mediator of all blessings to the children of men, must be greater than all the priests of the order of Aaron.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

VII.

JESUS THE HIGH PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.

(1) For this Melchisedec.—The sentence is completed in the last words of Heb_7:3, . . . “abideth a priest continually;” the connection with the last chapter, therefore, is very clear. Of Melchizedek we know nothing beyond what we learn from the brief narrative of Genesis 14. A Jewish legend, preserved in the later Targums on the Pentateuch, but not in the Targum of Onkelos, identifies him with the patriarch Shem; and many conjectures of a later date (stimulated by the remarkable language of these verses) have been far wilder in their extravagance. It may be that the result of these speculations has been to invest this chapter with a mystery which does not belong to it. The object of the writer is, in reality, very simple—to deal with the question, What is the import of the divine utterance that David’s Lord is a “Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”? Not to take up the history of Melchizedek and allegorise each part, but to point out the full meaning of the comparison made in the prophecy, which declares the priesthood of the future King to be “after the order of Melchizedek—i.e., to be such as the priesthood of Melchizedek typically set forth. The first part of this sentence (Heb_7:1-2, as far as “. . . tenth part of all”) enumerates the known facts of the history of Melchizedek; the following clauses are occupied with the interpretation of the history, and with inferences from it. Of the facts recorded in Genesis none are passed over, except the gift of bread and wine; the blessing also is mentioned in general terms only. The language of the LXX. is, as a rule, closely followed throughout.

King of Salem.—Jewish tradition affirms strongly that this Salem occupied the site on which Jerusalem afterwards stood; and certainly Salem is a poetic name of Jerusalem (Psa_76:2). This tradition, found in Josephus and in the earliest of the Targums, agrees well with the circumstances of the narrative as far as we can follow them, and seems to deserve acceptance. Jerome maintained that Salem was situated near Scythopolis, where in his day were pointed out ruins of “Melchizedek’s palace.” Another tradition (probably of Samaritan origin) makes Mount Gerizim the place of meeting, in which case the city of Melchizedek would probably be near Shechem.

The most high God.—A title characteristic of the narrative (Gen_14:18-20; Gen_14:22). Melchizedek is the first who in Scripture is spoken of as priest, and the name is given without explanation. As in the earliest times this office was held by the head of a family (Job 1), it is not remarkable to find a union of regal and sacerdotal functions in the same man.

Returning from the slaughter.—Rather, from the smiting, or defeat. According to the narrative in Genesis the meeting took place “after Abraham had returned” from the defeat of the king; but probably the meaning does not differ from that here given.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Spirit now proceedeth to prove, that the gospel High Priest is of a far more excellent order than that of Aaron’s, by his being of the order of Melchisedec, of witore they had read, and whom they had in great esteem, and after whose order they were assured, by the prophet David, another Priest was to rise up in the church, rendering Aaron’s priesthood useless, and continuing the only means of reconciling sinners, and bringing them to eternal life, to whom they must cleave. He initiates it with a description of the state of Melchisedec’s order, from Heb 7:1-10; and then proceeds to apply it to Christ, from Heb 7:11-28. Having asserted, Heb 6:20, that Jesus was made from eternity

a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, and declared to be so by his entrance within the veil in heaven at his ascension, he reasoneth it out by showing what this Melchisedec was. The person pointed at by this name, is mentioned only once by Moses, and that in Gen 14:18-20. It is certain he was a man who lived by bread and wine, as well as Abraham, and received tithes from him becoming a man. His place of residence was Salem, afterwards called Jerusalem, in the land of Canaan, Jos 10:1. The Jews conceived him to be Shem, the second son of Noah, which this scripture denieth, for his genealogy is well known in it. That he descended from Ham, third son of Noah, because an inhabitant in Canaan, and that his name, Melchisedec, was the common name of the princes of that country, whose metropolis was first called Tsedec, then Salem, then Jerusalem, because the king of it in Joshua’s time was named Adoni-zedec, which is synonymous with this, is all conjectural. This is certain, he was king of Salem, endowed with royal power, such as the other kings in Canaan had. The capital seat in his kingdom was Salem, the name likely of both his city and territory; not that Salem of the Sichemites, Gen 33:18, afterwards called Shechem, demolished and sown with salt by Abimelech, Jdg 9:34,45; in John the Baptist’s time raised again, and called Salem, Joh 3:23. But Salem mentioned Psa 76:2, more known by its famous appellation, Jerusalem. This shows him to be a man, as doth his next title.

Priest of the most high God: his authority in matters of religion, as a prime minister about holy things between God and men, and therefore a man, as Heb 5:1, set up by the most high God for himself, and consecrated in his order of priesthood by him, which should most illustriously set out that of his own Son. He managed all as a priest between his own people and the great God, ruling of them in all matters civil, and teaching and ordering them in all sacred things.

Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings: he went from Jerusalem with necessary refreshings to meet Abraham, the friend of God, the father of believers, a prince and a priest himself, and of whose posterity was to come the Messiah, now returning from his victory over Chedorlaomer and his confederate kings, with the rescue of his nephew, and all his, to his tents at Mamre. As he was passing near Salem, Melchisedec meets him, and entertains him, Gen 14:13-20.

And blessed him: it was an act of his sacerdotal office, such as God enjoined on such officers afterwards in Num 6:23-27, and not a common wish and desire only. The matter of blessing is laid down, Gen 14:19. It was in God’s name, by his commission, effectually denounced on Abraham by virtue of his office and God’s institution; the height of God and all the good in heaven and in earth within God’s possession is conveyed to him, Gen 15:1, of seeing, denoting it to be such a serious and intent act, as calls for the utmost exercise of the discerning faculty; a carelessness in it, or an oversight, might make the proposal to be to no purpose. The greatness of this high priest is what he sets in their view, and that indefinitely: How great is this officer! Intimating him to be somewhat excessive to other great ones: and how much greater then must be Christ, if his type be so great! Beyond not only Abraham, Levi, and his posterity, but this great Melchisedec, as to his sacerdotal power and dignity.

Unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils: this greatness is evinced by Abraham’s (the patriarch, chief of all the fathers of Israel, whom the Hebrews esteemed above all others, Joh 8:53, and God owns as his friend, and sets all believers under his fatherhood) giving, as a due to Melchisedec, being the greater person in office, the tenth of all the spoils, that which was due to God, and paid to him as God’s high priest: ακροθινιων notes either the first or choicest of the heaps of grains, especially the first-fruits dedicated to God; but here signifieth that part of the spoils which, according to the custom of war in most nations, after the victory, were offered to God as his part, whether they did consist of persons or things: the tenth part of these were given by him to, Melchisedec, as the greatest priest of God in the world, and superior to himself.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Heb_7:1-10

Melchisedec, king of Salem

Melchisedec

I.

MELCHISEDEC WAS KING OF SALEM.

1. Salem was certainly in Canaan--the land where Melchisedec and Abraham met.

(1) It is not a matter of course that Canaan was already wholly given up to idolatry and crime; and therefore Melchisedec may have been himself a Canaanite, and may also have found a body of worshippers of the true God among whom he could discharge his functions.

(2) Even if Canaan was more idolatrous than we have sufficient reason to believe that it now was, Melchisedec, who was, perhaps, of the Japhetian stock, may have been raised up by Heaven as a light in a dark place, and a harbinger and representative of the future ingathering of the Gentiles to Christ.

2. Two places of the name of Salem are mentioned in the Old Testament. The one is Salem in the land of Shechem (Gen_33:18)--the same, perhaps, as Joh_3:23. The other is Jerusalem itself (Psa_76:1-2).

(1) The situation of the great metropolis of Palestine was one likely to be early fixed upon for a town in the colonisation of the land.

(2) That point lay near to the route which Abraham may be supposed to have taken on his homeward way from the slaughter of the kings.

(3) If Jerusalem was the place of which Melchisedec was king, he was thus the more strikingly representative of Christ (Psa_2:6).

3. It is certainly in respect chiefly of the priesthood that Melchisedec is compared to Christ. But, considering the object and design of the present specification of particulars, it must be understood that the royalty of the former has a typical, or at least a figurative, application to the latter. With Salem, both in the literal and figurative application of the name, Christ as King has especially to do. It was through Jerusalem that, in the days of His flesh, He rode in lowly, but royal stateliness (Zec_9:9; Mat_21:1-11). To Israel and her great metropolis was Messiah promised as a Sovereign Prince, ere ever the Magi came to welcome the regal visitor; and as He was, in His birth, saluted as Israels King Mat_2:1-6), so, over His cross on the heights of Salem, the unchangeable inscription bore that He was King of the Jews (Joh_19:19-22). And there is another Zion on which His throne is set--another Salem in which He reigns--the Zion, the Salem, of the Church. Amidst hostile arms and quaking dynasties, let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.

II. MELCHISEDEC WAS PRIEST OF THE MOST HIGH GOD.

1. The phrase of the most high God serves two ends.

(1) It contra-distinguishes Melchisedec and his priesthood from priests of the gods many and lords many of Paganism, and from the functions, often gross and cruel, which these performed.

(2) It suggests the solemnity and importance of the sacerdotal work which Melchisedec performed, and the reverence and awe with which not only ministers, but private believers, should maintain intercourse with that glorious One into whose presence they are called to enter, and whose business they are called to do.

2. The priesthood of the King of Salem, in all probability, comprehended the two functions of sacrifice and intercession.

III. MELCHISEDEC MET ABRAHAM RETURNING FROM THE SLAUGHTER OF THE KINGS AND BLESSED HIM. To a spiritual warfare we have all been called; and while Christ is the Captain of the host, the better Abraham leading on His followers to battle and to victory, He, as the anointed Priest, the better Melchizedec, blesses His conquering, and even His struggling, troops. With His priestly hands extended, in generous benediction, over His first disciples, He left the world. In the same attitude, as it were, He stilt is standing, as Be looks down from His heavenly throne on the earthly charge which He loves so well. The good which on their behalf He seeks, it is His own prerogative and office to bestow. Nor can it be withheld. What is wanted for the fight--wisdom, strength, courage, hope--He d, lights, when His soldier looks to Him in faith and earnestness, to give. At length comes victory. Nor is that promise obsolete (Rev_3:21).

IV. TO MELCHISEDEC ABRAHAM GAVE A TENTH PART OF ALL THE SPOILS. The contribution of gold and treasures to the cause of the kingdom of Messiah is one of the facts recorded respecting Him in Hebrew prophecy Psa_72:10; Psa_72:15). Since the day when the Magi cast their gold, and frankincense, and myrrh at His blessed feet, thousands and tens of thousands have laid a like tribute on His altar. Christ deserves, and Christianity needs, it all. That, independently of any money of ours, He could work successfully is, of course, in some sense true. But, in unswerving wisdom and condescending mercy, He chooses to work by means; and among the appointed means is money. By ministers and missionaries, who are dependent on money for support--by Bibles and other practical and precious books, which must be printed and circulated at the cost of money--by places of worship, which it requires money to erect--and by other ordinances and institutions, which it is for money to establish and maintain--Christ upholds His cause and extends His kingdom.

V. MELCHISEDEC WAS BY INTERPRETATION KING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND KING OF PEACE. This statement refers to the import of the names Melchisedec and Salem. Melchi means, king; Sedec, righteousness; and Salem, peace. It is probable that Melchisedec was a righteous and pacific king. At any rate, the name he bore, and that of the city where he dwelt, involved the ideas of righteousness and peace. And it is here distinctly intimated that, in this respect, he was fitted to represent the character and government of Christ. Christ in very deed is King of righteousness. His soul, how pure! His life, how undefiled! His laws, how just! His administration, how upright! The issues and outgoings of His sufferings and His glory, of His humiliation on the earth and His triumphs in the heavens, how suffused and fraught with righteousness! Nor is He less truly King of peace. His personal ministry was neither the earthquake nor the thunder, but the still, small voice. Peace He bequeathed to His disciples as a legacy of love (Joh_14:27). He made peace through the blood of His cross (Col_1:20). His gospel breathes of peace. They who believe it enter into peace. Theirs is peace with God; theirs, too, is peace with man; and a peace which passeth understanding keeps their ,hearts and minds by Christ Jesus Under the sceptre of Messiah, the wars which so long have wrought desolations in the earth shall pass away

VI. MELCHISEDEC WAS WITHOUT FATHER, WITHOUT MOTHER, WITHOUT DESCENT, &c. By the series of particulars it is manifestly meant to intimate that the parents, the ancestry, the birth, and the death, of this royal priest are all unrecorded in the sacred narrative--that, in this respect, there is a remarkable difference between him and the priests of the house of Levi--and that, in so far as the record is concerned, he comes before us as the priest of unlimited existence, who had no predecessor and no successor in the sacred line. He was thus, it is still further intended to suggest, a meet representative of that great high-priest who, as God, had no mother--as man, had no human father--as Divine, never began to be, and never died--as Mediator, carries on His priesthood still, interceding for believers in the heavens, even as, on earth, He made atonement for their sins, and wrought out redemption for their souls. (A. S.Patterson.)

The parallel between Christ and Melchisedec

I. THE TITLE OF MELCHISEDEC, AS KING. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem. It were idle to discuss here the various conjectures which have been started as to who this Melchisedec was--considered as he is by some to have been Enoch, by others to have been Shem, by others to have been an angel, by others to have been the Holy Spirit, by others to have been the Eternal Son of God Himself; it seems only needful to remark, that the nature of the apostles argument throughout the chapter positively requires that Melchisedec should have been a man, and a man, too, living, and performing the functions here attributed to him, in the time of the patriarch Abraham. Melchisedec becomes a remarkable person, were it only from the singular conjunction of the two offices of king and priest--a conjunction which of itself would suggest his being a type of Christ. Thus he is a type of Christ even with regard to his kingship, and that both in his acts and in the titles by which he is distinguished. Even the first act recorded of him m Genesis we can hardly think was without some spiritual significance. You will observe, he is there represented as coming out to the father of the faithful, bringing him a present of bread and wine, in order that his followers might be refreshed after the toils of conquest, and be sent on their way with lightened and rejoicing hearts. What is this but a picture of the way in which Christ, the true Melchisedec, rewards and refreshes all the followers of faithful Abraham? Are they wearied with the toils of their spiritual warfare? He is wont to say to them, Come unto Me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Are they tired out with the worlds disappointing vanities, having spent their money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which satisfieth not? His language is, He every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; yea, come ye, buy wine and milk, without money and without price. Nay, are they desirous of realising nearness of spiritual communion--of being brought more closely into the presence of their God and Saviour? Are they desiring to see the King in His beauty, and to receive from Him tokens of reconciliation and peace and love? He comes forth like Melchisedec bringing bread and wine, offering to believing hearts the blessed sacrament of His passion, that in the memorials of His body broken, and the blood of redemption shed, believers, like the faithful followers of Abraham, may go down to their homes in peace! Still more typical of the Redeemers royalty are the titles here given to Melchisedec. You will observe it is said of him--first being by interpretation, king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is, king of peace. These are the titles of the typical Melchisedec, and as applied to him may probably mean no more than that such names were given to him by the common consent of his subjects--as one who was distinguished for the righteousness which characterised his regal administration, for the integrity and uprightness of his judicial decisions, for the amicable relations which he maintained with all neighbouring states, and for the tranquillity which marked his government at home. But who sees not at once the application of these titles to Christ in the exercise of His spiritual royalty? He is a King of righteousness. If He cannot satisfy every demand of a violated law, if He cannot meet all the conditions of unsullied holiness, if He cannot cancel every claim which Heaven may have against our souls, nay, if He cannot present my soul as unblameable--as pure from stain or blemish as His own--the ground of my confidence is gone. A mere king of compassions, a king of love and pity, will not suit me, He must be a King of righteousness. and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace. This, again, is a beautiful type of Messiahs kingship. Therefore being justified by faith--(there is the righteousness)--we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

II. THE PRIESTHOOD. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God: Now, that to which I would specially direct your attention here is, that Melchisedec is the first instance we have in the sacred record of a person specially set apart for the office of the priesthood. You will observe that he is not one of a line succeeding to the sacerdotal office in a certain family order; he is not one who has received that sacred appointment by the investiture of others, according to any prescribed order of ecclesiastical polity, but he is one who, long before the Levitical priesthood had been established, stands alone in a strange country, challenging homage from the greatest saint of antiquity as an ordained priest of the most high God. Now, we see at once in this certain resembling features to Christ, the true Melchisedec. He is not descended of any line of human priesthood; there was no laying on of hands to designate Him to the sacred office; yet there rested on Him tokens of a Divine consecration. The opened heavens testified to the power of the Lords anointing; the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him, and when He had made His soul an offering for sin, when He had borne the sin of many, when He had poured out His spirit unto death, believing souls were drawn to His cross, and exercising faith in the great oblation hailed Him--Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. And then observe, that special office of the typical high priest here mentioned by the apostle, namely, that of benediction, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him. Have we not here a close resemblance to Christ? Benediction, we know, seems never to have been off the lips of the holy Saviour. With streams of blessing did He open His first sermon on the mount; with hands of blessing He drew the little children to His embrace; with the uplifted voice of blessing He went up to the right hand of Power; blessed are the sleeping dead who die in His faith and fear; and when at last He shall separate the great congregation of risen dead, He shall first call to His redeemed ones, saying, Come, ye blessed children of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Yes, blessing was the first act of our High Priest, after He had returned to the Majesty on high: Unto you first God having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you; and never will He lay down that His special prerogative of mercy, until He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. But observe, another act of the typical Melchisedec noticed by the apostle is his receiving a portion of the spoils. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all. There can exist no question but that this act of the patriarch was a separation of a portion of his newly acquired wealth to the service of God. It was an offering to God through Melchizedec His appointed priest. Abraham had been prosperous; he had been honoured and eminently successful in the mission he had undertaken; how could he do otherwise than dedicate the firstfruits of his success to God? What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits? The passage plainly throws some light on the perpetual obligation of almsgiving, independently of all dispensations whatever; and seems to prescribe to us the minimum of our substance which we ought to set apart for Gods service. If you have been prosperous in the work of your hands, if you are returning like Abraham with the spoils of conquered difficulties, if your spiritual Melchisedec has met you with tokens of acceptance, give unto Him a tenth part of all. Let one strength, one help, one hope, one outstretched arm be recognised in all your successes:--showing that on earth you will lay all your prosperity, even as in heaven you will lay all your crowns, at the feet of Him who was ordained a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

III. THE MYSTERY OF MELCHISEDECS ORIGIN. He is declared to be, in the third verse, without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. Melchisedec is a person of whose death or birth no record had been preserved, both of which would have been if he had ever bad any accredited place in the Jewish polity. But this man has no record, has no genealogy: he starts up on the page of sacred history, exercising the mysterious functions of the priesthood, shrouding in a veil of impenetrable obscurity all the antecedents of his history, as well as all that relates To his end of days. All this was especially meant to perfect the typical character of this Melchisedec. It was, in fact, to show to us that Christ Himself was not to succeed to His office in the order of any human priesthood--that He should not claim office in virtue of any transmitted rights, but that He should receive consecration direct from the hands or God: a Priest of the Most High God, after the order of Melchisedec. And then see how we are to apply to Christ the last remarkable words applied to Melchisedec--to Christ, the true, the spiritual Melchisedec. He is said to be without father; is not this true of our Lords human nature? He is said to be without mother: is not this true of our Lords Divine nature? He is said to be without beginning of life, or end of days: must not this be true of Him whom prophecy describes as the Ancient of days, as the Father of eternity, as One who throws out the challenge to every finite intelligence, Who shaft declare His generation? nay, as One whom God Himself had solemnly designated and set apart. Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

IV. THE INTRANSMISSIBLE CHARACTER OF MELCHISECECS PRIESTHOOD. This is declared in the third verse: He is made like--namely, that He abideth a Priest continually. Then turning to the twenty-fourth verse of this chapter you read--But this Man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood--a passage which, on looking at the margin, you will find thus rendered, a priesthood which passeth not from one to another. Now, to understand this, you must remember the stress of the apostles argument. It was a new theology to the Jews to suppose that Messiah was to be a Priest at all; they thought of Him, they expected Him, only as the Lord Christ, as the King of righteousness and peace. But suppose Christ were to be a Priest, then the Jew would say, He must be a Priest according to the order of Aaron. Then says the apostle, Christ can have no claim in this behalf; for He sprang from the tribe of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. What, then, is the conclusion? Why, that the real type of Christs priesthood is to be found, not in men having infirmity under the law, but in that remarkable personage expressly raised up of God in a particular age of the Church, in order that he might be a perfect, or, at least proximately perfect, type of Christ, as one who neither received his priesthood from any, nor yet transmitted his priesthood to any; and therefore, in so far as there was no delegation of the sacred functions, he might be said to abide a priest continually. Herein he becomes a glorious and eminent type of Christ--the type of Him, who as He received His priesthood from none, so will He delegate it to none, not to human priesthoods, not to saints and angels, not to the ten thousand mediators of a corrupt and apostate church, but rather will continue, in all the might, in all the prevalency, in all the sovereign sufficiency of an unchangeable priesthood, ever living to make intercession for us. (D. Moore, M. A.)

Our Melchisedec

The Jews were very fond of beautiful mysteries, which awakened the sense of wonder and the desire for deeper knowledge; and, as the Psalms and Proverbs show, they love to have truth in pairs or in halves. Their minds moved, as a railway engine moves, on parallel lines and with corresponding wheels; their piety soared as the lark soars on equal wings. As in this subject of Melchisedec, they often gained their idea of the whole truth, just as in geography you gain your idea of the whole earth by uniting the two half-spheres that are separated on ,he map. The mystery of Melchisedec is thus explained by four pairs of truths.

I. HE WAS A MAN AND MORE THAN A MAN. Many things about him are hard to be uttered or explained (Heb_5:11). Here, I think, is the key that opens the difficulty:--there are two Melchisedecs: the on, lived in Salem, and the other lives in this page. King Henry VIII., the queen-killer; was, as most people believe, a had man; but Froude makes him a good man. There are thus two Henrys: the one lived at Windsor, the other lives in Froudes history. What Froude did for Henry by hero-worship, Moses did for Melchisedec by omission; but with this difference, that Moses keeps to exact truth. As we have Froudes Henry and the real Henry, so we have, as we may say, the Melchisedec of Abraham and the Melchisedec of Moses. Melchisedec was made like unto the Son of God Heb_7:3). He was not like Him, but was made like Him. I have watched an apprentice wood-carver. Before him was a tree, like any other tree. Beside him stood a life-size statue of Christ. Glancing now and again at the statue, and guided by his teacher, he hewed out a piece here and there, and soon the tree became a statue. He made it more by making it less, for he thus put a grand idea into it. As that carver elevated the tree into an image of Christ, so Moses, guided by God, fashioned or rounded off the Melchisedec of his story into an image of Christ. It was not an after-thought, but a fore-thought to liken Christ to Melchisedec; for Christ is the original and Melchisedec the copy, expressly made beforehand for New Testament teaching. What a man of mystery that Melchisedec of Moses is! He seems to have dropped down from heaven. He seems to be his own ancestor and his own heir; one sprung from himself, a cause uncaused; one ever living among the dead and dying. He stands quite apart, has not his fellow in the Bible, and is like himself only. Fix your eye upon this portrait drawn by the Divine hand, grasp it as it lies there, and the subject is delightfully simple. This Melchisedec on whom you and I gaze, not that whom Abraham gazed upon; this literary Melchisedec, not that literal one; this Melchisedec is an image of Him who was without father as to His human nature, and without mother as to His Divine; as God having neither beginning of days nor end of life; who in His office was without descent and without succession, and so abideth a Priest continually. Melchisedec was a man and seems more: Jesus is a man, and is more.

II. CHRIST IS LIKE MELCHISEDEC, A PRIEST AND A KING. Pity belongs to Him as Priest, and power belongs to Him as King. His priestly pity and kingly power temper and sustain each other, and as two uniting streams roll along in one full flood of communicated joy. He saves with all the power of a king; He rules with all the gentleness of a priest. His kingly power enables Him to do His priestly work right royally, with royal graciousness and munificence. He saves with sovereignty, with a sovereigns generosity. The rebel Themistocles appealed for pardon to the Persian king Xerxes. The king pardoned him in his sovereignty; not as one who had to study petty economics, whose grace was a misers hoard; for he gave Themistocles the country of Magnesia for bread (about £12,000 a year); Myus for condiments, and Lampsacus for wine. That is how a sovereign pardons, and illustrates one part of what we mean by the sovereignty of God. Our great High Priest has a royal right and a royal power to save, as He makes one thing of Priesthood and Kinghood. The golden sceptre of grace is ever in His hand; and whosoever will may touch it and live, shielded by the whole power of His kingdom. What can sin, death, and hell do against those who have Him as their ally?

III. MELCHISEDEC IS A TYPE OF CHRIST BECAUSE HE UNITES RIGHTEOUSNESS AND PEACE. His name means king of righteousness, and he was king of Salem, or peace. He was, no doubt, a righteous man and king, doing all he could to right the worlds wrongs. But much more than that is meant here. For he was a priest, and no priest was he unless he represented God to man and man to God, and so provided righteousness for the unrighteous. They for whom he acted should have had righteousness, but had it not; and it was the part of their priest to gain for them the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness. To us, at least, priestly righteousness means all that. The righteousness our High Priest has to do with is held out as a free gift to the most unrighteous among us; and it is thine for the taking. Melchisedec was also king of Salem. A dense mass of meaning lies for us in this title also. Salem, like the salaam given to-day in the East, means peace. A King of Peace! Earths kings are war-makers; ours is a Peacemaker. Earths great cities have often been Aceldamas, streaming fields of blood; our mother city is peace. And what a union of contraries is here! Let the bare idea of Gods righteousness enter the heart of a man in sin, and lo! his peace is gone, and he is the prey of remorse. But Christ brings us a peace founded upon eternal righteousness.

IV. MELCHISEDEC IS A TYPE OF CHRIST. BECAUSE HE UNITES JEW AND GENTILE. Aaron, the priest, was only for the Jews; but Melchisedec, who was out of Aarons line and above it, was a Gentile, and he was a priest for Abraham the Jew, and for the Gentiles dwelling in Salem. He was a world-wide priest, opening his arms to all the races of humankind, and his city was meant to be the mother-city of all the earth, emblem of the heavenly Jerusalem into which people of all nations shall be gathered. Thus Christ is a Priest, not after the ruder of Aaron, who was for Jews only, but He is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec; and any sinner under heaven may receive the blessings He brings. (James Wells, M. A.)

King of righteousness

Righteousness first, then peace

I. A HIEROGLYPHIC OF CHRISTS RECONCILING WORK.

First, King of Righteousness, afterwards King of Peace. There is no peace with God possible, except on the basis of righteousness. It is a true gospel, howsoever harsh it sounds, which proclaims Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in iniquity, neither shall the wicked dwell in Thy sight. This is the dictate of conscience; this is the dictate of what people call natural religion. This, the necessity of righteousness for friendship with God, is the message of the old covenant; and this, the absolute need of purity of life and heart for all true enjoyment of the Divine favour, is Christs message as truly. Nay, further, the first thing which the gospel--which Christ, who is the gospel--does when He comes into a mans heart is to emphasise two facts, the absolute need for righteousness in order to friendship with God, and the want of it in the heart to which He has come. And so the conflict is intensified, the sense of discord is kindled, the alienation between man and God is made conscious on the first entrance of Christ into the spirit. The oil comes after the arrow, the bandage after the wound.

II. A SUMMARY OF CHRISTS OPERATIONS IN THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL. There is no inward harmony, no peace of heart and quietness of nature except on condition of being good and righteous men. The real root of all our agitations is our sinfulness; and wherever there creeps over a heart the love of evil, there comes, like some subtle sea-born mist stealing up over the country and blotting out all its features, a poisonous obscuration which shrouds all the spirit in its doleful folds. Disturbance comes not so much from outward causes as from an inward alienation towards that which is pure and good. Peace within comes from righteousness within, and no man is righteous unless he has Christs righteousness for the very spring and strength of his life.

III. THE PROGRAMME OF CHRISTS OPERATIONS IN THE WORLD. The herald angels sang on earth peace. Nineteen centuries have passed, and Christianity is still a disturbing element who, ever it comes, and the promise seems to linger, and the great words that declared Unto us a Child should be born,… and His name shall be … the Prince of Peace, seem as far away from fulfilment as ever they were. Yes, because He is first of all King of Righteousness, and must destroy the evil that is in the world before He can manifest Himself as King of Peace. If we are the followers of the Prince of Peace, who is, first of all, King of Righteousness, we are called to be His faithful servants and soldiers. For all the social evils that swarm round about us to-day, intemperance, impurity, commercial dishonesty, follies of fashionable and of social life and the like, for all teachings that dim and darken the face of His great counsel and purpose of mercy, we are to cherish an undying hatred and war against them an unceasing warfare.

IV. A PROPHECY OF THE END. The true Salem, the city of peace, is not here. One more conflict every soldier of the Cross, ere he treads its payment, has to wage with the lust enemy who is to be destroyed by Jesus Christ, but only at the end. For us and for the world the assurance stands firm--the King who Himself is Righteousness is the King whose city is peace. And that city will come. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

First king of righteousness, and after that king of peace

I. ADMIRE THIS KING.

1. Melchisedec is such a king as God is. He is according to Divine model. At the fall God first set up a Judgment-sent, and right speedily a Mercy-seat. Righteousness must ever had the van, All along in the history of Gods dealings with men, He kept to this unvarying rule.

2. tie was such a king as Christ is. Christ preached no peace apart from purity. He never made little of vice or error; He was the deadly foe of all evil. He said, I came not to bring peace, but a sword.

3. Note, next that He is such a King as right-hearted minds desire. My heart rejoices in a sin-killing King, and then a peace-bestowing King, sweeping out the buyers and the sellers from the temple, and then manifesting Himself there in all His majesty to His waiting people. 4 Melchisedec is such a king as Jesus must be to every one of you who have not yet known Him, if you are ever to receive Him as your Saviour. Righteousness must hold the sceptre, or peace will not attend the court.

5. This is the kind of king that God would have every one of us to be.

II. ENJOY THIS KING.

1. Our Lord is first King of Righteousness.

(1) He who religiously obeys Mahomet may yet be doing grievous moral wrong; but it is never so with the disciples of Jesus: obedience to Jesus is holiness.

(2) Notice, next, that if we trust this King of righteousness we are righteous in His merit.

2. And then, next He is after that King of peace. I want you to enjoy the King of Salem, the King of peace. Do you know that at this moment, if you are believer, you have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Melchisedec, king of righteousness

The word Melchisedec leads our minds at once to theft remarkable passage in the 23rd chapter of Jeremiah, where it is declared of Christ that this is His name, whereby He shall be called, Jehovah Tsidkenu, The Lord our Righteousness. For Zedek and Tsidkenu being the same in their root, the only difference between the passages is that in the prophet He is the Lord of Righteousness, while here He is its King. Whether we look therefore into the pictures of Genesis, or the shadows of prophecy, or the originals of the gospel, righteousness and royalty meet together to make the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us endeavour to catch the meaning of that word righteousness. Before God righteousness means justification. There is none righteous, no not one this is literally true. No child of man has ever paid all his debt to God. No child of m n has ever fulfilled all his relationships. Therefore no child of man is just. But that was a truer word than he who spake it thought of, when the centurion said, Truly this was a righteous man. Christ was perfectly righteous; because what He undertook to do He did. He undertook to pay, and He fully paid, the whole human debt to God. He never swerved from His engagement. He kept, He beautified, every iota of the law. And what relative duty did He ever leave undone? But His righteousness being so exceeding, and being the righteousness of an infinite being, it was far above all that He needed as man for Himself, and left a treasury of righteousness available for every poor sinner. Very happy it is for us that of that righteousness--both the imparted and the inherent, both His and ours--which He so requires, He is also the king. For He can give, and He will give, it royally. A Melchisedec indeed He stands--Righteousness the habitation of His throne--His sceptre a sceptre of righteousness--Righteousness the girdle of His loins--Righteousness His breastplate--Righteousness the signet of His crown--and all for the sake of that one highest prerogative of His power--that one climax of His righteousness, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)

King of peace

Christ a Prince of peace

Two things there be which especially declare Him to be a King of peace.

1. That peace which He made betwixt the Creator and creatures.

2. That which He made among creatures themselves. God at first made all in perfect peace. There was a sweet harmony and consent. No discord, no dissension. Creatures by sin brought all out of frame. But Christ being made King, made up all these breaches.

For

1. He satisfied Gods justice, pacified His wrath, and reconciled man to Rom_3:25; Rom_5:8-10).

2. Christ took men and made them members of His mystical body: and having so united them to Himself, made angels to be at peace with them Col_1:20).

3. He communicateth His Spirit unto men, whereby all the powers of their souls and parts of their body are renewed and brought into a sweet harmony.

4. He brake down the partition wall betwixt Jew and Gentile Eph_2:14), and made all one in Himself (Gal_3:28), and so alters their disposition as they may lovingly live together (Isa_11:6, etc.). (W. Gouge.)

The King of peace

There are many things which the world can give you--it can give you amusement; it can give you excitement; it can give youpleasure--but it can never give you peace of mind--no, not for an hour. Peace--all Salem--is Christs exclusively--by legacy from His cross, by deed of gift from His throne. Need I say how incomparably peace is better than pleasure? If you want peace, you must look for it in Christ,--not in the evidences of your own soul--not in certain religious acts or feelings--not in ordinances--not in man--not in doctrine,--but in Christ--a personal, felt, loved, present, real, living Christ,--in His nature, in His attributes, in His work, in His glory, in His return--all peace lives there--it is Salem. The more peace you take, the better subject you are of that kingdom, which is called Salem. Every fear is a rebellion against its King. Nothing honours Christ like the peace of His people--peace is Salems loyalty. The wars of nations make a discord in the works of God. Therefore never measure war, or talk of war, as the light world does; for it is, and it must be, a grief in Salem. But pray more earnestly to the Prince of Peace that prayer, Give peace in our time, O Lord! There will be no war and no evil occurrent presently when Christ comes; but this earth will be one holy Salem its circuit commensurate with creation, its walls salvation, and its gates praise. For that day the Chinch looks out; but, happy thought! Christ looks out for it more than the Church, and not one of us is as anxious for his Lord to appear, as that Lord is now longing to come. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)

Consider how great this man was

Melchisedec a type of greatness

I. TRUE GREATNESS IS NOT HEREDITARY, BUT PERSONAL.

II. TRUE GREATNESS IS NOT EXTERNAL, BUT IN THE SOUL.

III. TRUE GREATNESS IS NOT THE CREATURE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT ON THE CONTRARY CONTROLS THEM.

IV. TRUE GREATNESS EXISTS AND FLOURISHES ONLY IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO GOD.

V. TRUE GREATNESS IS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION AND UNION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND PEACE.

VI. TRUE GREATNESS MANIFESTS ITSELF IN MINISTRATION TO THE WELFARE OF OTHERS.

VII. TRUE GREATNESS WILL RECEIVE ITS DUE REVERENCE, AND INCITE TO A KINDRED CHARACTER.

VII. TRUE GREATNESS REACHES ITS HIGHEST REALISATION IN JESUS CHRIST. (B. Dale, M. A.)

King and priest

I. THE HONOURS HE RECEIVED. One of the highest marks of greatness is to be had in honour by the good. We should not attach so much importance to a eulogy, as to the character of those by whom it is uttered.

II. THE DUTIES HE DISCHARGED

1. Those of a king. Living in peace; striving to bless his subjects, and honour his God.

2. Those of a patriarch.

3. Those of a priest. This is true greatness, when the spiritual is not neglected for the secular, nor the secular for the spiritual.

III. THE TENTS OF CHARACTER HE DISPLAYED.

1. Stability. Did not allow the idolatry around to influence either his heart or life.

2. Peacefulness and wisdom. Did not embroil himself in quarrels, or resent fancied grievances.

3. Tolerance. Did not go to war himself, but respected the valour of Abraham, believing he engaged in the conflict by command of God.

4. Cordiality. No gloomy ascetic, or lofty monarch.

IV. THE FAME HE SECURED. He was great, because good; illustrious, because beloved of God.

V. THE REWARD HE ENJOYS. Conclusion:

1. It is possible for us to be great after the manner of Melchisedec. Are not Christians made like unto the Son of God?

2. If we would be thus great, we must seek to be invested with the righteousness of Christ. (R. A. Griffin.)

The greatness of the Man Christ Jesus

I. LET ME EXHORT YOU TO CONSIDER HOW GREAT THIS MAN, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, IS.

1. This subject claims your consideration. It is His right that you should consider His greatness.

2. Certainly the subject needs consideration; for we shall never gain an idea of how great He is unless we do consider, and consider much. Here is a great deep, and it cannot be fathomed by the thoughtless.

3. I go a little further, and say that not only does my subject claim your consideration and need your consideration, but it solemnly comma rids it. The text is not a mere piece of advice; the apostle charges you to think of Melchisedec, but much more would he have you remember Melchisedecs Antitype. Oh, do not need to be pressed to this Divine study: love it, never cease from it.

4. Follow out this meditation, I pray you because there is an exceeding great reward for any man who will consider how great this man was. I find for myself that the only possibility of my living is living in Christ and unto Christ.

II. LET ME ASSIST YOU TO CONSIDER HOW GREAT THIS MAN WAS.

1. Lest the very use of the expression, this man, should leave any body for a moment in doubt as to our faith in His Godhead, I bid you consider how great this man was in His relationship to God. For though He was man, He was not merely man.

2. You are not in doubt upon this vital matter; let me, therefore, ask you to consider how great this man was as to His relationship to men. Christ Jesus is the second man, the Lord from heaven.

3. Come a little closer, and reach forward to that which will delight your hearts far more; consider the relationship of Christ to His own people. Long before the heavens and the earth were made, God with prescient eye beheld the person of His Son as God in human nature, and He saw all His elect lying in Him. The Church is His body. Consider how great this man was. He is so great that all the saints are blessed in Him.

III. THE PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT of the whole subject. Consider how great this man was, and as you consider, believe in His infinite power to bless men. He is full of b e, sing as the sun is fall of light, that He may shine upon His needy creatures. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Human greatness

There are various relations in which human greatness is a fit object of consideration.

1. It is to be considered in relation to the providence of God. All real greatness--intellectual, moral, and circumstantial--is intimately associated with the sovereignty of Heaven. In certain recorded instances, the connection of God with the attainment of such greatness is very distinctly indicated. It is so in the instances of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Saul, David, and many other Scripture-characters. In these, the direct interference of the Divine Being is at certain points, definitely marked; and the thoughtful reader of the narrative is thus prepared to acknowledge His hand throughout the whole tissue of the events that led the individual on to greatness. But the Scriptural doctrine of Gods universal providence involves the fact that, even in more ordinary cases, His superintending care and administrative wisdom are employed (1Ch_29:11-12). Now, it is reasonable, and fitted to be practically useful, to trace the Divine sovereignty and the Divine wisdom in the production of personal and national greatness, and, when such greatness flashes on the eye, to see and feel that the hand of Jehovah has been there.

2. Human greatness is to be considered in relation to the ravages of death and time. All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of 1Pe_1:24). Riches take to themselves wings and fly away Pro_23:5). Power waxes weak as infancy. Even Fumes green garland is wont to wither on the brow (Ecc_8:8). How important, by the consideration of earthly greatness as, like other earthly objects, frail and fleeting, to be disabused of vain ambition, and to learn the lesson (Isa_2:22).

3. Human greatness is to be considered in relation to the example and encouragement which, in certain cases, it is fitted to afford. Some men have been greatly good. Their moral aims have been lofty, their moral enterprises vast, and their moral attainments bright. And independently of their importance as models, the consideration of them is fitted to inspire the soul with a moral enthusiasm both honourable and useful.

4. Human greatness is to be considered in relation to the typical character which certain great ones of the world possessed. If God has assigned such a character to some of the principle personages of the Bible, and given us the means of tracing it, surely it would be unreasonable and sinful to neglect to do so. By the consideration of those elements of greatness wherein patriarchs, princes, priests, and prophets represented Christ, distinct and vivid views may be obtained of Christ Himself. Thus, too, may be clearly apprehended the intimate relation subsisting among the various moral economies of God, and the antivipative and Messianic character of Gods providence from the very birth of time. (A. S. Patterson.)

The greatness of character

Wherein lay his greatness? He was not in the priestly line. Neither do we read that he was appointed of God. Yet no man taketh this honor unto himself. God had made him king and priest by conferring upon him the gift of innate spiritual greatness. He was one of natures kings, born to rule, not because he was his fathers son, but because he had a great soul. He became a priest in virtue of what he was as man. His authority as king sprang from character. Such men appear on earth now and again. But they are never accounted for. All we can say of them is that they have neither father nor mother nor genealogy. They resemble those who are born of the spirit, of whom we know neither whence they come nor whither they go. It is only from the greatest One among these kings and priests of men that the veil is lifted. In Him we see the Son of God. Such priests remain priests for ever. They live on by the vitality of their priesthood. They have no beginning of days or end of life. They have never been set apart with outward ritual to an official distinction, marked by days and years. Their acts are not ceremonial, and wait not on the calendar. They bless men, and the blessing abides. They pray, and the prayer dies not. If their prayer lives for ever, can we suppose that they themselves pass away? The king-priest is heir of immortality, whoever else may perish. He at least has the power of an endless life. If he dies in the flesh, he lives on in the spirit. An eternal heaven must be found or made for such men with God. (T C. Edwards, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 7:1. For, &c. — The apostle having promised to lead the believing Hebrews forward to the perfection of Christian knowledge, (Heb 6:1-4,) particularly with regard to the high-priesthood of Christ as typified by that of Melchisedec, which he had repeatedly mentioned, (namely, Heb 5:6; Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20,) as a figure of it he proceeds now to fulfil his promise; and, in order thereto, points out the deep meaning of the oath recorded Psa 110:4. And by accurately examining the particulars concerning Melchisedec, related in the Mosaic history, he shows that Melchisedec was a far more excellent priest than Aaron and all his sons, and consequently that Jesus, whom God had made a High-Priest for ever after the similitude of Melchisedec, exercised a priesthood both more acceptable to God, and more effectual for procuring the pardon of sin, than the priesthood which the sons of Aaron exercised under the law. For the design of the apostle in this chapter is not to declare the nature or the exercise of the priesthood of Christ, though occasionally mentioned; having spoken of the former, chap. 5., and intending to treat of the latter at large afterward, which he does chap. 9. But it is of its excellence and dignity that he discourses here, and yet not absolutely, but in comparison with the Levitical priesthood, which method was both necessary, and directly conducive to his end. For if the priesthood of Christ were not so excellent as that of Aaron, it was to no purpose to persuade them to embrace the former, and reject the latter. This, therefore, he designs to prove upon principles avowed among themselves, by arguments taken from what had been received and acknowledged in the Jewish Church from the first foundation of it. To this end he shows, that antecedently to the giving of the law, and the institution of the Levitical priesthood, God had, without any respect thereto, given a typical prefiguration of this priesthood of Christ, in one who was on all accounts superior to the future Levitical priests. This sacred truth, which had been hid for so many ages in the church, and which undeniably manifests the certain future introduction of another and better priesthood, is here brought to light by the apostle and improved. For this Melchisedec — Of whom Moses speaks, Gen 14:18, &c., (the passage to which David refers,) was king of Salem — “According to Josephus, (Antiq. lib. 1. cap. 11,) Salem, the city of Melchisedec, was Jerusalem. But according to Jerome, who says he received his information from some learned Jews, it was the town which is mentioned Gen 33:18, as a city of Shechem, and which is spoken of (Joh 3:23) as near to Enon, where John baptized. This city being in Abraham’s way, as he returned from Damascus to Sodom, after the slaughter of the kings, many are of Jerome’s opinion, that the northern Salem was Melchisedec’s city rather than Jerusalem, which was situated farther to the south.” Priest of the most high God — This title given him by Moses, and here taken notice of by the apostle, implies that he had been appointed to that office in a solemn and public manner; and, of consequence, “that there was a priest divinely appointed to officiate for the worshippers of the true God in Canaan, long before the days of Aaron, and before God formed to himself a visible church from any particular family or nation of mankind. The Hebrew word, indeed, translated a priest, sometimes signifies a prince, but the historian hath removed the ambiguity by adding the words, of the most high God.” Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings — Who had taken Lot prisoner, with the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the neighbouring cities of the plain; and blessed him — Pronounced on him a blessing in the name of God, to whom he ministered; and in his manner of blessing him showed himself to be a priest of the only true God, his words being, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Priesthood after the Order of Aaron and of Melchizedek

The theme of Christ's superiority to the Levitical priesthood is here resumed. In Heb_5:1-10 it has been shown that Christ possesses all the characteristics of a true High Priest, and moreover that He is called of God 'an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec' Now the priesthood of Melchizedek was perpetual, and in this respect he is a type of Christ. His greatness is shown by the fact that he received tithes from Abraham, and as Levi was descended from Abraham, it follows by implication that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical (Heb_7:1-10).

1-3. Melchisedec] a type of Christ in his high titles, independence of priestly descent, and especially in respect that his priesthood is eternal.

1. The main statement is, 'This Melchisedec.. abideth a priest continually.' Every feature in his history as recorded in Genesis 14 is turned to account in the comparison instituted here between him and Christ. He is King of Salem, i.e. Jerusalem. But Salem means 'peace,' and Christ is Prince of Peace (Isa_9:6). His name Melchizedek means 'King of Righteousness,' and righteousness is a characteristic of Christ's kingdom (Psa_62:12; Isa_9:7; Isa_3:21 : see on Isa_1:8-9). Unlike the Levitical priest who must be able to trace his descent from Levi, Melchizedek is without genealogy, connected with no priestly family, and he has no successor. He is 'a priest for ever.'

3. Without father, without mother, without descent (RV 'genealogy')] The writer bases his argument on the silence of Scripture with regard to Melchizedek's origin. He appears suddenly in the narrative of Genesis 14, and disappears in a similarly mysterious way. In respect that his priesthood does not rest on his pedigree, he stands in emphatic contrast with the Levitical priests. He is 'made like unto the Son of God,' i.e. is described in the narrative in such terms that they suggest the eternal Son who exists from eternity and lives for ever (Heb_1:2, Heb_1:10-12).

4. Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, because he took tithes from Abraham (Gen_14:20), and he also gave him his priestly benediction (Gen_14:19-20).

5-7. He is much more superior to the Levitical priests who take tithes from then Israelite brethren, but who, in Abraham their progenitor, paid tithes to Melchizedek (Heb_7:9-10).

8. He is superior to them, further, in respect that the Levitical priests are men who die. What Scripture witnesses to concerning Melchizedek is just his life. Its silence as to his family and death points to the endless life of the divine inheritor of his priesthood.

11-28. The argument now takes a further step forward, Since God promised a new priesthood (in Psalms 110), this must supersede and abolish the old. But this substitution would not have been made were it not that the old priesthood had failed to accomplish its purpose, viz. to reconcile man to God. A new covenant is therefore introduced, with Jesus as the surety for its fulfilment. It is eternal because He is eternal; and it secures salvation to the uttermost, because the Priest is One who ever liveth to intercede for those who draw near to God through Him.

11-19. The introduction of a new priesthood, and consequently of a new law, implies the imperfection of the old.

11. If therefore] RV 'Nowif': the beginning of a new argument. The priesthood is designed to reconcile men to God by removing the barrier between them, viz. sin. Not.. after the order of Aaron] but after the order of Melchizedek, who was independent of Levitical descent, being anterior to it.

13. He of whom these things (i.e. Psa_110:4) are spoken is Jesus, who belonged to the tribe of Judah, in which the old Law recognises no priests.

15. RV 'And what we say is yet more abundantly evident,' viz. the statement that a change of law is involved in a change of priesthood.

16. Under the old Law priesthood was a matter of physical descent—it was the law of a carnal commandment; but the priesthood of Jesus rests on the power of an indissoluble life (so RV). What constitutes Him priest is not an external commandment, but a power inherent in Him as the eternal Son, who, though as incarnate He died, nevertheless rose from the dead and liveth for ever (Heb_7:24-25). His qualifications were personal, not official.

18, 19. Read,' For there is a disannulling of a preliminary [or, provisional] commandment [viz. that constituting the Levitical priesthood] on account of its weakness and unprofitableness [i.e. its inability to effect atonement for men's sins] (for the law made nothing perfect), and there is the subsequent introduction of a better hope through which we draw near to God.' The words 'for the law made nothing perfect' are a parenthesis. The particular commandment in question was of a piece with the whole Law, which made nothing perfect, i.e. failed in every respect to attain its object, viz. to bring men near to God in reconciliation.

20. The fact that Jesus was made priest with an oath guarantees that the covenant He mediates is better than the former (in which there was no such oath), and also that it is eternal: cp. Heb_6:16-18.

22. Surety] The word is not found elsewhere in the Greek canonical Scriptures. It means one who gives security for the fulfilment of an agreement between two other parties, a guarantor or sponsor. The word usually employed is that rendered 'mediator' in Heb_8:6.

23. The Levitical priesthood was a succession of different priests, because those filling the office were mortal men. Christ's priesthood does not pass to any other; it is continuous and unchangeable; hence 'He is able to save to the uttermost.' Were not suffered] RV 'are hindered.'

24. Unchangeable] lit. 'that does not pass by succession from one to another.'

25. To the uttermost] Either of time,' from one generation to another'; or, more probably of extent, 'perfectly.' Come unto God] RV 'draw near unto God through Him,' i.e. avail themselves of His mediating agency as High Priest. The object of all priesthood is to bring men to God in spiritual communion. What the Levitical priesthood was unable to effect (Heb_7:18), Christ, the Melchizedek-High-Priest, has completely secured. Make intercession] not offering, which has been made once for all, but a continual representation on the ground of the completed offering.

26-28. A summary of the characteristics of Christ as High Priest, which make Him such an adequate High Priest as we need.

26. Became us] i.e. suited our condition.

Holy] denotes His relation to God, consecrated. Harmless] denotes His personal character; the word usually means 'without guile.' Undefiled] denotes His official qualification, having no ceremonial flaw or impediment: cp. Lev_21:21. Separate] RV 'separated,' not by sinlessness (as AV seems to suggest), but by being withdrawn from men and exalted to the right hand of the Majesty on high. The clause is to be taken along with the following: cp. Heb_4:14.

27. First for his own sins] see Lev_16:5-6, Lev_16:11, Lev_16:15, and see on Heb_5:3. Once] i.e. once for all. He offered up himself] see on Heb_9:11-14, Heb_9:25-28; Heb_10:11-14.

28. Since the law] RV 'after the law,' and disannulling it: cp. Heb_7:18, Heb_7:19. The Son] rather, 'a Son,' i.e. one who is a Son, perfected for evermore: see Heb_2:10; Heb_5:8, Heb_5:9.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

B. FULL UNFOLDING OF THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD, Heb_7:1 to Heb_10:18.

I. IT IS NOT LOCAL AND TRANSIENT, LIKE THE AARONIC, BUT UNIVERSAL AND PERPETUAL, LIKE THE MELCHIZEDEKIAN, Heb_7:1-28.

1. For—Connecting with Heb_5:10, after the intervening digression. See last note above. About this Melchizedek more puerile speculation has been written, extending from Hierax to Alford, than has been expended upon any human character in Scripture. Whenever we see an essay headed, “Who was Melchizedek?” we promptly direct our attention elsewhere. By successive speculators in different ages he has been conjectured to be the Holy Spirit; one of the δυναμεις, or powers of God; the Logos; an angel; an ante-mundane man, created, not out of matter, but spirit; Enoch descended from heaven; Shem, Job, a great Unknown. Our opinion is, that Melchizedek was nobody but himself; himself as simply narrated in Gen_14:18-20; in which narrative both David, in Psalms 110, and our author after him, find every point they specify in making him a king-priest, typical of the king-priesthood of Christ. Yet it is not in the person of Melchizedek alone, but in the grouping, also, of circumstances around and in his person, that the inspired imagination of the psalmist finds the shadowing points. Melchizedek, in Genesis, suddenly appears upon the historic stage, without antecedents or consequents. He is a king-priest not of Judaism, but of Gentilism universally. He appears an unlineal priest, without father, mother, or pedigree. He is preceded and succeeded by an everlasting silence, so as to present neither beginning nor end of life. And he is, as an historic picture, forever there divinely suspended, the very image of a perpetual king-priest. It is thus not in his actual unknown reality, but in the Scripture presentation, that the group of shadowings appears. It is by optical truth only, not by corporeal facts, that he becomes a picture, and with his surroundings a visible tableau, into which the psalmist first reads the conception of an adumbration of the eternal priesthood of the Messiah; and all our author does is to develop the particulars which are in mass presupposed by the psalmist.

King of Salem—The celebrated Jewish traveller, Joseph Wolfe, “no mean authority on such a subject,” is quoted by Mr. Grove, in Smith’s Biblical Dictionary, as expressing the belief that Salem, signifying peace, is here not the name of a place but a part of Melchizedek’s title. Mr. Wolfe had as a friend a sheik in the kingdom of Khiva, whose name was Abder-Rahman, signifying “Slave of the merciful God.” He is also called Shahe-Adaalat, “King of Righteousness,” the same as the Hebrew Melchizedek. “And when he makes peace between the kings he bears the title, ‘Shahe-Soolkh,’ king of peace, in Hebrew, Melek-Salem.” But the best ancient Jewish authorities, the Targums and Josephus, agree that Salem here is an ancient name of Jerusalem. There are other Salems mentioned as competitors for this honour, but their claims are very slender. Wordsworth endeavours to identify Salem with Shechem, which was, indeed, a most memorable spot in patriarchal times, but he only shows a Salem near Shechem, yet not Shechem itself. Abraham was, at the time of meeting Melchizedek, returning from the region of Damascus to his home at Mamre, or Hebron, and would pass in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In Psa_76:2, “In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion,” unquestionably gives the name of Salem to Jerusalem. This same Jerusalem, where dwelt the Hebrews to whom this epistle was addressed, was the dwelling-place of the type of our great High Priest, as afterward the chosen “dwelling-place” of Jehovah. Our Hebrews are on the spot, and can look back through the Antitype to his primeval type, the primitive “King of righteousness” and “peace.” Wordsworth, indeed, objects that Jerusalem, being the special locality of the Hebrew theocracy, was not the proper place for a universal representative priest; but that is forgetting that Jerusalem was then not Hebrew but Gentile. As king of Salem, Melchizedek was, doubtless, an Amorite prince, and a descendant of Ham. Abraham was a lonely Shemite, who had but lately come into the country, a brother, yet a foreigner; a brave sheik with a goodly band of followers, and a predicted progenitor of a great people; but as yet he was entirely inferior to a settled king in the land, like Melchizedek.

Priest of the most high God—A dignitary of high rank; both king and priest, worshipping the true God with acceptable rites before the apostasy of Ham had, in this region, established idolatry.

Blessed him—The Shemite immigrant rejoiced in the benediction of the Amorite pontiff. He had well earned the benediction by his heroic expulsion of the invaders out of Palestine.

Priest… God—In a tribe not yet apostate.

Most high—Says Philo, “The Logos, who is shadowed forth by Melchizedek, is ‘Priest of the Most High;’ not as though there were other gods not most high, for God is as the One in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is none besides him.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Heb_7:1. Melchizedek.—Already three times referred to (chaps. Heb_5:6; Heb_5:10, Heb_6:20); in each case the order of priesthood which Melchizedek represents, rather than the man himself, is in the writer’s mind. Melchizedek is a very vague and indistinct figure. All that is actually known concerning him is found in Gen_14:18-20. He is mentioned in Psa_110:4. The writer gives a mystical explanation of these brief references to a priestly order, antecedent to, and independent of, the order of Aaron. Notice that Melchizedek is the only priestly figure presented in tradition or history prior to the anointing of Aaron. Farrar reminds us that the “Jews attached high honour to the name of Melchizedek, whom they identified with Shem; and Philo had already spoken of Melchizedek as a type of the Logos.” The mystical explanation of his priestly order is the advanced truth for which the writer feared that his readers were hardly prepared. Salem.—Perhaps another name for Jebus, which was afterwards Jerusalem. Perhaps it is an appellative, rather than the name of a place (see Heb_7:2). Farrar identifies it with the town near Shechem (see Gen_33:18; Joh_3:23); and this is the view of Jerome. Priest.—Gen_14:18. It was common among the ancients for the kings to be priests also, as in the time of the Maccabees; but we look for something unusual in this priesthood of Melchizedek. The suggestion made by Miss Corbaux, in her work on the Rephaim, is worthy of special attention. She thinks that Salem was the central seat of their authority, and that the king who reigned there was the supreme head of their nation, to whom the different tribes were subordinate. If Melchizedek had been a mere local chief, it is difficult to see why the King of Sodom, an Emim prince, and why Abraham, should pay him the deference they did. “But the moment the important fact comes in by way of explanation, supported by sufficient extrinsic evidence, that the King of Salem was the supreme chief of the entire nation, and the local chiefs of the tribes were his subordinates, the whole transaction recorded in Genesis becomes intelligible, because we understand the mutual relation of all the parties concerned in it.” This suggests that Melchizedek was the one high priest of the day, and not one of many priests. Most high God.—R.V. “God most high.” El elión, also a title of God among the Phœnicians. Distinctly the one and only God, specially known to the Hebrews as “Jehovah.” A true high priest of the true God. There need be no assumption that the knowledge of the true God was confined to the family of Abraham. Slaughter.—Better, smiting, with the sense of defeat. Blessed him.—This is significant, as indicating a distinctly priestly act.

Heb_7:2. King of righteousness.—βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης. King of peace.—βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης. Philo also interprets “King of Salem” as “King of peace.” A mystical connection between the two names may be intended, since “righteousness” is the necessary antecedent to “peace.” See Isa_32:17; Eph_2:14-15; Eph_2:17; Rom_5:1.

Heb_7:3. Without father, etc.—These are not stated as actual facts concerning Melchizedek. They are true so far as the narrative of Genesis presents him to us. He is set before us without any genealogy. The writer argues from the silence of Scripture. “The fact that Melchizedek had no recorded father or mother or lineage enhanced his dignity, because the Aaronic priesthood depended exclusively on the power to prove a direct descent from Aaron, which necessitated a most sorupulous care in the preservation of the priestly genealogies.” The Arabians say of a man who has by his own efforts procured an exalted place of honour, and who is descended from ignoble parents, he had no father—that is, he is not named from his father, does not derive his titles and honours from his father. Beginning of days.—Or a fixed and limited period during which to exercise his priesthood. For limitation of Levitical service see Num_4:3; Num_4:23; Num_4:35; Num_4:43; Num_4:47; and compare Num_8:24-25. Continually.—Perpetually. As we have no intimation of its ever having ceased, we assume it is still going on.

We are now prepared for the arguments or illustrations that are to be based on this man’s name and history—on what is not known about him as well as what is known. The writer treats Scripture in a singular way.

A general sketch of the comparison of the orders may be given, in order to show that the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood better represents that of Christ than the Levitical. It should be noticed that Christ’s priesthood gets illustration from Melchizedek, but Christ’s work as a priest gets illustration from Aaron. These are the chief points brought out:—

(1) To show the dignity and superiority of the order of Melchizedek.

(a) Abraham, though founder of the Jewish people, gave tithes to Melchizedek.

(b) Though Levi was appointed to receive tithes, nevertheless, in the person of Abraham, he virtually paid tithes to Melchizedek.

(2) Continuing the comparison between the orders.

(a) The office of Levi was subject to change and death; the office of Melchizedek was permanent and perpetual.

(b) The prophecy of Messiah as belonging to another priesthood indicated the imperfection of the first priesthood.

(3) Proof that Christ is Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

(a) He sprang from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi.

(b) There was a priest promised after the order of Melchizedek.

(c) That promise is only fulfilled in Christ.

(4) Further extension of the comparisons.

(a) Appointment of priests was without an oath, and with an oath.

(b) Priests of Levi were many; Melchizedek was one priest.

(c) The sacrifices of Levi were many, the sacrifice of Christ was one.

(d) Christ is a heavenly, spiritual Priest; Levites were only earthly, ceremonial priests.

Christ could not be an earthly priest, seeing that God had already appointed such. He must be a priest after a new order. So the writer keeps close to his point, the uniqueness of Christ. He belongs to his own plane.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Heb_7:1-3

The Historical and Symbolical Melchizedek.—Only a passing allusion is made to Melchizedek in the book of Genesis. He flashes into view for a brief moment, and then passes back into the darkness. So vague is our knowledge of him that many have doubted whether he is to be regarded as an historical personage, or only a poetical or legendary character.

I. The Historical Melchizedek.—For many it settles the question of his historical character that he is mentioned in a Bible book; but the critical-minded are disturbed by the evident legendary character of some parts of the book of Genesis, and find it difficult to decide what is historical and what is not. This much may be said, Melchizedek is as real a person as Abraham. To accept the narrative of the slaughter of the kings involves accepting the paying of tithes to Melchizedek. Recent researches have confirmed the view that from very early times Salem, or Jerusalem, was inhabited, and occupied a central position, and a special sovereignty, in relation to the tribes that dwelt around. If this be so, the sovereign rights of Melchizedek may be fully understood. The word Melchizedek means “king of righteousness,” which may mean, or suggest the meanings, “king of morals,” “king of religion,” which is essentially righteousness; or “righteous king,” recognised and named because of his character; or “one who rules in righteousness”; or “one whose rule makes for righteousness.” The name at least suggests that he was no mere king of a ceremonial system, but a king of the spiritual things of character, and so a fitting foreshadowing of Him who was “Lord of lambs the lowly, King of saints the holy.” “Whence he came, from what parentage, remains untold; nay, even of what place he was king remains uncertain (for Salem may be either Jerusalem or the smaller town of which, in after-times, the ruins were shown to Jerome, not far from the scene of the interview). He appears for a moment, and then vanishes from our view altogether.” His name is Semitic, but he dwelt among Canaanitish people. Possibly he was a relic of the older inhabitants, and for this reason held in peculiar reverence. In some respects he may be compared to Balaam. Historically treated, three things claim attention:

1. His kingship, which may have been that of a particular town, but, more probably, was a suzerainty over the whole land. That kingship was exercised for righteousness, and therefore Melchizedek was a peacemaker. It is, however, quite possible that he was not an actual reigning king, but the kingly man of the age—the standard of goodness, the model of righteousness. If so, we can better understand his being also priest.

2. His priesthood. It is true that in early ages the heads of tribes were also priests of the tribe; but it is much more true that the exceptionally good man always is a priest to his fellows, a ministrant of heavenly blessings to them, and an intercessor with God for them. The best man is always both kingly and priestly.

3. His religion. There need be no difficulty about recognising this as the genuine religion of humanity, the worship of the one God according to the principles of His universal revelation to humanity. “His pure and holy faith in the ‘Most High God’ was doubtless a relic of the anciently universal recognition of the one Creator.… God has at no time left Himself without a witness even in lands secluded from the direct privileges of His people.” El or Il was the ancient supreme god of the Semitic races of Babylonia.

II. The Symbolical Melchizedek.—If he belonged to the earlier races of Palestine, and was above the average size of the existing inhabitants, vague ideas, and strange legends, might easily gather about him. The people around would know nothing about him, about his father, or about the office he held: they would only feel a vague reverence for the unusual-looking, beneficent, and other-world sort of man who moved to and fro amongst them. He became the symbol of the permanent priest of humanity; who must be—

1. Human, yet distinct from humanity.

2. Able to gain power by what he is in holy character.

3. Presenting the claims of righteousness wherever he goes.

4. Always the same, in order to stamp righteousness as an unchangeable thing. No more fitting, and no more suggestive, symbol of Christ, man’s spiritual and eternal priest, could be wished for

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Heb_7:1. The Historical Figure of Melchizedek.—This passage, which has ofttimes been misunderstood, presents no real difficulties. The last clause, “without descent,” is explanatory of the two former. Melchizedek is thus styled “without father and without mother” simply because he was not, as were the Levitical priests, recorded in any genealogy. This is made more plain by the language used in Heb_7:6 : “But he whose descent is not counted from them [i.e. the sons of Levi, Heb_7:5] received tithes,” etc. “These words,” says Tholuck, “denote him whose genealogy is unknown; while a priest, in the Levitical sense, could not, by any means, dispense with the proof of his descent.” Stuart and others differ slightly from the explanation of the phrase “without descent” given above. They take the sense to be, “whose father and mother are not mentioned in Scripture.” Kuinoel takes the meaning to be, “who had not a father, a priest, nor a mother the daughter of a priest.” The sense given by Tholuck, from whom Kuinoel differs but little, appears to us the most simple. All these authors substantially agree in the meaning they attach to the first two clauses. That the words “without father and without mother” may be used in a modified sense to indicate those whose parentage is either obscure or unknown, is evident from many passages in the Greek and Latin writers. Thus Ion, in Euripides, conceiving himself of mean birth, says, “As I am without mother, and without father, I attend the temple of Apollo.” So Philo calls Sarah, of whose mother no mention is made, “without mother.” In Latin authors this usage is still more common. Seneca, in his 108th Epistle, writes: “There are two Roman kings, of whom the one has not a father, the other a mother.” He then refers to Servius Tullius and Ancus Martius. Of the former king, Livy states that he was born of a female slave, “of no father.” Horace speaks of men “sprung from no ancestors” who had risen to great eminence and renown. Even the Rabbins have the same sort of speech. In the Bereshith Rabbi, sect. 18, 18, 2, it is said, “The Gentiles have no father,” having no Jewish pedigree. The explanation given above is further sustained by the ancient versions and the most eminent commentators. The Syriac Version, peculiarly valuable for its antiquity and fidelity, admirably renders the passage thus: “Whose father and mother are not inscribed among the genealogies.” The Arabic, being taken from the Syriac, substantially agrees with it. Chrysostom and Theophylact entertain the same opinion. Suidas thus writes: “He is, therefore, declared to be without descent or genealogy, because he is not of the seed of Abraham, but of Canaanitish origin … therefore he is destitute of the honour of a genealogy.” “Thus,” says Dr. Owen, “was Melchizedek without father and mother, in that the Spirit of God, who so strictly and exactly recorded the genealogies of other patriarchs, etc., speaks nothing to this purpose concerning him.” The opinions of better and later critics have already been given; to these two or three more may be added. Dr. Robinson informs us that Melchizedek is styled “without father, without mother,” because neither his father nor his mother was found in the Hebrew genealogies. “Being a Canaanite, and not standing in the public genealogical registers, as belonging to the family of Aaron, he was a priest, not by right of sacerdotal descent, but by the grace of God.” His priesthood, therefore, is of a higher and more ancient order than that of Aaron. “The context,” says Schleusner, “requires us to believe that Melchizedek is called ‘without father’ by Paul because his father was not inscribed in the genealogies of the Jewish priests.” It may, however, appear somewhat to militate against this interpretation that Melchizedek is mentioned immediately after the passage cited above as having “neither beginning of days nor end of life.” We may answer this objection in two ways. With Tholuck, we may adopt the language of Chrysostom, and say, “How ‘having neither beginning of days nor end of life’? How? as it is not contained in Scripture; this is ‘having no beginning,’ this is ‘having no end.’ ” “We must,” Tholuck goes on to add, “at ‘having neither beginning of days nor end of life,’ conceive added, ‘in history.’ These words would then be understood of the Mosaic annals, or of the early chronologies referred to by Josephus.” There is another answer. It is this, in the language of Stuart: “ ‘Having neither beginning of days nor end of life’; i.e. who, as high priest, has no limited time assigned for the commencement and expiration of his office; for so the following clause leads us to interpret this expression. The Levitical priests were limited in their service (see Num_4:3; Num_33:35; Num_33:43; Num_33:47 : compare Num_8:24-25). The meaning of the writer then is, that Melchizedek’s priesthood was limited to no definite time, i.e. sacerdos perpetuus, a priest without limitation of office.” The latter explanation strikes us as being the best. Melchizedek appears then, in history, as an enigmatic priest-king. From what race he sprang, where he obtained his knowledge of the true God, what was the nature and authority of his priestly office, we know not. He comes before us as a mysterious being. He disappears we know not when or where. In the dignity and perpetuity of his priesthood, how admirable a type he is of our High Priest—a priest for ever after the order (i.e. of an order or rank like that) of Melchizedek.—Biblical Treasury.

Heb_7:3. A Successor to Melchizedek.—Recent discoveries of Oriental archæology have established the strictly historical character of the account of the campaign of Chedorlaomer and his allies against Palestine. The accounts of Melchizedek, king of Salem, which the critics were unanimous in pronouncing to be mythical, have also received an unexpected confirmation from the same source. The new light has come from the decipherment of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets. “Among the correspondents of the Egyptian Pharaohs, whose letters have been found at Tel-el-Amarna, is a veritable successor of the priest-king Melchizedek. Ebed-Tob, the king of Uru-Salim, or Jerusalem, was indeed a vassal of Egypt; but he was a vassal who boasts that, unlike the other Egyptian governors in Canaan, he did not owe his position to the Egyptian monarch, nor was his royal dignity inherited; it was neither his father nor his mother, but an oracle of the god—‘the mighty king’—whom he worshipped, that had conferred it upon him. This god bore the name of Salim, the god of ‘peace.’ The royal priest, accordingly, who ruled in Uru-Salim, ‘the city of Salim,’ might be called ‘the king of Salim,’ with even more truth than ‘king of Jerusalem.’ Like the descendants of David, whom Isaiah beheld in prophetic vision (Heb_7:6), he was a ‘prince of peace.’ The description given of himself by Ebed-Tob, in his letters to the Egyptian monarch, explains the suddenness, as it were, with which Melchizedek is introduced upon the scene. His father is unmentioned. As the author of the epistle to the Hebrews says (Heb_7:3), he comes before us ‘without father, without mother, without descent.’ Like Ebed-Tob, it was not from his father or mother that he inherited his royal office—he had been appointed to it by the deity whom he worshipped, and he was king because he was also priest.”—After Sayce.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

SECOND SECTION

The eternal and perfect high-priesthood of Jesus Christ

______

I

The person of Melchisedek has, as a type of Christ, a triple superiority to the Levitical priests

Heb_7:1-10

1For this Melchisedek, king of Salem, priest1 of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2To whom also2 Abraham gave a tenth part of all;2 first being [being in the first place] by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that [in the second place] also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3Without father, without mother, without descent [without recorded lineage], having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like [having been assimilated] unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually [perpetually, 4in perpetuum]. Now [And] consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth part of the spoils [choicest spoils, ἀχροθινίων]. 5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who [they, indeed, who, as being of the sons of Levi], receive the office of priest, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, [even] though they come out of the loins of Abraham; 6But he whose descent is not counted from them, received 7tithes of [hath tithed] Abraham,3 and [hath] blessed him that had [possessed] the promises. 8And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better [superior, κρείττονος]. And here [indeed] men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9And as I may so say [so to speak], Levi4 also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes [hath been tithed] in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek5 met him.

[Heb_7:2.—ἐμέρισεν, apportioned, imparted.—πρῶτον μέν, in the first place.—ἔπειτα δέ, and then, and in the next place. In the classics ἔπειτα without δέ, commonly answers to πρῶτον μέν.

Heb_7:3—ἀγενεαλόγητος, ungenealogized, without recorded lineage; not as Eng. ver., without descent.—ἀφωμοιωμένος, having been assimilated, or rendered similar.—μένει, remaineth, abideth, emphatic.—εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, perpetually.

Heb_7:4—θεωρεῖτε δε, and contemplate behold; not, “now consider.” “Now” impairs the natural flow of the sentence. Alford’s “But observe” is objectionable.—The patriarch Abraham: in the original ὁ πατριάρχης, is separated from Ἀβραάμ, and thrown emphatically over to the end of the sentence.—ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων, from the top of the heap, hence, the selectest, or choicest spoils.

Heb_7:5.—καὶ οἱ μέν, and they indeed, or while they. Eng. ver., and verily, which Alf. says “is rather too strong.” It is not merely “too strong;” ‘verily,’ as a rendering of μέν is totally inappropriate.—οἱ ἐκ τῶν υἰῶν—λαμβ. they indeed, or while they, who, of the sons of Levi (or possibly, with Del., as being of the sons of Levi) receive the priesthood; or perhaps as suggested by Alf., “they of the sons of Levi when they receive (when receiving) the priesthood.—ἀποδεκατοῦν (Sin B. D.1 ἀποδεκατοῖν, received by Alf.), to tithe.—κατὰ τὸν νόμον, belongs to ἐντολὴν ἔχουσιν—καίπερ ἐξεληλυθότας, although having come out.

Heb_7:6—δεδεκάτωκεν, hath tithed—εὐλόγηκεν, hath blessed—construction chiastic, the verb preceding in one clause, and following in the next.

Heb_7:7.—ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττο·νος, by the greater, superior, not, of the better.

Heb_7:8.—Καὶ ὦδε μέν, and here indeed, or, while here, i. e., in the case of the Levitical priests.

Heb_7:9.—ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, so to speak, very well rendered as to the sense, by the Eng. ver., as I may so say. Some take the phrase as=in a word, of which and the “so to speak,” Alf. says that they, “in fact both run into one,” which is incorrect. “So to speak,” always implies a certain conscious license on the part of the speaker, which in a word does not necessarily nor ordinarily imply at all. The former, so to speak, is, as in the immense majority of cases, the meaning.—δεδεκάτωται, hath been tithed=stands before our eyes or recorded as tithed: Eng. ver., was tithed, exchanges the perfect for Aor., and loses in accuracy and picturesqueness.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Heb_7:1. For this Melchisedec, etc.—To establish the justice with which—not merely to explain the sense in which—the author at Heb_6:20 has referred to Psa_110:1, he shows primarily that Melchisedek was a higher priest than the Levitical, because in the narrative Gen_14:18-20, he has been put forward as type of the everlasting Priest, and because in Abraham he received tithes from Levi. The Heb_7:1-3 form a period with the verb μένει, abideth; so that we need not, and should not, with Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc., supply ἦν with the opening verse. The author first brings together the historical traits which the Scripture narrative assigns to Melchisedek, then from πρῶτον μέν he gives his interpretation of them in which he but follows in the steps of the Psalmist. Melchisedek is not in reality, like to the Son of God, but in the Scripture representation he has according to the purpose of the Holy Spirit, that he might be a type of the Messiah, been made like or assimilated to him. Αφομοιοῦν has this signification in Plato (Rep. VII. 517, B; VIII. 564, B). Nor do ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ involve any supernatural mode of coming into the world, but imply that his progenitors are either of humble origin, or are unknown, or are mentioned in no historical narrative, or came not into account in any legal relations (Examples in Bl.). Ἀγενεαλόγητος, also, means not (like ἀγένητος) without lineage, but Without recorded lineage, without a registered descent. Hence the following words indicate neither that he came from heaven, nor that he was snatched away into it, (Braun, Akersloot, Nagel in Stud. u. Krit., 1849, II. 332 ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repert., 1858, p. 102 ff., Alf., etc.). An everlasting existence is not ascribed to Melch. But neither is the language to be restricted to the beginning and termination of his priesthood (Camero, Seb. Schmidt, Limb., Kuin., Hofm.), inasmuch as personally he has been made the type of the Son of God.

[Alford (after Bleek) is still inclined to find in the author’s language some marvellous and inexplicable mystery investing the person of Melchisedek, though he confesses himself totally unable to conjecture what it may be. The emphatic phrase “having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” he conceives can scarcely be conceived as applying to a mere man. The language is certainly very striking, yet I cannot conceive it more striking than the purposes which call it forth, and these seem to me abundantly sufficient to account for its striking and apparently mysterious character. The author’s purpose is to show the points in Melchisedek’s recorded life and position, which fitted him in his priesthood to be a type of the priestly Son of God. For this purpose he turns to the record of the Old Testament, and draws his reasonings alike from what is and what is not there stated; alike from the recorded facts of Melchisedek’s transient and remarkable appearance, and the silence of the sacred narrative concerning all preceding or subsequent facts appertaining to his history. Both the record and the silence are equally remarkable. In the one Melchisedek appears as a king in relations which associate him at once with Righteousness and with Peace, as priest of the Most High God in the midst of idolatrous communities, and as blessing and receiving tithes from Abraham, the spiritual heir of the world. In the other, a personage so great and so remarkable, is, contrary to all the usage of the sacred history, which is generally very studious and exact in giving the lineage of its important personages, and usually notices alike their birth and their death, passed over without a solitary intimation as to his lineage or family relations, as to his birth or his death. The reason of this silence on the part of the Spirit that dictated the narrative, cannot be doubtful. It is intended to exhibit Melchisedek under personal relations, which should fit him also to be the priestly type of the High-Priest of the New Covenant. The facts seem abundantly sufficient to account for the Old Testament silence, and for the New Testament representation. Our author looks back to the Old Testament to see what there was in the record of Melchisedek to explain the language of the Psalm regarding his peculiar Priesthood. These facts present themselves prominently to him, and he exhibits them in such a manner as to bring out most strongly and forcibly the typical character of Melchisedek. We must remember that the sacred historian is generally studious to give the lineage of all the sacred persons with whom he has to do, and almost invariably signalizes the fact of their death. Here we have a singular and marked exception. Melchisedek, evidently, by the relations in which he appears in Genesis, one of the most extraordinary men of sacred history, is yet passed over without one gleam of light shed on the darkness either of his past or his future. He thus stands on the sacred page—amidst a narrative which, in its faithful record of births and deaths, seems intended to illustrate the truth that “Death reigned from Adam to Moses,”—as one who liveth. Without wishing, therefore, to derogate in the least from the depth of our author’s meaning, or from the dignity and mystery that invest the person of Melchisedek; without wishing to reduce him to the prosaic level of ordinary humanity, I yet can see no reason for finding in him any thing superhuman, or for departing from the prevailing view of the best modern expositors, which seems to me to have judiciously and wisely discarded all the old mysteries regarding Melchisedek. The truth is, our author’s language itself receives far greater depth and significance by our making its statements regarding Melchisedek derive their peculiar character and dignity from the supernatural personage whom he represented, than from any supposed supernatural attributes of Melchisedek himself. And we must remember, too, that for all the purposes which Melchisedek was to subserve as a type, the appearance, the mere representation of these qualities in him, answers precisely the same purpose as the realities. Here the principle truly applies, “De non existentibus, et non apparentibus, eadem est ratio.”—K.].

By Salem we are probably to understand Jerusalem (which bears this shortened name also at Psa_76:3; comp. Knobel Genesis , 2 Aufl., p. 149 ff.) although according to Jdg_19:10, the older name of Jerusalem was Jebus, and we find in Jerome (Ep. 126 ad Euagrium) that later tradition makes the Salim (or Salumias) of Joh_3:23, lying eight Roman miles south of Sycthopolis, the residence of Melchisedek, Bleek, Tuch., Ewald, Alf., decide after Primas., Rel., Rosenm., etc., in favor of this latter place, which is also probably mentioned Jdt_4:4. The author says designedly not εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, but εἰς τὸ διηνεκές=perpetually, because the priesthood which he has in sacred history, from the beginning to the end, without interruption and without transmission to another, is his own (Hofm. Schriftb. I. 402; 2 Ed. II. 1, 550, Del., Stier, etc., after Theodor. Mops.); not because his priesthood is perpetuated in Christ, the type remaining in the antitype (Thol. after Primas., Haymo, Thom. Aquin.), nor because the name of Priest, according to Rev., is applied to all the blessed (Auberl. Stud. u. Krit., 1857, III. 497).

Heb_7:4. And consider how great, etc.—The metabatic δέ introduces the consideration of the other side of the matter. It is more in harmony with the impassioned and elevated style of the passage, to take θεωρεῖτε as Imper. than as Indic. Πηλίκος refers ordinarily, according to the connection, to age, to size, or to moral greatness; but here to exaltedness and dignity of position. The καί is to be referred, not to Abraham (Luth., Grot., etc.), but to δεκάτην, as indicated by the order of the words. Ἀκροθίνια literally, the top of the heap, denotes commonly the first fruits of the harvest offered to the Deity; sometimes, as here, the choicest spoils of war selected out as a sacred offering. Of such select portions consisted the tithe of the entire booty, that was now presented by Abraham: the entire spoils cannot be denoted by ἀκροθίνια, as supposed by Chrys., Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc. The name of honor ὁ πατριάρχης, which denotes the ancestral father and head of the Israelitish nation, is applied Act_2:29, to David, and Act_7:8-9, to the twelve sons of Jacob.

Heb_7:5. And they indeed who, from the sons of Levi, etc.—In the words ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευΐ, Bl., De W., Lün., etc., take ἐκ partitively; but it is better, with Hofm., Del., etc., taken causatively. For the contrast is not drawn between those who as descendants of Aaron were priests, and those who were mere Levites, but between the Levitical priests and Mel., who has tithed Abraham, although (μὴ γενεαλογ. ἐξ αὐτῶν) not deriving his lineage from them. [The reason is, however, hardly conclusive. For although the writer does not intend a contrast between the priests and the other sons of Levi, yet the natural method of designating the Levitical priest is precisely that which is here employed, viz., those of the sons of Levi who received the priesthood.—K.]. Ἐξ αὐτῶν is by some erroneously referred to the Israelites, and by Grot, to Levi and Abraham together. A second contrast is this, that the Israelites received the tithes on the ground of a legal ordinance, while Melchisedek received it as a spontaneous offering. Add to this, that the Levites had to do with their countrymen over whom, although brethren, they were placed, and to whom they were at the same time restricted, while the relation of Melchisedec to Abraham was entirely different. The last point is the relation of him who blesses to the man who as Patriarch is the historical bearer of those promises of God which include the blessings. Ἱερατεία denotes the priestly service, and the priestly prerogative. In all other passages of our Epistle stands ἱερωσύνη=priesthood, i.e, priestly office and dignity (comp. Sir_45:7 with Sir_45:24). But even in the LXX. the meanings of the two words run into each other. Since, now, at Num_18:1, the term ἱερατεία is used to designate the Aaronic service, and Jehovah calls the Levites in relation to Aaron τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου, Biesenthal makes (see Del., p. 278 Anm.) the sagacious conjecture that our author refers to Num_18:25-32, where the Levites are required to give the tenth of the tenth to the priests, and that, instead of ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαόν, we are to read at Heb_7:5, Λευΐν. This would remove the difficulty occasioned by the fact that our author ascribes to the priests what, according to Lev_27:30, belonged to the Levites, viz., to receive all the tithes in Israel from Jehovah, to whom all the tithes of the land belong. For we cannot along with Bl. (followed by Bisp., while most recent intpp. do not touch the difficulty in question, and Ebr. seeks to evade it by a rendering inconsistent with the order of the words) assume that in the period after the exile the priests perhaps took the whole tithes for their own subsistence, and the maintenance of the temple service, and that the remaining members of the tribe of Levi surrendered to those who were actually engaged in the temple service what was demanded for their support. The passages Neh_10:38 ff; Neh_12:44; Neh_13:10; Tob_1:6-8, state precisely the reverse. The simplest solution is the assumption of the older comm. (Drus., Seb. Schmidt, etc.), that ἀποδεκατοῦν, is to be understood of the indirect tithing of the people by the priests, in that they received their tenth from the tenth of the Levites.

[The fact that there should ever have been any trouble about the solution of this point, shows how easily difficulties are found in the Scriptures, by an unnecessary rigidness of verbal interpretation. In a detailed account of the Mosaic Institutions, we should of course expect a statement of the precise relations of the priests to the Levites, and of the Levites to the people. But in a brief reference to them made merely for the sake of illustrating a principle, it is sufficient to state the general fact that the Levitical priests tithed the people, i.e, had their subsistence by the tithing of the people, without any intimation of the mode in which it was done, whether by tithing directly or through another body.—K.].

The conjecture of Ribera that under the term λαός, the author jointly includes the Levites, and that of Thom. Aquin. that the author starts from the supposition that the Priestly class furnish the ground and purpose of all the tithing, inasmuch as they alone receive tithes without rendering them, are both to be rejected. The Infin. form ἀποδεκατοῖν adopted by Tisch. after B. D*. (which MSS. also read at Mat_13:32, κατασκηνοῖν), appears to be of Alexandrian origin; comp. ξηλοῖν as a var. lec. in Dressel Patr. Apost. p. 322, n. 4, and στεφανοῖν, after an Inscription given by Krüger (I. 1, § 32, Anm. 7). Seb. Schmidt, Böhme, etc., connect the κατὰ τὸν νόμον with τὸν λαόν, Bleek, Bisp., Lün., with ἐντολὴν ἔχουσιν, the majority with ἀποδεκατοῦν.

Heb_7:8. Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.—Inasmuch as the Melchisedek of history is certainly dead, while yet the author is speaking not of an office but of a person, Cappell., Heins., Storr, in entire violation of the context, take the subject to be Christ. Equally unnecessary too is it with Theod., Bl., etc., to appeal to Psalms 110., which speaks of the Antitype of Melchisedek. We need only refer for the explanation of the language to Genesis 14. (Œc., Calv., Este, etc.), as we have here but a variation in the statement of Heb_7:3, that Melchisedek is “without end of life.” The person of Melchisedek is indeed treated as historical, but only in so far as he is a type of the Christian Messiah.

[Alford heads his comm. on Heb_7:8 thus: “Second item of superiority in that Melchisedek’s is an enduring, the Levitical a transitory priesthood.” This language is not quite accurate. The author is not comparing the priesthood of Melchisedek with the Levitical priesthood, but illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedek, which he does by showing his superiority to Abraham, and then again his superiority to the Levitical priests, in that while they receive tithes as dying men, he receives them as one of whom it is testified that he liveth. His priesthood is not primarily in question.—K.].

Heb_7:9. And so to speak, etc.—In itself ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν may mean, “to say in a word (briefly),” and “so to speak” (Theophyl.). The former signification which is here adopted by Camerar., Beng., etc., is much less appropriate than the second, which with the Vulg. and Luth. is maintained by most intpp. [I doubt the classical use of the phrase in the first signification. At all events it is incomparably more common with Greek writers in the second, which is here in like manner most decidedly in accordance with the context.—K.]. The phrase implies that the author is not speaking with strict accuracy, but only with virtual or approximative truth. Δι’ Ἀβραάμ is not on account of Abraham (August., Phot.), but, through Abraham; the Gen. not the Acc.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. In the biographies of persons who in the Holy Scripture itself have received a typical significance, we are to regard not merely what is recorded of them, but also what, in regard to them, is designedly past in silence. So of the silence of the Holy Scripture regarding the origin and end of Melchisedek, who, with bread and wine in his hands, went forth from his royal city to meet and bless Abraham in the vale of Shittim, or the king’s dale, which 2Sa_18:18 is mentioned as the place in which Absalom erected a monument, and is sought for in the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Jos. Antt. 1, 10, 2). The conjectures of Jewish and Christian interpreters in Deyling (Observv. Sacr. II. 71 seq.) which identify Mel. with Shem, Ham, or Enoch, are as much opposed to the history, as the conjecture of Nork (Bibl. Mythol. I. 154) who here finds the Phœnician god Sydik, i.e, צַדִּיק=Kronos, Saturn. He is simply an otherwise unknown king, whose meeting with Abraham, however, is, in the history of redemption, at once of the greatest historical and typical importance.

2. In the narrative itself lies the basis of the author’s typical interpretation. For Melchisedek is designated Gen_14:19; Gen_14:22 priest (כּחֵן) of the Most High God (אֵל עֶלְיוֹן). He thus not merely performed priestly acts, as did also Abraham as princely chief, and as did every father of a family. The language points to a priesthood distinct from his royal authority, and from the patriarchal character, which was united with royalty only in the person of Melchisedek. When, therefore Abraham bows before this priestly king, receives his blessing, and renders to him tithes, he recognizes not merely their relationship in modes of faith, in their common worship—a worship untainted by idolatry—of the God who created the world (while, at the same time, Abraham on his own part emphasizes, Heb_7:22, the specific reference of his faith to Jehovah, as the God who reveals himself in the work of human redemption), but he places himself personally in a subordinate relation in respect of office to this priestly king—a relation thus naturally and necessarily suggesting a typical explanation, and a Messianic reference. Historically, the phenomenon of his appearance is explicable in the fact that, according to Scripture itself, the worship of Jehovah, which characterized the descendants of Abraham (Gen_28:13; Exo_3:6) did not actually owe its origin to Abraham. Abraham is not the first professor of this faith, but only its main representative and transmitter among the children of Noah, as Seth among those of Adam. Just as at a later period, in contrast with the false particularism of the Jews, Jehovah is designated as the God who is מֵעוֹלָם, Psa_90:2; Psa_93:2; Psa_103:17, or מִקֶּרֶם, Hab_1:12, so the Jehovah worshipped by Abraham appears in Gen. as the Creator of the world already worshipped by primitive men on the ground of the revelation of Himself. And the agency of Abraham in maintaining the knowledge and worship of this God, is expressed in the same words as that of Seth, Gen_4:26. In the statement, however, that men then “began to call on the name of Jehovah,” the historian cannot intend to be understood that then absolutely the name of Jehovah was first made known; for but a little before the same name had been put in the mouth of Eve. He employs the term of the religious worship of Jehovah, which also at Psa_79:6; Psa_116:17; Isa_12:4, this expression very decidedly designates.

3. The existence of a priestly king, entitled to utter a blessing and to receive tithes, and in this character acknowledged by Abraham—a personage who is indebted for his position to no lineal descent, or legal ordination, but who exercises a ministry purely personal, so that alike his origin and his end are veiled from our view, furnishes the natural ground and justification of the thought that a non-Levitical priesthood, outside indeed of the Mosaic legal enactments, yet still according to the will of God, holds an authorized relation to the descendants of Abraham; nay, that the Messiah predicted (Psalms 110) within the very sphere and by the very prophets of Judaism, as a priest after the order of Melchisedek, possesses alike in his royal priesthood and his personal character, an infinite elevation above the Levitical priests, and the Aaronic high-priests, and that to recognize this is a sacred duty of the Hebrews.

4. The typical elements which attach themselves to the Scripture account of Melchisedek are found not merely in the acts which the Scripture narrative ascribes to him, but also in the significance of his name. This designates him as a type of the Prince of Peace, Isa_9:5, and Branch of righteousness, Jer_23:5; Jer_33:15, who as a Ruler standing near to Jehovah, Jer_30:21, coming forth from the midst of Israel, spreads righteousness and peace in the land, Psalms 72.; Mic_2:13; Jer_23:5 ff.: establishes them according to the Divine will, Eze_34:24; Eze_37:25 : in that He creates peace among the nations, Zec_9:10, and is himself Peace, (Mic_5:5). This typical character is entirely overlooked by those who ascribe to our author the idea that Melchisedek came miraculously into life and miraculously departed from it, (Nagel, Zur Characteristik der Auffassung des A. T. im N. T., 1850); or that he is the incarnation of an angel (Orig., Didym.), or of the Holy Spirit; (The author of the Quæst. in vet. et Nov. Test. in Hilarius and the Ægyptian Hierakas, Epiph. hær., 67); or of a Divine power transcending even Christ in majesty (the Melchisedekites, a section of the Theodotians), or of the Son of God Himself (Molinæus, Cunæus, Hottinger, D’Outrein, Starke and others, after some orthodox Fathers in Epiphanius hær., 55).

5. “The Melchisedek of human history has indeed died; but the Melchisedek of sacred history lives without dying, fixed for ever as one who lives by the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as type of the Son, the ever-living Priest.” (Del.).—“Likened, he says, to the Son of God.” And wherein does this likeness display itself? In the fact that we know neither the end nor the beginning either of the one or the other; but of the one, because the beginning and the end are not recorded; of the other, because they have no existence.” (Chrys.).—“As man, Christ was without Father, and as God, without mother; as high-priest He was without genealogy, and as Eternal Son of God without beginning and without end of days.” (Bisp.)—“Christ, in the Divine counsels, is before all figures and types: He is the original; all others are copies. They are modeled after Him, not He after them; so also Melchisedek after Jesus Christ, not Jesus Christ after Melchisedek.”—(Heubner).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The appearance and work of Jesus Christ have been pointed out to us in the Old Testament not only by words of prophecy, but also by types and figures alike in persons and acts.—We understand the history of the world, only as we conceive it from the point of view of sacred history, and interpret it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.—To what should we be moved by the thought that our actions have a far-reaching and profound influence on the fortunes of our posterity?—It is those who have been already blessed who are always receiving new blessing.—Pious men render mutual service to each other for the honor of God.

Starke:—To heroes and warlike men, who venture their life to protect their country and people, belong respect, refreshment and intercessory prayer.—Happy are the kings who are kings of righteousness and of peace.—The Divine Administration has many a time wrought something through the primitive fathers, not merely for their sakes, but also for the sake of their posterity.

Heubner:—The priesthood of Christ, not the priesthood of the Law, is the source of all blessing.—To our Melchisedek belongs every thing in sacrifice, since we have all from Him and through Him.—Let us learn that our true nobility springs not from men but from Heaven; that we are to forget time, and think only of eternity.—The Levites take a tenth from their brethren; Melchisedek from Abraham; but Christ receives the reverence, the service of the whole world.

Footnotes:

[1]Heb_7:1.—The Art. before ὑψίστου, is attested by Sin. A. C. D. E. K. L., 28, 44, 46, 48.

[2]Heb_7:2.—The καί is sustained against the authority of B. D*. E*. by Sin. A. C. Dm. E**. K. L. and the minusc.

[3]Heb_7:6.—The Art. before Abraham is erased by some, on the authority of B. C. D*. 23, 57, 109. The Sin. has it from a later hand. [It is retained by Tisch. on preponderating authority.—K.].

[4]Heb_7:9.—The form Λευΐς is found in A. B. C*. Λευει in Sin., where the corrector has put Λευεις, which is received by Tisch., Ed. VII.

[5]Heb_7:10.—The Art. before Melch. is after Sin. B. C*. D*. 73, 118, to be omitted.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 7

1. The priesthood of Melchisedec in contrast with the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:1-19)

2. The holy and heavenly priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:20-28)

Heb 7:1-19

The interrupted argument concerning the priesthood of Christ is now resumed. It connects with Heb 5:10. There we find Melchisedec mentioned for the first time, and here the historical Melchisedec is first of all described. The record is given in Gen 14:18-20. He met Abraham, who returned from the smiting of the Kings, and blessed him. Abraham gave him the tenth of all. His name means “King of Righteousness”; but he was also King of Salem, that is, “King of Peace.” First righteousness and peace after-ward. This is God’s order--not peace and righteousness, but righteousness and peace. It is so spiritually for the believer; it will be so in millennial times when “righteousness and peace will kiss each other.”

Who was Melchisedec? Some have said he was Shem and not a few maintain that he was the Lord Himself, one of the theophanies, a pre-incarnation manifestation of the Son of God. The latter view is certainly wrong, for Scripture states that Melchisedec is “made like unto the Son of God”, that is, he is a pattern, a similitude of Him; Melchisedec was therefore not the Lord Himself. It is vain to speculate on the identity of this King-Priest, for the Holy Spirit on purpose does not mention who he was. When we read, “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” it does not mean that Melchisedec had no father and no mother, etc. But it means that Scripture gives no record of these facts; Moses being divinely guided in omitting it all in the book of Genesis, and thus making Melchisedec appear as a man without father and mother, without descent, having no beginning and end of days, who has a priesthood invested in himself. And this for the purpose of furnishing a type of our Lord as the royal priest.

Melchisedec foreshadows fully the millennial glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. See Zec 6:9-13. He will receive His own throne and be a priest upon that throne. Significantly he appeared suddenly when Abraham was returning from smiting the allied kings. (Gen 14:1-24 gives the record of the first war of the Bible.) And then he blessed Abraham and made known to him God as the Most-High (the millennial name of God), the possessor of heaven and earth. Even so the true Melchisedec will some day appear, and after the smiting of the kings (the battle of Armageddon, Rev 16:14-16; Rev 19:19) will begin His glorious rule. Nor must it be overlooked that Melchisedec brought to Abraham bread and wine, the blessed emblems of the great sacrificial work of the true Melchisedec, which points us, who are by faith the children of Abraham, to the blessed memorial feast, in which His love and grace, as well as glory, are remembered. Christ is therefore now for His own the Priest after the order of Melchisedec; the full display of His Melchisedec priesthood arrives in the day of His coming glory.

The chief object of bringing forward the person of Melchisedec and his connection with Abraham is, to show first, the superiority of Melchisedec to Levi and his priesthood as better and higher than the Levitical priesthood. Abraham gave him the tenth part of all the spoil. The whole Levitical priesthood was then not in existence, inasmuch as Levi, unborn, was in the loins of Abraham; in Abraham, Levi, therefore, gave tithes to Melchisedec. Melchisedec, as priest, blessed the father of the nation, and therefore he was greater than Abraham, for “without controversy, the less is blessed of the greater.” The priesthood of Melchisedec was therefore superior to that of the sons of Levi, the Aaronic priesthood.

After this argument another one is introduced. The question is concerning the Levitical priesthood, if it could give perfection. The one hundred and tenth psalm announced the coming of a priest after the order of Melchisedec and therefore superior to Aaron. If then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, what need was there that this other priest of a higher order than Aaron should arise? Because perfection was not by that earthly priesthood, nor by the law, therefore this better priest had to come to bring the needed perfection and that necessitated a change of the law also. “The law, doubtless, was good; but separation still existed between man and God. The law made nothing perfect. God was ever perfect, and human perfection was required; all must be according to what divine perfection required of man. But sin was there, and the law was consequently without power (save to condemn); its ceremonies and ordinances were but figures, and a heavy yoke. Even that which temporarily relieved the conscience brought sin to mind and never made the conscience perfect towards God. They were still at a distance from Him. Grace brings the soul to God, who is known in love and in a righteousness which is for us.”--J.N.D.

The law in all its ordinances was a witness of imperfection, though it foreshadowed the good things to come. The law was therefore not to abide. With the cessation of the Levitical priesthood the entire law-covenant would terminate. And He of whom these things are spoken (the Lord Jesus Christ) “pertaineth to another tribe, of which no one hath given attendance at the altar (as priest). For it is certain that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” His coming, therefore, has taken from the tribe of Levi the honor and set aside their priesthood. And He who sprang out of Judah, the priest after the similitude of Melchisedec (combining priesthood and royalty) hath been made, not after a law of fleshly commandment, but after the power of an indissoluble life. His priesthood is not a thing of time and change, a fleshly priesthood like Aaron’s but it is a priesthood in the power of an indissoluble life. He has passed through death, and now in heaven, not on earth, He is the Melchisedec priest, who has no end of days, who lives eternally.

Then follows a conclusion, a summing up of the whole argument. In the stated fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, “There is a setting aside of the commandment going before (the law and its ordinances) on account of weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect) and the bringing in of a better hope through which we draw near to God.” The law is then set aside on account of its weakness and unprofitableness, for it could not perfect anything. All the priestly ordinances and ministrations could not make atonement, nor could bring nigh unto God. It was all imperfection. Yet perfection and bringing His children nigh unto Himself is God’s gracious and eternal purpose. And God has accomplished this now in the person of His ever blessed Son, the priest after the order of Melchisedec. This is the bringing in of a better hope; by Him we draw near unto God. This truth is more fully developed later.

Heb 7:20-28

An additional argument is given. The priesthood of Christ was established by an oath, while that of Aaron was not. Swearing an oath God said as to Him, who sat down at His own right hand, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec.” How superior, then, this priesthood! By so much, also, hath Jesus become surety of a better covenant.” And furthermore, they were many priests, for they were mortal men and died. But Christ continueth forever and hath the unchangeable priesthood. And this ever-living priest is able to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by Him, seeing that He always liveth to make intercession for them.” He saves completely and keeps His own by His priestly, all-powerful intercession, for eternal glory. And what a high priest He is! Such a high priest! Well may His own in holy joy and praise cry out--”Such a high priest!” He is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. “In His official dignity and glory He is made higher than the heavens.” And He has no need, day by day, as the earthly high priests, first to offer up sacrifices for His own sins, then for those of the people. This He did once for all when He offered up Himself. What a contrast with the Jewish priests. They were sinners--He, separate from sinners and absolutely holy; they with the many sacrifices, which could accomplish nothing for man--He with the one great sacrifice which has accomplished all. And so He maketh intercession for them who have believed in Him, the many sons He brings to glory. He is holy and heavenly--even so are all His own, saved by grace, holy and partakers of the heavenly calling (Heb 3:1).

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 7:1-17

Melchisedec a Type.

I. What is meant by King? what by Priest? what is the idea of Kingship and of Priesthood? (1) The idea of Kingship was to some extent announced in the creation of Adam. A King is a man in the image of God, who represents upon earth God Himself, and unto whom, direct from God, without the intervention of any other, there is given power and dominion, that he may will according to the mind, according to the goodness and wisdom of God. (2) By priesthood is meant communion with God—that which brings unto man the love of God—that which brings unto God the worship and service of man. It need scarcely be added that Kingship and Priesthood cannot exist without Prophetship; for how can there be rule in the name of God, or how can there be a mediation of the love of God to man, and of our worship and obedience to God, unless there be in the first place a manifestation of God Himself, a revelation of His character? Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King.

II. Melchisedec, greater than Abraham, is also greater than the Levitical priesthood, and is thus a type of Christ, who is above Aaron, and whose priesthood is perfect.

III. Melchisedec appears in the inspired history as a priest solely by Divine appointment and right. His priestly dignity is personal; his position is directly God-given; his priesthood is inherent. Look now at the fulfilment. Jesus is the everlasting Father. The very Scriptures which describe Him as a Child born, as a Son given, which dwell on His humanity, declare to us His eternal divinity. He has no beginning of days, no end of life. His is now a continuous, not a successional priesthood; not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an eternal, an indissoluble life.

A. Saphir, Lectures on Hebrews, vol. i., p. 363.

References: Heb 7:1-19.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 356. Heb 7:1-28.—R. W. Dale, The Jewish Temple and the Christian Church, p. 136.

Heb 7:2

The King of Peace.

I. All words are relative, and there is sometimes a deep and solemn lesson in their relativeness. The very naming the name of peace presupposes that there has been war, and what a tremendous fact lies in that simple inference! Man is at war with his Creator. It is over all this widespread field of war that the King of Salem has in His infinite grace stretched His sceptre, making the very ground of the battle the base and throne of the empire of His peace. The position of contending parties required an arbiter. He added the human nature to the Divine, that in His twofold being, laying his hand upon both, He might act the Day’s-man’s part, and unite man to God.

II. But His work ceased not here. He rose from His cross to the heavens, and as the sunken sun by the heat which it leaves covers the earth with dews, so did the Saviour, hidden from us for a little while, shed and distil on our world, from within the veil, the gentle influences of His peace-giving spirit. The secret warfare goes on indeed in the heart of every Christian, but then here is his comfort—the issue is secure. It is not as with the earthly warrior. There are no uncertainties here: his crest may stoop, but it cannot be conquered; the battle may often flag during the day, but he must win in the evening. There are many things which the world can give you: it can give you amusement; it can give you excitement; it can give you pleasure; but it can never give you peace of mind—no, not for an hour. Peace—all Salem is Christ’s exclusively; by legacy from His cross, by deed of gift from His throne, He has made it over to us—"Peace I leave with you"; the more peace you take the better subject you are of that kingdom which is called Salem. Every fear is rebellion against its King. Nothing honours Christ like the peace of His people—peace is Salem’s loyalty.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 15.

Righteousness first, then Peace.

I. First, we find in this order a hieroglyphic of Christ’s reconciling work.

II. I see in this order a summary of Christ’s operations with the individual soul. There is no inward harmony, no peace of heart and quietness of nature, except on condition of being good and righteous men.

III. I see in this order the programme of Christ’s operations in the world.

IV. I see in this order the prophecy of the end. The true Salem, the city of peace, is not here. For us and for the world the assurance stands firm—the King who Himself is righteousness is the King whose city is peace.

A. Maclaren, The Unchanging Christ, p. 214.

References: Heb 7:2.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx., No. 1768; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 283. Heb 7:4.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxi., No. 1835; Homilist, 2nd series, vol. i., p. 80; Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvii., p. 232.

Heb 7:15-16

The Power of an Endless Life.

The idea of a priesthood appears to have entered largely, if not universally, into the economy of the human race at all times. Before Christ came, men were under the priesthood of the law; since His advent, He Himself has become their priest. There is, of course, a wide and characteristic difference between these priesthoods; a difference as wide as that between the finite and the infinite: the mortal and the immortal: the temporal and the eternal. About the first there is the inexorable hardness of the cold, dead statue; in the second there are warmth, heart, life, and freedom. This difference is in exact accordance, not merely with the nature of the two priesthoods, but with their purposes. The one, being natural, took cognisance only of the outward, and adapted itself accordingly, so that it became "the law of a carnal commandment." The other repudiates this law, and takes cognisance of the inner life, and touching the motive-spring of spiritual aspirations, adapts itself to immortal requirements, and so becomes made "the power," or force, or impulse "of an endless life." The one supervises the carnal, the other the spiritual. The one guides the body, the other presides over the soul.

I. The emphatic word of the text is not "endless," but "power"—"the power of an endless life." The human soul does not float about in a serene equipoise of eternal mediocrity, but it grows and gathers strength with the ages. This growth must not be overlooked because it is latent and unseen. The soul is a nucleus or germ or kernel of an illimitable possibility.

But the implication of the text would seem to point to some monstrous perversion of the power of the endless life, to some mad, insensate, infatuated, wasting away of its power. Yes, it does take cognisance of some such fact, for it was the existence of this wreck which made a need-be for the intervention of the Great High Priest to whom the text refers. One of the most emphatic lessons which the Redeemer ever taught when on earth was propounded categorically, was put in the form of a question, and the question was this: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" The very fact of Christ putting such a question implies a recognition on His part of the tendency in man to underrate his soul, and to make mistakes in his computation of his value. And the selfsame cause which leads us to underrate our soul leads us to set aside redemption as a scheme or as a theory too prodigious for belief. We think these little souls are not worth so much, and we will not believe the scheme of salvation, because we will not rightly value the immortality to be saved. We must never look upon heaven as a condition of stationary mediocrity, and we must think ourselves into the conception of an eternal growth, a perpetual expansion: not merely everlasting existence, but everlasting enlargement. And having mastered this colossal idea, we must gauge our need by our capacity, and we must gauge Christ’s work by both; not by our present capacity, but by our capacity after the lapse of ages, when they shall be grown with the eternity.

A. Mursell, Penny Pulpit, New Series, No. 150.

Heb 7:15-28

I. The Apostle announces a great principle in the words, "The law made nothing perfect." There was not a single point in which the law reached the end, for the end of the law is Christ. The imperfection of the law appears in these three points especially—(1) The forgiveness of sin; (2) Access unto God was not perfected under the old dispensation; (3) They had not received the Holy Ghost as an indwelling spirit. The law made nothing perfect. For perfection is true, substantial, and eternal communion with God through a perfect mediation, and this perfect mediation we have obtained in the Lord Jesus Christ.

II. Look at the contrast between the priests of the Levitical dispensation and this priest according to the order of Melchisedek. They were many: He is only one. Their priesthood was successional—the son followed the father: Christ has a priesthood which cannot be transferred, seeing that His life is indissoluble. They were sinful, but He is holy, pure, and spotless. They offered sacrifices in the earthly tabernacle: He presents Himself with His blood in the true sanctuary, which is high above all heavens, which is eternal. Christ, in virtue of His priesthood, can save completely (in a perfect, exhaustive, all-comprehensive manner) all who through Him come to God, because He ever liveth to intercede for them.

III. This peace or communion with God must combine three things: (1) The mediation must go low enough. A ladder is of no use unless it comes down exactly to the point where I am. (2) It must go high enough: it must bring me into the presence of God. (3) It must go deep into our very hearts. As we are brought unto God, so must God be brought unto us, for the Christ that lives for us must also live in us.

A. Saphir, Lectures on Hebrews, vol. i., p. 397.

Heb 7:16

The Power of Christ’s endless life.

I. The first thought is the power which this endless life has of communicating itself. The very idea of such a life brings with it an inspiration and hope. Even if it were said that the idea is only the offspring of the soul of man, is it not a ground of hope that his soul has the power of forming such ideas? To conceive of eternity is so far to be partakers of eternity. We share what we see. But the power of Christ’s endless life does more than communicate the hope of it to others, it gives the possession. When the original well of life was tainted and poisoned by sin, He came to open up a new and pure fountain. He secures for us a pardon consistent with righteousness, without which it could have brought no real life. He begins a new life in the soul, which has hard and manifold struggles with the fierce reluctances of the old nature. He encourages, strengthens, renews it, and at last makes it victorious.

II. Think (1) of the power Christ has in His endless life of conveying knowledge and experience. Death is the one great barrier between man and growth. (2) Note the sense of unity in Christ’s plan, which we may derive from the power of His endless life. God has been pleased that the greatest enterprise the world contains should not be passed from hand to hand; it is not to flicker to and fro amid the gusts of grave-vaults, but to be in the power of an endless life. There are two things secured for the unity of Christians by Christ’s unending life. The first is a oneness of heart and sympathy. The other unity is that of action. (3) Think how the power of Christ’s endless life may fill us with the spirit of patience. (4) The power of Christ’s endless life opens the prospect of abiding joy. The power of His endless life is still engaged in works like those which occupied Him on earth, but in grander measure and in wider fields; and what He offers to all who will accept it is a joy, not like His, but a joy the very same. It is the joy of knowledge, of purity, of holy, happy service in doing God’s will, in self-sacrifice, itself continued in self-forgetfulness, for without this the joy of heaven would be less than the joy of earth.

J. Ker, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 34.

Heb 7:16

I. That Christ’s life was and is "an endless life" needs no demonstration. He died—but death is no cessation of life. At the very moment He was dying—in the article of death—His own mind was willing it, His own act was doing it, His own priesthood was presenting it; and the very moment He was dead He had converse with one who died with Him; and He went at once and "preached to the spirits in prison"; and it was His own hand and His own power that raised Himself out of His grave after three days. And we know how careful God has been to identify that one risen, crucified life on through the forty days,—ascending before the same eyes that had been familiar with Him all along,—seen by at least three, the very same Son of Man in His glory, and then distinctly heard saying in heaven, "I am He that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore. Amen." So true is the prophecy, "Of the increase of His government and priesthood there shall be no end."

II. Now all the while that Christ was upon the earth He must have carried with Him the consciousness that everything He said and did was the beginning of its own eternity. Each thing had in it the germ of its own immortality. It was to go on and expand for ever and for ever. There is a deep, mystic sense in which the life that Christ lived in this world—its birth, its infancy, its development, its temptations, its solitude, its conflicts, its sufferings, its miracles, its joys, its holiness, its love, its dying, its rising, its soaring: all is enacted over and over again in the soul and in the experience of every individual that lives in time, nay, beyond time into eternity.

III. But the efficacy of the power of Christ’s endless life does not stop here. It is the marvel of His grace that whatever is united to Christ, by that union shares His power; and hence, it is not only His prerogative—it is yours and mine—"the power of an endless life." We are all learning a little of Divine truth. It is but the simplest elements we know; and we know them very poorly. But what we know is the beginning of knowledge. I shall hold it, I shall build upon it in another state; and every new lesson I get is another step of the ladder by which I go ascending in knowledge for ever and ever. We try, in our little way, to do something for God. What is it? Of itself nothing. But it is the actual commencement of those very exercises in the service of God which will occupy and fill our perfected condition for ever.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 4th series, p. 205.

References: Heb 7:16.—Homilist, 3rd series, vol. ii., p. 199; S. A. Tipple, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxv., p. 382. Heb 7:17.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 11; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. vi., p. 333. Heb 7:19.—E. White, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 312. Heb 7:20-22.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii., No. 1597. Heb 7:23-25.—Ibid., vol. xxxii., No. 1915; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 357. Heb 7:23-28.—Ibid., p. 358.

Heb 7:24-25

The intercession of Christ the strength of our prayers.

Christ intercedes for us chiefly in two ways.

I. First, by the exhibition of Himself in His Divine manhood, pierced for us, raised, and glorified. His five blessed and holy wounds are each one a mighty intercession on our behalf. The glorious tokens of His cross and passion, exhibited before the throne of God, plead for us perpetually. His very presence in heaven is in itself an intercession for us. His sacrifice on the cross, though perfected by suffering of death only once in time, is in its power eternal. Therefore it stands a Divine fact, ever present and prevailing, the foundation and life of the redeemed world, before the throne of God.

II. But, further, we are told in Holy Scripture that He intercedes, that is, that He prays for us. This is a vast mystery of inscrutable depth. As God, He hears our prayers; as our Intercessor, He prays in our behalf. While He humbled Himself "in the days of His flesh," He prayed as a part of the work He had to do; it was for the accomplishing of the redemption of the world; for the blotting out of the sin of mankind. This prayer of humiliation passed away with the sharpness of the cross, to which it was related, of which it was the shadow. The prayers which He offered, being yet on earth, were a part of His obedience and suffering to take away the sin of the world. All this, therefore, is excluded from His intercession now in heaven. When He entered into the holy place He left all these tokens of infirmity outside the veil. What then remains? There remains yet both His intercession as the High Priest, and as Head of the Church, for the body still on earth. And in this there is nothing of humiliation, but all is honour and power; it does not cast a shade upon the glory of His Godhead, unless it be humiliation for the Word to be incarnate at the right hand of God. There is here (1) a great warning for the sinful. Christ’s intercession is day and night prevailing over the kingdom of the wicked one. (2) Great comfort £0 all faithful Christians. We should (a) make the intercession of our Lord the measure of our prayers. (b) Make His intercession the law of our life. We ought to be what He prays we may become.

H. E. Manning, Sermons, vol. iii., p. 255.

References: Heb 7:24, Heb 7:25.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 269. Heb 7:24-28.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 372.

Heb 7:25

Salvation to the uttermost.

I. Christ Jesus is able to save to the uttermost: for there is no degree of guilt from which He cannot save. It would be a hard question to decide which is the worst form of human guilt. But we owe it to the power and grace of Immanuel to repeat that broader than human transgression is the Divine atonement.

II. But not only can Jesus save to the uttermost extent of depravity,—He can save to the uttermost hour of existence. Both truths may be abused, and both will be abused, by the children of wrath, by those who because of abounding grace continue in sin. But still we must state them, and up to the last moment of life Jesus is able to save.

III. Jesus saves to the uttermost, because He saves down to the lowest limits of intelligence.

IV. Jesus can save in the utmost pressure of temptation. He saves to the uttermost, for He ever intercedes; and but for the intercession faith would often fail. No sheep can be snatched from the bishop of souls; and interceding for the poor panic-stricken one who has ceased to pray for himself, the Saviour brings him back rejoicing—saved to the uttermost.

V. And Jesus saves to the uttermost because, when human power can proceed no further, He completes the salvation. "Lord Jesus, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," has been the oft-repeated prayer of the dying Christian in clearer and more conscious hours. And "Father, I will that this one whom Thou hast given Me be with Me where I am" had been the Mediator’s prayer for him not only before he came to die, but before he was born. Is not this the Saviour whom we need? the mighty Advocate of whom alone it is said, "Him the Father heareth always," whose intercession has all the force of a fiat, and whose treasury contains all the fulness of God.

J. Hamilton, Works, vol. vi., p. 242.

Christ our only Priest.

I. Gross profanement and abandonment of our Christian privileges and duties has flowed directly from the superstitious error of making a broad and perpetual distinction between one part of Christ’s Church and another; of making Christian ministers priests, and putting them between God and the people, as if they were to be in some sort mediators between God and their brethren, so that He could not be approached but through their ministry. The profaneness has followed from the superstition according to a well-known fact in our moral nature, that if the notion be spread, that out of a given number of men some are required to be holier than the rest, you do not, by so doing, raise the standard of holiness for the few, but you lower it for the many.

II. And, therefore, there is no truth more important, and more deeply practical, than that of Christ being our only Priest; that without any other mediator or intercessor or interpreter of God’s will, or dispenser of the seals of His love to us, we each of us, of whatever age, sex, or condition, are brought directly into the presence of God through the eternal priesthood of His Son Jesus: that God has no commands for any of His servants which are not addressed to us also; has no revelation of His will, no promise of blessings, in which every one of Christ’s redeemed has not an equal share. We all, being many, are one body, and Christ is our Head; we all, through no aid of any one particular person of our body, draw near through the blood of Christ to God. Where two or three are gathered together in Christ’s name there is all the fulness of a Christian church, for there, by His own promise, is Christ Himself in the midst of them.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iii., p. 86.

References: Heb 7:25.—H. J. Wilmot Buxton, The Children’s Bread, p. 79; Todd, Lectures to Children, p. 54; J. Sherman, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 70; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii., No. 84; W. Cunningham, Sermons, p. 224; J. Aldis, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 161; H. W. Beecher, Ibid., vol. xxix., p. 210; Homiletic Magazine, vol. vii., p. 23; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 9; Ibid., vol. x., p. 78. Heb 7:26.—Ibid., p. 147; W. Pulsford, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 329.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 3. (Heb 7:1-28.)

The Superiority of the Melchisedec to the Levitical Priesthood.

We have now before us the subject of the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ; and there are questions connected with it which require more consideration than they have yet obtained. What, exactly, does this priesthood mean? Is the whole matter for us that Christ is a Priest after that order? Is He not acting as yet in that character? And is such action purely millennial, and therefore having respect only to Israel and the earth? This is how many understand it, but does Scripture really require or warrant this? And what is the practical value for us, or for the epistle to the Hebrews, of the scriptural view? It is clear that we must take up carefully the chapter before us before we can hope to answer such questions, but let us keep them in mind all through. Whatever we may understand as to Melchisedec, it is certain that the section here, in accordance with its numerical place, shows the Priest in the sanctuary, with His propitiation work, therefore, accomplished, and in possession of the place resulting from it, "a Great Priest over the house of God." That is His present place.

There are three subsections here, with still smaller divisions in the last.

The first dwells upon Melchisedec himself as presented in the book of Genesis, made typically like the Son of God; having an indissoluble priesthood in the power of an endless life: thus not only higher in character than that of Levi, but its primacy owned, as it were, by Levi himself.

The second subsection shows us the consequences of Christ’s being a Priest of this order, the setting aside of the law, the priests of which were Aaronic.

The third subsection shows us, therefore, the Priest of Christianity perfected forever and made higher than the heavens, in possession of a place to which the Levitical priesthood could lay no possible claim.

1. The first subsection cites and comments upon the brief story of Melchisedec in that wonderful way which has been to many of us such a revelation of the perfection of the inspiration of Scripture, and such an unfolding of the typical history of the Old Testament. The apostle interprets for us here both the speech and the silence of the narrative; both the names and the order of the names. Every jot and tittle has to be taken into account; and it is surely very much from disregard of this that we fail to get clear and assured knowledge of what Scripture contains. We credit it with idle words; and to us they are idle. We dishonor the Spirit who has given the Word, and we lose the deep things of God which the Spirit searches. Especially as to parabolic speech, we say that "no parable goes on all fours," and any maimed and halted interpretation can justify itself spite of such a mark as one of wisdom’s children. Let Melchisedec teach us, first of all, this truth, that no jot or tittle of the Word shall pass away without fulfilment, and let us act as if we believed this.

And now, as to the name Melchisedec, "king of righteousness." First of all, he is that; then "king of Salem," that is, "king of peace." This is always a principle in the divine ways. In the millennium, righteousness must first have its sway, for peace to be brought in; and as the prophet says: "The work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever" (Isa 32:17). This is, of course, as true for the present as for the future, and fulfilled in the gospel in a far more wondrous way. As the effect of righteousness in the cross, peace has come to us; and our Melchisedec has indeed made good His name.

Next, he is "without father, without mother, without genealogy." So he is presented in the history, alone, without record of any preceding or indeed following him in his office. Again, "without beginning of days or end of life," thus "made like unto the Son of God;" not actually like Him, but made like, the type perfectly preserved from any contradiction or anything irrelevant, that we might have a picture of a non-successional, unending priesthood, such as that of the Lord Jesus is, who is also King and Priest in one Person; and so it was prophesied of Him: "Behold the Man whose name is the BRANCH; and He shall grow up out of His place; and He shall build the temple of the Lord, even He shall build the temple of the Lord, and He shall bear the glory; and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a Priest upon His throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both" (Zec 6:12-13). This is doubtless millennial, and yet very like the line of things which the apostle has been pursuing here, even to the building of the house of God; but in Hebrews all is higher. Here the house is the universe. The throne upon which the Priest sits is the throne of God (Heb 8:1). He has not yet taken His own throne as Son of Man (Rev 3:21); He is on His Father’s, and we are thus "translated into the kingdom of His dear Son" (Col 1:13). Thus He is already King, as He is Priest, in both characters as Son of God. His is a priestly rule over the house of God.

If we look back now to the book of Genesis, we shall find the life of Abraham: the fourth in the series of seven lives which give us the perfect picture of the divine life in man from the time of its beginning, in repentance and faith, in Adam, until in Joseph we see the image of Christ fully formed. Abraham, following Noah, was brought into a new scene which abides in the value of accepted sacrifice, and gives us the practical life of faith which is the result of being in Christ, a new creation. By his very call to Canaan, he is a pilgrim and a stranger on the earth. His life divides into two parts, in the first of which (Gen 11:10-14) we have the call of God and His obedience to it; while, in the second (Gen 15:1-21; Gen 16:1-16; Gen 17:1-27; Gen 18:1-33; Gen 19:1-38; Gen 20:1-18; Gen 21:1-34), we have the conflicts of faith. Thus the whole, as indeed Genesis as a whole, is an elaborate and perfect type in which most certainly the Christian life is set before us.

I say Christian, not because Israel is forgotten. Israel is there, and God is dwelling with her, in a love that cannot forget her; but this only makes more distinct what is our own in the book, and that decisively. Thus Abraham’s own call to Canaan, the heavenly country, and his walking in it by faith as a pilgrim, is not and cannot be a type of Israel; but again, in his sons Isaac and Ishmael, Isaac is distinctly the type of "the children of the free woman."

Now it is in the end of the first part of Abraham’s history that the type of Melchisedec appears. It is to Abram, the Hebrew (that is, "pilgrim"), returning from his conflict with the kings of the East, a Babylonish confederacy, that at the king’s dale Melchisedec brings forth the bread and wine which speak to us with such perfect plainness of our royal Priest’s provision for us now; not a sacrifice, for that has been "once for all" offered, but the memorial of a sacrifice, -too plain a thing to need enlargement on, or to need to vindicate our title to it. True, God is not yet manifested as Most High, and men and Satan seem to be joint possessors of the earth rather than God; but in the picture here, also, there is yet a king of Sodom by whom Abraham refuses to be enriched. Faith in him alone it is that counts God to be "Possessor of heaven and earth;" and faith now it is that receives such distinct ministry from the true Melchisedec, and owns God to be still in possession where most He seems to be displaced. How the bread and wine help to assure us of that!

In fact, every detail in all this story suits us admirably, and we may be confident that our Melchisedec exists for us today; not One who will be that in the millennium: -though then He will be recognized openly as such, -but Sodom will then get, not faith’s refusal merely, but the judgment of God. Meanwhile, we have this ministry of bread and wine, and One with us who blesses us from the Most High God, and who, on our part, blesses the Most High God: -"In the midst of the assembly will I sing praise unto Thee."

The apostle goes on to prove from the history, brief as it is, the superiority of Melchisedec to Levi. "He was in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him;" and in Abraham, Levi, therefore, paid tithes to Melchisedec. Thus the whole Levitical priesthood owned its inferiority, and Melchisedec, as one greater than Abraham, blesses him who had the promises; but this leads us on to consequences of far greater importance.

2. In the second subsection, therefore, the apostle goes on to argue the setting aside of the law itself by the change of the priesthood. It was incontestable that according to the psalm a Priest was to arise according to this higher type, a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, and not of Aaron. We have but to consider a moment, to realize how complete a change as to the law this involved. It is not simply, as some would put it, the special law as to the priesthood; for, as we see in the Day of Atonement, all the relation of Israel to God according to that dispensation, hung upon the priesthood. The blood put upon the mercy-seat by the high priest, year by year, alone enabled God to dwell in their midst; and this could only be done by one of the family of Aaron. The law contemplated no other; yet Christ had sprung out of Judah, and the law said nothing of priesthood in connection with that tribe.

But again, why was it necessary thus to define the succession? plainly because it had to do with mortal men who could not continue in the office by reason of death. Thus it was a law of fleshly commandment. He having come, who lives eternally, sets aside the law necessarily by the very "power of an indissoluble life." All is manifestly upon a higher plane, outside the law. "There is a setting aside of the commandment going before;" and that because of "its weakness and unprofitableness." It perfected nothing. There was under it only a priesthood of dying men with animal sacrifices, unable really to atone, and a closed sanctuary, into which timidly the high priest entered once a year and immediately withdrew.

This was plain, but is to be developed presently in contrast with what is now made good to us in Christ. Now there is "the bringing in of a better hope, by which we" do, as they did not, "draw nigh to God." This introduces us to what is to be the theme of after-consideration.

3. The apostle now sets in contrast with the priests of a fleshly and earthly system, the true and heavenly Priest to whom as types they pointed. God had announced with an oath His unrepenting purpose as to Him. As a Priest forever, in the surety of a better covenant than the legal, conditional one, and in contrast with dying men, He abides eternally to care for and bring through to heaven those who draw near to God by Him, who is always living to intercede for them. We see how different is this view from that in Romans, where position in Christ is contemplated; and also from that in the gospel of John, we living because He lives (Joh 14:19). Here it is the living activity of the Priest to which we are entrusted, not apart from God, but as having all power with God, -this salvation to the uttermost being, of course, not the bringing into the sanctuary here, but to that full final rest which has been dwelt upon already in the epistle.

Finally, the character of our High Priest is briefly considered, -such an One becomes us, "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and become higher than the heavens, -who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins and then for those of the people, for this He did once when He offered up Himself for the law maketh men high priests who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is perfected for evermore."

This shows how far the Lord as Antitype transcends the type. The Jewish high priest was but a sinner amongst sinners. Christ in absolute holiness is One "separate from sinners;" and yet the apostle can say, such an One becomes us; for the blood of Christ as before God has perfected "in perpetuity" those who are sanctified by it, and "the worshipers once purged have no more conscience of sins" (Heb 10:2; Heb 10:14). Thus, it is not as sinners that Christ as High Priest intercedes for us with God, but as the many sons whom He is bringing to glory. The High Priest is for infirmity, not sin, "but if any one sin we have an Advocate with the Father" (1Jn 2:1). Christ is both Priest and Advocate, but the question of sin is settled for us as towards God, while between the children and the Father it may need frequent settlement.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER VII.

THE ALLEGORY OF MELCHIZEDEK.

Heb_7:1-28 (R.V.).

"For this Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually. 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. Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the Law), what further need was there that another Priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For He of Whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests. And what we say is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another Priest, Who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life: for it is witnessed of Him,

Thou art a Priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but He with an oath by Him that saith of Him,

The Lord sware and will not repent Himself,

Thou art a Priest for ever);

by so much also hath Jesus become the Surety of a better covenant. And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but He, because He abideth for ever, hath His priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also He is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such a High-priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, like those high-priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself. For the Law appointeth men high-priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the Law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore."

Jesus has entered heaven as our Forerunner, in virtue of His eternal priesthood. The endless duration and heavenly power of His priesthood is the "hard saying" which the Hebrew Christians would not easily receive, inasmuch as it involves the setting aside of the old covenant. But it rests on the words of the inspired Psalmist. Once already an inference has been drawn from the Psalmist's prophecy. The meaning of the Sabbath rest has not been exhausted in the Sabbath of Judaism; for David, so long after the time of Moses, speaks of another and better day. Similarly in the seventh chapter the Apostle finds an argument in the mysterious words of the Psalm, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."[117]

The words are remarkable because they imply that in the heart of Judaism there lurked a yearning for another and different kind of priesthood from that of Aaron's order. It may be compared to the strange intrusion now and again of other gods than the deities of Olympus into the religion of the Greeks, either by the introduction of a new deity or by way of return to a condition of things that existed before the young gods of the court of Zeus began to hold sway. But, to add to the mysterious character of the Psalm, it gives utterance to a desire for another King also, Who should be greater than a mere son of David: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Yet the Psalmist is David himself, and Christ silenced the Pharisees by asking them to explain the paradox: "If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"[118] Delitzsch observes "that in no other psalm does David distinguish between himself and Messiah;" that is, in all his other predictions Messiah is David himself idealised, but in this Psalm He is David's Lord as well as his Son. The Psalmist desires a better priesthood and a better kingship.

These aspirations are alien to the nature of Judaism. The Mosaic dispensation pointed indeed to a coming priest, and the Jews might expect Messiah to be a King. But the Priest would be the antitype of Aaron, and the King would be only the Son of David. The Psalm speaks of a Priest after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek, and of a King Who would be David's Lord. To increase the difficulty, the Priest and the King would be one and the same Person.

Yet the Psalmist's mysterious conception comes to the surface now and again. In the Book of Zechariah the Lord commands the prophet to set crowns upon the head of Joshua the high-priest, and proclamation is made "that he shall be a priest upon his throne."[119] The Maccabæan princes are invested with priestly garments. Philo[120] has actually anticipated the Apostle in his reference to the union of the priesthood and kingship in the person of Melchizedek. We need not hesitate to say that the Apostle borrows his allegory from Philo, and finds his conception of the Priest-King in the religious insight of the profounder men, or at least in their earnest groping for better things. All this notwithstanding, his use of the allegory is original and most felicitous. He adds an idea, fraught with consequences to his argument. For the central thought of the passage is the endless duration of the priesthood of Melchizedek. The Priest-King is Priest for ever.

We have spoken of Melchizedek's story as an allegory, not to insinuate doubt of its historical truth, but because it cannot be intended by the Apostle to have direct inferential force. It is an instance of the allegorical interpretation of Old Testament events, similar to what we constantly find in Philo, and once at least in St. Paul. Allegorical use of history has just as much force as a parable drawn from nature, and comes just as near a demonstration as the types, if it is so used by an inspired prophet in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This is precisely the difference between our author and Philo. The latter invents allegories and lets his fancy run wild in weaving new coincidences, which Scripture does not even suggest. But the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews keeps strictly within the lines of the Psalm. We must also bear in mind that the story of Melchizedek sets forth a feature of Christ's priesthood which cannot be figured by a type of the ordinary form. Philo infers from the history of Melchizedek the sovereignty of God. The Psalmist and the Apostle teach from it the eternal duration of Christ's priesthood. But how can any type represent such a truth? How can the fleeting shadow symbolise the notion of abiding substance? The type by its very nature is transitory. That Christ is Priest for ever can be symbolically taught only by negations, by the absence of a beginning and of an end, in some such way as the hieroglyphics represent eternity by a line turning back upon itself. In this negative fashion, Melchizedek has been assimilated to the Son of God. His history was intentionally so related by God's Spirit that the sacred writer's silence even is significant. For Melchizedek suddenly appears on the scene, and as suddenly vanishes, never to return. Hitherto in the Bible story every man's descent is carefully noted, from the sons of Adam to Noah, from Noah down to Abraham. Now, however, for the first time, a man stands before us of whose genealogy and birth nothing is said. Even his death is not mentioned. What is known of him wonderfully helps the allegorical significance of the intentional silence of Scripture. He is king and priest, and the one act of his life is to bestow his priestly benediction on the heir of the promises. No more appropriate or more striking symbol of Christ's priesthood can be imagined.

His name even is symbolical. He is "King of righteousness." By a happy coincidence, the name of his city is no less expressive of the truth to be represented. He is King of Salem, which means "King of peace." The two notions of righteousness and peace combined make up the idea of priesthood. Righteousness without peace punishes the transgressor. Peace without righteousness condones the transgression. The kingship of Melchizedek, it appears, involves that he is priest.

This king-priest is a monotheist, though he is not of the family of Abraham. He is even priest of the Most High God, though he is outside the pale of the priesthood afterwards founded in the line of Aaron. Judaism, therefore, enjoys no monopoly of truth. As St. Paul argues that the promise is independent of the Law, because it was given four hundred years before, so our author hints at the existence of a priesthood distinct from the Levitical. What existed before Aaron may also survive him.

Further, these two men, Melchizedek and Abraham, were mutually drawn each to the other by the force of their common piety. Melchizedek went out to meet Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings, apparently not because he was indebted to him for his life and the safety of his city (for the kings had gone their way as far as Dan after pillaging the Cities of the Plain), but because he felt a strong impulse to bestow his blessing on the man of faith. He met him, not as king, but as priest. Would it be too fanciful to conjecture that Abraham had that mysterious power, which some men possess and some do not, of attracting to himself and becoming a centre, around which others almost unconsciously gather? It is suggested by his entire history. Whether it was so or not, Melchizedek blessed him, and Abraham accepted the blessing, and acknowledged its priestly character by giving him the priest's portion, the tenth of the best spoils. How great must this man have been, who blessed even Abraham, and to whom Abraham, the patriarch, paid even the tenth! But the less is blessed of the greater. In Abraham the Levitical priesthood itself may be said to acknowledge the superiority of Melchizedek.[121]

Wherein lay his greatness? He was not in the priestly line. Neither do we read that he was appointed of God. Yet no man taketh this honour unto himself. God had made him king and priest by conferring upon him the gift of innate spiritual greatness. He was one of nature's kings, born to rule, not because he was his father's son, but because he had a great soul. It is not in record that he bequeathed to his race a great idea. He created no school, and had no following. So seldom is mention made of him in the Old Testament, that the Psalmist's passing reference to his name attracts the Apostle's special notice. He became a priest in virtue of what he was as man. His authority as king sprang from character.

Such men appear on earth now and again. But they are never accounted for. All we can say of them is that they have neither father nor mother nor genealogy. They resemble those who are born of the Spirit, of whom we know neither whence they come nor whither they go. It is only from the greatest one among these kings and priests of men that the veil is lifted. In Him we see the Son of God. In Christ we recognise the ideal greatness of sheer personality, and we at once say of all the others, as the Apostle says of Melchizedek, that they have been "made like," not unto ancestors or predecessors, but unto Him Who is Himself like His Divine Father.

Such priests remain priests for ever. They live on by the vitality of their priesthood. They have no beginning of days or end of life. They have never been set apart with outward ritual to an official distinction, marked by days and years. Their acts are not ceremonial, and wait not on the calendar. They bless men, and the blessing abides. They pray, and the prayer dies not. If their prayer lives for ever, can we suppose that they themselves pass away? The king-priest is heir of immortality, whoever else may perish. He at least has the power of an endless life. If he dies in the flesh, he lives on in the spirit. An eternal heaven must be found or made for such men with God.

Now this is the gist and kernel of the Apostle's beautiful allegory. The argument points to the Son of God, and leads up to the conception of His eternal priesthood in the sanctuary of heaven. Let us see how the parable is interpreted and applied.

That Jesus is a great High-priest has been proved by argument after argument from the beginning of the Epistle. But this is not enough to show that the priesthood after the order of Aaron has passed away. The Hebrew Christians may still maintain that the Messiah perfected the Aaronic priesthood and added to it the glory of kingship. Transference of the priesthood must be proved; and it is symbolised in the history of Melchizedek. But transference of the priesthood involves much more than what has hitherto been mentioned. It implies, not merely that the priesthood after the order of Aaron has come to an end, but that the entire dispensation of law, the old covenant, is replaced by a new covenant and a better one, inasmuch as the Law was erected on the foundation[122] of the priesthood. It was a religious economy. The fundamental conceptions of the religion were guilt and forgiveness.[123] The essential fact of the dispensation was sacrifice offered for the sinner to God by a priest. The priesthood was the article of a standing or a falling Church under the Old Testament. Change of the priesthood of itself abrogates the covenant.

What, then, is the truth in this matter? Has the priesthood been transferred? Let the story of Melchizedek, interpreted by the inspired Psalmist, supply the answer.

First, Jesus sprang from the royal tribe of Judah, not from the sacerdotal tribe of Levi. The Apostle intentionally uses a term[124] that glances at the prophet Zechariah's prediction concerning Him Who shall arise as the dawn, and be a Priest upon His throne. We shall, therefore, entitle Him "Lord," and say that "our Lord" has risen out of Judah.[125] He is Lord and King by right of birth. But this circumstance, that He belongs to the tribe of Judah, hints, to say the least, at a transference of the priesthood. For Moses said nothing of this tribe in reference to priests, however great it became in its kings. The kingship of our Lord is foreshadowed in Melchizedek.

Second, it is still more evident that the Aaronic priesthood has been set aside if we recall another feature in the allegory of Melchizedek. For Jesus is like Melchizedek as Priest, not as King only. The priesthood of Melchizedek sprang from the man's inherent greatness. How much more is it true of Jesus Christ that His greatness is personal! He became what He is, not by force of law, which could create only an external, carnal commandment, but by innate power, in virtue of which He will live on and His life will be indestructible.[126] The commandment that constituted Aaron priest has not indeed been violently abrogated; but it has been thrust aside in consequence of its own inner feebleness and uselessness.[127] That it has been weak and unprofitable to men is evident from the inability of the Law, as a system erected upon that priesthood, to satisfy conscience.[128] Yet this carnal, decayed priesthood was permitted to linger on and work itself out. The better hope, through which we do actually come near unto God, did not forcibly put an end to it, but was super-added.[129] Christ never formally abolished the old covenant. We cannot date its extinction. We must not say that it ceased to exist when the Supper was instituted, or when the true Passover was slain, or when the Spirit descended. The Epistle to the Hebrews is intended to awaken men to the fact that it is gone. They can hardly realise that it is dead. It has been lost, like the light of a star, in the spreading "dawn" of day. The sun of that eternal day is the infinitely great personality of Jesus Christ, born a crownless King; crowned at His death, but with thorns. Yet what mighty power He has wielded! The Galilæan has conquered. Since He has passed through the heavens from the eyes of men, thousands in every age have been ready to die for Him. Even today the Christianity of the greatest part of His followers consists more in profound loyalty to a personal King than in any intellectual comprehension of the Teacher's dogmatic system. Such kingly power cannot perish. Untouched by the downfall of kingdoms and the revolutions of thought, such a King will sit upon His moral throne from age to age, yesterday and today the same, and for ever.

Third, the entire system or covenant based on the Aaronic priesthood has passed away and given place to a better covenant,--better in proportion to the firmer foundation on which the priesthood of Jesus rests.[130] Beyond question, the promises of God were steadfast. But men could not realise the glorious hope of their fulfilment, and that for two reasons. First, difficult conditions were imposed on fallible men. The worshipper might transgress in many points of ritual. His mediator, the priest, might err where error would be fatal to the result. Worshipper and priest, if they were thoughtful and pious men, would be haunted with the dread of having done wrong they knew not how or where, and be filled with dark forebodings. Confidence, especially full assurance, was not to be thought of. Second, Christ found it necessary to urge His disciples to believe in God. The misery of distrusting God Himself exists. Men think that He is such as they are; and, as they do not believe in themselves, their faith in God is a reed shaken by the wind. These wants were not adequately met by the old covenant. The conditions imposed perplexed men, and the revelation of God's moral character and Fatherhood was not sufficiently clear to remove distrust. The Apostle directs attention to the strange absence of any swearing of an oath on the part of God when He instituted the Aaronic priesthood, or on the part of the priest at his consecration. Yet the kingship was confirmed by oath to David. In the new covenant, on the other hand, all such fears may be dismissed. For the only condition imposed is faith. In order to make faith easy and inspire men with courage, God appoints a Surety[131] for Himself. He offers His Son as Hostage, and thus guarantees the fulfilment of His promise. As the Man Jesus, the Son of God was delivered into the hands of men. "Of the better covenant Jesus is the Surety." This will explain a word in the sixth chapter, which we were compelled at the time to put aside. For it is there said that God "mediated" with an oath.[132] We now understand that this means the appointment of Christ to be Surety of the fulfilment of God's promises. The old covenant could offer no guarantee. It is true that it was ordained in the hands of a mediator. But it is also true that the mediator was no surety, inasmuch as those priests were made without an oath. Christ has been made Priest with an oath. Therefore He is, as Jesus, the Surety of a better covenant. In what respects the covenant is better, the Apostle will soon tell us. For the present, we only know that the foundation is stronger in proportion as the oath of God reveals more fully His sincerity and love, and renders it an easier thing for men laden with guilt to trust the promise.

Before we dismiss the subject, it may be well to remind the reader that this mention of a Surety by our author is the locus classicus of the Federalist school of divines. Cocceius and his followers present the whole range of theological doctrines under the form of covenant. They explain the words "Surety of a better covenant" to mean that Christ is appointed by God to be a Surety on behalf of men, not on behalf of God. The course of thought in the passage is, we think, decisive against this interpretation. At the same time, we readily admit that their doctrine is a just theological inference from the passage. If God swears that His gracious purposes will be fulfilled and ordains Jesus to be His Surety to men, and if also the fulfilment of the Divine promise depends on the fulfilment of certain conditions on the part of men, the oath of God will involve His enabling men to fulfil those conditions, and the Surety will become in eventual fact a Surety on behalf of men. But this is only an inference. It is not the meaning of the Apostle's words, who only speaks of the Surety on the part of God. The validity of the inference now mentioned depends on other considerations extraneous to this passage. With those considerations, therefore, we have at present nothing to do.

Fourth, the climax of the argument is reached when the Apostle infers the endless duration of Christ's one priesthood.[133] The number of men who had been successively high-priests of the old covenant increased from age to age. Dying one after another, they were prevented from continuing as high-priests. But Melchizedek had no successor; and the Jews themselves admitted that the Christ would abide for ever. The ascending argument of the Apostle proves that He ever liveth, and has, therefore, an immutable priesthood. For, first, He is of the royal tribe, and the oath of God to David guarantees that of his kingdom there shall be no end. Again, in the greatness of His personality, He is endowed with the power of an endless life. Moreover, as Priest He has been established in His office by oath. He is, therefore, Priest for ever.

A question suggests itself. Why is the endless life of one high-priest more effective than a succession, conceivably an endless succession, of high-priests? The eternal priesthood involves two distinct, but mutually dependent, conceptions,--power to save and intercession. In the case of any man, to live for ever means power. Even the body of our humiliation will be raised in power. Can the spirit, therefore, in the risen life, its own native home, be subject to weakness? What, then, shall we say of the risen and glorified Christ? The difference between Him and the high-priests of earth is like the difference between the body that is raised and the body that dies. In Aaron priesthood is sown in corruption, dishonour, weakness; in Christ priesthood is raised in incorruption, in glory, in power. In Aaron it is sown a natural priesthood; in Christ it is raised a spiritual priesthood. It must be that the High-priest in heaven has power to save continually and completely. Whenever help is needed, He is living. But He ever lives that He may intercede.[134] Apart from intercession on behalf of men, His power is not moral. It has no greatness or joy, or meaning. Intercession is the moral content of His powerful existence. Whenever help is needed, He is living, and is mighty[135] to save from sin, to rescue from death, to deliver from its fear.

To prove that Christ's eternal priesthood involves power and intercession is the purpose of the next verses.[136] Such a High-priest, powerful to save and ever living to intercede, is the only One befitting us, who are at once helpless and guilty. The Apostle triumphantly unfolds the glory of this conception of a high-priest. He means Christ. But he is too triumphant to name Him. "Such a high-priest befits us." The power of His heavenly life implies the highest development of moral condition. He will address God with holy reverence.[137] He will succour men without a tinge of malice,[138] which is but another way of saying that He wishes them well from the depth of His heart. He must not be sullied by a spot of moral defilement[139] (for purity only can face God or love men). He must be set apart for His lofty function from the sinners for whom He intercedes. He must enter the true holiest place and stand in awful solitariness above the heavens of worlds and angels in the immediate presence of God. Further, He must not be under the necessity of leaving the holiest place to renew His sacrifice, as the high-priests of the old covenant had need to offer, through the priests, new sacrifices every day through the year for themselves and for the people--yea, for themselves first, then for the people--before they dared re-enter within the veil.[140] For Christ offered Himself. Such a sacrifice, once offered, was sufficient for ever.

To sum up.[141] The Law appoints men high-priests; the word, which God has spoken unto us in His Son, appoints the Son Himself High-priest. The Law appoints men high-priests in their weakness; the word appoints the Son in His final and complete attainment of all perfection. But the Law will yield to the word. For the word, which had gone before the Law in the promise made to Abraham, was not superseded by the Law, but came also after it in the stronger form of an oath, of which the old covenant knew nothing.

FOOTNOTES:

[117] Psa_110:4.

[118] Mat_22:45.

[119] Zec_6:11; Zec_6:13.

[120] SS. Legg. Alleg., 3: (vol. 1:, p. 103. Mang.).

[121] Heb_7:6-10.

[122] ep' autês (Heb_7:11).

[123] Cf. Heb_6:1.

[124] Anatetalken. Cf. Zec_6:12. Anatolê, dawn. The citation, as usual, is from the Septuagint.

[125] Heb_7:14.

[126] Heb_7:16.

[127] athetêsis, a setting aside (Heb_7:18).

[128] ouden eteleiôsen (Heb_7:19).

[129] epeisagôgê.

[130] Heb_7:20-22.

[131] engyos.

[132] emesiteusen (Heb_6:17)

[133] Heb_7:23-25.

[134] Heb_7:25.

[135] dynatai, the emphatic word in the passage.

[136] Heb_7:26.

[137] hosios.

[138] akakos.

[139] amiantos.

[140] Heb_7:27.

[141] Heb_7:28.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

7:1-28 Hebrews 7 develops the main topic introduced in 5:1-10: Jesus’ appointment as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

7:1-10 This section proclaims the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood over that of the Levites, based primarily on Gen 14:17-20.

7:1 king of . . . Salem: See Gen 14:18 and corresponding study note. • also a priest of God Most High: Unlike the Hebrew kings, Melchizedek combined the offices of king and priest, thus foreshadowing the Messiah. • winning a great battle against the kings: See Gen 14:1-17.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 7:1. Οὗτος) The subject, namely, This man, who is mentioned ch. Heb 6:20 from the psalm, and the same who is mentioned in Genesis. The Predicate is, Heb 7:3, ἀπάτωρ—εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς, without father—for ever. The summary of this chapter is: Christ, as is shown by the type Melchisedec, who was greater than Abraham himself, from whom Levi is descended, has a priesthood truly excellent, new, perfect, stedfast, everlasting.—βασιλεὺς—ἱερεὺς, king—priest) Christ is also both.—ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑψίστου) So the LXX., Gen 14:18; that is, Priest of the Most High GOD.—ὁ συναντήσας Ἀβραὰμ ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς) The LXX., ibid. Heb 7:17, ἐξῆλθε δὲ βασιλεὺς Σοδόμων εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸ ὑποστρέψαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς, κ.τ.λ. In the Ordo Temporum, p. 176, I have taken τὴν κοπὴν, in the strict sense, for the slaughter and destruction of the kings; but the meaning, flight, is also one consistent with the word הכות (LXX. κοπὴ), Gen 14:17; comp. Heb 7:15. Therefore this passage does not prevent us from believing that Arioch, king of Ellasar, lived and reigned after the disaster. There I did not venture to affirm that Arioch is the same as Arius, and I am less disposed to do so now. To such a degree is the antiquity of the Assyrians uncertain abroad, which L. Offerhaus speciously discusses in the second book of his Spicilegia.—εὐλογήσας) LXX. εὐλόγησε.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_7:1-3. Elucidation of κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, Heb_6:20, by a delineation of the character of Melchisedec. Heb_7:1-3 form a single proposition, in which μένει, is the tempus finitum. The characterization of Melchisedec combines in the first half (βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ … ἐμέρισεν Ἀβραάμ, Heb_7:2) the historic traits which are afforded of him in Genesis (Gen_14:18-20), while in the second half (πρῶτον μὲν κ.τ.λ.) the author himself completes the picture of Melchisedec, in reasoning from that historic delineation.

βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ] king of Salem. By Salem is understood, on the part of the Targumists, Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 2, the majority of the Church Fathers, Grotius, Drusius, Owen, Michaelis, Gesenius, von Bohlen, Winer, Realwörterb. II. 2 Aufl. p. 95, Stuart, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Knobel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others, Jerusalem. On the other hand, Primasius, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Whitby, Cellarius, Reland, Rosenmüller, Bleek (see, however, at Heb_7:2), Tuch, Ewald, Alford, Maier, and others think of the place Σαλείμ, mentioned Joh_3:23, situated eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis. The latter was, as we learn from Jerome (Ep. 126, ad Evagrium), the view already espoused in his day by the eruditissimi among the Hebrews, in opposition to Josephus et nostri omnes, as accordingly also it was thought that the ruins of the palace of Melchisedec were still to be shown at the last-named place in the time of Jerome. This Σαλείμ, mentioned Joh_3:23, has, moreover, been held by some recent expositors, as Bleek and Alford, to be likewise identical with the Σαλήμ, Jdt_4:4. More correct, however, is the first-named view. For, besides the earlier name Jebus for Jerusalem (Jdg_19:10, al.), occurs also the early name Salem (Psa_76:3 [2]), and the narrative in Gen_14:17 ff.) points unmistakeably to the southern part of the land. Comp. specially Knobel, Genesis , 2 Aufl., Leipz. 1860, p. 149 f.

ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου] priest of God, the Most High. In the monotheistic sense, as in Genesis, vid. ibid. Heb_7:22.

ὁ συναντήσας Ἀβραὰμ κ.τ.λ.] who went to meet Abraham when he was returning from the smiting of the kings (Gen_14:12 ff.), and blessed him.

καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτόν] Gen_14:19-20. Wrongly is it alleged by Heinrichs that εὐλογεῖν denotes only: gratulari de victoria tam splendida.

Heb_7:1-10.[80] While the author now in reality passes over to the work of developing the high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, proper to Christ, and consequently of illustrating upon every side the pre-eminence of the same above the Levitical high-priesthood, he dwells first of all upon the person of Melchisedec himself, in that, following the thread of the Scripture narrative, he brings vividly before his readers the exaltedness of Melchisedecs position, and draws their attention to a threefold superiority of Melchisedec over the Levitical priests.

[80] C. A. Auberlen, Melchisedeks ewiges Leben und Priesterthum Hebrews 7 (Stud. u. Krit. 1857, H. 3, p. 453 ff.).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 7:1-3 . Description of Melchizedek as he appears on the page of Scripture, in five particulars with their interpretation.

Heb 7:1 . Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ … μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές . γὰρ closely connects this passage with the immediately preceding words ἀρχ … αἰῶνα and introduces the explanation of them. “For this Melchizedek [mentioned in Psa 110 and who has just been named as that priest according to whose order Christ is called to be Priest] remains a priest continually.” This is the statement on which he wishes to fix attention. It is the “for-everness” of the priesthood which he means especially to insist upon. The whole order is occupied by himself. This one man constitutes the order. He succeeds no one in office and no one succeeds him. In this sense he abides a priest for ever. Between the subject Melchizedek and the verb μένει , there are inserted five historical facts taken from Gen 14 , with their interpretation. [On the historicity of Gen 14 , see Buchanan Gray in Expositor , May, 1898, and Driver, Authority and Archaeology , pp. 45 and 73. See also Beazley’s Dawn of Modern Geography , ii. 189; and esp., Boscawen’s First of Empires , c. vi.] βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ , the description given in this verse is taken verbatim [with the needed grammatical alterations] from Gen 14:17-19 . Whether Salem stands for Jerusalem or for Salim in the vale of Shechem, Joh 3:23 , has been disputed from Epiphanius downwards. See Bleek, who contends that Jerusalem cannot be meant because Jebus was its old name. This, however, is now denied, see Moore, Judges , p. 413, who says that the common opinion that Jebus was the native name of the city, has no real ground in O.T. In the Amarna tablets Urusalim is used and no trace is found of any name corresponding to Jebus. But it is not the locality that is important, but the meaning of Salem. ἱερεὺς … “priest of the Most High God”. According to Aristotle ( Pol. , iii. 14), the king in heroic times was general, judge and priest. Cf. Virgil ( Æn. , iii. 80) “Rex Anius, rex idem hominum, Phoebique sacerdos,” and see Gardner and Jevon’s Greek Antiq. , 200, 201. The ideal priesthood is also that of a king. τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου . In N.T. “the Most High God” is found in the mouth of Demoniacs, Mar 5:7 ; Luk 8:28 ; cf. also Act 16:17 ; Act 7:58 , also Luk 1:32 ; Luk 1:35 ; Luk 1:70 ; Luk 6:35 . It was a name known alike to the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Hebrews. See Fairbairn, Studies in the Philosophy of Religion , p. 317. ὕψιστος was also a title of Ζεύς , Pind., Heb 11:2 . Cf. also Dalman, Words of Jesus , p. 198; and especially Charles’ edition of Book of Jubilees , pp. 191, 213, who shows that it was the specific title chosen by the Maccabean priest-kings. ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς “from the slaughter,” rather “overthrow”; “Niederwerfung” (Weizsäcker); “ clades rather than caedes ” (Vaughan) translating in Gen 14:17 , מֵהַכּוֹת , τῶν βασιλέων “the kings”; well-known from Gen 14 , viz .: Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer and Tidal, i.e. , Khammurabi, Eriaku, Kudurlachgumal and Tudchula. But Boscawen ( First of Empires , p. 179) disputes the identification of Amraphel with Khammurabi. The monuments show us that these kings were contemporaries two thousand three hundred years B.C., and furnish many interesting particulars regarding them; see Driver in Authority and Archaeology , pp. 39 45. καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτόν , asserting thus at once his superiority (Heb 7:7 ) and his priestly authority.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

7:1-10:18.] The High Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedek, set forth in its distinction from the Levitical priesthood:—the new Covenant brought in by Christ, in its distinction from the old:—and the full propitiation wrought by Him, in distinction from the propitiatory sacrifices formerly offered. And herein,

7:1-10.] The priesthood of Melchisedek: its nature, as eternal (1-3); as superior to the Levitical (4-10).

1-3.] This forms grammatically but one sentence, μένει being the only verb, and the adjectives ἀπάτωρ &c. being only epithets, not predicates. This has been mistaken by Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, al., who supply ἐστι to βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ and the following clauses.

The epithetal clauses themselves however have some distinction from one another. As far as Ἀβραάμ, they are merely axiomatic, or historical, referring to matters of fact: after that they are predicatory, introduced and taken for granted by the Writer.

For this Melchisedek, King of Salem (מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, Gen 14:18. It is doubtful whether this Salem is a short form of Jerusalem, or some other place. Epiphan. Hær. Lev_2, vol. i. p. 469, says, περὶ ἧς ἄλλος ἄλλως ἐξέδωκε καὶ ἄλλος ἄλλως· οἱ μὲν γὰρ λέγουσιν αὐτὴν τὴν νῦν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καλουμένην,—ἄλλοι δὲ ἔφασαν ἄλλην τινὰ Σαλὴμ εἶναι ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ Σικίμων καταντικρὺς τῆς νυνὶ Νεαπόλεως καλουμένης. Josephus, Antt. i. 10. 2, understands it of Jerusalem: ὁ τῆς Σόλυμα πόλεως βασιλεὺς Μ … τῆν μέντοι Σόλυμα ὕστερον ἐκάλεσαν Ἱεροσόλυμα. So also the Targumists and most of the Fathers, from Theophilus ad Autolicum ii. 31, p. 372, and Greek expositors (e. g. Œc., οἴεσθαι δὲ χρὴ ὅτι καὶ Σαλὴμ ἐκείνης ἐτύγχανε βασιλεύς, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἱερουσαλήμ): and most modern Commentators: among them being Grot., Drusius, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Gesenius, Hitzig on Isa 1:1, Von Raumer, Winer (Realw.), Lünemann, Delitzsch, al. But many others, as Primasius, Jac. Cappell., Whitby, Cellarius, Reland, Rosenmüller, Bleek, Ewald, al., contend that Jerusalem cannot be meant, because Jebus, and not Salem, was its old name, and Salem for Jerusalem occurs only in Psa 76:2, a song of late date (entitled in the LXX, who however render the word by εἰρήνη, ᾠδὴ πρὸς τὸν Ἀσσύριον), and there as a poetical form, for the rhythm’s sake. A prose writer of the primitive date of Genesis would not be likely to use such a form. They therefore suppose that this Salem was that mentioned Joh 3:23 as near to Ænon, where John baptized: probably also in Gen 33:18, where LXX, vulg., and E. V. all recognize שלם as the name of a place, though the Targumists, Josephus, al. regard it as an adjective. The same place seems to be mentioned in Judith 4:4, τὸν αὐλῶνα Σαλήμ. And for this view, there is very ancient and weighty authority. Jerome, Ep. 73 (126), ad Evagr., vol. i. p. 445, says that he had learned “ex eruditissimis gentis illius, Salem non, ut Josephus et nostri omnes arbitrantur, esse Hierusalem nomen … sed oppidum juxta Seythopolim, quod usque hodie appellatur Salem.” And he goes on to say, “et ostenditur ibi palatium Melchisedec ex magnitudine ruinarum veteris operis ostendens magnitudinem.” And Bleek, from whom this notice is mainly taken, argues with some probability that the Writer of our Epistle can hardly have thought of Jerusalem as indicated by Salem, or he would have pressed, not merely the etymology of the name, but all those sacerdotal associations which belonged to the holy city. Similarly Philo, Legg. Alleg. iii. 25, vol. i. p. 102 (βασιλέα τε τῆς εἰρήνης, Σαλήμ, τοῦτο γὰρ εἰρηνεύεται), though elsewhere (De Somn. ii. 38, p. 691) he urges the sanctity of Jerusalem, and its etymological significance as ὅρασις εἰρήνης. And this latter view seems to me the more probable. As to the further question, whether Σαλήμ is here, or by Philo, meant as the name of a place at all, see on ver. 2), priest of God the most high (so Genesis l. c., כֹּהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן. The appellation, here and in the O. T., belongs to the true and only God: cf. Gen 14:19, Gen 14:22, where in this same history both Melchisedek and Abraham speak of “the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.” Philo, in explaining this same office, Legg. Alleg. iii. § 26, p. 103, says, θεοῦ γὰρ ὑψίστου ἐστὶν ἱερεύς, οὐχ ὅτι ἐστί τις ἄλλος οὐχ ὕψιστος· ὁ γὰρ θεός, εἶς ὤν, “ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς κάτω, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλὴν αὐτοῦ.” ἀλλὰ τῷ μὴ ταπεινῶς κ. χαμαιζήλως, ὑπερμεγέθως δὲ κ. ὑπεραΰλως κ. ὑψηλῶς νοεῖν περὶ θεοῦ, ἔμφασιν τοῦ ὑψίστου κινεῖ. From the above passages it will appear, that the fact of the Phœnicians in their polytheism having had one god called עֶלְיוֹן, Elion, or ὕψιστος, see Bl., De Wette: Philo Byblius in Euseb. Præpar. Ev. i. 10, p. 36, cannot be any further apposite here, than in so far as that one may have been the true God, whose worship still lingered up and down in heathen countries. The union of the kingly and priestly offices in one belonged to the simplicity of patriarchal times, and is found in Abraham himself, who offers sacrifice: cf. Gen_15 and 22. Bleek cites Serv. ad Æn. iii. 80, “Sane majorum hæc erat consuetudo, ut rex etiam esset sacerdos vel pontifex:” and Arist. Pol. iii. 14, says of the heroic age, στρατηγὸς ἦν κ. δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεὺς κ. τῶν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς κύριος. Remember the prophetic announcement Zec 6:13, so familiar to every Christian. Our beloved Saviour, as the πατὴρ μέλλοντος αίώνος, restores again that first blessed family relation, which sin had disturbed), who met (ὁ συναντ. would be by far the simpler construction, and in ὃς συν. we must assume an anacoluthon. It is curious to find, even in De Wette, such a remark as this: “ὁς, Lachm. after ADE 2 minuscc., requires no notice, as it mars the construction”) Abraham (it was, as the narrative in Gen. literally stands, the king of Sodom, who ἐξῆλθεν εἰς συνάντησιν to Abraham: but Melchisedek is mentioned in the same sentence as having brought forth bread and wine, and must be included in the category of those who came out to meet him also) returning from the defeat of the kings (all this from the LXX, which only differs in having, κοπῆς τοῦ Χοδολλογομὸρ καὶ τῶν βας. τῶν μετʼ αὐτοῦ. κοπή in this sense is Hellenistic, as also is κόπτειν used of ‘defeating,’ ‘cutting up’ in war. See Palm and Rost’s Lex.) and blessed him (Gen. ver. 19: see the argument below, vv. 6, 7), to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of all (Gen.: καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ Ἄβραμ (om. Ἄβρ. Α) δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων: “of all,” viz. the booty which he had taken from the kings: so Jos. Antt. i. 10. 2, τὴν δεκάτην τῆς λείας: and ver. 4 below. In the narrative, the whole has the solemnity of a formal act; of sacerdotal blessing on the part of Melchisedek, and recognition of him as High Priest of God on the part of Abraham. And so the Jews: the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, as cited in Bleek, and Philo, de Abr. § 40, vol. ii. p. 34, ὁ μέγας ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ μεγίστου θεοῦ … τὰ ἐπινίκια ἔθυε. The custom of setting apart the tenth to divine uses, was heathen as well as Jewish: see numerous examples in Wetstein.

So far (see the summary above) is purely historical: now follow the inductions from the history: as Chrys., θεὶς τὴν διήγησιν πᾶσαν ἐν συντόμῳ μυστικῶς αὐτὴν ἐθεώρηκε καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος), first indeed being interpreted (i. e. as E. V., “being by interpretation:” his name bearing this meaning when translated into Greek) king of righteousness (מַלְכִּי־עֶדֶק. So also Josephus, Antt. i. 10. 2, Μελχισεδέκης, σημαίνει δὲ τοῦτο βασιλεὺς δίκαιος. And again, B. J. vi. 10, ὁ δὲ πρῶτος κτίσας (Ἱεροσόλυμα) ἦν Χαναναίων δυνάστης, ὁ τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ κληθεὶς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος· ἦν γὰρ δὴ τοιοῦτος. And Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, vol. i. p. 103. Bleek remarks, that βασιλ. δικαιοσύνης not only comes nearer to the Semitic form, but is no doubt purposely chosen, inasmuch as Melchisedek is a prophetic symbol of Him who is not only righteous, but the fount and ground of all righteousness before God. Zec 9:9: Isa 9:7: Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6: Dan 9:24: Mal 4:2: 1Co 1:30), and next also (‘being,’ not ‘being interpreted,’ must be supplied. This is plain from the position of ἑρμηνευόμενος after πρῶτον, and from βας. Σαλήμ representing a matter of fact, and the interpretation following) King of Salem, which is, King of peace (it has been much disputed, whether Σαλήμ is regarded by the Writer as the name of a town at all, and is not rather a portion of the personal appellation of Melchisedek. This latter has been held by Bleek, after Böhme, and Pet. Cunæus de Rep. Hebræorum, iii. 3, mainly from the consideration that no distinction here is made between the two expressions, ‘King of righteousness,’ and ‘King of peace.’ But, as Bl. himself confesses, we may well imagine that the Writer may wish to point out as a remarkable fact, that the city over which Melchisedek reigned, as well as his own name, was of typical significance; and in that case, does not ἔπειτα δὲ καί draw sufficient distinction between his personal appellation and that of his city?

As regards the word itself, it appears that שָׁלֵם is the adjective, peaceful, belonging to the substantive שָׁלוֹם, peace. But Philo takes it as here, Legg. Alleg. iii. 25, vol. i. pp. 102 f., καὶ Μελχισεδὲκ βασιλέα τε τῆς εἰρήνης, Σαλήμ, τοῦτο γὰρ ἑρμηνεύεται, ἱερέα ἑαυτοῦ πεποίηκεν ὁ θεὸς.… καλείσθω οὖν ὁ μὲν τύραννος ἄρχων πολέμου, ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἡγεμὼν εἰρήνης, Σαλήμ. ‘Peace’ is here used in that pregnant and blessed sense in which Christ is said to be “Prince of peace,” Isa 9:6: see also Rom 5:1: Eph 2:14, Eph 2:15, Eph 2:17: Col 1:20: οὗτος γὰρ ἡμᾶς δικαίους ἐποίησε, καὶ εἰρηνοποίησε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Chrys. It is peace as the fruit of righteousness, cf. Isa 32:17: notice the order here, πρῶτον.… βας. δικαιοσύνης, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ εἰνήνης. “Righteousness and peace,” says Delitzsch, “form in O. T. prophecy, the characteristic of the times of the Messiah”), without father, without mother, without genealogy (it is very difficult to assign the true meaning to these predicates. The latter of them seems indeed to represent a simple matter of fact: viz. that Melchisedek has not in Genesis any genealogy recorded, by which his descent is shewn (see below). But as to the two former, it cannot well be denied that, while they also may bear a similar sense, viz. that no father and mother of his are recorded in the sacred narrative, it is very possible on the other hand to feel that the Writer would hardly have introduced them so solemnly, hardly have followed them up by such a clause as μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, unless he had coupled with them far higher ideas than the former supposition implies. I confess this feeling to be present in my own mind:—indeed I feel, that such solemn words as μήτε ἀρχὴν κ.τ.λ. seem to me to decide against that other supposition. So far I think all is clear: but when we come to enquire, what high and mysterious eminence is here allotted to Melchisedek, I own I have no data whereon to decide: nor, I think, is a decision required of us. The Writer assigns to him this mysterious and insulated position, simply as a type of Christ: and this type he is merely by virtue of negations, as far as these epithets are concerned: in what he was not, he surpasses earthly priests, and represents Christ: what he was, is not in the record. I would regard the epithets then as designedly used in this mysterious way, and meant to represent to us, that Melchisedek was a person differing from common men. It remains to give, 1. an account of each word used: 2. a summary of the opinions respecting the passage. 1. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ occur in two senses: α. of those who have lost father or mother: so Pollux, Onomast. iii. 2. 4: see Herod. iv. 154: Soph. Trach. 300: Eur. Orest. 304: Herc. Fur. 114 f. This clearly has no place here. β. Of those who, with whatever meaning, can be said not to have had father or mother: whether it be meant literally, as where Plato, Symp. 8, calls the heavenly Aphrodite ἀμήτωρ, Οὐρανοῦ θυγάτηρ: so Δίας ἀμάτορος Παλλάδος, Eur. Phœn. 676: and in Pollux, ὁ μὴ ἔχων μητέρα ἀμήτωρ, ὥσπερ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ, καὶ ἀπάτωρ ὁ μὴ ἔχων πατέρα, ὡς Ἥφαιστος (according to a legend that he was the son of Juno alone): see many other examples in Bleek:—or improperly, one whose father or mother is unknown, or ignoble—so Ion, Eur. Ion 850, is said to be ἀμήτωρ, ἀναρίθμητος, as being supposed to be the son of a humble slave: and in Horace’s “viros nullis majoribus ortos,” Sat. i. 6.10: Cic. de Orat. ii. 64, “quibus nec mater nec pater, tanta confidentia estis?” (Bl. observes that neither the “patre nullo” of Livy iv. 3, nor the ὡς ἀμήτωρ ἀπάτωρ τε γεγώς of Ion 109 can be adduced here, because in the former case there was a myth according to which the word might be literally used of Servius Tullius, and in the latter the ὡς deprives the words of their true meaning. Delitzsch has quoted ἀμήτωρ as used of Sarah by Philo, de Ebriet. 14, vol. i. 365 f.: Quis Rer. Div. Hær. 12, p. 481, “quoniam ejus mater in sacris literis non memoratur” (Mangey): but this is not correct, for in both places Philo states the reason to be a mystical one, because she was related to Abraham by the father’s, not by the mother’s side.) ἀγενεαλόγητος occurs only here in all Greek literature. It can only mean, ‘without genealogy.’ But this has been variously understood. Corn. a-Lapide says, “Per genealogiam accipe prosapiam non tam parentum quam filiorum Melchisedech: nam de patre et matre ejus jam dixerat.” “Dicet aliquis,” says Estius, “Quorsum addidit, ‘sine genealogia,’ cum jam dixisset ‘sine patre, sine matre:’ quæ pars genealogiam satis videbatur exclusisse. Responderi potest, ea parte removeri genus, a quo Melchisedech descendit, id est, majores, non autem genus cujus ipse princeps fuit, id est, posteros ac nepotes. Proinde hujus generis gratia additum esse: ‘sine genealogia.’ Nam utroque modo genus accipi constat, etiam apud Græcos, ut et generationem apud Hebræos. Unde est illud Gen_5, ‘Hic est liber generationis Adam,’ et cap. x., ‘Hæ generationes filiorum Noë,’ et cap. xi., ‘Hæ generationes Tharæ,’ cum posteros eorum vellet recensere. Sic quidem Hieronymus hanc partem intellexit, quando cam interpretatur, sine nuptiis, lib. i. contra Jovinianum. Per nuptias enim genus in posteros propagatur. Unde et Martyr Ignatius in Epistola ad Philadelphios Melchisedech recenset inter sanctos qui cœlibem vitam duxerunt.” But this, which would be at the best but a doubtful deduction from the use of “generatio,” is precluded by ver. 6, in which ὁ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν clearly shews that it was ancestry, and not posterity, which was in the view of the Writer. 2. In giving a summary of the exegesis of the passage, I have made free use of the abundant materials at hand in the commentary of Bleek. The circumstance that Melchisedek is here stated to be ἀφωμοιωμένος τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, has led many of the older expositors to regard these epithets as belonging to Melchisedek only in so far as he is a type of the Son of God, and as properly true of Him alone, not of Melchisedek, or only in an improper sense, and a subordinate manner. So Œc., ὁ γὰρ τύπος οὐ κατὰ πάντα ἴσος ἐστὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ: Schol. Matth., ἀεὶ γὰρ ἡ εἰκὼν ἀμυδροτέρα τοῦ πρωτοτύπου πρὸς ἐμφέρειαν. Accordingly, they understand ἀπάτωρ of Christ in reference to his Humanity (ἀπάτωρ … ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐκ μόνης γὰρ ἐτέχθη μητρός, τῆς παρθένου φημί. Thdrt.), ἀμήτωρ, in reference to his Divinity (ὡς θεός, ἐκ μόνου γὰρ γεγέννηται πατρός, id.), and so also ἀγενεαλόγητος (οὐ γὰρ χρῄζει γενεαλογίας ὁ ἐξ ἀγεννήτου γεγεννημένος πατρός, id.). And so Chrys., Œc., Thl., Marcus Eremita de Melchisedec, § 4 (Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. lxv. p. 1121), Cosmas Indicopleustes (de Mundo v. in Galland. Bibl. Patr. xi. p. 478), Lactantius, Inst. iv. 13, vol. i. p. 482: Ambros. de Fide iii. 11 (88), vol. ii. p. 513 al. And so Corn. a-Lap., Jac. Cappell., Gerhard, Bisping, al. But, however the word ἀπάτωρ might perhaps be conceded to be not unnaturally applied to Christ in virtue of his Humanity, the words ἀμήτωρ and ἀγενεαλόγητος lie so far off any obvious application to his Divinity, that we may safely say this view could not well have been in the Writer’s mind. See further reasons, on the words ἀφωμ. δὲ τῷ υἱ. τ. θεοῦ below, for applying these epithets to Melchisedek, and not to Christ. But when they are so applied, we are met by two widely divergent streams of opinion, partly hinted at in the explanation of the rendering given above. The one of these regards Melchisedek as a superhuman being: the other finds nothing in this description which need point him out as any thing beyond a man. Jerome (see Ep. ad Evagr., vol. i. p. 440 ff.) had received from Evagrius an anonymous work (which in all probability was the “Quæstiones in V. et N. Test.,” by Hilarius the deacon), in which the “quæstio famosissima super Pontifice Melchisedec” was treated, and the writer tried to prove him “divinioris naturæ fuisse, nec de hominibus æstimandum: et ad extremum ausus est dicere, Spiritum Sanctum occurrisse Abrahæ, et ipsum esse qui sub hominis figura visus sit.” This strange opinion moved Jerome “revolvere veterum libros, ut videret quid singuli dicerent.” And he found that Origen, in his 1st Hom. on Genesis (now lost), maintained him to have been an angel, as did Didymus the follower of Origen. Then he examined Hippolytus, Eusebius of Cæsarea, and Eus. of Emesa, Apollinarius, Eustathius of Antioch, and found that all these held him to have been a man of Canaan, King of Jerusalem, and endeavoured to prove it in different ways. He then mentions the opinion of the Jews, that Melchisedek was Shem, the eldest son of Noah; and gives their calculation that this may well have been, for Shem survived Abraham forty years. On this he pronounces no opinion. The view, that Melchisedek was the Holy Ghost, was also entertained by Hieracas the Egyptian, and by a branch of the Theodotian heretics, founded by a younger Theodotus (Epiphan. Hær. lv. vol. i. pp. 468 ff.: de Hær. c. 34, vol. viii.), and called Melchisedekites: and Marcus Eremita (cir. 400), who wrote a treatise on M., mentions heretics who believed him to be ὁ θεὸς λόγος, πρὶν σαρκωθῆναι ἢ ἐκ Μαρίας γεννηθῆναι. This opinion Epiphanius, Hær. Lev_7, mentions as held by some within the Church: and Ambrose, from his remarks, De Mysteriis ch. 8 (46), vol. ii. p. 337: De Sacram. iv. 3 (12), p. 368 f.: De Abrahamo i. 3 (16), vol. i. p. 288, seems to have held this: though, De Fide as above, he expressly states him to have been merely a holy man, a type of Christ. This last view was ever the prevalent one in the Church. Cyr.-alex., Glaphyr. ii. vol. ii. pp. 46 ff., combats the two opinions that Melchisedek was a vision of the Holy Spirit, and that he was a great angel.

In later times the idea that he was the Son of God was revived by Molinæus (Vates, iv. 11 f.), by Cunæus (cited above), by Hottinger (De Decimis Judæorum, p. 15), Gaillard (M. Christus Unicus Rex Pacis, Ludg. Bat. 1686), and others. The theory that he was Shem has found many advocates: Lyra, Cajetan, Luther (on Gen_15), Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Selden (De Decimis, § 1), al. Jurieu (Histoire Crit. i. 10) believes him to have been Ham; Hulse (M. una cum Parente e Tenebris emergens, Lugd. Bat. 1706) and Calmet (Dissert. ii. pp. 271 f.), to have been Enoch reappearing on earth. Bleek refers, besides the above, for the general subject, to Deyling, Observv. Sacræ p. ii. pp. 71-87 (edn. 3, Lips. 1733): Fabricii Cod. Pseudepig. O. T. pp. 311-314 (edn. 2, 1722): Calmet, Bibl. Biblioth. pt. iv., where many dissertations are mentioned. A theory which identified Melchisedek with Job is mentioned by Wolf, Curæ Phil. in loc., and has recently been revived by Mr. Galloway, in his work, Egypt’s Record of Time), having neither beginning of days nor end of life (these words are again taken by most Commentators to mean, that of Melchisedek, neither beginning of days nor end of life are related in Scripture. Some, e. g. Beza (as a deduction from the other: “ævi ac proinde sacerdotii”), Camero, Schlicht., Wittich, al., take ἀρχήν for the beginning of his sacerdotal life: others as Camero, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Schleusner, Kuinoel, take τέλος also for the end of his priestly life: “Nullus ante eum defunctus est sacerdotio cui ipse deinde successit.… nullus commemoratur ei successisse in sacerdotio: qua in re typus fuit Christi,” Camero. But however ζωῆς τέλος may be legitimately thus referred, seeing that his priesthood and his life would expire together, ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν can hardly be understood of any thing but his natural life, especially as following ἀπάτωρ, &c., and in the presence of the general biblical usage of αἱ ἡμέραι τινός as a man’s lifetime. Accordingly most expositors take the words in this their natural sense and interpret them as above. So Chrys. on Psa 110 § 8, vol. v. p. 277, οὔτε ἀρχὴν οὖν ἡμερῶν φαίνεται ἔχων οὔτε ζωῆς τέλος ὁ Μ., οὐ τῷ μὴ ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ τῷ μὴ γενεαλογηθῆναι· ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς … τῷ καθʼ ὅλον μὴ εἶναι ἐπʼ αὐτοῦ ἀρχὴν χρονικὴν μηδὲ τέλος· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἦν σκιά, τὸ δὲ ἀλήθεια. Similarly Thdrt.: Eranistes, Dial. ii. vol. i. p. 88 f.: Cyr.-alex. Glaph. ii. p. 63: Primasius, who ends, “neque enim sub quo natus est Melchisedek legitur, neque quando mortuus est narratur, sed subito introducitur sicut et Elias.” Again however no one, I think, can help feeling that such an interpretation is in fact no worthy acceptation of these solemn words of the sacred Writer. The expressions become incomparably more natural, as Bleek says, if the Writer really meant that M. had not, as mortal men, a definite beginning and end of his life. It really would seem to me almost childish, to say thus solemnly of any whose acts were related in the O. T., but whose birth and death were not related, that they had neither beginning of days nor end of life. Suppose e. g. such a thing were said of Hobab, father-in-law of Moses. Here again Delitzsch, who takes strongly the other view, quotes from Philo an expression respecting Cain which he supposes analogous: ὁ Καῒν οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται, τὸ κακίας σύμβολον, ἣν ἀεὶ δεῖ ζῆν ἐν τῷ θνητῷ γένει παρʼ ἀνθρώπους. But surely it is hardly legitimate to conclude that, because Philo means only thus much, the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews means no more), but (yea, rather) likened to the Son of God (ἀφομοιόω (reff.) is a classical word. Plato, Rep. ii. 382 d, ἀφομοιοῦντες τῇ ἀληθεῖ τὸ φεῦδες: al. in Bl. Aristot. Polit. i., τὰ εἴδη τῶν θεῶν ἑαυτοῖς ἀφομοιοῦνται οἱ ἄνθρωποι. This clause stands alone and pendent, like the preceding, and must not be taken with μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, as Syr. (“sed in similitudinem filii Dei manet sacerdos in æternum:” “but in the likeness of the Son of Aloha standeth his priesthood for ever.” Etheridge’s version), Schlichting (“assimilatus filio Dei, i. e. illic ubi comparatus est cum Christo. Non enim usquam Scriptura de Melchisedeco seorsim et expresse dixit, eum manere sacerdotem in perpetuum: sed tantum in comparatione cum Christo, in illis nempe verbis de Christo positis, Tu es Sacerdos” &c.). To this there are three objections: 1. it would be extremely unnatural to say that from a text where it is said that the Son of God is a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, Melchisedek himself derives the character of remaining a priest for ever: 2. it would be but a poor way of proving the eternal priesthood of Christ, to shew that He is a priest after the order of one who only appeared to have, but really had not, such eternal priesthood: and 3. it is clearly not in respect of priesthood that the ἀφομοίωσις is here meant, but in respect of the foregoing predicates: for it is as to these only that the Son of God would be an archetype for Melchisedek, seeing that, in respect of priesthood, Melchisedek was chronologically prior to our Lord. So Thdrt., τούτου χάριν (in reference to the ἀΐδιος γέννησις and the ἀθάνατος φύσις of the Son of God) οὐ τὸν δεσπότην χριστὸν τῷ Μελχισεδὲκ ἀφωμοίωσεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν Μ. τῷ χριστῷ· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ τούτου τύπος, οὗτος δὲ τοῦ τύπου ἡ ἀλήθεια· ἐν μέντοι τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ, οὐ Μελχισεδὲκ μεμίμηται τὸν δεσπότην χριστόν, ἀλλʼ ὁ δεσπότης χριστὸς ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ, in loc.: so also Eranistes, Dial. ii. vol. i. p. 88.

These very words shew that the Writer does not regard Melchisedek as an appearance of the Son of God: and are so adduced by Epiphan. Hær. Lev_7, p. 474: οὐ γάρ τις ἑαυτῷ ὅμοιος γενήσεταί ποτε. The sense is then that Melchisedek, in being ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, personally, not typically, resembles the Son of God—in his personal attributes, as the Son of God subsequently in His incarnation, resembled him in His priesthood), remaineth priest for ever (εἰς τὸ διηνεκές = εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα above, ch. 6:20: and see reff. The expression is one which must be interpreted in each case by the context in which it occurs. Thus Sylla and Cæsar were chosen dictators εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, “dictatores perpetui,” that is, for life: Appian, B. C. i. p. 682. But that is no reason why here, where an eternal priesthood is in question, it should mean for life: indeed such meaning would be absurd, seeing that all were priests for life. In that case too, we should not have the present μένει. All kinds of ways have been devised to escape the plain assertion of these words. Most Commentators have had recourse to the same as before, viz. that no end of his priesthood is related to us in Scripture: so Œc., Thl., Cyr.-alex., Epiphan., and many moderns. Schlichting takes it, that as our Lord’s High Priesthood, which is said to be eternal, will endure to that time when the high-priestly office will cease, so Melchisedek’s priesthood is said to endure for ever, “quod et sacerdotium per longum aliquod temporis spatium egerit, et cum ipso veri Dei cultus et notitia inter homines illos extincta fuerit, ita ut sacerdotio, quod quidem vero Deo dicatum foret, nullus inter eos relictus esset locus. In æternum enim aliquid durare dicitur, quod et per longum tempus durat, et tamdiu duret quamdiu natura ipsius rei patitur. Sic David Deum so in æternum laudaturum dixit,” &c. Stier says, “He stands in Scripture as a type of an eternal priest:” but the question here is not of type, but of fact. Tholuck, “He remains, in so far as the type remains in the antitype, in so far as his priesthood remains in Christ,” after Primas., , Thos. Aq. But thus type and antitype are hopelessly confounded. Christ is to be proved to be a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Can we conceive then that the Writer, in setting forth what the order and attributes of Melchisedek are, should go back to Christ to find them? Again, to shew to what shifts interpreters have been reduced here, Jac. Cappellus, Pyle, Peirce, and Storr, actually understand ὅς before μένει, and construe, “made like to the Son of God, who abideth” &c. Every thing shews that which has been maintained all through this difficult passage, that the assertions are made, and this chief one is above all made, simply of Melchisedek, and they are, as matters of fact, inferred and laid down by the sacred Writer from the historic notices of him. What further inference lies from such dignity being here put on Melchisedek, is not, as I before said, for us to enquire: certainly, none which can in any way interfere with Christ’s eternal and sole priesthood, can be correct. It is one of those things in which we must not be wise above that which is written, but must take simply and trustingly the plain sense of our Bibles on a deep and mysterious subject, and leave it for the day when all shall be clear, to give us full revelation on the matter. See on the whole, Bleek’s long and interesting note, to which I must again acknowledge my obligations, and with which in the main I agree, against most expositors, and among them De Wette, Tholuck, Lünemann, Ebrard, and Delitzsch).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Declaring those words, According to the order of Melchizedek, whereupon that comparison standeth of the Priesthood of Christ with the Levitical: first Melchizedek himself is considered as the figure of Christ, and these are the hands of that comparison, Melchizedek was a King and a Priest: and such an one indeed is Christ alone. He was a King of peace and righteousness: such an one indeed is Christ alone.

With a solemn and Priestly blessing.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER VII.

Concerning the greatness of Melchisedec, after whose order

Christ is a high priest, 1-4.

The Levites had authority to take tithes of the people; yet

Abraham, their representative, paid tithes to Melchisedec,

5-10.

Perfection cannot come by the Mosaic law, else there could be no

need for another priest after the order of Melchisedec,

according to the prediction of David in Psalm cx., which priest

is sprung from a tribe to which the priesthood, according to

the law, did not appertain; but Christ is a priest for ever,

not according to the law, but after the order of an endless

life, 11-17.

The law, therefore, is disannulled, because of its

unprofitableness and imperfection; and Christ has an

unchangeable priesthood, 18-24.

He is therefore able always to save them that come unto him,

being in every respect a suitable Saviour; and he has offered

up himself for the sins of the people, 25-27.

The law makes those priests who have infirmity; but he who is

consecrated by the oath is perfect, and endures for ever, 28.

NOTES ON CHAP. VII.

Verse 1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem] See the whole of this history largely explained in the notes, See "Ge 14:18", c., and the concluding observations at the end of that chapter.

The name Melchisedec, מלכי צדק is thus expounded in Bereshith Rabba, sec. 43, fol. 42, מצדיק את יושביו matsdie eth Yoshebaiv, "The Justifier of those who dwell in him" and this is sufficiently true of Christ, but false of Jerusalem, to which the rabbins apply it, who state that it was originally called Tsedek, and that it justified its inhabitants.

Salem is generally understood to be Jerusalem; but some think that it was that city of Shechem mentioned Jos 20:7. St. Jerome was of this opinion.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. For this Melchisedec, etc. He has hitherto been stimulating the Jews by exhortations, that they might attentively consider the comparison between Christ and Melchisedec. At the end of the last chapter, that he might return from his digression to his subject, he quoted again the passage from the Psalms; and now he enters fully into what he had before slightly referred to; for he enumerates particularly the things connected with Melchisedec, in which he resembled Christ. It is indeed no wonder that he dwells so minutely on this subject. It was doubtless no common thing that in a country abounding in the corruptions of so many superstitions, a man was found who preserved the pure worship of God; for on one side he was nigh to Sodom and Gomorrah, and on the other to the Canaanites, so that he was on every side encompassed by ungodly men. Besides, the whole world was so fallen into impiety, that it is very probable that God was nowhere faithfully worshipped except in the family of Abraham; for his father and his grandfather, who ought to have retained true religion, had long before degenerated into idolatry. It was therefore a memorable fact, that there was still a king who not only retained true religion, but also performed himself the office of a priest. And it was doubtless necessary that in him who was to be a type of the Son of God all things excellent should be found: and that Christ was shadowed forth by this type is evident from the Psalm referred to; for David did not say without reason, “Thou art a priest forever after the order Melchisedec;” no, but on the contrary, by these words a sublime mystery was recommended to the Church.

Let us now consider each of those particulars in which the Apostle makes Christ like Melchisedec.

The first likeness is in the name; for it was not without a mystery that he was called the King of righteousness. For though this honor is ascribed to kings who rule with moderation and in equity, yet this belongs really to Christ alone, who not only exercises authority justly as others do, but also communicates to us the righteous of God, partly when he makes us to be counted righteous by a gratuitous reconciliation, and partly when he renews us by his Spirit, that we may lead a godly and holy life. He is then called the King of righteousness, because of what he effects in diffusing righteousness on all his people. It hence follows, that out of his kingdom nothing but sin reigns among men. And therefore Zechariah, when he introduces him, as by the solemn decree of God, into the possession of his kingdom, thus extols him, —

“Rejoice, O daughter of Sion, Behold thy righteous King cometh to thee,” (Zechariah 2:10;)

intimating that the righteousness, which is otherwise wanting to us, is brought to us by the coming of Christ.

The second likeness which the Apostle states is as to the kingdom of peace. This peace indeed is the fruit of that righteousness which he has mentioned. It hence follows that wherever Christ’s kingdom extends, there peace ought to be, as we find in Isaiah 2 and 9, and in other places. But as peace among the Hebrews means also a prosperous and happy state, it may be so taken here: yet I prefer to understand it here of that inward peace which tranquilizes the conscience and renders it confident before God. And the excellency of this blessing cannot be sufficiently estimated, unless you consider on the other hand, how miserable a thing it is to be tormented by constant inquietude; which must necessarily be the case until we have our consciences pacified by being reconciled to God through Christ.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

1. For this Melchisedec] All that is historically known of Melchisedek is found in three verses of the book of Genesis (Gen_14:18-20). In all the twenty centuries of sacred history he is only mentioned once, in Psa_110:4. This chapter is a mystical explanation of the significance of these two brief allusions. It was not wholly new, since the Jews attached high honour to the name of Melchisedek, whom they identified with Shem, and Philo had already spoken of Melchisedek as a type of the Logos (De Leg, Alleg. iii. 25, Opp. i. 102).

king of Salem] Salem is probably a town near Shechem. It is the same which is mentioned in Gen_33:18 (though there the words rendered “to Shalem” may mean “in safety”), and in Joh_3:23; and it is the Salumias of Jdt_4:4. This is the view of Jerome, who in his Onomasticon places it eight miles south of Bethshean. The site is marked by a ruined well still called Sheikh Salim (Robinson, Bibl. Res. iii. 333). In Jerome’s time the ruins of a large palace were shewn in this place as “the palace of Melchisedek;” and this agrees with the Samaritan tradition that Abraham had been met by Melchisedek not at Jerusalem but at Gerizim. The same tradition is mentioned by Eupolemos (Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix. 17. See Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 237). The more common view has been that Salem is a shortened form of Jerusalem, but this is very improbable; for (1) only a single instance of this abbreviation has been adduced, and that only as a poetic license in a late Psalm which the LXX. describe as “A Psalm with reference to the Assyrian” (Psa_76:2). (2) Even this instance is very dubious, for (α) the Psalmist may be intending to contrast the sanctuary of Melchisedek with that of David; or (β) even here the true rendering may be “His place has been made in peace” as the Vulgate renders it. (3) Jerusalem in the days of Abraham, and for centuries afterwards was only known by the name Jebus. (4) The typical character of Melchisedek would be rather impaired than enhanced by his being a king at Jerusalem, for that was the holy city of the Aaronic priesthood of which he was wholly independent, being a type of One in whose priesthood men should worship the Father in all places alike if they offered a spiritual worship. We must then regard Salem as being a different place from Jerusalem, if any place at all is intended. For though both the Targums and Josephus (Antt. i. 10 § 2) here identify Salem with Jerusalem, the Bereshith Rabba interprets the word Salem as an appellative, and says that it means “Perfect King,” and that this title was given to him because he was circumcised (see Wünsche, Bibl. Rabbinica. Beresh. Rabba, p. 198). Philo too says “king of peace, for that is the meaning of Salem” (Leg. Alleg, iii. 25, comp. Isa_9:5; Col_1:20). Nothing depends on the solution of the question, for in any case the fact that “Salem” means “peace” or “peaceful” is pressed into the typology. But the Salem near Sichem was itself in a neighbourhood hallowed by reminiscences scarcely less sacred than those of Jerusalem. Besides this connexion with the name of Melchisedek, it was the place where Jacob built the altar El-Elohe-Israel; the scene of John’s baptism; and the region in which Christ first revealed Himself to the woman of Samaria as the Messiah.

priest of the most high God] The union of Royalty and Priesthood in the same person gave him peculiar sacredness (“He shall be a Priest upon His throne” (Zec_6:13). “Rex Anius, rex idem hominum, Phoebique sacerdos” (Virg. Aen. iii. 80 and Servius ad loc.). The expression “God most high” is El Elîôn, and this was also a title of God among the Phoenicians. It is however certain that Moses meant that Melchisedek was a Priest of God, for though this is the earliest occurrence of the name El Elîôn it is afterwards combined with “Jehovah” in Gen_14:22, and in other parts of the Pentateuch and the Psalms. There is no difficulty in supposing that the worship of the One True God was not absolutely confined to the family of Abraham. The longevity of the early Patriarchs facilitated the preservation of Monotheism at least among some tribes of mankind, and this perhaps explains the existence of the name Elîon among the Phoenicians (Philo Byblius ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. i. 10).

who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings] Amraphel king of Shinar, with three allies, had made war on Bera king of Sodom with four allies, and had carried away plunder and captives from the Cities of the Plain. Among the captives was Lot. Abraham therefore armed his 318 servants, and with the assistance of three Canaanite chiefs, Aner, Mamre, and Eshcol, pursued Amraphel’s army to the neighbourhood of Damascus, defeated them, rescued their prisoners, and recovered the spoil. The word here rendered “slaughter” (kopç from kopto “cut”) may perhaps mean no more than “smiting,” i.e. defeat. On his return the king of Sodom going forth to greet and thank him met him at “the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale,” a place of which nothing is known, but which was probably somewhere in the tribe of Ephraim near mount Gerizim. This seems to have been in the little domain of Melchisedek for we are not told that “he went forth to meet” Abraham, but only that (being apparently at the place where Bera met Abraham) he humanely and hospitably brought out bread and wine for the weary victors, and blessed Abraham, and blessed God for granting him the victory. In acknowledgment of this friendly blessing, Abraham “gave him tithes of all,” i.e. of all the spoils.

and blessed him] Evidently as a priestly act. Gen_14:19-20.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem,.... Various have been the opinions of writers concerning Melchizedek; some have thought him to be more than a man; some, that he was an angel; others, that he was the Holy Ghost; and others, that he was a divine person superior to Christ, which needs no refutation; others have supposed that he was the Son of God himself: but he is expressly said to be like unto him, and Christ is said to be of his order; which manifestly distinguish the one from the other; besides, there is nothing said of Melchizedek which proves him to be more than a man: accordingly others take him to have been a mere man; but these are divided; some say that he was Shem, the son of Noah, which is the constant opinion of the Jewish writers (z): but it is not true of him, that he was without father, and without mother, an account of his descent being given in Scripture; nor is it probable that he should be a king of a single city in Ham's country, and Abraham be a stranger there: others say, that he was a Canaanitish king, of the posterity of Ham; others affirm him to be a perfect sinless man, and that all that is said of him in Genesis, and in this context, is literally true of him; but that he should be immediately created by God, as Adam, and be without sin as he, are things entirely without any foundation: others take him to be a mere man, but an extraordinary one, eminently raised up by God to be a type of the Messiah; and think it most proper not to inquire curiously who he was, since the Scripture is silent concerning his genealogy and descent; and that as it should seem on purpose, that he might be a more full and fit type of Christ; and this sense appears best and safest. Aben Ezra says, his name signifies what he was, the king of a righteous place: Salem, of which he was king, was not Shalem, a city of Shechem, in the land of Canaan, Gen 33:18 afterwards called Salim, near to which John was baptizing, Joh 3:23 where is shown the palace of Melchizedek in its ruins, which cannot be, since that city was laid to the ground, and sowed with salt by Abimelech, Jdg 9:45 but Jerusalem is the place; which is the constant opinion of the Jews (a), and is called Salem in Psa 86:2. The interpretation of this word is given in the next verse; some of the Jewish writers referred to say, that it was usual for the kings of Jerusalem to be called Melchizedek and Adonizedek, as in Jos 10:3 just as the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh. This king was also

priest of the most high God, as he is said to be, Gen 14:18 for he was both king and priest, in which he was an eminent type of Christ; and his being a king is no objection to his being a priest, since it was usual for kings to be priests; and though the Hebrew word "Cohen" sometimes signifies a prince, it cannot be so understood here, not only because the word is rendered "priest" by the Septuagint, and by the apostle, but because he is called the priest of God; and Christ is said to be of his order: and he is styled the priest of God, because he was called and invested by him with this office, and was employed in his service; who is said to be the most high God, from his dwelling on high, and from his superior power to all others, and to distinguish him from idol gods; this is a character of great honour given to Melchizedek;

who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings; the four kings, whose names are mentioned in Gen 14:1 whom Abraham slew, and over whom he got an entire victory, with only three hundred and eighteen men of his own house, after they had conquered the kings of Sodom, Gomorrha, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela: which shows that war is lawful; that enemies may be slain in war; that kings may fall as well as other men; and that those who have conquered others, may be conquered themselves: and as he was returning with his spoils, Melchizedek met him; not alone, which is not to be supposed of so great a person; nor empty, for he brought with him bread and wine, not for sacrifice, as the Papists would have it; but as Jarchi, a Jewish interpreter on the place observes, they used to do so to such as were fatigued in war; for this is to be considered as a neighbourly action, done in point of interest and gratitude, and was a truly Christian one, and very laudable and commendable; and doubtless had something in it typical of Christ, who gives to hungry and weary saints the bread of life, and refreshes them with the wine of divine love and grace:

and blessed him; Abraham, and the most high God also: the form of blessing both is recorded in Gen 14:19. This was not a mere civil salutation, nor only a congratulation upon his success, nor only a return of thanks for victory, though these things are included; nor did he do this as a private person, but as the priest of the most high God, and blessed him in his name authoritatively, as the high priest among the Jews afterwards did, Num 6:23 and in this he was a type of Christ, who blesses his people with all spiritual blessings, with redemption, justification, pardon, peace, and all grace, and with eternal glory.

(Gill changed his mind on the location of Salam when he later wrote the Old Testament portion of the Expositor. See Gill on Gen 14:18. Ed.)

(z) Targum in Jon. & Jerus. Jarchi, Baal Hatturim, Levi ben Gersom & Abendana in Gen. xiv. 18. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 4. fol. 182. 4. Pirke Eliezer, c. 8. Juchasin, fol. 135. 2. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 16. 2. Shalshelet Hakabala, fol. 1. 2. Peritzol. Itinera Mundi, p. 17. (a) Targ. Onk. Jon. & Jerus. Levi ben Gersom, Aben Ezra & ben Melec in Gen. xiv. 18. Tosaphot T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 16. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

Ver. 1. For this Melchisedec] Some make him the same with Shem; others say it was the Holy Ghost; others say it was Christ himself under the guise of a king and priest. It is most probable that he was a mortal man, and a Canaanite, but yet a most righteous man, and a priest of the most high God by special dispensation; and that Chedorlaomer and the other kings that over ran the country, and spoiled it, forbare, out of reverence to the man and his office, to meddle with Melchisedec’s territories.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this Melchisedek; - compare the notes on Heb 5:6. The name Melchizedek, from which the apostle derives a portion of his argument here, is Hebrew, מלכי־צדק Malkiy-Tsedeq, and is correctly explained as meaning “king of righteousness” - being compounded of two words - “king and righteousness.” Why this name was given to this man is unknown. Names, however, were frequently given on account of some quality or characteristic of the man: see the notes on Isa 8:18. This name may have been given on account of his eminent integrity. The apostle calls attention to it Heb 7:2 as a circumstance worthy of notice, that his name, and the name of the city where he reigned, were so appropriate to one who, as a priest, was the predecessor of the Messiah. The account of Melchizedek, which is very brief, occurs in Gen 14:18-20. The name occurs in the Bible only in Gen. 14, Psa 110:4, and in this Epistle. Nothing else is certainly known of him.

Grotius supposes that he is the same man who in the history of Sanchoniathon is called Συδύκ Suduk. It has indeed been made a question by some whether such a person ever actually existed, and consequently whether this be a proper name. But the account in Genesis is as simple a historical record as any other in the Bible. In that account there is no difficulty whatever. It is said simply that when Abraham was returning from a successful military expedition, this man, who it seems was well known, and who was respected as a priest of God, came out to express his approbation of what he had done, and to refresh him with bread and wine. As a tribute of gratitude to him, and as a thank-offering to God, Abraham gave him a tenth part of the spoils which he had taken. Such an occurrence was by no means improbable, nor would it have been attended with any special difficulty if it had not been for the use which the apostle makes of it in this Epistle. Yet on no subject has there been a greater variety of opinion than in regard to this man.

The bare recital of the opinions which have been entertained of him would fill a volume. But in a case which “seems” to be plain from the Scripture narrative, it is not necessary even to enumerate these opinions. They only serve to show how easy it is for people to mystify a clear statement of history, and how fond they are of finding what is mysterious and marvelous in the plainest narrative of facts. That he was Shem, as the Jews suppose, or that he was the Son of God himself, as many Christian expositors have maintained, there is not the slightest evidence. That the latter opinion is false is perfectly clear - for if he were the Son of God, with what propriety could the apostle say that he “was made like the Son of God” Heb 7:3; that is, like himself; or that Christ was constituted a priest “after the order of Melchisedek;” that is, that he was a type of himself? The most simple and probable opinion is that given by Josephus, that he was a pious Canaanitish prince; a personage eminently endowed by God, and who acted as the priest of his people.

That he combined in himself the offices of priest and king, furnished to the apostle a beautiful illustration of the offices sustained by the Redeemer, and was in this respect, perhaps, the only one whose history is recorded in the Old Testament, who would furnish such an illustration. That his genealogy was not recorded, while that of every other priest mentioned was so carefully traced and preserved, furnished another striking illustration. In this respect, like the Son of God, he stood alone. He was not in a “line” of priests; he was preceded by no one in the sacerdotal office, nor was he followed by any. That he was superior to Abraham. and consequently to all who descended from Abraham; that a tribute was rendered to him by the great Ancestor of all the fraternity of Jewish priests was just an illustration which suited the purpose of Paul. His name, therefore, the place where he reigned, his solitariness, his lone conspicuity in all the past, his dignity, and perhaps the air of mystery thrown over him in the brief history in Genesis, furnished a beautiful and striking illustration of the solitary grandeur, and the inapproachable eminence of the priesthood of the Son of God. There is no evidence that Melchizedek was “designed” to be a type of the Messiah, or that Abraham so understood it, Nothing of this kind is affirmed; and how shall “we” affirm it when the sacred oracles are silent?

(Doubtless great care and sobriety are requisite in the interpretation of types, and we admire the caution that, in every instance, demands the authority of Scripture, expressed or distinctly implied. From want of this caution, the greatest extravagancies have been committed, the most fanciful analogies established, where none were intended, and every minute circumstance in the Old Testament exalted into a type of something in the New. The very boards and nails of the tabernacle of Moses have been thus exalted.

Yet in our just aversion to one extreme, it is possible we may run into another. Of the typical character of Melchizedek, we had thought no doubt could be entertained. The canon of typical interpretation, indeed, demands, that in order to constitute the relation between type and antitype, there be, in addition to mere resemblance, “precious design,” and “pre-ordained connection.” And the commentary affirms, that “there is no evidence, that Melchizedek was designed to be a type of the Messiah, or that Abraham so understood it.” Let it be observed in reply, that in the Psa 110:1 Psalm the typical character of Melchizedek “seems” expressly acknowledged. It may be alleged, that the prophet simply states resemblance, without affirming that such resemblance was designed or intended. But that a prophet should be commissioned to declare, that Christ’s priesthood should be “after such an order,” and yet that in the institution of that exalted order there should have been no designed reference to Christ, is improbable.

The prediction seems to involve the original design. And this order of priesthood, too, is far superior to that of Aaron, the typical character of which is admitted. Moreover, the last clause of verse third, in this chapter, according to our English translation as a designed connection. Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God.” The translation is accurate. Ἀφομοιωμενος Aphomoiōmenos, according to Parkhurst, is “made very like.” So also Scott: “The composition is probably intended to add energy; made very like.” And Bloomfield adopts, “being made by the divine decree a type of that great High Priest, who, &c,;” see the notes in Greek Testament. Lastly, on any other principle than that of “designed” typical relation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to give any just account of the remarkable omissions, the apparently studied silence, in the history of Melchizedek, in regard to those things that are commonly related in notices of lives, however brief.

He is introduced to us with an air of impenetrable mystery. He appears on the stage as Priest of the most High God, and then disappears, leaving us in complete darkness concerning his birth, parentage, and death. “In all these respects,” says Mr. Scott, “the silence of the Scripture is intentional and refers to the great antitype.” Melchizedek, therefore, we may remark, seems not only to have been designed as a type, but “special care” has been taken, that the record of him should be in all things suited to that design. That the apostle lighted on a happy coincidence, deserving of a passing thought, is not probable, whether this remark be meant to apply to the name, or to other particulars in this remarkable story. Indeed, divest it of its designed typical character, and the grandeur of the passage vanishes. A simple resemblance has been discovered between Christ and a certain character in the old Testament. This is all the apostle means to affirm! And for this too, he introduces Melchizedek, with such wondrous caution in Heb 5:11; “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, but ye are dull of hearing.” What was hard to be uttered, or difficult to be comprehended about a mere “illustration,” or “resemblance?”

The following remarks of Owen are pertinent and beautiful. “The true cause of all these omissions was the same with that of the institution of his (Melchizedek’s) priesthood, and the introduction of his person into the story. And this was, that he might he the more express and signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. And we may herein consider the sovereign wisdom of the Holy Spirit in bringing forth truth unto light, according as the state and condition of the church doth require. And first he prophesieth only a naked story of a person that was a type of Christ. Something the people of the age wherein he lived, might learn by his ministrations, but not much. For what was principally instructive in him, for the use of the church, was not of force until all his circumstances were forgotten. Yea, the contrivance of any tradition concerning his parents, birth, and death, had been contrary to the mind of God, and what instruction he intended the church by him.

Afterward, when, it may be, all thoughts of any use or design in this story were lost, and the church was fully satisfied in a priesthood quite of another nature, the Holy Spirit in one word of prophecy instructs her, not only that the things spoken concerning Melchizedek were not so recorded for his own sake, or on his own account, but with respect to another priest, which was afterward to arise, by him represented. This gave a new consideration to the whole story; but moreover gave the church to know, that the priesthood, which it then had, was not always to continue, but that one of another nature was to be introduced, as was signified long before the institution of that priesthood which they enjoyed, Psa 110:4. Yet the church was left greatly in the dark, and, at the coming of our Saviour, had utterly lost all knowledge of the mystery of the type, and the promise renewed in the Psalm. Wherefore, our apostle entering on the unfolding of this mystery, doth not only preface it with an assertion of its difficulty, but also by a long previous discourse, variously prepareth their minds to a most diligent attention.”

The excellence of this quotation will, in the reader’s estimation, excuse the length of it. On the whole, he who reflects how all things in the ancient economy were ordered of God, and how great a part of that economy was meant to adumbrate the realities of the gospel, while he will be cautious in admitting typical analogies of a doubtful kind, will be slow to believe that the resemblance between Christ’s priesthood, and that of the “most” exalted order previously instituted, is casual, or undesigned - slow to believe, that the apostle would make so large use of such accidental analogy, and found on it an argument so great.)

King of Salem - Such is the record in Gen 14:18. The word “Salem” - שׁלם shalēm - means “peace;” and from this fact the apostle derives his illustration in Heb 7:2. He regards it as a fact worth remarking on, that the “name” of the place over which he ruled expressed so strikingly the nature of the kingdom over which the Messiah was placed. In regard to the “place” here denoted by the name “Salem,” the almost uniform opinion has been that it was that afterward known as Jerusalem. The reasons for this opinion are,

(1)That it is a part of the name Jerusalem itself - the name “Jerus,” altered from “Jebus,” having been afterward added, because it was the residence of the “Jebusites.”

(2)The name “Salem” is itself given to Jerusalem; Psa 76:2, “In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.”

Jerusalem would be in the direction through which Abraham would naturally pass on his return from the slaughter of the kings. He had pursued them unto Dan Gen 14:14, and he was returning to Mamre, that is, Hebron; Gen 14:13, on his return, therefore, he would pass in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Rosenmuller, however, supposes that by the name here, Jerusalem is not intended, but the whole region occupied by the Jebusites and Hittites, or the royal seat of this region, situated not far from the cities of the plain - the vale of Siddim where Sodom and Gomorrah were situated. But I see no reason for doubting that the common opinion that Jerusalem is intended, is correct. That place was favorably situated for a capital of a nation or tribe; was easily fortified; and would be likely to be early selected as a royal residence.

Priest of the most high God - This is the account which is given of him in Gen 14:18. The leading office of “priest” was to offer sacrifice. This duty was probably first performed by the father of the family (compare the notes on Job 1:5; see also Gen 8:20; Gen 22:2), and when he was dead it devolved on the oldest son. It would seem also that in the early ages, among all nations whose records have reached us, the office of priest and king were united in the same person. It was long before it was found that the interests of religion would be promoted by having the office of priest pertain to an order of men set apart for this special work. That Melchizedek, who was a king, should also be a priest, was not, therefore, remarkable. The only thing remarkable is, that be should have been a priest “of the true God.” In what way he became acquainted with Him, is wholly unknown. It may have been by tradition preserved from the times of Noah, as it is possible that the arrival of Abraham in that land may have been in some way the means of acquainting him with the existence and character of Jehovah. The “fact” shows at least that the knowledge of the true God was not extinct in the world.

Who met Abraham - He came out to meet him, and brought with him bread and wine. “Why” he did this, is not mentioned. It was probably as an expression of gratitude to Abraham for having freed the country from oppressive and troublesome invaders, and in order to furnish refreshments to the party which Abraham headed who had become weary and exhausted with the pursuit. There is not the slightest evidence that the bread and wine which he brought forth was designed to typify the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as has been sometimes supposed; compare Bush on Gen 14:18. What did he know of this ordinance? And why should we resort to such a supposition, when the whole case may be met by a simple reference to the ancient rites of hospitality, and by the fact that the deliverance of the country by Abraham from a grievous invasion made some expression of gratitude on the part of this pious king in the highest degree proper?

Returning from the slaughter of the kings - Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and “Tidal, king of nations,” who had invaded the valley where Sodom and Gomorrah were, and had departed with a great amount of booty. Those kings Abraham had pursued beyond Dan, and to the neighborhood of Damascus, and had smitten them, and recovered the spoil.

And blessed him - For the important service which he had rendered in taking vengeance on these invaders; in freeing the land from the apprehension of being invaded again; and in recovering the valuable booty which they had taken away. From Heb 7:6-7, it appears that this act of “blessing” was regarded as that of one who was superior to Abraham. That is, he blessed him as a priest and a king. As such he was superior in rank to Abraham, who never claimed the title of “king,” and who is not spoken of as a “priest.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

This Melchisedech. If we look for the construction, Melchisedech may be joined with what follows, (ver. 3.) continueth a priest for ever. (Witham) --- The excellency of this personage was so transcendent, that some of the ancients took him to be an Angel, and some the Holy Ghost. This the Fathers condemn; for had he not been a man, a king, and a priest, he would not have been so worthy a type of our Saviour.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.

The exposition of Christ"s heavenly priesthood is now at length taken up and carried out. It extends to Heb_10:19, forming the central part of the whole Epistle; and in the course of it is set forth also how the whole Jewish economy did in fact only prefigure and prepare for this one availing priesthood of the true High Priest of mankind. The peculiar thesis of Heb 7 is "after the order of Melchizedek," the question being What is signified by this designation of the Messiah in the hundred and tenth psalm? The remarkable import of that psalm, in that it assigns priesthood as well as royalty to the Son, was noted under Heb_5:6. His being Priest at all implies a different order of royalty from that of the theocratic kings. But what further is meant by his priesthood being after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek? Is it that Melchizedek, being King of Salem as well as priest of the most high God, is therefore selected as the most suitable type of the great Priest-King to come? Yes; but there is more in it than this, as the writer goes on to show. To get at the full import of the expression in the psalm, he analyzes what we are told about Melchizedek in Genesis 14 (the only other passage from which anything is known of him), and considers what could be meant in the psalm by "a priest after his order," and that "for ever." Both the actual history and the ideal of the psalm are in his view together; and from the two combined he deduces the intended idea of "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Bearing this in mind, we shall have no need to understand anything implied as to Melchizedek himself beyond what we learn from Genesis. Some commentators, on the strength of what is here said of him, have supposed him to have been some superhuman being; and many theories have been propounded as to who and what he was. All such views have arisen from a misconception of our writer"s drift; from regarding the representation of the ideal which Melchizedek typified as part of the account of what he actually was, the actual and the ideal being, in fact, somewhat blended in the exposition. That no more is implied about the man himself than what is recorded in Genesis may be concluded, not only from the purport (rightly understood) of the passage before us, but also from the analogy of the rest of the Epistle, throughout which the arguments are based on the contents of the Old Testament itself, as it was read and received by the Hebrew Christians. For example, neither David, nor Solomon, nor Isaiah are adduced as having been other than what the sacred record represents them to have been, though it is shown that what is said of them in the spirit of prophecy points to an ideal beyond them.

Vers. 1-3. For this Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (this description belongs to the subject of the sentence, being merely a recapitulation of the facts recorded in Genesis, the language of the LXX being used; what follows belongs properly to the predicate, being of the nature of a comment on the facts recorded); first, being by interpretation King of righteousness (which is the meaning of the name Melchizedek), and then also King of Salem, which is, King of peace (the very names of himself and his kingdom are significant; (cf. Psa_85:10 Psa_72:3 Isa_32:17 Rom_5:1) where righteousness and peace are the characteristics of the Messiah"s kingdom; this significance, however, is not afterwards made a point of, being merely noticed by the way); without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. It is this language especially that has been supposed to involve something more than human about the historical Melchizedek. But we have only to enter into the mind of the writer to see that it is not so. For it is the ideal of the psalm, conceived as suggested by the historical type, that gives its color to the language used. And, indeed, how strangely suggestive is that fragment about the priestly king (Gen_14:18-21) so unexpectedly interposed in the life of Abraham! In the midst of a history in which such a point is made of the parentage and descent of the patriarchs of Israel, at a time of peculiar glory of the first and greatest of them, one suddenly appears on the scene, a priest and king, not of the peculiar race at all, his parentage and ancestry unrecorded and unknown, who blesses and receives tithes from Abraham, and then as suddenly disappears from view. We hear no more of him; as about his origin, so about his end, Scripture is silent. And so he "abides" before the mind"s eye, apart from any before or after, the type of an unchanging priesthood. For the meaning of the word agenealoghtov (in itself denoting the absence, not of ancestors, but of a traced genealogy), cf. ver. 6, o dh mh genealogoumenov ex autwn . That of apatwr, amhtwr , is illustrated by the Latin expression, "Nullis majoribus ortus." On "made like (omoioumenov) unto the Son of God," Chrysostom says, "We know of no beginning or end in either case; in the one, because none are recorded; in the other, because they do not exist." The idea seems to be that Melchizedek is thus assimilated to Christ in the sacred record, by what it leaves untold no less than by what it tells. It is not said that he is like him (omoiov), but made like (omoioumenov); i.e. represented in such wise as to resemble him. It may be here remarked that, though the term "Son of God" is used in the Epistle generally to denote the Messiah as manifested in time, his essential eternal being is here, as elsewhere, distinctly intimated; also that "the Son of God" is regarded as the archetype of the comparison: "Non dicitur Filius DEI assimilatus Melchizedeko, sed contra; nam Filius DEI est antiquior et archetypus" (Bengel).

Vers. 1-10. Melchizedek. The author here returns from his long digression, and enters upon the central theme of the treatise.

I WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT MELCHIZEDEK. (Vers. 1-3.)

1. As a man.

(1) From Scripture statements. (Vers. 1, 2) All that the sacred historian records of him is contained in three verses. (Gen_14:18-20) Yet we read in these, as in the passage before us, of Melchizedek"s illustrious personality, his twofold office, his double designation, his sudden appearance, his priestly blessing, and of Abraham"s acknowledgment of his dignity.

(2) From Scripture silence. (Ver. 3.) It is evident that the writer believed the Old Testament to be inspired, not merely in its general drift, but also in its minutest details. He is persuaded that even the omissions from the narrative had been arranged by the Holy Spirit. From this passage, therefore, we learn our duty, not only to survey the Bible in its broad landscapes of truth, and to study its general structure as the literary record of a supernatural revelation, but, alongside of that, to subject individual passages, as we have opportunity, to microscopic analysis. The omissions about Melchizedek are so important that ver. 3 reads almost like a riddle. Such omissions respecting a personage so exalted are contrary to Oriental custom. The points which the Holy Spirit has studiously concealed about Melchizedek are his personal parentage, his priestly pedigree, and the dates of his birth and death.

2. As a type. (Ver. 3) The brief notice of Melchizedek in the Book of Genesis has been framed so as to exhibit in him as striking as possible a prefiguration of Christ. Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God," at once in the events of his personal career, and in the shape given to the Bible narrative respecting him. The Lord Jesus Christ is both "King of righteousness" and "King of peace;" he dispenses spiritual peace upon a basis of righteousness. He is a royal Priest, wearing both the miter and the diadem. He had no predecessor in his office, and he shall have no successor. His priesthood is of older date, and of superior dignity to that of Levi. In all these respects Melchizedek was a type of Christ.

II THE SUPERIORITY OF MELCHIZEDEK"S PRIESTHOOD TO THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. (Vers. 4-10) "Consider" this, says the apostle. Although the theme is recondite, and "hard of interpretation", (Heb_5:11) it deserves careful study, since it concerns the dignity and glory of the Son of God. (Psa_110:4)

1. Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, the ancestor of the Levites. (Vers. 4-7) No Old Testament name is more illustrious than that of "Abraham, the patriarch;" no heraldic escutcheon could boast marks of greater honor than that which bears the arms of "the father of the faithful friend of God." Yet we see this venerated founder of the Hebrew nation humbly acknowledging the superiority of Melchizedek.

(1) Abraham paid tithes to him (vers. 4-6). Under the Levitical law tithes were due from the people to the priests, priests and people being brethren by race; but here we have a Gentile pontiff receiving tithes from Abraham, the patriarch offering them spontaneously.

(2) Melchizedek pronounced a blessing upon Abraham (vers. 6, 7). This also implied Abraham"s spiritual inferiority. The head of the chosen nation, to whom God had given "the promises," stood humbly before this Hamite priest to receive his blessing.

2. The Levitical priests were dying men; Melchizedek appears only as a living priest. (Ver. 8) Aaron"s sons obtained the sacerdotal dignity by descent; they died and succeeded one another. But Melchizedek"s priesthood was inherent and underived. He is exhibited on the inspired page only as a living priest, in order that his office may the more. suitably prefigure the intransferable priesthood of Christ.

3. The Levitical priests virtually paid tithes to Melchizedek. (Vers. 9, 10) All the sacred honor with which Aaron and his sons were invested was derived from Abraham, as the head of the nation; and so, when Abraham confessed the religious superiority of Melchizedek, the long line of Aaronical priests may in a sense be said to have done so also.

Learn in conclusion:

1. The unparalleled majesty and glory of the Lord Jesus. Abraham was greater than Aaron; Melchizedek was greater than Abraham; but Christ is infinitely greater than Melchizedek.

2. Christ"s priestly benediction is more efficacious than that of Melchizedek. He has been sent "to bless us, in turning away every one of us from our iniquities". (Act_3:26)

3. If Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of the spoils, should not we dedicate to the Lord Jesus Christ, not our tithes only, but our all?

HOMILIES BY W. JONES. Vers. 1-3. Melchizedek a type of Christ.

"For this Melchizedek, King of Salem," etc. The various extraordinary conjectures as to the personality of Melchizedek "we may safely treat as fanciful and unneeded. The typology connected with Melchizedek does not require that he himself should be regarded as any superhuman person, but merely exalts the human circumstances under which he appears into symbols of superhuman things. Everything combines to show that Melchizedek was a Canaanitish king who had retained the worship of the true God and combined in his own person the offices of king and priest." And the statements made concerning him in the third verse of our text need not cause us any difficulty. The Levitical priests held their office by virtue of their descent from Levi and Aaron. A clear and unquestionable genealogy was of the utmost importance to them. On the return of the Jews from captivity certain persons were excluded from the priesthood because they could not produce their pedigree. (Ezr_2:61-63) Now, as for Melchizedek, the names of his parents were unknown, his name was not mentioned in the Hebrew genealogies, there was no record of his birth or of his death, and no mention of the termination of his priesthood. "He comes forth from the darkness like a streak of light, only to disappear immediately in the darkness again." He is mentioned in our text as a type of Jesus Christ.

I IN HIS REGAL CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONS. "Melchizedek, King of Salem... by interpretation King of righteousness, and King of peace." In the reign of the Christ:

1. Righteousness is the firm basis of peace. It is true in government as in other things that "the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle." Stable peace is impossible apart from righteousness. Deep craft, subtle diplomacy, strong naval and military forces, are miserable guarantees for a nation"s peace. The peace and the perpetuity of the reign of Messiah are founded upon its truth and righteousness. The witness of Scripture to this is most clear and conclusive. (see Psa_72:1-7 Isa_2:4 Isa_11:1-9 Isa_32:17)

2. Righteousness is joined with peace. Both these qualities characterize his administration. Righteousness is firm, inflexible, almost stern; peace is mild, merciful, gentle. In the kingdom of our Lord "mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other.

II IN HIS SACERDOTAL CHARACTER AND FUNCTIONS. Here are several points of analogy.

1. In the authority of his priesthood. "Melchizedek, priest of God Most High... without father, without mother," etc. He was not a priest because he was descended from priests, like the sons of Aaron. He received his priesthood direct from God. It was based upon character, not upon pedigree. It was "an independent priesthood, having its root in his own person." Even so was the priesthood of our Lord and Savior (cf. vers. 13-Heb_5:4-6).

2. In the blessings which he bestowed. Melchizedek bestowed upon Abraham a double blessing, and in each portion of it he prefigures the Christ.

(1) He ministered to his physical needs. "Melchizedek met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings," and "brought forth bread and wine" unto him; bread representing the necessary food of the physical life, and wine representing the delights of life that maketh glad the heart of man." And our Lord cared for the physical needs of men. He had compassion on the hungry thousands, and fed them; he pitied the afflicted, and healed them; he sympathized with their social pleasures, and contributed to them by turning water into wine.

(2) Melchizedek blessed Abraham spiritually. (Gen_14:19, Gen_14:20) Our Lord confers the richest spiritual favors upon those who believe in him. The redemption of Jesus Christ is for the whole of man"s nature. It is noteworthy that Melchizedek blessed the greatest and best man of his age of whom we have any record. He "blessed him that hath the promises," etc. (vers. 6, 7). Our Lord blesses the highest and holiest as well as the lowest and most sinful of men. None are so great or so good as to have outgrown the need of his blessing.

3. In the homage which he received. "To whom Abraham divided a tenth part of all... unto whom Abraham gave a tenth out of the chief spoils." He did this either as an act of homage to him as a king, and as placing himself under his authority and protection, or as an acknowledgment of his character and position as "priest of God Most High." To our Priest and King the mightiest and the weakest, the greatest and the smallest, high and low, rich and poor, shall pay heartiest and humblest homage. (see Psa_72:10, Psa_72:11, Psa_72:15, Psa_72:17) "At the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow," etc. (Php_2:10, 11)

4. In the duration of his priesthood. "Abideth a Priest continually." This is not to be taken literally as to Melchizedek. Of him it is true in this way, there is no record of the termination of his priesthood by death or otherwise. As he did not receive it from his ancestors, it was not transmitted to his descendants: he yielded "up his priesthood to no one." But in a higher sense his great Antitype "abideth a Priest continually." He is "a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." "He ever liveth to make intercession for them that draw near unto God through him. W.J.

HOMILIES BY C. NEW Vers. 1-10. Christ a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The writer now returns from the digression. So far he has established from their Scriptures the priesthood of Christ. But that is not enough; that is no reason why he should be preferred to Aaron. He proceeds, then, to show that, however great Aaron was, Christ was greater. But on what grounds can he establish this to the satisfaction of a Hebrew? He rests his proof entirely on those Scriptures which the Hebrew accepted as authoritative, and two passages (Psalm 110 and Genesis 14) supply him with all he needs. The first states that Christ was the Priest after the order of Melchizedek; the second that Abraham, from whom all Israel, Aaron included, derived their greatness, did homage to Melchizedek; and thus the point was proved, for Aaron, in the person of Abraham, acknowledged Melchizedek"s superiority. That is the argument. Subject Christ a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

I THE OBJECT HERE IS TO SHOW THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST"S PRIESTHOOD TO THAT OF AARON.

1. We have the story of Melchizedek, the priest of Salem, to whom Abraham gave a tenth.

2. This story shows that Melchizedek was greater than Aaron. Abraham, the head of their nation, recognized Melchizedek as a divinely appointed priest one who had a right to tithes from him, and the power to bless him. The reception of tithes by the Jewish priests was "the acknowledged symbol of their supremacy over their brethren" (Dale). But here was one who received tithes from Abraham himself! "And without contradiction the less is blessed by the greater." So that in Abraham kneeling before the righteous King of Salem, the whole Mosaic priesthood practically affirmed its inferiority to that of Melchizedek.

3. But Melchizedek is declared to be a type of Christ. (Note: Strange that for a thousand years this affirmation should have lain unnoticed in their sacred books till the inspired apostle throws this wondrous light upon it! How much is hidden in the Word of God to be revealed yet, to our surprise!)

II OBSERVE THE POINTS IN WHICH, AS SEEN IN THE PRIESTHOOD OF MELCHIZEDEK, THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST"S PRIESTHOOD TO THAT OF AARON CONSISTS. Christ was not different to Aaron, but better; he was all that Aaron was, but he was more. We may learn from this ancient king-priest in what this more consisted.

1. Christ"s priesthood is universal. Aaron"s was for a limited circle the seed of Abraham; but Melchizedek represented a priesthood which had a world-wide aspect, existing two thousand years before Aaron. Abel, Noah, Job, were priests of that order. So Christ is for all who will. His gospel is glad tidings, not for a few, nor for a section of the Church, nor for certain types of Christian character, but for all people.

2. Christ"s priesthood is continuous. It is not meant that Melchizedek had no end of days, but that is true of him as far as the history is concerned. We do not read that he died, or that his priesthood terminated; and this serves to show the contrast between a continuous priesthood and one which, like the Aaronic, was continually changing; not begun till thirty years of age, nor continued after fifty, and only exercised at parts of the year. From the first, Jesus made intercession for the transgressors ("the Lamb slain before," etc. ), and ever liveth for this. We are always sure of him. He never sleeps, nor forgets, nor is weary, nor gives place to another.

3. Christ"s priesthood is royal. Aaron was only priest; Levi was king. Melchizedek was both. So Jesus, even on the cross most truly fulfilling his priestly work, was "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews," a Priest upon his throne. A priest or a king could never satisfy us. We need both priestly sympathy and the resources of royalty; the law of the king proceeding from the love of the priest. Christ fulfils his priesthood royally; he is no vain friend to sinful man. Christ fulfils his kingship mediatorially, holding all his power on behalf of his redemptive work.

III OBSERVE SOME OF THE INCIDENTAL LESSONS WHICH A COMPARISON OF CHRIST"S PRIESTHOOD WITH THAT OF MELCHIZEDEK SUGGESTS.

1. That righteousness and peace are the results of his priestly work.

"Melchizedek king of righteousness; "King of Salem king of peace. Righteousness and peace are the end of the atoning, interceding work of the Son of God.

2. That he has a right to the priest"s portion from his Church. The Jewish priesthood had a right to tithes from (not those who dissented from them, not idolaters, but) the sacred nation, but there was no such enactment binding on Abraham; his was a free-will offering. Christ has a right to our offerings and "how much owest thou? but he only accepts the free offerings of a grateful heart.

3. That Christ"s priestly benediction is granted to his weary people. The great Priest not simply goes to God for us in intercession, but comes forth from God to us in benediction. Christ is ever doing for us what Melchizedek did for Abraham when he came forth to greet him in his weariness with bread and wine. C.N.

HOMILIES BY J.S. BRIGHT Vers. 1-3. Melchizedek a typical priest.

The inspired writer now resumes his consideration of Melchizedek as a type of our Lord as Priest, and notes the fact that he stands in Old Testament Scripture quite alone, and has no genealogy which informs us from whom he sprang, and has no successor to whom he hands over his priestly office. As far as Scripture narrative is concerned, he abideth a high priest continually." The typical resemblances between Melchizedek and our Lord are

I THE SUBLIME SOLITARINESS OF THIS PRIEST. He stands alone as the servant and minister of the most high God, and while the Jewish priests appear like the columns of a temple, Melchizedek rises as an obelisk, which by its loneliness attracts attention and awakens thought. Our Lord is, in his office, foreshadowed by this ancient priest; for he stands alone, and has had no predecessor, and will have no successor as High Priest over the house of God.

II THE UNIVERSALITY OF HIS OFFICE FINDS ITS COUNTERPART IN JESUS CHRIST. Melchizedek was a priest for men as men, and before the separation of the race into the two classes of Jews and Gentiles. The successors of Aaron were limited in their ministrations to the twelve tribes of Israel; but the Redeemer is the Priest for the race of mankind: "for with him is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free, and there is neither male nor female.

III THE INTEREST DISPLAYED BY MELCHIZEDEK IN THE AFFAIRS OF WORSHIPPERS. Abraham had pursued the kings who had taken captive the family of Lot, and carried off much spoil from the inhabitants of Sodom. On his return the priest met him and his wearied troop with bread and wine, and blessed the patriarch in the Name of the most high God. In like manner our Lord has an abiding interest in his worshippers, whom he delivers from evil, maintains in spiritual vigor, and blesses with his refreshments and Divine approbation. As Melchizedek blessed Abraham, so our Lord at his departure from the world lifted up his hands and blessed his disciples, and has ever since blessed his followers with needful grace and supplies of spiritual power.

IV THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MELCHIZEDEK"S NAMES IS REALIZED IN CHRIST.

1. Our Lord was the King of righteousness. " This was verified in his personal life, in which he fulfilled all righteousness, and "In his life the Law appears drawn out in living characters.

He preached righteousness in the great congregation, and everywhere enforced it by the sanction and authority of his Father in heaven. He urged the claims of righteousness upon thought, word, and act; in the synagogue and the temple, and in all the intercourse of life. His death realized the idea of eternal righteousness in the condemnation of sin, and the provision of a way of salvation in which God could be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Christ." All his subjects were to be righteous, and he led them to look for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness should forever dwell.

2. The next title which Melchizedek bore was" King of peace," and this was realized gloriously in the Savior. His Divine ministry produced peace by giving repentance, which is the rejection of unholy and rebellions thoughts, and our reconciliation to the thoughts of God. Then comes peace through his blood. There is peace from the constancy of his superintendence of his people, and the certainty of his efficient interest in their daily life, whereby he makes all things work together for their good. He will lead them forward until their peace shall be as a river, and their righteousness as the waves of the sea. He is our Peace, who brings men of all nations to the fold on the eternal hills, and there shall be one flock and. one Shepherd. B.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG Vers. 1-17. The priesthood forever after the order of Melchizedek.

It is evident that the whole of this elaborate argument with respect to Melchizedek must be looked at in the light of the reference to Ps 110. In quoting this psalm, the writer was on firm ground so far as his readers were concerned. They would not repudiate the significance of this utterance, that it must have some weighty, practical meaning; and it was his to show them what that meaning was, and so to cheer their hearts amid what so distressed them the thought of having to give up entirely the ordinances of Judaism. There are the two orders of priesthood: the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchizedek. To the first of these the people attached great moment, and rightly so. The priest was a depositary of sacrificial commandments and practices, the temporary and defective nature of which were hidden by their long continuance. To use the common saying, "Possession was nine points of the law," and so it was needful to make them see very clearly how there was another order of priesthood, with more stability and power of service in it than anything the Aaronic priesthood could show. The Aaronic service, by showing its own insufficiency, was doing its best to prepare for the service after the order of Melchizedek. As to who Melchizedek really was, it is vain to inquire; and it is less needful to know because it is the office and not the man that is in question. Indeed, our very ignorance is part of the fitness of the type. Mysterious in his origin and his destiny, starting up all at once and as quickly disappearing, of whom we know nothing more than that he was a king and himself a priest, he becomes a very fitting type of that Priest who will never lay down his office while priesthood is needed. The abiding character of the priesthood of Jesus is the one great truth that we are to learn from all this comparison between Melchizedek and Aaron. The whole of this chapter was of supreme importance at the time, and it may still have a large part to play in the bringing of Jews to Jesus; but it can hardly be pretended that it has the same importance to us. Y.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The sum of this chapter is, Christ, as appears from his type, Melchisedec, who was greater than Abraham himself, from whom Levi descended, has a priesthood altogether excellent, new, firm, perpetual. Gen. xiv, 18, &c.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

God

Most high God. Gen 14:18.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A Comparison between Christ and Melchizedek.

Melchizedek a type of Christ in a singular manner:

v. 1. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him;

v. 2. to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation king of righteousness and after that also king of Salem, which is, king of peace;

v. 3. without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.

This paragraph opens one of the most important sections in the entire letter, since it is intended to set forth the superiority of Christ in a most singular manner. This is brought out even by the description of Melchizedek as given in Scripture: For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, was a priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom Abraham also divided a tenth of all (the spoil). See Gen 14:18-20. The following facts appear from the story as told in Genesis. Lot, Abram’s nephew, had been led into captivity by four kings, Chedorlaomer, Tidal, Amraphel, and Arioch, in their campaign against Sodom and Gomorrah. These kings have been identified, with some plausibility, with Khammurabi, Eriaku, Kudurlachjumal, and Tudchula, mentioned in ancient records that substantiate the Bible-account. The patriarch thereupon gathered all the men whom he could muster in his household, pursued the kings, overthrew them utterly, and rescued Lot and his goods. On his return he was met by this king of Salem, Melchizedek. It is immaterial whether this Salem stood for the later Jerusalem or for Salim in the vale of Schechem. The statements concerning the man and the application made of these points interest us. He was a king, and therefore, according to ancient custom, also judge and priest. He is expressly designated as a priest of the most high God, Gen 14:18. As such he pronounced a blessing upon Abraham, imparting to him the gift of God. Abraham, in turn, divided to Melchizedek a tithe of the spoils, thus acknowledging him as a priest.

This peculiar personage is now further described: Interpreted first king of righteousness, but then also a king of Salem, that is, a king of peace. The sacred author makes use of every factor, of every point which offers an opportunity for explanation. The name Melchizedek itself is Hebrew and is translated "king of righteousness," and the word Salem meaning "peace," the king of Salem is, of course, the "king of peace. " Both by his name, then, and by his official position, Melchizedek was set apart from other men. And it is significant that righteousness and peace are characteristic properties of the Messianic kingdom, Psa 72:7; Isa 9:6-7; Zec 9:9; Eph 2:4; Eph 5:17.

The last part of the personal description is just as important: Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like to the Son of God, remains a priest permanently. Melchizedek stands in Scripture absolutely alone; no illustrious parents are mentioned from whom he might have inherited power and authority, nor could his priestly office have come to him as a descendant of a priestly family. His descent and pedigree are nowhere entered and recorded. Neither of his birth nor of is death does Holy Writ make mention, neither his installation into office nor his retirement from it are described. In this he resembles the eternal Son of God, whose type he evidently was intended to be. The entire story makes the impression that priestly services of a particular type were needed at that time, and this man was there to perform them. It appears, therefore, from the entire context that the permanence of Melchizedek’s priesthood was to be expressed. As one commentator puts it: "If he had had in history, as doubtless he had in fact, a successor in office, we should have said of him that he was the priest of Salem in the days of Abraham. As the case stands, he is the priest of Salem. " (Bruce.)

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here observe, 1. The person spoken of described by his name, Melchizedek to be Shem the Son of Noah; but this cannot be, because of his genealogy is exactly set down by Moses. Others take him to be one of the posterity of Japhet, the father of the Gentiles: In the midst of these sinners, above others, was Melchizedek raised up as an illustrious type of Christ, the promised Messiah. See here, how God can raise up instruments for his service, and unto his glory, whence where, and how he pleaseth.

And learn hence, that this signal prefiguration of Christ, in the nations of the world, at the same time when Abraham received the promises for himself and his posterity, gave a pledge and assurance of the certain future call of the Gentiles unto an interest in him and participation of him.

Observe, 2. Melchizedek is here described by his office; he was king of Salem, and a priest of the Most High God; yea, the first that was so by special institution and separated to the office by God’s approbation? None went before him, and none succeeded him in his office.

Here note, That the first personal instituted type of Christ, was Melchizedek, as priest; for in his kingly office he was not so directly typical of Christ. There were moral types of Christ’s person before Melchizedek, as Adam, Abel, and Noah, which represented him in sundry things: But the first person, who was solemnly designed to represent Christ by what he was and did, was Melchizedek the priest; teaching us, that the foundation of all that the Lord Jesus Christ had to do in and for the church, was laid in his priestly office, whereby he made atonement, and reconciliation for sin: Melchizedek king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God.

Observe, 3. He met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings. This meeting of Melchizedek and Abraham, after Abraham had gotten the victory over all his adversaries, was a type and representation of the glorious meeting of Christ and his church, at the last day; then he will bring out of his stores in heaven for their eternal refreshment, as Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings.

2. He blessed him, And Melchizedek said, Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth. Gen 14:19 Sacerdotal blessings were authoritative, and that by specal institution. In this blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek, all believers are virtually blessed by Jesus Christ: Melchizedek represented all his believing posterity, in what he then received.

3. Another sacerdotal act, or exercise of priestly power ascribed to Melchizedek, is, that he received of Abraham tithes of all; the one paid them in a way duty, the other received them in a way of office.

Note here, The aniquity of tithes, and how very ancient they were paid in Abraham’s time, long before the ceremonial law, and therefore cannot be said to be Jewich and Levitical. The patriarchs before the law, the Jews under the law, and the Christians in times of the gospel, have all paid this proportion: From whence some have concluded, that as the seventh part of our time, so the tenth part of our goods and estates were given to God from the beginning, as Lord of all our time, and proprietor of our estate.

Whatsoever we receive signally from God, in a way of mercy, we ought to return a portion of it to him in a way of duty. It is a certain sign that a man has not engaged God in getting an estate, when he will not intitle him to any portion of it when it is gotten.

Observe, 4. The apostle proceeds unto other instances in the description of Melchizedek, wherein he was made like unto the Son of God, Heb 7:3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life: which expressions must not be understood absolutely, but tropically, not of Melchizedek as a man, but as a priest; for as a man, he had certainly both father and mother, though not recorded in Scripture; he was assuredly born, and did no less certainly die than other men; but neither his beginning of days nor end of life, are registered and rehearsed, that he might be the fitter type of Christ, concerning whom it is said, Who can declare his generation?

But though Melchizedek, as a man, had father and mother, yet as a priest he had no predecessor nor successor; no predecessor from whom he might by birth receive his sacerdotal power; no successor who derived his priesthood from him: Now herein also was Melchizedek, and illustrious type of Christ, who derived his priesthood from no mortal predecessor from whom he might by birth receive his sacerdotal power; no successor who derived his priesthood, together with his kingdom, to God the Father, who gave him both.

Observe, 5. What is here asserted concerning Melchizedek; namely, that he abideth a priest for ever; that is, things are so related concerning him in Scripture, as that there is no mention of the ending of the priesthood of his order. We read of no resignation of his office, or of the succesion of any person to him therein; and thus he remaineth a priest for ever. This was that which our apostle did principally design to confirm from hence, namely, that there was in the Scripture, before the institution of the Aaronical priesthood, a representation of an eternal, unchangeable priesthood, to be introduced into the church; which demonstrated to be that of Jesus Christ, of which Melchizedek’s priesthood was a type.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 5

THE TWO HIGH PRIESTHOODS: THAT OF AARON AND THAT OF CHRIST.

1-3. Melchisedec was a Shemitish priest and prophet, belonging to the Patriarchal dispensation which preceded the Mosaic. He lived and officiated at Salem, which is the old name of Jerusalem. Salem means peace and Jerus means possession. Hence when David took the citadel of Mount Zion from the Jebusites he called it Jerusalem. Melchisedec met Abraham returning from his expedition after the Oriental kings. Genesis 14. He was his pastor, residing at Jerusalem. Pursuant to the tithe law, doubtless of antediluvian recognition, Abraham paid him one tenth of all the spoils. The statement that he was without father, mother or genealogy has no reference to his natural manhood, but purely to his sacerdotal character and office. Under the Patriarchal dispensation to which he belonged, the priests were not identified with a certain family, as the Levitical priests all belonged to the Aaronic, but were indiscriminately called of God from the popular masses, as under the Gospel dispensation. Here Melchisedec is contrasted with the Aaronic priesthood, all of whom must of necessity have a priestly father, mother and posterity. In process of time the Aaronic priests became so numerous as to overcrowd the official demand. Therefore, during the reign of David they were divided into classes, and their services regulated by courses, pursuant to which each priest had his time to enter upon his official service and to go out. In the providence of God, Zacharias was officiating in his priestly office when the angel Gabriel announced the conception of John the Baptist. The priesthood of Christ was inaugurated in heaven, when He took His mediatorial seat at the right hand of God. It was inaugurated on earth when the Pentecostal baptisms ushered forth the new ministry forever superseding the Aaronic priesthood. Therefore Melchisedec is a prominent isolated character selected from the patriarchal dispensation to represent the priesthood of Christ, i.e., the true Christian of the Gospel dispensation, who is utterly unencumbered by sacerdotal consanguinities ad libitum, called of God to preach the everlasting Gospel. perfectly, freely, without the slightest human restrictions.

4-10. The historic statement in this paragraph logically enforces the superiority of Melchisedec, i.e. of Christ, over the Aaronic priesthood, authenticated by the fact that the latter paid tithes to the former. Is the tithe law obligatory on the Church of God at the present day? The very fact that we are not living under the law, but under grace, renders it impertinent to enforce the tithe law, yet Jesus says He “came not to destroy the law but to fulfill.” Therefore the Gospel Church can never fall below the law dispensation. Consequently, we must give the Lord at least one-tenth, and pursuant to the glorious spiritual liberty of entire sanctification, we ought to just give Him all, and ourselves, too. The present state of legal bondage prevalent in the Church, is deplorable in the extreme; not only Romanism but the Protestant churches have lamentably gone back into the legal bondage of the Mosaic dispensation, so awfully encumbered with human institutions of their own inventions as to put yokes on the necks of their members too heavy to bear, thus working them hard for that which is not bread, and never can satisfy the hungry soul. Meanwhile they give them no time to serve God, but actually crowd Him out of the heart. It is deplorable on a Sabbath morning to hear the announcements for the ensuing week, taking up all the time on financial, social and ecclesiastical enterprises, instead of devoting the solid week to the Lord’s war for the salvation of perishing souls. Thus the popular churches of all countries, papal and Protestant, are this day groaning under the yoke of legal bondage, plodding along in the Mosaic dispensation three thousand years behind the age. Nothing hut the glorious gospel of entire sanctification can ever emancipate the Church from the hard bondage of the Mosaic law. The holiness movement at the present day is shaking the world with the momentum of an earthquake, everywhere snapping the fetters and smashing the chains of legal bondage which have bound the Gospel Church ever since the Constantinian apostasy, despite all the efforts of popery, prelacy and priestcraft to hold all the members fast in this legal bondage. Egypt is sin-land; the wilderness, law-land; Canaan, grace-land; and heaven, glory-land. Pharaoh, who represents the devil, holds the unconverted in the bondage of sin; the law, which thundered forth from Mt. Sinai in the wilderness, holds all the peregrinators of that land in legal bondage, because it has a quarrel with them. Adam the first, who still survives in their hearts, is a violator of the law, and doomed to die under it. When all antagonism to the divine law has been eradicated out of our hearts, so that we are perfectly free from all inclination to violate the law, then we are just as free from the law as if there were no law.

11, 12. Here the Holy Ghost certifies the impossibility of perfection under the Levitical priesthood. The stream can never rise above its source. With an imperfect exemplar, no one will ever reach perfection, hence the utter impossibility of Christian perfection under the Aaronic priesthood. Many of the patriarchs and prophets, swept out by faith into the Gospel dispensation, received and enjoyed full salvation, but they were in advance of the Levitical priesthood. The normal economy under the former dispensation was to reach perfection in the article of death. Since the great majority of church members at the present day are really in the Mosaic dispensation, they only reach perfection in the article of death. Sinners follow Satan. Unsanctified Christians follow the Lord to an extent, but mainly do they follow preachers and church officials; while wholly sanctified people follow the Lord alone. Preachers blindly covet intolerable labor, burden and responsibility, when they seek popular leadership, since no human being is competent to the emergency. Pastors and people will never he truly happy, prosperous and useful, till they get saved from all human leadership and follow Jesus only.

13, 14. Here the author reminds us that our Lord emanated from the tribe of Judah, to which no priest belonged, and not from the tribe of Levi, with which all the Aaronic priests were identified. The Holy Ghost makes no mistake. He has made the Bible precisely right. If our Lord had sprung from the tribe of Levi, it would have given a slight plausibility to the greatest of all the heresies which have ever paralyzed the church, i.e., that of priestcraft. Without the slightest authority or plausible pretext the Gospel Church, long ages ago, has gone back into the Mosaic dispensation, despite the positive deliverances of God’s Word to the contrary. Hence, if our Lord had been a Levite, oh, how they would have mixed Him up with the Aaronic priests, and what a bold pretext they would have for the intriguing priesthood which belts the globe this day, boldly usurping the throne of Christ, each audacious to proclaim his heretical, secular ecclesiasticism as the only true church of God on the earth, and clamoring aloud to the people to come, join his sect, receive water baptism at his hands, assuring him that his sins are forgiven and his name written in heaven. Not only do the clergy usurp the throne of Christ in their wicked and audacious pretensions to administer the grace of absolution, but they everywhere boldly transcend their official prerogative and again pertinaciously usurp the throne of Christ in their arrogant interdictions to the people to pass beyond their official administrations and seek the glorious, omnipotent Savior in the full sanctification of their hearts and the Pentecostal enduement of the Holy Ghost. Then they rage worse than ever when the sanctified people, pursuant to their heavenly calling, push out into the highways and hedges, determined to press the Lord’s war to the gate of the enemy, girdling the globe with salvation, filling all lands with the glory of God, and ushering in the millennium. The very fact that our Savior did not spring from the tribe to which all the pastors belonged, is incontrovertible proof of His transcendent superiority and utter independence of all human ecclesiasticism, or pontifical authority and dictation As He is so are His people. Two hundred millions of martyrs have laid down their lives for this glorious freedom. We are now rushing into the perils of the last days, which will try men’s souls as in the martyr ages. We might apologize for creeds during the dark ages when not one man in a thousand could read or write, but certainly the age of creeds is past.

We need them no more, as all can now read the Bible, the only creed of God’s true and free people, and Jesus our only Leader and Exemplar, and the Holy Ghost our Convictor, Regenerator and Sanctifier.

15-17. “Who was not made after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” This describes the humanity of Christ. Jesus is perfect God and perfect man. His humanity the only unfallen son of Adam and Eve. As he is free from the fall, he was not made subject to the carnal commandment, but endued with the power of an endless life. We all enter this world in Adam the first, contaminated and encumbered by the fall. Since Adam the first violated the law and fell under its penalty, our only hope is in the transition to Adam the Second. Since the law of God is indefragable, all who are finally involved in its violation must go down in its condemnation, when the whole world shall stand before the great white throne. In that momentous ordeal none will pass with impunity outside of Adam the Second. He is the only human being who has. never violated the divine law. Consequently, He alone will stand with impunity in that great day. The great work of the gracious economy is the successful transference out of Adam the first into Adam the Second. In regeneration, the nature of Adam the Second is born in our hearts, enthroned to abide and rule forever. In sanctification, Adam the first, having been subjugated in regeneration, is forever eliminated. This Scripture explains the irrepressible conflict of all ages between the Christ nature in our hearts and secular ecclesiasticism, which in all ages have pertinaciously striven to enforce their carnal commandments on the children of God. Here the martyrs have bled The true saints of God are not subject to the Aaronic priesthood, but belong to that of Melchisedec, who is not only free from all earthly restrictions and encumbrances, but even free from all the ties of consanguinity, but equally free from all the restrictions of ecclesiastical legislation. Glory to God for this wonderful and perfect spiritual and evangelistic freedom! Reader, do you enjoy it? Neither father nor mother, son nor daughter, nor ecclesiastical court can ever lay the weight of a feather on your spiritual liberties. It may he your glorious privilege to glorify your great High Priest by suffering even unto martyrdom; all of which, and a thousand times more, is blessed for Jesus’ sake, since this liberty is sweeter than life and stronger than death.

18-25. These eight verses constitute a beautiful paragraph in the inspired Greek, in which this grand argument on the high priesthood of Christ, contrastively with the Aaronic, reaches its climateric culmination.

19. “The law made nothing perfect.” This declaration of the Holy Ghost forever sweeps from the field the popular dogma of perfection by growth, i.e., by works. All of our good works consist in obedience to the commandments. This vain delusion has been the deceiver of millions in all ages. How natural to conclude that good works will make us perfect! This would take the glory from Christ and confer it on ourselves. He alone is our Perfecter. We may wear our lives out in legal obedience and drop into hell at last.

25. “Therefore truly He is able to save unto the uttermost those who come unto God through Him, ever living to intercede for them.” “Uttermost” is panteles, which is a compound superlative adjective here used adverbially to qualify “save.” This word is from pan, all, and telos, the end or perfection. Hence it means entirely and completely, i.e., every constituency of our being, unto perfection. This wonderful Greek compound does not occur in the classics. The inspired writer of this wonderful epistle made that word under the leadership of the Holy Ghost. It most indubitably and forever sweeps away all possible cavil as to the great Scriptural doctrine of Christian perfection. The Holy Ghost ransacked the most beautiful and forcible language in the world, culled out the two strongest words and put them together, in order to reveal this glorious truth of Christian perfection. To doubt it in the least, or lay the slightest restriction on it, is to impeach the veracity of the Holy Ghost. Our great High Priest has not only fully, perfectly and eternally satisfied the violated law by offering His own body a sacrifice and substitute on the cross, but having ascended up to heaven, the Father has accepted the ransom paid for this guilty world, crowned Him Mediatorial King at His right hand, where He ever liveth to intercede for every penitent soul who crieth unto God. He never sleeps and never evacuates His office. Hence every fleeting moment He is ready to intercede for us. The Father has already and forever accepted the atonement He has made for all this guilty world. Hence, our own blind unbelief is the only conceivable preventive of this uttermost salvation for every soul beneath the skies. The very idea of necessary postponement is utterly out of the question. The man who does not believe in an instantaneous and entire sanctification thereby evinces to the world that he is still groping amid the disabilities of the Aaronic priesthood.

26, 27... “Who hath need daily as the high priest, first to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, and then for those of the people; for he did this once offering up himself.” Here we have a striking contrast between the priesthood of Aaron and that of Christ. The Aaronic priest in all of his administrations first offered up a sacrifice for himself and then made offerings for the sins of the people. You have been a lifelong witness to the same fact in the public ministrations of the popular clergy. A preacher holds a protracted meeting in a revival effort. He has to make his own soul a specialty first of all, to get the revival started in his own heart. If in a week’s preaching and praying he himself gets revived, the revival omen is really auspicious for a good work in his church. It is quite different with the sanctified preacher. He is already emptied of sin and filled with the Holy Spirit, enjoying a constant revival in his own heart. Hence he opens the campaign with a shout of victory in his own soul. The revival fire burning brightly in his own experience, quickly catches the dry fuel of consecration and faith in the members of his audience. Consequently the fire blazes and the revival moves from the opening service, without the arduous labor of two weeks expended to get up a revival. As Jesus our great High Priest made our offering on the cross, and forever sat down at God’s right hand, so His true and faithful followers make the one offering, in which, unreservedly and eternally consecrating all to God, they consign Adam the first, the body of sin surviving in the heart of the regenerate, to the Holy Ghost that He may nail him to the cross to bleed and die. Jesus never claimed to be perfect in His Messianic office and character until He suffered death on the cross. Even so His followers are imperfect in their Christian character and experience till they suffer the crucifixion of Adam the first on the cross. Thus we follow in the footprints of Jesus to the lowly manger where we are born in utter obscurity, then to the rugged cross where we die to the world, the flesh and the devil. As Jesus achieved an everlasting victory at the cross, so do His followers triumph over the world, the flesh and the devil when they suffer spiritual crucifixion on the cross, wrought by the Holy Ghost when, pursuant to our perfect consecration and submissive faith, He nails the body of sin surviving in our hearts to the cross, and with it the native evil in our organism is at once and forever exterminated. When our hearts are thus thoroughly expurgated of all spiritual foes, victory comes to stay, we have a true and genuine revival of religion within, and have it forever. This experience inaugurates us into the High Priesthood of Christ. Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King. While on earth His prophetical office predominated. He was the most indefatigable preacher the world ever saw. The first great act of His priestly office was the consecration of His own body to bleed and die on the cross. Then and there His priestly office predominated over the prophetical, and will so continue till He rides down onto His millennial throne, after which His kingly office will predominate forever. He is our great, infallible Paragon and only Exemplar. Therefore all who follow Him beyond the cross enter His royal high priesthood on the bloody summit of Calvary. The old man of sin is crucified, washed away and consumed by the Pentecostal fires. This experience gives us an everlasting victory within, sweeping away all the restrictions and disabilities which encumbered the Aaronic priesthood. Melchisedec is our human illustrative example, without father, mother, genealogy or periodic limitation. Thus you see the members of our Savior’s High Priesthood are perfectly free from all human limitations, natural, ecclesiastical and secular. Jesus proposes perfectly to disencumber and gloriously enfranchise the members of His priesthood so that they shall be “free indeed.” The apostasy of the Apostolic Church from the experience of Christian perfection is the greatest calamity of the Apostolic age, as it reverted the Gospel dispensation back into the Aaronic priesthood, again foisting upon the Church the innumerable inconveniences and disabilities of that onerous legal bondage, from which Jesus died to set her free.

28. “For the law maketh men high priests having infirmity, but the word of the oath which is after the law the Son having been made perfect forever.” God’s memorable oath (Luk 1:73-75), confirmatory of the glorious possibility of entire sanctification, experimentally received and permanently enjoyed, enthrones Jesus the glorified High Priest in the heart to reign forever, expurgating the malady of the fall by His blood, and vitalizing our whole soul and life by His Spirit, filling and flooding us forever. Thus in the sanctified believer, enjoying the full Gospel salvation under the High Priesthood of Christ, He is Lord of all, God blessed for evermore. The great ecclesiasticisms which belt the globe at the present day, unknown and unheard of in the Bible, have lamentably usurped the High Priesthood of Christ, and thus carried the Gospel Church back into the Mosaic dispensation, again encumbering the necks of the people with multitudinous burdens of legal bondage. They fight Christian perfection because it lifts the yoke of legal bondage and enfranchises the people of ecclesiastical thralldom.

1, 2. The first word in this chapter is kephalaion, the head. Hence here it means the pinnacle climacteric fact in this glorious reality is that the meek and lowly Galilean, born in a stable, reared at the bottom of slumdom, condescending low enough to put His philanthropic arm under the vilest of the vile, having compassed the globe with the Briarean arms of His condescending love, by His own death on Calvary having fully, completely and eternally expiated the guilt of a lost world, ascended up to heaven, glorified and triumphant over death, hell and the grave, received cordially by His loving Father, fully and eternally satisfied with the atonement made, in the presence of angels, archangels, cherubim and seraphim, has been crowned Mediatorial High Priest, Omnipotent Intercessor of fallen humanity, world without end. Amen!

3-6. Jesus emanated not from the tribe of Levi, to which all the Aaronic priests belonged, but from that of Judah. [How significant the fact that all the Jews have lost their tribehood except Judah. That is the tribe of Jesus, still surviving on the earth, waiting to hail their royal Brother descending from the skies.] Therefore Jesus never belonged to the Levitical priesthood, whose restrictions and disabilities encumbered it with a trend and habitude peculiarly earthly, and strikingly contrastive with the spiritual, heavenly and unearthly priesthood of Jesus. When Moses spent forty days on Mt. Sinai, in communion with Jehovah, preparatory to the building of the portable wilderness tabernacle, God gave him all needed specifications and instructions even unto minutiae appertaining to that wonderful superstructure. Hence a volume of spiritual truth is typically revealed in the different parts and connections constituting the tabernacle. It was all symbolic of Christian experience, adumbrating the sanctified heart under the Gospel dispensation, which is the temple of the Holy Ghost. The millions of money uselessly expended on church edifices at the present day, every dollar of which belongs to God, and ought to go to heathen lands, are a universal memento of our sad apostasy back into the Mosaic dispensation. We frequently hear them actually apologize for this criminal prodigality of the Lord’s money, by reference to the gorgeous splendors and beauties and costliness of Solomon’s temple. In that argument they confess judgment against themselves. The wilderness tabernacle and Solomon’s temple belong to the typical dispensation of an earthly priesthood. We are living in the spiritual, experimental dispensation of a heavenly priesthood. The gold of the tabernacle and the temple emblematized the holiness of a sanctified heart. So, if you want to be in harmony with the tabernacle and the temple, get sanctified wholly and you are there. The money thus shamefully pilfered from the Lord’s treasury and wasted in church edifices would have evangelized the whole world long ago, and brought on the millennium. This is the result of preachers and churches living in the dispensation of Moses three thousand years behind the age.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hebrews Chapter 7

The epistle, returning to the subject of Melchizedec, reviews therefore the dignity of his person and the importance of his priesthood. For on priesthood, as a means of drawing nigh to God, the whole system connected with it depended.

Melchizedec then (a typical and characteristic person, as the use of his name in Psa 110:1-7 proves) was king of Salem, that is king of peace, and, by name, king of righteousness. Righteousness and peace characterise his reign. But above all he was priest of the Most High God. This is the name of God as supreme Governor of all things-Possessor, as is added in Genesis, of heaven and earth. It is thus that Nebuchadnezzar, the humbled earthly potentate, acknowledged Him. It was thus He revealed Himself to Abraham, when Melchizedec blessed the patriarch after he had conquered his enemies. In connection with his walk of faith, the name of Abraham, victorious over the kings of the earth, is blessed by Melchizedec, by the king of righteousness, in connection with God as Possessor of heaven and earth, the Most High. This looks onward to the royalty of Christ, a Priest upon His throne, when by the will and the power of God He shall have triumphed over all His enemies-a time not yet arrived-first fulfilled in the millennium, as it is commonly expressed, though this rather refers to the earthly part. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedec. His royalty was not all, for Psa 110:1-7 is very clear in describing Melchizedec as priest, and as possessing a lasting and uninterrupted priesthood. He had no sacredotal parentage form whom he derived his priest hood As a priest, he had neither father nor mother; unlike the sons of Aaron, he had no genealogy (compare Ezr 2:62); he had no limits assigned to the term of his priestly service, as was the case with the sons of Aaron. (Num 4:3) He was made a pries, like-in his priestly character- to the Son of God; but, as yet, the latter is in heaven.

The fact that he received tithes from Abraham, and that he blessed Abraham, shewed the high and preeminent dignity of this otherwise unknown and mysterious personage. The only thing that is testified of him-without naming father or mother, commencement of life, or death that may have taken place-is, that he lived.

The dignity of his person was beyond that of Abraham, the depositary of the promises; that of his priesthood was above Aaron’s, who in Abraham paid the tithes which Levi himself received from his brethren. The priesthood then is changed, and with it the whole system that depended on it.

Psa 110:1-7 interpreted by faith in Christ-for the epistle, we need not say, speaks always to Christians-is still the point on which its argument is founded. The first proof the, that the whole was changed, is that the Lord Jesus, the Messiah (a Priest after the order of Melchizedec, did not spring evidently from the sacredotal tribe, but from another, namely, that of Judah. For that Jesus was the Messiah, they believed. But, according to the Jewish scriptures, the Messiah was such as He is here presented; and in that case the priesthood was changed, and with it the whole system. And this was not only a consequence that must be drawn from the fact that the Messiah was of the tribe of Judah, although a Priest; but it was requisite that another priest than the priest of Aaron’s family should arise, and one after the similitude of Melchizedec, who should not be after the law of a commandment which had no more power than the flesh to which it was applied, but who should be according to the power of a never ending life. The testimony of the psalm to this was positive: “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

For there is in fact a disannulling of the commandment that existed previously, because it was unprofitable (for the law brought nothing to perfection); and there is the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh to God.

Precious difference! A commandment to man, sinful and afar from God, rep]aced by a hope, a confidence, founded on grace and on divine promise, through which we can come even into God’s presence.

The law, doubtless, was good; but separation still subsisted between man and God. The law made nothing perfect. God was ever perfect, and human perfection was required; all must be according to what divine perfection required of man. But sin was there, and the law was consequently without power (save to condemn); its ceremonies and ordinances were but figures, and a heavy yoke. Even that which temporarily relieved the conscience brought sin to mind and never made the conscience perfect towards God. They were still at a distance from Him.. Grace brings the soul to God, who is known in love and in a righteousness which is for us.

The character of the new priesthood bore the stamp in all its features, of its superiority to that which existed under the order of the law and with which the whole system of the law either stood or fell.

The covenant connected with the new priesthood answered likewise to the superiority of the latter over the former priesthood.

The priesthood of Jesus was established by oath; that of Aaron was not. The priesthood of Aaron passed from one person to another, because death put an end to its exercise by the individuals who were invested with it. But Jesus abides the same for ever; He has a priesthood that is not transmitted to others. Thus He saves completely, and to the end, those that come unto God by Him, seeing that He ever lives to intercede for them.

Accordingly “such a high priest became us.” Glorious thought! Called to be in the presence of God, to be in relationship with Him in the heavenly glory, to draw near to Him on high, where nothing that defiles can enter, we needed a High Priest in the place to which access was given us (as the Jews in the earthly temple), and such a one as the glory and purity of heaven required.What a demonstration that we belong to heaven, and of the exalted nature of our relationship with God! Such a Priest became us: “Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, exalted above the heavens”-for so are we, as to our position, having to do with God there-a Pr iest who needs not to renew the sacrifices, as though any work to put away sin still remained to be done, or their sins could still be imputed to believers; for then it would be impossible to stay in the heavenly sanctuary. As having once for all completed His work for the putting away of sin, our Priest offered His sacrifice once for all when He offered up Himself,

For the law made high priests who had the infirmities of men, for they were men themselves; the oath of God, which came after the law, establishes the Son, when He is perfected for ever, consecrated in heaven unto God.

We see here that, although there was an analogy and the figures of heavenly things, there is more of contrast than of comparison in this epistle. The legal priests had the same infirmities as other men; Jesus has a glorified priesthood according to the power of an endless life.

The introduction of this new priesthood, exercised in heaven, implies a change in the sacrifices and in the covenant. This the inspired writer develops here setting forth the value of the sacrifice of Christ, and the long-promised new covenant. The direct connection is with the sacrifices; but he turns aside for a moment to the two covenants, a so wide-embracing and all-weighty consideration for the Christian Jews who had been under the first.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–3. For this Melchizedec, king of Salem. See the account of him in Gen. 14:18–20. That he was a character of exceeding dignity is manifest, not only from the statements of Genesis, but of this chapter. There have been many speculations concerning his personality, but no man can lift the vail. He bursts upon us as a priest-king, king of Salem, or Jerusalem, which we now know from discoveries in Egyptian records existed even in those very early ages; priest of the most High God. There is no account of his parents, none of his birth, none of his death, none of the beginning or end of his priesthood; hence, he appears in the record without parents, genealogy, beginning or end, simply as one that liveth, a fit type of him whose priesthood and kingly state endure forever. Who met Abraham. See Gen. 14:20. Abraham was returning from the pursuit of marauders who had captured Lot, his nephew. Blessed him. The “great father,” “the friend of God,” thus acknowledges his superior spiritual dignity.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

The writer of Hebrews continues his comparison of Jesus as priest to Melchizedek as priest.

Salem

This is the name of a city. (See: How to Translate Names)

Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings

This is refers to when Abraham and his men went and defeated the armies of four kings in order to rescue his nephew, Lot, and his family. (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

It was to him

"It was to Melchizedek"

king of righteousness ... king of peace

"righteous king ... peaceful king"

He is without father, without mother, without ancestors, with neither beginning of days nor end of life

It is possible to think from this passage that Melchizedek was neither born nor did he die. However, it is likely that all the writer means is that the Scriptures provide no information about Melchizedek's ancestry, birth, or death.

translationWords

Melchizedek

king

priest

God

Most High

Abraham

slaughter

bless

tenth

righteous

peace

ancestor

life

Son of God

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

CH. 7. CHRIST, AS AN ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK, IS SUPERIOR TO THE LEVITIC HIGH PRIEST

Historic reference to Melchisedek (1–3). His Priesthood typically superior to that of Aaron in seven particulars. i. Because even Abraham gave him tithes (4–6). ii. Because he blessed Abraham (7). iii. Because he is the type of an undying Priest (8). iv. Because even the yet unborn Levi paid him tithes, in the person of Abraham (9, 10). v. Because the permanence of his Priesthood, continued by Christ, implied the abrogation of the whole Levitic Law (11–19). vi. Because it was founded on the swearing of an oath (20–22). vii. Because it is intransmissible, never being vacated by death (23, 24). Summary and conclusion (25–28).

1–3. HISTORIC REFERENCE TO MELCHISEDEK

1. Οὖτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ. All that is historically known of Melchisedek is found in three verses of the book of Genesis (Gen 14:18-20). In all the twenty centuries of sacred history he is only mentioned once, in Psa 110:4. This chapter is a mystical explanation of the significance of these two brief allusions. It was not wholly new, since the Jews attached high honour to the name of Melchisedek, whom they identified with Shem, and Philo had already spoken of Melchisedek as a type of the Logos (De Leg. Alleg. III. 25, Opp. I. 102).

βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ. Salem is probably a town near Shechem. It is the same which is mentioned in Gen 33:18 (though there the words rendered “to Shalem” may mean “in safety”), and in Joh 3:23; and it is the Salumias of Jdt 4:4. This is the view of Jerome, who in his Onomasticon places it eight miles south of Bethshean. The site is marked by a ruined well still called Sheikh Salim (Robinson, Bibl. Res. III. 333). In Jerome’s time the ruins of a large palace were shewn in this place as “the palace of Melchisedek”; and this agrees with the Samaritan tradition that Abraham had been met by Melchisedek not at Jerusalem but at Gerizim. The same tradition is mentioned by Eupolemos (Euseb. Praep. Evang. IX. 17. See Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 237). The more common view has been that Salem is a shortened form of Jerusalem, but this is very improbable; for (1) only a single instance of this abbreviation has been adduced, and that only as a poetic license in a late Psalm which the LXX. describe as “A Psalm with reference to the Assyrian” (Psa 76:2). (2) Even this instance is very dubious, for (α) the Psalmist may be intending to contrast the sanctuary of Melchisedek with that of David; or (β) even here the true rendering may be “His place has been made in peace” as the Vulgate renders it. (3) Jerusalem in the days of Abraham, and for centuries afterwards, was only known by the name Jebus. (4) The typical character of Melchisedek would be rather impaired than enhanced by his being a king at Jerusalem, for that was the holy city of the Aaronic priesthood of which he was wholly independent, being a type of One in whose priesthood men should worship the Father in all places alike if they offered a spiritual worship. We must then regard Salem as being a different place from Jerusalem, if any place at all is intended. For though both the Targums and Josephus (Antt. I. 10, § 2) here identify Salem with Jerusalem, the Bereshith Rabba interprets the word Salem as an appellative, and says that “King of Salem” means “Perfect King,” and that this title was given to him because he was circumcised (see Wünsche, Bibl. Rabbinica, Beresh. Rabba, p. 198). Philo too says “king of peace, for that is the meaning of Salem” (Leg. Alleg. III. 25, comp. Isa 9:6; Col 1:20). Nothing depends on the solution of the question, for in any case the fact that “Salem” means “peace” or “peaceful” is pressed into the typology. But the Salem near Sichem was itself in a neighbourhood hallowed by reminiscences scarcely less sacred than those of Jerusalem. Besides this connexion with the name of Melchisedek, it was the place where Jacob built the altar El-Elohe-Israel; the scene of John’s baptism; and the region in which Christ first revealed Himself to the woman of Samaria as the Messiah.

ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. The union of Royalty and Priesthood in the same person gave him peculiar sacredness (“He shall be a Priest upon His throne” (Zec 6:13). “Rex Anius, rex idem hominum, Phoebique sacerdos” (Virg. Aen. III. 80 and Servius ad loc.). The expression “God most high” in Genesis is El Elîôn, and this was also a title of God among the Phoenicians. It is however certain that Moses meant that Melchisedek was a Priest of God, for though this is the earliest occurrence of the name El Elîôn it is afterwards combined with “Jehovah” in Gen 14:22, and in other parts of the Pentateuch and the Psalms. There is no difficulty in supposing that the worship of the One True God was not absolutely confined to the family of Abraham. The longevity of the early Patriarchs facilitated the preservation of Monotheism at least among some tribes of mankind, and this perhaps explains the existence of the name Eliôn among the Phoenicians (Philo Byblius ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. I. 10).

ὁ συναντήσας κ.τ.λ. Amraphel king of Shinar, with three allies, had made war on Bera king of Sodom with four allies, and had carried away plunder and captives from the Cities of the Plain. Among the captives was Lot. Abraham therefore armed his 318 servants, and with the assistance of three Canaanite chiefs, Aner, Mamre, and Eshcol, pursued Amraphe’s army to the neighbourhood of Damascus, defeated them, rescued their prisoners, and recovered the spoil. The word here rendered “slaughter” (κοπὴ from κόπτω “cut”) may perhaps mean no more than “smiting,” i.e. defeat. On his return the king of Sodom going forth to greet and thank Abraham met him at “the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale,” a place of which nothing is known, but which was probably somewhere in the tribe of Ephraim near mount Gerizim. This seems to have been in the little domain of Melchisedek, for we are not told that “he went forth to meet” Abraham, but only that (being apparently at the place where Bera met Abraham) he humanely and hospitably brought out bread and wine for the weary victors, and blessed Abraham, and blessed God for granting him the victory. In acknowledgement of this friendly blessing, Abraham “gave him tithes of all,” i.e. of all the spoils.

εὐλογήσας. Evidently as a priestly act. Gen 14:19-20.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For this Melchisedec, etc. See Gen 14:18 - 20; Psalm 110.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But the importance attached to names in the O. T. sufficiently explains it. Comp. Ia viii. 1, 18; ix. 6. CSbler, Ο. T. Theology, ὃ 88.

4. The delineation of Melchizodek is expressive also negativoly. The silence of Scripture, the characteristic form, that is, in which the narrative is prosonted, is treated as having a prophetic force. Melchizedek stands unique and isolated both io his person and in his history. He is not connected with any known line: his life has no recorded beginning or close.

Philo not unfrequently draws argumonts from omissions in the Biblical narrative. Examples are given by Siegfried, Philo von Alerandrien, 179: 4.9. Quod det. pot. insid. § 48 (i. 224 ΜᾺ).

ἀπ. du. dyev.) Vulg. sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia. Tho Pesh. renders these words by a paraphrase : ‘whose father and mother aro not written in genealogies.’

The words (ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ) were used constantly in Greek mythology (eg. of Athene and Hepheestus); and 80 passed into the loftier conceptions of the Deity, asin that of Trismegistus quoted by Lactantius (iv. 13): ipse

Here no limit is marked negatively or positively, and the phraso simply excludes interruption in Melchizedek’s tenure of his office. No one takes it from him (comp. Ὁ. 8). Such a condition is equally satisfied by his actual continuance for ever, a supposition

‘Ocew-

excluded by the circumstances; or by the typical interpretation of the silence of the record.

(ὃ) The relation of Melchizedek to the Levitical priesthood (4—10).

Having discussed the historical notice of Melchizedek in itself, the writer goes on to consider his priesthood in relation to that of the Law. In doing this he first notices

(a) the general pusition of Melchizedek (4); and then gives in dotail his points of superiority

(8) in respect of Abraham, whom he both tithed (5, 6a), and blessed (6b, 7); and

(y) in respect of the Levitical priceta, who cxercised their fanctions as dying men (8), and in Lovi their head implicitly paid tithes to Melchizedek (9, 10).

4 Now consider how great this man was to whom Abraham gave a tithe taken out of the chief spoils, Abraham the patriarch. 5 And while those (the priests) sprung from the sons of Levi, on receiving the priest’s office, have commandment to take tithes from the people according to the Lato, that ts Srom their brethren, though they have come out of the loins of Abraham, ‘ he whose genealogy ts not counted from them tithed Abraham,and blessed him that hath the promises. 1 But without any gatnsaying the less is blessed by the greater. * And while here dying men receive tithes, there one of whom it te witnessed that he liveth. 9 And, 20 to say, through Abraham, Levi also who receiveth tithes is tithed ; for he was yet in the loins Of his father when Melchizedek met him.

4. The general superiority of Molchizedck over Abraham, tho great fathor of Israel, is stated summarily. The artificial order of the words emphasises the idea which they convey, the last phrases taking up in a more striking form what has been said

sentence. It is used again Acts ii. 29 (of David) and Acts vii. 8 f. (of the sons of Jacob) and several times in the Books of Chroniclos of ‘tho chiefs of the fathers’ (1 Chron. ix. 9 Compl. ; xxiv. 31, &c.) and ‘captains’ (2 Chron.

᾿ xxiii. 20), but not elsewhere in xx.

The first thought is of Abraham as the father of Israel ; but beyond this ho is the fathor of tho wholo family of faith: Rom. iv. 11 f.

Quasi dicerot, Quem vos excollentiorom omnibus hominibus sestimatis, hic decimas obtulit Melchisodech qui in figura Christi preecessit (Primas.).

5,6a. This is the first of the special marks of supocriority by which the priesthood of Melchizedek was distinguished. The Levitical priests tithed their brethren: Melchizedek, a priost of another race, tithed Abraham their common father. His priesthood was absolute and not a priority in the same family.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.