Hebrews 7:8

Heb 7:8-10. And here — In the Levitical priesthood; men that die, receive tithes, but there — In the case of Melchisedec; he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth — Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him, but is represented only as living, being mentioned in such a way as if he lived for ever. And even Levi, who received tithes — Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes in the person of Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father — “This might justly be said of Levi, who descended from Abraham in the ordinary course of generation. But it cannot be said of Christ, who was born in a miraculous manner, without any human father. While, therefore, the apostle’s argument, taken from Abraham’s paying tithes to Melchisedec, and his receiving the blessing from him, proves that both Abraham and the Levitical priests, his natural descendants, were inferior to Melchisedec, it does not apply to Christ at all.” — Macknight.

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

7:8 Melchizedek’s “immortality” (7:3) is one aspect of his superiority to the Levites: The Levites are men who die, but Melchizedek lives on.

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

Heb 7:8. Μαρτυρούμενος) He of whom it is witnessed (Who was honoured with the testimony).—ὅτι ζῇ, that He liveth) The death of Melchisedec is not mentioned in the Old Testament. That circumstance is positively expressed by the term, life, for the sake of the Apodosis, respecting Christ.

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

Heb_7:8. Second point of superiority. The Levitical priests are mortal men; but of Melchisedec it is testified that he lives.

By καὶ ὧδε μέν, and here, reference is made to the Levitical priests, by ἐκεῖ δέ, but there, to Melchisedec, because the Levitical priesthood still continues to exist to the time of our author, thus having something about it near and present; the historic appearing of Melchisedec, on the other hand, falls in the period of hoary antiquity.

δεκάτας] The plural, on account of the plurality of tithes levied by the Levitical priests.

ἀποθνήσκοντες] as the principal notion placed before ἄνθρωποι.

ἀποθνήσκοντες ἄνθρωποι] men who die (irrevocably or successively), comp. Heb_7:23.

ἐκεῖ δὲ μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ] but there, one who has testimony that he lives, sc. δεκάτην ἔλαβεν. That by reason of the coherence with that which precedes only Melchisedec can be understood, and not (with Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, and Pyle) Christ, scarcely stands in need of mention. ζῇ, as opposition to ἀποθνήσκοντες, can be interpreted only absolutely, of the life which is not interrupted by death. That the author, in connection with μαρτυρούμενος, had before his mind a testimony contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant, admits of no doubt. Whether, however, he derived the testimony of Melchisedecs continued life from the silence of Scripture as to Melchisedecs death, or found in the declaration, Psa_110:4, a direct proof therefor, or, finally, combined the two facts together, and deduced his conclusion from both in common, is a question hardly to be decided. The first supposition is entertained by Calvin, Estius, Drusius, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Stein, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others; the second, by Theodoret, Zeger, Whitby, Heinrichs, Bleek, Bloomfield, Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, MCaul, Woerner, and others; the third, by Böhme, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. pp. 201, 454, and others.

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 7:8 . Another note of the superiority of Melchizedek. καὶ ὧδε μὲν δεκάτας … “And here men that die receive tithes, but there one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.” ὧδε “here,” i.e. , in this Levitical system with which we who are Hebrews are familiar, ἐκεῖ , “there” in that system identified with that ancient priest. ἀποθνήσκοντες ἄνθρωποι , “dying men,” who therefore as individuals passed away and gave place to successors, and were in this respect inferior to Melchizedek, who, so far as is recorded in Scripture, had no successor. Giving to the silence of Scripture the force of an assertion, the writer speaks of Melchizedek as μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ , a person of whom it is witnessed; note absence of article. So Theoph., ὡς μὴ μνημονευομένης τῆς τελευτῆς αὐτοῦ παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ . Westcott distinguishes between the plural of this verse, δεκάτας , appropriate to the manifold tithings under the Mosaic system and the singular, δεκάτην , of Heb 7:4 , one special act.

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

Second point of superiority: Melchisedec's is an enduring, the Levitical a transitory, priesthood. As the law was a parenthesis between Abraham's dispensation of promise of grace, and its enduring fulfilment at Christ's coming (Rom 5:20, Greek, "The law entered as something adscititious and by the way"): so the Levitical priesthood was parenthetical and temporary, between Melchisedec's typically enduring priesthood, and its antitypical realization in our ever continuing High Priest, Christ.

here--in the Levitical priesthood.

there--in the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec. In order to bring out the typical parallel more strongly, Paul substitutes, "He of whom it is witnessed that he liveth," for the more untypical, "He who is made like to Him that liveth." Melchisedec "liveth" merely in his official capacity, his priesthood being continued in Christ. Christ, on the other hand, is, in His own person, "ever living after the power of an endless life" (Heb 7:16, Heb 7:25). Melchisedec's death not being recorded, is expressed by the positive term "liveth," for the sake of bringing into prominence the antitype, Christ, of whom alone it is strictly and perfectly true, "that He liveth."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 8. Here men that die receive tithes] The apostle is speaking of the ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, which was standing at the time this epistle was written. Under the Jewish dispensation, though the priests were successively removed by death, yet they were as duly replaced by others appointed from the same family, and the payment of tithes was never interrupted. But as there is no account of Melchisedec ceasing to be a priest, or of his dying, he is represented as still living, the better to point him out as a type of Christ, and to show his priesthood to be more excellent than that which was according to the law, as an unchanging priesthood must be more excellent than that which was continually changing.

But there he receiveth them] The ωδε, here, in the first clause of this verse refers to Mosaical institutions, as then existing: the εκει, there, in this clause refers to the place in Genesis (Ge 14:20) where it is related that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec, who is still considered as being alive or without a successor, because there is no account of his death, nor of any termination of his priesthood.

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

8. Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. He takes the silence respecting his death, as I have said, as an evidence of his life. This would not indeed hold as to others, but as to Melchisedec it ought rightly to be so regarded, inasmuch as he was a type of Christ. For as the spiritual kingdom and priesthood of Christ are spoken of here, there is no place left for human conjectures; nor is it lawful for us to seek to know anything farther than what we read in Scripture. But we are not hence to conclude that the man who met Abraham is yet alive, as some have childishly thought, for this is to be applied to the other person whom he represented, even the Son of God. And by these words the Apostle intended to show, that the dignity of Melchisedec’s priesthood was to be perpetual, while that of the Levites was temporary.

For he thus reasons, — those to whom the Law assigns tithes are dying men; by which it was indicated that the priesthood would some time be abrogated, as their life came to an end: but the Scripture makes no mention of the death of Melchisedec, when it relates that tithes were paid to him; so the authority of his priesthood is limited by no time, but on the contrary there is given an indication of perpetuity. And this is added for this purpose, lest a posterior law, as it is usual, should seem to take away from the authority of a former law. For it might have been otherwise objected and said, that the right which Melchisedec formerly possessed is now void and null, because God had introduced another law by Moses, by which he transferred the right to the Levites. But the Apostle anticipates this objection by saying, that tithes were paid to the Levites only for a time, because they did not live; but that Melchisedec, because he is immortal, retains even to the end what was once given to him by God.

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.

(8) “Here,” under the Levitical economy, dying men receive the various tithes. Men enter by birth into a state with which this right is associated, and by death again pass out of it. No special significance, therefore, attaches to the men themselves. “There,” in the history now considered, one (receives tithes) of whom the Scripture simply witnesses that he lives. The narrative of Genesis gives no other basis for his priesthood than the mere fact of his life. What he holds, he holds by personal right.

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

8. And here] As things now are; while the Levitic priesthood still continues.

men that die] “Dying men”—men who are under liability to die (comp. Heb_7:23), as in the lines

“He preached as one who ne’er should preach again

And as a dying man to dying men.”

it is witnessed that he liveth] i.e. he stands as a living man on the eternal page of Scripture, and no word is said about his death; so far then as the letter of Scripture is concerned he stands in a perpetuity of mystic life. This is the third point of superiority.

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.

And as l may so say,.... With truth, and with great propriety and pertinence:

Levi also who receiveth tithes; or the Levites, who receive tithes according to the law of Moses from the people of Israel:

paid tithes in Abraham; that is, to Melchizedek; and therefore Melchizedek must be greater than they, and his priesthood a more excellent one than theirs; since they who receive tithes from others gave tithes to him.

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

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Ver. 8. That he liveth] Tithes then are due to the ministers of Christ that liveth, because due to Melchisedec, to whom Abraham paid them as a priest and tithe-taker, and type of Christ. Who therefore should receive them for him, but those that are in his stead? 2Co 5:20.

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.

And here men that die receive tithes - Another point showing the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. They who thus received tithes, though by the right to do this they asserted a superiority over their brethren, were mortal. Like others, they would soon die; and in regard to the most essential things they were on a level with their brethren. They had no exemption from sickness, affliction, or bereavement, and death came to them with just as much certainty as he approached other men. The meaning of this is, that they are mortal like their brethren, and the design is to show the inferiority of their office by this fact. Its obvious and natural signification, in the apprehension of the great mass of readers, would not be, as the meaning has been supposed to be, that it refers “to the brief and mutable condition of the Levitical priesthood;” see Stuart in loco. Such an interpretation would not occur to anyone if it were not to avoid the difficulty existing in the correlative member of the verse where it is said of Melchizedek that “he liveth.” But is the difficulty avoided then? Is it not as difficult to understand what is meant by his having an immutable and perpetual priesthood, as it is to know what is meant by his not dying literally? Is the one any more true than the other? Whatever difficulties, therefore, there may be, we are bound to adhere to the obvious sense of the expression here; a sense which furnishes also a just and forcible ground of comparison. It seems to me, therefore, that the simple meaning of this passage is, that, under the Levitical economy, those who received tithes were mortal, and were thus placed in strong contrast with him of whom it was said “he liveth.” Thus, they were inferior to him - as a mortal is inferior to one who does not die; and thus also they must be inferior to him who was made a priest after the “order” of him who thus “lived.”

But there - In contrast with “here” in the same verse. The reference here is to the account of Melchizedek, “Here,” in the Levitical economy, men received tithes who are mortal; “there,” in the account of Melchizedek, the case is different.

He receiveth them - Melchizedek - for so the connection evidently demands.

Of whom it is witnessed - Of whom the record is. There is not in Genesis, indeed, any direct record that he lives, but there is the absence of a record that he died, and this seems to have been regarded as in fact a record of permanency in the office; or as having an office which did not pass over to successors by the death of the then incumbent.

That he liveth - This is an exceedingly difficult expression, and one which has always greatly perplexed commentators. The fair and obvious meaning is, that all the record we have of Melchizedek is, that he was “alive;” or as Grotins says, the record is merely that he lived. We have no mention of his death. From anything that the record shows, it might appear that he continued to live on, and did not die. “Arguing from the record,” therefore, there is a strong contrast between him and the Levitical priests, all of whom we know are mortal; Heb 7:23. The apostle is desirous of making out a contrast between them and the priesthood of Christ on “this point” among others, and in doing this, he appeals to the record in the Old Testament, and says that there was a case which furnished an intimation that the priestly office of the Messiah was not to pass over from him to others by death.

That case was, that he was expressly compared Psa 110:4 with Melchizedek, and that in the account of Melchizedek there was no record of his death. As to the force of this argument, it must be admitted that it would strike a Jew more impressively than it does most readers now; and it may not be improbable that the apostle was reasoning from some interpretation of the passages in Gen. 14: and Ps. cx., which was then prevalent, and which would then be conceded on all hands to be correct. If this was the admitted interpretation, and if there is no equivocation, or mere trick in the reasoning - as there cannot be shown to be - why should we not allow to the Jew a uniqueness of reasoning as we do to all other people? There are modes of reasoning and illustration in all nations, in all societies, and in all professions, which do not strike others as very forcible. The ancient philosophers had methods of reasoning which now seem weak to us; the lawyer often argues in a way which appears to be a mere quirk or quibble, and so the lecturer in science sometimes reasons.

The cause of all this may not be always that there is real quibble or quirk, in the mode of argumentation, but that he who reasons in this manner has in his view certain points which he regards as undisputed which do not appear so to us; or that he argues from what is admitted in the profession, or in the school where he is taught, which are not understood by those whom he addresses. To this should be added also the consideration, that Paul had a constant reference to the Messiah, and that it is possible that in his mind there was here a transition from the type to the antitype, and that the language which he uses may be stronger than if he had been speaking of the mere record of Melchizedek if he had found it standing by itself. Still his reasoning turns mainly on the fact that in the case of Melchizedek there was no one who had preceded him in that office, and that he had no successor, and, in regard to the matter in hand, it was all one as if he had been a perpetual priest, or had continued still alive.

(The reasoning in the whole passage is founded on the Scripture account of Melchizedek. He is not to be regarded absolutely, but typically. View him just as he appears in the record in Genesis, and the difficulty will be greatly lessened, if it do not altogether disappear. There, he is presented to us, in his typical character, as living. All notice of his death is studiously omitted with the express design, that, appearing only as a living priest, he might the better typify our immortal Redeemer. In this view, which indeed is so well brought out in the commentary above, “the apostle’s argument unto the dignity, and pre-eminence of Melchizedek above the Levitical priests, in this instance, is of an “unquestionable evidence.” For, consider Melchizedek, not in his natural being and existence, which belongs not unto this mystery, but in his Scripture being and existence, and he is immortal, always living, wherein he is more excellent than those who were always obnoxious to death in the exercise of their office” - Owen. McKnight, observing that the Greek verb ζη zē here is not in the present, but the imperfect of the indicative, translates - lived, a priest all his life, in contradistinction from those who ceased to be priests at a certain age. But whatever view may be taken of the passage, whatever solution of the difficulty may be adopted, apology for the mode of reasoning may well be spared. An inspired writer needs it not. All his reasoning has, doubtless, a solid basis in truth. It is impossible he should proceed on any peculiarities or modes of reasoning, but such as are strictly true, the accuracy of which might, any where, and at any time, be admitted, by those who had the means and patience for a right understanding of them.)

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

His greatness as to his priesthood above the Levitical, is proved from its immortality. Immortal is greater and better than mortal; such is his order of priesthood. This argument he brings in to heighten the former, and so connects it to it.

And here men that die receive tithes: the particle ωδε, here, if referred to time, notes during Moses’s economy, while the Levitical law lasted; if it refer to place, it notes Jerusalem in the land of Canaan, where the temple was: in that habitation of the Israelitish church the Levitical priests were not only as to their nature and persons withering and decaying, ceasing to be on earth, though they had the honour to decimate their brethren, but as to their order and office, mortal, they were no better than the tithed and blessed by them, in prospect of death. Aaron himself, the first of the order, died, and so did all his successors, as well as Israel.

But there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth: but how much better is Melchisedec and his order! εκει, there, may refer either to the place where his business was transacted with Abraham, near Salem; or to the place of Scripture record concerning him, either Gen 14:18-20, where there is no account of his death, or in Psa 110:4. By the prophet David is the testimony borne, that his order is for ever; that Melchisedec, as to his order and office of priesthood, now liveth and subsisteth in the Son of God incarnate, and continueth for ever. It is suggested by a great light in the church, as if Melchisedec was translated as Enoch was, and so continued a priest to the very moment of his translation; and that neither his person nor priesthood died, but liveth for ever: but in this the Scripture is silent. An other refers it immediately to Christ, reading it thus: Here, i.e. in this world, they receive tenths, or are priests; but there, i.e. within the innermost of the veil, whither the foreranner is for us entered, Jesus; supplying this out of Heb 6:19,20. Here, is to be understood, not who receiveth tithes, but who is, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. He saith this sense is to be found in so many words in Heb 7:23-25, where those who receive tenths, and die, are no other men than those many priests who were not suffered to continue by reason of death, Heb 7:23. Nor can

he, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, be any other than Jesus, who, Heb 7:24, is the man that continueth for ever; and, Heb 7:25, is ever-living.

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

8. Point second. Here, under Mosaic law, the priests that tithe are only lifelong; there, under patriarchal law, there is a perpetual priest.

Here—Under the law of Moses. Those who receive tithes are men that die; and so their priesthood is but life-long. The priest dies with the man, and a new priest succeeds.

But there—In Genesis and in Psalms 110.

Witnessed—By the testimony of the inspired psalmist.

He liveth—This priest “never dies,” as truly as the king “never dies,” though for a different reason. The king, conceptually, never dies, because he lives in his successor; this priest, conceptually, never dies, because he stands forever without a successor. Alford objects that the die of the Levitical priest is personal, and, therefore, the never die of Melchizedek must be personal, and so he must be, mysteriously but literally, still living. But the die of the priest was not only personal but official; the priest died with the man. And it is the official death at the personal death that is here the point.

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

And here (in the case of the Levitical priesthood) men that die (literally, dying men) receive tithes; but there (in the case of Melchizedek) one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. The difference hero noted is between a succession of mortal priests and one perpetually living, who never loses his personal claim, which is inherent, in himself. But how so of Melchizedek? For it is to him, and not to Christ the Antitype, that the words evidently apply. Is it at length implied that he was more than mortal man? No, if only for this reason; that the witness appealed to (marturoumenov) must be that of Scripture, which nowhere bears such witness of the historical Melchizedek. The words, marturoumenov ote zh , are, in fact, only a resumption of what was said in ver. 3: "having neither beginning of days nor end of life;" and hear the same meaning; viz. (as above explained) that he passes before our view in Genesis with no mention of either death, birth, or ancestry, and thus presented the ideal of "a priest for ever" to the inspired psalmist. The witness referred to is that of the record in Genesis, viewed in the light of the idea of the psalm.

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

And here - In the Levitical priesthood. But there - In the case of Melchisedec. He of whom it is testified that he liveth - Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him; but is represented only as living, no mention being made either of his birth or death.

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

Our apostle still carrieth on the same argument, proving Melchizedek’s priesthood to surpass and excel the Aaronical and Levitical priesthood in the immortality of it: As the less is blessed of the greater, so is that which is immortal greater and better than what is mortal: But such is Melchizedek, and his order of priesthood, though the priests be superior to the people, and take tithes of them, yet they do die as well as the people: But we read not a word of Melchizedek’s death, he is a priest for ever; that is, he did typically prefigure Christ, who doth properly and indeed live for ever. Melchizedek ever lives secundam historiam, Christ secundam veritatem.

Learn hence, That the life of the church depends upon the everlasting life of Jesus Christ: He liveth for ever, when ministers die or have their mouths stopped. This great High Priest lives, upon whom the life and preservation, the continuance and salvation of the church does depend: Here men die that receive tithes.

Note, From their mortality, that in the outward administration of God’s worship, he is pleased to make use of the ministry of frail, mortal and dying men. Zec 1:5.

The prophets, do they live for ever?

Hereby it does evidently appear, that it is the power of God, and nothing else, which gives efficacy and success to all gospel-administrations, 2Co 4:7.

We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

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

8. Here men that die receive tithes. The Aaronic priesthood die, and the death of the high priest is a matter of record. Their mortality was a prominent feature, but in the case of Melchizedek, he who receives tithes liveth right on as far as the records tell us. We behold him only as a living priest, typical of a priest who liveth forever.

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.

8. BECAUSE HE IS THE TYPE OF AN UNDYING PRIEST

8. καὶ ὧδε. As things now are; while the Levitic priesthood still continues.

ἀποθνήσκοντες ἄνθρωποι, “weak dying men”—men who are under liability to die (comp. Heb 7:23), as in the lines

“He preached as one who ne’er should preach again,

And as a dying man to dying men.”

The word ἄνθρωποι implies men in their mortal frailty.

ὅτι ζῇ, i.e. he stands as a living man on the eternal page of Scripture, and no word is said about his death; so far then as the letter of Scripture is concerned he stands in a perpetuity of mystic life. This is the THIRD point of superiority.

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.

8.] Second item of superiority, in that M.’s is an enduring,—the Levitical a transitory priesthood. And here indeed (ὧδε, ‘ut res nunc se habent:’ the Levitical priesthood being still in existence in the Writer’s time: οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὧδε, τουτέστιν, ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαμβάνοντες δεκάτας. Thl.) men who die (ἀποθν. first for emphasis as bringing out the point of the argument: but there is also a secondary emphasis on ἄνθρωποι: men, who die. Otherwise it need not have been expressed: see below) receive tithes (plur. as we also use the word, signifying the different sorts of tenths taken of different things): but there (ἐκεῖ δέ, τουτέστιν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μελχισεδὲκ πράγματι, Thl.), one of whom it is testified (ἄνθρωπος is not again expressed, nor is it to be supplied. The mysterious character of Melchisedek is still before the Writer. It is hardly needful to say that Christ cannot be meant, as Justiniani, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, and Pyle have imagined.

This passive sense of μαρτυροῦμαι (reff.) is unknown in classical Greek.

The testimony meant is certainly that of scripture; probably, that in Psa 110:4, where an eternal priesthood, and therefore duration, is predicated of Melchisedek. So Thdrt., Bleek, al. It cannot well be, as Calv., Est., Drusius, Grot., Wolf, Bengel, Bisping, al., the mere negative fact of his death not being recorded, which would not amount to a testimony that he lives: and it is improbable that in so express a word as μαρτυρούμενος the Writer should, as Böhme, al. imagine, intend to combine both the positive testimony and the inference from the omission) that he liveth (this clearly cannot be interpreted of the priesthood of Melchisedek enduring, as Œc.: ἢ ἁπλούστερον δέξαι τὸ εἰρημένον, ὅτι ὁ τρόπος τῆς ἱερωσύνης τῶν μὲν Λευΐτων, ἀποθνήσκει· καὶ γὰρ ἐπαύσατο, τῆς ἀληθείας φανείσης· ὁ δὲ τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ζῇ· ζῇ γάρ: for what is here said is eminently personal, and that Melchisedek himself is meant, is shewn by the historical reference to the fact of his receiving tithes of Abraham. As Bleek well remarks, if ἀποθνήσκοντες applies personally to the sons of Levi, ζῇ must also apply personally to Melchisedek).

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

Here [ωδε] . In the Levitical economy.

Men that die receive tithes. The emphasis is on ajpoqnhskontev dying. The Levites are dying men, who pass away in due course, and are succeeded by others.

But there [εκει δε] . In the case of Melchisedec.

(He receiveth them of whom) it is witnessed that he liveth [μαρτυρουμενος οτι ζη] . The Greek is very condensed : being attested that he liveth. The A. V. fills it out correctly. Melchisedec does not appear in Scripture as one who dies, and whose office passes to another. See on abideth continually, ver. 3.

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

8. καὶ ὧδε μέν... ἐκεῖ δέ... And, farther, while here, iu this systom which we see,...chere, in that remote and solitary example...

The ὧδε refers to that Levitical priesthood which was nearer to the writer's experience than Melchizedek, though the latter is the immediately

λαμβάνουσιν, ἐκεῖ δὲ μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ.

The answer is that Abraham included in himself, as the depositary of tho divine promise and the divine blowing, all the forms, as yet undifferentiated, in which they were to be ombodied.

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.