Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:1

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;

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 ( ) the Psalmist may be intending to contrast the sanctuary of Melchisedek with that of David; or ( ) 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 Wnsche, 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 Eln, 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 Eln 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 Elon 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” ( kop 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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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, 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 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 Christs 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. Aphomoiomenos, 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 (Melchizedeks) 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 readers 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 Christs 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 – shalem – 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.

1. 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 Lords 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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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, is thus expounded in Bereshith Rabba, sec. 43, fol. 42, 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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The Spirit now proceedeth to prove, that the gospel High Priest is of a far more excellent order than that of Aarons, 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 Aarons 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 Melchisedecs 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 Joshuas 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 Baptists 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 Gods name, by his commission, effectually denounced on Abraham by virtue of his office and Gods institution; the height of God and all the good in heaven and in earth within Gods 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 Abrahams (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 Gods high priest: 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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. this Melchisedec (Heb 6:20;Psa 110:4). The verb does notcome till Heb 7:3, “abideth.”

king . . . priestChristunites these offices in their highest sense, and so restores thepatriarchal union of these offices.

SalemJerusalem, thatis, seeing peace; others make Salem distinct, and to be thatmentioned (Gen 33:18; Joh 3:23).

the most high Godcalledalso “Possessor of heaven and earth” (Gen 14:19;Gen 14:22). This title of God,”the Most High,” handed down by tradition from theprimitive revelation, appears in the Phoelignician god “Elion,”that is, Most High. It is used to imply that the God whomMelchisedec served is THE TRUE GOD,and not one of the gods of the nations around. So it is used in theonly other cases in which it is found in the New Testament, namely inthe address of the demoniac, and the divining damsel constrained toconfess that her own gods were false, and God the only true God.

who met Abrahamincompany with the king of Sodom (Gen 14:17;Gen 14:18).

slaughterperhapsdefeat, as ALFORDtranslates. So Ge 14:17(compare Ge 14:15) may betranslated. Arioch, king of Ellasar, lived and reigned after thedisaster [BENGEL].However, if Chedorlaomer and Amraphel and Tidal were slain, thoughArioch survived, “slaughter of the kings” would becorrect.

blessed himAs priesthe first blessed Abraham on God’s part; next he blessed God onAbraham’s part: a reciprocal blessing. Not a mere wish, but anauthoritative and efficacious intercession as a priest. The Most HighGod’s prerogative as “Possessor of heaven and earth,” ismade over to Abraham; and Abraham’s glory, from his victory over thefoe, is made over to God. A blessed exchange for Abraham (Gen 14:19;Gen 14:20).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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, Ge 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, Jud 9:45 but Jerusalem is the place; which is the constant opinion of the Jews a, and is called Salem in Ps 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, Ge 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 Ge 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 Ge 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, Nu 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 comments on Ge 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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Melchisedec’s Priesthood.

A. D. 62.

      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;   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;   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.   4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.   5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:   6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.   7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.   8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.   9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.   10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

      The foregoing chapter ended with a repetition of what had been cited once and again before out of Ps. cx. 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. xiv. 18, c., and in Ps. cx. 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, John viii. 56, Abraham saw his day and rejoiced. Much may be said for this opinion, and what is said in v. 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, v. 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, v. 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. xiv. 18, c. 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 (v. 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, c.): Now consider how great this man was, &c. 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, v. 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, v. 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.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

This Melchizedek ( ). The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See Gen 14:18-20; Gen 14:110 for the only account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is a daring thing to put Melchizedek above Aaron, but the author does it. Moffatt calls verses 1-3 “a little sermon” on 6:20. It is “for ever” ( ) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that “who met” ( ) is here applied to Melchizedek from Ge 14:17 instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (first aorist active participle of ) see Lu 9:37.

Slaughter (). Old word for cutting (, to cut), here only in N.T. These kings were Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal. Amraphel is usually taken to be Khammurabi.

Priest of God Most High ( ). He is called “priest” and note applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

CHRIST, A PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC

1) “For this Melchisedec,” (houtos gar Melchisedek) “Because this particular Melchisedec; Of the pre-law era, before the beginning of the Levitical Priesthood.

2) “King of Salem,” (Basileis Salem) “King of Salem,” or chief ruler of Salem, city of peace, the name of a town a few miles south of Bethshean.

3) “Priest of the most high God,” (herieustou theou tou hupsistou) “A priest of the most high (most exalted God) or the God above all other gods; This man was true priest divinely called, not a priest of heathen gods, Gen 14:18; Psa 110:4; Heb 5:6. This was the first time the term “Priest” occurred in the Bible.

4) “Who met Abraham returning,” (ho sunantesas Abraam hupostrephonti) “Who met Abraham who was returning;” or as Abraham was returning, Gen 14:17-20.

5) “From the slaughter of the kings,” (apo tes kopes ton basileon) “From the slaying (decapitating), cutting off the heads of the kings; in the kings dale, where Absalom later erected a pillar after his own name, 2Sa 18:18.

6) “And blessed him,” (kai eulogesas auton) “And he, Melchisedec, blessed him,” blessed Abraham, Gen 14:19-20.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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. (110)

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. (111) 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,” (Zec 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 Isa 2:1, 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.

(110) The passage reads better, and the meaning appears more evident, when we consider was as understood in the first verse, as Calvin does. The first part refers to what he did as to Abraham: and the second, to what he was as a type of Christ.

Now this Melchisedec, king of Salem, was a priest of the most high God; who met Abraham returning from the overthrow of the kings, and blessed him; to whom Abraham also divided the tenth of all: being first indeed, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is, King of Peace; without father, without mother, without decent, having no beginning of days or end of life, but

By saying that he “blessed” Abraham, we are to render that he prayed God to bless him, as we find it explained in Gen 14:19.

(111) It is not as a king, but as a priest that Christ is our righteousness. Therefore strictly speaking, as a king, he administers righteousness, or acts righteously. “The king of righteousness,” may be rendered, as Stuart does, a righteous king. See Psa 45:7 — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

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 writers 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 elin, also a title of God among the Phnicians. 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. . King of peace. . 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 fatherthat 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 mans name and historyon 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 Melchizedeks priesthood better represents that of Christ than the Levitical. It should be noticed that Christs priesthood gets illustration from Melchizedek, but Christs 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 agethe 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, mans 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 Melchizedeks 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 Priesta 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 archology 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 godthe mighty kingwhom 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 officehe had been appointed to it by the deity whom he worshipped, and he was king because he was also priest.After Sayce.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

III.

Seven proofs of the superiority of Christs priesthood. Heb. 7:1 to Heb. 10:39.

A.

He is a Priest after a higher order than Aaron, Heb. 7:1-19.

1.

As seen in Melchizedek as a type, Heb. 7:1-3.

Text

Heb. 7:1-3

Heb. 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, Heb. 7:2 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; Heb. 7:3 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.

Paraphrase

Heb. 7:1 Now, that ye may know the nature of Melchizedeks priesthood, to which God likened the priesthood of his Son, I observe, that this Melchizedek, king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he returned from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

Heb. 7:2 To whom Abraham imparted even a tenth of all the spoils, (Heb. 7:4.), being first, according to the interpretation of his name, King of righteousness, a most righteous king, and next also, King of Salem, which by interpretation, is King of peace, king of a peaceable and virtuous people;

Heb. 7:3 Was without father without mother as a priest, so that he was not a priest by descent; and without genealogy in the scripture, consequently there is no evidence of his being related to Abraham in any respect. Moreover, having neither beginning of days nor end of life as a priest, but being made a type of the Son of God, he remained a priest all his life.

For this Melchizedek

No doubt it was a rare thing to find one like Melchizedek living in the midst of idolatry, superstitions, yet being true.
See Milligan for suggestions as to his identity. p. 195. There are many theories concerning who he was:

a.

Christ.

b.

Holy Spirit.

c.

An angel.

d.

Enoch.

e.

Shem.

f.

An emanation from the Deity.

g.

Melchizedek himself.

Scarcity of knowledge about him.

a.

Genesis 14 : Three short verses.

b.

Psa. 110:4 : Appears about 1,000 years later.

c.

Heb. 7:1 : Another 1,000 years later.

It is doubtful that he was Shem, for Shems genealogy is given.
Let him be Melchizedekbe himself.

King of Salem

What is Salem?

a.

We know it as Jerusalem.

1.

Salem meant peace.

2.

Habitation of peace, or city of peace, is its name, but it has seldom known peace.

b.

This city David later chose as his capital when Hebron was too far south for his united kingdom.

Who were the people over whom he ruled?

a.

Gen. 14:18 is the first mention of the City. Melchizedek was king and he was the priest of the Most High God.

b.

He seems to have been an actual king, in that others such as the king of Sodom were mentioned in the same words.

priest of God Most High

It seems a little strange that in a country abounding in corruption, a man would be found preserving the pure worship of God.

a.

Sodom and Gomorrah was on one side and the Canaanites on the other, yet here was a king who acted also as priest.

b.

The world had seemed to turn from God, but here was Melchizedek remaining true.

Christ came into a world of sin, yet he remained true and faithful and became our sinless High Priest.

and met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings

Lot had been taken prisoner, Genesis 14, by several kings.

a.

Amrapheal, King of Shinar.

b.

AriockKing of Ellasar.

c.

ChedorlaomerKing of Elam.

d.

TidalKing of Nations.

Abraham completely routed these men and released Lot, Being a priest of the God that Abraham worshipped, we can see why these two would be on friendly terms.

and blessed him

The blessing:

a.

Gen. 14:19 : Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth.

The word who establishes the fact that Melchizedek did the blessing. Newell, p. 211: It is idle to contend that Melchizedek was not connected with sacrifice but with blessing only, See Heb. 7:15; Heb. 7:17; Heb. 7:24.

to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all

In Gen. 14:20 it is difficult to find who paid tithes to whom, but this verse leaves no doubt, This act of devotion on the part of Abraham indicated a custom that was practiced in early times.

a.

We see Jacob, Gen. 28:22, vowing to tithe.

b.

There must have been a custom of divine origin going back to Adam, of which we know little.

Abraham paid voluntarily, but no doubt it was in harmony with what he knew to be an ordinance.

being first by interpretation

The word or name is translated for us to give its meaning. Words were significant in those days, such as:

a.

Eve: mother of all living.

b.

Joshua: saviour.

Actually, he was king in a double sense.

a.

Hebrews defines his name to mean King of righteousness, then points out the fact that he was King of Salem.

b.

This double relationship likewise fits Christ.

King of Righteousness

Jesus is also righteousness.

a.

Zec. 2:10 : Rejoice, O daughter of Zion, behold thy righteous king cometh unto thee.

It is actually in Christs priestly function that He becomes our righteousness. See Heb. 9:25-28.

and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace

Abraham had moved into the territory of Melchizedek, but we see him making a peaceful gesture toward Abraham, the victorious warrior.

a.

Gen. 14:18 : He brought bread and wine.

b.

In Psa. 104:15 we read: Wine maketh glad the heart of man and bread strengtheneth the heart of man.

This gesture refreshed Abrahams servants, and thus proved Melchizedeks right for receiving the tithe, as well as being king of a city whose name is peace.

without father without mother

Since the archeologists find this expression, we know that it was a current expression.

Milligan says, It is folly to ransack the archives of antiquity with the view of discovering more about him than Genesis 14 tells us. He comes out suddenly from the dark invisible background of the drama of human redemption, then retires forever without leaving any trace of predecessors or successors.

Greeks, Romans, and Jews spoke of a person as being with our parents:

a.

When their names were not knownobscure parentage.

b.

An orphan.

c.

Their gods.

without genealogy

Without traced ancestry. This may mean in his position, for none are recorded before him or after him.

having neither beginning of days nor end of life

His birth and death are not recorded, as though eternity were ascribed to him. Calvin says this omission of birth and life was done to give us an idea of one above the common order of men. Wescott agrees (p. 173).

The interference is that the silence is intentioned and significant.

but made like unto the Son of God

Made like is also translated, being like, Some say he was like Gods Son in that no lineage is given, but Christ had lineage, Newell; There is no note of the beginning of his priesthood nor of its ending, He comes on the scene as a continual priest without earthly or human connection, Milligan says: Like Jesus, he completely fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own proper person.

abideth a priest continually

The words continually, perpetually, forever are related terms, and are simply indicative of the period to which they are applied, whether it be long or short. Newell, p. 219: It does not say that the man Melchizedek is a continual priest today.

Study Questions

1113.

Name some ideas that men have concerning who Melchizedek was.

1114.

How can we rule Shem out?

1115.

How may we account for him in a land of idolatry?

1116.

Can we account for him the same as we do Abraham, who was living in a center of moon worship?

1117.

What is Salem, over which he was king?

1118.

How do we know that he was not an idolatrous king?

1119.

Who would be the Most High God?

1120.

What is the slaughter of the kings referred to here?

1121.

Who had been taken captive?

1122.

Name the kings of Genesis 14.

1123.

How may we account for the fact that Abraham was able to accomplish a great victory?

1124.

May we assume that Abraham was a mighty chieftain leading a vast army?

1125.

May we presume that Melchizedeks army helped since he met Abraham on his return?

1126.

Who was blessed here? Who blesses, the lesser or the greater?

1127.

What all is involved in blessing?

1128.

Where did Abraham get an idea of a tithe?

1129.

Could this custom be a part of Gods original command when Cain disobeyed God?

1130.

What is interpreted here?

1131.

Was he doubly a king?

1132.

Was Jesus King of Righteousness? Cf. Zec. 9:9.

1133.

In what way was Melchizedek king of peace?

1134.

If he were not, would he be inclined to make war on Abraham, an invader from Ur?

1135.

What had he done to prove that he was peaceful? Cf. Gen. 14:18.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

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 simpleto deal with the question, What is the import of the divine utterance that Davids 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 Melchizedeki.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 Melchizedeks 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.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 7

A PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK ( Heb 7:1-28 )

We come now to a passage of such paramount importance for the writer to the Hebrews and in itself so difficult to understand that we must deal with it in a special way. Heb 6:1-20, ( Heb 6:20), ended with the statement that Jesus had been made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is the most characteristic thought of Hebrews. Behind it lie ways of thinking and of arguing and of using scripture which are quite strange to us and which we must yet try to understand. It will be best first to collect together all that the writer to the Hebrews has to say about the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and to read that as a whole before we divide it into shorter passages to study in detail. We shall then try to understand what the writer to the Hebrews was getting at before we study this chapter in detail.

So then, we first collect the passages which deal with this idea. The first is Heb 5:1-10.

7:1-28 Every high priest who is chosen from among men, is appointed on men’s behalf to deal with the things which concern God. His task is to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, in that he himself is able to feel gently to the ignorant and to the wandering, because he himself wears the garment of human weakness. By reason of this very weakness it is incumbent upon him, just as he makes sacrifice for the people, so to make sacrifice for sins on his own behalf also. No one takes this honourable position to himself, but he is called by God to it, just as Aaron was. So it was not Christ who gave himself the glory of becoming high priest; but it was he who said to him:

“You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.” “You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

In the days when he lived this human life of ours, he offered prayers and entreaties to him who was able to bring him safely through death, with strong crying and with tears. And when he had been heard because of his reverence, although he was a Son he teamed obedience from the sufferings through which he passed. When he had been made fully fit for his appointed task, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, for he had been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The second passage, which deals with this idea is the whole of Heb 7:1-28. So then, first, let us set it down as a whole, remembering that the last verse of Heb 6:1-20 has already said that Jesus had become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Now this Melchizedek was King of Salem and priest of the most high God. He met Abraham when he was returning from the smiting of the kings and blessed him and set apart for him a tenth part of the spoils. In the first place, the interpretation of his own name means King of Righteousness and, in the second place, King of Salem means King of Peace. His father is never mentioned nor his mother; nor is there any record of his descent; there is no mention of the beginning of his days, nor any of the end of his life; he is exactly like the Son of God; and he remains a priest for ever.

Just see how great this man was–Abraham gave him the tenth part of the spoils of victory–and Abraham was no less than the founder of our nation. Now look at the difference–when the sons of Levi receive their priesthood, they receive an injunction laid down by the law to exact tithes from the people. That i& to say, they exact tithes from their own brothers, even although they are descendants of Abraham. But this man, whose descent is not traced from them at all, exacted tithes from Abraham and actually blessed the man who had received the promises. Beyond all argument, the lesser is blessed by the greater. Just so, in the one instance, it is a case of men who die receiving tithes; but in this instance it is the case of a man whom the evidence proves to live. Still further–if I may put it this way–through Abraham, Levi, too, the very man who receives the tithes, had tithes exacted from him, for he was in his father’s body when Melchizedek met him.

If then the desired effect could have been achieved by the Levitical priesthood–for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the people became a people of the law–what further need was there to set up another priest and to call him a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and not to call him a priest after the order of Aaron? Once the priesthood was altered, of necessity there follows an alteration of the law too, for the person of whom the statements are made belongs to another tribe altogether, from which no one ever served at the altar. It is obvious that it was from Judah that our Lord sprang and, with regard to that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests. And certain things are still more abundantly clear–if a different priest is set up, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, a priest who became so, not according to the law of a mere human injunction but according to the power of a life that is indestructible–for the witness of scripture in regard to this is: “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”–if all that is so, two things emerge. On the one hand there emerges the cancellation of the previous injunction because of its own weakness and uselessness (for the law never achieved the effect which it was designed to produce) and, on the other hand, them emerges the introduction of a better hope through which we can come near to God.

And inasmuch as it happened with an oath–for the Levitical priests are made priests without an oath but he with an oath, because scripture says of him: “The Lord swore and will not repent of it, ‘You are a priest forever'”–in so far Jesus has become the surety of a better covenant. Further, of the Levitical priests more and more were made priests because they were prevented from continuing permanently by death, whereas he has a priesthood which will never pass away because he remains for ever. For that very reason it is in every possible way and for all time that he, who is for ever alive, can save those who come to God through him.

We needed such a high priest–one who is holy, one who has never hurt any man, one who is stainless, one who is different from sinners, one who has become higher than the heavens. He does not need, as the high priests do, daily first to offer sacrifices for his own sins and then thereafter for the sins of the people. For he did this once and for all when he offered himself. For the law appointed as high priests men subject to weakness; but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appointed one who is a Son who is fully equipped to carry out his office for ever.

These are the passages in which the writer to the Hebrews describes Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Now let us see just what he is trying to say when he uses that conception.

We must begin by understanding the general position from which he starts. He starts with the basic idea that religion is access to God. It was to make that access to God possible that two things existed. First, the law. The basic idea of the law is that so long as a man faithfully observes its commandments he is in a position of friendship with God and the door to his presence is open to him. But men cannot keep the law and therefore their fellowship with God and their access to his presence are interrupted. It was exactly to deal with that situation of estrangement that the second thing existed, the priesthood and the whole sacrificial system. The Latin word for priest is pontifex which means a bridge-builder; the priest was a man whose function was to build a bridge between men and God by means of the sacrificial system. A man broke the law; his fellowship with God was interrupted and his access to God was barred; by the offering of the correct sacrifice that breach of the law was atoned for and so the fellowship was restored and the barrier removed.

That was the theory of the matter. But in practice life showed that that was precisely what the priesthood and the sacrificial system could not do. There was no escaping the human estrangement from God which followed sin; and the problem was that not all the efforts of the priesthood and not all the sacrifices could restore that lost relationship. It is therefore the argument of the writer to the Hebrews that what is needed is a new and a different priesthood and a new and effective sacrifice. He sees in Jesus Christ the only High Priest who can open the way to God; and he calls the priesthood of Jesus a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

He got that idea from two passages in the Old Testament. The first was Psa 110:4 where it is written:

“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’.”

The second is Gen 14:17-20 where the story of the original Melchizedek is told.

And the king of Sodom went out to meet him (Abram) at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

The writer to the Hebrews is here doing what any skilled Jewish Rabbi might do and following the rabbinic method of interpretation. To understand that method we must understand two things.

(i) To the scholarly Jew any passage of scripture had four meanings to which he gave four different names: (a) First, there was Peshat (compare H6584) , which is the literal and factual meaning. (b) Second, there was Remaz, which is the suggested meaning. (c) Third, there was Derush (compare H1875) , which is the meaning arrived at after long and careful investigation. (d) Fourth, there was Sod, which is the allegorical or inner meaning. To the Jew the most important meaning by far was Sod, the inner meaning. He was not nearly so much interested in the factual meaning of a passage as in the allegorical and mystical meaning which could be extracted from it, even although it might have no connection whatever with the literal meaning. It was quite permissible, and in fact the regular practice, to take things right out of their context and read into them meanings which we would consider fantastic and quite unjustified. That is what the writer to the Hebrews is doing here.

(ii) Second, it is essential to note that the Jewish interpreters considered themselves completely justified in arguing not only from the utterances but also from the silences of scripture. An argument could be built, not only on what scripture said but also on what it did not say. In fact the writer to the Hebrews bases his argument in this passage at least as much on what scripture did not say about Melchizedek as on what it did.

Now let us see how the quality of the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek differs from the quality of the ordinary Aaronic priesthood.

(i) Melchizedek has no genealogy; he is without father and without mother ( Heb 7:3). Note straight away that this is one of the arguments drawn from the silence of scripture which does not provide Melchizedek with any genealogy. This was unusual for two reasons. (a) It is the reverse of the habitual practice of Genesis. Genealogies are a feature of Genesis where long lists of a man’s ancestors constantly occur. But Melchizedek arrives on the scene, as it were, from nowhere. (b) Far more important–it is the reverse of the rules which governed the Aaronic priesthood which depended entirely on descent. Under Jewish law a man could not under any circumstances become a priest unless he could produce a certificated pedigree going back to Aaron. Character and ability had nothing to do with it; the one essential was that pedigree. When the Jews came back to Jerusalem from exile certain priestly families could not produce their genealogical records and were therefore debarred from the priesthood for ever ( Ezr 2:61-63; Neh 7:63-65). On the other hand, if a man could produce a pedigree reaching back to Aaron, apart only from certain specified physical blemishes nothing on earth could stop him being a priest. Genealogy was literally everything.

So then, the first difference between the two priesthoods was this–the Aaronic priesthood depended on genealogical descent; the priesthood of Melchizedek depended on personal qualification alone. Melchizedek’s priesthood was based on what he was, not on what he had inherited. As one scholar puts it–the difference was between a claim based on legality and a claim based on personality.

(ii) Heb 7:1-3 collects further qualities about Melchizedek. The name Melchizedek literally means King of righteousness. The word Salem ( H8004) means peace; therefore he was also King of Peace. We have seen that he has no genealogy. Again the writer to the Hebrews draws on the silence of scripture. We are told of no time when Melchizedek began or ended his priesthood; we are told of no time when he was born or died. Therefore he had no beginning and has no end; and his priesthood lasts for ever.

From this we gather five great qualities in the priesthood of Melchizedek. (a) It is a priesthood of righteousness. (b) It is a priesthood of peace. (c) It is a royal priesthood, for Melchizedek was a king. (d) It is personal and not inherited because he has no genealogy. (e) It is eternal, because he has no birth or death, and his priesthood has no beginning or end.

(iii) Supposing all this to be true, how can it be proved that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic? The Hebrews seizes on two points in the Genesis story about Melchizedek.

First, there is the saying that Abraham gave Melchizedek tithes of all. The priests also exact tithes; but there are two differences. The priests tithe their brethren, their fellow Jews; and they tithe them as a result of legal enactment. But Melchizedek tithed Abraham who had no racial connection with him whatsoever and was in fact the founder of the Jewish nation; further, he exacted the tithes not because the law gave him the right to do so but because of an unquestionable personal right. Obviously that set him far above the ordinary priesthood.

Second, there is the saying that Melchizedek blessed Abraham. It is always the superior who blesses the inferior; therefore Melchizedek was superior to Abraham although Abraham was the founder of the Jewish race and the unique recipient of the promises of God. That indeed gives Melchizedek a place than which none could be higher.

A. B. Bruce thus sums up the points in which Melchizedek was superior to the ordinary Levitical priesthood. (a) He tithed Abraham and was therefore superior to him. Abraham was one of the patriarchs; the patriarchs are superior to their descendants; therefore Melchizedek is greater than the descendants of Abraham; the ordinary priests are the descendants of Abraham; therefore Melchizedek is greater than they. (b) Melchizedek is greater than the sons of Levi because they exacted tithes by legal enactment but he did it as a right he personally possessed given to him by no man. (c) The Levites received tithes as mortal men; he received them as one who lives for ever ( Heb 7:8). (d) Levi, to whom the Israelites paid tithes, may be said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek, because he was Abraham’s grandson and was therefore in Abraham’s body at the time Abraham paid tithes.

(iv) Heb 7:11 onwards shows wherein the superiority of the nets, priesthood lay.

(a) The very fact that a new priesthood was promised ( Heb 7:11) shows that the old one was inadequate. If the old priesthood had fulfilled the function of bringing men to the presence of God there would have been no need for any other. Further, the introduction of the new priesthood was a revolution. According to the law, all priests must belong to the tribe of Levi; but Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. This shows that the whole old system was superseded. Something greater than the law had come.

(b) The new priesthood was for ever ( Heb 7:15-19). Under the old system the priests died and there was no permanency; but now there had come a priest who lives for ever.

(c) The new priesthood was introduced by an oath of God Psa 110:4 says: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’.” Clearly God does not swear lightly. He never introduced the ordinary priesthood like that. This was something new.

(d) The new priest offered no sacrifice for himself ( Heb 7:27). The ordinary priest always had to make sacrifice for his own sin before he could do so for the sins of the people. But Jesus Christ, the new High Priest, was sinless and needed no sacrifice for himself.

(e) The new priest did not need endlessly to repeat sacrifices ( Heb 7:27). He made the one perfect sacrifice, which never needs to be made again because it has for ever opened the way to the presence of God.

We now sum up briefly the ideas in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews when he thinks of Jesus in terms of the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. To make it clearer we set out only the great salient ideas without the side-lines.

(i) Jesus is the High Priest, whose priesthood depends not on any genealogy but on himself alone.

(ii) Jesus is the High Priest who lives for ever.

(iii) Jesus is the High Priest who himself is sinless and never needs to offer any sacrifice for his own sin.

(iv) Jesus is the High Priest who in the offering of himself made the perfect sacrifice which once and for all opened the way to God. No more sacrifice need be made.

Having seen the general ideas in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews concerning Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, we now turn to this passage in detail and study it in sections.

The True King And The True Priest ( Heb 7:1-3)

7:1-3 Now this Melchizedek was King of Salem and priest of the most high God. He met Abraham when he was returning from the smiting of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham set apart for him a tenth part of the spoils. In the first place, the interpretation of his own name means King of Righteousness and, in the second place, King of Salem means King of Peace. His father is never mentioned nor his mother; nor is there any record of his descent; there is no mention of the beginning of his days nor any of the end of his life; he is exactly like the Son of God; and he remains a priest for ever.

As we have seen, the two passages on which the writer to the Hebrews founds his argument are Psa 110:4 and Gen 14:18-20. In the old Genesis story Melchizedek is a strange and almost eerie figure. He arrives out of the blue; there is nothing about his life, his birth, his death or his descent. He simply arrives. He gives Abraham bread and wine which to us, reading the passage in the light of what we know, sounds so sacramental. He blesses Abraham. And then he vanishes from the stage of history with the same unexplained suddenness as he arrived. There is little wonder that in the mystery of this story the writer to the Hebrews found a symbol of Christ.

Melchizedek from his name was King of Righteousness and from his realm King of Peace. The order is at once significant and inevitable. Righteousness must always come before peace. Without righteousness there can be no such thing as peace. As Paul has it in Rom 5:1: “Therefore since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God.” As he has it again in Rom 14:17: “The kingdom of God is…righteousness, peace and joy.” The order is always the same–first righteousness and then peace.

It may well be said that all life is a search for peace, and also that men persist in looking for it in the wrong place.

(i) Men look for peace in escape. But the trouble about escape is that it is always necessary to return. A. J. Gossip draws a picture of a slatternly woman who lived in a slatternly house. She leaves her home one afternoon and goes to a cinema. For an hour or two she escapes into the glamour and the luxury of the world of the film–and then she must go back home. It is escape all right–but there is the inevitable return. W. M. Macgregor tells of an old woman who lived in a terrible slum in Edinburgh called the Pans. Every now and again she would grow disgusted with the surroundings in which she lived and would make a tour of her friends, extracting a penny or two from each. With the proceeds she would get helplessly drunk. When others remonstrated with her she would answer: “Do you grudge me my one chance to get out of the Pans with a sup of whisky?” Again it was escape–but she, too, had to return. It is always possible to find some kind of peace by the route of escape, but it is never a lasting peace. Dr. Johnson used to insist that a man should have a hobby, for he held that a man should have as many retreats for his mind as possible. But even there there is the necessity to return. Escape is not wrong; sometimes it is necessary if health and sanity are to be preserved; but it is always a palliative and never a cure.

(ii) There is the peace of evasion. Many a man seeks peace by refusing to face his problems–he pushes them into the back of his mind and seeks to draw down the blind on them. There are two things to be said about that. The first is that no one ever solved a problem by refusing to look at it. However much we evade it, it is still there. And problems are like diseases–the longer we refuse to face them the worse they get. We may well come to a stage when the disease is incurable and the problem insoluble. The second thing is maybe even more serious. Psychology tells us that there is a part of the mind which never stops thinking. With our conscious minds we may be evading a problem but our subconscious mind is teasing away at it. The thing is there like a piece of hidden shrapnel in the body; and it can ruin life. So far from bringing peace, evasion is most destructive of peace.

(iii) There is the way of compromise. It is possible to arrive at some kind of peace by arriving at some kind of compromise. It is in fact one of the commonest methods of the world. We can seek peace by toning down some principle or by an uneasy agreement in which neither party is fully satisfied. Kermit Eby says that we may compromise for long enough but the time comes when a man must stand up and be counted if be wants to sleep at nights. Compromise means the loose ends of things unsolved. Compromise, therefore, inevitably means tension, even if a more or less hidden tension; tension inevitably means a gnawing worry; and therefore compromise really is the enemy of peace.

(iv) There is the way of righteousness, or, to put it otherwise, the way of the will o God There is no real peace for any man until he has said: “Thy will be done.” But once he has said that, peace floods his soul. It happened even to Jesus. He went into the Garden with a soul under such tension that he sweated blood. In the Garden he accepted God’s will and came out at peace. To take the way of righteousness, to accept God’s will is to remove the root of dispeace and find the way to lasting peace.

The writer to the Hebrews piles up words to show that Melchizedek has no descent. He does this to contrast the new priesthood of Jesus Christ with the old Aaronic priesthood. A Jew could not be a priest unless he could trace an unbroken descent from Aaron; but if he could trace such a descent nothing could stop him being a priest. If a priest married and his bride-to-be was the daughter of a priest, she must produce her pedigree for four generations back; if she was not the daughter of a priest, she must produce her pedigree for five generations back. It is the odd and almost incredible fact that the whole Jewish priesthood was founded on genealogy. Personal qualities did not enter into it at all. But Jesus Christ was the true priest, not because of what he inherited but because of what he was.

Some of the words Hebrews piles up here are amazing. He says that Jesus was without descent (agenealogetos, G35) . That is a word that, so far as we know, no Greek writer ever used before. It may well be that in his eagerness to stress the fact that Jesus’ power did not depend on descent, he invented it. It is very likely a new word to describe a new thing. He says that Melchizedek was without father (apator, G540) and without mother (ametor, G282) . These words are very interesting. They have certain uses in secular Greek. They are the regular description of waifs and strays and of people of low pedigree. They contemptuously dismiss a man as having no ancestry. More, apator ( G540) has a technical legal use in the contemporary Greek of the papyri. It is the word which is used on legal documents, especially on birth certificates, for father unknown and, therefore, illegitimate. So, for instance, there is a papyrus which speaks of–“Chairemon, apator ( G540) , father unknown, whose mother is Thases.” It is amazing that the writer to the Hebrews took words like this to stress his meaning. The Christian writers had a strange way of redeeming words as well as men and women. No phrase seemed too strong to the writer to the Hebrews to insist upon the fact that Jesus’ authority was in himself and came from no man.

The Greatness Of Melchizedek ( Heb 7:4-10)

7:4-10 Just see how great this man was–Abraham gave him the tenth of the spoils of victory–and Abraham was no less than the founder of our nation. Now look at the difference–when the sons of Levi receive their priesthood, they receive an injunction laid down by the law to exact tithes from the people. That is to say, they exact tithes from their own brothers, even although they are descendants of Abraham. But this man, whose descent is not traced through them at all, exacted tithes from Abraham and actually blessed the man who had received the promises. Beyond all argument the lesser is blessed by the greater. Just so, in the one instance, it is the case of men who die receiving tithes; but in this instance, it is the case of a man whom the evidence proves to live. Still further, if I may put it this way, through Abraham Levi, too, the very man who receives the tithes, had tithes exacted from him, for he was in his father’s body when Melchizedek met him.

The writer to the Hebrews is here concerned to prove the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood to the ordinary. He proceeds on the matter of tithes, because Abraham had given to Melchizedek a tenth part of the spoils of his victory. The law of tithes is laid down in Num 18:20-21. There Aaron is told that the Levites will have no actual territory in the promised land laid down for them but that they are to receive a tenth part of everything for their services in the tabernacle. “And the Lord said to Aaron, ‘You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them: I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel. To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they serve, their service in the tent of meeting.'”

So now in a series of contrasts the writer to the Hebrews works out the superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priests. He makes five different points. (i) The Levites receive tithes from the people and that is a right that only they enjoy. Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham although he was not a member of the tribe of Levi. It could be argued that while that put him on a level with the Levites, it does not prove that he was superior to them. So our writer adds four other points. (ii) The Levites tithe their brother Israelites; Melchizedek was not an Israelite but a stranger; and it was no ordinary Israelite from whom he received tithes but from no less a person than Abraham, the founder of the nation. (iii) It was due to a legal enactment that the Levites have the right to exact tithes; but Melchizedek received tithes for the sake of what he was personally. He had such personal greatness that he needed no legal enactment to entitle him to receive tithes. (iv) The Levites receive tithes as dying men; but Melchizedek lives for ever. (v) Finally he produces a curious argument for which he apologizes before he states it, Levi was a direct descendant of Abraham and the only man legally entitled to receive tithes. Now, if he was a direct descendant of Abraham it means that he was already in Abraham’s body. Therefore when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, Levi also paid them, being included in Abraham’s body, the final proof that Melchizedek was superior to him. It is an extremely odd argument but it was no doubt convincing enough to those to whom it was addressed.

Strangely enough, this argument enshrines the great truth that what a man does reacts on his descendants. If he commits some sin, he may transmit to his descendants either the tendency to that sin or some actual physical handicap because of it. If he builds up excellence of character, he transmits a fine inheritance to those who come after. Levi, on the argument of the writer to the Hebrews, was affected by what Abraham did. Therein, amidst the fantastics of the rabbinic argument, remains the truth that no man lives to himself but transmits something of himself to those who follow after.

The New Priest And The New Way ( Heb 7:11-20)

7:11-20 If, then, the desired effect could have been achieved by the Levitical priesthood–for it was on the basis of it that the people became a people of the law–what further need was there to set up another priest, and to call him a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and not to call him a priest after the order of Aaron? Once the priesthood was altered, of necessity there follows an alteration of the law, too, for the person of whom the statements are made belongs to another tribe altogether, from which no one ever served at the altar. It is obvious that it was from Judah that our Lord sprang, and with regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And certain things are still more abundantly clear–if a different priest is set up, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, a priest who has become so, not according to the law of a mere human injunction but according to the power of life that is indestructible–for the witness of scripture in regard to this is: “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”–if all that is so, two things emerge. On the one hand, there emerges the cancellation of the previous injunction because of its own weakness and uselessness (for the law never achieved the effect it was designed to produce) and, on the other hand, there emerges the introduction of a better hope through which we can come near to God.

As we read this passage we have to remember the basic idea of religion which never leaves the mind of the writer to the Hebrews. To him religion is access to God’s presence as friends, with nothing between us and him. The old Jewish religion was designed to produce that fellowship in two ways. First, by obedience to the law. Let a man obey the law and he was the friend of God. Second, it was recognised that such perfect obedience was out of the question for any man; and so the sacrificial system came in. When a man was guilty of a breach of the law, the requisite sacrifice was supposed to heal that breach. When the writer to the Hebrews says that the people became a people of the law on the basis of the Levitical priesthood, he means that without the Levitical sacrifices to atone for breaches of it, the law would have been completely impossible. But, in fact, the system of Levitical sacrifices had proved ineffective to restore the lost fellowship between God and man. So then a new priesthood was necessary, the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

He says that that priesthood differed from the old in that it was not dependent on merely human–fleshly is the word in the Greek–injunctions, but on the power of a life that is indestructible. What he means is this. Every single regulation that governed the old priesthood had to do with the priest’s physical body. To be a priest he must be a pure descendant of Aaron. Even then there were one hundred and forty-two physical blemishes which might disqualify him; some of them are detailed in Lev 21:16-23. The ordination ceremony is outlined in Lev 8:1-36. (i) He was bathed in water so that he would be ceremonially clean. (ii) He was clothed in the four priestly garments–the linen knee breeches, the long linen garment woven in one piece, the girdle round the breast, and the bonnet or turban. (iii) He was anointed with oil. (iv) He was touched on the tip of the right ear, his right thumb and his right great toe with the blood of certain sacrifices which had been made. Every single item in the ceremony affects the priest’s body. Once he was ordained he had to observe so many washings with water, so many anointings with oil; he had to cut his hair in a certain way. From beginning to end the Jewish priesthood was dependent on physical things. Character, ability, personality had nothing to do with it. But the new priesthood was dependent on a life that is indestructible. Christ’s priesthood depended not on physical things but on what he was in himself. Here was a revolution; it was no longer outward ceremonies and observances that made a priest but inward worth.

Further, there was another great change which had fundamental implications. The law was definite that all priests must belong to the tribe of Levi; they must be descendants of Aaron; but Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah. Therefore, the very fact that he was the supreme priest meant that the law was cancelled; it was wiped out. The word used for cancellation is athetesis ( G115) ; that is the word used for annulling a treaty, for abrogating a promise, for scoring a man’s name off the register, for rendering a law or regulation inoperative. The whole paraphernalia of the ceremonial law was wiped out in the priesthood of Jesus.

Finally, Jesus can do what the old priesthood never could–he can give us access to God. How does he do that? What is it that keeps a man from having access to God? (i) There is fear. So long as a man is terrified of God he can never be at home with him. Jesus came to show men the infinite tender love of the God whose name is Father–and the awful fear is gone. We know now that God wants us to come home, not to punishment but to the welcome of his open arms. (ii) There is sin. Jesus on his Cross made the perfect sacrifice which atones for sin. Fear is gone; sin is conquered; the way to God is open to men.

The Greater Priesthood ( Heb 7:21-25)

7:21-25 And in so far as it happened with an oath–for the Levitical priests are made priests without an oath, but he with an oath, because scripture says of him, “The Lord swore and will not repent of it, ‘You are a priest for ever'”–in so far Jesus has become the surety of a better covenant. Further, of the Levitical priests mom and more were made priests because they were prevented from continuing permanently by death, whereas he has a priesthood which will never pass away, because he remains for ever. For that very reason, it is in every possible way and for all time that he who is for ever alive to make intercession for us can save those who come to God through him.

The writer to the Hebrews is still accumulating his proofs that the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek was superior to the Aaronic priesthood. In order to do this he brings forward two other proofs.

First, he stresses the fact that the institution of the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek was confirmed by the oath of God while the ordinary priesthood was not. The reference is to Psa 110:4: “The Lord hath sworn, and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.'” The very idea of God taking an oath is startling. Long ago Philo saw this. He pointed out that the only reason for taking an oath is because a man’s bare word may be disbelieved; and the oath is to guarantee that his word is true. God never needs to do that because it is impossible that his word should ever be disbelieved. If, therefore, God ever confirms a statement by an oath, that statement must be of extraordinary importance. So then it is possible that the ordinary priesthood can pass away; but the priesthood of Jesus Christ can never pass away; because God has sworn an oath that it will last for ever.

Because this priesthood has been confirmed by an oath, Jesus is the surety of a better covenant. Let us remember that the function of the priest and of all religion is to open a way of access to God. Here we come upon the word covenant. We shall soon have to examine it in more detail. It is sufficient at the moment to say that a covenant is in essence an agreement between two people that if one faithfully performs certain undertakings, the other will respond in a certain way.

There was an ancient covenant between Israel and God that if the Israelites faithfully obeyed God’s law, the way of access to his friendship would always be open to them. We see the nation entering into that covenant in Exo 24:1-8. We see Moses taking the book of the law and reading it to the people; and we see the people responding with the words: “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient” ( Exo 24:7). The old agreement was based on obedience to the law; and the agreement could be kept open only when the priests kept on making sacrifice for every breach of the law.

Jesus is the surety of a new and a better covenant, a new kind of relationship between man and God. The difference is this–the old covenant was based on law and justice and obedience; the new covenant is based on love and on the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The old covenant was based on man’s achievement; the new covenant is based on God’s love.

What does the writer to the Hebrews mean by saying that Jesus is the surety (egguos, G1450) of this new covenant? An egguos is one who gives security. It is used, for instance, of a person who guarantees someone else’s overdraft at a bank; he is surety that the money will be paid. It is used for someone who goes bail for a prisoner; he guarantees that the prisoner will appear at the trial. The egguos ( G1450) is one who guarantees that some undertaking will be honoured.

So, then, what the writer to the Hebrews means is this. Someone might say: “How do you know that the old covenant is no longer operative? How do you know that access to God now depends, not on man’s achievement of obedience but simply on the welcoming love of God?” The answer is: “Jesus Christ guarantees that it is so. He is the surety who promises that God’s love will be forthcoming, if only we take him at his word.” To put it in the simplest possible way–we must believe that when we look at Jesus in all his love we are seeing what God is like.

The writer to the Hebrews introduces a second proof of the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus. There was no permanency about the old priesthood. Those who were priests died and had to be replaced; but the priesthood of Jesus is for ever. The thing that matters in this passage is the overtones and implications of the almost untranslatable words the writer uses.

He says that the priesthood of Jesus is one that will never pass away (aparabatos, G531) . Aparabatos is a legal word. It means inviolable. A judge lays down that his decision must remain aparabatos ( G531) , unalterable. It means non-transferable. It describes something which belongs to one person and cannot ever be transferred to anyone else. Galen. the medical writer, uses it to describe absolute scientific law which can never be violated, the principles on which the very universe is built and holds together. So then the writer to the Hebrews says that the priesthood of Jesus is something which can never be taken from him, is something that no one else can ever possess, is something that is as lasting as the laws which hold the universe together. Jesus is and will always remain the only way to God. The writer to the Hebrews uses another wonderful word about Jesus and says of him that he remains for ever (paramenein, G3887) . That verb has two characteristic flavours. First, it means to remain in office. No one can ever take the office of Jesus from him; to all eternity he remains the introducer of men to God. Second, it means to remain in the capacity of a servant. Gregory of Nazianzen provides in his will that his daughters will remain (paramenein, G3887) with their mother so long as she is alive. They are to stay with her and be her help and support. The papyri talk of a girl who must remain (paramenein, G3887) in a shop for three years in order to discharge by her work a debt that she cannot pay. There is a papyrus contract which says that a boy, who is being bound as an apprentice, must remain (paramenein, G3887) with his master for as many days extra as he has played truant. When the writer to the Hebrews says that Jesus remains for ever, there is wrapped up in that phrase the amazing thought that Jesus is for ever at the service of men. In eternity as he was in time Jesus exists to be of service to mankind. That is why he is the complete Saviour. On earth he served men and gave his life for them; in Heaven he still exists to make intercession for them. He is the priest for ever, the one who is for ever opening the door to the friendship of God and is for ever the great servant of mankind.

The High Priest We Need ( Heb 7:26-28)

7:26-28 We needed such a high priest–one who is holy, one who never hurt any man, one who is stainless, one who is different from sinners, one who has become higher than the heavens. He does not need, as the high priests do, daily first to offer sacrifices for his own sins and thereafter for the sins of the people. For he did this once and for all when he offered himself. For the law appointed as high priests men subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appointed one who is a Son who is fully equipped to carry out his office for ever.

Still the writer to the Hebrews is filled with the thought of Jesus as high priest. He begins this passage by using a series of great words and phrases to describe him.

(i) He says that Jesus is holy, (hosios, G3741) . This word is used of Jesus in Act 2:27 and Act 13:35; it is used of the Lord in Rev 15:4 and Rev 16:5; it is used of the Christian bishop in Tit 1:8; it is used of the hands that a man must present to God in prayer in 1Ti 2:8. Behind it there is always one special idea. It always describes the man who faithfully does his duty to God. It describes a man, not so much as he appears before his fellow-men but as he appears before God. Hosios ( G3741) has in it the greatest of all goodnesses, the goodness which is pure in the sight of God.

(ii) He says that Jesus never hurt any man (akakos, G172) . Kakia ( G2549) is the Greek word for evil; and akakos ( G172) describes the man who is so cleansed of evil that there is nothing left in him but good. It describes a man in his effect upon his fellow-men. Sir Walter Scott claimed for himself as a writer that he never corrupted any man’s morals or unsettled any man’s faith. The man who is akakos ( G172) is so cleansed that his presence is like an antiseptic and in his heart there is nothing but the loving kindness of God.

(iii) He says that Jesus is stainless (amiantos, G283) . Amiantos describes the man who is absolutely free from any of the blemishes which might make it impossible for him to draw near to God. The blemished victim cannot be offered to God; the defiled man cannot approach him; but the one who is amiantos ( G283) is fit to enter into God’s presence.

(iv) He says that Jesus is different from sinners. This phrase does not mean that Jesus was not really a man. He was different from sinners in that, although he underwent all a man’s temptations, he conquered them all and emerged without sin. The difference between him and other men lies not in the fact that he was not fully man, but in the fact that he was manhood at its highest and its best.

(v) He says that Jesus was made higher than the heavens. In this phrase he is thinking of the exaltation of Jesus. if the last phrase stresses the perfection of his manhood, this one stresses the perfection of his godhead. He who was a man amongst men is also he who is exalted to the right hand of God.

The writer to the Hebrews now introduces another aspect in which the priesthood of Jesus is far superior to the Levitical. Before the High Priest could offer sacrifice for the sins of the people, he had first to offer sacrifice for his own sins, for he was a sinful man.

It is of the Day of Atonement that the writer is specially thinking. This was the great day when atonement was made for all the sins of the people, the day on which the High Priest performed his supreme function. Usually it was the only day in the year when he personally carried out the sacrifices. On ordinary days they were left to the subordinate priests but on the Day of Atonement the High Priest himself officiated.

The very first item on the ritual of that day was a sacrifice for the sins of the High Priest himself. He washed his hands and his feet; he put off his gorgeous robes; he clothed himself in spotless white linen. There was brought to him a bullock which he had purchased with his own money. He laid both hands on the bullock’s head to transfer his sin to it; and thus he made confession: “Ah, Lord God, I have committed iniquity; I have transgressed; I have sinned, I and my house. 0 Lord, I beseech thee, cover over the sins and transgressions which I have committed, transgressed and sinned before thee, I and my house.”

The greatest of all the Levitical sacrifices began with a sacrifice for the sins of the High Priest. That was a sacrifice Jesus never needed to make, for he was without sin. The Levitical High Priest was a sinful man offering animal sacrifices for sinful people; Jesus was the sinless Son of God offering himself for the sin of all men. It was the law which had appointed the Levitical High Priest; it was the oath of God which gave Jesus his office; and because he was what he was, the sinless Son of God, he was equipped for his office as no human High Priest could ever be.

Now the writer to the Hebrews does what he so often does. He drops a marker to indicate the direction he is going to take. He says of Jesus that he offered himself. Two things were necessary in a sacrifice. There was the priest and there was the sacrifice. With long and intricate argument the writer to the Hebrews has proved that Jesus was the perfect High Priest; now he is going to move on to another thought. Not only was Jesus the perfect High Priest, he was also the perfect offering. Jesus alone could open the way to God because he was the perfect High Priest and he offered the one perfect sacrifice–himself.

There is much in this argument which for us is difficult to understand. It speaks and thinks in terms of ritual and ceremony long since forgotten; but one eternal thing remains. Man seeks the presence of God; his sin has erected a barrier between him and God but he is restless until he rests in God; and Jesus alone is the priest who can bring the offering that can open the way back to God for men.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

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 , 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.”

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

A Brief History of Melchizedek ( Heb 7:1-3 ).

The writer begins by outlining who Melchizedek was. He wants us to know that he was not some outlandish heavenly figure, but a royal priest here on earth. And he then draws out significant features about him that reveal the similarities that there were between him and Jesus, while at the same time stressing that it was Melchizedek who was like Jesus, and pointed to Jesus, and not the other way round. Jesus the Son of God is the superior, and the One to Whom we should finally look. He preceded Melchizedek as ‘the Son’, and will exist eternally, long after Melchizedek has been forgotten. Indeed Melchizedek only comes into the reckoning at all because David inherited his priesthood, and it therefore became linked with the Davidic Messiah in Psa 110:4. Had that not happened he would have remained as an obscure figure in Genesis. But as it is he appears as of crucial importance because of his Scriptural connection with the Messiah and His priesthood, that is, with Jesus Christ.

Heb 7:1-3, ‘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 to the Son of God, abides a priest continually.’

The writer first makes clear how we are to see Melchizedek, who he was and what his attributes were.

1) He was the king of Salem, and as the king of ‘Salem’ (probably Jerusalem, which is sometimes called Salem – Psa 76:2), a priest of the Most High God. He was thus a Royal Priest.

2) As a priest he met Abraham, the returning conqueror, when he was returning from his victory over the kings. (‘Slaughter of the kings’ is to be taken hyperbolically. There was slaughter and it was connected with the four foreign kings). And as priest of the Most High God Melchizedek both officially blessed the conqueror Abraham and received ‘tithes’ from him. This therefore confirms what a great priest he was, for he is depicted as greater than God’s chosen one, greater than the conqueror of ‘the nations’. All this is history as found in Genesis 14.

(From a historical point of view Melchizedek was, of course, a petty king of a small city state welcoming back a victorious petty tribal leader with whom he had a treaty, a tribal leader who occupied part of his territory and therefore owed him certain duties including a share in any spoils. But from a heavenly point of view the petty tribal leader in question was Abraham, the chosen of God, through whose seed the destiny of the world would be determined, and that therefore puts Melchizedek and his priesthood in a totally different light, and it is contrasted with Abraham to Melchizedek’s advantage. The writer is not interested in how secular history saw them, he is concerned with how Scripture and salvation history portrays them.

3) He then expands on that history bringing out a number of relevant points. This Melchizedek, he says, was like Jesus in that he was ‘king of righteousness’. This was so because his name loosely signifies that. Melchi-zedek equals ‘my king is Zedek’, and the root zdk means righteous. Thus we may translate ‘my king is righteous’. And as a man’s name was considered to reveal what he was, he could therefore be called ‘the king of righteousness’.

4) He was also king of Salem and slm means ‘peace’. Thus he could be seen not only as king of righteousness but also as king of peace (compareIsa 9:6; Isa 11:1-4). In this he was to be seen as a ‘type’, a pre-illustration, of Jesus, and as suitable to be a superior priest in the eyes of God (see Heb 1:8-9; Heb 13:20). So as a priest who was righteous and personified peace, he was a type of the perfect mediator, the One who is righteous, true and pure in every way, and thus totally pleasing to God, the One in Whom God delights, and the One who brings peace with God and peace from God. He was a type of the One Who reconciles God’s people to Himself.

5) He was ‘Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.’ This is not intended to describe his pedigree, as though he was some supernatural figure, but to contrast him with the levitical priesthood. It is saying that there was nothing that tied his priesthood to earthly descent, or limited it in any way.

It was clearly significant to the writer that the background to his priesthood, although unquestionably accepted by God, did not depend on tracing descent, and was not time-limited. In other words Scripture when considering him was not concerned with the question of his descent, for his priesthood was not seen as depending on that. It was a God-allocated priesthood.

This was as different from the levitical priesthood as it could possibly be. In the levitical priesthood everything was seen to depend on descent. It was closely tied to earth and to history.

So as far as Scripture was concerned therefore, the Melchizedekian priesthood was not specifically tied down to earthly connections or earthly time, no information about its source, or beginning or end was made available in Scripture, and no one knew anything about its antecedents or of its end. Such things were clearly not considered important to that priesthood. It continued for ever, being as it were ‘manned’ by a royal house, by a succession of kings. So all that mattered was that ‘he is’ by virtue of his kingship. He lived on in his house. There it was and there it continued.

The importance of this lies in the fact that this was in complete contrast to the Levitical priesthood where all such requirements were emphasised and laid down and required to be known in great detail before a man could become a priest.

At this point therefore we should perhaps consider how the levitical priesthood contrasts with Melchizedek’s priesthood, so as to bring out the significance of this. Mechizedek’s priesthood was;

1) ‘Without father, without mother, without genealogy.’ The Melchizedekian priesthood was not expressed as being dependent on descent. The exact opposite was the case for a levitical priest. When his name was put forward to be a priest he was asked, ‘Who is your father, who is your mother, what is your descent? Produce your genealogy.’ For Scripture stated that the father of a levitical priest must be proved to be of the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. His mother must be established as a true Israelite, and also pure (see Lev 21:7), and by the time of Jesus the priestly families were excessively rigid against unsatisfactory marriages by priests for this very reason. Prospective wives’ backgrounds had to be thoroughly examined.

In fact full genealogies had to be produced for every prospective priest. Their genealogy had to be traced and demonstrated, otherwise they could not be priests (Ezr 2:62-63; Neh 7:63-65). They were very much tied to earthly descent.

2) ‘Having neither beginning of days.’ Furthermore no time limits were placed on the Melchizedekian priesthood. In contrast every levitical priest had a ‘beginning of days’, a time when he commenced his priesthood. Probably Levitical priests, like the Levites, “began their days” as priests/Levites at the age of twenty-five, when they were permitted to wait on their brethren (Num 8:24 and compare 1Ch 23:27-28). Then at the age of thirty they began their regular priestly/levitical duties (Num 4:3; Num 4:23; Num 4:30; Num 4:35; Num 4:39; Num 4:43; Num 4:47).

3) ‘Nor end of life.’ No ending is predicated for the Melchizedekian priesthood. In contrast, assuming that the levitical priests were like the Levites, then at the age of fifty their priestly “life” ended. “From the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting on the service, and shall serve no more” (Num 8:25). As far as the priesthood was concerned their lives thus probably ended at fifty. So this priesthood was time-limited, and not a continual succession.

(This was also actually in contrast with the High Priesthood (often spoken of in terms of ‘the Priest’) which commenced on appointment and finished at death. Once a High Priest, always a High Priest. But even for him the beginning and ending of each High Priesthood was emphasised. His death was seen as the end of an era).

Thus the wording of this verse has the levitical priesthood in mind as being in contrast to that of Melchizedek.

As priest Melchizedek was in contrast to all this. He was a figure without an earthly identification priestwise. His descent was not important. He was simply there. He came on to the scene mysteriously and he went equally mysteriously. As spoken of in Scripture he had no known beginning and he had no known ending. He was not connected with any known genealogy, and thus not limited to any tribe. His priesthood went with his kingship. It was simply recognised. And yet in Scripture he was clearly greater than Abraham, God’s chosen one. It was the basis of a unique type of priesthood.

Had he not been spoken of in Scripture, Jews would have frowned on all this. To Jews such genealogical information as is mentioned here was considered vital for a priest. It established his credentials. How else could a person be seen as being of a God-ordained priesthood? they would have argued. Thus this priesthood by their standards seemed to be lacking credentials. And yet they could not refute the fact that it was acknowledged by God and by Scripture, and therefore could not be denied. Thus the priesthood of anyone connected with it must also be recognised by God.

And that is directly the writer’s point. Melchizedek was a true priest, yet not a levitical priest, and not limited like levitical priests were. He appeared as from God and as authorised by God, and as accepted by Abraham, no limits were put on his priesthood, and his priesthood continued on through the line of David until it reappeared in Psa 110:4. Here was an accepted and genuine priesthood, a royal priesthood, that was acknowledged by God apparently from the beginning and yet was not levitical, and had no known restrictions with regard to its beginning or ending. It was unique, being ever there in the background, and was passed on to David when he became King in Jerusalem. And it was later, in the Psalms, spoken of as continuing in existence in the house of David, to finally flower in the coming of the Messiah.

So as we have seen the requirements for his priesthood are all in direct contrast with the levitical priests. In their case their father and mother had to be known and had to be strictly acceptable. Their case was rigidly scrutinised. If there was any doubt they could not be accepted. The father must be a priest of true descent, the mother an established Israelite. Their genealogy had to be traced, otherwise they could not be priests (Ezr 2:62-63; Neh 7:63-65). And they had both ‘a beginning of days’ and ‘an end of life’. None of this was true of him or expected of him. He stood above it all.

‘Beginning of days.’ Whether this refers to birth, or the beginning of their priesthood, the main point is that the date had to be known so as to reckon when someone could be initiated as a levitical priest. His priesthood was limited and tied to earth and to time.

‘End of life.’ Again whether this refers either to the age of retirement from priesthood, the ‘end of his life’ as a priest, or to his actual death, either way there came a time when their priesthood identifiably ceased. All priests were temporary, and limited by time limits. It was a shared, and tightly regulated, and limited priesthood, constantly being replenished because of the passing of time as one set of priests followed another in the priestly service. It was an in-out priesthood.

Assuming that it followed the Levite pattern full priesthood lasted twenty years. Their period of priesthood was thus strictly limited. And we can see why they might have seen the end of their active priesthood as ‘the end of life’.

On the other hand the priesthood of Melchizedek was in complete contrast to the levitical priesthood. His appears to have had continuing permanence while theirs was merely temporary. His was not restricted by such rules. He was never time-barred. His priesthood went with his kingship and went on and on. It was permanent and never (in Scripture) linked with death.

But what was even more significant was that this same priesthood suddenly emerges in Scripture again, a second time, in Psa 110:4, as continuing to exist, and there Melchizedek is mentioned, not as himself living, but as the one whose priesthood was the pattern of that of the coming king who would establish God’s everlasting rule (Psa 110:5). It is not said in the Psalm that Melchizedek was at that time himself living. What it reveals is that the priesthood connected with him was seen as long lasting. It had long preceded the time of Aaron and would go on beyond the end of time, with no known interruptions, and no regulations as to genealogy. It had no known beginning or ending.

And another factor to be taken into account was that Melchizedek’s priesthood was not only more ancient than that of the Levites, but it was to be seen as superior to that of Abraham, the father of the Levites. This is demonstrated by the fact that he received tithes from Abraham and gave him an official blessing. This was not just a general blessing, but an official blessing such as a superior priest gives to an inferior. Something of the exceptional was therefore to be perceived about him as far as his priesthood was concerned. He was before the Law, outside the Law, superior to those who ministered in the Tabernacle, and even superior to the one who received the promises. How great then was the priesthood that was connected with him.

‘But made like to the Son of God, he abides a priest continually.’ And this is the final point. That as far as Scripture usage is concerned he was actually in Scripture ‘made like to the Son of God’, to Jesus Christ, in the way that his priesthood is presented and appears as unlimited, and as going on and on. He stands out, and was intended to stand out, as an example of eternal priesthood. His priesthood was pictured in the same way as that of the Son of God really is. No beginning or end is pointed to. It was seen as unceasing, not limited by time rules. It stretched from at least the time of Abraham to the time of the Psalmist, and then was to go onwards in the Davidic representative (not be it noted in Melchizedek himself), and on to the great day of God’s triumph, and therefore it was seen as being permanent and everlasting.

Here then, he says, is the picture revealed in Scripture by Melchizedek, the picture of an unceasing, continuing, eternal priesthood, not connected with Aaron, and in fact superior to that of Aaron. And that is why, he explains, we cannot doubt his greatness. It is necessary here, however, to emphasise that it is Melchizedek who is said to have been ‘made like to’ the Son of God, and not vice versa. He illustrates what the Son of God is like with regard to priesthood. He was there as an illustration on earth, as ‘a type’, as preparatory to the eternal Son of God revealing Himself. He was, preparatory and secondary.

For in Heb 1:1-3, where the essence of the Son of God is declared in all His eternal power and glory, Jesus also is depicted as being without beginning and without end in a much deeper sense. He is seen as appointed heir of all things and proceeds to create the world. He has no beginning. And then He proceeds to sitting at God’s right hand having accomplished His purposes. He has no ending.

So Melchizedek in his small way is portrayed precisely like this, as an illustration of this and as being ‘made’ for this very purpose. His sudden appearance in Scripture, says the writer, was not accidental. It was in order to illustrate the eternal High Priest, Who was already invisible in Heaven, and to demonstrate that there was such a priesthood, even before levitical priesthood was introduced.

Indeed we should carefully note another fact and that is that as far as Scripture is concerned Melchizedek was not only a unique priest but was a priest who preceded all other earthly priesthood. In Genesis, where all things began, there is no other priesthood mentioned than that of Melchizedek. As far as Genesis was concerned he was ‘the priest’. He did not appear as another priest, he was the only mentioned priest of God, a figure of the eternal priesthood. He was thus the prime example of such priesthood long predating Moses.

And, says the writer, his appearance in Scripture and his mention here is precisely because he was ‘made like to the Son of God’ as far as priesthood is concerned. That is why he is introduced and comes on the scene. For in the end this passage is not about Melchizedek but is demonstrating the unique Priesthood of the Son of God (Heb 7:11-28), which preceded, was superior to, and outlasted, the levitical priesthood.

It should be noted that using Jewish methodology the writer was not trying to give a true vignette of the man Melchizedek as he was. He was presenting a picture of his priesthood as it was seen to be from Scripture as the picture of an unceasing heavenly reality. It is his unlimited priesthood, not Melchizedek himself, that he is interested in, and it is that that the writer is really depicting as not beginning and not ending, revealing him as one ‘not having beginning of days or end of life’ (thus permanent and never time barred), and as not needing to be replaced.

So in the beginning, the writer is saying, before ever there was a Law, there was only one priesthood, and it is this priesthood which is depicted as a continual priesthood, never ceasing, never ending, for had it not been so, he reasoned, God would surely have drawn attention to such limits as He did with the levitical priesthood. For the Jews saw the Scriptures as the words of the Holy Spirit, and considered that what the Scriptures omitted was often as important as what they said.

So the man is in the end incidental. He quickly disappears from view, and is clearly in the past. What is seen as in being, and as continuing onwards, is his priesthood, ever there in the background, and especially as epitomised in the Son of God.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A Description of Melchizedek Heb 7:1-3 offers an introduction to Melchizedek prior to making a number of arguments as to his superiority over the Levitical priesthood.

The Continual Order of Melchizedek’s Priesthood – In the Greek text Heb 7:1-3 forms a single sentence. The base-line sentence of Heb 7:1-3 is, “For this Melchizedekabides a priest forever.” The rest of the sentence clauses simply modify, or explain, how “this former Melchizedek” is superior to Abraham because of his character.

Heb 7:1  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;

Heb 7:1 Comments – Heb 7:1 refers to the narrative passage in Gen 14:1-24, when Abraham defeated the kings of the east. Upon his return, Melchizedek met Abraham with bread and wine and blessed the patriarch. In response, Abraham gave him tithes of the spoils. Salem refers to the city of Jerusalem, which name is found in Psa 76:2, “In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.”

Heb 7:2  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;

Heb 7:2 “first being by interpretation King of righteousness” – Comments The names “Melchizedek” is formed from two Hebrew words: ( ) = righteousness, and ( ) = king.

Heb 7:2 Comments The order of names, which are being interpreted, “King of righteousness,” then “King of peace,” follows the order of names “Melchizedek” and “King of Salem” mentioned in Heb 7:1.

Sailhamer tells us that Josephus and Philo give similar interpretations of Melchisedek, supporting the view that the author of the epistle of Hebrews was following a long-held Jewish tradition when making this statement. [232] Sailhamer adds that the Palestinian Targum reads, “The righteous king,” for ( ).

[232] John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, c1995), 311.

“So Abram, when he had saved the captive Sodomites who had been taken by the Assyrians, and Lot also, his kinsman, returned home in peace. Now the king of Sodom met him at a certain place, which they called The King’s Dale, where Melchizedek, king of the city Salem, received him. That name signifies the righteous king; and such he was without dispute, insomuch that, on this account, he was made the priest of God: however, they afterward called Salem Jerusalem.” ( Antiquities, 1.10.2) [233]

[233] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, in The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996, c1987), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 1:179-180.

“Moreover, God made Melchisedek, the king of peace, that is of Salem, for that is the interpretation of this name, ‘his own high priest,’ without having previously mentioned any particular action of his, but merely because he had made him a king, and a lover of peace, and especially worthy of his priesthood.” (Philo Judaeus, On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws, 25) [234]

[234] C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus, vol. 1 (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854), 128.

Heb 7:3  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.

Heb 7:3 “Without father, without mother, without descent” Comments The Levitical priesthood stood upon the foundation of one’s genealogical record. If a priest could not prove his descent from the tribe of Levi, he could not serve in a Jewish priestly office.

Heb 7:3 Comments There are a number of passages in the Old Testament that allude to a divine appearance of God (theophanies) or of the pre-incarnate Christ Jesus (Christophanies). For example, Melchizedek king of Salem appears to Abraham and receives the tithe (Gen 14:17-20). The Lord appeared to Abraham and communed with him prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:1-33). God shows His back unto Moses on Mount Sinai (Exo 33:18-23). The Lord appeared to Joshua as the Captain of the host of the Lord (Jos 5:13-15).

There are two interpretations of the appearance of Melchizedek to Abraham.

(1) Literal Interpretation: A Pre-incarnate Appearance of Christ – Some scholars believe this was an appearance of God (called a theophany), or of the pre-incarnate Christ Jesus (called a Christophany) in the Old Testament. The argument is base on his character described in Heb 7:3, which implies that Melchizedek had no father or mother, and made like the Son of God, leaving one to conclude a divine nature. Abraham did speak to the Lord at other times (Gen 18:1; Gen 18:31), so perhaps Melchizedek is a reference to an Old Testament theophany.

Gen 18:1, “And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;”

Gen 18:31, “And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake.”

(2) Figurative Interpretation: An Old Testament Typology of Christ – Others believe that Melchizedek was simply a man holding the office of a priest whose genealogy is not reckoned in the lineage of the Levites. This leads one to interpret Heb 7:3 to mean that the book of Genesis offers no genealogical record for Melchizedek regarding his priestly office. In a similar sense, Esther is said to have no father or mother (Est 2:7), so that this phrase may be a Hebrew idiom. He was made like the Son of God only in respect to his unending priestly office, of which office the book of Genesis does not record its beginning or end.

Est 2:7, “And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Order of Melchizedek is Superior to the Levites Because They Paid Tithes The author offers his argument for the superiority for the order of Melchizedek. After describing the character of Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-3), he explains how he represents a superior order because Abraham (and the Levites) paid him tithes (Heb 7:4-10), and because this order offered a superior sacrifice through the atonement of Jesus Christ (Heb 7:11-28).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. A Description of Melchizedek Heb 7:1-3

2. Superior to Levites Because They Paid Tithes Heb 7:1-10

3. Superior to Levites because it is Unending Heb 7:11-28

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Jesus Offers a New and Better Covenant through a Superior Priesthood – The underlying theme of Heb 7:1-28 is that the priesthood of Jesus Christ is superior to the Levitical order because it is under the order of Melchizedek. The author first introduces his readers to the character of Melchizedek as recorded in Scripture in order to identify it with Jesus’ priesthood (Heb 7:1-3). He then demonstrates this king’s superiority over the patriarch Abraham through the tithe, with the argument being further supported by the fact that the Levitical priesthood gave tithes in the loins of Abraham (Heb 7:4-10). The second argument in Heb 7:11-28 made by the author shows that the order of Melchizedek is unending, while the Levitical priesthood is weak because the priests are subject to death. This means that Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a better, or superior, covenant. Thus, the proof is given that the order of Melchizedek (and of Christ Jesus) is superior to that of the Levitical priesthood.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Superior to Levites Because They Paid Tithes Heb 7:1-10

2. Superior to Levites because it is Unending Heb 7:11-28

A Comparison of the Priesthood of Melchizedek to the Levites Note the following comparison that the author of Hebrews makes between the Priesthood of Melchizedek to the Levites:

1. Verses 6-7 – Melchizedek blessed Levi through the loins of Abraham.

2. Verse 8 – Levites are men who die. Melchizedek abides forever.

3. Verse 9 – Levi paid tithes through the loins of Abraham to Melchizedek.

4. Verse 16 – Levi made a priest after carnal commandment. Jesus was made after the power of an endless life.

5. Verse 20-21 – Levi was made a priest without an oath. Jesus was made with an oath.

6. Verse 23-24 – Levi had many priests. There was one priest with Jesus.

7. Verse 23-24 – Levi needed to daily offer up sacrifices for the sins of people. Jesus offered up the sacrifice once.

8. Verse 23-24 – Levi has infirmities, Jesus is perfect.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Indoctrination: The Superior Priesthood of Jesus Christ Heb 6:1 to Heb 10:18 places emphasis upon our indoctrination as a part of our need to persevere in the Christian faith. This passage of Scripture offers us a theological discourse unlike any other in the Holy Scriptures. In order to persevere Jesus Christ made access to God’s throne freely available to all believers, by which we are exhorted to grow and mature in our spiritual journey (Heb 6:1-8). The author supports this exhortation with a doctrinal discourse on the analogy of the priesthood of Melchizedek with that of Jesus Christ (Heb 6:9 to Heb 10:18).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. 3 rd Exhortation: Grow in Maturity Heb 6:1-8

2. 3 rd Doctrinal Discourse Heb 6:9 to Heb 10:18

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Third Doctrinal Discourse: The Superior Priesthood of Jesus Christ The author then leads the Hebrews into a revelation of the priestly office of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 6:9 to Heb 10:18), which reveals the need for indoctrination in order to persevere in the faith. He begins his doctrinal discourse by reminding them of their sure hope and promise by God of receiving eternal life (Heb 6:9-20).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. God’s Sure Promises in Christ Jesus Heb 6:9-20

2. Jesus Offers Better Covenant Thru Superior Order Heb 7:1 to Heb 10:18

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Jesus Offers a New and Better Covenant through a Superior Priesthood and Sacrifice Jesus Christ offers a new and better covenant through a superior priesthood and a superior sacrifice. Heb 7:1-28 explains how the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ under the order of Melchizedek offers a new and better covenant for God’s people. Heb 8:1 to Heb 10:18 explains how Jesus Christ offers a new and better covenant through a superior sacrifice.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. A Superior Order of Melchizedek Heb 7:1-28

2. A Superior Sacrifice Heb 8:1 to Heb 10:18

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

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.)

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

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 7:1-28. is “after the order of Melchizedek,” the question beingWhat 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 Gen 14:1-24. (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.

Heb 7:1-3

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 (in itself denoting the absence, not of ancestors, but of a traced genealogy), cf. Heb 7:6, Heb 7:6 . That of , , is illustrated by the Latin expression, “Nullis majoribus ortus.” On “made like () 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 (), but made like (); 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).

Heb 7:4

Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, even gave a tenth of the spoils. The typical significance of Melchizedek is now further seen in what passed between him and Abraham, in respect to tithe and blessing. Alford’s inference, that , referring as it does, not to the antitype, but to the man himself, implies some mysterious greatness beyond what appears in the original record, does not follow. Of one who simply blessed and received tithes from the great patriarch, the expression is not too strong. Observe the emphatic position, at the end of the Greek sentence, of , equivalent to “he, the patriarch.” Abraham’s being this, the father and representative of the chosen race, is what is shown in what follows to give peculiar significance to the transaction. The word (properly, “the chief spoils”), which is not in the LXX., seems introduced to enhance the picture: “Quae Abrahami proprie fuerant, ut victoris” (Bengel).

Heb 7:5-7

And they indeed of the song of Levi who receive the office of priesthood have commandment to receive 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 received tithes of Abraham. As much as to say, “Let it not be said that the tithing of Abraham by Melchizedek implies no higher priestly prerogative than the tithing of Abraham’s descendants by the sons of Aaron; for there is this difference: They, in virtue only of a special ordinance of the Law, not of original right, were allowed to tithe their brethren, though descended from the same great ancestor; he, though not of them or of the race at all, in virtue of his own inherent dignity, tithes the whole race as represented in its patriarch.” (We observe how, in place of the aorist , used when the mere historical incident was referred to, we have here the perfect (as also in what follows, and in Heb 7:9), denoting a completed act, of which the effects and significance remain; Melchizedek, who represents the priesthood after his order, being viewed in permanent relation to Abraham, who represents the chosen race) And hath blessed him that hath (i.e. the holder of) the promises. But, without all controversy, the less is blessed of the better. The superiority evidenced by bestowal of blessing no less than by receiving of tithe having been thus noticed, the contrast with the Levitical priesthood is continued in the following verses.

Heb 7:8

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 () must be that of Scripture, which nowhere bears such witness of the historical Melchizedek. The words, , are, in fact, only a resumption of what was said in Heb 7:3 : “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.

Heb 7:9, Heb 7:10

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. Or, in other words, “Nay, further, Melchizedek may be said to have tithed Levi himself and his priestly tribe.” For, inasmuch as the whole position of Levi and his tribe, in the old dispensation, came by inheritance from the great patriarch who received the promises, the subordination of the patriarch to one above himself involved that of all who so inherited, it is not simply the physical descent of Levi from Abraham, but the peculiar position of the latter as “the patriarch,” that justifies the assertion that Levi paid tithes through him. And thus, while we remember how Abraham is elsewhere viewed in Scripture as the representative of the chosen people, and also how the lives of individual patriarchs (notably so in the case of Jacob and Esau) are so told and referred to as to prefigure the positions and fortunes of the races they represent, we may recognize in this assertion no mere rabbinical fancy, but an interpretation true to the spirit of the Old Testament. Be it further observed that the original significance of Abraham’s action as bearing upon his descendants is enhanced by the fact that, while it was after the receiving of the promise, it was before the birth of Isaac. He, and consequently his descendant Levi, was yet () in the loins of Abraham; on which point, “Proles e parenlis poteslate egressa in suam venit tutelain: sod quoad in parentis potestate, imo in lumbis est, illius conditionem sequitur” (Bengel).

Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12

If then perfection (: cf. ) were through the Levitical priesthood for under it (rather, upon it, on the ground of it) the people hath received the Law, what need was there that another (rather, a different) priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. Here a further thought is introduced. So far the superiority of the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek to the Aaronic has been shown. The new thought is that the very mention in the psalm of a different order of priesthood implies that the old order, and with it the whole legal dispensation which depended on it, was imperfect and to be superseded. This is the general drift of Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12, though the sequence of thought in their several clauses is not easy to follow. Ideas in the writer’s mind, not expressed, seem necessary to be understood. In the parenthetical clause of Heb 7:11, and are decidedly to be preferred, on the ground of authority, to and of the Textus Receptus. ‘The meaning of the clause (whatever be the precise thought connecting it with the sentence in which it stands) is that the whole Law rested on the institution of the priesthood; not the priests only, but the whole people ( ), received their Law as grounded on it. On the same idea depends Heb 7:12, where it is said that a change of the priesthood involves of necessity a change of the Law.

The verses next following serve to remove all doubt that there is a complete change of the priesthood; the proofs being, not only the patent fact that the Messiah is of the tribe, not of Levi, but of Judah (Heb 7:13, Heb 7:14), but also, for mere abundant evidence of the Divine purpose, that significant utterance, again adduced, about his being after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek (Heb 7:15, Heb 7:16, Heb 7:17).

Heb 7:13, Heb 7:14

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to (: literally, hath partaken of; cf. , Heb 2:14, with reference, as there, to Christ’s assumption of humanity) another tribe, of which no man hath (ever) 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 priesthood (or priests; being a better-supported reading than the Textus Receptus ). This is spoken of as evident (i.e. plain to all, ), not only because of the well-known prophecies that the Messiah was to spring from David, but still more (as is shown by the perfect , pointing to an accomplished fact, and by the expression, ) because Jesus, recognized by all Christians as the Messiah, was known to have so sprung. For it is to Christian believers, with whatever Jewish prejudices, not to unbelieving Jews, that the Epistle is addressed. It is important to observe that the Davidic descent of our Lord is spoken of as an acknowledged fact, not merely as an inference from prophecy. “We have here a most significant proof that the descent of Jesus from the tribe of Judah was a well and universally known fact before the destruction of Jerusalem” (Ebrard). “Illo igitur tempore nulla difficultate laborabat genealogia Jesu Christi: et hoc ipsum difficultatibus postea exortis abunde medetur” (Bengel). The verb may have been specially suggested by the prophetic figure of the Branch from the root of Jesse (see Isa 11:1; and Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12, where the LXX. has for ‘Branch:’ ); though the figure of the sunrise is more frequently meant by the word when applied to Christ’s appearance (el. Num 24:17; Isa 9:1; Ma Isa 4:2; Luk 1:78).

Heb 7:15-17

And it is yet more abundantly evident (i.e. the proposition of Heb 7:12), if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another Priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless (indissoluble) life. For it is testified (of him), Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This is a resumption of what has been already seen, put so as to be effective for the present stage of the argument. The old priesthood, and consequently the Law, is changed and superseded, not only because the Priest of the new order of things is of the tribe of Judah, but still more evidently because his priesthood is witnessed to as being one of a different kind, and of a kind so much higher and diviner. It is evident that the Antitype of Melchizedek, the subject of the hundred and tenth psalm, rather than Melchizedek himself, suggests here the language used. (Observe the contrasts between and and , and . The idea of Heb 9:8-15 is in Chose few pregnant words briefly anticipated, after the manner of the Epistle)

Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof (for the Law made nothing perfect); but [there is on the other hand] a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God. Such is certainly the construction of the sentence (not as in the A.V); , etc., in Heb 7:19 being parenthetical, and depending on in Heb 7:18. We have here the conclusion of the argument of the Heb 7:11-18, with a further expression of the inherent insufficiency of the Law, given as the reason of its supersession; reminding us of similar views of what the Law was worth frequent in St. Paul’s Epistles (of. Rom 8:3; Gal 3:10, etc). The final clause, , leads directly up to the main subject in the writer’s view, viz. the exposition of Christ’s eternal priesthood. But two proofs are first to be given of Christ’s priesthood being, unlike the Aaronic, thus eternally availing to bring us near to God. These proofs are to be found in the Divine oath which established it, and the expression, “forever,” in Psa 90:1-17., once more adduced.

Heb 7:20-22

And inasmuch as not without an oath [properly, swearing of an oath, ] he was made priest: (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith unto him, Thou art a Priest for ever); by so much of a better covenant hath Jesus become surety. The significance of the Divine oath, in connection with the promise to Abraham, has been dwelt on above: the oath of Psa 110:1-7. is here similarly referred to, as imitating a priesthood that rests on no mere temporary ordinance, but on the immutable Divine counsels. (Observe the first occurrence here of the word , introducing in the way of hint (as is usual in the Epistle) an idea to be afterwards expanded, as it is in Heb 8:1-13; Heb 9:1-28. The meaning of the word will be considered below)

Heb 7:23, Heb 7:24

And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because of being by death hindered from continuing. But he, because of his abiding forever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. This second point of contrast has already been twice touched onHeb 7:8, with respect to the claim to tithe; and Heb 7:16, with respect to the order of priesthood: here it is with especial reference to the eternal personality, and hence the perpetual and complete efficiency, of our one Priest. The repetitions are not tautological, having each time different bearings. The contrast here, as before, is between mortal men who succeed each other in the office of priesthood, and One who has the office inherent in himself forever. The word (translated “unchangeable”) is taken by some in an intransitive sense, as in margin of the A.V., that doth not pass to another, equivalent to . This, however, is not the proper force of this late Greek word, nor does the sense of the passage of necessity require it.

Heb 7:25

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. We again observe how, at the end of successive stages of the argument, thoughts to be enlarged on afterwards are brought in. Here it is the perpetual intercession of Christ before the heavenly mercy-seat. In the view of his office thus arrived at there is, in fact, a transition to the main subject set forth in the three chapters that follow; viz. the fulfillment in Christ of the ceremonial of the Law, and especially of the high priest’s intercession on the Day of Atonement. And thus from Melchizedek the train of thought passes to the high priest. The type of the former has been sufficiently shown to be fulfilled in the higher order of Christ’s priesthood; it is now to be shown how, being of such higher order, it is the antitype of the Aaronic priesthood too, accomplishing what it signified. Hence in Heb 7:26 the word “high priest” () is for the first time introduced, as the key-note of what is coming.

Summary of the foregoing argument.

I. (Heb 7:1-11) What does the Melchizedek priesthood of Psa 110:1-7. signify?

1. (Heb 7:1-4) One not depending on human ancestry, and one forever abiding.

2. (Heb 7:4-11) One of a higher order than that of Aaron; for:

(1) Melchizedek, being of a race apart, received tithe from Abraham the patriarch.

(2) This denotes a higher position than that of the Aaronic priests, who tithed their brethren of the same race with themselves, in virtue only of a special ordinance.
(3) The blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek is similarly significant.

(4) The idea of an ever-living priest with a right to tithe transcends that of the temporary claims of a succession of dying men.
(5) Levi himself virtually paid tithe to Melchizedek.

II. (Heb 7:11-18) The Aaronic priesthood, and with it the whole dispensation based upon it, is thus shown to have been imperfect and transitory; for:

1. Otherwise a priesthood of another order would not have been spoken of in Psa 110:1-7.

2. Which priesthood is evidently distinct from the Aaronic, our Lord being of the tribe, not of Levi, but of Judah.

3. What has been seen (Psa 110:5 and 8) as to the Melchizedek priesthood being not “after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life,” makes this “more abundantly evident.”

Conclusion (Heb 7:18-20). The Aaronic priesthood (being in itself unprofitable) is therefore now superseded by an availing one, “through which we draw nigh unto God.”

III. (Heb 7:20-26) Christ’s priesthood is thus availing; for:

1. The Divine oath (Psa 110:1-7) established it, marking it as resting on the eternal Divine counsels.

2. It is (as shown by the same psalm) “unchangeable.” The one Priest abides forever.

Conclusion (Heb 7:25). We have, therefore, in him at last, a perfectly availing and eternal interceding High Priest.

Heb 7:26

For such a High Priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. Such a High Priest, it is said, for us was fitting. The same word was used in Heb 2:10, where the humiliation of Christ was spoken of. It was there said that to make the Captain of our salvation perfect through suffering “became” Godwas befitting to what we conceive of the Divine nature. It is now said that our High Priest’s being such as is here described “became” uswas befitting to our state and needs. That he should be both human and superhuman was in all respects fittingthe one that he might be our sympathizing brother; the other that his intercession might avail. The further description of him in this verse is suggested by the qualifications of the Aaronic high priest, what they typified being realized in Christ. The high priest was by his consecration a holy person, (Le 21:6, 8, etc); he bore on his miter “Holiness to the Lord“ (Exo 39:30); he must be without personal blemish (Le 21:17, etc); he must keep himself continually from all ceremonial pollution (Lev 21:1-24. and 22); he must purify himself by a sacrifice for himself and by special ablutions before entering the holy of holies (Lev 16:1-34); when there, he was conceived as in God’s presence, apart from the world of sinners outside. Christ was not only , but , personally and inwardly holy (Christians in the New Testament are all called , but not all : for the use of which word, el. Tit 1:8; Act 2:27; Act 13:34, where it is applied to Christ, : and Rev 15:4-16:5, where it is applied to God as his special attribute, ); Christ was actually free from evil () and undefiled (). by any contact of sin; and as such he has passed to God’s actual presence (cf. , Heb 4:14), separated forever from the world of sinners.

Heb 7:27

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. The expression “daily” ( ) is not in strictness applicable to the high priest, who did not offer the daily sacrifice. The reference throughout what follows being to the high priest’s peculiar functions on the Day of Atonement, might have been expected. There are two tenable solutions:

(1) that the daily offerings of the priests are regarded as made by the high priest, who represented the whole priesthood, on the principle, qui facit per altos tacit per se;

(2) that (as is suggested by its position in the sentence) belongs not to , but only to Christ: “who has no need daily, as the high priests have yearly:” for his intercession being perpetual, an offering on his part would be needed daily, if needed at all. This view is supported by the fact that the daily sacrifices are not spoken of in the Law as including a special one in the first place for the priest’s own sin. “This he did.” Did what? Offer for his own sins as well as for the people’s? No; for, though it has been seen above (Heb 5:7) how the high priest’s offering for himself might have its counterpart in the agony, the Sinless One cannot be said to have offered for sins of his own. And, besides, he having offered himself ( ), the offering could not be for himself. We must, therefore, take “this he did” as referring only to the latter part of the preceding clause, while , answers to the former part; or as implying generally, “did all that was needed for atonement.”

Heb 7:28

For the Law maketh men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the Law, maketh the Son, perfected for evermore. With men (i.e. a succession of men; cf. Heb 7:8) having infirmity is contrasted the one Son, for ever perfected. The absence of the article before does not imply the meaning “a son;” the title denotes here, as throughout the Epistle, the peculiar Son of prophecy (see under Heb 1:1). There is here no denial of his complete humanity, though he is plainly regarded as more than man. Nor is his participation In human , in the sense explained under Heb 5:1-14., denied. His implied freedom from it may mean either that he never had any inherent in himself, none due to personal imperfection, or that now, in his exalted state, he is altogether removed from it. In both these senses the implication is true; and both may be understood; but being here opposed to (as to ), the latter sense may be conceived to have been especially in the writer’s mind. It is, in fact, our ever-living High Priest, interceding for us above, after passing through human experience, and after atonement completed, that is now being presented to our view. It is to be observed, lastly, that in this verse may be intended to bear, or at any rate to suggest, the special sense noted under Heb 5:9, and strenuously maintained by Jackson, and hence to be not incorrectly rendered by “consecrated” in the A.V; and this notwithstanding Alford’s protest against this rendering as “obliterating both sense anti analogy with Heb 2:10 and Heb 5:1.”

HOMILETICS

Heb 7:1-10

Melchizedek.

The author here returns from his long digression, and enters upon the central theme of the treatise.

I. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT MELCHIZEDEK. (Heb 7:1-3)

1. As a man.

(1) From Scripture statements. (Heb 7:1, Heb 7:2) 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. (Heb 7:3) 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 Heb 7:3 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 arehis personal parentage, his priestly pedigree, and the dates of his birth and death.

2. As a type. (Heb 7:3) 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. (Verses 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. (Verses 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””the 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 (verses 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 (verses 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. (Verse 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. (Verses 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?

Heb 7:11-28

Christ greater than Aaron.

This passage is really just a commentary on the Old Testament oracle contained in Psa 110:4. There might appropriately be prefixed to it as a motto the words, “Behold, a greater than Aaron is here.”

I. THE IMPERFECTION OF THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. (Verses 11-19) Aaron’s mediation could not satisfy justice, or pacify conscience, or sanctify the heart. All that it could do was to exhibit a faint adumbration of the ideal priesthood. The words of Psa 110:4 suggest this insufficiency, for they contain the promise of the Messianic priesthood.

1. Jesus was of other descent. (Verses 11-14) He belonged to the tribe of Judah; and not, like Aaron’s sons, to the ecclesiastical tribe of Levi. The fact of this change in itself proves the inefficacy of the hereditary Hebrew priesthood.

2. His priesthood is of everlasting duration. (Verses 15-17) The Jewish priests one by one succumbed to death; but Jesus Christ is himself “the Life,” Life resides essentially and originally in him. So his priesthood is abiding; his official dignity remains “forever.” From this it follows (verses 18, 19) that the Levitical priesthood, and the entire ceremonial law which enshrined it, have been abrogated; and in their stead has come the introduction of “a better hope”the hope of an efficient priesthood, of a dispensation both spiritual and permanent, and thus of immediate and perfect access to God.

II. THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST‘S PRIESTHOOD TO THE LEVITICAL. (Verses 20-28) Jesus is the true Priest of mankind, for whom the nations have been waiting. He is the Apostle of God to men, and the prevailing Intercessor with God for men. This passage reminds us how infinitely exalted his priesthood is above that of Aaron.

1. He was consecrated with an oath. (Verses 20-22) No Levitical priest was installed thus solemnly. The Divine oath shows the certainty and importance and immutability of the thing sworn. It reminds us that the priesthood of our Lord enters into the very substance of the everlasting covenant.

2. His priesthood is intransferable. (Verses 23-25) The Levitical priesthood had this defect, that it required to be conveyed from one man to another. But, although Christ died, his death did not “hinder him from continuing;” it did not even temporarily interrupt the exercise of his priesthood. For he died voluntarily. He laid himself as Victim upon the altar. And, by dying, he conquered death, through the power of his indissoluble life. So, his mediatorial authority is intransferable.

3. His character is holy. (Verse 26) The Levitical priests had “infirmity,” and needed to offer sacrifices first for their own sins. Even the most pious men among them had been, of course, morally imperfect; and some of the high priestssuch as Caiaphaswho were not godly men, had been notorious for their wickedness. But “the High Priest of our confession” has a pure nature. He lived on earth a stainless life. He was “separated from sinners;” i.e. he showed on every side of his character that he belonged to another category than that of sinners. And his spotless holiness was in the fullest harmony with our spiritual need; it was, indeed, indispensably necessary, and in every way most “becoming” and beautiful, in relation to us.

4. His sacrifice is perfect. (Verses 27, 28) The Jewish priests had to offer up sacrifices “daily””the same sacrifices year by year”with laborious and wearisome iteration. But the one sacrifice of Christ is in itself all-sufficient to expiate guilt, cleanse the conscience, and purify the soul. His blood has virtue to atone, for it is the blood of God.

5. He ministers in the real sanctuary. (Verses 26, 28) Aaron’s ministry was carried on in a moving tent of curtain-work and wood-worka tent, too, which seems to have had no pavement but the naked ground. His successors, likewise, served in what was at best a perishable “sanctuary of this world.” But Jesus now ministers in “heaven itself,” the most holy place of the new covenant. (The apostle emphasizes this point in Heb 8:1-6)

In conclusion, let us reflect upon this central thought of the passagethe immortal heavenly life of our High Priest. He is a Divine person; and his Divine nature is the basis of his “endless life.” Hence the perfection of his power to save.

Heb 7:25

Salvation to the uttermost.

The chief point in this verse is our High Priest’s ability to save, and the guarantee which his perpetual intercession affords regarding that ability. What does this continual intercession certify? Four things.

I. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF MERIT. The Savior’s merit arises from what he is, from what he became, and from what he has done. His intercession is just a continual development of the exhaustless efficacy of his life-work. Our Priest is the eternal Son of God clothed in human nature. His work on earth was both active and passive: he obeyed and he suffered. He perfectly fulfilled the Law, and he fully endured the penalty due to our disobedience. Upon the union of this doing and dying the great structure of our Intercessor’s ability of merit is sustained. The infinitude of his Divine nature invests his offering with boundless value. By his “obedience unto death” he sheathed the sword of justice in the heart of mercy. And, when he had done this, he went boldly up to heaven, sprinkled the golden altar there with his blood, and took his place in the midst of the throne. The fact of his intercession as our risen and glorified Savior shows that the satisfaction which he has made for sin is perfect.

II. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF RIGHT. A true priest must receive his appointment from God. So, our Lord’s session at the right hand of the Father is in itself an evidence of the validity of his intercession. We know, however, that God appointed him to his office with a solemn oath (Psa 110:4). He said to him, on the day when he constituted him Priest-King, “Ask of me” (Psa 2:8), thus expressly authorizing his intercession. We cannot fathom the mystery of the atonement; but it is enough to know that Christ’s sacred blood was shed for our salvation by Divine appointment; and we are persuaded that, had it not possessed merit enough for its purpose, it would never have been shed at all. Jesus sits upon his priestly throne, and does his priestly work, by Divine right.

III. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF INFLUENCE. He possesses not only merit and right, but also power. He is “a Priest upon his throne.” And it was more than a mere external statute that set him there. Christ is our Intercessor in virtue of “the power of an endless life.” These words are emphatic, “He ever liveth.” He conducts our cause in heaven, as our Advocate, in the strength of the imperishable life which he has possessed from eternity. Enthroned in glory, he has yet power upon earth, for he has sent down to us his Holy Spirit. This gift is the direct fruit of his sacrifice and intercession. While the Savior intercedes without us, his Spirit intercedes within us. The work of the “other Paraclete” is complementary of that of the first. The Holy Ghost within our minds and hearts bestows all the communications of grace, and conducts all the preparations for glory; but he does so as the agent of the Lord Jesus, and his work is dependent upon our High Priest’s constant pleadings at the bar of God.

IV. HE HAS THE ABILITY OF SYMPATHY. Even as God, the Savior can sympathize with us; for our nature was formed in the likeness of our Maker, so that man belongs to the same order of being as God himself. But our necessities demanded more than the sympathy of God. How sweet, then, to remember that our High Priest is also a man! He is a woman’s Son, and therefore in a true sense one of ourselves. His earthly life was full of experiences substantially the same as ours; so that he knows our difficulties and sorrows and temptations. He is careful to adapt his perpetual intercessions to the currents of individual experience. Believers can approach him with confidence in the spirit of the exquisite lines

“Thou our throbbing flesh hast worn,
Thou our mortal griefs hast borne,
Thou hast shed the human tear:
Gracious Son of Mary, hear!”

(Milman)

Amidst his unparalleled exaltation, the Man Christ Jesus does not forget the humblest of his people. Our High Priest has every name that is dear to him engraven upon his breastplatewritten upon the imperishable tablet of his loving heart.

CONCLUSION.
1. Let us retain Jesus as our Advocate.

2. Let us tell him our whole ease, and commit it unreservedly into his hands.

3. Let us be sure of his ability successfully to plead the cause of his clients.

Heb 7:20

Separated from sinners.

This verse exhibits in a strong clear light the moral purity of our High Priest, and its becomingness in relation to the necessities of his people.

I. THE HOLINESS OF CHRIST. He was born without; entail of birth-sin. His boyhood and youth were stainless. His manhood was one of sinless perfection. His friends regarded him as faultless. His enemies testified to his purity (Pilate, Judas, the devils whom he east out). Jesus himself claimed to be holy (Joh 8:46; Joh 14:30); and he never confessed sin, or begged forgiveness. The voice of his Father from heaven attested him, once and again, to be the Holy One of God. (Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5). Notice:

1. The elements of his holiness. Three adjectives are used, referring to three different departments of moral character.

(1) “Holy,” i.e. pious in relation to God. Jesus lived the life of ideal godliness. He perfectly obeyed “the great and first commandment”the four “words” of the first table of the Law.

(2) “Guileless,” i.e. just and kind towards his fellow-men. Jesus perfectly observed the six precepts cf. the second table. He injured no one. He “went about doing good.”

(3) “Undefiled,” i.e. personally pure; uncontaminated by his constant contact with sinful men; holy in the midst of sin, temptation, and suffering.

2. The singularity of his holiness. “Separated from sinners.” This phrase sustains a relation of contrast to the three adjectives. It indicates the unique character and the matchless harmony of the Savior’s moral life. It expresses his solitariness in his holiness. If the human race be divided into two classesthe sinners and the holyall the rest of mankind must take rank as sinners, while Jesus stands by himself as the one human being who was holy.

3. The reward of his holiness. “Made higher than the heavens.” His supreme exaltation has set him more visibly apart from other men than before. It was conferred upon him as the reward of his pure, unworldly, self-sacrificing life. His mediatorial throne has been erected in the new heavens of the new covenant, and these are higher than any heavens formerly known to mankind.

II. THE NECESSITY OF CHRIST‘S HOLINESS IN RELATION TO OUR SALVATION. “Such a High Priest became us.” In Heb 2:10 we read of what in this connection “became” God; here, of what “became” man. The purity of the Redeemer was admirably adapted to the necessities of our condition.

1. That he might be a true manifestation of God. A priest is a mediator or middle-man between God and men; and it is indispensable that he should be in perfect sympathy with the purity of the Eternal. Holiness is the crown and flower of the Divine perfections; and it was needful that our priest should reflect that holiness in his own character.

2. That his sacrifice might be an adequate atonement for sin. He must be on the very best of terms with the God whom we have offended. His expiation must be satisfactory to Divine justice. It is impossible that Jesus could have atoned for us had he been himself morally infirm, like the Jewish high priest, tie could only purchase our reconciliation by offering himself as a Victim, without spot or blemish, upon the altar.

3. That he might leave us a perfect example. The Christian life consists in the imitation of Christ. Believers follow him in the three great departments of moral excellence in which he was so absolutely pure. We ought to copy him also in his separatedness from the world. Indeed, his people should already be in spirit, through their oneness of character with their risen Lord, “made higher than the heavens?

HOMILIES BY W. JONES

Heb 7:1-3

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. Heb 7:13-17; 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”wine 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. (Heb 7:6, Heb 7:7). 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, Php 2:11).

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.

Heb 7:16

The constitution of our great High Priest.

“Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment,” etc. In this verse there is a triple antithesis; law is antithetical to power, commandment to life, and carnal to indissoluble. This suggests the following observations concerning the priesthood of Jesus Christ. He became Priest

I. NOT BY THE OPERATION OF LITERAL “LAW,” BUT BECAUSE OF HIS SPIRITUAL “POWER.” Law in the text is the Levitical Law, with the fulfillment of which the Jewish priests had so much to do. It was a thing of the lettera written thing; it possessed no inherent power; it could impart no spiritual power. By this law the priests of the Judaic economy were constituted. But our Lord was constituted a priest, not by this law, but because of his own spiritual energy. He was in himself perfectly fitted for the high functions of this holy office. Because he was a Divine Being, he had power to represent God to man; because he was a human being, he had power to represent man to God. Inexhaustible spiritual strength is in him for the renewal of the lost moral power of those whose High Priest he is. Because he has power to redeem, sympathize with, succor, and save men, he was made the great High Priest for men.

II. NOT BY AN EXTERNAL “COMMANDMENT,” BUT BY HIS INHERENT LIFE? The “commandment” is that part of the Levitical law which ordered the institution and succession of the priesthood. By this statute the descendants of Aaron were appointed priests, irrespective of their personal character and qualifications for the office. But Jesus was made a priest, not by that commandment, but contrary to it, seeing that he was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah. It was because of his inner life that he was constituted the High Priest of humanity. Being what he was and is, he could do no other than take up our cause, suffer for us, die for us, and appear as our Representative with the Father. This truth is forcibly expressed by Dr. Bushnell: “Vicarious sacrifice belongs to no office or undertaking outside of holy character, but to holy character itself. Such is love that it must insert itself into the conditions, burden itself with the wants, and woes, and losses, and even wrongs, of others. It waits for no atoning office, or any other kind of office. It undertakes because it is love, not because a project is raised or an office appointed. It goes into suffering and labor and painful sympathy, because its own everlasting instinct runs that way The true and simple account of Christ’s suffering is, that he had such a heart as would not suffer him to be turned away from us, and that he suffered for us even as love must willingly suffer for its enemy. The beauty and power of his sacrifice is, that he suffers morally and because of his simple excellence, and not to fill a contrived place in a scheme of legal justification. He scarcely minds how much he suffers or how, if only he can do love’s work.” Because of his perfect purity, and infinite love and unspeakable compassion, he necessarily became the great High Priest of the human race.

III. NOT AS A TEMPORARY FUNCTION, BUT AS A PERMANENT RELATION. They who were made priests “after the law of a carnal commandment” were priests only for a time. One generation performed the duties of the office for a number of years, and then was succeeded in those duties by another generation, which in its turn would also pass away. “But after the power of an indissoluble life” our Savior was made a priest. He is “a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” By its nature his life is perpetual; and he continues forever as our Representative with God (cf. Heb 7:23-25). Because of the perfection of this priesthood, human salvation in glorious fullness is attainable. Laws and ceremonies alone could not work out for us any real deliverance from sin, or work in us any true and progressive spiritual life. We need vitality and power in any system or person who would render to us effective help. And in this aspect “the priesthood of Christ,” as Bushnell says, “is graduated by the wants and measures of the human soul; the endless life in which he comes matches and measures the endless life in mankind whose fall he is to restore; providing a salvation as strong as their sin, and as long or lasting as the run of their immortality. He is able thus to save unto the uttermost.” His life is reproductive. His power is communicable. He imparts spiritual energy to those who by faith are one with him. Apart from him we can do nothing. We can do all things in him that strengtheneth us.W.J.

Heb 7:19

The inability and capability of the Law.

“For the Law made nothing perfect,” etc. The Law spoken of is the ceremonial Law, as we see from the preceding verse. The moral Law is not disannulled in Christianity. Its authority is maintained, its sanctions are corroborated by our Lord. But the ceremonial Law was abrogated by Christ. It found its fulfillment, and so was done away in Christianity. Notice

I. THE INABILITY OF THE LAW. It was weak and unprofitable; it made nothing perfect.

1. It awakened the consciousness of guilt, but it had no power to remove that consciousness. Its sacrifices proclaimed man a sinner and needing atonement with God; but they would not ease the conscience of its sad sense of sin, or inspire the peace of forgiveness in the troubled breast.

2. It showed the necessity of mediation between God and man, but it made no satisfactory provision for theft necessity. The people had to approach the Most High through the priests; the priests alone must offer their sacrifices; the priests alone had access to the holy place of the tabernacle and the temple. The office of the priesthood exhibited the need of mediation, but it was not an adequate answer to that need. The Judaic priests were themselves sinners; they needed to offer sacrifices for themselves; they were mortal and passed away by death, even as other men.

3. It presented a true ideal of life and conduct, but it afforded no help for the attainment of that ideal. The Law condemns sin; it commands righteousness. But how shall we obey its commands? “To will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice.” Can the Law help us in this need? Can it inspire us with strength to do the true and the good? It has no power to convert, or strengthen, or sanctity the soul. It shows us our obligation, but it affords us no help to discharge it. “What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,” etc. (Rom 8:3, Rom 8:4).

II. THE CAPABILITY OF THE Law. “The Law made nothing perfect, but it was the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God.” We adopt the rendering of the margin of the Authorized Version, and the interpretation of Calvin, Ebrard, et al., that the Law made nothing perfect, but it prepared the way for the better hope. This hope is the gospel hope; the hope which has been brought in by our great High Priest. The Law led the way to this. “The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” “A large picture-book,” as Dr. Binney says, “was put before the scholars in the splendid objects of the Levitical institute. The series of things included in this was like a series of prints arranged in order, bound and gilded, and spread before the young, wondering eyes of a number of children. The altar with its fire and blood; the laver with its purifying contents; the sacrifice with the penitent putting upon it his sin, or lifting his eyes and his hands to heaven; the priest in the garments expressive of humiliation, or in his gorgeous robes of ‘glory and beauty; ‘-these things, with many others that might be specified, were all like so many significant objects, vividly portrayed on the several leaves of an immense picture-book. By familiarity with them the minds of the learners were gradually to open to the spiritual idea contained in each; or were to be prepared for apprehending it when, ‘in the fullness of time,’ it should be revealed With new views of the central figure, so much the theme of prophetic song, and the object of national desire, the whole of the Levitical system undergoes a change. It comes to have an intention, to be looked at as constructed for a purpose, which gives to it a deeper and diviner significance than was at first suspected. Priest and sacrifice, altar and propitiation, cease to be realities; they are understood to be only shadows and signs of what was to be found substantially in the person and work, the acts and offices of the great High Priest of our profession.” This hope, for which the Law prepared the way, was better than any which the Law could inspire.

1. It is clearer as to its object. The Christian hopes for perfection of being; for holiness of heart and life here, and for heaven hereafter. These things are brought into clearer light in this gospel age than they were under the Law.

2. It is firmer in its foundation. It rests upon Jesus Christ. He is the Rock upon which our confidence and expectation are based. He has revealed God the Father unto us. He has rendered perfect obedience to the holy Law. He offered himself a Sacrifice for sin, of infinite and perpetual efficacy. He ever liveth to represent us in heaven, whither he has entered as our Forerunner. He is “a tried Stone, a sure Foundation” for the hopes of men to rest upon.

3. It is more blessed in its influence. “Through which we draw nigh unto God.” The Judaic priesthood tended to make men feel their distance from God, and to keep them at a distance. The priesthood of Jesus Christ brings men near unto him. We need not now the human priest and the bleeding victim for our acceptable approach to the Divine Father. Through the Savior we may draw nigh unto him in our penitence for sin, and obtain forgiveness; in our consecration to him, and meet with gracious acceptance; in the presentation of our needs to him, and receive suitable and abundant supplies; and in hallowed communion with him, and find in it the foretaste and earnest of heaven.W.J.

Heb 7:25

Christ’s perfect power to save.

“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost,” etc. The text suggests the following observations:

I. THAT CHRIST‘S SAVING POWER IS INFINITE. “He is able to save them to the uttermost.” Notice:

1. The nature of this salvation. It may be viewed:

(1) Negatively. It is deliverance from sin; not merely from the punishment of sin, but from its guilt, its pollution, and its power.

(2) Positively. It is the conference of eternal life. By eternal life we do not mean endless existence, for that may become a curse; but lifeholy, harmonious, progressive, blessed, perpetual life. “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life.” “The salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

2. The perfection of this salvation. “Able to save to the uttermost.” The word rendered “uttermost’ does not refer to the duration, but to the perfection, the completeness, of this salvation. Both by its etymology and by its place in the argument it is the exact antithesis of the first clause in Heb 7:19. “The Law made nothing perfect;” but “he is able to save perfectly,” or to completeness, “them that come unto God by him.” The perfection of his saving power authorizes the assertion that he is able to save:

(1) The most wicked characters. Saul of Tarsus was “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious;” he spake of himself as chief of sinners; yet he obtained mercy, and became a most devoted disciple and most heroic apostle of Jesus Christ. The dying robber is another example (Luk 23:42, Luk 23:43). Degraded drunkards, profane swearers, groveling misers, willful unbelievers, cruel oppressors, in countless numbers have been saved by him. None are so deeply sunk in the horrible pit of sin as to be beyond the reach of the long and strong arm of the perfect Savior. He is “mighty to save.”

(2) The greatest numbers. On the day of Pentecost three thousand souls were converted and added to the Christian Church. St. John in vision “beheld a great multitude, which no man could number,” etc. (Rev 7:9, Rev 7:10). He is able to save countless millions. Were the number of sinners multiplied a thousandfold he would still be able to save them.

(3) To the most glorious condition. He does not leave his work in man incomplete. “He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” “He which began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ.” How glorious must that character be which he has perfected! “We shall be like him.” “We shall ever be with the Lord.” We shall enter into his joy; we shall sit down with him upon his throne.

II. THAT CHRIST‘S SAVING POWER IS GUARANTEED BY THE PERPETUITY OF HIS PRIESTLY OFFICE. “Wherefore also he is able to save them to the uttermost seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” The chief meaning of “to make intercession” is to appear as the representative of another, being moved to do so by feeling for him or with him. Our Savior’s intercession for us does not mean that he is pleading our cause with One who is ill disposed toward us, and needs to be placated by him; or that he is supplicating blessings for us from One who is unwilling to bestow them (Joh 16:26, Joh 16:27). But he does represent us with the great Father, and he is deeply and tenderly identified with us in feeling. He represents us because he sympathizes with us. But in our text, as Alford points out, the intercession “implies the whole mediatorial work, which the exalted Savior performs for his own with his heavenly Father, either by reference to his past death of blood by which he has bought them for himself, or by continued intercession for them.” Christ’s perpetual intercession signifies that:

1. The efficacy of his work for men is perpetual. The great truths which he enunciated concerning life and duty, sin and salvation, holiness and God, are vital and powerful now as ever they were. His redemptive work accomplished upon earth is as efficacious now as ever it was. His atoning death for us has lost none of its ancient power to touch and subdue, to convert and sanctify, the soul of man. “The word of the cross is the power of God” still to save them that believe.

2. The efficacy of his work in men is perpetual. Our Savior makes intercession with us as well as for us. He speaks and works within us for our salvation. By his Holy Spirit he encourages and strengthens his people. The Spirit guards us from error and guides us into truth; he restrains us from the wrong and inspires us for the right, etc. Here, then, is the guarantee of the abiding perfection of Christ’s saving power: he is our perpetual representative with the Divine Father; the efficacy of his redeeming work and the merit of his sacrificial death are unabated; and by his Spirit he is still a living presence and power amongst men.

III. THAT CHRIST‘S SAVING POWER IS MADE AVAILABLE ON THE SIMPLEST CONDITION. “To save them that draw near unto God through him.” Moral approach to God through the mediation of Jesus Christ is the condition upon which this salvation is bestowed. It is implied that man is morally remote from God. “Your iniquities have separated between you and your God.” “Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” If we would be saved we must draw near unto him.

1. The nature of this approach. It is not merely intellectualthe apprehension of the truth concerning him. It is a sympathetic and vital approach to him. It is coming to him in humble penitence for our sin that we may obtain forgiveness; in grateful affection to him for his great love towards us; and in earnest desire to obey and serve him.

2. The medium of this approach. “Through him,” i.e. Jesus Christ; because

(1) he removes the obstacles which prevented our approach to God. Our guilty fears, and our unworthy suspicions concerning the Father, he banishes.

(2) He presents attractions which encourage our approach to God. He reveals the willingness of the heavenly Father to receive and welcome and bless us. “Jesus saith, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by Me.” Thus our subject supplies strong encouragement

(1) to the Christian believer to “press on unto perfection;” and

(2) to the awakened sinner to draw near unto God through Christ in assured hope of complete salvation.W.J.

Heb 7:26-28

The High Priest in whom man’s need is met.

“For such a High Priest became us, holy, harmless,” etc. By way of introduction let us glance at three truths which are either expressed or implied in the text.

1. That man needs a high priest.

(1) As the offerer of sacrifices on his behalf. The awakened conscience, sensible of its guilt, feeling that sin merits suffering, cries out for sacrifice for its sin.

(2) As his representative with God. The sinner who is alive to his own character and condition feels that be needs some one to represent him with the holy God.

2. That the high priest who would satisfactorily meet man’s need should possess certain qualities, Any priest will not do. There should be a fitness between the holder of the office and the duties of the officebetween the priesthood and the human needs to which it would minister.

3. That these qualities are found in Jesus Christ. His priesthood answers to man’s needs. “Such a High Priest became us,” i.e. was suitable to us, was appropriate to our condition and need. Let us now look at the qualities which render our Savior the appropriate High Priest for man, as they are here specified. It is important to remember that some essential attributes of our great High Priest have already been mentioned in this Epistle (Heb 4:15).

I. HE IS PERFECT IN HIS CHARACTER. “For such a High Priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled,” etc.

1. Holy. Our Lord was truly and inwardly holy. His holiness did not consist merely in his consecration to his office, but in the perfect sanctification of his whole being. The Jewish high priest had “Holiness to the Lord” inscribed upon his miter; but in Christ it was interwoven with every fiber of his being, and stamped upon every expression of his life.

2. Harmless. The Jewish high priest was sinless only in this way, that he offered sacrifice for his own sin before offering for the sins of the people, and that he cleansed himself ceremonially before appearing before God on behalf of others. But Jesus was perfectly free from sin. In all his relations with men he was guileless. And no wrong was ever done by him in any way to any one.

3. Undefiled. Sin is a polluting thing. Ceremonial purity was required in the Jewish high priests. But our Lord was undefiled both legally and morally. In thought and feeling, in word and action, in inward heart and. outward life, he was stainless. The Jewish high priests needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins; but our great High Priest had no personal guilt to expiate, or sins to confess, or impurities to purge.

4. Separate from sinners. The Jewish high priest was required scrupulously to refrain from association with any person who was ceremonially unclean (Le 21:10-15). Our Lord was “separated from sinners.” We do not regard this as meaning local separation. He did not shun association with sinners during his life upon earth. It was charged against him by the self-righteous religionists of his day, “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” “They murmured, saying, He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner.” “A friend of publicans and sinners.” His separation from sinners was far higher and diviner than any merely local or physical isolation. “Christ in his intercourse with sinners,” as Ebrard says, “remained inwardly free from all participation in their sinfulness, inwardly untouched by its contagion; notwithstanding that he mingled with men in all their varieties of character and situation, he yet never let drop, for a moment, that inner veil of chaste holiness which separated him from sinners. This is what is meant by the expression, ‘separate from sinners.'” His moral health was so vigorous, his spiritual purity so intense, that he could associate with the morally corrupt and degraded without contracting even the slightest moral defilement. How sublime is our great High Priest in the perfection of his character! Of all the sons of men, of him alone can it be said that he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners.” How immeasurably superior is he to Aaron and every other Jewish high priest! Their perfection was only ceremonial and symbolical; they were “men having infirmity;” they were liable to sin; they were subject to death, and to the termination of their priesthood. But our Savior had no moral infirmity. In his character and conduct, in his person and office, he was gloriously perfect. He is now “perfected for evermore.”

II. HE IS PERFECT IN HIS POSITION. “And made higher than the heavens.” This exalted position which our great Representative occupies has already engaged our attention (see on Heb 1:3; Heb 2:9; and cf. Heb 8:1; Php 2:9; Rev 5:12).

III. HE IS PERFECT IN HIS SACRIFICE. “He needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices,” etc.

1. The value of the offering. “He offered up himself.” Alford has pointed out that “this is the first place in the Epistle where mention is made of Christ’s having offered himself. Henceforward it becomes more and more familiar to the reader: ‘once struck, the note sounds on ever louder and louder’ (Delitzsch).” The value of this offering is seen in two things:

(1) The sacrifice which was offered”himself.” Not a thing, but a person; not a sinful person, but the “holy, harmless, undefiled” Onethe richest, most beneficent, and most blessed personal life.

(2) The spirit in which this sacrifice was offered. Our Savior was both the Sacrifice and the Priest; both the Offering and the Offerer. And his sacrifice was a voluntary one. He freely “gave himself a ransom for all” (cf. Joh 10:17, Joh 10:15).

2. The finality of the offering. “This he did once for all, when he offered up himself.” His sacrifice will never be repeated.

(1) Its repetition is not necessary. The Jewish sacrifices had to be repeated day after day and year after year, because they were imperfect. But the sacrifice of our great High Priest is complete, gloriously and perpetually efficacious, and needs no repetition, and admits of neither improvement nor addition.

(2) Its repetition is not possible. When Christ appears again it will be, not in humiliation, but in glory; not as the great Sacrifice, but as the supreme Sovereign.W.J.

HOMILIES BY C. NEW

Heb 7:1-10

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 (Psa 110:1-7. and Gen 14:1-24) 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.

SubjectChrist 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 priestone 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 circlethe 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 bothpriestly 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 offeringsand “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.

Heb 7:11-25

Further proofs of the superiority of Christ’s priesthood involved in the symbol of Melchizedek.

Note: The word “Law” in Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12, Heb 7:19 must not be understood to refer to the Jewish system, but simply to the code of regulations by which the priesthood was appointed. The apostle is thinking throughout the chapter, not of the Jewish dispensation, but of the priesthood. The expression, “weak and unprofitable,” does not imply that there was failure in God’s former method. The regulations about the Jewish priesthood were intended to be “weak and unprofitable;” that was their benefit. Only thus could they lead on to the heavenly things they foreshadowed.

I. CONSIDER THE PROOFS IN THIS PASSAGE OF THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST‘S PRIESTHOOD. They are all based on Psa 110:4.

1. The Divine appointment of a second priesthood by a different mode proves its superiority to the former. (Verses 11-18) Their Scriptures declared that the Messiah did come from a different tribe to Aaron, and was appointed Priest on a different principle; not by a mere physical arrangementsonship to another, a “carnal commandment,” or regulationbut by his own inherent life. Since God could not remove what was perfect, or supersede a good arrangement by a worse, that which appeared to take the place of the old was necessarily superior to it.

2. The greater solemnity of the appointment of this second priesthood proves its superiority to the former. (Verses 20-22) Aaron and his sons were appointed by a simple revelation of the Divine will (Exo 28:1). The terms of the appointment of Jesus are”The Lord sware, and will not repent.” When God purposed what was not to change he confirmed it by an oath, and probably the Jews understood that well. God is “never represented in Scripture as swearing to anything but what is fixed and immutable” (Dr. Brown). The fact that Christ was made priest not without an oath shows that his priesthood was of supreme importance.

3. The eternal permanence of this second priesthood Troves its superiority to the former. (Verses 23-25) The Jewish priests were subject to human frailties and imperfections; their term of service swiftly passed, and their place was taken by another. Indeed, the whole family might be exterminated (specially when at first, in the wilderness, it consisted of but five men) by pestilence, crime, or war, and Israel would find itself, as today, with no priest, no atonement, no mercy-seat, no mediator. That shows the inadequacy of that priesthood. But Christ is High Priest forever “according to the power of an indissoluble life.” How superior to that which is according to the flesh! “All flesh is grass.”

II. GLANCE AT SOME OF THE PRACTICAL TRUTHS INVOLVED IN THIS SUPERIORITY.

1. That the Aaronic priesthood is superseded by the priesthood of Christ. The Romish doctrine that an order of men, on the mythical ground that they can trace their succession to the apostles, are the appointed mediators between God and man, is a repetition of the Levitical system. But this priesthood is unnecessary, since Christ is in every point superior to it, and they who have Jesus do not need Aaron. Moreover, this carnal, genealogical priesthood is abolished by God, and shown to have been only a temporary expedient at the best.

2. That what the old dispensation did for a few, the Christian does for all. In the Old Testament the priests are those who draw nigh to God (e.g. Le Psa 10:3) whilst the multitude stood without. Contrast verse 10. “We” who are not of Levi’s tribe, but simply believers in Christ, may now enter the Holiest of allthat is, we are all priests. Christ’s high priesthood involves the priesthood of all believers. “Those who draw nigh to God ‘is the Christian name.

3. That what the ceremonial law could not do, Jesus can. Whilst the Levitical system was “weak and unprofitable,” the priesthood of Jesus brought in a system that was perfect. The perfection of a priestly system consisted in its ability to bring men unto God. Men are crying, “Nearer, my God, to thee,” in vain, because they seek it through human aid, religious ceremonies, legal observances; they have gone back to Judaism, which is dead and cannot help them. Now let them try Jesus. Where Aaron fails, Jesus succeeds. “He is able to save them to,” etc.C.N.

Heb 7:26-28

Christ’s superiority in the infinite perfection of his personal character.

The second great argument for Christ’s superiority to Aaron. The reason for the introduction of this argument here is probably that the writer is still thinking of Psa 110:1-7. The psalm speaks of Christ exalted to the highest heavenly position, and as a Priest for ever. Of both these points the echo rings out here in verses 26 and 28. Here is sharply drawn the picture of our Lord’s personal perfection in a few carefully moderate words (for it is a delicate subject), and the conclusion is apparent. (Note on word “daily” in verse 27. The high priest did not “daily” offer sin offerings; the morning and evening sacrifices were not offered by the high priest, nor were they sacrifices for sin but in a secondary sense, as they were burnt offerings. The great expiatory sacrifice offered by the high priest was on the Day of Atonement. The word “daily” here must mean day after day; one day of atonement after another)

I. THE PERSONAL PERFECTION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. “Holy, harmless,” etc.so many aspects of the sinlessness of Jesus. The Hebrew probably saw here what was true of the high priest symbolically, spoken of Jesus literally. The one had inscribed on his forehead “Holiness unto the Lord,” which he had in symbol; the other was “the Holy One of God.” The one was harmless (literally, “without evil”), for he could not offer for others till his own sin was expiated, but that was only an imputed sinlessness; the other had no sins to offer for. The one was “undefiled,” obliged to be ceremonially clean; the other was in himself “without blemish and without spot.” The one was “separate from sinners,” excluded for seven days before the Day of Atonement even from his own family, but this was only physical; the other was able to say,” I am not of the world.”

1. The personal perfection of Jesus as seen in his manifested purity. “Holy,” etc., represents his purity from different standpoints. “Holy,” as regards his relation to God; “harmless,” his relation to man; “undefiled,” his relation to himself; “separate,” etc., the sum of the whole. In every direction Jesus was without sin. And so much was apparent to the men of his day. His enemies, his relatives, his disciples, all bear witness to this. He could ask of all, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?”

2. The perfection of Jesus is seen in his personal consciousness of sinlessness. “Who needeth not,” etc. Christ offered no sacrifice for himself. He always distinguished between himself and sinners. “If ye [not ‘we’], being evil;” “I do always those things which,” etc; “I have glorified thee on the earth;” “Why hast thou forsaken me?” Christ knew he was holy, and that proves that he was; for confessedly he was, at least, the best of men, and the holier a man becomes the more sensible he is of failure.

3. The perfection of Jesus is seen in the Father’s endorsement of it. “He was made higher than the heavens.” Consider that in connection with Christ’s claim to be sinless. His resurrection and ascension and enthronement are the highest pledge of the perfection he asserted for himself.

II. THIS PERSONAL PERFECTION WAS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A PERFECT HIGH PRIEST. “Such a High Priest became us.” Our needs are beyond the help of any one less.

1. The first function of the high priest was to offer sacrifice. Then observe how Christ’s holiness perfects him as a Sacrifice. He could not have atoned for others if he had sins of his own; but the offering of the Holy One had an inestimable worth. That, at least, vindicates the Law, and pays the sinner’s debt, however great.

2. The next function of the high priest was intercession. Then observe how Christ’s holiness perfects him as an Intercessor. We can trust in no mediator till we know he is on good terms with the king. Because Christ is the Holy One of God, he has perpetual access to the Father; his will and the Father’s are the same, and the Father delights in granting his request. Jesus can never be refused.

3. The third function of the high priest was to instruct. Then observe how Christ’s holiness perfects him as a Teacher. It is in his holiness we learn what most of all we need to knowGod’s will about us. We look at Jesus, and there it is. Moreover, looking at him produces the same holiness in us, for looking we become like.

III. THUS PERFECTED, CHRIST IS DECLARED BY THE DIVINE OATH TO BE HIGH PRIEST FOREVER. “The word of the oath,” etc. Notice how many perfect things are set forth here.

1. A perfect Sacrifice for sin. “By one offering he hath for ever,” etc.

2. A perfect High Priest to impart the benefits of that Sacrifice. Our tendency is to dwell on Christ’s earthly life, or on his death; but the Epistles dwell most on his present life. And that is the view of our Lord he desires us to keep most prominent: “I am he that liveth,” etc; “Therefore he is able to save,” etc.

3. A perfect promise that Christ will do all this. “Will,” for all who will let him, for all “who come unto God by him,” i.e. for all who take him to be their High Priest. God pledges his oath for that. How needlessly men are lost! They are not called to risk their soul on a trifle!C. N.

HOMILIES BY J.S. BRIGHT

Heb 7:1-3

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.

Heb 7:4-10

Christ superior to Melchizedek.

I. THE GREATNESS OF OUR LORD IS FORESHADOWED BY MELCHIZEDEK‘S RECEIVING TITHES FROM ABRAHAM. As the representative of Jehovah, Abraham paid tithes to this distinguished priest. There is here an instance of that corporate principle which appears in the writings of Paul, who affirms that by the sin of Adam there came upon the race spiritual loss and exposure to death; and by the appearance and glorious work of our Lord many are made righteous now, and obtain grace which reigns unto eternal life. Abraham here represents the Jewish people and the Jewish priesthood, who in the person of their illustrious ancestor acknowledges the authority of Melchizedek, who was the type of the Son of God. It was an impressive argument for the unrivalled glory of Christ as a Priest that the tribe of Levi paid tithes to him who foreshadowed him whose name is above every name. Reverting to the absence of all mention of Melchizedek’s death on the sacred page, there is a contrast supplied between the Levites who receive tithes and die, but, as they pass through their ministry, pay tithes representatively to him of whom “it is witnessed that he liveth.” Being once upon the right track, the writer discovers abundant proofs of the superiority of Christ to all the priesthood of the earthly temple, and finds the fulfillment of the words of him who promised the gift of the Holy Spirit in those memorable words, “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you” (Joh 16:14).

II. THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST TYPIFIED BY MELCHIZEDEK‘S OFFICIAL ACT OF BLESSING ABRAHAM. The object of this branch of the argument is to show the preeminence of the type, and consequently the glory of the Antitype. Melchizedek blessed Abraham (Gen 14:19, Gen 14:20) in an act of solemn prayer to the most high God. There is one ritual form of blessing which was pronounced by Aaron and his sons in these words: “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace” (Num 6:24-26). The word “to bless,” in Hebrew, is derived from a root which signifies” to bend the knee,” and therefore to bow before him who invokes the blessing of Jehovah, which “maketh rich, and addeth no sorrow therewith.” The less is blessed of the better in office, spiritual dignity, and connection with the resources of Heaven. The Hebrew Christians must see, as we may see, how arguments, illustrations, and typical events multiply to increase our confidence in him upon whose head are the many crowns of realized type, fulfilled prediction, and official glory. The last glimpse of our Lord’s earthly life seems to give the finishing touch to this subject. “For it came to pass, while he blessed his disciples, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven” (Luk 24:51).B.

Heb 7:11-14

A Divine priesthood.

I. THE DIVINE WISDOM JUSTIFIED BY THE APPOINTMENT OF A PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK, The argument is, that if perfection had been realized by the Law of Moses there would have been no change in the methods of worship and the order of the ministry. It is not consistent with the wisdom of God to do and undo, and to repair imperfections and supply deficiencies by after-thoughts and supplementary arrangements. The true and Divine purpose of the Law of Moses was to prepare for something better. It was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. The Jews still cling to it as an unchangeable institution, and refuse to leave the wilderness of Sinai for the Canaan of gospel light and privilege. The prediction which referred to another Priest who should be after the order of Melchizedek was a proof that the Aaronic ministry was provisional, and therefore another order was necessary to harmonize with that reign of grace, unexampled wealth of privilege, and cheering prospects of eternal life which the gospel provides for sinful men. The change of dispensation is no proof of change in the mind of God, since the Jewish Law was a kind of parenthesis which gives meaning to revelations which went before and followed after; and the old tabernacle yields to the enduring fabric of grace against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

II. THE CHANGE OF PRIESTHOOD WAS NECESSARY FOR THE HARMONY AND CONSISTENCY OF DIVINE ARRANGEMENTS IN WORSHIP. It pleased God to act according to the counsel of his own will in the distribution of offices in the worship and national affairs of his ancient people Israel. No man was allowed to invade them who did not belong to the families and tribes which he chose to serve him. Hence the family of Levi was appointed to be priests, and members of the tribe of Judah were ordained to be kings over the nation. David, as a descendant from Judah, received many promises, and was permitted to enjoy prospects of the future dignity of his seedin him who was “the Root and Offspring of David, and the bright and morning Star.” But there is no word of promise that any of his tribe should minister at the altar and stand in the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. Uzziah, one of the kings of the line of Judah, attempted to offer incense, and was in the presumptuous act smitten with leprosy, and was thrust, as an unclean person, from the temple courts (2Ch 26:20). Moses laid down the law of the priesthood, and in none of the manifold details of priesthood, sacrifice, and worship, nor in any of the predictions of the future history of the tribes, is there any priestly appointment given to the family of Judah. The law must be changed. The new covenant must have its special and suitable ministry, and in the sphere of the gospels the dignity, sufficiency, and pre-eminence of Jesus Christ find their suitable exercise. It pleases God to put certain things together, and what “he hath joined, let no man put asunder.”B.

Heb 7:15-17

The increasing evidence of the appointment of our Lord to be an unchangeable Priest.

This is to be found in the Divine oracle proclaimed in the hundred and tenth psalm. The distinction of Christ’s priesthood is seen in the difference which subsists in his Divine office from that which was held by men who were made priests after a carnal commandment, which had to do with ceremonials and material matters chiefly, and who were mortal, and resembled in the brevity of their life and earthly charge the institution of which they were ministers. Our Lord rises infinitely above the Jewish priesthood, because he is appointed “after the power of an endless life.” St. John beheld him, in the visions of Patmos, in the splendor of his priestly office as the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, and heard him say, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.” Amid all the changes of human affairs and the diversified experiences of his followers he is “the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.”B.

Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19

The weakness and unprofitableness of the commandment

was seen in its inability to cleanse the conscience from sin, and impart spiritual power to obey the moral Law. It was therefore removed and displaced, and publicly disannulled by the rending of the veil when our Lord died upon Calvary. The whole Law, priesthood, and sacrifices were treated as the brazen serpent in the wilderness when it had answered the end of its appointment in the healing of those who, through their murmuring, had been bitten and were exposed to death under the frown of Jehovah. It is not consistent with Divine wisdom and love to maintain a useless institution like Judaism when a better covenant, a nobler Priest, and a holier Sacrifice have been appointed for the salvation of mankind. While the Law made nothing perfect it had its uses, for it prepared the way for the introduction of a better hope than that which believers had before the appointment of Christ to be High Priest over the house of God. In the previous parts of this Epistle there are impressive allusions to the privilege of drawing near to the throne of grace, and the contrast is suggested between the remoteness in which worshippers stood in past days and the near and filial approach of those who draw nigh through Christ. Herein is the saying true, “The Law came by Moses; but grace and truth by Jesus Christ.” To draw near to God now is for our dark and perplexed understandings to approach the Father of lights; and for our weak and faltering nature to lay hold of that strength which makes us mount up with wings as eagles, run and not be weary, walk and not faint.B.

Heb 7:19-22

The Divine Priest.

I. THE PRE–EMINENCE OF OUR LORD‘S PRIESTHOOD ATTESTED BY THE SOLEMNITY OF HIS APPOINTMENT. The priests of the Mosaic Law were placed in their office by an act of the Divine will, and the order of their consecration was prescribed by the lawgiver, who probably superintended the process which fitted them to enter upon their duties. There was no oath proclaimed on the occasion. When Christ was appointed there was an oath, which was conveyed to the knowledge of the Church by David, the royal prophet. This oath declared the fixed and unchangeable purpose of God, that whatever else might change, the office of the high priesthood of Christ should never be abrogated. “For ever his word is settled in heaven.” It is only on occasions of special solemnity that oaths are takes by men when they assume weighty and important offices. They are used at coronations of monarchs, and the appointment of judges and others who undertake to administer faithfully the charges which they assume. God condescends to engage by oath for the permanence and glory of the priesthood of Christ that he shall be a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Here we see the loving care of God to invite and justify our trust in his dear Son. It is a vast and large confidence which he claims, and includes the rejection of all other confidences; our surrender to Christ of our understanding, will, and affections; our influence, time, and property; our present and the vast future; and, as the demand is large, there is all evidence and provision to make our trust in the High Priest a reasonable service. He is appointed by oath, and is the Surety of a better covenant; and so there is a proportion and harmony between the Surety and the covenant itself. In the scheme of redemption God hath abounded in all wisdom and prudence. The new wine is put into new bottles, and the consistency of all arrangements for our redemption proves that all things are of God.

II. THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD. If any man had dared to approach Jehovah in the solemnities of worship without his express appointment, he would have been punished for his presumption. This is proved by the history of Uzziah (2Ch 26:16). It is said of this king that his heart was lifted up, and, against the remonstrances of the priests, he would offer incense, and so combine the dignity of the priesthood and royalty in himself. “Pride went before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” and he was confined as a leper until the day of his death. The vocation and appointment of Aaron were disputed by the Reubenites who had lost the priesthood, and the Levites who were ambitious of higher dignity; and the case was decided by the punishment of the revolters, and the miraculous foliage, blossoms, and fruit of Aaron’s rod. Jesus Christ has the high and supreme authority of Jehovah for his appointment, and the writer quotes the second psalm, which predicts the regal glory of the Son, who was “of the seed of David according to the flesh; but was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:3, Rom 1:4). Then follows a quotation from another Messianic psalm, which declares that he is a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The order of Aaron was too narrow and too imperfect to shadow forth the unrivalled dignity and worth of him who is now set over the house of God. This latter type will reappear for further discussion, and therefore we rest upon this declaration of the eternal will which appoints the Redeemer to be the High Priest for the race of mankind. It is the will of God, which is declared in solemn prophecy; and if he speaks, it is done; “he commands, and it stands fast.”

III. THE CONSECRATION OF CHRIST TO HIS DIVINE OFFICE AS A PRIEST. The consecration of Aaron and the priests of the Mosaic Law was very elaborate and impressive, but was unaccompanied with any distress of mind and suffering of the flesh. The sonship of our Lord was eternal, and as a Son he came from heaven to assume our nature and pass through a career of sorrow and bitter experience, that he might learn and prove his obedience to his Father. “He took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death.” As he approached the close of his public ministry the agonies of his soul began to multiply in number and increase in intensity. His prayer in Gethsemane was probably present to the mind of the writer, where he was sorrowful even unto death, and implored, if it were possible, “that the cup might pass from him.” He uttered his prayers with strong crying and tears. The usual manner of our Lord’s teaching was quiet and gentle, for he did not lift up his voice nor cause it to be heard in the streets; but in the dire and inscrutable distress which came upon him, like Jacob in his mysterious wrestling, he wept and made supplication. He was heard on account of his godly fear or piety. It may befor we would he cautious and reverentialthat he was saved from death in Gethsemane, where he sweat “as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground,” by the ministry of a mighty angel like Gabriel or Michael; or that he was delivered from the insupportable fear of the death of shame and agony which lay before him on Calvary. He was heard for his piety, and came off more than a conqueror. Whatever mystery surrounds this solemn fact, the lesson is obvious that disciples must learn obedience in imitation of their Master; that, having overcome, they may sit down with him in his throne. “Through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom.” Having borne the sorrow, he has obtained the joy that was set before him, and being now consecrated by his sufferings and death, he is perfectly fitted for his mediatorial office, and becomes the Author of eternal salvation to all his obedient followers, and leads them onward to the glory of an immortal life. This is the highest and most glorious illustration of the methods of that grace which was seen in the life of Joseph, into whose soul the iron entered, whom the word of the Lord tried; but afterwards he shone in the light of wisdom, became the savior of millions from the pangs of famine and death, kept alive the chosen seed, and prepared for the higher revelations of Horeb and Calvary. To obviate any doubts which might arise from so profound a humiliation on the part of Jesus Christ, it is repeated that he was “called of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.”B.

Heb 7:23-25

The immortal priesthood of Christ enhanced by weighty considerations.

The first is that the ancient priesthood passed through many hands, in which fact there were some obvious disadvantages. Some priests were so neglectful of their office that the prophet had to become a preacher of righteousness. All preachers had to pass through a process of education to gain fitness for their ministry; others were priests when there was no temple, no altar, and no holy of holies. Death came to them in turn, and lifted the miter from the brow, the breastplate from the breast, and closed the lips which pronounced the priestly benediction. The second consideration is that our Lord has an unchangeable appointment, because death has no power over him now that he has taken his life again. There is no death in the sublime sphere of his ministry. He can say, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” The value of this unfailing life is that it is devoted to the work of salvation. He is able to save to the uttermost by superintending the personal life of his followers, and supplying them with Christian peace and spiritual power, and by keeping before their minds his idea of salvation. He can infuse his own precious life through their souls, and lead through the paths of fellowship with God, evangelical obedience, and gracious discipline, until they are saved to the uttermost and attain to the resurrection of the dead. This is associated with his intercession, of which we have a sublime and affecting example in the seventeenth chapter of St. John’s Gospel. If others condemn, he makes intercession. If others neglect or persecute, he is their friend in the presence of God. If his people are in the outer court engaged in prayer, he is within the veil to offer acceptable incense. By his undecaying life he quietly pursues his own plans; and by the constancy of his ministry he gives a unity to his people of various communions, places of abode, and ages of time, who thus become one in Christ Jesus.B.

Heb 7:26-28

The two priesthoods: a contrast.

I. THE EXALTED AND PERFECT CHARACTER OF CHRIST IS CONTRASTED WITH THAT OF THE PRIESTS OF THE OLD LAW. There was a Divine fitness in the appointment of our Lord, because, as we learn from the evangelists, he was holy, and full of love to God; and so pure that the temptations of Satan and the wickedness of an” adulterous generation” never sullied his nature. He was harmless, and Pilate asked the question, “Why, what evil hath he done?” In our Lord there was no need of a sin offering to repair his relations to God. Angels who have never left their first estate need no sin offerings, for they have never transgressed the Divine Law. By the perfect purity of Christ’s nature he was lifted above the level of the necessities of sinful men, and he consequently required no atonement for himself. Had he been imperfect, and his sacrifice of limited power, he must have suffered daily to remove the daily accumulation of sin. This is needless; for by one holy oblation, in which all the blessing redounds to men, he has provided an atonement which, like an inexhaustible fountain of grace, flows day and night, century after century, to wash away sin and produce Divine peace in the hearts of men.

II. ANOTHER IMPRESSIVE CONTRAST IS ADDUCED BETWEEN THE LORD JESUS AND THE PRIESTS OF THE LAW. The descendants of Aaron are described as having infirmity, which denotes the weakness, instability, and frailty of their nature. It points probably to something more serious, and may allude to the serious deficiencies and imperfections of their moral character. Some of them were grievously unmindful of the responsibility of their office, and allowed alien altars and idolatrous worship to defile the temple of Jehovah. The last traces of the priesthood in the pages of Holy Scripture present the unlovely portraits of Caiaphas, Annas, and others. To these men the writer does not allude by name, though the Christians who read the Epistle might feel the awful force of the reference, and say, “How is the fine gold changed!” The high priest delivered Christ to Pilate, and had the greater sin. The word of the oath appoints our Lord, who was consecrated and made perfect through sufferings; and therefore, over against the weak, sinful, and unworthy priesthood of mortal men, the Divine Son stands in the glory of his character and permanence and effects of ministry.B.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG

Heb 7:1-17

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 Psa 110:1-7. 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 themthe 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.

Heb 7:16

The power of an endless life.

We have here illustrated

I. THE FEEBLENESS OF THAT WHICH DEPENDS UPON THE FLESH. Here the particular institution is that of priesthood; but the truth obtains with regard to all institutions dependent on the limits of fleshly human nature and the faculties of fallen human nature. The law of the Jewish priesthood was a law that had to take particular notice of the limitations of human life. The office was held by a man whose term of office at the longest was but brief, and his death had to be prepared for, and his successor duly initiated. That successor was a son, and who should say what sort of man he would turn out? There are certain things law can do and certain other things it cannot do. A law could be made setting apart a tribe for holy service, and a family for priestly service; but there the power stopped. No law can secure character. No law can secure willing, hearty, devoted service. Indeed, there might even be a show of fairness in men belonging to the tribe of Levi saying, “Why should we be tied down, willing or unwilling, to this work of the altar?” Note how power is contrasted in this verse with law, as much as to intimate the necessary feebleness of law. Its very strength in one direction helps to constitute its feebleness in another. It has nothing to fall back upon but the caprices and fluctuations of natural character. It brings to men knowledge, indeed; but, bringing that, brings only too often little but exasperation, irritation, depression. How many things there are in which the law of the fleshly commandment fails! The good king is succeeded by the bad one. The father uses his possession wisely; the son comes in to squander, neglect, and alienate. The father makes a fortune through frugality and industry; the son scatters it all to the winds.

II. THE CONTRASTED POWER OF THE ENDLESS LIFE. The Aaronic priest stands as the great representative of service limited by the necessary boundaries of human nature. Jesus stands forward as One whose service is unlimited save by the negligence or the unbelief of those whom he seeks to save. My fellow-man can only serve me as long as he is in the world, and even while in the world he may be cramped in many ways so that his service becomes an almost ineffectual thing. But Jesus has an endless, that is an indissoluble life. Duration is not the only thing to be thought of. There might be an immense duration of comparative uselessness. To say that the life is indissoluble means that its fullness continues unimpaired in the slightest degree. It is not a matter of ebbings and flowings; summer fullness of sap, and winter subsidence. Wherever we find death in the service of the brother man, we find life in the service of the Man Christ Jesus. It is so in his priesthood; so in his kingship; so in his teaching; so in his ministry.Y.

Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19

The Law failing, the gospel succeeding.

It is very necessary here to turn from the ordinary version to the revised one, for the ordinary version utterly hides the antithesis which is the very essence of the meaning. On one side there is a disannulling of the Mosaic commandment with respect to priesthood, but on the other side there is the bringing in of a better hope. These two elements of the antithesis have, therefore, to be separately considered.

I. THE DISANNULLING OF THE FLESHLY COMMANDMENT. “The fleshly commandment,” as it is called in Heb 7:16. A reason is given for the disannulling: The changes in the Divine economy are never arbitrary. Reasons are not always given for these changes; but when we can understand them they are given, and thus we are helped to believe in the wisdom of changes which we have not knowledge enough to understand. The reason has a twofold aspect. A general principle is stated, and there is a particular illustration of it. The general principle is that the Law makes nothing perfect, completes nothing; the particular illustration is found in the weakness and uselessness of the commandment which called into existence the Aaronic priesthood, No institution can plead a commandment of God for its existence when it has manifestly lost its use. The commandment was useless because it was weak; and then the uselessness reacted on the weakness and made it weaker still. Men ceased to look to the priesthood for any good and helpful thing, though the priesthood kept its formal place, because there was nothing as yet to act as a substitute. Then the question may be askedWhy give a commandment which was weak and useless? The answer lies in that word “foregoing.” That which goes before implies something coming after. The Law was weak and useless for certain things, but not, therefore, weak and useless for all things. The Law came like light shining on human spiritual darkness, revealing dilapidation and corruption, and there it stopped; it showed the thing needing to be done, and in the very showing indicated how some agency would come in due time to do it.

II. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BETTER HOPE. One notices a change of term here as in Heb 7:16. There we read of the former priest according to the law of a fleshly commandment, and the new abiding Priest according to the power of an indissoluble life. So here, that which is put away is a commandment; that which is brought in is a hope. The old commandment, weak and useless, left men in despair as far as their natural faculties were concerned. The new Priest steps upon the scene, needing no commandment. His functions are the appropriate outcome of the fullness of his life. And, coming among men, he comes as the visible immediate stimulator of hope. Manifestly he has relations with God, channels of connection with the Infinite Purity, such as not all the sum of Aaronic priests taken together had. As men drew near to some of the old priests, steeped in selfishness, pride, arrogance, they veritably drew nearer to the devil from whom it behooved them to flee; but drawing near to Jesus it was not possible that they should do anything else than in the same movement draw near to God.Y.

Heb 7:26

The Priest made separate from sinners.

I. THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS RESPECT BETWEEN THE PRIESTHOOD OF JESUS AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF AARON. The Aaronic priest was also made separate from sinners; but he was only separated officially. The separation lay in nothing more than natural descent and the wearing of priestly vestments. The Aaronic priest indicated in a feeble symbolic way what a true priest ought to be. In course of time, indeed, he might become separated from sinners in a way not to be desired, fenced round by an artificial sanctity, and superstitiously regarded as if he had in him nothing less than the Power of heaven and hell. But Jesus comes separated by nature, character, and by many outward manifestations of these things. The nearness of Jesus to men has already been insisted on; how he is a partaker of flesh and blood; how he is in all points tempted as men are. And what is then stated, in a collateral way, so that it may not be forgotten, is now, at the proper place, brought out and put to the front. Jesus is nearer to the universal man than any priest could be; but while so near there is a separation that goes to the very depths of being. This is what gives him his unique power. Moving among men, he hears their cries and prayers, sees their need; but he receives no infection from their narrowness, selfishness, degrading thoughts. Evil passes before him, but only to stir up into greatest activity his sympathy with those who suffer from the evil; that evil prevails not in the least over his own affections.

II. THE PRACTICAL RESULTS TO US OF THIS DIFFERENCE.

1. His power to keep us is always manifest. It is impossible to read about Jesus, to contemplate him in any attribute whatever, without being struck with the two united aspects of his person: first, association with us; and secondly, difference from us. We are drawn close to him because of the manifold fullness of his humanity; and then being drawn, we are made to feel how strong his hand is, and what a perennial Fountain of assistance and blessedness he becomes.

2. We have always some one to look at, to lift us above cynical thoughts of mankind. How easy it is to get into a way of saying that human nature is a very poor thing at its best! We cannot get the flaws and meanness of even good men out of our recollection. Now here is the separated Man, the great High Priest, to show what a glorious thing human nature is when we can see it in its full purity. Jesus is not only pure himself, but he can purify the medium through which he is beheld. Those who come to see Jesus as he is, learn to think better and more hopefully both of themselves and others.

3. The ideal is given which we are to seek and to reach. The great High Priest stands in the midst of sinful men to whom he ministers, for the most practical purpose of making them like himself. He is separated from sinners in order that sinners, being transformed and perfected, may not be separated from him. When the ideal and real meet in one person, then the better hope is indeed brought in.Y.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Heb 7:1. For this Melchisedec, The apostle had spoken of an high-priest after the order of Melchisedec thrice before, ch. Heb 5:6; Heb 5:10 Heb 6:20 and he had hinted, that he had many things to say of him, and hard to be understood; all therefore which has been said in the preceding chapter is a digression; from which he now returns, in order to explain what he meant by strong meat. He had proved before, that Christ was far more excellent than Moses; that he was as properly called of God an high-priest as was Aaron; and that the Christian rest was promised also to the Jews: and now he undertakes to shew the dignity and excellence of the Christian high-priest to be infinitely superior to and greater than that of Aaron, or the Levitical high-priests. The topics by which he proves this, are, that the same priest now abideth always, and does not die, as the Aaronical priests do; and that he has no sins of his own to offer for, as they had. Before he enters into this, Melchisedec and Christ are compared together, as being like each other in several circumstances. Both were kings of peace and righteousness, and neither of them deduced their right to their respective priesthood from any succession: both of them exercised the office of blessing, as priests, and neither of them deriving their office from parentage, it follows, that no objection can be raised against the priesthood of the one, which does not equally lie against the priesthood of the other. See the notes on Gen 14:18; Gen 14:24.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 7:1-3 . Elucidation of , Heb 6:20 , by a delineation of the character of Melchisedec. Heb 7:1-3 form a single proposition, in which , is the tempus finitum . The characterization of Melchisedec combines in the first half ( , Heb 7:2 ) the historic traits which are afforded of him in Genesis (Gen 14:18-20 ), while in the second half ( . . .) the author himself completes the picture of Melchisedec, in reasoning from that historic delineation.

] 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, Realwrterb . 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, Rosenmller, Bleek (see, however, at Heb 7:2 ), Tuch, Ewald, Alford, Maier, and others think of the place , 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 , mentioned Joh 3:23 , has, moreover, been held by some recent expositors, as Bleek and Alford, to be likewise identical with the , 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.

] priest of God, the Most High . In the monotheistic sense, as in Genesis, vid. ibid . Heb 7:22 .

. . .] who went to meet Abraham when he was returning from the smiting of the kings (Gen 14:12 ff.), and blessed him .

] Gen 14:19-20 . Wrongly is it alleged by Heinrichs that denotes only: gratulari de victoria tam splendida.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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 Melchisedec’s position, and draws their attention to a threefold superiority of Melchisedec over the Levitical priests.

[80] C. A. Auberlen, “Melchisedek’s ewiges Leben und Priesterthum Heb 7 ” ( Stud. u. Krit. 1857, H. 3, p. 453 ff.).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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, ]. 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, ]. 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., apportioned, imparted. , in the first place. , and then, and in the next place. In the classics without , commonly answers to .

Heb 7:3, ungenealogized, without recorded lineage; not as Eng. ver., without descent., having been assimilated, or rendered similar., remaineth, abideth, emphatic. , perpetually.

Heb 7:4 , and contemplate behold; not, now consider. Now impairs the natural flow of the sentence. Alfords But observe is objectionable.The patriarch Abraham: in the original , is separated from , and thrown emphatically over to the end of the sentence. , from the top of the heap, hence, the selectest, or choicest spoils.

Heb 7:5. , 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 is totally inappropriate. . 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. (Sin B. D.1 , received by Alf.), to tithe. , belongs to , although having come out.

Heb 7:6, hath tithed, hath blessedconstruction chiastic, the verb preceding in one clause, and following in the next.

Heb 7:7. , by the greater, superior, not, of the better.

Heb 7:8. , and here indeed, or, while here, i. e., in the case of the Levitical priests.

Heb 7:9. , 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., 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 whichnot merely to explain the sense in whichthe 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 , abideth; so that we need not, and should not, with Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc., supply with the opening verse. The author first brings together the historical traits which the Scripture narrative assigns to Melchisedek, then from 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. has this signification in Plato (Rep. VII. 517, B; VIII. 564, B). Nor do 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.). , also, means not (like ) 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 Reuters 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 authors 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 authors purpose is to show the points in Melchisedeks 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 Melchisedeks 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 pageamidst 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 authors 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 authors 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 , but =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 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 as Imper. than as Indic. refers ordinarily, according to the connection, to age, to size, or to moral greatness; but here to exaltedness and dignity of position. The is to be referred, not to Abraham (Luth., Grot., etc.), but to , as indicated by the order of the words. 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 , as supposed by Chrys., Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc. The name of honor , 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 , Bl., De W., Ln., etc., take 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 ( . ) 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.]. 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. denotes the priestly service, and the priestly prerogative. In all other passages of our Epistle stands =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 is used to designate the Aaronic service, and Jehovah calls the Levites in relation to Aaron , 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 , we are to read at Heb 7:5, . 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 , 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 , 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 adopted by Tisch. after B. D*. (which MSS. also read at Mat 13:32, ), appears to be of Alexandrian origin; comp. as a var. lec. in Dressel Patr. Apost. p. 322, n. 4, and , after an Inscription given by Krger (I. 1, 32, Anm. 7). Seb. Schmidt, Bhme, etc., connect the with , Bleek, Bisp., Ln., with , the majority with .

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. (c., 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 Melchisedeks 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 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. 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 kings 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 Phnician god Sydik, i.e, =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 authors typical interpretation. For Melchisedek is designated Gen 14:19; Gen 14:22 priest () of the Most High God ( ). 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 worshipa worship untainted by idolatryof 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 kinga 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 , Psa 90:2; Psa 93:2; Psa 103:17, or , 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 Abrahama 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 Qust. in vet. et Nov. Test. in Hilarius and the gyptian Hierakas, Epiph. hr., 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 (Molinus, Cunus, Hottinger, DOutrein, Starke and others, after some orthodox Fathers in Epiphanius hr., 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 , is attested by Sin. A. C. D. E. K. L., 28, 44, 46, 48.

[2]Heb 7:2.The 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 is found in A. B. C*. in Sin., where the corrector has put , 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.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 2296
MELCHIZEDEC A TYPE OF CHRIST

Heb 7:1-3. For this Melchizedec, 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 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; 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.

THE principal scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews is, to shew the superiority of Christ above the ordinances, and dispensers, of the Levitical law. In prosecuting this argument the inspired writer frequently mentions a priesthood different from that of Aaron, a priesthood instituted by God before any one of Abrahams chosen descendants was born, and consequently intended for the benefit of the Gentile world; and he shews that Christ was, according to an express prediction, and a most solemn oath, to be a priest of this higher order, the order of Melchizedec [Note: Psa 110:4. with Heb 5:6; Heb 5:10; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:17; Heb 7:21.].

The words of the text should properly be connected with chap. 5:10. the whole intervening part being, as it were, a parenthesis. The Apostle, having laid great stress upon this prediction, now proceeds to illustrate it. He recites, in few words, the history to which the prediction itself refers, and declares, that it was altogether typical of Christ [Note: Gen 14:14-20.]. The agreement between Melchizedec and Christ may be observed in two particulars:

I.

The dignity of their persons

Melchizedec, in reference to the import of his name, and the name of the city over which he presided, was called, king of righteousness, and king of peace: but in an infinitely higher degree do these titles belong to Christ
[Christ is a king, not only over one city or country, but over the whole world; his kingdom ruleth over all; he has the utmost ends of the earth for his possession; he is King of kings, and Lord of lords. In his own person he is holy, harmless, separate from sinners; he loveth righteousness, and hateth iniquity; he is indeed the Holy One, and the Just. His laws are a perfect transcript of his mind and will, all holy, and just, and good. In his government he exercises the most perfect equity, not oppressing or despising any, but ever ready to afford protection, and succour, to all that call upon him. The very ends for which he administers his government, are altogether worthy of his divine majesty; he rules his people, only that he may transform them all into his own image, and make them partakers of his own holiness. In every view, he approves himself worthy of that august title which the voice of inspiration assigns him, The Lord our Righteousness [Note: Jer 23:6.]. But Jesus is also called, The Prince of peace [Note: Isa 9:6.]; nor is this without reason, since he reconciles us to an offended God, and makes peace for us by the blood of his cross: yea, he brings peace into the wounded conscience; and calms the tempests which were wont to agitate the soul ]

That typical king is also called a priest of the Most High God; yet, though glorious in this respect, he was only a shadow of Jesus, our great High-priest
[Melchizedec, though a king, was not ashamed to execute the priestly office. Whether the bread and wine, which he provided for the refreshment of Abrahams troops, had any mystical signification, we pretend not to say: but certainly he acted as a priest, when he blessed Abraham; and was regarded as a priest by Abraham, who presented to him the tenth of all his spoils. As for Jesus, there was not any part of the priestly office which he did not perform. He was not indeed of that tribe to which the priesthood belonged, and therefore he was not instituted according to the law of a carnal commandment; but he was appointed of God with a solemn oath; and anointed to his office with a superabundant measure of the oil of gladness [Note: Psa 45:7.]. Having, in order that he might have somewhat to offer, taken upon him our nature, he presented himself an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour. And having shed his own blood, he is gone with it within the vail, and there carries on the work of intercession for us; and will soon come forth again, not like the Jewish high-priest, to bless one nation only, but, like Melchizedec, to bless the father of the faithful, together with all his children dispersed throughout the world.]

Thus both in their names and offices is there a very striking agreement between Melchizedec and Christ. But the parallel between them may be yet further noticed in,

II.

The duration of their priesthood

We are altogether indebted to the revelation of God for a just construction of what was related respecting Melchizedec, and of what was intentionally omitted in his history

[Melchizedec, like other men, was doubtless born of human parents, and in due season cut off by death from this present state of existence. But there is no mention made of his birth, or parentage, or death: nothing is said of any predecessor, whom he followed in his office, or of any successor to whom he resigned his office. These omissions, which might have been well accounted for from the brevity of that part of the Mosaic history, we are assured were ordered of God, on purpose that, by appearing not to have beginning of days or end of life, he might, as far as a mortal man could do, shadow forth the eternity of Christs priesthood.]
What was figurately ascribed to him, is literally true with respect to Christ
[Christ, though born after the world had stood four thousand years, was appointed to this office from all eternity; and actually executed it, by his representatives at least, from the first moment that Adam or Abel offered their sacrifices on the altar. Nor has he ceased from his priestly work: he is now within the vail, offering up the incense of his own prevailing intercession, while his people continue praying without. Nor will he desist from his labour as long as there shall continue one single soul, for whom to intercede before God. As he had none to precede him in his office, so will he have none to follow him: He abideth a priest continually, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever [Note: Heb 7:23-25; Heb 7:28; Heb 13:8.].]

Advice
1.

Regard the Lord Jesus according to his real dignity

[Jesus unites in himself the kingly and priestly character. None of the Levitical kings or priests ever attained to this honour. Uzziah, presuming to exercise the priestly office, was smitten with a leprosy, and made a monument of the Divine displeasure to the latest hour of his life [Note: 2Ch 26:16-21.]. But Jesus, as was foretold concerning him, was, like Melchizedec, a priest upon his throne [Note: Zec 6:13.]. Let us view this combination of character with lively gratitude. Let us contemplate him as every way qualified to be a Saviour to us And let us beg that he will exalt us also to a royal priesthood, that we may offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through him [Note: 1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9.].]

2.

Look to him for the blessings which he is authorized to bestow

[As our exalted head he is a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins. He has received gifts even for the most rebellious: and, having given himself for us, he is fully authorized to bestow upon us the purchase of his blood. Shall we not then make our application to him? What bread and what wine would he not bestow on us for the refreshment of our weary souls! Shall we not then open our mouths wide that he may fill them? Surely, if we be straitened, it is not in him, but in ourselves: he would satisfy the hungry with good things; he would fill us with all the fulness of God. O that that God, who raised him up from the dead, would now send him to bless us, in turning every one of us from our iniquities [Note: Act 3:26.]!]

3.

Consecrate to him, not the tenth only of your spoils, but all that you possess

[Though we should honour him with our substance, and with the first-fruits of all our increase, yet that is by no means sufficient: we should dedicate to him all that we possess in mind, or body, or estate. We are not indeed called to dispose of all our goods in charity, but to ascribe to his bounty every thing we possess, and whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, to do it all to his glory. Have we overtaken as Abraham did, and destroyed, our spiritual enemies? Let us acknowledge that his was the power, and the glory, and the victory. Let us see him in all things, and glorify him for all things; and present to him both our bodies and our souls a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is our reasonable service [Note: Rom 12:1.].]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

CONTENTS

Some Account of Melchizedec. Christ blessedly spoken of, under His High Priestly Character, and the Excellency of his Person and Office.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(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; (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; (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. (4) Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. (5) And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: (6) But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. (7) And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. (8) And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. (9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. (10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.

The Holy Ghost, by the Apostle, had more than once mentioned this extraordinary person Melchizedec; but now he enters into a more particular account of him in this Chapter. He hath given us several very leading characters in relation to his office, by way of illustrating the glorious Person, of whom he was a type, which are truly interesting, And, although the Lord hath been pleased to leave some obscurity in the subject who Melchizedec was, yet, there is enough to call forth the warmest praises of the Church to God the Holy Ghost, for an information which tends to raise our views of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the most exalted and blessed manner.

The Lord opens the Chapter with his name, Melchizedec, which is a compound word from Melek, King, and Tzedek, Justice; and, as the blessed Spirit himself hath rendered it, King of righteousness. If the Reader hath my Poor Man’s Concordance by him, which was lately published in Penny Numbers, he will find a particular account of this name, Melchizedec.

The Lord the Spirit next proceeds to state the scriptural history, which He had before given of Melchizedec, as in Gen 14:18 &c, in which we behold him in his High Priestly office. See Gen 14 and Commentary. And having thus introduced him to the Church, both by name and office, and described him as King of righteousness, and King of peace; the Lord adds one feature more concerning the wonders of his Person, which had not been before mentioned, and which raiseth the greatness of his character, beyond any being merely human, for he saith, 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. And God the Holy Ghost bids the Church consider how great this man was.

It hath pleased the Lord to throw a veil over the person of this most extraordinary man, which must forever preclude an absolute decision concerning him, while the Church is in her present time state. But, as a type of Jesus, what is here said is abundant to give the most satisfying conviction, how infinitely great the Lord Jesus must be, to whom a man, without father or mother, or beginning of days, or end of life, only ministered, but as a shadow. I will beg the Reader’s consideration of the subject in this point of view, as of all others the most profitable.

Amidst all the obscurity we meet in this account of Melchizedec, if he be considered as a type of Christ, nothing could have been so happily chosen for that representation. He is declared to be greater than Abraham, with whom the promises of the Covenant were deposited. He is said to be greater than Aaron: for he was not only priest of the most High God, before Aaron was born, but before the Church of Israel was formed. And as typical of Christ, Melchizedec is set forth as no other type, in all the word of God is done, I mean for the eternity of Christ’s nature; for this could never have been shadowed by any expressions like those which conceal Melchizedec’s origin, in having neither father, nor mother, beginning of days or end of life. I wish the Reader to pay a more than ordinary attention to this great point.

Upon a subject of such vast moment, I desire never to speak decidedly; but rather propose, what I have to offer, in a way of question, to the Reader’s own judgment. And hence I would ask, on the supposition, God the Holy Ghost really intended, that Melchizedec should be a type of the Lord Jesus Christ; how could he represent the eternity of Christ, in any form of words than in the very words he hath chosen? Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, or end of life. In all the types of Christ, which have relation to his offices, there is no obscurity whatever. The Brazen Serpent, the Rock, the Manna, the Passover: the morning and evening Lamb: the day of atonement all these are types and shadows, which have their accomplishment in Christ’s offices: and these, when explained by divine teaching, open very clear, and decided demonstrations, to the several parts of Christ’s Offices, unto which they ministered. But here, where God the Holy Ghost, would set forth to the Church, the eternity of Christ’s Person; there was no being, either man, or angel, which could in any way, or form whatever, prefigure Christ’s eternal nature; and therefore Melchizedec, shall typify the greatness and superiority of his priesthood, beyond every other; but of his Person, the eternity of his Being shall be shewn by a total silence, from whence he sprung; and declaring him to have been without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. I beg once more the Reader to study the subject a little closely. I do not (as I said before) wish to speak decidedly. But on the presumption, God the Holy Ghost did intend, to bring forward this man Melchizedec as a type of Jesus; let anyone say, how could the Lord more fully imply by figure, the eternity of the Son of God, acting as our High Priest? In all the records of men we meet in scripture history, it is the invariable custom, to introduce persons, who are more eminently distinguished than others, with their genealogy, from father to son: and sometimes, this is carried on through a long pedigree. But here, where the greatest man among the Patriarchs which ever lived; greater than Abraham, greater than Aaron, and the Priest of the most high God is introduced, we are told that he is without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And wherefore this obscurity? Is it not (I ask the question) because, in this very instance, this greater than Abraham, and all the Patriarchs, was hereby to typify His Person, in the eternity of his nature, concerning whom the Prophet, in after ages demanded; And who shall declare his generation? Isa 53:8 .

I pass by making any observations, on the several things spoken of concerning the inferiority, implied in the Levitical priesthood. For if the eternity of Christ, as here shadowed forth, be admitted, all beside follow of course. Levi, receiving tythes, who paid tythes in Abraham, is a beautiful thought, to represent the oneness of Christ, and his people. For all the seed of Christ, are in Christ virtually, and truly so, before they are brought to the knowledge of Christ, as Abraham did to Melchizedec. It is a blessed point to have always in view, that by the ancient and eternal settlements among the Persons of the Godhead; Christ and his seed, were from everlasting One. That, holy portion of human nature, which was to form one with the divine nature of the Son of God, and thereby constitute one Person, Christ, contained in it, the millions of the persons of Christ’s seed, which were to arise out of it, to form Christ’s mystical body, to all eternity. Hence it is said, that both He that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified are all of one, Heb 2:11 . So that the seed of Christ, before they are brought to lay hold of Christ, are; (as Levi was, in the loins of Abraham,) one with Christ, from all eternity. Jesus could not have been the Head of his body the Church, as Head, one moment before the body, as the body: neither the everlasting Father before he had children; neither Husband before the Church was his Wife. So very blessed is the consideration of the eternity of Christ’s Person; and his character, and relation, as the Head of his body the Church; the fulness of him, which filleth all in all, Eph 1:23 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Heb 7:15-16

If God dwells in the heart, and is vitally united to it, He will show that He is a God by the efficacy of His operation. Christ is not in the heart of a saint as in a sepulchre, or as a dead saviour that does nothing; but as in His temple, and as one that is alive from the dead. For in the heart where Christ savingly is, there He lives and exerts Himself after the power of that endless life that He received at His Resurrection.

Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections (pt. iii. ch. XII.).

References. VII. 14. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iii. p. 450; ibid. vol. vi. p. 96. VII. 15, 16. Archbishop Alexander, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvi. p. 17. VII. 16. Bishop Boyd-Carpenter, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. p. 136. Expositor (5th Series), vol. v. p. 451; ibid. (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 430. VII. 18. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. viii. p. 111. VII. 20-22. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii. No. 1597.

Heb 7:22

His honour, and His great court in heaven, hath not made Him forget His poor friends on earth. In Him ho ours change not manners, and He doth yet desire your company. Take Him for the old Christ, and claim still kindness to Him, and say, ‘O it is so; He is not changed, but I am changed’. Nay, it is a part of His unchangeable love, and an article of the new covenant, to keep you that ye cannot dispone Him, nor sell Him. He hath not played fast and loose with us in the covenant of grace, so that we may run from Him at our pleasure. His love hath made the bargain surer than so; for Jesus, as the cautioner, is bound for us.

Samuel Rutherford, to Lady Kenmure (26th November, 1631).

References. VII. 22. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xviii. p. 380. VII. 23. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 443. VII. 23-25. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii. No. 1915.

Heb 7:24-26

The name of priest has been desecrated, till the very word, in some degree, carries with it the idea of something either spiritually despotic, or drily ecclesiastical and official; yet what word, what thought is in reality so tender as that of a Man, brought nearer than other men are, at once to man and to God 1 When applied to our Lord Himself, no other of His offices seems to bring and keep Him beside us in so intimate and human a relation as that of His ‘unchangeable Priesthood’. ‘He is a Priest for ever’; one separate from sinners and undefiled; and yet, through this very separation, drawn into the closest union with Humanity. Christ, when on earth, was upbraided for His freedom and accessibility. ‘Behold, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them;’ and yet, like Joseph, the very type of bounty and brotherhood, He is one ‘that is separated from His brethren,’ drawing their souls after Him, while He withdraws from their presence. The heart desires one who is greater, purer, kinder, freer than itself, one standing aloof from its conscious falseness, its self-confessed littleness; therefore is Christ, because he is lifted up, able to draw all men unto Him; to draw as none other can do, close to Humanity, and to draw it close to Him.

Dora Greenwell, in Two Friends.

The Power of Christ to Save

Heb 7:25

We have here a brief but explicit statement, on the one hand, of the ability of Christ to save, and, on the other, of the ground on which that ability rests.

I. As to the ability of Christ to save this is considered under two different aspects: as to its extent or range, and as to its intrinsic efficacy. (1) It extends to all those who come to God by Him. For though the word ‘all’ does not occur in the passage, it is of course implied. The phrase is precisely analogous to our Lord’s own words: ‘Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out,’ which is equivalent to saying: ‘Every one that cometh to Me shall certainly be received’. No doubt He has power to save even those who neglect or refuse to come. But this thought is not present to the mind of the writer, who is contemplating the completeness of the salvation provided tor those who come to God to obtain it, not the possibilities that are open to those who do not. (2) But Christ’s ability to save, not only meets us at the threshold as it were of our approach to God, and assures of its sufficiency to bring us into His fellowship, it also assures us of His power to complete the process which He thus begins. He is able to save to the uttermost. This does not mean to the end of life, or up to the time of the Second Advent, though that is no doubt involved in the words. The idea rather is that His power is adequate to secure the perfect salvation of all who come to Him, so that nothing shall be required for its completeness which He is unable to supply. And this is the assurance that we need. II. But we have still to consider the ground on which this saving ability of Christ rests. (1) It rests upon the fact of His ever living to make intercession. In this respect He presents a contrast to the Levitical priesthood. It passed from one to another as death removed the successive occupants of the office. But Christ abideth for ever, and there is no interruption to the continuity of His mediation. (2) Again, we may gather that the power of Christ’s intercession springs from His atonement. This is, so to speak, the basis on which it proceeds, the great argument which makes it conclusive. And what can make it more so? It is true our sins cry out for vengeance, but Christ’s blood cries still louder for mercy. And its cry continues sustained, penetrating through all obstructions, resistless, clear, never failing to enter into the ears of God.

C. Moinet, The Great Alternative and other Sermons, p. 139.

Heb 7:25

‘If the person,’ says Guthrie of Fenwick, in The Christian’s Great Interest, ‘have a heart to come unto Him through Christ, then He is able to save to the uttermost. Yea, it is more provoking before God, not to close with Christ when the offer comes to a man, than all the rest of his transgressions are.’

References. VII. 25. C. Perren, Sermon Outlines, p. 327. T. D. Barlow, Rays from the Sun of Righteousness, p. 110. J. Keble, Sermons for Ascension Day to Trinity Sunday, p. 42. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iii. p. 86. G. A. Sowter, From Heart to Heart, p. 219. J. Keble, Sermons for Lent to Passiontide, p. 386. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ii. No. 84. J. Keble, Sermons for Septuagesima to Ash Wednesday, p. 421. W. Robertson Nicoll, Sunday Evening, p. 355. VII. 26. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 297; ibid. (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 423. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Hebrews, p. 10. VII. 27. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvi. No. 2693. VIII. 1, 2. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Hebrews, p. 20.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

XXI

JESUS CHRIST, HIGH PRIEST OF THE NEW COVENANT, GREATER THAN AARON, HIGH PRIEST OF THE OLD COVENANT

Heb 4:14-8:5 .

The letter to the Hebrews is an inspired exposition of the Sinaitic covenant, and particularly of the book of Leviticus. Our analysis and exposition of the Sinaitic covenant (Exo 19:1-24:9 ) shows that this covenant consisted of three distinct elements:

1. God and the normal man, or the moral law (Exo 20:1-17 ) as a way of life; not simply an obligation but a condition of life they that do these things shall live, they that do them not shall perish.

2. God and the nation, or the ordinances that set forth the principles of civic righteousness (Exo 21:1-24:9 ); in obedience to which the nation lives, and in disobedience dies.

3. God and the sinner, or the Law of the Altar (Exo 20:22-26 ), or the way of the sinner’s approach to God in order to find mercy.

We learn that all subsequent statutory legislation in the Pentateuch was developed from these constitutional elements or principles. Deuteronomy was developed from the first and second, and from the third was developed the last sixteen chapters of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and most of the legislation in Numbers. The Altar part, or God and the sinner, was typical of the new covenant, and contained in figures the way of grace and mercy, and revealed the only way by which Parts 1-2 could be kept. Hence it was the most important element of the Sinaitic law.

In the Pentateuch we find also these elements of the law of the sinner’s approach to God:

1. The sanctuary, holy of holies, or a place where the sinner might find God.

2. A means of approach to God in the sanctuary, or vicarious, expiating sacrifices placating the divine wrath against sin.

3. A mediator to go between the sinner seeking mercy, and God bestowing mercy. This mediator, or priest, took the blood of the vicarious expiation and carried it behind the veil and offered it upon the mercy seat, where God dwelt between the cherubim. That mediator, on the basis of that offered blood, made intercession for the people.

4. Times in which to approach God are set forth elaborately in that book daily, weekly, monthly, annually, septennially, and every fiftieth year. Those were the times that they could go before God, but the heart of Leviticus, as well as the heart of Hebrews, was a particular time, to wit: On the great day of atonement, when the people appeared before God to receive through an offering presented by the priest, the remission of their sins, we find a prescribed ritual that gave the steps involved.

5. Then we find what place there was for penitence, faith, and prayer. We find penitence to indicate that the man approaching God came as a confessed sinner. We find faith set : forth by the laying on of hands upon the head of the victim the victim to take his place. We find the prayer part to be the petitions that went with the high priest and were presented by him when he made the offering. All that ia, presented in the book of Leviticus.

So we find that the sanctuary of God was that part which was called the holy of holies, and that there God was visibly manifested, according to all Jewish interpretation, in the Shekinah of fire between the cherubim on the mercy seat. We find the victims to be bullocks, goats, and lambs. We find the mediator to be, and particularly upon the great day of atonement, Aaron. We find the sacrifices constantly repeated every year; on the ‘great day of atonement the priest bad to go for the people, carrying the names of the tribes on his breastplate, going for them into the holy of holies. In the letter to the Hebrews, which expounds the Altar part of the Sinaitic covenant, Paul does not discuss the Temple of Solomon, nor of Zerubbabel, nor of Herod, but the tabernacle of Moses, because his plan is to go back to origins, and to the dignity of founders. It would have been incongruous if after discussing angels, Moses, Aaron, and the prophets, he had skipped to the ritual of the Herodian Temple.

He makes this argument: AB Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is greater than the prophets, greater than the angels, greater than Moses, greater than Joshua, so he is greater than Aaron. We do not discuss in this chapter superiority of the new covenant over the old, but the superiority of Jesus Christ over Aaron as high priest.

In some respects Aaron and Jesus Christ are alike neither one took the honor to himself. Aaron did not appoint himself high priest to go before God, and Jesus Christ did not appoint himself to be mediator. The Father appointed them. Aaron was one of the people. Christ was like Aaron in that respect he was one of the people. He took upon himself the nature of man and became as one of those who became his brethren.

So we have not yet arrived to the point of discrimination between Christ and Aaron, but we do now come to the dividing line: Aaron being a priest under the covenant made upon Mount Sinai, was himself of the tribe of Levi. Jesus Christ did not belong to that tribe. He was of the tribe of Judah, therefore the priesthood of Christ does not come within the law of the covenant established by Moses on Mount Sinai. It was not his office to go to the Temple at Jerusalem and there officiate as priest. He had no such place there. That is a distinction. It shows that the priesthood of Christ must be according to an entirely different covenant, otherwise he would have to be a son of Levi to be a priest.

In getting to this point of distinction, Paul takes up a fragment of the history of Genesis, about an ancient king of Jerusalem Melchizedek. Before Abraham had any possession there, this man was both a king and a priest of God before the call of Abraham, before the segregation of the Jewish nation, when there was no distinction between Jew and Gentilei He had no pedigree of which there is any record, but when we come to Aaron’s time, no man could officiate as an Aaronic priest unless he could trace his Levitical descent. Melchizedek had no such genealogy, and therefore in a genealogical sense’ he is said to be without father or mother, and held his office as king and priest directly from God. He was recognized as greater than Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, for when Abraham was returning from the victory over Chedorlaorner he paid tithes to the king of Salem and received a blessing from him.

In the days of the psalmist a reference is made to that history: “The Lord hath sworn, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” This makes another distinction Christ, not Aaron, was made priest by oath of God. So a distinction between Christ and Aaron is that Aaron is after the order of Levi and his priesthood is under the Mosaic covenant made upon Mount Sinai, and Jesus Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek anterior even to Abraham, much less Moses, and greater than Abraham, receiving tithes from the whole Jewish people in the person of Abraham, and inducted by the oath of God. It shows, too, that no scripture is of private interpretation. The prophets spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and when you go to interpret a passage of Scripture which the Holy Spirit indicted, you get the meaning through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

The next point is that when Aaron, under the Levitical law was preparing to offer a sacrifice for the sins of the people, he must first offer for himself because he was a sinner, and before he offered for others he must himself be cleansed; but this Man was holy, “tempted in all points as we are tempted, yet without sin.” That distinction in character is very strong between the two persons between the two orders of priesthood. Aaron was a sinner; our priest was not a sinner. No man ever convicted him of sin.

Then Aaron died and could not continue to live to intercede for the people, but this priest ever liveth to make intercession for his people.

We now take up the general superiority of the New Covenant, and it embraces items 10-12 of the analysis, only in expounding this I will follow a more orderly and logical method than we have in the analysis. This section extends from Heb 8:5-13:16 , and it even includes one verse of Heb 7 .

So far, our exposition has had to do with the person and most of the offices of the Mediator of the new covenant, but here we contrast the covenants themselves. Notwithstanding the previous statements of the elements of the Sinaitic covenant, we must restate them here briefly in order to clearness in this exposition. The old covenant is set forth in Exo 19:1-24:11 , and consists of three distinct elements:

1. The Decalogue, or God and the normal man.

2. The fundamental principles of civic righteousness, or God and the theocratic nation.

3. The altar, or God and the sinner, or the law of the sinner’s approach to God.

From the first and second elements are derived a part of Numbers, and all of Deuteronomy; from the third element, God and the sinner, or the law of the altar, are derived the last 16 chapters of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and a part of Numbers.

Our first question now arises: What are the faults of the old covenant, for our text says that God found that old covenant faulty? If we know what the faults are, we can then ‘ consider the superiorities of the new covenant. Evidently the one supreme fault of the first and second elements, that is, the moral code and the national code, was the inability of a fallen, sinful people to keep the law, as a way of life for the individual, or a way of life for the nation. The reason is that the moral element was written outside of the people and on tablets of stone; they had no internal personal knowledge spiritual knowledge of the law. So written, it discovered sin and condemned sin, but there was nothing in it to overcome this inability and render the obedience efficacious. The normal man Adam before his fall, and his descendants could have kept the Decalogue if he had not fallen and corrupted their nature derived from him, could have constituted a successful theocratic nation. But after the fall no lineal descendant from I Abraham, nor circumcision of the flesh, could impart a new nature.

And now what the faults of the third part of that covenant that is, the Levitical code the last three chapters of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and a part of Numbers? The faults of that element were:

1. It was in whole and in all its parts but a shadow merely of heavenly things to come; in its nature and in its intent it was only transitory and educational.

2. The lack of intrinsic merit in the expiating sacrifices to atone for sin.

3. The emptiness of its nonexpiatory sacrifices arising from the want of the heart back of them.

4. Conforming to it could never relieve the conscience from the sense of sin, guilt, and condemnation, and give peace and rest.

5. The repentance of the sinner on human go-betweens, or third parties in making offerings, and in the administration of cleansing ordinances, the limitation of one fixed place to meet God, and the further limitation of set times in which to meet God that is, the sinner could not for himself directly approach God at all times, in all places, and in all emergencies.

From these faults what our text declares necessarily and inevitably followed, to wit: “They continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” Their whole national history is but the record of a series of breaches of the covenant on their part, and of God’s disregard of them on his part. They broke the covenant first in the very shadow of Sinai, before its tablets were completed, in the matter of the golden calf. They broke the covenant again at Kadesh-barnea, and the whole generation of adults were disregarded and perished. They broke the covenant again throughout the period of the judges, and at the close of that period their rebellion culminated in the rejection of God as King, and in the demand for a human monarchy. After that monarchy was established, the ten tribes broke the covenant at the very start in erecting the calves to worship at Dan and Bethel, and kept on breaking it without cessation until they perished. The Judah part of the monarchy, while more faithful than the ten tribes, repeatedly broke the covenant, and finally, at the downfall of the monarchy by Nebuchadnezzar, they were swept away. The hierarchy which, through the clemency of Persia, succeeded the monarchy and continued throughout the Grecian and Roman supremacies, repeatedly violated the covenant, and the culmination of their rebellion was in the days of our Lord when they rejected him and killed the Prince of Glory, bringing upon themselves the terrible denunciation in Matthew 21-23 the gravest judgment that was ever assessed against a people. This on account of the faults in that covenant. In every period of their probation they broke it and disregarded it.

This review of the faults enables us to sum up in one sweeping, inclusive generality the superiority of the new covenant, to wit: Our text says, “It was enacted on better promises,” so that our next question arises: What are these better promises? Here it is all important to make no mistake. If we do not discern these better promises clearly and retain them permanently in our hearts, we will utterly fail to master the priceless lessons of this book. Notwithstanding the importance of discerning and retaining these promises, what a sad thing it is, that if the preachers of Christendom were called up and asked to state what these better promises are, probably not more than one in a hundred could give them correctly, and three-fourths of so-called Christendom have never seen them. I will give them to you in the next chapter.

QUESTIONS

1. Hebrews is an exposition of what covenant, and what Old Testament book in particular?

2. Where is the record of the old covenant, and what are its constituent elements?

3. What subsequent parts of the Pentateuch developed from each of these elements?

4. What are the elements of the law of the sinner’s approach to God, and what the particulars of each?

5. What do we find as to the sanctuary, the victims of sacrifice, the mediator, the times and the work of the high priest under the old covenant?

6. Why does the author of the letter to the Hebrews discuss the tabernacle of Moses and not the Temple of Herod?

7. In what respects are Aaron and Christ alike?

8. In what particulars is Christ greater than Aaron? (See analysis.)

9. Who was Melchizedek, and how does he illustrate the order of Christ’s priesthood?

10. What are the fault of the first and second elements of the old covenant?

11. What are the faults of the third element of the same covenant?

12. From these faults what necessarily and inevitably followed, and what particular illustrations of this in the history of Gods people, Israel?

13. Sum up in a sweeping generality the superiority of the new covenant and show its importance.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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

The epithetal clauses themselves however have some distinction from one another. As far as , 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 ( , Gen 14:18 . It is doubtful whether this Salem is a short form of Jerusalem , or some other place. Epiphan. Hr. Lev 2 , vol. i. p. 469, says, , . Josephus, Antt. i. 10. 2, understands it of Jerusalem: . So also the Targumists and most of the Fathers, from Theophilus ad Autolicum ii. 31, p. 372, and Greek expositors (e. g. c., , ): and most modern Commentators: among them being Grot., Drusius, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Gesenius, Hitzig on Isa 1:1 , Von Raumer, Winer (Realw.), Lnemann, Delitzsch, al. But many others, as Primasius, Jac. Cappell., Whitby, Cellarius, Reland, Rosenmller, 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 , ), 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 non, where John baptized: probably also in Gen 33:18 , where LXX, vulg., and E. V. all recognize as the name of a place, though the Targumists, Josephus, al. regard it as an adjective. The same place seems to be mentioned in Jdt 4:4 , . 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 ( , , ), though elsewhere (De Somn. ii. 38, p. 691) he urges the sanctity of Jerusalem, and its etymological significance as . And this latter view seems to me the more probable. As to the further question, whether is here, or by Philo, meant as the name of a place at all , see on Heb 7:2 ), priest of God the most high (so Genesis l. c., . 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, , , , “ , .” . , . . , . From the above passages it will appear, that the fact of the Phnicians in their polytheism having had one god called , Elion, or , see Bl., De Wette: Philo Byblius in Euseb. Prpar. 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. Genesis 15, 22. Bleek cites Serv. ad n. iii. 80, “Sane majorum hc erat consuetudo, ut rex etiam esset sacerdos vel pontifex:” and Arist. Pol. iii. 14, says of the heroic age, . . . Remember the prophetic announcement Zec 6:13 , so familiar to every Christian. Our beloved Saviour, as the , restores again that first blessed family relation, which sin had disturbed), who met ( . would be by far the simpler construction, and in . we must assume an anacoluthon. It is curious to find, even in De Wette, such a remark as this: “ , 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 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, . . in this sense is Hellenistic, as also is used of ‘defeating,’ ‘cutting up’ in war. See Palm and Rost’s Lex.) and blessed him (Gen. Heb 7:19 ; see the argument below, Heb 7:6-7 ), to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth of all (Gen.: (om. . ) : “ of all ,” viz. the booty which he had taken from the kings: so Jos. Antt. i. 10. 2, : and Heb 7:4 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, . 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., ), first indeed being interpreted (i. e. as E. V., “ being by interpretation :” his name bearing this meaning when translated into Greek) king of righteousness ( . So also Josephus, Antt. i. 10. 2, , . And again, B. J. vi. 10, ( ) , . And Philo, Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, vol. i. p. 103. Bleek remarks, that . 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 23:5-6 ; 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 after , and from . representing a matter of fact, and the interpretation following) King of Salem, which is, King of peace (it has been much disputed, whether 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 Bhme, and Pet. Cunus de Rep. Hebrorum, 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 draw sufficient distinction between his personal appellation and that of his city?

As regards the word itself, it appears that is the adjective, peaceful, belonging to the substantive , peace. But Philo takes it as here, Legg. Alleg. iii. 25, vol. i. pp. 102 f., , , , . , , . ‘ 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 2:14-15 ; Eph 2:17 ; Col 1:20 ; , . Chrys. It is peace as the fruit of righteousness, cf. Isa 32:17 ; notice the order here, . . , . “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 , 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 . . . 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. , occur in two senses: . 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. . 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 , : so , Eur. Phn. 676: and in Pollux, , , , (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 , , 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 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 deprives the words of their true meaning. Delitzsch has quoted as used of Sarah by Philo, de Ebriet. 14, vol. i. 365 f.: Quis Rer. Div. Hr. 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.) 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:’ qu 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 Grcos, ut et generationem apud Hebros. Unde est illud Gen 5 , ‘Hic est liber generationis Adam,’ et cap. x., ‘H generationes filiorum No,’ et cap. xi., ‘H generationes Thar,’ 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 clibem vitam duxerunt.” But this, which would be at the best but a doubtful deduction from the use of “generatio,” is precluded by Heb 7:6 , in which 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 , 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 c., : Schol. Matth., . Accordingly, they understand of Christ in reference to his Humanity ( , , . Thdrt.), , in reference to his Divinity ( , , id.), and so also ( , id.). And so Chrys., c., 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 might perhaps be conceded to be not unnaturally applied to Christ in virtue of his Humanity, the words and 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 . . . 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 “Qustiones in V. et N. Test.,” by Hilarius the deacon), in which the “qustio famosissima super Pontifice Melchisedec” was treated, and the writer tried to prove him “divinioris natur fuisse, nec de hominibus stimandum: et ad extremum ausus est dicere, Spiritum Sanctum occurrisse Abrah, 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 Csarea, 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. Hr. lv. vol. i. pp. 468 ff.: Aug [34] de Hr. 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 , . This opinion Epiphanius, Hr. 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.

[34] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

In later times the idea that he was the Son of God was revived by Molinus (Vates, iv. 11 f.), by Cunus (cited above), by Hottinger (De Decimis Judorum, 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. Sacr 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, Cur 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: “vi ac proinde sacerdotii”), Camero, Schlicht., Wittich, al., take for the beginning of his sacerdotal life: others as Camero, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Schleusner, Kuinoel, take 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 may be legitimately thus referred, seeing that his priesthood and his life would expire together, can hardly be understood of any thing but his natural life , especially as following , &c., and in the presence of the general biblical usage of 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, ., , , . 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: , , . 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 ( (reff.) is a classical word. Plato, Rep. ii. 382 D, : al. in Bl. Aristot. Polit. i., . This clause stands alone and pendent, like the preceding, and must not be taken with , as Syr. (“sed in similitudinem filii Dei manet sacerdos in ternum:” “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 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., (in reference to the and the of the Son of God) , . , , , , 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. Hr. Lev 7 , p. 474: . The sense is then that Melchisedek, in being , , 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 ( = above, ch. Heb 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 Csar were chosen dictators , “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 . 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 c., 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 ternum enim aliquid durare dicitur, quod et per longum tempus durat, et tamdiu duret quamdiu natura ipsius rei patitur. Sic David Deum so in ternum 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., Haym [35] , 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 before , 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, Lnemann, Ebrard, and Delitzsch).

[35] Haymo, Bp. of Halberstadt , 841 853

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

CHAP. Heb 5:1 to Heb 10:18 .] THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST: and this in several points of view. That which has before been twice by anticipation hinted at, ch. Heb 2:17 ; Heb 3:1 ; Heb 4:14-15 , is now taken up and thoroughly discussed. First of all, Heb 5:1-10 , two necessary qualifications of a high priest are stated, and Christ is proved to have fulfilled both: . Heb 5:1-3 , he must be taken from among men, capable, in respect of infirmity, of feeling for men , and, . Heb 5:4-10 , he must not have taken the dignity upon himself, but have been appointed by God .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

CHAP. Heb 7:1 to Heb 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,

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Heb 7:1 . . closely connects this passage with the immediately preceding words 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 , 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.] , 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. “priest of the Most High God”. According to Aristotle ( Pol. , iii. 14), the king in heroic times was general, judge and priest. Cf. Virgil ( n. , 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. . 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. was also a title of , 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. “from the slaughter,” rather “overthrow”; “Niederwerfung” (Weizscker); “ clades rather than caedes ” (Vaughan) translating in Gen 14:17 , , “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. , asserting thus at once his superiority (Heb 7:7 ) and his priestly authority.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Hebrews Chapter 7

The portion on which we enter develops the type of Melchizedek as far as it applies to Christ in heaven and the Christian portion. The future earthly part is but hinted at and in no way opened out.

“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the* most high God, that met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham assigned a tenth Of all, first being interpreted 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 likened to the Son of God, abideth a priest continuously” (verses 1-3).

* I know not why Dean Alford spoke of the second article here omitted “with B”; for the Vatican gives it as all do, save a few cursives. The Complut. omitted it, followed by Beza and the Elzevirs; but Erasmus, Colinaeus, and R. Steph. duly inserted it; and so the modern editors.

is read by the great Uncials, and so one cursive known to us; yet 6 seems right (C L and most) and to have got the from the word following. The relative supposes a needless anacoluthon. No wonder that Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort here desert Lachmann and Tregelles.

Here the Spirit of God gives us a fine sample of unfolding an incident of the O.T. in the light of the New. The glory of Christ as ever is the true key, without which the mind of God in His word is never apprehended. And it is striking to see that the reticence of Scripture is only less instructive than its disclosures. All has to be weighed; but who is sufficient for these things? Our sufficiency is of God, who now works in us that believe by the same Spirit who inspired both Testaments, and works to glorify (not the Christian nor the church, blessed as both are, but) Christ, Whose grace and glory are the substance of our best blessings.

In Gen 14 we have the last notice of the public life of Abraham as chosen and called out to walk in faith of God’s promise; for Gen 15 begins the dealings of God with him personally. The occasion was the rescue of Lot carried away, family and goods, with the rest of his neighbours whose worldly advantages he had coveted. The man of simple faith and self-sacrifice, of whom Lot had taken advantage (Gen 13 ), unhesitatingly pursues and vanquishes the victorious kings of the east. Thereon appears Melchizedek, the more unexpectedly as there seems scarcely any ground to doubt that he was a prince akin to the guilty race that soon after were punished by the most solemn judgment of God. Yet was he not an idolater but priest of the most high God. “And Melchizedek, king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all” (verses 18-20).

The all-important truth to grasp is that the Epistle reasons solely on “the order .” of Melchizedek in contrast with that of Aaron. When it speaks of the exercise of priesthood, Aaron is the type and not Melchizedek; and then we hear of sacrifice and intercession, of blood-shedding and a sanctuary, with the Levitical ritual in general. Self-evidently all this has no relation to Melchizedek, only to Aaron as typifying the Lord’s present action above grounded on His atoning work for sin.

The exercise of the royal priesthood looks on to the earth in a future day, when the Man whose name is the Branch shall build the temple in truth (Zec 6:13 ). Even He shall build the temple of Jehovah, and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne; and a counsel of peace shall be between Them both. Of that day Hos 2:14-23 is a bright witness: only here it is according to His title of Jehovah. “And it shall be in that day, saith Jehovah, thou shalt call me my Husband, and thou shalt call me no more Baali [my Master]. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth [He will be in fact and affection El-Elyon, the Most High God], and they shall no more be remembered by their name. And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and With the birds of the heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break bow and sword and battle out of the land, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know Jehovah. And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith Jehovah, I will hear the hleavens, and they shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn and the new wine and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. And I will sow her unto me in the land, and I will have mercy upon Lo-ruhamah, and I will say to Lo-Ammi, My people thou., and they shall say, My God.”

This will be the kingdom of God, not in the moral sense which applies now and always, of which our Lord (Mat 6:33 ) and the apostle Paul (Rom 14:17 ) speak, but in the future display when adversaries are put down. Our Epistle alludes to it as the habitable earth or world to come (Heb 2 ), and as the age to come (Heb 6 ), as indeed in other forms most expressive. It is the great goal of prophecy whether in the O.T. or in the N.T. Great must be the cap for his soul who does not look onward to triumph for mercy and truth, for righteousness and glory, not in heaven only but on this earth, placed under our Lord Jesus, when Israel shall be by grace repentant and subject, and thus fitted to fill their allotted place in that day as God’s people, His son, His firstborn (Exo 4:22 ); and the Gentiles, humbled by divine judgments as well as by unmerited and inexhaustible goodness, shall know that Jehovah sanctifies Israel with His sanctuary in their midst for ever. The glory of the Lord manifested here below will be the answer to His sufferings and shame; and those who in faith and love have shared the latter shall enjoy the former, reigning with Him over the earth. This is not the eternal state, but the kingdom for a thousand years before eternity begins or that judgment of the dead, the wicked dead, which precedes it.

Nor has anyone an adequate conception of the coming Kingdom of God, who does not look for it administered by the risen Lord in person, the glorified saints being on high, Israel and the, nations here below. For there are earthly things as well as heavenly. Of this the Lord reminded Nicodemus, teacher of Israel though he was (Joh 3:3 , Joh 3:5 , Joh 3:12 ); and many more in Christendom need to be reminded of it now. For men are ever apt to be occupied with their own things, and easily confound this purpose of God for Christ’s glory with a vague and general view of eternity. But doctrinal scripture is as distinct and indisputable as the prophetic word. “For the earnest expectation of the creation” (expressly distinguished from ourselves also having the firstfruits of the Spirit) “waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God”; which without doubt is when we follow Christ out of heaven and are manifested with Him in glory (Rom 8:18-25 ; Col 3:4 ; Rev 17:14 , Rev 19:14 ). This indeed is the regeneration (Mat 19:28 ), that age, and the resurrection from the dead (Luk 20:35 ) when the Father’s kingdom is come from above, and His will is done on earth as in heaven. Yet it is not the end when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, but His reigning till He put all the enemies under His feet. And it is plain that death as last enemy is not annulled till just before the great white throne. For the millennium, however blessed beyond example, is not absolutely perfect like the eternity which it ushers in. See 1Co 15 , and 2Pe 3 .

One of the most distinctive marks of that day, a dispensation of the fulness of the seasons, is God’s heading or summing up all in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. No doubt as we are children of God, so are we His heirs and joint-heirs with Christ, the Heir of all things. Hence we are here said (Eph 1:10 , Eph 1:11 ) to have obtained inheritance, which will be manifested in that day; for the glory that the Father has given Him He has given us, though we have to wait, in a hope that does not make ashamed (Joh 17 ; Rom 5:5 ). He that descended is the same that ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things. By Him the sacrificial work is done to reconcile all things to God, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens; and meanwhile we have been already reconciled, so as to await with joy His coming in glory. But when He does come, He with His glorified bride will take the universe, heavenly and earthly, as the scene of His glory. To make His kingdom the earth only is as false as to confine it to heaven. Scripture excludes the narrowness of either view, one of which obtained in sub-apostolic times, as the other in modern. The truth, as usual, is larger than all; and the truth demands both, worthily to magnify the Lord who is the true Melchizedek and will bring forth bread and wine to refresh the returning victors. For there and then too captivity will be led captive. The faith that unselfishly refused the world conquers the world that had for a while the upper hand.

Such is the action of the Royal Priest in that day: not offering sacrifice, nor burning incense, but with suited refreshment when the victory is won at the end of the age, and God proves Himself the Most High, the highest rivals being overthrown. It is emphatically blessing, as that day will be its irrefragable evidence. And the word of blessing is twofold: Abram (representing Israel as their father) blessed on the part of the Most High God, “the possessor of heavens and earth”; and on the other side, “blessed be the Most High, who delivered thine enemies into thy hand,” Melchizedek thereon receiving tithes as duly and gratefully rendered.

But in Hebrews, as we may see, what is future exercise is barely alluded to. It is beautifully pointed out how significant is the name and place first being interpreted king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem which is king of peace.” For this alone can be according to God, whether for heaven or for earth, for the Christian now or for Israel by-and-by: no true peace save on a basis of accepted righteousness. How blessed and sure this is every believer ought to know. What is dwelt on mainly is the “order” of this priest, in contrast with Aaron’s order where limits of age and succession were indispensable. Here it is one sole ever-living priest: “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Not of course that as a matter of fact Melchizedek had not parents, forefathers if not descendants, birth and death, as other men. For the notion of an angel, or divine power, or Christ, are as absurd as that of Shem, etc. Scripture intentionally veils all these; and the priest-king suddenly appears on the scene and vanishes from the inspired history, so as to furnish the typical shadow of our Lord as the Royal Priest. Hence he is said to be “likened, or assimilated, to the Son of God”: language quite improper, if the Son of God had then really appeared. All we see of him is that “he abides a priest continuously.” Nothing else is recorded. There is no preparatory record, and no sequel to the story. He is a king-priest without a hint of terminating his office or devolving it on a successor. He abides a priest in perpetuity, or without a break, the contrast of the Aaronic line.

The sketch hitherto given is wonderfully graphic and comprehensive. We come now to closer points of comparison between Melchizedek and Aaron.

“Now behold how great [was] he to whom [*also] Abraham the patriarch cave a tenth out of the spoils. And those indeed out of the sons of Levi that receive the priestly office have commandment to take tithe of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren thou oh having come out from the loins of Abraham. But he that hath no genealogy from them hath tithed Abraham and hath blessed him that had the promises. But apart from all gainsaying the less is blessed by the better. And here dying men receive tithes, but there one hath witness that he liveth. And, so to say, through Abraham Levi also that receiveth tithes hath been tithed; for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (verses 4-10).

*The “also” or “even” is doubtful, though it has good and ancient evidence.

The facts recorded in the close of Gen 14 are made the groundwork of weighty teaching. On the one hand the patriarch, whom every Jew locked upon as the historic head of Israel, cave Melchizedek a tenth of all the spoils taken from the vanquished kings. On the other hand Melchizedek as priest of the Most High God* blessed Abraham most solemnly and significantly. But circumstances were the more notable because they stand out in marked isolation from the ordinary life of the fathers, save where an inconsistency is recorded for our profit and that no flesh might glory. Thus Jacob vowed that if God would be with him and keep him, so that he should return in peace to his father’s house, Jehovah should be his God, and he would surely of all He gave him render the tenth to Him (Gen 28 ). Yet in the land of the stranger Jacob the pilgrim blessed Pharaoh, king of Egypt though he was (Gen 47 ): a simple but real testimony to the superiority of faith over all earthly honour.

*We may notice, by the way, the utter ignorance of the Pentateuch evinced by the different document system. For the names of God, Elohim, Jehovah, El-Elyon, El-Shaddai, are required by their context to express the truth adequately, instead of the nonsensical assumption of various, strung together at a date long after Moses. The scheme is not only superficial but false and sceptical.

But here all is seen reversed to furnish an adequate type of what was due to Christ, however repulsive to Jewish pride and the petty reasoning of man’s mind. There was a personage, a king-priest, so great in dignity that Abraham gave him a tenth of the spoils at an epoch when God had just crowned himself with singular honour. From this is deduced the undeniable inference, according to a style of teaching which no pious or intelligent Israelite would question, that not Levi only but his priestly sons, the house of Aaron, entitled to tithe their brethren by the law, paid tithes in the person of Abraham to Melchizedek; to one who derived no succession and was absolutely void of genealogical link with the tribe, the priestly family, or with the lineal chief of them all. There stood the fact in the foundation book of holy Scripture, and of that law to which even the incredulous party of Sadducees clung tenaciously. It was no question of a new revelation, or of a doubtful reading, or of an interpretation that could be challenged. In the plainest terms God had revealed a fact, the bearing of which may never have dawned on any until the Holy Spirit now applied it to Christ so unexpectedly.

Nor was Levi, any more than Aaron, degraded by pointing out the decisive act of Abraham recorded for permanent use in divine revelation, which proved a priestly office superior to the Aaronic. For He to whom Melchizedek stood as type was their own Messiah, Jesus the Son of God. To His mere shadow the father of the faithful, the “friend of God,” bowed down, acknowledging the highest representative of the Most High God, Possessor of heavens and earth, and involving in that willing homage all that sprang from him, even Levi and Aaron. Thus according to God it was shown that Aaron and his house had paid tithes to Melchizedek in their forefather. And herein was no failure of Abraham but an act of faith, of which God has made much, as we all see in the O.T. as well as in the N.T.

But we are directed to more than this. Abraham was a receiver from Melchizedek, who “hath blessed him that had the promises.” These might seem to exempt from the blessing of man the one who had the promises of God more characteristically than any other of the sons of men. But not. so, this royal priest, who had no connection of flesh with Aaron and his sons (whom Jehovah ordained to bless the sons of Israel, putting His name upon them to secure His blessing, Num 6 ), Melchizedek blessed Abraham with all publicity and in the most special manner He blessed Abraham on the part of God Most High, and blessed God Most high on the part of Abraham. But beyond controversy, all gainsaying apart, “the less is blessed by the better.” So in Luk 2 Simeon blessed Joseph and Mary, but ventured not to bless the Babe, even when in another sense he blessed or gave thanks to God. In that Babe his eyes had seen God’s salvation; as in like spirit, though with beautifully suited difference of act, the magi from the cast fell down and worshipped, not the mother but the young Child, and, opening their treasures, offered unto Him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh (Mat 2 ). Well had it been for the men and women of the west had they pondered the lesson, instead of lapsing into idolatry.

Melchizedek then blessed Abraham; how much indeed is He the Blest and the Blesser of whom that mysterious priest was but the foreshadowing! But another hint is given, more developed later, on which the less may be said now: “And here dying men receive tithes, but there one having witness that he liveth.” This is what we hear of Melchizedek; not a word of his birth or of his death. He is simply presented a “living” priest, with nothing before or after; whereas death is written on Aaron and all his sons, yet are they priests receiving tithes according to the law. But, so to say, the same law attests that through Abraham as the medium Levi too who receives tithes paid tithe in principle – for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him and received the tenth of the spoils. Had Levi been born previously, he might plead independence and exemption. As it was, Israel, Aaron, and all were united in that one man’s homage, the father of the chosen people.

Thus far in our chapter the Scripture unfolded is that given in the close of Gen 14 ; and therein is shown a priesthood incontestably superior to that of Aaron, royal in character no less than in place, expressly in relation to God’s supremacy, and exercised at the moment of the victory of faith over the hitherto victorious powers of the world. It is distinguished by blessing, emphatically by blessing downwards and upwards, the father of the faithful blessing God Most High, and God Most High blessing him; and we can add from the ancient oracle, as “possessor of heaven and earth”: to say nothing more now of the varied points of contrast with Aaron, which can be realised only in that Man who is God, the sole Man of whom the Spirit could say, “The same yesterday, and today, and forever.” If Melchizedek in the type abides a priest continuously, the Son of God so abides in very deed.

Three proofs of inferiority in the Levitical priesthood appear. Melchizedek received tithes of him whom all Israel acknowledged as their father and chief. Abraham, the original depositary of the promises and heir of the world, was blessed by the same august personage; and indisputably the less is blessed by the better. Again Levitical priests without exception up to Aaron are but dying men, whereas we only hear of Melchizedek living, without one word of his death. And none can deny that the patriarchal head of the tribe which boasted of the priestly family, if he receive tithes from the people, paid tithes in Abraham to Melchizedek, whose superiority was thus indelibly marked in God’s word.

But the scripture quoted already (Heb 5:6 ) from the Book of Psalms (Psa 110:4 ) is distinct in predicating of the Messiah this highest priesthood of the Most High God. Here only is found perfection of priesthood. His person and His work alike warrant this confidence. Nowhere else is it, or can it be even conceivably. Jesus only is saluted of God as high priest after the order of Melchizedek, as the inspired psalmist spoke of Jehovah, in the most solemn way, owning Him in this style, alone and for ever. Hence our Epistle deduces another proof of Levitical inferiority. Nor is it to be overlooked that the Most High has a prophetic reference to the day when all hostile power in the world shall be vanquished, and all false gods vanish before Him who is ever the only true God, and will then enforce His claim as Creator and Possessor of heavens and earth. The Lord Jesus, the Royal Priest, will administer the entire universe to the glory of God, at His appearing again. This, however, is not opened out now, as pertaining to the future exercise of the Melchizedek priesthood, instead of its “order” on which the Holy Spirit is expatiating now as the truth here needed.

“If then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for upon it the people have received the law), what further need that a different priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called [or said to be] after the order of Aaron? For the priest changed, there taketh place of necessity a change also of law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to a different tribe, from which no one hath given attention to the altar. For evidently out of Judah hath our Lord sprung, as to which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests (verses 11-14).

If Moses testifies of a prophet to come like himself but greater far, so does David in spirit of an ever-abiding priest according to the order, not of Aaron but of Melchizedek. This is and secures perfection. It is Jehovah Himself that announces it, long after Aaron, longer still after the historical king-priest of Salem. It unequivocally points to Messiah, but Messiah on the one hand to sit on the right hand of Jehovah, and on the other to strike through kings in the day of His wrath and to judge among the nations. The bearing of this is immediate, powerful, and beyond mistake. Aaronic order gives place to a far surpassing one, of which Melchizedek was but the shadow, in the person and offices of Christ, the centre of all glory, intrinsic and conferred; with the momentous basis of His redemption work, that He might be free to bless righteously, according to all the love and counsels of God, those who could have no other claim, but contrariwise had sin, guilt, and curse. But Psa 110 also points onward to the future day of His triumph when Israel shall be willing, instead of disobedient as now, and the mightiest kings shall be for the Lord Jesus when He sends the sceptre of His might out of Zion, instead of sitting patiently as now at the right hand of God.

Perfection thus is manifestly not through the Levitical priesthood, which is but provisional, from first to last characterised by infirmity and even sins. and indeed it was to make propitiation for the one and to intercede for the other, with imperfection everywhere attending its transitory nature. How different in every way the true and great Melchizedek! How glorious His place on high! How unfailing too the blessing, not only for those who now believing follow Him in Spirit where He is at God’s right hand, but for those spared on earth when He smites through kings in the day of His anger, and blessing flows here below as the exercise of His priesthood. God Most High will be then the manifest possessor of heavens and earth; as the rejected but exalted Messiah will be the channel and guarantee of blessing, the King as well as Priest in the displayed glory of that day.

But Israel had the law given them under the condition of the Levitical priesthood, and on no other footing could it be. A faulty people could not draw near to God as things then were with no more than a figurative redemption and sacrifices. A failing priesthood must intervene tremblingly and with rigour of rite and ceremonial, on pain of death if transgressed. There was clearly nowhere in that system perfection”: yet perfection there must be to meet the mind, love, and holiness of God. It is attainable and found only in Christ, as it is here shown in Him “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” Therefore, as is argued, is the further need of a different priest arising as the Holy Spirit had predicted, according to that supreme order of blessing without fail, the glorified Messiah, and not said to be after Aaron’s order. Now the change of the priest necessitates a chance also of law. This is the true statement of inspiration here not of “the law,” as has been said by a lively but often erratic commentator, but “of law.” There is a totally different principle henceforth. Grace only can save a sinner, not the law, nor a mixture of law and grace, which only the more condemns the guilty as being the less to be excused. It is by grace alone that the believer is or can be saved; through righteousness indeed, but this exclusively in Christ, however truly the faith of Him produces its fruit abundantly through Him unto God’s glory and praise. It was when He had made purification of sins, as we read at the beginning of the Epistle, that He set Himself down on the right hand of the Majesty, though it is only in Heb 10 that we learn fully the perfected status of the Christian.

And the change is shown further by the fact which is next noticed, that He of whom these things are said belonged to or had His pare in a different tribe, not Levi but Judah, from which no one had ever been officially attached to the altar. For it was plain before all that our Lord, as it is added, “hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spoke nothing about priests.” The break was as clear as decisive. Messiah was to be born of David’s line, of a virgin espoused to a man of the Solomonic branch: so prophecy declared. And as He on high, after His sacrificial death and His resurrection, was saluted of God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, it was undeniable that the change from Aaron’s family tribe was divinely marked beyond all controversy.

Thus Christianity is essentially different from Judaism; for no doubt man’s rationalism and ethics are radically worthless and false. There is in both, there was for the Jew visibly, a priest and a sacrifice, a sanctuary, and an altar; but their nature wholly differs by the intention and word of God. Therefore there is no excuse for ignorance; for the O.T. prepares for what the N.T. propounds with all plainness of speech. The essence and substance of all blessing to faith is in Christ, rejected of men and of the Jew especially, but risen and at God’s right hand, and we who believe belong to Him for heaven, as this Epistle elaborately proves. He is coming to bring us there in His own likeness. Every Christian is already not sanctified or hallowed only but perfected by His one offering. But in these days of declension and self-complacency, is there aught that Christians need to learn of God more than their own Christianity as He has revealed it, unless it be Christ Himself on whom all depends? Even saints are slow to believe the grace and glory of His cross, as they instinctively shirk the crucifixion of the world to them and of themselves to the world which it entails. But this is the word of the Lord for His own now (Gal 6:14 ).

It has been shown then that a change of priesthood (and consequently of the law also) was involved in the priest addressed by God in Psalm ex. As the subject of the Psalm is confessedly Messiah and so of necessity David’s son, He must spring out of Judah, not out of Levi as did the house of Aaron. But there is another and far weightier difference to which he next proceeds; He was David’s Lord. No wonder that singular dignity of office attached to a person so glorious. He was no priest according to the law.

“And it is yet more abundantly evident if (or, since) according to the similitude of Melchizedek ariseth a different priest who hath been made, not according to the law of fleshly commandment, but according to power of indissoluble life. For it is witnessed, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. For there is a putting away of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law perfected nothing), and an introduction of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God” (verses 15-19).

It was conceivable that a more exalted being might have taken up, in the sovereign will of God, the priesthood of Aaron, and shed new lustre on it according to His superior glory. But the Holy Spirit here leads the writer to press, not only the change already urged, but the still more striking distinction of a different ( , not merely) priest to arise according to the likeness of Melchizedek. This leaves Aaron or any successor of his, and the law with which they were bound up, completely aside. Thus the great weight of the testimony extracted from Psa 110 comes more and more into evidence. Of Messiah it speaks beyond controversy, of His intermediate position at the right hand of God, of the divine recognition of His priesthood after the order, not of Aaron but of Melchizedek, and not only of His kingdom, introduced as it is here and elsewhere shown to be, by divine power and judgment of His foes. And the more intelligently that Psalm and others are read, the more convergent the light on Christ, and the more indubitable the inference in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the truth alike of Jewish hopes for the future and of Christianity at present.

For it is the rejected Messiah that we see all through the Psalms, opposed by the nations and peoples, by kings and rulers; but God declares His decree not only to set His anointed on Zion, but to give Him the nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession, when He will rule them with a rod of iron and break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Clearly this is not yet accomplished; nor has Messiah yet asked for it. He is waiting on the Father’s throne. He will at His coming sit on His own throne, when those who are now being called shall reign with Him in glory. Meanwhile we have to pray that our hearts be directed into God’s love and Christ’s patience (2Th 3:5 ). We now keep the word of His patience (Rev 3:10 ). As He is waiting on high, so are we below, knowing that He that shall come will come and will not tarry. If made a little lower than the angels, He is because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour in a higher and larger sphere than David’s Son in Zion. He is the suffering but exalted Son of man in heavenly glory, and about to come with the clouds of heaven, invested with universal dominion, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: an everlasting dominion and a kingdom which shall not be destroyed.

But while He waits on high, He is active as a priest in sustaining His own suffering ones, tried as they are on earth. And the order of His priesthood is not after the likeness of Aaron but of Melchizedek. It was not the day of His power when He came the first time. He was crucified in weakness then. So only could there be reconciliation to God by His blood. Redemption otherwise was impossible, and that glorification of God concerning sin without which there could be no righteous, no stable, blessing for anyone or anything. Now the infinite work of atonement is wrought and accepted; and He who was delivered for our offences was raised for our justification, is at the right hand of God, and also maketh intercession. He died for the nation too, as well as to gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad, though the application of His work to “the nation” awaits the hour of their repentance and faith in Him, their own Messiah, whom they slew by the hand of lawless men. He will sit as a priest on His throne when Jehovah shall send the rod of Messiah’s might out of Zion.

But He discharges priestly functions, a priest for us now, and He only is competent and all-sufficient and must needs be so; as the very essence of His order is that, like Melchizedek, He stands alone with no companion in it nor subordinates, with neither predecessor nor successor, the one sole Priest after the order of Melchizedek. The day of His wrath is future and introduces His kingdom; for He is Jehovah as well as Messiah. Thus it is that Jehovah shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall Jehovah be one and His name one: never till then a universal religion and universal kingdom, but all this then for the God of Israel in the person of the Lord Jesus as the word makes plain.

And the heavens shall no longer be aloof, but be united in homage to the King of kings and Lord of lords. Then He will have the glorified, who shall reign with Him. The suffering church will be manifested in His heavenly Bride. Nor is anythine, more opposed to all truth than that they are so reigning* now one of the evil roots of popery and of other self-exalting delusions. On the contrary now is the time to suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. It is an error as old as the ease and honour loving Corinthians in the germ at least. See how nobly the apostle dissipates it as chaff in 1Co 4:8-16 ; comparing 1Co 6:1-9 ; 1Co 7:29-31 ; 1Co 9:24 , 1Co 9:25 ; 1Co 15:23 , 1Co 15:24 , 1Co 15:42-58 . But in fact where is not this truth underlying if not on the surface? The reign of Christ and His heavenly ones will take in the heavens, but be over (not, on) the earth.

* I am aware of the reading of A B and some 26 cursives in Rev 5:10 . But undoubtedly the external counter-evidence of P and 30 cursives, some of no common weight, and of the best Latin copies, preponderates. If it were otherwise even, the believer standing on the analogy of the faith can distinctly pronounce present reigning an error. Compare the absurd reading of the excellent Alex. MS. in Rev 20:5 . We must beware of idolising the witnesses. “On” the earth too is not grammatically sound after . It should be “over.”

But to return to our chapter, the reasoning is conclusive. The chance to a different priest of unique and surpassing glory is the teaching of that O.T. which every true Jew owns to be divine. The infirmity of the Levitical priesthood is thereby demonstrated, and Christ alone answers to the type of Melchizedek. He is beyond controversy the other and different priest that arises, who has been so made or constituted, not after a law of fleshly commandment but after a power of indissoluble life. For He is testified of, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. What can be conceived plainer or more conclusive? Even the royal priest who blessed Abraham was but typical and shadowy. The body is Christ’s. Aaron’s priesthood was fleshly, Christ’s according to power of an imperishable life. It is as risen and in heaven that He is Melchizedek Priest.

Our chapter however draws a still larger deduction, not only an incomparably higher priesthood, to which Aaron’s gives place, but disannulling of a foregoing commandment as weak and unprofitable; for, as is added parenthetically, the law perfected nothing. Christ is not only perfect Himself “but brings in perfection, and in every way. And this is what was implied in Heb 6 : l – “let us go on unto perfection.” It really is Christianity in contradistinction from Judaism, wherein even the heirs were under age (Gal 4 : The Christian is a son and heir of God, and we know it by the Spirit of His Son sent forth into our hearts and crying, Abba, Father. Compare also Rom 8 .

Thus the change of the priesthood from the order of Aaron to that of Melchizedek is shown to be exceeding deep and wide and permanent. Even now, whatever glorious results are in the womb of the future, there is on one hand an abolishing of antecedent injunction because of its weakness and unprofitableness, but on the other an inbringing of a better hope, the parenthesis simply summing up and clenching in a few pithy words the failure of the law to perfect anything. Perfection is in and by Christ alone. and this by grace so fully as to glorify God and meet the believer’s need in everything – even as to the body at His coming again.

But meantime “we draw near to God.” How blessed! It is the standing truth of access: never true even of Aaron save once a year, and then with solemn rite “lest he die.” Now it is alike and always true of the Christian family. For here is no question of differing gift or of special position or local charge. It is the common blessedness of all, due to the work and blood, the person and priesthood, of Christ. “We draw near to God.” To assert difference in this is to resuscitate the abolished injunction, and to despise the introduced better hope. It is to set aside the gospel and go back to that law which, if God’s word is to be believed, made nothing perfect. This is what is seen in much the greater part of Christendom. It was the wedge of Tractarianism; it is the flag of Ritualism. And it is the weakness of true Christians which leaves the door open for all such dark rebellion against divine grace and truth. For to say that there are no priests now on earth is but half a truth. The truth is that Christ is the great Priest on high, and that believers now on earth and since Pentecost are free of the sanctuary. “We draw near to God.” How so if we have not priestly nearness of access? To claim or allow that some have it for others virtually denies Christianity.

But the perfection goes far beyond our being now made of age, in contrast with legal minority, as we shall find throughout this Epistle and in what remains no less than in what we have had; so that this need not be more than noticed according to the brief allusion in the text.

Only it is well to observe that the A.V. of the passage is untenable, and so are the various antecedent translations. ‘Thus Wiclif muddles the entire context, though he is right as to the last clause. It is the more curious as the Vulgate is correct, which helped the Rhemish, though their English is here clumsy and their punctuation cuts all thread of sense. Tyndale, by failing to see the parenthesis, led the way into the strange error of understanding (seemingly, for it is preposterous) that “the lawe made nothing perfect: but was an introduction,” etc. Cranmer followed in his wake. The English version of Geneva erred in another way of like misapprehension by giving, “the law made nothing perfect: but the bringing in of a better hope made perfect ,” etc. The A.V. followed this by inserting ” did .” The truth is that no verb is needed other than the text supplies in the beginning of verse 18, which stretches over to verse 19 also. There is a doing away of a foregoing commandment, and an introduction of a better hope, by which we draw near to God: the legal state is annulled, and a better hope supervenes now. It is Christianity, and by it we draw near to God, instead of standing at a distance as being essentially Jewish. There is nothing more characteristic of the gospel, as the result of Christ’s cross and blood-shedding by which we are brought to God. All priesthood for us save Christ’s vanishes away; and Christ’s is to maintain us in that nearness which His work gives us even now, all Christians being priests spiritually.

Another proof of superiority for the priesthood of Christ over Aaron’s is found in the oath which Jehovah is declared to have sworn in the former case, as attested in the same fruitful verse of Psa 110 . We have already had this argument drawn from His dealings with Abraham after he was tried and found faithful as to the sacrifice of Isaac (Heb 6:13-18 ). It was God’s appreciation of the faith that surrendered His dearest object, and in the most painfully trying way, to Himself trusted absolutely. For the divine oath was added to the word of promise that, by two unchangeable things in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us. Here it is yet more solemn as His appreciation of Christ’s priesthood which is final and for ever, as being perfectly satisfying to His nature, love, and glory, in His Son as well as the Man who had alone glorified Him even as to sin, competent alike as God and man in one person and perfect in all His work.

“And inasmuch as [it was] not without swearing of an oath (for they have been made priests without swearing of an oath, but he with swearing of an oath by him that saith unto him, Jehovah swore and will not change his mind, Thou [art] priest for ever*), by so much also hath Jesus become surety of a better covenant” (verses 20-22).

*The best copies and versions omit the rest of the citation here; as B read in 22.

The very term employed in this case, swearing of an oath, is more full and formal than the short and familiar word previously and generally used. It would seem that the utmost weight of solemnity is expressed thereby. The only occurrence in the Septuagint is in Eze 17:18 , Eze 17:19 , where was decided the lot of the profane prince. The Apocrypha has it once (3 Esdr. viii. 93 (90)). In Act 2:30 the phrase is composed of the two words here combined. The critic Julius Pollux has the word in his Onomasticon (i. 38), not Plato, who uses the plural form differently accentuated therefore, for asseverations on oath (Phaedr. 241 a, ed. H. Steph.), a form also expressive of the accompanying sacrifice among the heathen like , as the Lexicons cite.

Thus did God mark the incomparable honour of Messiah’s priesthood: as the Aaronic was transitory, His for ever. How strange at first sight that a Jew should overlook what was so distinctly involved in this solemnity on Jehovah’s part in that dignity peculiar to His own Messiah! But it ceases to be strange, if one reflect on their habitual history, not as they flatter themselves in modern times but as God has recorded it imperishably in His living oracles, where we see them ever stiff-necked and rebellious, ever forsaking their most needed mercies and their brightest glory. All this would be inexplicable if one did not remember the wily adversary, the old serpent, who has wrought with not less ruinous success in Christendom now than in Judaism of old. Nor will that sad history close for either, till Christ appears in His glory for the judgment of both.

But no mark of God’s estimation of Christ’s priesthood above the Levitical is simpler or surer than swearing as He did when inaugurating Messiah in that position. The deduction is equally irrefragable: “by so much also hath Jesus become surety of a better covenant.” If He took aught in hand, if He became responsible, heaven and earth must sooner pass than His word or His work. The Second Man stands for ever. And “blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” The old covenant cannot be but death and condemnation to the sinner. The new covenant rests on His blood shed for the remission of the believer’s sins, and is truly “a better covenant “; as the Jew will one day be the loudest to proclaim, whatever may be his obstinacy now, proud of what has ruined him and his fathers blind for ages.

“Testament” is here quite out of place; for what has a giver of security to do with making a will? Heb 9:16 , Heb 9:17 is the sole passage of scripture which requires or even admits of such a sense; and it is there due to “eternal inheritance” in the verse immediately preceding. The word in itself is capable of either sense, meaning in human relations a disposition, especially of property by will, and in divine things a covenant, which naturally predominates in the LXX. and the N.T. The context decides with certainty. Thus in Mat 26:28 , Mar 14:24 , Luk 22:20 , remission of sins is expressly bound up with the “new covenant” (not testament) as in Jer 31:31-34 . Even the Vulgate has here “novum foedus,” not testamentum, which ought to have sufficed to have kept Jerome right in the Gospels. And what has “blood” to do with a “will”? That it should be the basis of a covenant is a familiar truth. A will or testament is unknown to the O.T. Not less clearly is it the God of Israel’s “holy covenant,” as it is rightly rendered in Luk 1:72 : testament can have no relation to the oath sworn to Abraham; though the Vulgate gives that word followed by Wiclif and the Rhemish translators, as it misled all the English in the three texts first referred to in the Synoptic Gospels. Act 3:25 , Act 7:8 , are equally plain for “covenant”; and there all the English versions are correct, save Wiclif and the Rhemists, servile as usual to the Vulgate. But they were all inexcusable, particularly as to Act 7:8 , which directly alludes to Gen 17 , where the Vulgate has uniformly “pactum,” never once “testamentum.”

The Epistles are just as unambiguous. Thus in Rom 9:4 , “the covenants” (cf. Gal 4:24 and Eph 2:12 ) can be the only right sense, referring to Jer 31:31 for the new, and to Exo 24:8 for the first or old. Here the Vulgate follows the erroneous singular, as in B D E F G, etc., against the true text in and the mass of uncial and cursive copies, etc. (save that A and L omit so as to be out of court), and all critics except Lachmann, who, great a scholar as he was, can never be reckoned on for a spiritual judgment. The English are right, save Wiclif and the Rhemists and the margin of the A.V. In Rom 11:27 the meaning is beyond doubt “covenant,” as in the English with the same exceptions; where the error of the Vulgate is the more flagrant, because in Isa 59:21 it gives “foedus” rightly, yet mistranslates as usual in the N.T. citation. 1Co 11:25 falls under the remarks on the Lord’s Supper in the Gospels, as already seen. 2Co 3:6-14 can only mean a new covenant” and “the old covenant,” the reference being indisputable; yet here the influence of the Vulgate misled all the English discreditably. Even Beza had corrected himself; for while wrong in his editions of 1559, 1565, and 1582, he abandons “test.” and substitutes “pactum” in his last two editions of 1588 and 1598, though without a reason given in his notes. The connection of Gal 3:15 is conclusive for the more general “covenant” even though human only, rather than the narrower ‘testament,” which is here more excusable in the Vulgate Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the version of Rheims, while the Geneva rendering of 1557 led the A.V. to “covenant,” with “testament” in the margin. This is confirmed by verse 17, where a last “will” or “testament” cannot rightly be understood, though here again we have the same parties similarly ranged. In Heb. 4: 24 the A.V. alone of English is correct, with the marginal alternative for which there was no good reason. In Eph 2:12 the Geneva V. was the forerunner of the A.V., Beza being right all through.

This brings us, according to the usual arrangement, to our Epistle, and to this the first mention of the word, where “covenant” has been shown to be right. In Heb 8:6 , Heb 8:8 , Heb 8:9 (twice), and 10 it is unmistakably and uniformly “covenant”; for what has a “mediator” to do with a testament? Other proofs are so obvious as to need no further pointing out. So in Heb 9:4 the ark was of the “covenant,” with which a will or testament had no congruity and with the “tables” too in the same verse. It has been remarked also that “a mediator” goes with “a covenant,” not a testament (verse 15), and the bearing of the “first covenant” is determined by O.T. reference. “Testament” it cannot be. But the inspiring Spirit, in the parenthesis of verses 16, 17, avails Himself of the signification so familiar to all who spoke or read Greek, in order to impress the place that death has for introducing and giving effect to the blessing of the Christian. A covenant does not imply in any case the death of the covenanter to give it validity; a testament invariably supposes the testator’s death to bring it into operation. All learning or argument to set aside “testament” and “testator” here is but beating the air. Equally vain is it to establish “testament” in verse 15, or in 18 and 20, where “covenant” alone suits and alone warranted by the O.T. God enjoined a covenant, not a testament, and that by blood. The same proof applies no less stringently to Heb 10:16-29 , Heb 12:24 , and Heb 13:20 , as also to Rev 11:19 .

Now these are all the occurrences in the N.T.; and the sum is that “testament” is out of place everywhere save in Heb 9:16 , Heb 9:17 , where alone special contextual bearing gives occasion to that sense; whereas the universal O.T. force prevails in every other. The question is here gone into fully, that no reader may allow the unbelieving notion of the least uncertainty hanging over the usage. It is in vain and even injurious to parade a crowd of the learned men opposed to another crowd not less learned, save to prove that our faith ought in no case to rest on man but on God’s word and Spirit. Thus regarded, the uncertainty of men confirms the ‘believer in the value of the provisions of God’s grace and word.

Another proof of superiority over the Levitical priesthood is claimed for our Lord Jesus in His abiding triumph over death, from which neither Aaron nor his successor had exemption any more than other men. They all succumbed to death, which rendered their priesthood necessarily successional in order to its very existence.

“And they have been made priests more in number, because they are hindered by death from continuing. but he, because he abideth for ever, hath the priesthood unchangeable:* whence also he is able to save completely those that approach to God through him, ever living as he is to intercede for them” (verses 23-25).

*It is . Theodoret and other Greek fathers interpret it as “unsuccessional,” which makes excellent sense. But usage points rather to “unchangeable” or intransmissible, untransferable.

The text had already been applied twice in this chapter (8, 16): the first time, in reasoning on the type of Melchizedek paid tithe to and testified of only as “living,” Scripture being as silent about his death as about his birth (whereas under the law none but “dying” men received tithes); the second time, in contrasting the respective principles, a law of carnal injunction, weak and profitless on the one side, and on the other, power of indissoluble life through the perfection of which we draw near to God. Here, as has been remarked, we have the Holy Spirit noticing the appointment of numbers of priests Levitical, because death hindered continuance; whereas the high priest of our confession, because of His abiding for ever, “hath the priesthood unchangeable.” The personal contrast of His abiding for ever, with the many sons of Aaron who could not but pass away through death, emphasises the priesthood in His case as indefeasible.

Nor can any demonstration be conceived so convincing and irrefutable. For death tells the tale of man’s weakness and sin; and the more as he was constituted to live with suitable provision for it, had he obeyed God. Nevertheless Jesus did taste of death, but in no way by sin, yet for it as a sacrifice. BY the grace of God He tasted death for every one (or, thing). And this infinite act of His love not only availed for us before God in a way and measure with which nothing else Pan compare, but gave occasion to display the power of an imperishable life in Him. “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” When Scripture records its remarkable list of antediluvians (Gen 5 ) living 930, 912, 910, 895, 962, 969, 777 years, the solemn words follow in each case, “and he died.” Had Jesus lived as many as any, or double the oldest, men might still have said, Wait and see what the end will be. But He, after living as man just long enough to do the will of God perfectly, at its climax laid down His life in a single generation, that He might take it again in resurrection. Thus was marked out, on the one hand, the annulling of Satan’s power in his last fortress of death, on the other the victory of the Son of God after full submission to God’s judgment of sin. It was His resurrection that proclaimed death defeated. He only is the Living One, who became dead and is now alive again for ever more, in possession of the keys of death and Hades. And as thus living again He carries on His priesthood on high.

Therefore is there but One. Death has no more dominion over Him, as sin never had. No successor is needed, none to replace Him who ever abides. Vain search! for none else had the qualification. Through death there was no continuance. Hence is He in manifest contrast with Aaron’s sons who followed in a family succession more numerous than the sons of David, till He came, the promised and predicted Son, who is the King after God’s heart not in type alone but reality, as He is the Priest, the one Mediator whose love and effectual love has been proved to the uttermost in dying for our sins, and who now lives to sustain, guard, and sympathise as well as intercede on our behalf who believe.

And the power by which He lives for ever is the guarantee of a commensurate salvation (verse 25). For if the priests, the sons of Aaron, could not save themselves from death, still less could they save others. Christ only when His work was done, which made His death necessary for sinners, having been perfected became author of everlasting salvation to all that obey Him. “For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved in his life,” i.e. in virtue of it. He abides for ever, and because it is so He has His priesthood unchangeable Thus also He is able to save completely those that approach to God through Him. In His case it is not the cold or poor plea of a divinely ordained office administered by an unworthy occupant, which brought death on many a son of Aaron as we may see in early days, and which filled with grief and shame far more “Israelites indeed” to the end of the sad story. If the law made nothing perfect, still less did the numerous priests as they succeeded one another supply strength and profit.

But here the glorious presence of God’s Son gives a fresh and unfading and incalculable lustre to the office, enhanced as all is by an unwavering obedience which glorified His Father absolutely. He therefore is the sole priest able to save completely ( ) those that approach to God through Him, since He ever lives to intercede for them. As their need here below is great and unceasing so is He above always free, competent, and efficacious to interpose on their behalf. Do they approach by Him to God? He saves them throughout and entirely. Divine love and righteousness are thus at one in carrying through to God’s glory and salvation in the face of every difficulty or danger. Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is none other name under heaven that is given anion(, men whereby we must be saved.

The superiority of the true Melchizedek is thus shown in every respect incontestable and manifest; and in the unjealous ways of grace His purity and His glory are bound up with the heavenly dignity of the believer, as it is here expressed.

“For such a high priest [also*] became us,* holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who hath no need day by day, as the high priests, first for his own sins to offer up sacrifices, then [for] those of the people; for this he did once for all, having offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high priests having infirmity; but the word of the oath-swearing that [was] after the law, a Son perfected for ever” (verses 26-28).

* A B D E, and both Syriac versions, add “also.” It may be noticed that by a misprint Tischendorf gives “you,” instead of “us.” By a similar inadvertence heaps of various readings arose among the copyists of old.

The reason assigned (for the sentence takes that shape) is made all the more striking when compared with a designedly similar one in Heb 2:10 . “For it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” The glory of God, His truth, His justice, had been compromised if sin were not judged unsparingly in His person Whose grace made Him responsible for all its consequences. Therefore did it become God to make Him who knew no sin sin for us. Here no less wonderfully does the Holy Spirit say that “it became us ” to have a high priest in every point of view and beyond comparison superior to the Aaronic line. “For such a high priest became us,” not only of purity unexampled but made “higher than the heavens,” the glorious place in which the Epistle loves to regard Him, due to His personal and divine dignity, but taken as the result of His atoning death before God for a heavenly family and their need through sin.

The word “holy” should be considered. In Greek as in Hebrew two expressions are employed: one ( ) to imply separateness for God from evil, the other ( ) graciousness, which said of God means His mercy, said of man means his piety. It is the latter term which is here rendered “holy,” a holiness full of loving-kindness. Next, is poorly translated “harmless” as in the A.V.: and “guileless” as in the Revision answers to . In Christ it rises to a total absence of evil found in none else. “Undefiled” declares Him untainted by the corruptions that surrounded Him when here below, where His moral beauty shone on all who had eyes to see, above all in His Father’s who bore witness from heaven.

Appropriately therefore is He next said to be “separated from sinners,” not from sins only, as the Pesch-Syriac says, but from sinners. What was ever morally true was crowned in His leaving the world behind, the enduring effect of a completed age, and so leads on to the only place befitting Him, “made higher than the heavens.” There He exercised His high-priestly functions, having laid the ground in His propitiatory work on the cross. It should surprise none to hear that such a place became Him. Revelation declares that such a high priest “became us.” Divine righteousness does not justify us only but sets us in and as Christ before God (2Co 5 ); or, according to the doctrine of our Epistle, constitutes us holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, and (as we shall see) exhorts us to approach with a true heart, as having boldness for entering into the holies by the blood of Jesus. It is not then because we were anything good of ourselves, but on the contrary because we are so blessed, objects of perfect favour, and bound for glory under an unfailing Leader, that “such a high priest became us,” in contrast with the earthly people who had high priests like themselves.

In verse 27 is a brief exclusion of the shortcomings of earthly priesthood, leaving its full discussion to a later moment. Aaron and his successors needed day by day to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, then for the people’s – Christ once for all when He offered Himself, which is the clearest token of absolute sinlessness, and according to the worth of His person was infinitely effectual for others, as He needed nothing on His own part. This the previous verse demonstrated, if proof were asked, though it ought not to be. And the whole is clenched by verse 28: “For the law constituteth men high priests, having infirmity.” All here was imperfection. “But the word of the oath-swearing that was since the law [constituteth] a Son perfected for ever.” “Son” is characteristic, and hence has not the article, though He be the Only-begotten but not here a designated object; so that the language is perfectly correct. Its insertion would make Himself prominent rather than His near relationship to God. The perfect participle passive here as in verse 26 points to the permanent character acquired, and not to the simple fact as the aorist would express. As in His severance from sinners, so in His having completed all for His priestly place, it is the lasting result of either terminated act. In Heb 2:10 it is the act itself on God’s part.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Heb 7:1-3

1For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

Heb 7:1 “Melchizedek” He was a Gentile king/priest of the old Canaanite city then called Salem, which later became Jebus and then later Jerusalem. His name means “my king of righteousness” (very similar to the name of the king of Jerusalem in Jos 10:1, “my lord is righteous”). His lineage is never mentioned, but Abraham pays homage to him. This is why he is such an appropriate OT type for Jesus Christ. He is only mentioned in Gen 14:18-20 and Psa 110:4. There has been much discussion about his identity.

1. for Philo, he is a figure of the human soul

2. for Origen, he is an angel

3. for Ambrose, he is the angel of the Lord

4. for others, he is the national angel of Israel, Michael

5. for Epiphanius, he is the incarnation of Holy Spirit

6. for the Melchizedekites, he is greater than the Messiah and all prayer goes through him

7. for some Jews, Jerome and Luther, he is Shem, Noah’s son

Melchizedek is used as a type of Jesus’ priesthood for four reasons:

1. Abraham offered a tithe to him (inferiors always tithe to superiors) and by rabbinical hermeneutics thereby Levi also offered a tithe (cf. Heb 7:4-9)

2. his parents are not listed, so rabbinical theology said he was without parents and thereby eternal (cf. Heb 7:3; Psa 110:4 b)

3. he was leader in the later holy city, Jerusalem (Salem, cf. Gen 14:18)

4. he was a priest of God Most High (i.e., El Elyon, cf. Gen 14:18)

5. he allows the author to establish a legitimate priesthood apart from the Levitical Priesthood.

“king. . .priest” He is the only person in the OT who combines royalty and priesthood (i.e., Psalms 110).

“and blessed him” The greater blesses the lesser; therefore, Abraham (and by rabbinical implications his descendant, Levi), was blessed by Melchizedek (cf. Gen 14:19), which shows his superiority over the Aaronic priesthood. It also shows that Jesus, who was from the line of Judah, could be a priest of a different order.

Heb 7:2 “a tenth” Notice that the tithe (cf. Gen 14:20) is older than the Mosaic law. It was a way like the Sabbath and first fruits of showing God’s ownership of all (cf. Gen 14:19 c).

“by the translation of his name” The specific etymology of the phrase “king of righteousness” is uncertain but a similar title is used for the Messiah in Jer 23:6 (“the Lord our righteousness”) and Jer 33:16 (“the Lord is our righteousness”). Also, the Messiah will be righteous and bring peace (cf. Isa 9:6; Isa 26:3; Isa 26:12; Isa 32:17; and Isa 54:10).

“King of righteousness” For “righteousness” see Special Topic at Heb 1:9.

“Salem” The city may have gotten its name from the Hebrew term shalom which means “peace.” Some scholars think it refers to a Jebusite deity. The city is called Salem in Genesis 14, but Psa 76:2 relates it to Jerusalem (i.e., Zion), which was called Jebus during the Canaanite period.

Heb 7:3 This is rabbinical hermeneutics (midrash, see Appendix Three) based on the fact that Melchizedek’s lineage is not given in Gen 14:18-20. Like all human beings Melchizedek had parents, but he serves as another type of the eternal Messiah (cf. Heb 7:8). This is developed in Heb 7:8; Heb 7:12; Heb 7:16-17; Heb 7:21; Heb 7:24-25; Heb 7:28.

“beginnings” See Special Topic: Arch at Heb 3:14.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Melchisedec. See Gen 14:18-20.

Salem. Only here and Heb 7:2 in N.T.

Most High. See Act 7:48.

God. App-98.

met. Greek. sunantao. See Act 10:25.

slaughter = defeat, or smiting. Greek. kope. Only here. Used Gen 4:17 (Septuagint)

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

CHAP. Heb 7:1 to Heb 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,

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Shall we turn now in our Bibles to Hebrews, the seventh chapter.

In the book of Genesis, after Abraham and Lot had parted company, there was a confederation of five kings that conquered in the area where Lot lived, and took him captive and spoiled several cities. Abraham, hearing of it, armed his servants and he went out to met these five kings in battle, and defeated them. He took from them the spoils that they had taken from the many cities that they had conquered.

As Abraham was returning victoriously with the spoils from these five kings, there came out to meet him a man by the name of Melchisedec. The name means “the King of Righteousness.” He was also known as “the King of Salem,” which being interpreted is “the King of Peace.” Nothing is told us concerning the origin of Melchisedec. We know nothing of his genealogy, nothing of his parents. We know nothing of what happened to him after his meeting with Abraham. This was 400 years before Moses and the law.

Melchisedec, a mysterious priest of which we know so little, is only mentioned twice in the Old Testament. The first time being there in Gen 19:1-38 , when he met Abraham. But then in Psa 110:1-7 , out of the blue the psalmist writes concerning God, that He had sworn with an oath that, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” This one hundred tenth Psalm is a psalm concerning the Messiah. It begins, “The Lord said unto my Lord, ‘Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.’ The Lord shall send the rod of Thy strength out of Zion: rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: Thou hast the dew of Thy youth. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, ‘Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.'”

Now there was the Aaronic order of priesthood from the tribe of Levi. One of the requirements of being a high priest in the nation of Israel under the law was, first you had to be from the tribe of Levi, and then of the Aaronic order. Here is an order of priesthood that antedates the Levitical priesthood by 400 years. A priesthood to which Abraham, the father of the nation, gave tribute, paid tithes, and received a blessing.

So the writer of the book of Hebrews, in the seventh chapter, is going to point out that this priest, Melchisedec, was of a higher order of priesthood than was the Aaronic order of priesthood established under the law. And that even after the Aaronic order had been established, a thousand years later…in fact, there is a thousand years’ time difference between the two mentions of Melchisedec in the Old Testament. Abraham lived about 2000 B.C. when he met Melchisedec, a thousand years later. You see, we read of it in the same Bible and it’s only a few books back, but it is a thousand years back. Suddenly this comes forth, “God has sworn and will not repent, ‘Thou art a priest forever, (talking of the Messiah), after the Order of Melchisedec,'” not after the order of Aaron, after the order of Melchisedec. So that gives you a little background.

One further note before we get into the text itself. One day as Jesus was disputing with the Pharisees, they were challenging Him concerning His claims as Messiah and the Son of God. They said, “We are the sons of Abraham.” Jesus said, “If you were the sons of Abraham, you would have acknowledged me, because Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it.” And they looked at him and they said, “What are You trying to tell us? Abraham saw You. You are not even fifty years old.” And Jesus responded, “Before Abraham was, I am.” And they took up stones to kill Him” ( Joh 8:56-59 ).

Now this statement, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day and saw it.” When did Abraham see Jesus? Many Bible scholars, and myself included (but not necessarily the Bible scholar, I just love the Bible), many Bible scholars believe that Melchisedec was, in reality, one of what they call the Christophanies of the Old Testament, the appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament to Abraham. And that He was actually Melchisedec who came out to meet Abraham who received tithes from him and who blessed him. It is interesting that Melchisedec gave to Abraham bread and wine, the symbols of communion, the body and blood of our Lord.

Now, let’s get into the text.

For this Melchisedec, the king of Salem, priest of the most high God ( Heb 7:1 ),

He said that he was the priest of El Elyown, the Most High God, when he introduced himself to Abraham.

who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also the King of Salem, which is, the King of peace ( Heb 7:1-2 );

Fascinating name, King of Righteousness, King of Peace.

Jeremiah tells us that when the Lord comes to reign upon the earth that He will be known in that day as Jehovah-Tsidkenu, which means, “the Lord our Righteousness,” or, “the King of Righteousness.” We know that He is coming as the Prince of Peace. Both of these names incorporated in the name Melchisedec.

Now, Melchisedec, he said was,

Without father, without mother, and without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life ( Heb 7:3 );

It doesn’t tell us where he was born, when he was born. It doesn’t tell us when or how he died, or that he did die. It doesn’t tell us anything of his genealogy. It doesn’t tell us anything of his father and mother. He appears isolated on the scene, no background, nothing of his future. Just there appearing to Abraham, blessing him, receiving tithes from him, giving him bread and wine in communion. And so without father, without mother, without a genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

but made like unto the Son of God; he abides a priest continually ( Heb 7:3 ).

God has sworn and will not repent, “Thou art a priest forever.” So he abides, continually abides; the priesthood is continual, forever. “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” It is an order that is established which is an eternal order of priesthood. “Thou art a priest forever,” so he abides a priest continually.

Now consider ( Heb 7:4 )

You remember, twice before in Hebrews we had been told to consider Jesus. “Now consider him…” Now he tells us to consider Melchisedec. And as I say, I believe that he was an appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament.

Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils ( Heb 7:4 ).

Consider how great he must have been.

You see, Abraham was, in the mind of the Jew, the epitome. He was it. He was the beginning of the father. He was the father of those that believed. He was the prime patriarch of the people. Now consider how great this man Melchisedec was that Abraham would have given to him a tenth part of everything he had. That Abraham would have paid tithes to him, a tenth of the spoils.

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brothers, though they come out of the loins of Abraham ( Heb 7:5 ):

God had, under the law, established that the people should give a tenth part of all of their increase, that they should bring it into the temple. This was to be given to the priest. They were to pay their tithes, a tenth part of the increase. When they harvested their crops a tenth was to be brought in and given unto the Lord. The Levitical priests received tithes from their brothers; all of them were descendants of Abraham.

But he whose descent is not counted from them ( Heb 7:6 )

Not a descendant of Abraham. He lived at the same time, so his descent is not counted from them.

received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises ( Heb 7:6 ).

Abraham had the promises of God. “Unto thee shall all of the nations of the earth be blessed. From thy seed shall the nations of the earth be blessed.” This promise was to Abraham, and yet, here is Abraham receiving a blessing from this man. “Consider this man,” who is that man? That even Abraham paid tithes to him and he received the blessing from Abraham.

For without any argument the less is blessed of the better ( Heb 7:7 ).

The blessing is always bestowed from the greater to the lesser. We are blessed of God. The fact that Abraham then received the blessings of Melchisedec puts Melchisedec even above their great patriarch Abraham.

And here men that die receive tithes ( Heb 7:8 );

The Levitical priests, they died and the order was passed on and on and on in a succession of generations. And here men that die receive tithes,

but there he received them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives ( Heb 7:8 ).

“Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” That is, Melchisedec still lives.

And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him ( Heb 7:9-10 ).

So in reality, the priesthood of Melchisedec is so superior to that of Levi that Levi actually, who was, of course, in the loins of Abraham or potentially there in that gene structure that was to be passed on, Levi paid tithes unto Melchisedec.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? ( Heb 7:11 ).

So coming to this Psa 110:1-7 , “God hath sworn and shall not repent, ‘Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.'” If the Levitical priesthood were perfect, if it could bring man into a perfect state, then why wouldn’t God have said concerning the Messiah that, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Aaron”? It was because the Aaronic priesthood could not bring anything into perfection. Therefore, God reverts to an earlier priesthood and greater priesthood, “Thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.”

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar ( Heb 7:12-13 ).

So the fact that the priesthood is after the order of Melchisedec, there has to be a change of the law, because under the law you had to be of the tribe of Levi in order to be the priest. When they had returned from Babylonian captivity, there were some men who claimed priesthood, but they could not prove their genealogies, and so they were not allowed in the priesthood. Only those that could bring their genealogies and prove that they were of Levi.

But here is a priest after another order. Therefore, the law has to be changed, because we know he said that Jesus came from the tribe of Judah. And nothing in the law is said concerning the priesthood of the tribe of Judah, but it is an exclusive right for the tribe of Levi. For he of whom these things are spoken, Jesus is the one of whom this was spoken, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec,” pertains to another tribe of which no man gave attendance at the altar. They did not serve before the altar of God, those from the tribe of Judah.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood ( Heb 7:14 ).

In the book of Hebrews, he has brought out that we have a great high priest, even Jesus Christ, the righteous. The Jew would immediately challenge, “How could Jesus be a great high priest when He comes from the tribe of Judah?” Nothing is said in the law concerning the priesthood from the tribe of Judah. So here he pulls out this 110th Psalm, “For God has sworn and will not repent, ‘Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.'” And so he answers the argument of the Jew, who would declare there is no way Jesus could be a high priest coming from the tribe of Judah. He answers that argument quite thoroughly with his prophetic Psa 110:1-7 .

And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest ( Heb 7:15 ),

It is far more evident because the prophecy in Psa 110:1-7 , that there has to arise another priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life ( Heb 7:16 ).

“Thou art a priest forever.” So the law could make nothing perfect. It could only bear witness of a better covenant, established on better promises.

For he testified, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is then of necessity a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitable thereof ( Heb 7:17-18 ).

The law has been disannulled, commandments disannulled, because of the priesthood being changed.

For the law made nothing perfect, but it brought in a better hope; by which we draw nigh unto God ( Heb 7:19 ).

The Bible says, “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God” ( Rom 3:20 ). The Bible teaches us that the law was never intended to make a man righteous. The purpose of the law was to reveal man’s sin and his utter sinfulness. It is by the law that I have a knowledge of sin, for God has declared His righteous standard and I realize that I have fallen short of God’s righteous standard.

So, the law revealing my failure, points the finger of guilt at me and the law then condemns me to death and to the curse. “For it is written, ‘Cursed is every one who continues not in the whole law that is to do the things that are written therein'” ( Gal 3:10 ). The law makes no one righteous, but it does put us all under the curse, for it reveals to us our sins and it makes us much more guilty, or at least conscious of our guilt. Now, this is the problem in the time of Jesus, was their interpretating of the law. And I think that that is probably a problem that exists all through the history of man, the interpreting of the law.

We’re having a tremendous problem in the United States today as we are trying to interpret the law, the Constitution, the freedom of religion. What did they really mean? The way the liberal Supreme Court has interpreted it, is that man has freedom from religion not the freedom of religion. They got the prepositions twisted up. Our Constitution never intended that man should have freedom from religion. It’s just that none of us force our religious convictions or beliefs upon each other, but all of us are allowed to practice our religious convictions in freedom.

It is interesting to me that under the present interpretation of the law, teachers can assign reading to our high school students, reading assignments by which they can study Hinduism, Buddhism, and it can be presented in a very favorable light to the children. Huntington Beach High School, one of the teachers there assigned a book that espouses Hinduism, required reading for their class. But surely, if one of the teachers should require that they read a book with Christian connotations there would be an outcry of that liberal half-wit society that it was a violation, the ACLU. I’ll tell you…maybe I better not. What damage they have done. They are out to destroy the moral principles and fiber of our nation. They actually create situations where they can challenge the law as they did in the Scopes trial. It was all set up by the ACLU.

Now in Jesus’ day, they were interpreting the law as a physical, material thing rather than seeing it as a spiritual thing, and interpreting it in a literal, physical way. They were becoming very smug and self-righteous because they followed the law to the letter. For instance, Jesus said, “You strain at a gnat and you swallow a camel.”

Now, over in that land there are lots of gnats, pesky little things flying around your eyes all the time, and just bugging you. And as you were out doing your morning jogging, sometimes these little gnats would fly in your mouth. Now, according to the law you can’t eat any meat unless it has been killed in a kosher fashion, thoroughly bled. So you’d see these Pharisees out there with their fingers down their throat straining to get rid of that gnat, because they didn’t want to do anything that would violate the law. So they strained at a gnat.

The law said, “Thou shalt not bear a burden on the Sabbath day.” What constitutes bearing a burden? So they had to go down the list of the various burdens that a man might bear on the Sabbath day. You have a glass eye? That is carrying something on the Sabbath day, and you’ve got to take it out on the Sabbath day. Go around with one eye. Have false teeth? Sabbath day, you’re carrying a burden. Get rid of the false teeth. Wooden leg? Not on the Sabbath, man.

So they sought to interpret the law, making it a heavy, physical yoke that no man can bear. But in reality, becoming very self-righteous because I keep the law, whereas, in reality, they were violating the spirit of the law every day. God intended the law as spiritual. Their carnal interpretation was wrong.

That is why in the Sermon on the Mount, beginning in the fifth chapter of Matthew, about verse Heb 7:14 or so, Jesus said, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you’re not going to enter the kingdom of heaven” ( Mat 5:20 ). And as all of the disciples were aghast, and shocked, “Well, that let’s me out, have to be more righteous than those guys,” bunch of fisherman. Oh, this was just too heavy to handle. Jesus went on to explain what He meant. For their righteousness was all of works. An outward righteousness in the keeping of the law, but inwardly they were violating the spirit of the law every day.

Jesus said, “You have heard that it hath been said, they’ve taught you that the law says, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but I say unto you, that if you hate your brother you’ve violated the law” ( Mat 5:21-22 ). Hatred from which murder springs. “You have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ but I say unto you, whosoever looks upon a woman and desires her has already committed adultery in his heart” ( Mat 5:27-28 ). It’s a matter of the heart. It’s the matter of the spirit, and that is what Jesus was teaching.

When you look at the law that way, then we are all guilty. Though we may not have physically clubbed our neighbor to death, we’ve hated him because he never keeps his dog quiet at night. “I could kill him in the middle of the night when I’m awakened by that pesky dog.” Guilty! The law made nothing perfect, but it did bring a better hope by which we draw nigh unto God.

And inasmuch as when a man was made a priest he had to take the oath of the priesthood ( Heb 7:20 ):

Even as the president has to take the oath of office, the governor has to take the oath of office, so the priest has to take the oath of office.

(For those priests were made without an oath of God; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent [God took an oath], Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better testament ( Heb 7:21-22 ).

So, we talk about the Old Testament. We talk about the New Testament. Jesus, when He took the emblems of the Passover supper, a part of the old covenant the deliverance out of Egypt, which was a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt. The purpose of the supper was to remind them that their fathers were delivered from the bondage in Egypt by the hand of God. When Jesus took those elements of the Passover, He said, “This cup is a new testament in my blood that is shed for the remission of sins.” The old covenant of God to those in Egypt was put the blood of the lamb on the lentils of the doorposts of the house, and when I passed through the land tonight I’ll pass over your house–God’s old covenant. The sacrificial lamb would cover for the house. God’s new covenant, the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse us from sin, and death has passed over us. We have passed from death into life. “He that liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.” Oh, we’ll be changed. We’ll have a metamorphosis. This corruption must put on incorruption. This mortal must put on immortality. I’m going to move out of my old tent into my beautiful new mansion, but I’ll never die. So Jesus, being made a priest after the order of Melchisedec by the oath of God, has become the surety of a better testament.

And they truly were many priests ( Heb 7:23 ),

They would die, and that was their problem. They’d live out their life span and die, and the priesthood would pass on to the next and the next. It was something that was continually changing. There truly were many high priests of the Aaronic order,

because they were not allowed to continue by reason of death [they were mortals]: But this man, because he continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them ( Heb 7:23-25 ).

Now, the purpose of the priesthood was that of intercession. The people could not come directly to God.

In the book of Job, as Job’s friends were probing for the possible reasons for his calamities and sufferings, they had come to the conclusion that Job must be a secret sinner. Guilty of horrible acts of sin that he was able to successfully hide. Job attested to his innocence. “I don’t know of anything. I haven’t done these things that you accuse me of doing. If I’ve done these things then let me die. I deserve it, but I haven’t done these things.”

And his one friend said to him, “Why don’t you just get right with God and everything will be okay.” In responding to him, Job said, “I look up at the heavens, and I realize the vastness of God. And I realize that I am nothing. How can I plead my case before God when He is so great and I am nothing? Who am I to stand before God to plead my case?” He said, “There is no daysman between us that can put his hand on both of us.” God is too vast. He is infinite. I’m finite. The gulf between the infinite and the finite is too great for the finite to reach over.

That is, of course, the basic weakness of all religions. The finite man is trying to reach over this gulf to the infinite God–impossible. That is what separates Christianity from all religions. Christianity is not finite man trying to reaching the infinite God. But it’s the infinite God reaching down to the finite man. “God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son.” So the infinite God is reaching down to the finite man. Now, that I can accept that as possible, but religions with the finite man trying to reach the infinite God, I can also see the total impossibility of that.

As one of Job’s friends said, “Who by searching can really discover God or know God, find out God to perfection?” The answer is no one can. God is infinite. I have a finite understanding. I have a finite mind. I cannot comprehend or understand the infinite God. Being finite, I cannot reach the infinite God. The gap is too great. There is no mediator between us, one who can lay His hand on us both, no daysman. But to this cry of Job, and the dilemma of Job, comes the statement of Paul, “There is one God (eternal, true, and living), and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” ( 1Ti 2:5 ). He lays His hand on us both. He touches God because He is one with God, but He touches me because He became a man and is in all points tempted like I am.

The purpose of the priest was to take this sinning man and intercede for him before God. But the priest himself had sins, so before the priest could offer a sacrifice for you, he had to first of all offer the sacrifice for himself. And then having offered the sacrifices for himself, he then, in turn, could offer for you. He would go before God and intercede for you. He was your representative before God, and then as he would come back to you. He would represent God before you. He was the go-between. He was the daysman. He was there mediating between you and God, because the approach to God was impossible for you to come directly to God. Our sins blocked the door, kept us from coming. You go to God with all your sin, you’d be fried man. You can’t stand in the holiness and purity of God. You’d just be wiped out. So that daysman, that mediator. So that was the purpose of the priesthood in the Old Testament.

Jesus, our great High Priest, is able to save them to the uttermost. Now this salvation that we have…now, again, don’t mix your prepositions. It is not saved from the uttermost. It isn’t here declaring that God can reach down to the lowest level of human existence and take a man from that state of a derelict and raise him to a high level of a redeemed preacher. Now, God can do that, and other text confirms that, but that is not what this text is affirming. It is not saving from the uttermost. It is saving to the uttermost. This salvation that you have, it’s the most. Nothing greater, nothing finer, nothing more glorious than this salvation that we have through Jesus Christ. It is going to take us to the highest limits of glory. It’s salvation to the uttermost. The absolute, ultimate experience. This glorious salvation that lifts us into the very presence of God and makes us one with Him.

Now Christ our great High Priest, because He is our great High Priest, is able to bring us salvation to the uttermost, something the law could never do for you. Something rules and regulations could never do for you. It is something that Jesus does do for us because He is our great High Priest and He saves me to the uttermost. The salvation is for all. Jesus said, “He who comes to Me, I will in no wise cast out” ( Joh 6:37 ). He is able to save all who come unto God by Him. And the way of salvation is coming to God by Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth and the life and no man can come to the Father but by Him. He accomplishes this by ever living to make intercession for us.

Christ is there today, at the right hand of God, interceding on my behalf. Presenting me to the Father, interceding, and that is His ministry and His mission. He is not condemning me.

Where did we ever get that idea that Jesus was always condemning us? When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, Jesus said, “For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believes is not condemned” ( Joh 3:17-18 ). Notice He didn’t say, “He who works hard, he who is faithful in devotions, he who prays an hour every day, he who reads ten chapters of the Bible every day is not condemned,” but, “he who believes is not condemned, and he who believes not is already condemned.” The law did that. This is the condemnation, that light came into the world and they wouldn’t come to the light.

When they brought to Jesus a woman taken in the very act of adultery, and they said, “Our law says we should stone her. What do you say?” Jesus said, “I say whichever one of you is without sin throw the first stone.” Then kneeling He wrote on the ground in the dirt, no doubt the various sins they were guilty of committing, listing them by name and by order of age. And from the oldest to the youngest they began to leave as they saw their name and then some of the things they thought nobody knew written out on the ground for everyone to see. Finally, Jesus stood up, and there was no one left but the woman. He said, “What happened to your accusers?” “I guess I don’t have any, Lord.” He said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and sin no more” ( Joh 8:3-11 ).

Why is it we always think of Jesus condemning us? He didn’t come to condemn. He came to save. Paul said, “Who is he that condemneth?” For so many years of my life I thought it was Jesus. But Paul answers, “It is Christ who died, in fact, is risen again, and is even at the right hand of the Father making intercession for you.” He’s not condemning you; He is interceding for you.

What would you think if your attorney went to the court and said, “Now, judge, this guy is a rat. He deserves to go to jail.” You’d say, “Man, what did I pay you five thousand bucks for? My wife could have told the judge that. You don’t need to.” No, you want your attorney to put your case in the best light. You want him to exonerate you before the court. You want him to represent you. You would sue him for malpractice if he didn’t properly…he may have properly represented you, but he didn’t represent you like you wanted to be represented.

Now Jesus, not only a high priest, He’s my intercessor. And He is able to save me to the uttermost because He ever lives, a priest forever. He ever lives to make intercession. So He acts there in the priestly capacity of interceding or of mediating between God and man, but He is there as my mediator representing me before God.

For such an high priest becomes us, who is holy, he is harmless, he is undefiled, and he is separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens [what a glorious High Priest I have]; who needs not daily, as those high priests [from Levi], to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have weaknesses; but the word of the oath, [God has sworn and shall not repent] which was since the law [it came some six hundred years after the law; the time of David], makes the Son, who is consecrated forevermore [a priest forever] ( Heb 7:26-28 ).

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Heb 7:1-2. 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; 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.

His very names being instructive, Righteousness first, and Peace afterwards, as it is with our divine Lord, who has brought in everlasting righteousness, and speaks peace to guilty men.

Heb 7:3. 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.

Melchisedec just passed across the page; he has no predecessor, he has no successor. We see him in Scripture, and we know nothing of his descent we know nothing of his death; we only know that he was a priest of the Most High God; and this very silence about him is highly significant and instructive, far in this he is like unto the Son of God, who abideth a priest continually. Now consider who this great man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth part of his spoil. If Abraham, the father of the faithful, the friend of God, paid tribute to him, how great must he have been, how high his office!

Heb 7:5-7. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Therefore, Abraham was less than Melchisedec: he could not bless Melchisedec, but Melchisedec could bless him. How great, then, was he! How far greater still is that Lord of ours of whom Melchisedec was but a type

Heb 7:8-10. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Thus the old priesthood, the Levitical and Aaronic priesthood, did homage unto the Melchisedec priesthood, which is greater still.

Heb 7:11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

We read in the psalm just now, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, which proves that the priests of the order of Levi were not sufficient: there was need of a still greater priesthood.

Heb 7:12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The law of the priesthood alters since the person of the priest, the character of the priest, and the very office of the priest had altered too.

Heb 7:13. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar

According to the belief of the Jewish people, the Messiah was to come of the tribe of Judah, yet none of the house of David or of the tribe of Judah ever presumed to present themselves as priests of the order of God.

Heb 7:14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

So there was an entire change of the priesthood, and of the law of priests.

This exposition consisted of readings from Psa 110:1-7; Heb 7:1-14.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Heb 7:1. ) 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, – , 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.–, king-priest) Christ is also both.- ) So the LXX., Gen 14:18; that is, Priest of the Most High GOD.- ) The LXX., ibid. Heb 7:17, , … In the Ordo Temporum, p. 176, I have taken , in the strict sense, for the slaughter and destruction of the kings; but the meaning, flight, is also one consistent with the word (LXX. ), 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.-) LXX. .

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Heb 7:1-10

SECTION SIX

Heb 7:1-28 and Heb 8:1-5

ANALYSIS

Having by the admonitions and warnings given in the preceding section, excited his Hebrew brethren to greater diligence in the study of Gods word, the Apostle again resumes the consideration of Christs priesthood. His main object in this section is to set forth clearly and prominently its great superiority over that of Aaron and his successors. This he does-

I. By showing that the priesthood of Melchisedec was of a higher order than that of Aaron. And as the priesthood of Melchisedec was only a type of the priesthood of Christ, it follows of necessity that the latter is even more than the former superior to that of Aaron. (Heb 7:1-10.) That the priesthood of Melchisedec was superior to that of the Levitical order, he proves-

1. From the fact that Melchisedec was a king as well as a priest (Heb 7:1-2).

2. From the fact that Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, paid tithes to him (Heb 7:2).

3. From the fact that, as a priest, Melchisedec appears on the typical canvas alone, without predecessors and without successors.

II. In this, the unity, immutability, and general perfection of Christs priesthood are beautifully illustrated (Heb 7:3).

1. From the fact that Abraham himself acknowledged the superiority of Melchisedec (1) by giving him a tithe of the spoils, and (2) by receiving his blessing (Heb 7:2 Heb 7:7).

2. From the fact that on the principle of federal representation, even Levi himself paid tithes to Melchisedec through Abraham (Heb 7:9-10). From all of which it follows that the priesthood of Melchisedec is of a higher order than that of Aaron, and consequently that the priesthood of Christ is greatly superior to the Levitical.

III. The Apostle further demonstrates the superiority of Christs priesthood over that of Levi, from the fact that God had promised by David that he would introduce a new order of priesthood. This, as our author shows, implies an imperfection in the Levitical order, and also in the whole law of Moses (Heb 7:11-19). For

1. If the Levitical priesthood had reached the end of Gods benevolent purposes, then certainly he would not have thought of introducing another of a different order (Heb 7:11).

2. But this he has done. For in Psa 110:4, as our author has shown in Heb 5:5-6, God promised to make his Son Jesus a High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. And as Jesus is not of the tribe of Levi but of Judah, it follows that the Levitical priesthood is abolished, and with it also the whole law of Moses, of which the Levitical priesthood was the basis (Heb 7:12-14).

3. This is further and still more manifestly implied in the stipulated terms and conditions of the new order of priesthood. Christ holds his office, not as did the Levitical Priests after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. He is a priest forever according to the decree of Jehovah as given in Psa 110:4.

4. The whole law of Moses, then, embracing the carnal commandment relating to the Levitical priesthood is abrogated, being, as it was, incapable of perfecting anything, and a new and better ground of hope is now brought in through the priesthood of Christ; so that we can now, at all times, draw near to God, as children to a father, and obtain from him seasonable help (Heb 7:18-19).

IV. The Apostle makes a third argument in proof of the superiority of Christs priesthood on the ground that it was instituted with an oath. Jehovah has sworn, and will not repent, says David, addressing the Messiah, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.

1. But no such solemnities were observed in inaugurating the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:20-22).

2. Now when it is understood that God never makes oath, save on the most solemn occasions and in reference to the most important matters this argument is of very great force.

V. The fourth argument is drawn from the frequent changes that occurred in the Levitical priesthood, occasioned by the death of the high priest (Heb 7:23-25).

1. From the inauguration of the Levitical priesthood to the birth of Christ, sixty-seven different persons held the office of high priest, and from the same epoch to the destruction of Jerusalem, eighty-one persons ministered in this office (Heb 7:23).

2. But no such imperfection exists in the priesthood of Christ; he ever lives to intercede for his people, and to save even to the uttermost those who come unto God by him (Heb 7:24-25).

VI. In the next place he proves the superiority of Christs priesthood from his perfectly holy and sinless nature (Heb 7:26-28).

1. The Levitical high priests were all sinners like other men, and hence they had to offer sacrifices daily for themselves as well as for the people.

2. But Christ being without sin, had no need to offer sacrifice for himself. And so perfect was the one offering of himself which he made for the sins of the people that no further offering is required. God can now be just in justifying all who believe in Jesus.

VII. Finally and chiefly, the Apostle proves the superiority of Christs priesthood from his exalted position and his official dignity (Heb 8:1-5).

1. He sits enthroned on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens (Heb 8:1).

2. He is a minister of the Sanctuary and also of the true Tabernacle, of which Jehovah himself is the supreme architect. In these archetypes of both the tabernacle of Moses, and the temple of Solomon, Jesus ever ministers as our high jpriest, dealing not with shadows as did the priests under the Law, but with the sublime realities of the economy of redemption (Heb 8:2-5).

It appears, then, from the preceding analysis that the main thoughts and divisions of this section may be briefly summed up as follows:

I. Heb 7:1-10. The Melchisedecian order of priesthood superior to the Levitical.

II. Heb 7:11-19. The Levitical priesthood and law of Moses both abrogated on account of their insufficiency, and a better ground of hope brought in through the priesthood of Christ.

III. Heb 7:20-22. The superiority of Christs priesthood proved from the fact that, unlike the Levitical, it was inaugurated with an oath.

IV. Heb 7:23-25. The frequent changes in the Levitical priesthood occasioned by the death of the high priest, contrasted with the ever-enduring and unchangeable character of Christs priesthood.

V. Heb 7:26-28. The great superiority of Christs priesthood proved and illustrated from his own pure and spotless character, and from the perfection of the one offering which he made for the sins of the world.

VI. Heb 8: 1-5. The superiority of Christs priesthood further demonstrated from the higher and more exalted sphere of his ministry.

THE MELCHISEDECIAN ORDER OF PRIESTHOOD

SUPERIOR TO THE LEVITICAL

Heb 7:1-10

Heb 7:1 —For this Melchisedec,-The Apostle expresses here in one compact sentence the main characteristics of Melchisedec as a type of Christ. His object is to amplify and illustrate the closing remark of the last section that Christ is made a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. This he goes on to say is true, for Melchisedec being king of Salem, etc., abides a priest continually, and so also does Christ.

Who this Melchisedec was, has long been a question of interest with both the learned and the unlearned. Some say that he was Christ himself (Ambrose, Hottinger) ; some, that he was the Holy Spirit (Hieracas, Epiphanius) ; some, that he was an angel (Ori- gen, Didymus) ; some, that he was Enoch (Hulsius, Calmet) ; some, that he was Shem (Jerome, Luther); and some have conjectured that he was an extraordinary emanation from the Deity which suddenly appeared for a little while on the stage of action, and was then as suddenly removed from it. But all such notions are purely hypothetical, and are wholly inconsistent with the manifest purpose of God in making Melchisedec an extraordinary type of his own Son as the great high priest of our confession. For it is very obvious that the Holy Spirit has intentionally thrown an impenetrable veil over both the birth and the death of Melchisedec, over both his parentage and his posterity, for the purpose of making him a more perfect type of Christ. He now stands before us on the typical canvas alone, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. He appears in the sacerdotal drama by himself, and in the prime of manhood, honored and respected by the most eminent servants of God as a priest upon his throne, thus beautifully illustrating in his own person the royal dignity and the perpetual character of Christs priesthood. But let it be once clearly demonstrated that he was Shem, the son of Noah, or any other person of known genealogy, and that moment the analogy fails, and he forever ceases to be a fit type of Christ. It was not, therefore, a matter of chance, or of accident, but of real design on the part of God, that so little is said in history of this truly great and mysterious person. He comes out suddenly from the dark, invisible background of the drama of human redemption; appears for a little while as a royal priest, and then retires forever without leaving behind him the slightest recorded evidence that he had either predecessors or successors ; that he had either beginning of days or end of life. And hence it is really more than folly to ransack the archives of antiquity with the view of discovering anything more concerning him than what is recorded in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. Josephus, after the manner of Moses, represents him simply as the king of Salem, and says that he supplied Abrahams army in a hospitable manner, and gave them provisions in abundance. (Ant. 10, 2.) So also Philo speaks of him as a real person. He says, God made him king of Salem, and he calls him the priest of the Most High God. (Legg. Alleg. Section 25, 26.) The name Mcl- chisedec, as our author defines it, means simply king of righteousness.

Heb 7:1 —King of Salem,-Some expositors, as Bohme and Bleek, think that we have in these words, as in Melchi-tsedek, a mere title (Melek-Salem) of this illustrious personage, and that there is really here no reference to any locality. Others, as Jerome and Ewald, suppose that the Salem of our text is the same as the Salim of Joh 3:23, near to which John was baptizing. But the common opinion of both Jewish and Christian writers has always been that the Salem of our text is the same as Jerusalem. This was the view of Josephus (Ant. i. 10, 2; vii. 3, 2; Bell. vi. 10), and is probably correct for the following reasons: (1) the name Salem is manifestly given to Jerusalem in Psa 76:2. (2)The name Jerusalem is composed as some think of Jebus-Salem (Jdg 19:10), or as others with more probability, suppose, of Jeru-Salem, which means foundation of peace. (3) The situation of Jerusalem corresponds well with the facts recorded in Gen 14:17-20. (4) The name Melchi-tsedek is formed after the same analogy as Adoni-tsedek (lord of righteousness) the name of another king of Jerusalem. (Jos 10:1.) And (5) since it was Gods purpose to make Jerusalem prominent above all other places in bringing about the reign of the Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6), it is most likely that he would select it in preference to any other locality for the sacerdotal reign of the king of righteousness.

Heb 7:1 —priest of the most high God,-The Hebrew word kohen, rendered priest, occurs about seven hundred times in the Old Testament, and like the Greek hiereus, is always used to denote one who offers sacrifice and ministers in other sacred things. It is first of all applied to Melchisedec in Gen 14:18, who is there, as well as in our text, called priest of the Most High God. The title Most High, is given to God, as Philo says, not because there is any other God who is not most high, for God being one is in Heaven above, and the earth beneath, and there is none other beside him. (Legg. Alleg. Section 26.)

Heb 7:1 —who met Abraham, etc.-The account of this meeting is given in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, to which the reader is referred for all necessary details. Suffice it to say here, that after Abraham had completely routed and vanquished the four kings whose names and places are there recorded, and was returning, laden with the spoils of victory to Hebron, the place of his sojourn about twenty miles south of Jerusalem, he was met on his way thither by Melchisedec, who refreshed him and his servants with bread and wine, and, as the priest of the Most High God, he blessed Abraham, saying, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be the Most High God who hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand.

Heb 7:2 —To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all,-This act of devotion on the part of Abraham, as well as the vow of Jacob (Gen 28:22), clearly indicates that the custom of paying tithes to God for the maintenance of his worship and the support of true religion, was of very remote antiquity. Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that the paying of tithes, as well as the offering of sacrifice, was of Divine origin, and that a law to this effect was given to Adam and his family soon after the fall. And accordingly we find traces of its observance not only among the Patriarchs, but also among many of the most ancient nations, such as the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Carthaginians. And hence Moses does not introduce tithing as a novelty, but finding it, as he found sacrifice, already in vogue, he merely gave new laws and regulations concerning it, making that now obligatory which was perhaps before somewhat voluntary. While, therefore, the offerings of Abraham to Melchisedec were most likely voluntary on the part of this illustrious Patriarch, it is but reasonable to suppose that he made them in harmony with what he knew to be an existing religious ordinance, and also on account of the great respect which he had for Melchisedec as a priest of the Most High God.

Heb 7:3 —Without Father, etc.-The Greeks and Romans were wont to apply the epithets without father (apator) and without mother (ametor), (1) to their gods; (2) to orphans; and (3) to persons of unknown or obscure parentage. Thus, for instance, Livy says of Servius Tullius, that he was born of no father. (Lib. iv. 3.) So also the Jews were accustomed to use these terms of persons, the names of whose parents were not given in the Holy Scriptures or in their genealogies. Philo, for example, speaking of Sarah, the wife of Abraham, says, She is said not to have had a mother, having received the inheritance of relationship from her father only (DeEbriet, Section 14) : meaning evidently that her mothers name is not found in the sacred records. And to the same effect is the Rabbinical maxim which says of the Gentile proselyte that He has no father, after his conversion to Judaism. In this popular sense, the Apostle manifestly uses these negative epithets in our text, to denote simply that the parentage of Mel- chisedec is unknown; that so far as the record goes, he was without father and without mother, and furthermore that he was without descent, or rather, without genealogy (agenealogetos). Nothing concerning either his ancestry or his posterity is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. There, he appears on the page of typical history isolated and alone. See note on verse 1.

Heb 7:3 —having neither beginning of days nor end of life;-This is but a part of the constructive parallelism which the Apostle frames here with the view of amplifying his description of Melchisedec in his typical relations to Christ as the great high priest of our confession. Christ, in the sense in which he is here contemplated by our author, had no predecessors, and he will have no successors. He himself will continue to officiate as our royal high priest during the entire period of his mediatorial reign. And so it was with Melchisedec. So far as the record goes, his priesthood, as well as that of Christ, was unbroken, uninterrupted by any changes of succession. All that is here meant by his being made like unto the Son of God, and abiding a priest perpetually (eis to dienekes) is simply this: that like Jesus he completely fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own proper person. This period, however short, is intended to serve as a typical representation of the era of Christs priesthood, and Melchisedec is thus made a more perfect type of Christ than was Aaron or any of his successors. The word perpetually (dienekes) and forever (aion) are relative terms, and are simply exhaustive of the period to which they are severally applied, whether it be long or short. And all that is therefore implied in the words of the text is simply this: that as the shadow, however small it may be, corresponds with the substance which forms it, so also did the priesthood of Melchisedec correspond with that of Christ. Each of them was unbroken, uninterrupted, and relatively perfect in itself. Great care is therefore necessary in dealing with these relative terms and expressions, lest peradventure we give them an extension which is wholly beyond what was intended by the Holy Spirit.

Heb 7:4 —Now consider how great this man was,-The Apostle aims here to exalt the character of Melchisedec with the view of still further exalting the character and priesthood of Christ, of whom Melchisedec was an eminent type. This he does by comparing Melchisedec with Abraham, who, at that time, had apparently reached the very summit of human greatness. Of his own freewill, he had, from motives of pure benevolence, engaged in an enterprise which resulted in the overthrow of four kings and the deliverance of five, and now he was returning to his quiet home covered with glory and the spoils of victory. But just at this moment, when raised above his fellow-men in deeds of prowess and works of mercy, he encounters the venerable form of the king of Salem, who steps forth for an instant from his mysterious seclusion, and as speedily retires again, but not before Abraham, at his highest exaltation, has acknowledged in Melchisedec one superior to himself (Del. in loc.). This Abraham did (1) by paying to Melchisedec the tenth of all the spoils which he had taken, and (2) by receiving the blessing of Melchisedec as the priest of the Most High God.

The Greek word rendered spoils (akdrothinion), means literally the top of the heap. It generally occurs in the plural number, and is variously used to denote the first fruits of the harvest, taken as they usually were from the top of the heap of corn, and also the best of the spoils of war, which the heathens generally consecrated to the honor and worship of their gods. In our text it means not the whole of the booty taken, but only those choice articles of it which Abraham selected and offered to Melchisedec as the tenth of all.

Heb 7:5 —And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, etc.-The Apostle goes on to demonstrate still further the very exalted personal and official dignity of Melchisedec. This he does in the first place by drawing a broad line of distinction between Melchisedec and the Levitical priests. These, he concedes, were in official rank superior to the laity, as is clearly indicated by their receiving tithes from them. But this difference of rank between the priests and the people, is modified by the fact that they were all brethren, descendants of the common stock of Abraham, and also by the fact that the priests had a legal right to tax the people as a reward for services rendered. But not so in the case of Melchisedec and Abraham. Melchisedec bore no such relation to Abraham; he was not of the same kindred, nor had he, so far as we know, any legal right to tax Abraham for his services. And yet, so great was his personal and official dignity, that even Abraham, the honored father of the whole stock of Israel, including the priesthood as well as the people, paid tithes to him and received his blessing. The whole sentence is well rendered by Delitzsch as follows: And, indeed, while the sons of Levi receiving the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes from the people, according to the law, that is, from their own brethren, although issued like themselves from the loins of Abraham; he, on the other hand, who hath no part in their genealogy, hath received tithes from Abraham himself, and bestowed his blessing on the possessor of the promises.

Heb 7:5 —have a commandment to take tithes of the people-The Apostle speaks here not of all the sons of Levi, but of those only who receive the office of the priesthood; that is, of the house of Aaron. (Exo 28:1; Num 17:1-11.) These, he says, have a command to tithe the people. But we learn from Num 18:22-32, that the people were required to pay a tithe of all their increase to the Levites, and that the Levites were in turn required to pay a tithe of this tithe to the priests. And hence some allege that there is a discrepancy between the requirements of the law and the statement that is here made by our author. But this, as in other cases, is only in appearance. It is owing simply to the very great brevity with which the Apostle makes reference to the provisions of the law. Had his object been to give us a critical analysis of the law, touching the mutual relations, duties, and obligations of the priests, Levites, and people, the case would have been very different. We would then have reason to expect that every point would be stated and discussed with clearness and precision. But in a general reference, such as our author here makes to the law, it is perfectly legitimate to say, as he does, that the priests have a commandment to tithe the people; that is, indirectly through the Levites. The priests tithed the Levites, and the Levites tithed the people. But in reality it was all done for the sake of the priesthood, for the Levites were the servants of the priests. (Num 18:2-6.)

Heb 7:6 —But he whose descent is not reckoned from them-that is, from the sons of Levi. In this verse the Apostle brings out fully the great contrast between Melchisedec and the Levitical priests. These, indeed, tithed their brethren, a fact which may well excite our surprise when we remember that these brethren were all the children of Abraham, the honored heirs of the promises. But stranger still by far is the fact that Melchisedec, of a wholly different stock, and without any legal authority, tithed Abraham himself, and blessed him who had the promises. In all this, the transcendent dignity of Melchisedec, as the honored priest of the Most High God, is abundantly manifested.

Heb 7:7 —And without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better.-The words rendered less (elatton) and better (kreitton) are both in the neuter gender, thus indicating the general and proverbial character of the proposition. yThe Apostle expresses here a sort of axiomatic truth; a truth which is so very plain in itself, and which is so generally acknowledged that it is really beyond dispute. Now beyond all controversy, he says, the inferior is blessed by the superior. The one who blesses is to the one who receives the blessing as the giver is to the receiver. So it was in the case of Isaac and Jacob (Gen 27:27-29) ; so it was in the case of Christ and his Apostles (Luk 14:10-11) ; and so also it was in the case of Melchisedec and Abraham (Gen 19:17-20).

Heb 7:8 —And here men that die receive tithes, etc.-The word here (hode) refers to the Levitical economy; and there (ekei), to the administration of Melchisedec, as given in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. Under the Law, the death of the high priest was always made a matter of record; and so also was the inauguration of his successor. Aaron died and left his office to his son Eleazar; Eleazar, to Phinehas; Phinehas, to Abishua; Abi- shua, to Bukki; Bukki, to Uzzi, etc. (1Ch 6:50-52.) And hence it came to pass, that under the Mosaic economy, the mortality of the priesthood was one of its most prominent features. But not so in the inspired representation which is given us of the priesthood of Melchisedec. When we look at it as a pictorial delineation of the priesthood of Christ, we see no signs of death or mortality in it, or about it. Every feature of it beams with life and durability. It has in appearance neither beginning nor ending. And hence so far as the inspired representation goes, Melchisedec lives forever. He can never die. As Delitzsch very forcibly and justly remarks on this point, The witness of the Scripture concerning him is simply that he liveth. The actual historical Melchisedec no doubt died; but the Melchisedec of the second narrative does nothing but live,-fixed, as it were, by the pencil of inspiration in unchangeable existence; and so made the type of the eternal Priest, the Son of God. The sacred writer has here still only Gen 14:17-20 in view: the abrupt and absolute way in which Melchisedec is there introduced is for him a testimony that he liveth. This, and nothing more than this, I am constrained to think is the meaning of the author. True, indeed, there is a sense in which the type may be said to live in the antitype. David still lives in the person of Christ; and thus it is that his throne endures throughout all generations. (Psalm 89: 19-37.) And so also Melchisedec, as a royal Priest, still lives in Christ, and his priesthood endures forever. But to this view of the matter, I do not think our author makes any reference in this connection. He is here contemplating Melchisedec as a type of Christ, not with the view of exalting Melchisedec through Christ, but rather with the view of exalting the priesthood of Christ through that of Melchisedec. And hence he speaks of Melchisedec in his official relations, simply as a type of Christ.

Heb 7:9 —And as I may so say,-(kai hos epos eipein) and as the saying is; or so to speak. This phrase is often used by Greek writers to modify or soften a paradoxical or apparently harsh expression, which is liable to be pressed too far; and so the Apostle clearly uses it in this connection. So far as he has gone, his argument might seem to be applicable only to Abraham. He has yet made no direct comparison between Melchisedec and the Levitical priesthood. But now for the purpose of covering the whole ground, so that no room might be left for Jewish objections, he proceeds to show still further that his reasoning applies to Levi and his descendants, as well as to Abraham. For, as he says, Levi also, so to speak, paid tithes through (dia) Abraham. How he did this, the Apostle goes on to show in the next verse.

Heb 7:10 —For he was yet in the loins of his father, etc.-This declaration is given in proof of the previous allegation, that Levi himself was tithed by Melchisedec through Abraham. The fact then is indisputable ; but the sense in which this was done is still a matter of legitimate inquiry. To say with some, that this is simply an argu- mentum ad hominem is to trifle with the word of God. Nothing short of an argumentum ad rem will at all satisfactorily meet the case and fulfill the design of the Apostle. His object is not to illustrate, but to prove; it is not to remove an objection, but to establish a fact. And hence any explanation of this difficult passage, founded on Jewish prejudices or Rabbinical conceits, is wholly out of the question. The context admits of no such evasion as this. And yet on the other hand there is danger of taking these words of the Apostle in too literal a sense; otherwise he would not have used the qualifying phrase, so to speak That Levi did not personally and by his own voluntary act pay tithes through Abraham, as his appointed agent, is very certain for as the Apostle says, Levi was not then born: he was yet in the loins of his great grandfather Abraham, when Melchisedec met him.

What then is the meaning of this passage? This will perhaps be best understood by considering a parallel case. Such a one occurs in Rom 5:12. Here the same Apostle says, By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed through upon all men, for that all sinned (hemarton). That is, the fact that all men die, depends on the antecedent fact, that all men sinned. But how? Not, says Paul, after the similitude of Adams transgression. He sinned in his own proper person; and the rest of mankind, so to speak, sinned in him. For the Apostle adds (verse 19), by the disobedience of the one the many were made sinners. God created mankind in Adam (Gen 1:26-27), and with him as the head and representative of the race he made a covenant, upon the keeping of which depended the life, not only of Adam himself, but also of his entire posterity. When he transgressed the covenant he died, and then also the race died in him; because, so to speak, they all sinned in him: for they were all still in the loins of Adam when he ate of the forbidden fruit. And hence it is that we are all by nature (phusei) under the curse of that broken law, and treated by God as children of wrath, until we are redeemed by the second Adam. Now just so it was with Abraham and his posterity. God made a covenant with him also, as the head and representative of his race. Their fortunes were therefore largely involved in his fortunes; their dignity, in his dignity; and their rights and privileges, in the honors which God bestowed on him as the father and founder of his own elect people.

When Abraham therefore paid tithes to Melchisedec, Levi also and his posterity virtually paid tithes through him as their federal head and representative: for they were all yet in the loins of their father Abraham, when he met and honored Melchisedec as the Priest of the Most High God. This is the simple fact of the case, as it is here stated by the Apostle, and used by him as an essential element of his promises. And hence it should be received by all, as a fact, however incompetent we may be to understand the principle which underlies it in all its ethical and religious bearings. Infidels may scoff and sneer at this principle of federal representation as unjust and absurd; but it somehow happens that we cannot get rid of it, nor act independently of it even in secular matters. Individuals, corporations, and governments, are every day making arrangements, signing pledges, and sealing documents which involve largely the interests and fortunes of others, as well as of themselves. It would be much more becoming, then, in frail and fallible men, humbly to confess their ignorance in such cases, and to try to learn more of the infinite wisdom of God, as exhibited in the works of creation, providence, and redemption, rather than scoffingly and scornfully to reject as unjust and absurd, matters about which they yet know but little, and into which the angels desire to look with reverence. (1Pe 1:12.)

Without then making any further attempt at explanation, we simply admit the fact as here stated, that Levi himself, and of course his whole posterity including the house of Aaron, virtually paid tithes to Melchisedec through Abraham, on the principle of federal representation. And consequently it clearly follows from the premises submitted that the Levitical Priests were all inferior to Melchisedec, and still more to Christ, of whom Melchisedec was but a type.

Commentary on Heb 7:1-10 by Donald E. Boatman

Heb 7:1 –For this Melchizedek

No doubt it was a rare thing to find one like Melchizedek living in the midst of idolatry, superstitions, yet being true.

See Milligan for suggestions as to his identity. p. 195. There are many theories concerning who he was:

a. Christ.

b. Holy Spirit.

c. An angel.

d. Enoch.

e. Shem.

f. An emanation from the Deity.

g. Melchizedek himself.

Scarcity of knowledge about him.

a. Genesis 14 : Three short verses.

b. Psa 110:4 : Appears about 1,000 years later.

c. Heb 7:1 : Another 1,000 years later.

It is doubtful that he was Shem, for Shems genealogy is given.

Let him be Melchizedek-be himself.

Heb 7:1 –King of Salem

What is Salem?

a. We know it as Jerusalem.

1. Salem meant peace.

2. Habitation of peace, or city of peace, is its name, but it has seldom known peace.

b. This city David later chose as his capital when Hebron was too far south for his united kingdom.

Who were the people over whom he ruled?

a. Gen 14:18 is the first mention of the City. Melchizedek was king and he was the priest of the Most High God.

b. He seems to have been an actual king, in that others such as the king of Sodom were mentioned in the same words.

Heb 7:1 –priest of God Most High

It seems a little strange that in a country abounding in corruption, a man would be found preserving the pure worship of God.

a. Sodom and Gomorrah was on one side and the Canaanites on the other, yet here was a king who acted also as priest.

b. The world had seemed to turn from God, but here was Melchizedek remaining true.

Christ came into a world of sin, yet he remained true and faithful and became our sinless High Priest.

Heb 7:1 –and met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings

Lot had been taken prisoner, Genesis 14, by several kings.

a. Amrapheal, King of Shinar.

b. Ariock-King of Ellasar.

c. Chedorlaomer-King of Elam.

d. Tidal-King of Nations.

Abraham completely routed these men and released Lot, Being a priest of the God that Abraham worshipped, we can see why these two would be on friendly terms.

Heb 7:1 –and blessed him

The blessing:

a. Gen 14:19 : Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth.

The word who establishes the fact that Melchizedek did the blessing. Newell, p. 211: It is idle to contend that Melchizedek was not connected with sacrifice but with blessing only, See Heb 7:15; Heb 7:17; Heb 7:24.

Heb 7:2 –to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all

In Gen 14:20 it is difficult to find who paid tithes to whom, but this verse leaves no doubt, This act of devotion on the part of Abraham indicated a custom that was practiced in early times.

a. We see Jacob, Gen 28:22, vowing to tithe.

b. There must have been a custom of divine origin going back to Adam, of which we know little.

Abraham paid voluntarily, but no doubt it was in harmony with what he knew to be an ordinance.

Heb 7:2 –being first by interpretation

The word or name is translated for us to give its meaning. Words were significant in those days, such as:

a. Eve: mother of all living.

b. Joshua: saviour.

Actually, he was king in a double sense.

a. Hebrews defines his name to mean King of righteousness, then points out the fact that he was King of Salem.

b. This double relationship likewise fits Christ.

Heb 7:2 –King of Righteousness

Jesus is also righteousness.

a. Zec 2:10 : Rejoice, O daughter of Zion, behold thy righteous king cometh unto thee.

It is actually in Christs priestly function that He becomes our righteousness. See Heb 9:25-28.

Heb 7:2 –and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace

Abraham had moved into the territory of Melchizedek, but we see him making a peaceful gesture toward Abraham, the victorious warrior.

a. Gen 14:18 : He brought bread and wine.

b. In Psa 104:15 we read: Wine maketh glad the heart of man and bread strengtheneth the heart of man.

This gesture refreshed Abrahams servants, and thus proved Melchizedeks right for receiving the tithe, as well as being king of a city whose name is peace.

Heb 7:3 –without father without mother

Since the archeologists find this expression, we know that it was a current expression.

Milligan says, It is folly to ransack the archives of antiquity with the view of discovering more about him than Genesis 14 tells us. He comes out suddenly from the dark invisible background of the drama of human redemption, then retires forever without leaving any trace of predecessors or successors.

Greeks, Romans, and Jews spoke of a person as being with our parents:

a. When their names were not known-obscure parentage.

b. An orphan.

c. Their gods.

Heb 7:3 –without genealogy

Without traced ancestry. This may mean in his position, for none are recorded before him or after him.

Heb 7:3 –having neither beginning of days nor end of life

His birth and death are not recorded, as though eternity were ascribed to him. Calvin says this omission of birth and life was done to give us an idea of one above the common order of men. Wescott agrees (p. 173).

The interference is that the silence is intentioned and significant.

Heb 7:3 –but made like unto the Son of God

Made like is also translated, being like, Some say he was like Gods Son in that no lineage is given, but Christ had lineage, Newell; There is no note of the beginning of his priesthood nor of its ending, He comes on the scene as a continual priest without earthly or human connection, Milligan says: Like Jesus, he completely fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own proper person.

Heb 7:3 –abideth a priest continually

The words continually, perpetually, forever are related terms, and are simply indicative of the period to which they are applied, whether it be long or short. Newell, p. 219: It does not say that the man Melchizedek is a continual priest today.

Study Questions

1113. Name some ideas that men have concerning who Melchizedek was.

1114. How can we rule Shem out?

1115. How may we account for him in a land of idolatry?

1116. Can we account for him the same as we do Abraham, who was living in a center of moon worship?

1117. What is Salem, over which he was king?

1118. How do we know that he was not an idolatrous king?

1119. Who would be the Most High God?

1120. What is the slaughter of the kings referred to here?

1121. Who had been taken captive?

1122. Name the kings of Genesis 14.

1123. How may we account for the fact that Abraham was able to accomplish a great victory?

1124. May we assume that Abraham was a mighty chieftain leading a vast army?

1125. May we presume that Melchizedeks army helped since he met Abraham on his return?

1126. Who was blessed here? Who blesses, the lesser or the greater?

1127. What all is involved in blessing?

1128. Where did Abraham get an idea of a tithe?

1129. Could this custom be a part of Gods original command when Cain disobeyed God?

1130. What is interpreted here?

1131. Was he doubly a king?

1132. Was Jesus King of Righteousness? Cf. Zec 9:9.

1133. In what way was Melchizedek king of peace?

1134. If he were not, would he be inclined to make war on Abraham, an invader from Ur?

1135. What had he done to prove that he was peaceful? Cf. Gen 14:18.

Heb 7:4 –Now consider how great this man was

The apostles aim here is to exalt the character of Melchizedek, with the view of still further exalting the character and priesthood of Christ.

Great-Few men are called great in the Bible.

a. Gen 12:2 : Abraham.

b. 2Sa 7:9 : David, I will make thee a great name.

c. 2Ki 4:8 : Shunem-a great woman.

d. Luk 1:15 : John the Baptist.

Heb 7:4 –upon whom Abraham, the patriarch

Patriarch defined:

a. A father or ruler of a family.

b. The progenitor of a race.

Abraham was a great person, Now if he paid tithes to Melchizedek then we can see how great Melchizedek was.

Heb 7:4 –gave a tenth out of the chief spoils

The best tithe is suggested. Milligan says: The top of the heap. Gen 14:20 is the account.

The first cities conquered by the Israelites were to be devoted to God. The first fruits, the chief spoils were to be given to God.

Heb 7:4 –and they indeed of the sons of Levi

There is not much difference in rank here, for the priests and people were brethren. There is not as much as in the case of Abraham and Melchizedek. Abraham was a great-grandfather of Levi, Aarons ancestor.

Heb 7:5 –that receive the priests office

This refers only to the house of Aaron.

a. Exo 28:1.

b. Num 17:1-11.

See also Num 18:22-32.

a. The people were required to pay tithes to the Levites.

b. The Levites were in turn to pay a tithe to the priests.

c. The Levites were the servants of the priests. Num 18:2-6.

Heb 7:5 –have commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law

This commandment is found in Numbers 18. Support of Gods servants is a commandment of God and should be preached.

Heb 7:5 –that is of their brethren

Brethren received tithes of brethren, though actually we give unto God. The Levites, in receiving and using the tenth, were blessed as the servants of God.

Heb 7:5 –though these have come out of the loins of Abraham

The argument is: Abraham, who excelled all others, was yet inferior to Melchizedek; then Melchizedek had the highest place of honor and is superior to all the sons of Levi. These Levites, although they received offerings, were of the same parents.

Heb 7:6 –but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of Abraham

Melchizedek has no lineage, yet he received tithes from Abraham. This is stated to show the great and high place of Melchizedek.

Heb 7:6 –and hath blessed him that hath the promises

Abraham had the promise, This indicates the greatness of Melchizedek; the lesser individual had the promise but was blessed.

There are three kinds of blessings in the scriptures:

a. Mat 5:44 : Prayer for a blessing.

b. Genesis 12 : Prophetic blessings as in the case of the patriarchs.

c. Sacerdotal blessing: See Num 6:23-27. Sacerdotal means, pertaining to a priest.

Heb 7:7 –but without any dispute the less is blessed of the better

Melchizedek blessed Abraham; hence, the less is Abraham, What does it mean: bless?

a. It is a symbol of greater authority.

1. Isaac blessed his son, Jacob.

2. Jacob blessed his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Gen 48:20.

3. Priest blessed the people, Num 6:23.

4. Luk 24:50 : Christ blessed the apostles.

b. It indicates great power.

Heb 7:8 –And here men that die receive tithes.

The tithes were paid to men who died; thus it was an everchanging priesthood, The word here refers to the Levitical system, and there to the administration of Melchizedek.

Heb 7:8 –but there one

Where is there? It refers back to Melchizedek. If it referred to paying tithes to Christ now, it would say here and not there.

Heb 7:8 –of whom is it witnessed that he liveth

The silence of his death is an evidence of his life. He is showing that Melchizedek was perpetual; that of the Levites was temporary. He lives in type. Christ is the antitype. Witness is two kinds:

a. That of the eye.

b. That of testimony.

Witness: where is the witness?

a. Heb 7:3 is the witness of eternality.

b. No ending is recorded for Melchizedek.

Heb 7:9 –and, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes

Through Abraham, Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. Abraham, by paying tithes, made himself and his posterity inferior to the priesthood of Melchizedek. (Calvin, p. 163.) This is to establish greatness in the type of Christs priesthood. Who receiveth tithes refers to the Levites.

a. Should the preacher tithe when he has been paid in tithes?

b. Certainly, for he is as much a steward of God as others. The superiority of the ancient order cannot be escaped by verses nine and ten.

Heb 7:10 –For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him

Milligan says Levi then actually paid tithes to Melchizedek through the principle of federal representation.

a. In a corporation, individuals pay, make obligations which bind on others.

b. If we took our tithes and handed it to our children it would be quite a gift. This is not done, so my children are tithing.

Would this also include Jesus, since Judah also was in the loins?

a. Christ is not of the same order. Mat 22:45 : If he is the son of David, how does David call Him his Lord?

b. Christ did not serve as priest on earth. He could not, for He was not of the Levitical tribe. Heb 8:4.

Study Questions

1136. What is the significance of, without father without mother?

1137. Explain without genealogy. Does this rule out Shem as being Melchizedek?

1138. Explain neither beginning of days nor end of life.

1139. How was he like unto the Son of God?

1140. How could this be true when Christ has lineage?

1141. Explain abideth a priest continually.

1142. Does forever always mean from the dawn of history until the extremity of the future?

1143. Why does he want us to consider how great Melchizedek was?

1144. Define patriarch.

1145. Why does he say chief spoils?

1146. Did God ever require the chief spoils again?

1147. What can be said in this regard concerning Jericho and Ai?

1148. How were the Levites supported?

1149. How were the priests supported?

1150. What function was performed by Levites who were not priests? Cf. Num 18:2-6.

1151. What is the significance of tithes from brethren?

1152. What law were the Levites under?

1153. What is the significance of saying that they, the Levites, came out of the loins of Abraham?

1154. Does this make Melchizedek superior to the Levite?

1155. Who is the them referred to in verse six?

1156. Who has the promise?

1157. Who has the blessing?

1158. What does he mean by, without dispute?

1159. Give illustrations of greater men blessing the lesser.

1160. Did Jesus ever bless His disciples? Cf. Luk 24:50.

1161. What is meant by, here men that die receive tithes?

1162. Was he speaking of the law, or the present church?

1163. What does the word there refer to in Heb 7:8?

1164. If it referred to Christ, would it say there or here?

1165. Who is living in Heb 7:8?

1166. How could it be said that Melchizedek liveth?

1167. Who is witnessed as living-Christ or Melchizedek?

1168. What witness is there that Melchizedek lives?

1169. Where is the witness that Melchizedek lives? Cf. Heb 7:3.

1170. Isa 7:3 the witness?

1171. From whom did the Levites receive tithes?

1172. Explain Heb 7:9.

1173. Does he mean that Abraham made his posterity inferior to Melchizedek by payment of tithes to Melchizedek?

1174. May we infer that the preacher who receives tithes therefore ought to tithe?

1175. To whom did the Levites pay tithes as argued by Heb 7:9?

1176. How many years before the Levitical priesthood did the Levites tithe through Abraham?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

There is little variety in the translation of these verses. . Vulg. Lat., Dei summi, for altissimi; the most high God. . Syr., , of all: but adds, in a new way of exposition, , every thing that was with him; that is, of the spoils, as it is afterwards expounded. . Vulg. Lat., divisit; properly Syr., , separated, laid aside. Bez., impartitus est; imparted, gave. . Vulg. Lat., sine genealogia. Bez., sine genere, without stock; sine serie generis, without pedigree. The Syriac gives us an exposition of this passage: Whose father and mother are not written in the generations (or genealogies,) neither the beginning of his days nor the end of his life; which manifests how ancient this exposition of these words was in the church. . Syr., his priesthood remaineth. [1]

[1] EXPOSITION. . Ebrard thus explains the substance of the paragraph: Calvin has already observed with reason that the author does not say . Melchisedec was not like to Christ, but was represented in a manner like to Christ ….. The Levitical priest became a priest by his birth, and left the priesthood at his death to his son; his office was, from the nature of him who held it, not a continuing one, but one that moved onwards from member to member, and the succession was expressly prescribed and regulated in the law Melchisedec, (a), was a priest not by formal, legal investment, but because his internal character, his qualities of righteousness and peace, impelled him to bring sacrifices to God, and to consecrate the power of the king by the internal qualities of the priest; (b), was a priest not by descent, but in himself; and therefore, ( c), was not a link in a chain of predecessors and successors, but is represented as alone in his order, and thus far as one who continues a priest, yields up his priesthood to no one. ED.

Heb 7:1-3. 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; to whom also Abraham divided out a tenth part of all; first, being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace; without father, without mother, without pedigree, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The words are an entire proposition, consisting of a subject and a predicate, or what is affirmed of it. Unto the subject spoken of, which is Melchisedec, there is adjoined a large description, by its properties and adjuncts in sundry particulars. That which is affirmed of him as so described, which is the predicate of the proposition, is contained in the last words, or the close of the third verse, But being made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest for ever.

The introduction of the whole discourse, and therein its connection unto what went before, is contained in the causal particle , for. And this may respect the reason why the apostle affirmed, and insisted so much on it, that the Lord Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedec: For both the truth,saith he, of my assertion and the necessity of insisting thereon will be sufficiently manifest, if you will but consider who this Melchisedec was, how he is represented in the Scripture, and what is affirmed of him.Or respect may be had in this word unto the whole preceding discourse, from Heb 5:11. There he lays the foundation of it, affirming that he had many things to say of this Melchisedec, and those such as they could not easily understand, unless they diligently applied their minds unto the knowledge of divine mysteries; hereof he now designs to give them an account: For this Melchisedec, etc. But the connection is most natural unto the words immediately preceding; and a reason is given of what was affirmed in them, namely, that Jesus was made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, Heb 6:20 : For it was thus with this Melchisedec.

Obs. 1. When truths in themselves mysterious, and of great importance unto the church, are asserted or declared, it is very necessary that clear evidence and demonstration be given unto them; that the minds of men be left neither in the dark about their meaning, nor in suspense about their truth. So dealeth our apostle in the large ensuing confirmation which he establisheth his foregoing assertion withal.

The mention of Melchisedec is introduced with the demonstrative pronoun , thin It always hath an emphasis, and denotes somewhat eminent in the subject spoken of, mostly in a way of commendation: so Heb 7:4, , Consider how great a man this was; this man of whom is our discourse.

The person spoken of is variously described:

1. By his name; Melchisedec.

2. By his original office; he was a king.

3. The place of his rule or dominion, which was Salem; king of Salem.

4. By another office added to the former, which principally belongs unto the design of the apostle: which is described,

(1.) By the nature of it, the priesthood; a priest :

(2.) By its object and author; of the most high God.

5. By his actings as a priest; he blessed Abraham: illustrated,

(1.) By the manner of it; he met him:

(2.) By the time of it, and its circumstances; when he returned from the slaughter of the kings.

6. By the acknowledgment of his office made by Abraham; he divided unto him the tenth part of all.

7. By the interpretation of his name; the king of righteousness:

8. Of the place of his reign; king of peace.

9. By sundry properties of his person, gathered out of the relation of his history in the Scripture; without father, without mother, without pedigree, without beginning of days or end of life. These descriptions in all these particulars being given of him, there are two things affirmed concerning him:

1. That he was made like unto the Son of God;

2. That he abideth a priest continually: all which things must be spoken unto.

First, For the person spoken of, and described by his name, Melchisedec, I shall in this place say no more of him but what is necessary for the understanding of the text; for I shall not here examine those opinions and disputes concerning him which for the most part have been raised by needless curiosity. The fond and impious imagination of them who would have him, some of them, to be the Holy Ghost, and some of them God, even the Father himself, have been long since exploded. That he was an angel in human appearance, is so contrary to the design of the apostle, that not many have given countenance to that opinion.

But that he was the Son of God himself, in a prelibation of his incarnation, taking upon him the form of a man, as he did afterwards the internal form and being in the personal union, some learned men have conjectured and contended. Howbeit, this also is directly contrary to the text, wherein he is said to be made like unto the Son of God. And indeed all such opinions as make him more than man are wholly inconsistent with the design of the apostle; which is to prove, that even among men there was a priest and priesthood, representative of Christ and his priesthood, superior to that of the law; which hath nothing of argument in it if he were more than a man. Besides, he lays it down for a certain principle, that every high priest is taken from among men, Heb 5:1; and therefore, if Melchisedec were a high priest, he was so also.

Among those who grant him a mere man, very many, following the opinion of the Jews, contend he was Shem, the son of Noah; who was certainly then alive, and of great authority in the world by virtue of his primogeniture. But this also riseth up in contradiction unto our apostle, beyond all possibility of reconciliation. The Jews, who are no further concerned in him but as to what is declared by Moses, may safely, as to their own principles, though not truly, conjecture him to be Shem; but whereas our apostle affirms that he was without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, we are not allowed to interpret these things of him concerning whom most of them are expressly recorded. Nor will it suffice to say that these things indeed are written of him under the name of Shem, but not under the name of Melchisedec; for this were to make the apostle to lay the weight of so important an argument as that in hand, and from whence he infers the removal of all the ancient legal institutions out of the church, upon a nicety, and to catch as it were at an advantage for it. Besides, let him be called as he will, it is his person in the discharge of his office which the apostle speaks of; and the things affirmed of him are not true concerning, or not truly applicable unto Shem. And we may observe by the way, what a blessed effect it is of the care and wisdom of God towards the church, that there are so few things in the Scripture that seem to administer occasion unto the curiosities and conjectures of men; and of those not any of them needful unto our faith and obedience, so as that they should receive the least prejudice by our ignorance of the precise sense of those places. The whole is filled with such depths of wisdom and truth, as require our humble, diligent, reverent, careful search into them, all the days of our lives. But particular passages, historical or mystical, such as seem to leave room for variety of conjectures, are very few. Had they been multiplied, especially in matters of any importance, it could not have been avoided but that religion would have been filled with fruitless notions and speculations. And thus it hath fallen out in this matter of Melchisedec; which being veiled or hidden in the Old Testament, and that on purpose that we should know no more of him nor any of his concerns but what is expressly written, all ages have been fruitlessly exercised, yea pestered, with such curious inquiries about him as rise up in direct opposition unto the scope of the Holy Ghost in the account given concerning him.

These things, therefore, are certain, and belong unto faith in this matter:

First, That he was a mere man, and no more but so; for,

1. Every high priest was to be taken from among men, Heb 5:1; so that the Son of God himself could not have been a priest had he not assumed our nature:

2. That if he were more than a man, there were no mystery in it that he is introduced in the Scripture without father, without mother, without pedigree, for none but men have so:

3. Without this conception of him there is no force in the apostles argument against the Jews.

Secondly, That he came not to his office by the right of primogeniture (which includes a genealogy) or any other successive way, but was raised up and immediately called of God thereunto; for in that respect Christ is said to be a priest after his order.

Thirdly, That he had no successor on the earth, nor could have; for there was no law to constitute an order of succession, and he was a priest only after an extraordinary call These things belong unto faith in this matter, and no more.

Two things every way consistent with the scope and purpose of the apostle, yea, eminently subservient thereunto, I shall take leave to add; the one as my judgment, the other as a probable conjecture only. And the first is, that although he lived and dwelt in Canaan, then and afterwards principally possessed by the posterity of the son of Ham, so called, yet he was none of the seven nations or peoples therein that were in the curse of Noah devoted unto bondage and destruction. For whereas they were therein, by a spirit of prophecy, anathematized and cast out of the church, as also devoted unto destruction, God would not raise up among them, that is, of their accursed seed, the most glorious ministry that ever was in the world, with respect unto typical signification; which was all that could be in the world until the Son of God came in his own person. This I take to be true, and do somewhat wonder that no expositors did ever take any notice of it, seeing it is necessary to be granted from the analogy of sacred truth.

My conjecture is, that he was a person of the posterity of Japheth, who was principally to be regarded as the father of the Gentiles that were to be called. Noah had prophesied that God should enlarge the heart of Japheth, or persuade him, so as that he should return to dwell in the tents of Shem, Gen 9:27. Unto Shem he had before granted the present blessing of the covenant, in these words, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem, Gen 9:26; and thereby the bringing forth of the promised Seed was confined unto his posterity. Hereon among them was the church of God to be continued, and upon the matter confined, until the Shiloh came, unto whom the gathering of the Gentiles was to be, in the enlargement of Japheth, and his return to dwell in the tents of Shem. And whereas the land of Canaan was designed of God for the seat of the church in his posterity, he suffered it to be possessed first by the seed of cursed Canaan, that in their dispossessing and destruction he might give a representation and security of the victory and final success of the Lord Christ and his church over all their adversaries. Before this came to pass, God, as I suppose, brought this Melchisedec and some others of the posterity of Japheth into the land of Canaan, in pursuit of the promise made unto Shem, even before Abraham himself had possession of it, and placed him there in a condition of office superior unto Abraham himself. And this might be done for two ends:

1. That a claim might be put in on the behalf of Japheth unto an interest in the tents of Shem in the type of the privilege, for a while confined unto his family. This right and rule of Melchisedec in those places, which were to be the seat of the church enjoying the promise made to Shem, took, as it were, livery and seisin for the Gentile posterity of Japheth, which was in due time to be brought into the full possession of all the rights and privileges of it.

2. That he might manifest that the state of Gentile converts, in the promise and spiritual privileges of the church, should be far more excellent and better than were the state and privileges of the posterity of Shem whilst in their separate condition; God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. But these things are submitted to the judgment of every candid reader.

I shall only add what is certain and indubitable, namely, that we have herein a signal instance of the sovereignty and wisdom of God. All the world was at that time generally fallen into idolatry and false worship. The progenitors of Abraham, though a principal branch of the posterity of Shem (as it is like, in the line of primogeniture), dwelt on the other side of the flood, and served other gods, Jos 24:2. Probably Abraham himself was not free from the guilt of that apostasy before his call. Canaan was inhabited by the Amorites with the rest of the devoted nations on the one hand, and the Sodomites on the other. In the midst of these sinners above others was this man raised up, the great type of Christ, with all the illustrious qualifications to be afterwards declared. And we may learn,

Obs. 2. That God can raise the greatest light in the midst of the greatest darkness, as Mat 4:16.

Obs. 3. He can raise up instruments for his service and unto his glory, when, where, and how he pleaseth.

Obs. 4. This signal prefiguration of Christ to the nations of the world, at the same time when Abraham received the promise 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.

Secondly, This is the person spoken of; and the first thing in the description of him is his office, that he was a king. So he is reported in the first mention of him, Gen 14:18, Melchizedek king of Salem. Now, whereas this doth not belong unto that wherein he was principally to be a type of Christ, nor is the Lord Christ anywhere said to be a king after the order of Melchisedec, nor doth the apostle make any use of the consideration of this office in him, we may inquire wherefore God placed him in that state and condition. And there seem to have been two ends thereof:

1. To make his typical ministry the more eminent and conspicuous. For, placing him in the condition of regal power and authority, what he was and did would necessarily be more conspicuous and more regarded than if he had been only a private man. And moreover, by those possessions and wealth which he had as a king, he was enabled unto the solemn and costly discharge of his office of priesthood in sacrifices and other solemnities. God therefore made him a king, that he might be known and observed as he was a priest, and be able to bear the burden of that office. And these things were then not only consistent, but some preparation seems to be made for the conjunction of these offices by the privilege and rights of primogeniture; whereof I have discoursed elsewhere. Now although nothing can be concluded from hence concerning the preeminence of the priestly office among men above the regal, which the Romanists plead for, from mere vain and empty pretences, yet it doth follow, that the greatest temporal dignities and enjoyments ought to be subservient unto spiritual things, and the concerns of Christ.

2. Although he was not in his kingly office directly typical of Christ, yet by being a king he was the more meet to represent him as a priest, seeing he was to be the only king and priest of the church also. And it may be observed, that although Moses in Genesis makes mention of the acts of both his offices, yet our apostle takes notice of those of one sort only. For Moses informs us in the first place, that, when he went to meet Abraham, he brought forth bread and wine; that is, for the refreshment of him and his army. Now this was an act of regal power and munificence. This the apostle takes no notice of, but only of his receiving tithes, and blessing Abraham; which were both of them acts of sacerdotal power. Wherefore, although it was convenient he should be a king, yet a king, and in what he did as a king, he was no type of Christ, though there might be a moral resemblance between them. For as Melchisedec refreshed Abraham, the father of the faithful, and his army, when they were weary after their conflict with their enemies, and in the discharge of their duty; so doth the Lord Christ, as king of his church, take care to support, relieve, and refresh all the children of Abraham, all believers, in all their duties, and in the whole course of obedience. So hath the wisdom of God disposed of things in the Scripture unto a fitness to give instruction, even beyond what they are firstly and principally designed unto. And although this and the like considerations should give no countenance unto mens curiosity in the exposition and application of any passages in the Scripture beyond the severest rules of interpretation, yet may it encourage us unto a diligent search into them, whilst we are duly steered by the analogy of faith. And I see no reason why we may not hence collect these two things:

Obs. 5. The Lord Christ, as king of the church, is plentifully stored with all spiritual provisions for the relief, supportment, and refreshment, of all believers, in and under their duties; and will give it out unto them as their occasions do require. For as Melchisedec represented the Lord Christ in what he did, so Abraham, in his battle and victory, was a type of all believers in their warfare and conflict with all their spiritual adversaries. Wherefore, as he and all his were refreshed by the kingly bounty of Melchisedec, so shall they be from the munificence and unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ.

Obs. 6. Those who go to Christ merely on the account of his priestly office and the benefits thereof, shall also receive the blessings of his kingly power, in abundant supplies of mercy and grace. Abraham designed nothing with Melchisedec but the owning of his sacerdotal office, in giving him the tithes of all, and receiving his blessing; but when he met him he was refreshed also with his kingly bounty. Many poor sinners go unto Christ principally, if not only, at the first, upon the account of his sacerdotal office, to have an interest in his sacrifice and oblation, to be made partakers of the mercy and pardon procured thereby; but when they come to him in a way of believing, they find that he is a king also, ready, able, powerful to relieve them, and unto whom they owe all holy obedience. And this answers the experience of many, it may be the most of them that do believe.

Thirdly, This kingly office of Melchisedec is further asserted by the specification of the place where he was king and reigned; he was king of Salem. There hath been great inquiry about, and much uncertainty there is concerning, this place or city. Two opinions, all sorts of those who have inquired into these things with any sobriety, do incline unto; for as for one who hath not long since affirmed, that this Salem is Jerusalem that is above, the mother of us all, he hath thought meet to give other instances also how little he understands the things he undertakes to treat about. But some think it was that city, and no other, which was afterwards called Jerusalem, and became in Davids time, and so for a long continuance, the principal seat of the church and solemn worship of God. This place, they say, was first called Salem, and afterwards, it may be presently after the reign of this Melchisedec, and on the occasion thereof, by the addition of or , a vision, or, they shall see peace, called Jerusalem. Others think that Salem was a city or town not far from Sychem, which was afterwards destroyed; and there are reasons for both opinions.

Of this latter opinion Jerome is the principal author and maintainer, in his epistle to Evagrius. And there are three reasons for it, whereon he much insists:

1. That there was a city near Sychem that was called Salem, and no otherwise. And this is plainly affirmed in the Scripture, Gen 33:18, And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan. For those who render the words, , Et venit Jacob pacificus, (or, incolumis,) ad urbem Shechem, so making the word appellative, and not the name of a place, are undoubtedly mistaken; for the same place is mentioned again in the New Testament by the same name, Joh 3:23, John was baptizing in AEnon, near to Salim. For that Salim and Salem are the same Jerome well shows, with the reason of the variation.

2. He affirms, that at that time were seen at Sychem the ruins of the palace of Melchisedec, which manifested it to have been a magnificent structure.

3. It is pleaded that the circumstances of the story make it necessary to judge that it was this Salem. For Abraham was passing by the place where Melchisedec reigned, who thereon went out to meet him. Now, whereas he was returning from Hobah, which was on the left hand, or north side of Damascus, Gen 14:15, Jerusalem was not in the way of his return, but Salem was.

On the other side, it is pleaded with more probability that Jerusalem was the seat of his kingdom. For,

1. It was anciently called Salem; which name is afterwards occasionally applied unto it, as that whereby it was known: Psa 76:2, In Salem is Gods tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion, where Jerusalem only can be intended. Some think that afterwards, when it was possessed by the Jebusites, it began at first to be called Jebussalem, that is, Salem of the Jebusites; which by custom was transformed into Jerusalem. But the approved etymology, from and , so that the name should signify a sight, or vision of peace, is certainly true, and probably given by God himself.

2. In the days of Joshua, the king of Jerusalem was called Adonizedec; a name of the same signification with Melchisedec, which possibly from him was the name of the kings who afterwards reigned in that city. And that man, as it should seem, was in some reputation for righteousness among the Canaanites, whence he managed their common cause in their danger, Jos 10:1-4.

3. Abraham dwelt at this time at Hebron, in the plain of Mamre; and, on his return from Hobah, or Damascus, the way lay near unto Jerusalem, as all charts yet declare; and Sychem was more to the north than that he should conveniently pass that way.

4. Jerusalem being designed to be the place where the Lord Christ was to begin and exercise his priestly office, it may well be supposed that there this his illustrious type was to appear and be manifested; especially considering that it was to be the place where the seat of the church was to be fixed until the signification of the type was to be effected.

And these reasons do prevail with me to judge that Jerusalem was the place of the habitation and reign of Melchisedec. As for what is affirmed by Jerome concerning the ruins of his palace at Sychem, it is notoriously known how little credit such traditions do deserve. Besides, Josephus, who lived four hundred years before him, makes no mention of any such thing. And it is probable that the ruins which Jerome saw were those of the palace of Jeroboam, who there fixed the seat of the kingdom of Israel, 1Ki 12:25, as king of the place where he obtained the crown, 1Ki 12:1. But credulous and superstitious posterity chose to ascribe it unto the memorial of Melchisedec, rather than of him who being the bane and ruin of the nation, his memory was accursed. And to inquire how this city came afterwards into the hands of the Jebusites, is directly contrary to the design of the Holy Ghost, which was to hide from us the end of his life and offices, as our apostle declares. And herein also possession was taken of the seat of the church in the tents of Shem, on the behalf and in the name of the Japhethian Gentiles. And may we not observe, that,

Obs. 7. God, in his sovereign pleasure, gives various intervals unto places, as to the enjoyment of his worship and ordinances. This Jerusalem, which was at first ennobled by the priesthood of Melchisedec, was afterwards left for a long season unto the idolatrous Jebusites. In process of time it was visited again, and made the fixed station of all solemn divine worship, as it is now left unto salt and barrenness. So hath he dealt with many other places, and in particular, notwithstanding their boasting, with the city of Rome, some time a seat of the gospel, now the throne of antichrist. Go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, Jer 7:12; Jer 7:14; Jer 26:6.

By the way, we must here give an account of somewhat that the apostle doth not say, as well as what he doth. After the mention of Melchisedec, and his being king of Salem, in the story, Genesis 14., it is added, that he met Abraham, and brought forth bread and wine, Gen 14:17-18. Of his meeting Abraham the apostle takes notice; but of his bringing forth bread and wine, not at all. Hereof undoubtedly no reason can be given, but only that that particular action or passage belonged not at all unto his purpose. For he who takes notice of all other circumstances, arguing as well from what was not said of him as from what was, would not have omitted any thing which is so expressly affirmed as this is, had it any way belonged unto his purpose. But the importunity of the Papists, who, with a strange kind of confidence, do hence seek countenance unto their missatical sacrifice, makes it necessary that we should inquire a little further into it.

Melchisedec, they tell us, as a priest and type of Christ, did offer this bread and wine in sacrifice to God. Herein, they add, alone was he typical of Christ, who offered himself unto God under the appearance of bread and wine. And he also instituted the sacrifice of the mass, wherein he should be so offered continually unto the end of the world. And on that account alone, they say, he continueth a priest for ever. For if he had not appointed priests here in his room, to offer him unto God, that office of his would have ceased, as Bellarmine disputes at large.

It were easy to make naked the fondness of these imaginations, would our present design permit. Some few things may be remarked on their assertions; as,

1. The apostle, in this whole discourse wherein Melchisedec is introduced and concerned, treateth not at all of the sacrifice of Christ, nor intimates any resemblance between the offering of Melchisedec and that of Christ; but it is the office alone and its dignity which he insists upon, designing to treat afterwards at large about his sacrifice, and when he doth so, he doth not in the least compare it with the sacrifice of Melchisedec, but with those of Aaron according to the law, so that there was no occasion for him to mention any sacrifice of Melchisedecs, should any such thing be supposed in the text of Moses.

2. A supposition of such a sacrifice of bread and wine as that pleaded for is contrary to the apostles design, and destructive of it; for whereas he endeavoreth to prove that the priesthood of Melchisedec was far more excellent than that of Levi, he could not do it by this, that he offered bread and wine in sacrifice, for so also did the Levitical priests, Lev 7:13; Lev 23:13; Lev 23:18. But all the excellencies which the apostle insisteth on consist in the dignity of his office and the qualifications of his person, not in the matter of his sacrifice.

3. Let all be granted they can desire, yet are they not advantaged as unto their especial end thereby; for what is the offering of real bread and wine, and no more, unto the offering of the body and soul of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of them?

4. As unto what they contend, that the Lord Jesus Christ would not be a priest for ever unless he had those priests on earth who continue to offer him in the sacrifice of the mass, it is so far from truth, as that the contrary is irrefragably true and certain; for if he indeed hath need of other priests to carry on his office, he doth not continue the administration of it himself, or all the apostles arguings against the perpetuity of the Aaronical priesthood are invalid.

But because I am not willing to engage in any thing controversial beyond what is absolutely necessary, I shall only tender some considerations evidencing that no such thing as a sacrifice can be included in that expression, He brought forth bread and wine; and so proceed:

1. The process of the story directs unto another sense of the words. Abraham was now returned with his forces unto the valley of Shaveh, which is the kings dale, Gen 14:17; a place not far from Jerusalem, called, as it is likely, the kings dale from Melchisedec, unto whom it belonged; where afterwards Absalom built a a pillar, for the memorial of his name, 2Sa 18:18. Here, probably, he continued for a while, as to refresh his own people, so to stay for the coming of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. For, upon their defeat in the battle, they had left the plain and fled unto the mountains, Gen 14:10, giving up the cities with all their spoil unto the conquerors; but now, hearing of the success of Abraham, and his recovery of the captives with their goods, they resort unto him for relief. He who intended to restore all unto them, stayed for them, as it is probable, some days in the kings dale. Now, it was the manner in those countries, when any forces were on an expedition, that those in their way who were at peace with them did bring forth supplies of bread and wine, or water, for their refreshment. For the neglect of this duty, wherein they brake the laws of friendship and hospitality, did Gideon so severely punish the inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel, Jdg 8:5-9; Jdg 8:13-17. And the observance of this duty is recorded unto the commendation of Barzillai the Gileadite, who sent refreshment unto David and his army; for he said, The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness, 2Sa 17:27-29. In this state of things, Melchisedec, being the neighbor, friend, and confederate of Abraham, when he came with his army and abode so near unto him, brought forth bread and wine for their refreshment; which being a mere civil action, our apostle takes no notice of it. And they who can discover a sacrifice in this expression, have either more skill in the opening of mysteries than he had, or a better invention in coining groundless fables and imaginations of their own.

2. This act of Melchisedec is immediately subjoined unto the mention of him as king, being an instance of kingly power and munificence: Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine. After this it is added, And he was the priest of the most high God; which is a plain introduction of and preparation for the expression of his exercise of that office in his blessing of Abraham, which ensues in the next words. The Romanists contend that vau in , is redditive, giving a reason of what was before affirmed: He brought forth bread and wine, because he was the priest of the most high God.But as this offers force to the universal usage of that particle, which is connexive only, so it will not serve their occasion. For they would have it that Melchisedec only offered this sacrifice of bread and wine; whereas if the reason why he did so was because he was the priest of the most high God, then every one who was so was in like manner to offer the same sacrifice. And whereas they place the whole especial nature of the Melchisedecian priesthood in this his sacrifice, if this were common to him with all others, then was he not a priest of a particular order; and so the whole discourse of the apostle is vain and impertinent. But it is plain, that he having nothing to do with nor inference to make from his royal office or acts, doth therefore omit this, which evidently was an act of kingly bounty.

3. The word here used, , he brought forth, or caused to be brought forth, bread and wine, is no sacred word, nor is ever used in the Scripture to express the sacred action of oblation or offering in sacrifice; it is always a common action that is denoted thereby.

4. The apostles silence in this matter casteth this pretense out of all consideration. His design was to evince the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of Levi, from this particular consideration, that he was a priest after the order of Melchisedec. To prove that he was so indeed, and withal to show how great and excellent a person this Melchisedec was, who bare that office as a type of Christ in his, and also in how many things the resemblance between the Lord Christ and him did consist, wherein he was made like unto the Son of God, he proposeth unto consideration every minute circumstance of all that was spoken of him, and what also in common use ought to be spoken of him, but being not so, was certainly omitted for some special reason and signification; insisting on some things which no man could have conjectured to have been designedly significant, if the Holy Ghost himself had not made the discovery thereof; omitting nothing that might confirm the truth or illustrate the evidence of his argument; yet he wholly passeth by this passage, without the least notice of it. Herein, if the Romanists may be believed, in this accurate collection of all things he omits nothing but only that wherein the essence and substance of his cause and plea did wholly consist. For this his offering of bread and wine in sacrifice, they say, was that thing alone wherein he was peculiarly the type of Christ; and they dispute with great vehemency that the resemblance between them consisted herein alone, although the apostle doth instance expressly in sundry other things, as we shall see more afterwards, and makes no mention of this at all. It is therefore clear as the day-light, that he and they are diversely minded in this matter. But if they are in the right, certainly never any man managed an argument unto less advantage than the apostle doth that in this place, wherein yet there is an appearance of so great accuracy and care. For they do suppose that he scrupulously collects all the circumstances belonging unto the matter he treats of, and some of them of a difficult application unto his purpose, and at the same time omits that wherein the whole force of his argument did consist; which is a failure not modestly to be ascribed unto any person of sobriety or judgment. Wherefore we need not further trouble ourselves with those forced and futilous pretences. The reason why the apostle mentions Melchisedec as king of Salem, is to intimate his first prerogative above the Aaronical priests, in that he was a king. And we may observe that,

Obs. 8. Acts of munificence and bounty are memorable and praiseworthy, though they no way belong unto things sacred by virtue of divine institution. So was this bringing forth of bread and wine by Melchisedec, to refresh Abraham and his people, though there was nothing of sacrifice threin. In former ages, either men were more inclined to such acts than now they are, or there were more efficacious means of engaging them thereunto than are judged meet now to be made use of, because perhaps discovered to have something of deceit in them. But this went along with all their bounty, that if they would make the acts of it sacred and religious, all should be peculiarly devoted and dedicated unto God; wherein, although their pious intentions are to be commended, yet it may justly be feared that they missed of their aim, in making things and services sacred which God had not made so. But such acts as those we speak of, towards men, need no more of religion in them, but that they be done in obedience to the will of God, who requires of us to do good to all, and to exercise loving-kindness in the earth. They are so good and praiseworthy, provided,

1. They are of real use, and not in things that serve only for ostentation and show;

2. That they interfere with no other especial duty, nor cause an omission of what is necessary, etc. Again,

Obs. 9. It is acceptable with God, that those who have labored in any work or service of his should receive refreshments and encouragements from men. For as such an acceptable service is the relief given to Abraham and his people by Melchisedec celebrated. God is himself a sufficient reward unto his people in and for all their services; he needs not call in the help of men to give them a recompence: however, it is well-pleasing unto him, that he, or his work which they do, in any thing, be owned by men.

Fourthly, The apostle proceeds with his description of the subject of his proposition, with respect unto that office which he principally regards: , priest of the most high God. Two things are here asserted: 1. That in general he was a priest.

2. The limitation of that office with respect unto the author and object of it is expressed; he was a priest of the most high God.

1. He was a priest, and he was the first that was so by especial institution. How the rite of sacrificing was common to all worshippers of old, and what was the peculiar interest of the first-born therein, I have at large before declared. I have also proved that Melchisedec was the first who was authoritatively separated unto this office by Gods approbation. And as it was a new, so it was a great and remarkable thing in the world. For although we know not how far it was received or understood by the men of that age, who I believe were not stupidly ignorant and carnal, as some would have them to be; yet certain it is, that the institution of this office, and the representation of it in the person of Melchisedec, gave great light and instruction into the nature of the first promise, and the work of the blessing Seed which was to be exhibited. For the faith of the church in all ages was so directed, as to believe that God had respect unto Christ and his work in all his institutions of worship. Wherefore the erection of the office of a priesthood to offer sacrifice, and that in the person of so great a man as Melchisedec, must needs lead them into an acquaintance with the nature of his work in some measure, both he and it being so conspicuously represented unto them.

In this general assertion, that he was a priest, two things are included:

(1.) That he was truly and really a man, and not an angel, or an appearance of the Son of God, prelusory unto his incarnation. For every priest is taken from among men, Heb 5:1, of the same common nature with other men, and in the same state, until he be separated unto his office. And so was Melchisedec, a man called out from amongst men, or he was not a priest.

(2.) That he had an extraordinary call unto his office; for he falleth likewise under that other rule of our apostle, No man taketh this honor unto himself, unless he be called of God, Heb 5:4. But of what nature this call was, and how he received it, cannot positively be determined in particular. Two things are certain concerning him negatively:

[1.] That he came not to this office in the church by succession unto any that went before him, as did all the Levitical priests after Aaron. There was none went before him in this office, as none succeeded unto him, as we shall see immediately. And when the Lord Christ is said to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec, it doth not suppose that he was of any certain order, wherein were a series of priests succeeding one another, but only that it was with Christ as it was with him, in point of call and office. Wherefore his call was personal, in some act of God towards him, wherein himself and no other was concerned.

[2.] He was not called or set apart unto his office by any outward unction, solemn consecration, or ceremonial investiture: for the Lord Jesus Christ had none of these, who was made a priest after the manner that he was; only there was an outward sign of his call unto all his offices, in the descending of the Holy Ghost on him in the form of a dove, Matthew 2, John 1. These things belonged purely unto the law and Aaronical priesthood, wherein spiritual things were to have a carnal representation. And those by whom they are received, in the separation of any unto an evangelical office, do prefer the ministration of the law before that of the gospel, as more glorious, because they discern not the glory of spiritual things. Besides, there was none in the world greater than he, nor nearer unto God, to confer this office upon him, as Aaron was consecrated by Moses. For in the authoritative collation of an office there is a blessing; and, without controversy, he who blesseth is greater than he who is blessed by him, as we shall see immediately. And therefore would not God make use of any outward means in the call or the separation of the Lord Christ unto his offices, or any of them; because there was none in heaven or earth greater than he, or nearer unto God, to be employed therein. Angels and men might bear witness, as they did, unto what was done by the Lord God and his Spirit, Isa 61:1; but they could confer nothing upon him. And therefore, in the collation of the ministerial office under the gospel, the authority of it resides only in Jesus Christ. Men can do no more but design the person according to his rules and laws; which may be done among equals. Wherefore the call of Melchisedec unto his office was extraordinary, and consisted in an extraordinary unction of the Spirit.

And this had two things attending of it:

[1.] That it gave unto himself sufficient security and warranty to undertake and execute the office whereunto he was called. So did every extraordinary call, accompanied with a divine afflatus and inspiration, Amo 7:14-15.

[2.] That it evidenced itself unto all that feared God; who thereon willingly submitted unto his administrations in the discharge of his office. And this is all that we can know, as to the way and manner of his becoming a priest. That he was not so by succession unto any other, by the right of primogeniture, nor made so by men, are certain from the apostles discourse. The time, place, season, and occasion of his call, are all hidden from us; but he was made a priest by God himself. For,

Obs. 10. Every one is that in the church, and nothing else, which God is pleased to make him to be. Wherefore, for us to rest in Gods vocation is our honor and our safety, as well as our duty. For,

Obs. 11. Where God calleth any one unto a singular honor and office in his church, it is in him a mere act of his sovereign grace. So he took this Melchisedec, who had nothing of stock, race, descent, or succession, to recommend him, but as one as it were newly sprung out of the earth, and raised him to the highest dignity that any man in those days was capable of. Let us not, therefore, repine or murmur at any of Gods dealings with others, nor envy because of his gifts bestowed on them. May he not do what he will with his own, seeing he is greater than men, and giveth no account of his matters?

Obs. 12. A divine call is a sufficient warranty for the acting of them according unto it who are so called, and for the obedience of others unto them in their work or office. By virtue hereof this Melchisedec arose in the midst of the nations of the world, took on him a new office and power, being owned and submitted unto therein by Abraham, and all that believed.

Obs. 13. The first personal instituted type of Christ was a priest; this was Melchisedec. There were before real instituted types of his work, as sacrifices; and there were moral types of his person, as Adam, Abel, and Noah, which represented him in sundry things; but the first person who was solemnly designed to teach and represent him, by what he was and did, was a priest. And that which God taught herein was, that the foundation of all that the Lord Christ had to do in and for the church was laid in his priestly office, whereby he made atonement and reconciliation for sin. Every thing else that he doth is built on the supposition hereof.. And we must begin in the application where God begins in the exhibition. An interest in the effects of the priestly office of Christ is that which in the first place we ought to look after. This being attained, we shall be willing to be taught and ruled by him, and not else.

2. The apostle adds the limitation of this his office of priesthood, as to its author and especial object; and that is the most high God. For so by , doth he render in Moses.

(1.) He was a priest to God. This determines the sense of the word cohen to the office of the priesthood; contrary to the pretensions of some modern Jews, and the Targum on Psalms 110. For whereas they cannot understand how the Messiah should be a priest, and perceive well enough the inconsistency of the legal priesthood with such a supposition, they would have the word cohen in the psalm to signify a prince or a ruler. But although the word used absolutely may be applied sometimes to such a purpose, yet where God is proposed as its object, a priest of God, or unto God, none can be signified but one in the priestly office.

(2.) He was a priest unto the most high God. This is the first time that this title is ascribed unto God in the Scripture, which afterwards is frequently repeated; and so also are others of the same importance, as God above, God over all, The God of heaven, and absolutely, The Most High. And it is either descriptive or distinctive, as all such attributes and epithets are:

[1.] As it is descriptive, the majesty, power, and authority of God over all, are intended therein. The most high God, is the glorious God, with whom is terrible majesty. To represent them, it is said that his throne is high and lifted up, Isa 6:1; and he is called The high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, Isa 57:15. Thus is he styled, to fill our hearts with a reverence of him, as one infinitely above us, and whose glorious majesty is absolutely inconceivable. So, when the Holy Ghost would express the glory of Christ as exalted, he says he is made higher than the heavens, and he is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The most high God, therefore, is first, God as inconceivably exalted in glory and majesty. Again, his power and authority are also intended herein. The Most High ruleth over all, Dan 4:17. God over all in power and authority, disposing of all things, is the most high God. So Abraham explains this name, Gen 14:22.

[2.] As it is distinctive it respects other gods, not in truth and reality, but in reputation. For so there were then lords many, and gods many, in the world. So they were esteemed by them that made them, and worshipped them: , as our apostle speaks, such as were called gods, 1Co 8:5, but by nature were not gods, Gal 4:8. They were all earthly; and though some of them had their being above, as the sun, moon, and host of heaven, yet they had all their deity from beneath; nor ever had it any existence but in the deluded imaginations of the sons of men. In opposition unto them, with distinction from them, God is called the most high God. The world was at that time fallen into all manner of idolatry. Every country, every city, every family almost, had made new gods unto themselves. The most general veneration, as I have elsewhere showed, was then given unto the sun, and that because he appeared to them on high, or the highest being they could apprehend. Hence had he the name of among the Greeks, from , the high one. In opposition unto all these gods, and in renunciation of them, Melchisedec professed himself the priest of the most high God; as Paul preached at Athens the unknown God, in opposition unto all their known , or idols, which they supposed themselves acquainted withal. And whereas God had not yet revealed himself by any especial name, as he did afterwards on sundry occasions (the first he made of that kind being El Shaddai, or God Almighty, Gen 17:1, as himself declares, Exo 6:3), those that feared him made use of this title, as most comprehensive, as most suited unto their present faith and profession. So Abraham expounds this title, Gen 14:22, The most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth; which he gives as a reason why he would not take aught of the king of Sodom, seeing he was the servant of that God who disposed of all things in heaven and earth, and so had no need of supplies from him. His God could make him rich without the help of the king of Sodom. Wherefore God under this consideration, of the most high God, was the principal object of the faith of believers in those days. For whereas they were few in number, and all the inhabitants of the earth were greedily set upon getting possessions and inheritances for themselves, they believed in God as him who was able to protect them and provide for them, according unto the tenor of the name whereby he afterwards revealed himself unto Abraham, namely, of El Shaddai, or God Almighty. And this also was the principal part of their profession, that they served the most high God alone, in opposition unto all the false and dunghill deities of the earth. The Socinians, in all their disputes against the deity of Christ, do always make use of this name, and continually repeat it. Christ, they say, is not the most high God. A god they will allow him to be, but not the most high God. But whereas this name is used in distinction only from all false gods, if their Christ be a god, but not on any account the most high God, he is a false god, and as such to be rejected. See Jer 10:11. And from this name or title of God, as it is descriptive of his majesty and authority, we may observe,

Obs. 14. To keep up and preserve a due reverence of God in our minds and words, we should think of and use those holy titles which are given unto him, and whereby he is described in the Scripture. This was the constant manner of the holy men of old, and which God himself in sundry places directs unto. Thus Abraham immediately makes use of this name, Gen 14:22, I have lift up mine hand unto Jehovah, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth. So are we taught to fear that glorious and dreadful name, The LORD thy God, Deu 28:58. See Isa 30:15; Isa 57:15. And there is nothing that argues a greater contempt of God among men, than the common, slight, irreverent mention of his name, whose highest degree is that horrible profanation of swearing and cursing by it, with wicked and diabolical spirits. Let us not therefore think of God, nor mention him, but as the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity. Not that on all occasions of mentioning him we should constantly make use of these glorious titles, the Scripture warranting us to speak both to him and of him without their addition unto his name; but that we should do so as occasion doth require, and always sanctify him in our hearts and words, as him unto whom they do belong.

Obs. 15. It is good at all times to fix our faith on that in God which is meet to encourage our obedience and dependence upon him in our present circumstances. The believers in those days did in a very particular manner confess themselves to be strangers and pilgrims on the earth, Heb 11:13. The church was not as yet fixed unto any certain place, and they being separated from the apostate world, not mixing with it, nor incorporating in any society, went up and down from one place to another. In this condition, having no inheritance nor abiding place, but exposed unto manifold dangers, they eyed God in an especial manner as the most high God; as him that was over all, and had the disposal of all things in his own sovereign power. And that variety of titles which in the Scripture are given unto God, with the descriptions that are made of him, are all suited unto this end, that, in the variety of occasions and trials that may befall us in this world, we may still have something peculiarly suited unto the encouragement of our faith and dependence on God.

Obs. 16. In particular, it is a matter of inestimable satisfaction that he whom we serve is the most high God, the sovereign possessor of heaven and earth. It is in sense the same with that name which God gave himself when he entered into covenant with Abraham, encouraging him thereby unto an adherence to him in faith and obedience, Gen 17:1, I am God Almighty. And it were easy to demonstrate what relief, in all troubles, dangers, persecutions, distresses, inward and outward, in life and death, we may thence receive. As this name is distinctive we may observe, that,

Obs. 17. Public profession in all ages is to be suited and pointed against the opposition that is made unto the truth, or apostasy from it. The world being now generally fallen into idolatry and the worship of new, earthly gods, believers made this the principal part of their profession, that they served the most high God; which ought to be observed on all alike occasions.

Fifthly, The apostle describes this Melchisedec from that action of his, with its circumstances, which gave occasion unto the whole account of him: Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings. On this occasion only is he introduced in the Scripture story, as a new person, never heard of before, nor ever afterwards to be made mention of, as unto any of his own concerns. Abraham did not only overthrow the whole army of the kings, and recover the spoils, but he slew the kings themselves, as is expressly affirmed, Gen 14:17. Hence is he here said to return from the slaughter of the kings: for as he includeth in it the destruction of their host, so it was that which signalized his victory. And the afterwards mentioned were the opima spolia taken from the kings themselves. As Abraham thus returned with honor and glory, made very great in the eyes of the nations round about, and as he staid in the kings dale to deliver unto the king of Sodom his goods and people, with a royal munificence, becoming a servant of the most high God, who had a better portion than could be found amongst the spoils, Melchisedec, knowing the state of things, and the promise made to Abraham, comes out unto him, for the ends mentioned.

But it may be inquired whether this were a just occasion for the introduction of this king of peace, priest of the most high God, and type of Christ, to bless him who returned from wax with the spoils of a bloody victory.

Ans. 1. The apostasy and rebellion of the whole world against God have made it necessary that spiritual victory be the foundation of all the actings of Christ, in the setting up of his kingdom. The first promise of him was, that he should break the serpents head, wound the head over the large earth, Psa 110:6. This was to be effected by a glorious conquest and victory, which is everywhere so described in the Scripture. See Col 2:15. And because outward force and opposition is always used by the world in the defense of the interest of Satan, he will also sometimes apply the outward sword for the destruction of his stubborn adversaries, Isa 63:1-3; Revelation 19. This, therefore, was no unmeet season for the introduction of him who made so solemn a representation of him.

2. Abraham himself was in this victory also a type of Christ; not absolutely of his person, as was Melchisedec, but of his power and presence in his church. Melchisedec, I say, represented Christ in his person and his offices; Abraham represented his presence in the church, or the church as his body. I will neither approve of nor reject that conjecture of some, that those four kings were types of the four great monarchs of the world which the church of God was to conflict withal, and at length to prevail against; as Dan 7:17-27. And, indeed, many things in their names and titles do notably countenance that conjecture. But it is certain in general that they were great oppressors of the world, roving up and down for dominion and spoil. Wherefore Abrahams conquest of them was not only a pledge of the final success of the church in the world, but also a representation of the usefulness of the church unto the world, whenever its pride and blindness will admit of its help and kindness, Mic 5:7. The church is indeed the only means of conveying blessings unto the world, as the oppression thereof will prove its ruin. 3. The land of Canaan was now given unto Abraham and his seed for a possession, to be the seat of the church and Gods worship among them. The nations now inhabiting it were devoted unto destruction in an appointed season. And he was not to allow these foreign kings to set up any dominion therein. And God gave him this victory as a pledge of his future possession.

4. Abraham was obliged, both in justice and affection, to rescue his brother, Lot, whom they were carrying away captive. And this is expressed as the next cause of his engagement against them, Gen 14:14. On all accounts, therefore, this war was just, and the victory ofGod. And because there was a representation therein of the victory and success of Christ in his church, it was a season most eminently proper for the introduction of Melchisedec, blessing him in the exercise of sacerdotal power.

5. This congress of Melchisedec and Abraham, after Abraham had gotten the victory over all his adversaries, was a type and representation of the glorious congress and meeting of Christ and the church at the last day, when the whole church shall have finished its warfare, and be victorious over the world, sin, the law, death, and hell. Then will the Lord Christ bring out the stores of heaven for their eternal refreshment, and give them in the fullness of the blessing; and all things shall issue in the glory of the most high God. All the promises are unto him that overcometh. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 18. All the commotions and concussions that are among the nations of the world do lie in, or shall be brought into, a subserviency unto the interest of Christ and his church. I intend those places where either the seat of the church is, or is to be. A great war and tumult there was between these eastern kings and those of Canaan, and many nations were smitten and destroyed in the expedition, Gen 14:5-7. And what is the final issue whereinto all these things do come? Why, two things fell out hereon, that neither side of the combatants either looked for or had any interest in:

1. The victory of Abraham, or the church, over them all

2. A glorious type and representation of Christ, brought forth visibly acting in his church. Yea, I may add, that in Abrahams glorious victory and royal munificence on the one hand, and in the sacerdotal blessing of Melchisedec on the other, there was such a representation of Christ, in his principal offices as priest and king, as had never been made in the world before. This issue did God direct that war and tumult unto. It will be no otherwise with all those confusions and disorders that the world is filled withal at this day, though we can see nothing of the ways and means of their tendency unto such an end.

Obs. 19. There have been, and are to be, such seasons wherein God will dispose of nations and their interests according as the condition of the church doth require; as he did here with all these nations, Isa 43:3-4; Isa 60:6-7.

Obs. 20. The blessing of God may be expected on a just and lawful war. This war and victory of Abraham, which he received the blessing upon, are celebrated, Isa 41:2-3. And our apostle mentions that circumstance of the slaughter of the kings as that which was a token of Gods kindness unto Abraham, and of his own greatness. And where these things occur,

1. A lawful, necessary, immediate cause of war, as Abraham had for the rescue of Lot;

2. A lawful call unto the war, as Abraham had, being a sovereign prince, and raising his army of his own people merely, and that to the securing of the possessions of a country granted unto him by God himself; and,

3. A subserviency unto the glory of Christ and the good of the church; the presence of God in it, and the blessing of God upon it, may be justly expected.

Sixthly, Melchisedec is further described by two acts of his sacerdotal power or office, which he exercised on this occasion of meeting Abraham:

1. He blessed him; and then,

2. He received tithes of him:

1. He met Abraham, and blessed him. This solemn benediction is fully expressed, Gen 14:19-20 : And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.

There are two parts of this blessing:

(1.) That which hath Abraham for its object, a blessing of prayer;

(2.) That which hath God for its object, a blessing of praise. Our apostle seems to take notice only of the first, or that part of the blessing whereof Abraham was the immediate object; but the truth is, the other part, whereby he blessed God, being on the account of Abraham, and as it were in his name, it belongs also to the blessing wherewith he was blessed.

As to this blessing, we may consider,

[1.] The nature;

[2.] The form of it.

As to the nature of it, blessings in general are the means of communicating good things, according unto the power and interest in them of them that bless, Gen 33:11. So also are curses of evil. Hence it is God alone that absolutely can either bless or curse; for he only hath sovereign power of all good and evil. He doth therefore so express his blessing, In blessing I will bless thee, Gen 22:17; do it assuredly and effectually, as having all the subject-matter of blessings in my hand.And therefore he says to Abraham, I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, Gen 12:3; because he is over them and all their blessings and curses. Balak, therefore, was not a little mistaken when he tells Balaam,

I know that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed, Num 22:6;

for however he might divine concerning them that should be so, absolutely he could neither bless nor curse. Wherefore I say, all blessings are instituted means of the conveyance and communication of good unto others, according unto the power and interest of them that bless in that good. This being amongst men, by Gods concession and institution, various, there are also various sorts of blessings, which may be reduced unto two heads:

1st. Such as are authoritative;

2dly. Such as are charitative or merely euctical.

The latter sort of blessing is removed from our consideration in this place, for our apostle treats only of such blessings as evidently and unavoidably prove him that blesseth to be superior unto him that is blessed, verse 7: but this is not so in this latter sort of blessings, which consist only in prayer for a blessing on them; for so equals may bless one another; yea, inferiors may bless superiors, children may bless parents, servants masters, subjects their rulers, Psa 20:1-4.

Authoritative benediction among men is twofold:

(1st.) Paternal;

(2dly.) Sacerdotal, or with respect unto any other office in the church.

(1st.) Paternal benedictions were of old of two sorts:

[1st.] Such as were of common right.

[2dly.] Such as had an especial prophetical warranty.

[1st.] For the first; parents have an especial right, by virtue of divine institution, authoritatively to bless their children, inasmuch as he hath given unto them an especial interest in the matter of the blessing and power for the communication of it. And this blessing consists in two things:

First, A solemn declaration unto God of their acceptance and approbation of that duty and obedience which their children perform unto them, by the law of nature and Gods appointment. This ordinarily brings the children so blessed under the promise of the fifth commandment. So are the words of the command, ,that they may prolong thy days. They shall have power to communicate this good unto thee by their blessing, in their solemn declaration of their acceptance and approbation of thy obedience.And if this were more considered and more observed by parents and children, it would be much to their advantage. And, indeed, the state of those children is unhappy, whose parents cannot sincerely avow an approbation of their duty; which intercepts the benefit of their blessings. them in their own covenant-interest. God having promised to be a God unto believers, and to their seed in and by them, they do three ways bless them with the good things thereof: first, By communicating unto them the privilege of the initial seal of the covenant, as a sign, token, and pledge of their being blessed of the Lord; secondly, By pleading the promise of the covenant in their behalf; thirdly, By careful instructing of them in the mercies and duties of the covenant. Wherefore, although this power of blessing be founded in the law of nature, and in all nations something hath been observed that looks towards it, yet it is by faith alone, and in an interest in the covenant, that any parents are able to bless their children in a due manner. For a blessing is a communication of good according to his interest in it that blesseth, which we have none in any that is really so, but by virtue thereof. And whereas these things are a solemn appointment of God, it is certainly a disadvantage that a foppish ceremony is in common practice substituted in the room of them.

[2dly.] There was of old a paternal benediction that had its rise in an especial warranty, and was accompanied with a spirit of prophecy. This consisted in a certain prediction and declaration of future events, whereby those so blessed were infallibly and indispensably stated in a right unto them. So Noah blessed Shem and Japheth; Isaac blessed Jacob; Jacob all his sons. Herein God gave unto some parents the honor of a power to bequeath unto their posterity those good things which he graciously intended to bestow on them. This kind of blessing is now absolutely ceased, for it wholly respected the coming of Christ in the flesh, with those other things which conduced thereunto.

It were well if, instead of all these several ways of blessing, many parents did not curse their children. Some upon their provocations have desperately and profanely imprecated curses upon them; and we have known instances wherein God hath eminently revenged their impiety, by his judgments inflicted on parents and children both. Some entail a curse upon them, by oppression and falsehood in getting their estates, or in a flagitious course of life; which God will revenge to the third generation. But most do curse them with the cursed example of their conversation, initiating them almost from the cradle in a course of sin and wickedness. appointed of God whereby they may bless their children, do ofttimes not see the effect of their endeavors. They bless them, but they are not blessed. But, first, They have peace and comfort in the discharge of their duty; secondly, Their blessing may have success, and oftentimes hath, when they are gone out of the world, yea, in their childrens children, for many generations; thirdly, If all fail, they shall be witnesses for God at the last day against their own profligate posterity. But I return.

(2dly.) Sacerdotal blessings were authoritative also, and that on a double ground:

[1st.] Of common right and equity; and,

[2dly.] Of especial institution.

[1st.] There was a common right and equity, that he who was called to be a priest should bless the people authoritatively. For as he was appointed to act for men with God, so it is reasonable that he should pronounce blessings unto them in the name of God; that as he ministerially carried their gifts, offerings, and services unto God, so in like manner he should return his acceptance and blessing unto them. Whereas, therefore, this right and duty belonged unto the office of the priest, two things ensue thereon; firstly, That this blessing was an act of authority, for every act of office is so; secondly, That he who thus blesseth another is greater than he who is blessed by him, as our apostle disputes, and as we shall see afterwards. And we may take notice, in our passage, that whatever be the interest, duty, and office of any, to act in the name of others towards God, in any sacred administrations, the same proportionably is their interest, power, and duty to act towards them in the name of God in the blessing of them. And therefore ministers may authoritatively bless their congregations. It is true, they can do it only declaratively, but withal they do it authoritatively, because they do it by virtue of the authority committed unto them for that purpose. Wherefore the ministerial blessing is somewhat more than euctical, or a mere prayer. Neither is it merely doctrinal and declaratory, but that which is built on a particular especial warranty, proceeding from the nature of the ministerial office. But whereas it hath respect in all things unto other ministerial administrations, it is not to be used but with reference unto them, and that by them by whom at that season they are administered.

[2dly.] There was an especial institution of a sacerdotal benediction under the old testament, recorded, Num 6:22-27 :

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The LORD bless thee and keep thee: the LORD make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the LORD lift up the light of his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Their putting the name of God upon the people, was their praying for and pronouncing blessings on them in his name, by virtue of this institution; for it is an institution whereby the name of God is put on any thing or person. Hereon God would effectually bless them. This especial institution, I acknowledge, was after the days of Melchisedec, and the cessation of his office as to actual administration; but it is apparent, and may be proved, that many, if not the most, of those sacred institutions which were given in one system unto Moses, were singly and gradually given out by inspiration and prophecy unto the church before the giving of the law, only at Sinai their number was increased, and the severity of their sanction heightened. Thus this sacerdotal benediction was but a transcript from and expressive of that power and form of blessing which Melchisedec as a priest enjoyed and used before.

And from what hath been spoken we may gather the nature of this blessing of Melchisedec wherewith he blessed Abraham. For,

(1.) It had the nature of a blessing in general, whereby any one man may bless another, in that it was euctical and eucharistical;-it included both prayer for him and thanksgiving on his account unto God.

(2.) It was authoritative and sacerdotal. He was the priest of the most high God, and he blessed Abraham; that is, by virtue of his office. For so the nature of the office requireth, and so God had in particular appointed, that the priests should bless in his name.

(3.) It was prophetical, proceeding from an immediate inspiration, whereby he declares the confirmation of the great blessing promised unto Abraham; Blessed be Abram. And we may see,

Obs. 21. That he who hath received the greatest mercies and privileges in this world may yet need their ministerial confirmation. Abraham had before received the blessing from the mouth of God himself; and yet it was no doubt a great confirmation of his faith, to be now blessed again in the name of God by Melchisedec. And, indeed, such is the estate of all the faithful, the children of Abraham in this world, that, what through the weakness of their faith, what through the greatness of their temptations and trials, they stand in need of all ministerial renovations of the pledges of Gods goodwill towards them. We are apt to think that if God should speak once unto us, as he did to Abraham, and assure us of the blessing, we should never need further confirmation whilst we live; but the truth is, he doth so speak unto all that believe, in the word, and yet we find how much we want the ministerial renovation of it unto us. Bless God for the ministry, for the word and sacraments; ordinarily our faith would not be kept up without them.

Obs. 22. In the blessing of Abraham by Melchisedec, all believers are virtually blessed by Jesus Christ. Melchisedec was a type of Christ, and represented him in what he was and did, as our apostle declares. And Abraham in all these things bare the person of, or represented all his posterity according to the faith. Therefore doth our apostle, in the foregoing chapter, entitle all believers unto the promises made unto him, and the inheritance of them. There is, therefore, more than a bare story in this matter. A blessing is in it conveyed unto all believers, in the way of an ordinance for ever.

Obs. 23. It is Gods institution that makes all our administrations effectual. So did sacerdotal benedictions become authoritative and efficacious. Innumerable ways and means of blessing things and persons have been found out in the Papacy. They will bless bells, steeples, churches, and church-yards, utensils, fonts, candles, salt, and children by confirmation. There is, in truth, in them all a want of that wisdom, gravity, and reverence, which ought to accompany men in all religious services; but that which renders them all useless, and casts them out of the verge of religion, is, that they want a divine institution.

2. The second sacerdotal act, or exercise of priestly power ascribed unto Melchisedec, is that he received tithes of all: To whom also Abraham gave the tenth of all. As Abraham gave them in a way of duty, so he received them in a way of office. So the apostle expresseth it, verse 6, He received tithes of Abraham, or tithed him. And the word , of all, is limited unto the spoils which he took from the enemies, verse 4, To whom Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. This in the original history is so expressed as to leave it doubtful both to whom the tenths were given, and of what they were: Gen 14:20, , And he gave him the tenth of all. The words immediately preceding are the words of Melchisedec, and the story concerneth him; so that if the relative included in , he gave, do answer unto the next antecedent, Melchisedec gave the tenth of all unto Abraham. Nor doth it appear what the or all was that is intended; whether his own whole estate, or all the tithable things which he had then with him. But all this ambiguity is removed by our apostle, according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, and withal it is declared how great a mystery depended on the right understanding of those words. It was Abraham that gave the tenth of all to Melchisedec; whereby he acknowledged him to be the priest of the most high God, and the type of the Son of God as incarnate, every way superior unto him, who had but newly received the promises. And the tenth which he gave was only of the spoils that he took from the enemies, as a token and pledge in particular that the victory and success which he had against the kings was from God.

This receiving of tithes by Melchisedec was a sacerdotal act. For,

(1.) The tenth thus given was firstly given unto God; and he who received them, received them as Gods officer, in his name. Where there was none in office so to receive them, they were immediately to be offered unto God in sacrifice, according unto their capacity. So Jacob vowed the tenth unto God, Gen 28:22; which he was himself to offer, there being no other priest to receive it at his hand: and no doubt but he did it accordingly, when God minded him to pay his vow at Bethel, Gen 35:1-6. And,

(2.) The things that were fit of this sort were actually to be offered in sacrifice unto God. This Saul knew, when he made that his pretense of sparing and bringing away the fat cattle of the Amalekites, 1Sa 15:15. And I no way doubt but that these tenths that Abraham gave, at least such of them as were meet for that service, although it be not expressed, were offered in sacrifice unto God by Melchisedec. For whereas he was a king, he stood in no need of any contribution from Abraham; nor was it honorable to receive any thing in way of compensation for his munificence in bringing forth bread and wine, which were to sell his kindness and spoil his bounty; nor would Abraham have deprived the king of Sodom and others of any of their goods, to give them unto another. Wherefore he received them as a priest, to offer what was meet in sacrifice to God; whereon, no doubt, according to the custom of those times, there was a feast, wherein they ate bread together, and were mutually refreshed.

(3.) This matter was afterwards precisely determined in the law, wherein all tithes were appropriated unto the priests. I observe these things, only to show that the apostle had just ground to infer from hence the sacerdotal power of Melchisedec, and his pre-eminence in that office above Abraham. For every thing in the Scripture is significant, and hath its especial design, the whole being inlaid with truth by infinite wisdom, whether we apprehend it or no. Without this light given by the Holy Spirit himself, how should we have conceived that this giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchisedec was designed to prove his greatness and dignity above Abraham and all the Levitical priests on that account, as the great type and representative of Jesus Christ And indeed all the mysteries of sacred truth which are contained in the Old Testament, are seen clearly only in the light of the New; and the doctrine of the Gospel is the only rule and measure of the interpretation of the writings of the Old Testament. Wherefore, although the writings of both are equally the word of God, yet the revelation made immediately by Jesus Christ is that which ought to be our guide in the whole. And they do but deceive themselves and others, who, in the interpretation of mystical passages and prophecies of the Old Testament, do neglect the accomplishment of them and light given unto them in the New, taking up with Jewish traditions, or vain conjectures of their own; such as the late writings of some highly pretending unto learning are stuffed withal.

And we may see from hence,

(1.) How necessary it is for us, according to the command of our Savior, to search the Scriptures, Joh 5:39; , to make a scrupulous .inquiry, a diligent investigation, to find out things hidden, or parcels of gold ore. So are we directed to seek for wisdom as silver, and to search for her as for hid treasures, Pro 2:4. There are precious, useful, significant truths in the Scripture, so disposed of, so laid up, as that if we accomplish not a diligent search we shall never set eye on them. The common course of reading the Scripture, and the common help of expositors, who for the most part go in the same track, and scarce venture one step beyond those that are gone before them, will not suffice, if we intend a discovery of these hid treasures. This diligent search was attended unto by the prophets themselves under the old testament, with respect unto their own prophecies, which they received by inspiration, 1Pe 1:10-11. God gave out those deep and sacred truths by them which they comprehended not, but made diligent inquiry into the mind of the Holy Ghost in the words which themselves had spoken. What belongs unto this diligent search shall be elsewhere declared.

(2.) That the clear revelations of the New Testament ought to be our, principal rule in the interpretation of difficult passages in the Old. What our apostles in these cases had by immediate inspiration and direction, that we must look for from what is recorded in their writings; which is sufficient for us, and will not fail us.

There is great inquiry usually made on this place, whether tithes be due by the light of nature, or at least by such a moral-positive command of God as should be perpetually obligatory unto all worshippers unto the end of the world. This many contend for, and the principal reasons which they plead from the Scripture are these:

1. That tithes were paid before the law as well as under the law; and what was so observed in the worship of God, namely, that being in usage before the law, and confirmed by the law, is originally of the law of nature, and could have no other fountain.

2. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, speaking of tithing mint and cummin, approveth of it, affirming that those things ought not to be omitted, though the most inferior instance that could be given of the duty.

3. He seems in like manner to have respect thereunto, when he commands to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods, which were the tithes; the law concerning them being thereby confirmed, which proves it not to be ceremonial. And this some men judge to be a certain argument of that which is moral and unalterable, namely, the appointed usage of it before the law, under the law, and under the gospel after the expiration of the law of ceremonies, or the law of commandments contained in ordinances. And it seems so to be, if there be the same reason of the law or command in all these seasons; for otherwise it is not so. For instance, it is supposed that the eating of blood was forbidden before the law, and assuredly it was so under the law, and is so in the New Testament, Acts 15 : which yet proves it not to be morally evil and perpetually forbidden; for it is not so upon the same grounds and reasons. For in that place of Gen 9:4, But flesh with the life thereof, that is, the blood thereof, shall ye not eat, blood is not absolutely forbidden, but in some cases, and with respect unto a certain end. It was not to be eaten whilst it was yet hot and warm in the flesh; which prohibition God gave to prevent that savage custom which yet afterwards got ground among men, of eating flesh, like ravenous beasts, whilst the blood was yet warm in it. Under the law it was forbidden, because God had taken it to be the principal part of sacrifices, and far the most significant, Lev 17:5-6; Lev 17:11; Lev 17:14. And in the 15th of the Acts it is only occasionally forbidden for a season, to avoid scandal and offense. So that if it should be supposed that the matter of the prohibition before the law, under the law, and in that synod at Jerusalem, were the same, yet the reasons of it being various, it doth not prove a morality in the law, or such as should be everlastingly obligatory. But where not only the subject- matter, but the formal reason of the command is the same, there it is of natural equity, and unalterable; and so it is said to be in the case of tithes.

I shall not enter into any long digression about this controverted subject. It is such as wherein the various interests of men have engaged their utmost diligence, on the one hand and on the other. But this I am sure enough of, that unless they were paid by them that give them with more conscience and regard unto duty than generally they seem to be, not one in a thousand having respect in the payment of them to any thing but the civil law of the land; and unless they were turned unto a better account with them by whom they are received than generally they do; it is to no great purpose to dispute, upon what grounds or by what right they are due unto any. And without solicitousness concerning offense, I shall take leave to say, that it is no safe plea for many to insist on, that tithes are due and divine, as they speak, that is, by a binding law of God, now under the gospel. For be the law and institution what it will, nothing is more certain than that there is nothing due under the gospel, by virtue of Gods command or institution with respect unto his worship, unto any who do not wholly give up themselves unto the ministry, and labor in the word and doctrine; unless they be such as are disenabled by age and infirmities, who are not to be forsaken all the days of their lives. For men to live in pleasure and idleness, according to the pomp, vanities, and grandeur of the world, neither rising early, nor going to bed late, nor spending their time and strength in the service of the church, according to the duties required of all the ministers thereof in the gospel, to sing unto themselves that tithes are due to them by the appointment and law of God, is a fond imagination, a dream that will fill them with perplexity when they shall awake. But as unto the question in hand, I shall briefly give my thoughts about it in the ensuing observations and propositions:

By tithes is understood either the express law of tithing, or paying the tenth of all our substance and of the whole increase of the earth; or only the dedicating of a certain portion of what we have unto the uses of the worship and service of God.

1. If this latter be intended, it is with me past all doubt and question that a bountiful part of our enjoyments is to be separated unto the use and service of the worship of God, particularly unto the comfortable and honorable supportment of them that labor in the ministry. And it is no small part of that confusion which we suffer under, that Christians, being in all places compelled to pay the tenth by civil laws unto some or other, whether they will or no, are either discouraged, or disenabled, or think themselves discharged from doing that which God certainly requireth at their hands in a way of duty. However, this will be no excuse for any, for generally they have yet left unto them that whereby they may discharge their duty in an acceptable manner; and I cannot but wonder how some men can satisfy their consciences in this matter, in such circumstances as I shall not now name.

2. If the strict legal course of tithing be intended, it cannot be proved from this text, nor from any other instance before the law; for Abraham gave only the tenth of the spoils, which were not tithable by law. For if the places taken or destroyed in war were anathematized, as Jericho was, and also Amalek, no portion was to be reserved, under a pretense of sacrifice or any other sacred use; as Saul found to his cost. And if they were not anathematized, all the spoils were left entirely unto the people that went to war, without any sacred decimation. So the Reubenites and the Gadites, at their return over Jordan into their own land, carried all their rich spoils and cattle with them, no tithe being mentioned, Jos 22:8; although there is no question but many of them offered their freewill offerings at the tabernacle. And when God would have a sacred portion out of the spoils, as he would have in the wilderness, out of those that were taken from the Midianites, to manifest that they fell not under the law of tithes, he took not the tenth part, but one portion of five hundred from the soldiers, and one of fifty from the people, Num 31:28-30. Wherefore the giving of the tenth of the spoils was not from the obligation of any law, but was an act of free-will and choice in the offerer. But yet there was so great an equity herein also, namely, that God should have an acknowledgment in the fruits of those successes which he gave in war, that out of the spoils of his and his peoples enemies David made his provision for the building of the temple. And the captains of the host that went against Midian, after a tribute was raised for the Lord out of the spoils according unto the proportions mentioned, when they found the goodness of God in the preservation of their soldiers, whereof there was not one lost, they made a new voluntary oblation unto God out of their spoils, Num 31:48-50. And as for the instance of Jacob, who vowed unto God the tenth of all, it is so far from proving that the tenth was due by virtue of any law, that it proves the contrary. For had it been so, it could not have been the matter of an extraordinary vow, whereby he could express his obedience unto God.

3. The precise law of tithing is not confirmed in the gospel. For that saying of our Saviors approving the tithing of mint and cummin, evidently respects that legal institution which was then in force, and could not be violated without sin. And by his approbation of that law, and of the duty in observance of it, he did no more confirm it, or ascribe an obligatory power unto it under the gospel, than he did so unto all those other ceremonial institutions which both he himself observed as a man made under the law, and enjoined others so to do. They all continued in full force until the time of reformation, which gave them their bounds and limits, Heb 9:10, and ended with his resurrection. His other saying of giving unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods, respects our whole moral obedience unto God, and not this or that particular institution. The meaning of it is, that we are to pay or perform unto God all whatever he requireth of us in a way of obedience; but what that is in particular, is not here determined. And other mention of tithes in the gospel there is none.

4. Whereas by the light of nature, all rules of reason and positive institutions, a portion of what God is pleased to give unto every may, is to be returned unto him, in the way of his worship and service, wherein it may be used according unto his appointment; and whereas before the giving of the law sundry holy men fixed on the tenth part, as that which was meetest to be so dedicated unto God, and that, as is probable, not without some especial conduct of the Holy Spirit, if not upon express revelation; and whereas this was afterwards expressly confirmed under the law by positive institution, the equity whereof is urged in the gospel; it is the best direction that can be given unto any what proportion of their estate should be set apart unto this purpose. Herein, I confess, so many circumstances are in particular cases to be considered, as that it is impossible any one certain rule should be prescribed unto all persons. But whereas withal there is no need in the least to furnish men with pleas and excuses for the non-performance of their duty, at least as unto the necessary degrees of it, I shall not suggest any thing unto them which may be used to that purpose. I shall therefore leave this rule in its full latitude, as the best direction of practice in this matter.

5. On these suppositions it is that the apostle, treating of this matter, makes no use of the right or law of tithing, though directly unto his purpose if it had not been abrogated. For intending to prove that the ministers of the gospel ought to be liberally supported in their work with the earthly things of them unto whom they do administer the things of God, he argueth from the light of nature, the general equity of other cases, the analogy of legal institutions, the rules of justice, with the especial institution of Christ in the gospel, but makes no mention of the natural or legal right of tithing, 1Co 9:7-14. And farther I shall not at present divert on this subject. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 24. Whatsoever we receive signally from God in a way of mercy, we ought to return a portion of it unto him in a way of duty. That this was the practice of the saints of old might easily be proved by an induction of instances, from this act of Abraham (yea, from the sacrifice of Abel) down to the vow of Jacob, the dedications of David, Solomon, and others, in their respective places and generations. The light of nature also counted it as a duty among all the civilized heathens. The offerings and sacred dedications of nations and private families are famous on this account. And it was laid as a lasting blemish on good Hezekiah, that he rendered not unto the Lord according to the mercy which he had received.

And we may do well to consider,

1. That no man hath any great or signal success in any affair or occasion; more than others, or more than at other times, but there will be in his mind an ascription of it unto one cause or another. This the nature of things makes necessary, nor can it be avoided, Hab 1:11.

2. That whatever a man doth secretly ascribe such success unto, that he makes in some sense his god. They sacrifice unto their net, and burn incense unto their drag; because by them their portion is fat, and their meat plenteous, Hab 1:16. They ascribed their successes unto theirown strength, endeavors, and means that they used. Hereby they deified themselves as far as in them lay; and therefore these thoughts are called sacrificing and burning incense, which were expressions of religious worship. And it is no better with us, when, in our successes in our trades and affairs, we secretly applaud our own endeavors and the means we have used as the only causes of them.

3. It is a great sign that a man hath not engaged God in the getting of any thing, when he will not entitle him unto any portion of what is gotten. There are two evils common in the world in this case. Some will make no acknowledgment unto God, in the especial consecration of any part of their substance unto him, where it is lawfully gotten; and some will make great dedications of what hath been gotten by robbery, spoils, oppression, and violence. Many public works of munificence and charity, as they are called, have had no other original. This is but an endeavor to entitle God unto injustice, and draw him to a copartnership with them, by giving him a share in the advantage. God hateth robbery for burnt-offering, Isa 61:8; and he smiteth his hand at mens dishonest gain, Eze 22:13. He will have nothing to do with such things, nor accept of any portion of them or from them, however he may overpower things in his providence unto his glory. Both these ways are full of evil, though the latter be the worst.

4. No man hath any ground to reckon that he can settle what he hath unto himself or his, where this chief rent unto God is left unpaid. He will at one time or other make a re-entry upon the whole, take the forfeiture of it, and turn the ungrateful tenant out of possession. And, among other things, this makes so many estates industriously gotten so speedily moulder away as we see they do in the world.

5. God hath always his receivers ready to accept of what is tendered, namely, his poor, and those that attend the ministry of his house.

Seventhly, The apostle pursues his design and argument from the name and title of the person spoken of, with their interpretation: First being, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, that is, King of peace. And we shall consider herein,

1. The names themselves, with their interpretation.

2. The grounds or reasons of the apostles arguing from this interpretation.

3. What is intended in them, or what he would have us learn from them.

4. Their order, which he particularly observes.

1. He respecteth

(1.) His proper name, that is, Melchisedec; for the fancy of some, that Sedec was a place or city where first he reigned, as he did afterwards at Salem, is very fond. For then he must be utterly without a name belonging unto his person; which the apostle doth not observe, as he would have done one way or other, had any such unusual thing offered itself unto him. Besides, had it been so, he would not have been called Melchisedec, but rather Melec Sedec, as he is said to be Melec Salem. is a king; and by the interposition of yod to smooth the composition, the former segol is turned into pathach, and the latter into shevah, whence Melchi ariseth. Some would have this yod to be a pronoun affix; and then the meaning of the word is, my king; and on this supposition, taking for , Sedek for Saddik, they would render it, my righteous king. But there is nothing more ordinary, in the composition of names, than the interposition of yod parago-ricum, to soften the sound and pronunciation of them. So is it in Adonizedek, Adonibezek, Abimelech, Ahitub, Abishua, Abishag, Abishalom, and sundry others. Wherefore Melchi is nothing but the name Melec, a king, a little varied, to fit it unto the composition intended. is righteousness. And so the whole name is properly interpreted and rendered by our apostle , a king of righteousness.

(2.) His title is, , the king of Salem; of which place we have spoken before. This is, by interpretation, saith our apostle, , the king of peace. Some think that herein occurs a greater difficulty than did in the interpretation of his name. For , Salem, say they, doth not signify peace, but , Shalom. Salem is only as much as pacificus, peaceable; not pax, or peace itself. But yet neither ought this to give us any trouble. For instances may be given in this language wherein the same word is used sometimes substantively, sometimes adjectively; as, for instance, , and , and , are. And upon the matter the signification is the same. Rex pacificus and rex pacis do both denote him that is the maker and author of peace. So God on that account is called the God of peace, Rom 15:33; Rom 16:20;1Th 5:23; 2Th 3:16; Heb 13:20. Wherefore, as we ought to acquiesce in the authority of the apostle, who knew better than us all the signification of these names, so that he gives is proper, according unto our best conception of these things.

2. It may be inquired what ground the apostle had to argue from the signification of those names, which seems to be but a curious and infirm kind of argumentation; and we find by experience, that whilst some have followed and imitated, as they supposed, this example, they have fallen into woful mistakes.

Ans. (1.) The apostle takes it for granted in general, that every thing in the story of Melchisedec was mystical and figurative. This he did on good grounds, because the only reason of its introduction was to give a representation of the person and priesthood of Christ.

(2.) It was usual, under the old testament, to have names given unto children by a spirit of prophecy; as to Noah, Peleg, and others, yea, it may be most of the patriarchs. It was so also to have mens names changed upon some great and solemn occasions: as Abram was called Abraham; Sarai, Sarah; Jacob was called Israel; and Solomon, Jedidiah. And whereas this was sometimes done by divine authority, as in the instances mentioned, whence it was highly significant; so the people, in imitation thereof, did often give other names to themselves, or others, on some occasion wherewith they were affected. Hence it is that we find the same persons so frequently called by divers names; which gives no little difficulty in genealogies. But where this was done by divine warranty, it was doctrinal, and prophetically instructive. So was it in that great name given unto our Lord Jesus Christ himself, namely, Immanuel; which the evangelist remembers, and gives us the interpretation thereof, Mat 1:23. Now, whether this name was given to Melchisedec from his nativity by a spirit of prophecy, as is most probable, or whether his name was changed by God himself when he was publicly called unto his office, is uncertain, and no way needful to be inquired into; but certain it is, that this name was given him by divine direction, and that for the very end for which it is here used and applied by our apostle. And no countenance can hence be taken unto their curiosity who seek for mysteries out of names and their numbers, which, for aught they know, had a casual imposition, or that which respected some particular occasion whereof they are utterly ignorant.

(3.) As for the name of the place where he reigned, or Salem, it was also given unto it on the same ground, to be presignificative of the work that was to be effected by Him whom he typed out. Most probably at that time God first gave that name unto that place; for that it was not the Salem by Sychem we have before declared. And I am persuaded that God himself, by some providence of his, or other intimation of his mind, gave that name of Peace first unto that city, because there he designed not only to rest in his typical worship for a season, but also in the fullness of time there to accomplish the great work of peace-making between himself and mankind. Hence it was afterwards, by the same guidance, called Jerusalem, or a Vision of Peace, because of the many visions and prophecies concerning the spiritual and eternal peace which was to be wrought and published in that place; as also from all those holy institutions of his worship which there represented the means whereby that peace was to be wrought, namely, the sacrifice of Christ himself, the only real and proper priest of the church.

Wherefore our apostle doth justly argue from the signification of those names, which were given both to the person and place by divine authority and guidance, that they might teach and fore-signify the things whereunto by him they are applied.

3. The interpretation of the names being proper, and the argument from thence in this case useful, as to the signification of them, it must be inquired how this man was king of righteousness and peace. Most suppose that no more is intended but that he was a righteous and peaceable king, one that ruled righteously and lived peaceably. And it is true that absolutely in himself, and as unto his own personal qualifications, he was so, and no more, nor could be more. But these names have respect to his relative state, and were given him as a type of Christ. He was a king of righteousness and peace as he was without father and without mother; that is, to represent Christ in his office. Really, he was a righteous and peaceable king; typically; he was the king of righteousness and peace. Now, the king of righteousness is him who is the author, cause, and dispenser of righteousness unto others; as God is said to be The LORD our Righteousness. And so is the king of peace also; in which sense God is called the God of peace. Thus was it with Melchisedec as he was the representative of Jesus Christ.

4. The last thing that the apostle observes from these names and titles, is their order, wherein it is natural that the name of a man should precede the title of his rule: First, King of righteousness, and afterwards King of peace. Righteousness must go first, and then peace will follow after. So it is promised of Christ and his kingdom, that

in his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth, Psa 72:7.

First they are made righteous, and then they have peace. And Isa 32:17,

The work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and peace for ever.

This is the order of these things. There is no peace but what proceedeth from, and is the effect of righteousness. So these things with respect unto Christ are declared by the psalmist, Psa 135:9-13. What we are taught hence is,

Obs. 25. That the Lord Jesus Christ is the only king of righteousness and peace unto the church. See Isa 32:1-2; Isa 9:6. He is not only a righteous and peaceable king, as were his types, Melchisedec and Solomon; but he is the author, cause, procurer, and dispenser of righteousness and peace to the church. So is it declared, Jer 23:5-6,

Behold the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The LORD our Righteousness.

He is righteous, and reigneth righteously; but this is not all, he is The LORD our Righteousness.

Eighthly, The apostle proceeds yet unto other instances in the description of Melchisedec, wherein he was made like unto the Son of God: Verse 3, Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. The things here asserted, being at the first view strange and uncouth, would administer occasion unto large discourses, and accordingly have been the subject of many inquiries and conjectures; but it is no way unto the edification of those who are sober and godly, to engage into any long disputes about those things wherein all learned, sober expositors are come to an issue and agreement, as they are in general in this matter. For it is granted that Melchisedec was a man, really and truly so, and therefore of necessity must have had all these things; for the nature of man, after him who was first created, who yet also had beginning of life and end of days, doth not exist without them. Wherefore these things are not denied of him absolutely, but in some sense, and with respect unto some especial end. Now this is with respect unto his office; therein, or as he bare that office, he was without father, without mother, etc. And how doth it appear that so it was with him? It doth so because none of them is recorded or mentioned in the Scripture, which yet diligently recordeth them concerning other persons; and in particular, those who could not find and prove their genealogies were by no means to be admitted unto the priesthood, Ezr 2:61-63. And we may therefore by this rule inquire into the particulars:

1. It is said of him in the first place, that he was without father, without mother, whereon part of the latter clause, namely, without beginning of days, doth depend. But how could a mortal man come into the world without father or mother? Man that is born of a woman, is the description of every man; what therefore can be intended? The next word declares he was , without descent, say we. But is a generation, a descent, a pedigree, not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded. is he whose stock and descent is entered upon record. And so on the contrary, is not he who hath no descent, no genealogy, but he whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered, recorded, reckoned up. Thus the apostle himself plainly expresseth this word, verse 6, , whose descent is not counted; that is, reckoned up in record. Thus was Melchisedec without father and mother, in that the Spirit of God, who so strictly and exactly recorded the genealogies of other patriarchs and types of Christ, and that for no less an end than to manifest the truth and faithfulness of God in his promises, speaks nothing unto this purpose concerning him. He is introduced as it were one falling from heaven, appearing on a sudden, reigning in Salem, and officiating the office of the priesthood unto the most high God.

2. On the same account is he said to be without beginning of days and end of life. For as he was a mortal man he had both. He was assuredly born, and did no less certainly die, than other men; but neither of these is recorded concerning him. We have no more to do with him, to learn from him, nor are concerned in him, but only as he is described in the Scripture, and there is no mention therein of the beginning of his days, or the end of his life. Whatever, therefore, he might have in himself, he had none to us. Consider all the other patriarchs mentioned in the writings of Moses, and you shall find their descent recorded, who was their father, and so upwards unto the first man; and not only so, but the time of their birth and death, the beginning of their days and the end of their lives, is exactly recorded. For it is constantly said of them, such a one lived so long, and begat such a son; which fixeth the time of birth. Then of him so begotten it is said he lived so many years; which determines the end of his days. These things are expressly recorded. But concerning Melchisedec none of these things are spoken. No mention is made of father or mother, no genealogy is recorded of what stock or progeny he was; nor is there any account of his birth or death. So that all these things are wanting unto him in this historical narration, wherein our faith and knowledge are alone concerned. Some few things may yet further be inquired into for the clearing of the sense of these words:

(1.) Whereas the observation of the apostle is built upon the silence of Moses in the history, which was sufficient for him, whatever was the cause and reason of that silence, we may inquire whence it was. Whence was it, I say, that Moses should introduce so great and excellent a person as Melchisedec without any mention of his race or stock, of his parents or progenitors, of his rise and fall, contrary unto his own custom in other cases, and contrary unto all rules of useful history? For to introduce so great a person, in any story, and on so great an occasion, without giving any account of him, or of any of his circumstances, whereby his concernment in the matter related might be known, is utterly contrary unto all rules of serious history.

Ans. [1.] Some of the Jews absurdly imagine that it was because his parents were not only obscure, but that he was born of fornication, and so he had no right of genealogy. But this is both a foolish and wicked imagination. For it is not to be supposed God would have advanced a person known to be of such an extract and original unto the honor of the priesthood, and that of the most excellent kind that ever was under the old testament. For being low and mean in the world, it is neither disadvantage nor disparagement; the best of men were so, and all the chief patriarchs were but shepherds. But bastardy is a mark of infamy in the world, and God would not raise such an one to administer peculiarly unto him, and that as a type of his own Son, who was to be incarnate.

[2.] Some say that there is no singular thing herein, but that it is done according to the custom of Scripture, which relates only the genealogies of the patriarchs who were of that lineage from whence Christ did come; but when it makes mention of any others, though they be never so eminent, it reckoneth not up their genealogy. Thus it dealeth with Jethro, the father-in- law of Moses; and with Job, so great and holy a person, concerning whom it says no more but that There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job. And some things may be allowed herein; but the instances are no way parallel. For Jethro, he was a stranger unto the church, and there is a full account concerning him, so far as it is either necessary or useful that we should in point of story know any thing of him. And the story of Job is a separate stow, wherein himself only and family were concerned; and we have therein his country, the number and names of his children, with the years of his life, and time of his death. But as we have none of these things in the account of Melchisedec, so he is introduced as one in whom the church of God was publicly concerned. Wherefore,

[3.] The true cause of the omission of all these things was the same with that of the institution of his priesthood, and the introduction of his person in the story. And this was, that he might be the more express and signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. For to this end it was not only needful that he should be declared to be a priest, as the Messiah was to be, but also in that declaration all those circumstances were to be observed wherein the nature of the priesthood of Christ might be any way prefigured. After this, the church being reduced into a standing order for succession, it was obliged necessarily for many generations unto a priesthood which depended solely on their genealogy and pedigree both by father and mother, Ezr 10:18-19; Neh 7:63-65. Wherefore, whereas the priesthood of our Lord Christ was to depend on no such descent, (for it is evident that our Lord sprang of Judah, whereof Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood,) it was necessary that it should be originally represented by one who had no genealogy, seeing that, as unto his office, he himself was to have none. And therefore, when the church of Israel was in the highest enjoyment of the Levitical priesthood, whose office depended wholly on their genealogy, yea, so far as that on a supposition of a defect or change thereof, not only the priesthood itself, but all the sacred worship also which it was designed to officiate, must utterly cease, yet the Holy Ghost then thought meet to mind them that a priest was to come without respect unto any such descent or genealogy, in that he was to be after the order of Melchisedec, who had none, Psa 110:4. This is the true and only reason why, in the story of Melchisedec as the priest of the most high God, there is no mention made of father, mother, genealogy, beginning of life, or end of days.

And we may herein consider the sovereign wisdom of the Holy Ghost, in bringing forth truth unto light according as the state and condition of the church doth require. And first, he proposeth only a naked story of a person that was a type of Christ, and that obscurely and sparingly. Something the men of the age wherein he lived might learn by his ministrations, but not much. For that which was principally instructive in him for the use of the church was not of force until all his circumstances were forgotten; and the church was now to be instructed, not so much by what he was, as by what was recorded of him: wherein the Scripture superseded all tradition that might be of him in the world; 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. Afterwards, when, it may be, all thoughts of any use or design of this story in Moses were lost, and the church was fully satisfied in a priesthood quite of another nature, the Holy Ghost, in one word of prophecy, instructs the church, not only that the things spoken concerning Melchisedec were not so recorded for his sake, or on his own account, but with respect unto another priest which was afterwards to arise, by him represented, which gave a new consideration, sense, and design to the whole story, but moreover gives it to know that the priesthood which it then enjoyed was not always to continue, but that another of another nature was to be introduced, as was signified long before the institution of that priesthood which they enjoyed, Psa 110:4. And though this was sufficient for the use and edification of the church in those days, yet it was left greatly in the dark as to the flail design and meaning of these things. And therefore it is evident that at the coming of our Savior, and the accomplishment of this type, the church of the Jews had utterly lost all knowledge and understanding of the mystery of it, and the promise renewed in the psalm. For they thought it strange that there should be a priest that had no genealogy, no solemn consecration nor investiture, with his office. Wherefore our apostle, entering upon the unfolding of this mystery, doth not only preface it with an assertion of its difficulty, or how hard it was to be understood aright, but also, by a long previous discourse, variously prepareth their minds unto a most diligent attention. And the reason of it was, not only because they had utterly lost the understanding that was given in these things formerly, but also because the true understanding of them would put an end at that time unto that priesthood and worship which they had adhered unto. Wherefore until this time the church was not able to bear the true understanding of this mystery, and now they could no longer be without it. Hence it is here so fully and particularly declared by our apostle. And we may observe,

Obs. 26. That the church never did in any age, nor ever shall, want that instruction by divine revelation which is needful unto its edification in faith and obedience. This it had in all ages, according unto that gradual progression which God gave unto light and truth in the explication of the great mystery of his grace, which was hid in him from the foundation of the world. An instance hereof we have in the things which concern this Melchisedec, as we have observed. The church had never need to look after the traditions of their fathers, or to betake themselves unto their own inventions; their instruction by revelation was always sufficient for the state and condition wherein they were. Much more, therefore, is it so now, when the sum and perfection of all divine revelations is given in unto us by Jesus Christ.

Obs. 27. It is a great honor to serve in the church, by doing or suffering, for the use and service of future generations. This was the honor of Melchisedec, that he was employed in a service the true use and advantage whereof was not given in unto the church until many generations after. And I add suffering unto doing, because it is well known what glories have sprung up in future ages, upon the past sufferings of others.

Obs. 28. The Scripture is so absolutely the rule, measure, and boundary of our faith and knowledge in spiritual things, as that what it conceals is instructive, as well as what it expresseth. This the apostle manifests in many of his observations concerning Melchisedec, and his inferences from thence. But I have, as I remember, discoursed somewhat hereof before.

(2.) Our next inquiry is, wherein Melchisedec was typical of Christ, or what of all this belongeth unto the following assertion that he was made like unto the Son of God; that is, so described as that he might have a great resemblance of him.

Ans. It is generally thought that he was so in the whole, and in every particular mentioned distinctly. Thus he is said to be without father, and without mother (no mention is made of them), because the Lord Christ was in some sense so also. He was without father on earth as to his human nature; with respect whereunto God says that he will create a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man, Jer 31:22, or conceive a man without natural generation. And he was without mother as to his person or divine nature, being the only begotten of the Father, by an eternal generation of his own person. But yet it must not be denied but that, on the other side, he had both father and mother, a father as to his divine, and a mother as to his human nature; but as to his whole person, he was without father and mother. Again, whereas he is said to be without genealogy, it is of somewhat a difficult application; for the genealogy of Christ was or . The roll of his pedigree is declared by two of the evangelists, the one driving of it up to Abraham, the other unto Adam; as it was necessary, to manifest the truth of his human nature and the faithfulness of God in the accomplishment of his promises. It may be, therefore, respect is had unto these words of the prophet, Isa 53:8, , Who shall declare his generation? there was somewhat in his age and generation, by reason of his divine pre-existence unto all, that was ineffable. Again, he is said to be without beginning of days and end of life. And this also is spoken by our apostle with respect unto the narration of Moses, wherein mention is made neither of the one nor of the other. And it belongs unto his conformity unto the Son of God, or that wherein he represented him; for as unto his divine person, the Lord Christ had neither the one nor the other, as the apostle proves, Heb 1:10-12, from Psa 102:25-27. But on the other side, as to his human nature he had both, he had both beginning of days and end of life; both which are upon solemn record. Wherefore it should seem that if there be a likeness in these things on the one account, there is none on the other, and so no advantage in the comparison.

Considering these difficulties in the application of these particulars, some do judge that these instances do not belong unto the analogy and resemblance between Christ and Melchisedec, but are introduced only in order unto what ensues, namely, he abideth a priest for ever, wherein alone the similitude between him and Christ doth consist. And so, they say, we find things quoted in the Scripture at large, when only some one passage in it may be used directly unto the business in hand. But although this will be difficultly proved, namely, that any testimony is cited in the Scripture whereof any principal part of it belongs not unto the matter designed to be confirmed, yet it may be granted that it is so sometimes, when the sense of the whole context is to be taken in. But there was no reason, on this ground, that the apostle should make so many observations on what was not spoken at all, which in an ordinary way ought to have been mentioned, if the whole of what he so observed was not at all to his purpose.

Wherefore it must be granted, as that which the plain design of the apostle exacteth of us, that Melchisedec even in these things in the story, that he was without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, was a type and representative of Christ. But it is not of the person of Christ absolutely, nor of either of his natures distinctly, that our apostle treateth, but merely with respect unto his office of priesthood. And herein all the things mentioned do concur in him, and make a lively representation of him. It was utterly a new doctrine unto the Hebrews, that the Lord Christ was a priest, the only high priest of the church, so as that all other priesthood must cease. And their chief objection against it was, that it was contrary unto the law, and inconsistent with it; and this because he was not of the line of the priests, neither as to father, or mother, or genealogy, nor had any to succeed him. But in this type of his the apostle proves that all this was to be so. For,

[1.] In this respect he had neither father nor mother from whom he might derive any right or title unto his office; and this was for ever sufficient to exclude him from any interest in the priesthood as it was established by law.

[2.] He had no genealogy upon the priestly line; and that which is recorded of him on other accounts is so far from having respect unto his right unto the priesthood of the law, that it directly proves and demonstrates that he had none. For his genealogy is evidently of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded legally from that office; as we have, besides the institution, an instance in king Uzziah, 2Ch 26:16-21, from Exo 30:7-8; Num 18:7. Hence our apostle concludes, that had he been on the earth, that is, under the order of the law, he could not have been a priest; there being others who, by virtue of their descent, had alone the right thereunto, Heb 8:3-4. Wherefore God in these things instructed the church that he would erect a priesthood which should no way depend on natural generation, descent, or genealogy; whence it inevitably follows, that the state of the priesthood under the law was to cease, and to give place unto another, which our apostle principally designs to prove.

[3.] In this respect also the Lord Christ was without beginning of days and end of life. For although in his human nature he was both born and died, yet he had a priesthood which had no such beginning of days as that it should be traduced from any other to him, nor shall ever cease or be delivered over from him unto any other, but abides unto the consummation of all things. In these things was Melchisedec made like unto Christ, whom the apostle here calls the Son of God; made like unto the Son of God. I have formerly observed, that in this epistle the apostle makes mention of the Lord Christ under various appellations, on various occasions, so that in one place or another he makes use of all the names whereby he is signified in the Scripture. Here he calls him the Son of God; and that,

1. To intimate that although Melchisedec was an excellent person, yet was he infinitely beneath him whom he represented, even the Son of God. He was not the Son of God, but he had the honor in so many things to be made like unto him.

2. To declare how all those things which were any way represented in Melchisedec, or couched in the story, or left unto inquiry by the veil of silence drawn over them, could be fulfilled in our high priest; and it was from hence, namely, that he was the Son of God. By virtue hereof was he capable of an always living, abiding, uninterrupted priesthood, although as to his human nature he once died, in the discharge of that office.

This description being given of the person treated of, which makes up the subject of the proposition, it is affirmed concerning him that he abideth a priest for ever. For any thing we find in the story, of his death, or the resignation of his office, or the succession of any one unto him therein, he abideth a priest for ever. Some, I find, have been venturing at some obscure conjectures of the perpetuity of the priesthood of Melchisedec in heaven. But I cannot perceive that they well understood themselves what they intended. Nor did they consider that the real continuance of the priesthood for ever in the person of Melchisedec, is as inconsistent with the priesthood of Christ as the continuance of the same office in the line of Aaron. But things are so related concerning him in the Scripture, as that there is no mention of the ending of the priesthood of his order, nor of his own personal administration of his office, by death or otherwise. Hence is he said to abide a priest for ever. This was that which our apostle principally designed 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 in the church; which he demonstrates to be that of Jesus Christ.

It may not be amiss, in the close of this exposition of these verses, summarily to represent the several particulars wherein the apostle would have us to observe the likeness between Melchisedec and Christ; or rather, the especial excellencies and properties of Christ that were represented in the account given of the name, reign, person, and offices of Melchisedec; as,

1. He was said to be, and he really was, and he only, first the king of righteousness, and then the king of peace; seeing he alone brought in everlasting righteousness and made peace with God for sinners. And in his kingdom alone are these things to be found.

2. He was really and truly the priest of the most high God; and properly he was so alone. He offered that sacrifice, and made that atonement, which was signified by all the sacrifices offered by holy men from the foundation of the world.

3. He blesseth all the faithful, as Abraham, the father of the faithful, was blessed by Melchisedec. In him were they to be blessed, by him are they blessed, through him delivered from the curse, and all the fruits of it; nor are they partakers of any blessing but from him.

4. He receiveth all the homage of his people, all their grateful acknowledgments of the love and favor of God in the conquest of their spiritual adversaries, and deliverance from them, as Melchisedec received the tenth of the spoils from Abraham.

5. He was really without progenitors or predecessors unto his office; nor would I exclude that mystical sense from the intention of the place, that he was without father as to his human nature, and without mother as to his divine.

6. He was a priest without genealogy, or derivation of his pedigree from the loins of Aaron, or any other that ever was a priest in the world; and moreover, mysteriously, was of a generation which none can declare.

7. He had, in his divine person, as the high priest of the church, neither beginning of days nor end of life, as no such thing is reported of Melchisedec; for the death which he underwent, in the discharge of his office, being not the death of his whole person, but of his human nature only, no interruption of his endless office did ensue thereon. For although the person of the Son of God died, whence God is said to redeem his church with his own blood, Act 20:28; yet he died not in his whole person: but as the Son of man was in heaven whilst he was speaking on the earth, Joh 3:13, namely, he was so in his divine nature; so whilst he was dead on the earth in his human nature, the same person was alive in his divine. Absolutely, therefore, nor in respect of his office, he had neither beginning of days nor end of life.

8. He was really the Son of God, as Melchisedec in many circumstances was made like to the Son of God.

9. He alone abideth a priest for ever; whereof we must particularly treat afterwards.

The doctrinal observations that may be taken from these verses are,

Obs. 29. When any were of old designed to be types of Christ, there was a necessity that things more excellent and glorious should be spoken or intimated of them than did properly belong unto them. So, many things are here observed of Melchisedec which were not properly and literally fulfilled in him. And so there are likewise of David and Solomon, in sundry places. And the reason is, because the things so spoken were never intended of them absolutely, but as they were designed to represent the Lord Christ, unto whom alone they did truly belong. And in the exposition of such typical prophecies, the utmost diligence is to be used in distinguishing aright what is absolutely spoken of the type only, and what is spoken of it merely as representing Christ himself.

Obs. 30. All that might be spoken, so as to have any probable application in any sense unto things and persons typically, coming short of what was to be fulfilled in Christ, the Holy Ghost, in his infinite wisdom, supplied that defect, by ordering the account which he gives of them so as more might be apprehended and learned from them than could be expressed. And where the glory of his person, as vested with his office, could not be represented by positive applications, it is done by a mystical silence, as in this story of Melchisedec. And the most eminent and glorious things assigned unto types, as such, have a more glorious signification in Christ than they have in them. See to this purpose our exposition on Heb 1:5.

Obs. 31. That Christ, abiding a priest for ever, hath no more a vicar, or successor, or substitute in his office, or any deriving a real priesthood from him, than had Melchisedec; whereof we shall speak afterwards.

Obs. 32. The whole mystery of divine wisdom, effecting all inconceivable perfections, centred in the person of Christ, to make him a meet, glorious, and most excellent priest unto God in the behalf of the church. This it is the principal design of the whole gospel to demonstrate, namely, to declare that all the treasures of divine wisdom and knowledge are hid in Jesus Christ, Col 2:3. The constitution of his person was the greatest mystery that ever infinite wisdom effected, 1Ti 3:16. And thereby did God gloriously represent himself and all his infinite perfections unto us, Heb 1:3; Col 1:14-15; 2Co 4:6. Had he not had the divine nature, he could not have been the express image of God in himself; and had he not been man, he could not have represented him unto us. Nor can any thing be more mysteriously glorious than the furniture of his person as mediator, with all fullness of power, wisdom, and grace, for the accomplishment of his work, Joh 1:16; Col 1:18-19; Col 2:9; Php 2:5-11. The work that he wrought, in offering himself a sacrifice and making atonement for sin, hath the highest, inconceivable impression of divine wisdom upon it, 1Jn 3:16; Act 20:28; Rev 5:9; Eph 5:2; and so also hath the grace that is from thence administered by him and from him, unto Jews and Gentiles, Eph 3:8-11. And instances of the like kind may be multiplied. And we may consider thence, first, into what condition of sin and misery we were fallen by our apostasy from God, whence nothing would or could recover us but this blessed work of the whole mystery of divine wisdom; and then the unspeakable riches and excellencies of that wisdom, love, and grace, which provided this way for our recovery.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

The writer now takes up again the subject of the Priesthood of Jesus after the order of Melchisedek. Melchisedek is called “Priest of the Most High.” His name means king of righteousness. He is called “King of Peace.” The one instance of the exercise of his priesthood in the Old Testament reveals him administering sustenance. imparting blessing, and instituting communion. The similarity between him and his priesthood and Christ and His priesthood is so remarkable that it does appear as though the appearance of Melchisedek to Abraham was one of the Christophanies of the Old Testament.

The writer then turned to the subject of the superiority of Christ to the priesthood of Levi. That priesthood had failed to perfect anything. The right of the Priesthood of the Son was vested with His own Personality. He had an endless life, and this implies the absolute perfection of His nature, and, consequently, the continuity of His Person. The superiority of the Priesthood of the Son consists in that through Him a better hope was given to men through which they might draw nigh unto God, and so ultimately realize perfection.

The contrast is made vivid in two particulars. First as to the oath of appointment; and, second, as to the perpetuity of the office. Beyond the Son there is no necessity for any priest, for that God has appointed Him by oath forever. He is therefore “able to save to the uttermost,” because “He ever liveth to make intercession.”

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

The first paragraph (7:1-3), which is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands , the first note of Melchizedeks priesthood being that it is perpetual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (7:4-10), that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood; this is implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out fancifully from the allusion to tithes.

20 There ( for the classical ) Jesus entered for us in advance, when he became highpriest for ever with the rank of Melchizedek. 1For Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him- 2 who had a tenth part (, sc. ) of everything assigned him by Abraham-this Melchizedek is (sc. ) primarily a king of righteousness (that is the meaning of his name); then, besides that, king of Salem (which means, king of peace). 3 He has neither father nor mother nor genealogy, neither a beginning to his days nor an end to his life, but, resembling the Son of God, continues to be priest permanently.

This paragraph and that which follows (vv. 4-10) are another little sermon, this time on the story of Gen 14:18-20. In 6:20-7:3 the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is , and shows how the Melchizedek priesthood was , i.e. explaining Psa 110:4 from Gen 14:18-20. in 6:20 is explained later, in 9:12f. recalls (2:10), with its suggestion of pioneering. The term is only used in the LXX of the days , (Num 13:22), or of early fruit ( , Isa 28:4); the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 12:8, where wasps or hornets are called the of Gods avenging host. The thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to do, after him, once like him (5:9) we are perfected. Vv.1-3 in ch. 7 are another of the writers long sentences: is the central thought, but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments, including a long clause. The length of the sentence and the difficulty of applying to Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of the sentence: (Jesus) ( ) . But the , as v. 4 shows, is Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v. 8, for it is quite impossible to take . as in the upper sanctuary (sc. ) there is One of whom the record is that He lives. There is a slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of the story, e.g. in . The story implies this, but does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who , but as Melchizedek is immediately said to have brought the conquering hero bread and wine, our writer assumed that he also met Abraham.

An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an inferior group of MSS is afforded by (C* L P). The variant ( A B C2 D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. 1912), which makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C ( for ), though attempts have been made to justify this reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in , or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv.1, 2. After two late minuscules (456, 460) read , and after , D* vt 330. 440. 823 put () . The latter is another (cp. 11:23) of the glosses which were thrown up by the Latin versions.

In v. 2 is substituted for the of the LXX (which reappears in v. 4), in order to make it clear that Abrahams gift was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews from spoils of war; this was a pagan custom. But such is the interpretation of the story in Philo, e.g. in his fragment on Gen 14:18 (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 72); . , , , . Or again in de congressu, 17, where he describes the same incident as Abraham offering God .

The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is all the writers own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism, is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a reference to this episode in Abrahams career, but it has been excised for some reason (see R. H. Charles note on Jub 13:25). Josephus makes little of the story (Ant. i. 10. 2). He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned from the rout of the Assyrians, . , . . , . , . In the later Judaism, however, more interest was taken in Melchizedek (cp. M. Friedlnder in Revue des tudes Juives, v. pp. 1f.). Thus some applied the 110th psalm to Abraham (Mechilta on Exo 15:7, r. Gen. 55:6,), who was ranked as the priest after the order of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded because he (Gen 14:19) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God! This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view of Melchizedek (Agada der Tannaiten2, i. p. 259). It denotes the influence of . Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the episode than Josephus, and it is Philos method of interpretation which gives the clue to our writers use of the story. Thus in Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, 26 he points out (a) that – – 1 (in Gen 14:18), and allegorizes the reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really royal mind. He then (b) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. , . , quoting Gen 14:18 and hastening to add, . Philo points out thus the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the soul to lofty thought of God; but our author does not even mention the food and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does not say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history.

In vv.1, 2 the only points in the original tale which are specially noted are (a) that his name means ; (b) that , his capital, means ; and (c) inferentially that this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying . All that matters is its meaning. He quotes , but it is alone that interests him. The fact about the tithes ( ) is certainly significant, but it is held over until v. 4. What strikes him as far more vital is the silence of the record about the birth and death of Melchizedek (v. 3). as a royal characteristic (see Introd. pp. xxxii f.) had been already noted in connexion with Christ (1:8f.); but he does not connect it with , as Philo does, though the traditional association of with the messianic reign may have been in his mind. In the alliteration (v. 3) of , , , the third term is apparently coined by himself; it does not mean of no pedigree, nor without successors, but simply (cp. v. 6) devoid of any genealogy. Having no beginning (since none is mentioned), M. has no end. and are boldly lifted from their pagan associations. In the brief episode of Gen 14:18-20, this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of God; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death; unlike the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital, this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light of Psa 110:4, and on the Alexandrian principle that the very silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divines in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In quod det. pot. 48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain in Gen 4:15 what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why? Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed. Now Moses never mentions the death of Cain , suggesting that , . Again (de Ebriet. 14) , (Gen 20:12)-Abrahams evasive description of Sarah-is most significant; she had no mother, i. e. she had no connexion with the material world of the senses.

and were applied to (a) waifs, whose parents were unknown; or (b) to illegitimate children; or (c) to people of low origin; or (d) to deities who were supposed to have been born, like Athen and Hephaestus, from only one sex. Lactantius (diuin. instit. i. 7) quotes the Delphic oracle, which described Apollo as , and insists that such terms refer only to God (ibid. iv. 13). As God the Father, the origin and source of things, is without parentage, he is most accurately called and by Trismegistus, since he was not begotten by anyone. Hence it was fitting that the Son also should be twice born, that he too should become and . His argument apparently1 is that the pre-existent Son was and that He became by the Virgin-birth (so Theodore of Mopsuestia). Lactantius proves the priesthood of Christ from Psa 110:4 among other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gen_14; indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from . Theodoret, who (Dial. ii.) explains that the incarnate Son was , with respect to his divine nature, and in fulfilment of Isa 53:8, faces the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he explains, is described as , , simply because scripture does not record his parentage or lineage. , , . , , . In his commentary he explains that means , .

in v. 3 means resembling, as, e.g., in Ep. Jerem. 70 , though it might even be taken as a strict passive, made to resemble (i.e. in scripture), the Son of God being understood to be eternal. is a classical equivalent for , a phrase which is always to be understood in the light of its context. Here it could not be simply ad vitam; the foregoing phrases and the fact that even the levitical priests were appointed for life, rule out such an interpretation.

The writer now (vv. 4-10) moralizes upon the statement that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and received his blessing, which proves the supreme dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood, and, inferentially, its superiority to the levitical.

4Now mark the dignity of this man. The patriarch Abraham paid him a tenth of the spoils. 5 Those sons of Levi, who receive the priestly office, are indeed ordered by law to tithe the people (that is, their brothers), although the latter are descended from Abraham; 6 but he who had no levitical ( = ) genealogy actually tithed Abraham and blessed the possessor of the promises! 7 (And there is no question that it is the inferior who is blessed by the superior.) 8 Again, it is mortal men in the one case who receive tithes, while in the other it is one of whom the witness is that he lives. 9 In fact, we might almost say that even Levi the receiver of tithes paid tithes through Abraham; 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

(v. 4) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14:13 ( ); is a rare word, often used for after vowels, though not in Zec 2:6 ( ), where alone it occurs in the LXX. The (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass) repeats the of v. 1. We have now a triple proof of the inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Melchizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv. 4-7); (b) he is never recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v. 8); and (c) indeed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to Melchizedek (9, 10). (v. 4), which this alone of NT writers has occasion to use, explains the of v. 2; it is one of the classical terms for which he went outside the LXX. is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis. In v. 5; is chosen instead of for the sake of assonance with . The LXX does not distinguish them sharply. The general statement about tithing, (the of Num 18:20, Num 18:21), is intended to throw the spontaneous action of Abraham into relief; of tithing persons occurs in 1 S 8:15f., but usually means to pay tithes, like the more common (v. 6), the classical form being . In v. 6; the perfect is like the Philonic perfect (see above). In describing the incident (de Abrahamo, 40), Philo lays stress upon the fact that offered and feasted the conquerors; he omits both the blessing and the offering of tithes, though he soon allegorizes the latter (41).

Moulton calls attention to the beautiful parallel in Plato`s Apol. 28c, for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in Scripture, holding that (as is written in the Athenians Bible) is exactly like Heb 7:6, Heb 7:11:17, Heb 7:28. But these perfects are simply aoristic (see above, p. 91, note).

V.7 is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being blessed imply; the neuter () is used, as usual in Greek (cp. Blass, 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly summarizes, from vv. 1-4, the contrast between the levitical priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record ( in scripture, cp. 11:5) is he lives ( ). Finally (vv. 9, 10), he ventures ( , a literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi was committed (genitive) to a position of respectful deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v. 5; (the Semitic expression for descendants, chosen here in view of what he was going to say in v. 10 ) is another imaginative touch added in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority. And yet Melchizedeks is higher still!

(a) In v. 6; forte legendum, , ipsum Abrahamam (Bentley). But explains itself, and the stress which would convey is already brought out by the emphatic position of , and by the comment . (b) In v. 4 is inserted after , in conformity with v. 2, by A C Dc K L P syrhkl arm, etc. For in v. 5; the termination (cp. Thackeray, 244) is read by B D (as in Mat 13:32). In v. 6; the more common (11:20) aorist, , is read by A C P 6, 104, 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288. 1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for .

He now (vv. 11f.) turns to prove his point further, by glancing at the text from the 110th psalm. It is no use to plead that Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priesthood; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood. He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later than the pentateuch; the point of 7:11 is exactly that of 4:7f.

11 Further, if the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching perfection (for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for the People), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge with the rank of Melchizedek, instead of simply with the rank of Aaron (12 for when the priesthood is changed, a change of law necessarily follows)? 13 He who is thus (i.e. with the rank of M.) described belongs to another tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar; 14 for it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in connexion with that tribe. 15 This becomes all the more plain when ( = ) another priest emerges resembling Melchizedek, 16 one who has become a priest by the power of an indissoluble (, i.e. by death) Life and not by the Law of an external command; 17 for the witness to him is,

Thou art priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.

18 A previous command is set aside on account of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and there is introduced a better Hope, by means of which we can draw near to God.

> (without any to follow, as in 8:4) (perfection in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to God; see v. 19) . is a rare word, found in Philo (de fuga, ), but never in the LXX except in the title of Leviticus; does occur in the LXX, and is not distinguishable from (v. 5). In the parenthetical remark , was changed into (6, 242, 330, 378, 383, 440, 462, 467, 489, 491, 999, 1610, 1836 Theophyl.), or (K L 326, 1288, etc. Chrys.) after 8:6 (where again we have this curious passive), and altered into the pluperfect (K L, etc.). The less obvious genitive (cp. Exo 34:27 ) is not in the time of, for the levitical priesthood was not in existence prior to the Law; it might mean in connexion with, since and have a similar force with this genitive, but the incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic could not be worked for the without a priesthood, to deal with the offences incurred. The idea of the writer always is that a or depends for its validity and effectiveness upon the or by whom it is administered. Their personal character and position are the essential thing. Every consideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. As a change in that involves a change in the (v. 12), the meaning of the parenthesis in v. 11 must be that the priesthood was the basis for the , though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv. 11, 12 somewhat intricately; this parenthetical remark would have been better placed after the other in v. 12, as indeed van d. Sande Bakhuyzen proposes. Three times over (cp. v. 19) he puts in depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant here: the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood). The inference that the is antiquated for Christians reaches the same end as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route. ( = appear on the scene, as v. 15) and refer to Psa 110:4, which is regarded as marking a new departure, with far-reaching effects, involving (v. 12) an alteration of the as well as of the . In the negatives the infinitive as usually does; , like (Joh 21:2), has become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary genitive . In v. 12 , which is not a LXX term, though it occurs in 2 Mac 11:24, is practically equivalent here (cp. 12:27) to in v. 18. A close parallel occurs in de Mundo, 6, , , and a similar phrase is employed by Josephus to describe the arbitrary transference of the highpriesthood (Ant. xii. 9. 7, , ).

We now (vv. 13f.) get an account of what was meant by or (another, in the sense of a different) in v. 11; Jesus, this , came from the non-sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that of Levi. is another instance of the extension of this metaphorical use of from the Attic dative to the accusative. The perfect may be used in an aoristic sense, like , or simply for the sake of assonance with , and it means no more than in 2:14; indeed is read here by P 489, 623*. 1912 arm, as is (by A C 33, 1288) for . The conjecture of Erasmus, , is ingenious, but in the sense of attend is quite classical. The rule referred to in ( , arm?), i.e. (as Luk 10:10) . is noted in Josephus, Ant. xx. 10. 1, . No tribe except Levi supplied priests. ( in v. 14 is not a LXX term, but occurs in this sense in 2 Mal 3:17 ( ) and 14:39, as well as in Judith 8:29.) In Test. Lev 8:14 it is predicted (cp. Introd. p. xlviii) that : but this is a purely verbal parallel, the is Hyrcanus and the reference is to the Maccabean priest-kings who succeed the Aaronic priesthood. is a synonym for (v. 15), as in Num 24:17, though it is just possible that is a subtle allusion to the messianic title of in Zec 6:12; in commenting on that verse Philo observes (de confus. ling. 14): . (For the abstract equivalent , from v. 12, is substituted by Dc K L.) The title is one of the links between the vocabulary of this epistle and that of the pastorals (1Ti 1:14, 2Ti 1:8). As the result of all this, what is it that becomes (v. 15) (for ) ?1 The provisional character of the levitical priesthood, or the ? Probably the latter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one from the other. In v. 15 linguistically has the same sense as (v. 3). In v. 16 (for which is substituted by Cc D K 104, 326, 1175, etc.) hints at the contrast which is to be worked out later (in 9:1-14) between the external and the inward or spiritual, the sacerdotal being dismissed as merely , since it laid down physical descent as a requisite for office. Hereditary succession is opposed to the inherent personality of the Son (= 9:14). The distinction between ( = fleshly, with the nature and qualities of ) and (fleshy, composed of ) is blurred in Hellenistic Greek of the period, where adjectives in – tend to take over the sense of those in -, and vice versa. In v. 17 (cp. , v. 8) is altered to the active (10:15) by C D K L 256, 326, 436, 1175, 1837, 2127 syrhkl Ap.vg; arm Chrys.

The of v. 12 is now explained negatively () and positively () in vv. 18, 19. (one of his juristic metaphors, cp. 9:26) (i.e. by the promulgation of Psa 110:4) (cp. IMA iii. 247, : is not used by the LXX in this sense of fore-going) (v. 16) (unemphatic) (ailiteration). is a word common in such connexions, e.g Ep. Arist. 253, : Polyb. xii. 25:9 . The uselessness of the Law lay in its failure to secure an adequate forgiveness of sins, without which a real access or fellowship ( ) was impossible; , it led to no absolute order of communion between men and God, no . The positive contrast (v. 19) is introduced by the striking compound (with ), a term used by Josephus for the replacing of Vashti by Esther (Ant. xi. 6, 2, , ); there is no force here in the , as if it meant fresh or further. The new is by its effectiveness (6:18); it accomplishes what the and its had failed to realize for men, viz. a direct and lasting access to God. In what follows the writer ceases to use the term , and concentrates upon the , since the essence of the lies in the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus the Son. With this allusion to the , he really resumes the thought of 6:18, 19; but he has another word to say upon the superiority of the Melchizedek priest, and in this connexion he recalls another oath of God, viz. at the inauguration or consecration mentioned in Psa 110:4, a solemn divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as permanent (vv. 20-22), enabling him to do for men what the levitical priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv. 23-25).

20 A better Hope, because it was not promised apart from an oath. Previous priests ( = levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, 21 but he has an oath from Him who said to him,

The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, thou art a priest for ever.

22 And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. 23 Also, while they ( ) became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing to serve, 24 he holds his priesthood without any successor, since he continues for ever. 25 Hence for all time he is able to save those who approach God through him, as he is always living to intercede on their behalf.

The long sentence (vv. 20-22) closes with in an emphatic position. After , which connect (sc. ) with , there is a long explanatory parenthesis , exactly in the literary style of Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 17, .- – .). In v. 20 (oath-taking) is a neuter plural (cp. Syll. 593:29, OGIS 229:82) which, like , has become a feminine singular of the first declension, and is simply an analytic form of the perfect tense, adopted as more sonorous than . As we have already seen (on 6:13), Philo (de sacrific. 28-29) discusses such references to God swearing. Thousands of people, he observes, regard an oath as inconsistent with the character of God, who requires no witness to his character. Men who are disbelieved have recourse to an oath in order to win credence, but Gods mere word must be believed ( ); hence, his words are in no sense different from oaths, as far as assurance goes. He concludes that the idea of God swearing an oath is simply an anthropomorphism which is necessary on account of human weakness. Our author takes the OT language in Psa 110:4 more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line (in the Hellenistic sense of regret = change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius, says Suetonius (Vit. Claud. 22), in co-optandis per collegia sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus (i.e. that they were suitable) nominavit.

The superfluous addition of was soon made, after , by c A D K L P vt Syrpesh hkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv. 15, 40), etc.

means to remain in office or serve (a common euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a family (cp. Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 2, ), but mortal men (, v. 8) could not as priests, whereas (v. 24) Jesus remains a perpetual , (= , v. 25) (superfluous as in Luk 2:4 ). , a legal adjective for inviolable, is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable (boh Chrys. , Oecumenius, etc. ), as an equivalent for , and contrasts Jesus with the long succession of the levitical priests (). The passive sense of not to be infringed (cp. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 43, , where the adjective = ineluctabile) or unbroken does not suit the context, for Jesus had no rivals and the word can hardly refer to the invasion of death. Like in 5:14, also after , it has a predicative force, marked by the absence of the article. Philo (quis rer. div. heres, 6) finds a similar significance in the etymology of as a divine title: , , , . But our author does not discover any basis for the perpetuity of in the etymology of , and is content (in vv. 22-24) to stress the line of the psalm, in order to prove that Jesus guaranteed a superior (i.e. order of religious fellowship). is one of the juristic terms (vg, sponsor) which he uses in a general sense; here it is surety or pledge. is discussed by him later on; it is a term put in here as often to excite interest and anticipation. How readily could be associated with a term like (v. 25) may be understood from Sir 29:15f.:

,

.

,

.

Our author might have written here as well as in 8:6; he prefers probably for the sake of assonance with or even . As means to vouch for the truth of a promise or statement (cp. 6:17), so means one who vouches for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for here. The conclusion (v. 25) is put in simple and effective language. is to be taken in the temporal sense of the phrase, as in BMiii:161:11 (a.d. 212) , being simply a literary variant for . The alternative rendering utterly suits Luk 13:11 better than this passage. This full and final of Jesus is the (v. 19), the which the levitical priesthood failed to supply, a perfect access to Gods Presence. His intercession (, sc. as in Rom 8:34 ) has red blood in it, unlike Philos conception, e.g. in Vit. Mos. iii.14, (the highpriest) (i.e. the Logos) , and in quis rer. div. 42, where the Logos is . The function of intercession in heaven for the People, which originally (see p. 37) was the prerogative of Michael the angelic guardian of Israel, or generally of angels (see on 1:14), is thus transferred to Jesus, to One who is no mere angel but who has sacrificed himself for the People. The author deliberately excludes any other mediator or semi-mediator in the heavenly sphere (see p. xxxix).

A triumphant little summary (vv. 26-28) now rounds off the argument of 6:19f-7:25:

26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, 27 one who has no need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for (the preposition is omitted as in Act 26:18) those of the People-he did that once for all in offering up himself. 28 For the Law appoints human beings in their weakness to the priesthood; but the word of the Oath (which came after the Law) appoints a Son who is made perfect for ever.

The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any importance. After in v. 27 is added by A B D 1739 syrpesh hkl Eusebius (was exactly the one for us). In v. 27 it makes no difference to the sense whether ( A W 33, 256, 436, 442, 1837, 2004, 2127 arm Cyr.) or (B C D K L P etc. Chrys.) is read; the latter may have been suggested by , or may have appealed to later scribes as the more usual and technical term in the epistle. The technical distinction between (action of people) and (action of the priest) had long been blurred; both verbs mean what we mean by offer up or sacrifice. In v. 28 the original (D* 1 vg) was soon changed (to conform with in v. 27) into . The reason why and have been used in 7:1f. is that Melchizedek was called , not . Once the category is levitical, the interchange of and becomes natural.

The words (another daring use of , cp. 2:10) (v. 26) might be bracketed as one of the authors parentheses, in which case . would carry on . But in Greek often follows , and the usual construction is quite satisfactory. is intensive, as often. It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody, but there is a certain sequence of thought in ., where the positive adjective is followed by two negative terms in alliteration (, ), and is further defined by (the same idea as in 4:14 ). He is , pious or saintly (cp. ERE vi.743), in virtue of qualities like his reverence, obedience, faith, loyalty, and humility, already noted. is innocent (as in Job 8:20, Jer 11:19), one of the LXX equivalents for or , not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men; like , it denotes a character . is used of the untainted Isis in OP 1380 ( ). The language may be intended to suggest a contrast between the deep ethical purity of Jesus and the ritual purity of the levitical highpriest, who had to take extreme precautions against outward defilement (cp. Lev 21:10-15 for the regulations, and the details in Josephus, Ant. iii.12. 2, , , , ), and had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony of atonement-day. The next two phrases go together. is intelligible in the light of 9:28; Jesus has sacrificed himself for the sins of men, and in that sense his connexion with is done. He is no levitical highpriest who is in daily contact with them, and therefore obliged to sacrifice repeatedly. Hence the writer at once adds (v. 27) a word to explain and expand this pregnant thought; the sphere in which Jesus now lives ( .) is not one in which, as on earth, he had to suffer the contagion or the hostility of (12:2) and to die for human sins.

He has outsoared the shadow of our night;

Envy and calumny and hate and pain

Can touch him not and torture not again;

From the contagion of the worlds slow stain

He is secure.

This is vital1 to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus; it is in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people, as , and therefore able to do all for them. His priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal in the supreme sense, and as no longer in daily contact with sinners, Jesus is far above the routine ministry of the levitical . The writer blends loosely in his description (v. 27) the annual sacrifice of the highpriest on atonement-day (to which he has already referred in 5:3) and the daily sacrifices offered by priests. Strictly speaking the did not require to offer sacrifices , and the accurate phrase would have been . According to Lev 6:19-23 the highpriest had indeed to offer a cereal offering morning and evening; but the text is uncertain, for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and also . Besides, this section was not in the LXX text of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day. Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philos statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a daily sacrifice (quis rer. div. 36: , de spec. leg. iii. 23, ). It is true that this offering was not a sin-offering, only an offering of cereals; still it was reckoned a , and in Sir 45:14 it is counted as such. refers then to his sacrifice for sins (9:28), not, of course, including any sins of his own (see on 5:3); it means , and the writer could afford to be technically inexact in his parallelism without fear of being misunderstood. Jesus offered his sacrifice, Jesus did all that a highpriest has to do,-this was what he intended. The Greek fathers rightly referred to , as if the writer meant this, not that . It is doubtful if he had such a sharp distinction in his mind, but when he wrote he was thinking of , and of that alone. An effort is sometimes made to evade this interpretation by confining to and understanding yearly after , as if the idea were that Christs daily intercession required no daily sacrifice like the annual sacrifice on atonementday. But, as the text stands, is knit to , and these words must all be taken along with ().

Compare the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, e.g. BGU. ii.385 (ii/iii a.d.), .

A deep impression is made by the words , pro nobis tibi uictor et uictima, et ideo uictor, quia uictima, pro nobis tibi sacerdos et sacrificium, et ideo sacerdos, quia sacrificium (Aug. Conf. x.43). What is meant by this the writer holds over till he reaches the question of the sacrifice of Jesus as (9:1f.). As usual, he prepares the way for a further idea by dropping an enigmatic allusion to it. Meantime (v. 28) a general statement sums up the argument. is used as in 1 Mac 10:20 ( ), and recalls 5:2 ( ), in the special sense that such weakness involved a sacrifice for ones personal sins ( ). Whereas Jesus the Son of God (as opposed to ) was appointed by a divine order which superseded the Law ( = vv. 11-19), and appointed as one who was (in the sense of 2:10) . It is implied that he was appointed , between which and there is no difference.

The writer now picks up the thought (7:22) of the superior which Jesus as in the eternal or sanctuary mediates for the People. This forms the transition between the discussion of the priesthood (5-8) and the sacrifice of Jesus (9:1-10:17). The absolute sacrifice offered by Jesus as the absolute priest (vv. 1-6) ratifies the new which has superseded the old (vv. 7-13) with its imperfect sacrifices.

LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).

C [04: 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.

L [020: 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

[01: 2).

A [02: 4].

B [03: 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.

D [06: 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly* reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.

K [018:1:1].

W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is quite free from Western readings.

vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv.

823 [ 368]

Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).

Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.

r (codex Frisingensis: saec. vi., cont. 6:6-7:5 7:8-8:1 9:27-11:7)

1 The same sort of perfect as recurs in (e.g. 7:6 and 11:28).

d (Latin version of D)

1 In iv. 25 he says that as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father.

1739 [ 78]

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vllig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrer, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).

Moulton J. H. Moultons Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).

P [025: 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.

Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).

6 [ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

104 [ 103]

242 [ 206]

263 [ 372]

326 [ 257]

383 [ 353] cont. 1:1-13:7

1288 [ 162]

2004 [ 56]

2143 [ 184]

330 [ 259]

378 [ 258]

440 [ 260]

462 [ 502]

489 [ 459] Horts 102

491 [ 152]

999 [ 353]

1610 [ 468]

1836 [ 65]

623 [ 173]

1912 [ 1066]

33 [ 48] Horts 17

Erasmus Adnotationes (1516), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521).

1 is the classical intensive form of , used here for the sake of assonance with the following .

[044: 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.

1175 [ 74] cont. 1:1-3:5 6:8-13:20

256 [ 216]

436 [ 172]

1837 [ 192]

2127 [ 202]

IMA Inscriptiones Graecae Insul. Maris Aegaei (1895 f.).

Syll. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2 (ed. W. Dittenberger).

OGIS Dittenbergers Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).

boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.

BM Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.).

442 [O 18]

ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings).

OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).

1 Thus Philo quotes (de Fug. 12) with enthusiasm what Plato says in the Theatetus: – – .

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

A Priesthood Superior to Aaron s

Heb 7:1-10

Melchizedek was probably a literal king and priest in Salem. The blue smoke of his sacrifices rose morning and evening on the hill. Amid the turbulent lawlessness of those wild days, his realm was peace. Like him, Jesus meets us when flushed with success or wearied with some great effort, and therefore peculiarly liable to temptation. Notice the order! It is invariable! First righteousness, then peace, Zec 9:9.

The silences of Scripture are significant. In the case of this ancient priesthood no mention is made of parenthood. This was a matter of comparative indifference. So with our Lord. It is true that He did not come of the priestly family of Aaron, but this is quite unimportant. The one thing for us to notice is that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, thus confessing him to be the greater. Levi was, so to speak, included in his grandfathers act, so that the Hebrew priesthood, which sprang from Levi, was confessedly inferior to Melchizedeks. If, then, Melchizedek is a type of Christ, we are taught that Christs priesthood is evidently and eternally superior to all other priesthoods whatsoever.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Section C. Chap. 7

The Melchisedec Priesthood Superior to that of Aaron

We have seen how in Heb 5:5-10 the apostle began to speak of the Melchisedec Priesthood of Christ. But from Heb 5:11-14; Heb 6:1-20 he turned aside into a lengthy parenthesis in order to prepare his readers for a Letter understanding of this important subject. In our present chapter he develops it fully. In the first three verses he dwells upon Melchisedec himself, and incidentally gives a wonderful key to the interpretation of the types found in the Old Testament and also a remarkable confirmation of the doctrine of verbal inspiration.

There is no reason to think of Melchisedec as in himself a mysterious personage, possibly supernatural, or even as some have supposed a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. If any ask, Who is Melchisedec? the only proper answer is Melchisedec. He was not Shem the son of Noah, nor Job of the land of Uz, nor Cheops the builder of the great pyramid, as some have endeavored to prove. He was, as is distinctly stated, Melchisedec, King of Salem. All that we know of him is given us in the book of Genesis, Gen 14:18-20. This historical account depicts him as a royal priest reigning in Salem, the city that was afterwards known as Jerusalem. Long before the Levitical economy had been established and a special family set apart for the priesthood he, like Job and Abraham, offered sacrifices as a priest of the Most High God. In the divine providence he met Abraham and his triumphant band as they returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and his allies. It is noticeable that the King of Sodom was on his way to meet Abraham when the latter was intercepted by Melchisedec, who came to bless him in the name of the Most High God, and whose spiritual authority Abraham recognized by giving him tithes of all the spoils. Strengthened by the bread and wine administered by Salems king-priest, Abraham was prepared to refuse the blandishments of the King of Sodom, representative of the world in all its impurity and debasement.

In Psalm 110 our Lord is prophetically saluted as a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. He is to come forth from the new Jerusalem after the Armageddon conflict as a royal Priest to bless His delivered people in that day of His power.

Now observe how remarkably the Spirit of God sets His seal upon the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament. Our attention is drawn to the fact that this royal hierarch is first by interpretation King of Righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of Peace. If the order of the names had been reversed, Gods beautiful type would have been spoiled, but standing just as they do, the names Melchisedec and Salem are in perfect agreement with truth elsewhere revealed. Righteousness must come before peace. We are told in Isa 32:17, The work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever. And so in the great gospel Epistle to the Romans we first learn how the righteousness of God has been maintained in the cross before we are told of peace with God which is ours by faith. So exact is Scripture that the changing of the order of the original words would throw all into confusion.

Heb 7:3 has perplexed many, but it simply declares that so far as Scripture is concerned, Melchisedec appears upon its sacred page without father, without mother, without descent (or genealogy), having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually. That is, in the book of Genesis, in which we find so many genealogies, this man, in spite of his importance, has none. There is no record of his parentage, his birth, or his death. He simply appears for a moment, then vanishes from our sight, never even to be mentioned again in the Word of God until the prophecy of Psalm 110. Thus he is an apt type of our ever-living Saviour and High Priest. Again let us worship as we contemplate the perfection of Scripture; just as perfect in what it omits as in what it relates!

In Heb 7:4-10 we have the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood over that of Levi brought out very clearly. Levi was not born until many years after the event mentioned in Genesis 14. Abraham, however, was the father of all the Hebrew race, and therefore all the twelve tribes, including of course Levi, from whom came the priestly family, were represented in him when he recognized the superiority of Melchisedec by paying tithes to him and received his high priestly blessing. Unquestionably, says the apostle, the less is blessed of the better; and so in this double way the surpassing greatness of this royal priest is emphasized. Levi, we are told, who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him. Just as the entire human race was on trial in Adam, so the Levitical priesthood was represented in the patriarch Abraham when he acknowledged the superiority of Melchisedec by his attitude toward him.

The ground is now clear to show how the Melchisedec Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses in every way the Aaronic. It is evident that if perfection had come under the Levitical priesthood, in connection with which the law was given, there would have been no occasion for God to set it aside and raise up another Priest after a different and better order. Our Lords Priesthood, of course, was after the character of Aaron; that is, His Person and work were typified by the high priest and his service in connection with the tabernacle. But He does not belong to that order. He is, as was Melchisedec, King and Priest by divine fiat, not by human succession. This involves a complete setting aside of the old covenant, for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Israel stood or fell with the priesthood. If God accepted the high priest on the great day of atonement, for instance, it involved the acceptance of the nation. If the high priest was rejected then the people were set aside. No high priest was ever to rend his garments (Lev 10:6). When Caiaphas in his excitement and indignation rent his clothes, the priesthood passed away from the house of Aaron. And with it went the entire legal economy which was superseded by the marvelous dispensation of the grace of God.

According to Levitical law, our Lord had no title to the priesthood at all. As to the flesh, He sprang from the tribe of Judah, not from that of Levi; but this does not in any way militate against His Priesthood since it is of an altogether different order. He is consecrated, not in accordance with a legal enactment, but in all the might of resurrection after the power of an endless life. As Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec, He has brought in a new and better regime than that of the law. And so the commandment going before has been set aside. It was weak and unprofitable in the sense that it could not accomplish that for which it was proposed; namely, to give man a righteous standing before God, inasmuch as the flesh or the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So it was useless as a ground for blessing. It made nothing perfect; therefore it had to give way to the introduction of a better hope by which we draw nigh to God. This better hope is founded upon the principle of grace of which Melchisedec is the exemplification. And so by divine oath Jesus has become the surety of a better covenant.

In Heb 7:23-28 the contrast is between the dying priests of the old order and the ever living High Priest at Gods right hand. There was a constant succession of priests in olden days, for death was continually taking its toll of them. But our Lords Priesthood is unchangeable because He continues unto the ages, the strongest expression in the Greek language for eternity.

Thus as the ever-living One, He is able to deliver completely those who draw near to God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. It should be noted that salvation to the uttermost here does not simply mean salvation from every kind of sin, but is even greater than that-salvation forevermore. He whom God saves is saved eternally, for He who died for him lives to keep him and to complete the work He began. And thus our souls are stirred to worship and thanksgiving as we realize how suited our Great High Priest is to the need of those who were once unholy, harmful and denied, sinful and degraded; for He gives us a perfect representation before the throne of God. He is everything that we were not and should have been. He is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners and higher than the heavens, and He is all this for us. Nor is it necessary that He, like the high priests of old, should offer daily sacrifices. They offered for their own sins, for they were themselves unclean, and then they offered in behalf of the people. But these sacrifices never settled the sin question. He, by His one offering up of Himself upon the cross, has completed the work that saves, and settled the sin question for all eternity. The law constituted men high priests who were themselves infirm and unreliable, but the divine oath has proclaimed Jesus to be a Priest forever, He who is as to the mystery of His Person, the Son of the Eternal Father.

What could the Spirit of God Himself say to make clearer the superiority of the priesthood of the new dispensation over that of the old? And with the priesthood, of course, is linked the entire sacrificial system. No Jew ever found settled peace or a purged conscience through recourse to the altar and the priest of the tabernacle or the temple. Undoubtedly wherever there was real faith, God met His people in grace, and by the Spirit gave them an inward sense of acceptance and joy in Himself, but this was not based upon the Levitical system. It was all in view of the eventual coming into the world of the Seed of the woman, who was to bruise the serpents head and to be Himself wounded for His peoples transgressions and bruised for their iniquities. The pious Israelite obeyed the commandment of the law and acted in accordance with the Mosaic ritual because God had so ordained for the time then present. Faith would lead him to do exactly as the Lord had said, but the ground of his peace rested not on the typical system but on that which it illustrated, the finished work of Christ. It was hard even for converted Hebrews to fully realize this, hence the care with which the Holy Spirit through the apostle takes up each detail in His effort to deliver them from Judaism and bring them out into the full light and liberty of Christianity.

In closing our study of this chapter, I would point out the distinction between the expression used here, He offered up Himself, and that found in Heb 9:14, where we read, Christ who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God. He offered Himself at His baptism in the Jordan, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him, thus manifesting the Fathers good pleasure and pointing Him out as the perfect sacrifice, who alone was able to fulfil all righteousness on behalf of guilty sinners. But it was at the cross that He actually offered up Himself when He voluntarily became the great sin offering. It is important to remember that the death of Jesus was not merely mans answer to the grace of God as seen in Christ. None could have put Him to death had He not of His own volition yielded up His life. He Himself declared, No man taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father (Joh 10:18). In the fullest possible sense He laid down that life voluntarily when He allowed wicked men to nail Him to that cross. There He took the sinners place and bore the sinners judgment. We speak of this as the finished work of Christ. But when we think of His High Priesthood we are on other ground altogether. This is His unfinished work, the work that will never be completed as long as any of His redeemed are in the place of testing and in need of succor.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

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.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

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 Gods 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 Aarons 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 Gods 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).

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Christ A Priest

After The Order of Melchizedek

In the last verse of chapter six, the Holy Spirit declares that our Lord Jesus Christ has been made an high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Here he proceeds to show us the beauty and greatness of Christ as our Great High Priest, as he was typified in this man, Melchizedek.

We first meet with this great man, Melchizedek, in Gen 14:18-20. When Abraham returned from the slaughter of the kings of the plain, after delivering Lot from his captors, Melchizedek met him with bread and wine, received tithes from the patriarch, and blessed him.

After he left Abraham, we have no mention of his name again, until we get to Psalms 110. There, David gave a prophetic psalm of praise to the Lord Jesus Christ as the exalted Mediator and King, Savior and Great High Priest of Gods elect. In Heb 7:4, he tells us that our Lord Jesus, in his exaltation glory, is a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

No other mention is made of this great man until we get to the Book of Hebrews. He is mentioned frequently in this Book. In fact, Psa 110:4 is quoted twice in chapter 5 (Heb 7:6; Heb 7:10), and again in chapter 6 (Heb 7:20). Then, this entire seventh chapter is taken up with this eminent type of Christ. Here, the Holy Spirit calls for us to pause and consider how great this man was. The Spirits point in calling our attention to the greatness of Melchizedek is that we might be made to see the infinitely superior greatness of our Lord Jesus Christ, as he was made an high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Heb 7:1 “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.”

We are not told who Melchizedek was. Some think he was one of Shems sons. Others suppose that he was a descendent of Ham, a Canaanite Priest and King. There are some who think that he was an angel who appeared in the form of a man. Many teach that he was Christ himself, appearing to Abraham in a preincarnate human body.

In Heb 7:15, we are told that our Savior is a Priest after the similitude of Melchizedek. It is evident, therefore, that he was a man, a priest, and a king; but one whose place, ancestry, life, and death have been purposefully hidden from us, so that he might be a great type and picture of Christ.

Heb 7:2 “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.”

Unlike any other man, this man pictured our Savior in that he was both a king and a priest, a priest upon a throne (Zec 6:13).

Heb 7:3 “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.”

Like Melchizedek, he was without father as a man, without mother as God, without beginning of days, without end of life, and a continual, abiding Priest.

Heb 7:4-5 “Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham.

If Abraham honored Melchizedek with tithes, how much more we ought to honor God our Savior with our substance, consecrating all to him who loved us and gave himself for us.

Heb 7:6 “But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

As Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, Gods elect are blessed in and by Christ (Rom 4:13; Gal 3:16; Eph 1:3).

Heb 7:7 “And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.”

As Melchizedek was greater than Abraham, greater than Levi, greater than all the great ones who came from the loins of Abraham, so the Lord Jesus Christ is infinitely greater than all. In his deity, in his humanity, in his offices, in his work, in his accomplishments, and in his intercession, Christ excels all.

Heb 7:8 “And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

All other priests died. Their priesthood ceased. Christ lives forever. His priesthood will never cease (Heb 5:6; Heb 6:20).”

Heb 7:9-11 “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?”

The reason why the priests, sacrifices, ceremonies, and ordinances of the law have all ceased is simple. They could not save. Christ can! Christ does! Christ has! Therefore, he continues forever (Gal 2:21; Heb 7:18-19; Heb 8:7).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

God

Most high God. Gen 14:18.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

this: Heb 6:20, Gen 14:18-20

Salem: Psa 76:2

the most: Psa 57:2, Psa 78:35, Psa 78:56, Dan 4:2, Dan 5:18, Dan 5:21, Mic 6:6, Mar 5:7, Act 16:17

the slaughter: Gen 16:14-16, Isa 41:2, Isa 41:3

Reciprocal: Gen 14:17 – after Num 6:23 – General Num 18:28 – and ye shall Jos 10:1 – General 2Sa 5:6 – Jerusalem 2Sa 6:18 – he blessed 1Ki 4:24 – had peace Psa 110:4 – Thou Jer 33:15 – and he Zec 4:14 – These Zec 6:13 – a priest Luk 2:34 – blessed Luk 24:44 – in the law Joh 5:46 – for Joh 8:53 – thou greater Act 2:30 – knowing Act 17:2 – reasoned Act 18:28 – convinced Heb 9:11 – an high priest Rev 19:11 – and in

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

IN THE LAST verse of chapter 6 the Lord Jesus has been presented to us in two characters. First, as the Forerunner; His arrival in heaven being the preliminary to the arrival there of the children whom God has given Him. Second, as an High Priest after Melchizedecs order, whose ministry ensures the safe arrival of the children, and the fulness of their blessing. This last verse also has completed the digression which began with Heb 5:11, and has brought us back to the exact point we had reached in Heb 5:10.

Consequently in the first verse of chapter 7 we resume the interrupted flow of thought, and the whole chapter is occupied with the contrast between the Priesthood of Christ and that of Aaron. We are made to see the immeasurable superiority of Christ as a Priest of Melchizedecs order; and we hear at least of some of those things, which were hard to be uttered to a people who were dull of hearing. We, being Gentiles, may not have our minds so filled with the faded glories of the Aaronic priesthood, and hence we may not find the theme so difficult.

In the first three verses of our chapter we are given a most graphic summary of all that is recorded of Melchizedec in the latter part of Gen 14:1-24. We learn that he is introduced there with the design of furnishing us with a type of the Son of God. His very name had a meaning, as is so often the case with Biblical names, and interpreted, it means, King of righteousness. He is presented as King of Salem, which interpreted means peace. In the coming millennial age the Lord Jesus will be manifested in just that double character.

Moreover, in the Old Testament story Melchizedec is introduced abruptly; no genealogy is given, no mention is made of his birth, his death, nor of the number of his years, no hint is given of another arising to succeed him in his priestly office. This is the more remarkable inasmuch as Genesis is exactly the book which does furnish us with just those details in regard to the other striking characters that pass across its pages. Why then were these details omitted as regards Melchizedec? Just that he might be a more accurate type of the Son of God. We believe this to be the meaning of the third verse, and not, as some have imagined, that he was some kind of supernatural personage.

Having then this condensed summary in our minds we are bidden in verse Heb 7:4 to consider in detail his greatness as contrasted with Aaron or even Abraham; and that firstly, as shown in connection with the law as to tithes. This occupies verses Heb 7:4-10.

Aaron and his descendants, who came out of the tribe of Levi, were supported by the tithes which they received from the rest of the children of Israel. Yet the patriarch Abraham, out of whom came Levi and Aaron and all his descendants, paid tithes to Melchizedec. Hence it is argued, Levi and Aaron, who were in this way acknowledged as superiors by the rest of Israel, themselves acknowledged Melchizedec as their superior, by Abraham their father.

And further, Abraham, who paid tithes to Melchizedec, also received blessing from him; and it is said, without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. So in this way also the superiority of Melchizedec to Abraham and his descendants is established. The point here, be it remembered, is not that Melchizedec was a greater man than Abraham as to his character, or that he knew more of God-as to that we have no information, one way or the other-but simply that he must be acknowledged as holding from God a higher position; and in that higher position or order he was typical of Christ.

Verses Heb 7:11-14 are occupied with another point of the argument, based upon the fact that our Lord sprang out of Juda, and hence had no link with the priests of Aarons order. He was an altogether different priest and of a different order. What did this show? It showed that perfection had not been reached by the Levitical order of things, and it indicated that a change had come in as regards the whole law-system of which the Levitical priesthood was a part. We shall find rather more detail as to that change when we read the next chapter.

In verses Heb 7:14-19 the argument is enforced by another consideration. Aarons priesthood was instituted in connection with the law. Christs priesthood is sustained in the power of endless life. The law is here spoken of as, the law of a carnal commandment, inasmuch as its commands were all aimed either at curbing and suppressing the evil tendencies of the flesh, or at bringing out of it the good that pleases God. But then, as we are told in the epistle to the Romans, the flesh is not subject to the law of God, and in it no good dwells.

Hence the commandment going before Christ has been set aside, as verse Heb 7:18 informs us. Though in itself holy and just and good, it was rendered weak and unprofitable by reason of the bad and impossible nature of the flesh with which it had to deal. Verse Heb 7:18 does not for one moment mean that the holy demands of God have been abated, or that they have been set aside so that now men may just act as they please. But it does mean that the whole law system has been set aside in favour of something much higher and better.

In order that this may be plainly seen we quote the passage as rendered in the New Translation by J. N. Darby, For there is a setting aside of the commandment going before for its weakness and unprofitableness, (for the law perfected nothing,) and the introduction of a better hope by which we draw nigh to God. As in Heb 6:1-20, so here, Christianity is described as a hope. Only it is a better hope. When Israel entered the land of promise, they took it as a foretaste of better and larger things to come with the advent of their Messiah. We Christians have entered into good things of a spiritual sort. We have the forgiveness of sins, eternal life and the gift of the Spirit; yet they are but foretastes of the fulness of heavenly blessing which is to come. A better hope has been introduced, and by that hope-since it centres in Christ, who as High Priest has gone for us within the veil-we draw nigh to God, instead of being kept at a distance as was the case with the most eminent saint under the law. This thought we shall find greatly amplified when we come to chapter 10.

The law, as we are reminded here, made nothing perfect. God was not perfectly made known in connection with it, nor was redemption perfectly accomplished, nor were believers perfected as regards their consciences. It came in by the way as a provisional measure, filling up the time until Christ came. Now, Christ being come, it is superseded by something which goes far beyond it, both in the standard it sets, and in what it gives and accomplishes.

In verses Heb 7:20-22 we go a step further. Our attention is drawn to the fact that the Lord Jesus was instituted as Priest for ever by the oath of God. There was no such impressive and solemn word when Aaron was instituted in the priests office. This indicates that there is a better testament, or covenant, connected with Jesus. Moreover He stands related to that covenant in a way that neither Moses nor Aaron ever were to the old covenant. He has become the Surety of it, that is, He has accepted full responsibility in regard to it, has become bail for it, so that should anything go wrong the cost of it would fall upon Him. This is of course full guarantee that nothing will go wrong with it to all eternity. All that is established in connection with the new covenant will abide.

Another contrast is brought before us in verses Heb 7:23-24. Aaron and his descendants exercised their office one after the other and died. The Lord Jesus abides for ever and consequently His priesthood is unchangeable, that is, it never has to be transmitted to another. The happy result which flows from this is stated in verse 25. Those that avail themselves of His priestly services, coming to God by Him, are saved to the uttermost, or, completely, because He always lives to make intercession for them. The salvation here spoken of is that daily, momentary salvation from every adverse power, which every believer needs all the way home to glory.

This verse is often quoted to show that the Lord is able to save the worst of sinners. That is most happily true, and the verse that states it 1Ti 1:15. Had that been the point here our verse would doubtless have ended, seeing He died for them and rose again. But the word is, seeing He ever liveth. The salvation therefore is that which flows to us by His life of unbroken priestly intercession.

Suppose a distressed Jew had applied to the high priest of his day for that compassion and help which he should be ready to give him, according to Heb 5:2. He finds him perhaps a most kindly and helpful man. But on going a little later, just when the crisis of his case has arrived, he learns that he has that very day died! You can easily imagine the Jews distress. Another man who knows nothing of his case, and possibly of an entirely different disposition, becomes high priest. There was no salvation to the uttermost for him in the former high priest, and if he now gets any salvation at all he can only get it by beginning all over again with the new man. Thanks be to God, no experience at all akin to this can ever befall us. Our High Priest lives eternally.

Let us not leave verse Heb 7:25 without noticing that in it believers are described as those that come unto God by Him. It is a very prominent thought in this epistle that the Christian has boldness and liberty to come to God, whereas in the former dispensation all true access to God was forbidden. These words also indicate that the great objective in all Christs priestly service is to bring us to God, and to maintain us there. On the one hand there is no access to God save BY HIM. On the other, all His compassionate service on our behalf, sympathizing, succouring, saving, is a means to an end. The end being this, that thereby lifted above the things that otherwise would overwhelm us, we might be maintained in the presence of God.

The last three verses of our chapter seem to clinch the whole argument and to sum up the situation, and we find that everything hinges upon the greatness of the ONE who is our High Priest.

What an extraordinary statement is made in verse Heb 7:26 ! We should certainly have reversed it, and stated that seeing our High Priest was so wonderful a rather remarkable people were suited to Him. But no, the statement here is, that an High Priest of this remarkable character was suited to us! As the Holy Ghost views things, the many sons being led to glory, the Christian company, bear such a character that no less an High Priest becomes them.

The character of our High Priest is presented to us in a seven-fold way; and each item gives us a point of contrast with the priests of old. The first three items, holy, harmless, undefiled, present no difficulty. It is obvious that none of these three things characterized in an absolute way any priest of Aarons race.

The fourth is, separate from sinners, or, more accurately, separated from sinners. It refers not only to the fact that He was ever wholly separate to God in His spirit and ways, even while eating and drinking with publicans and sinners, but to the fact that now in resurrection He is apart altogether from the whole scene where sinners move. In that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God (Rom 6:10). We may quote also the Lords own words in Joh 17:19, For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. The root meaning of sanctify is to set apart, and the Lord was alluding to the place He was about to take up in resurrection and in glory. In our verse, the thought of His glory comes in the fifth item which closes it, Made higher than the heavens. Our High Priest is not merely a risen Man, but exalted above all. The heavens and all that they contain are beneath His feet. If we consider these five items alone, we can see that no high priest constituted under the law is worthy of mention beside Him.

But there is more. A sixth contrast fills verse 27. They offered up daily sacrifices, not only for the sins of the people but for their own sins as well. He offered one sacrifice, and He offered it once for all. It was for the people truly, but it was not for Himself. It was HIMSELF, instead of being for Himself. He was the Sacrifice as well as the Offerer! Here we have the great truth alluded to, which we shall find expanded in all its glorious details when we come to Heb 9:1-28 and Heb 10:1-39.

Seventhly, and lastly, there comes the contrast between the persons who held priestly office under the law, and the Person who is our High Priest today. They were just men, with the usual infirmities of men. He is the Son Himself. This of course is the bed-rock fact upon which all stands. WHO HE IS, settles everything. It carries with it all the contrasts which have been dwelt upon in the chapter. Let us dwell upon it-He is the Son, who is consecrated for ever more.

The word consecrated is really perfected, as the margin of a reference Bible will show. Here we get that word, perfect again, which we had in Heb 5:9. There it was stated that His whole course of testing and obedience on earth having been brought to completion in death and resurrection, He became the Author of eternal salvation. Here we find that in the same way He became High Priest. The Son was eternally with the Father. He was Creator and Sustainer of all things. But it was not then that He assumed this office. It was when He had become Man, tasted all possible sorrows, endured all possible testings, suffered death and reached perfection in His risen glory, that He was constituted High Priest by the oath of God.

Now let us just meditate upon these things, giving them time to sink into mind and heart, and surely we shall be filled with confidence in His ability to save to the uttermost, and have our hearts filled with praise and thanksgiving to God.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Our Great High Priest

Heb 7:1-28 and Heb 8:1-13

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

Christ was God’s Priest after the order of Melchisedec. “The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”

This oath is mentioned in the 110th Psalm. There it says: “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Let us consider an incomparable Psalm, a Psalm so full of beauty and of glory, that it scintillates with the Divine touch of inspiration. Man did not write the 110th Psalm, neither did he write the oath that it contains concerning Christ as a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. The Psalm’s record about Melchisedec, king of Salem, comes in like a flash, and goes out like a flash.

Let us examine the Psalm:

“The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”

The Psalm, then, is a Resurrection Psalm. It is the Psalm of a Risen Christ, of an enthroned Christ who has passed through the humiliation unto the exaltation, In this Psalm, Christ is sitting at the right hand of God in the Heavens. That is where Christ is now. So, we are interested in this Psalm; we like present-day scenes, do we not?

“The Lord said unto My Lord.”

There are two persons of the Trinity in these words: both of them are called Jehovah.

“The Lord (God the Father) said unto My Lord (God the Son), Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”

God is going to flash Melchisedec on us in a minute, so keep the context before you. It was after the battle was won, that Melchisedec came on the scene before Abraham. Is it after the battle is won, after He makes His enemies His footstool, that the Melchisedec type is used? All right, now let us read on:

“The Lord shall send the rod of Thy strength out of Zion.”

You know what that means.

“Rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies.”

Israel has wandered away from God into sin; for twenty-three hundred years they have been in exile without a king; they have been taken captive into all lands.

“Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power.”

When Christ was on earth, it was the day of His self-imposed weakness; it was the day when He emptied Himself; when He comes to earth again, it will be the day of His power. He will come in great power, with His holy angels, and in the glory of His Father, You may hunt through all literature, and you find nothing, anywhere, that has ever been penned by man, comparable in beauty, and rhetorical, rhythmic cadence, to the beautiful words we are about to read. Listen to them:

“In the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: Thou hast the dew of Thy youth.”

Isn’t that beautiful? It is the picture of the Lord Jesus Christ coming again. He will come in the beauty of His holiness. What will it be, when we see Him! He will come out of the womb of the morning. He comes when the day dawns, and the daystar arises. It is night now, but when He comes, His star will announce the break of day; and His sun will burst forth in glory. Out of the womb of the morning the Son of God steps forth. A holy day, a happy day, an eternal day, will be born, as Christ emerges from the womb of the night’s travail and darkness, of the night’s sorrows, and gloom, and pain. Yes, out of the birth-throes of the night, Christ will step forth in the blaze of the morning’s glory.

I love the next statement:

“Thou hast the dew of Thy youth.”

It has been a long time since Christ was here. He was a youth, thirty-three years of age in the flesh, when He laid down His life for us. As He hung upon Calvary’s Cross, His visage was more marred than that of any man, and His form more than the sons of men. When He comes again, from the womb of the morning, when we look upon Him, we will shout one exultant cry: “Thou hast the dew of Thy youth!”

No wrinkles will mark His brow, no lines of care, will mar His face; His countenance will shine brighter than the sun in its glory.

We are now ready for the Melchisedec type.

“The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

This is the second time Melchisedec is mentioned in the Bible. That wonderful story of Melchisedec was written far back in Genesis, and in Psa 110:1-7, and in Heb 7:1-28 and Heb 8:1-13, for no other purpose than this: that in the fullness of times it might be thrown on the screen as God’s pledge and perfect type of Christ our King-Priest.

I. CHRIST, A PRIEST FOR EVER (Heb 7:23-24)

Of old, there were many priests, because one priest could not continue by reason of death; but this Man, because He continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

His priesthood never passes away. What is the result of that unchangeable priesthood?

“Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.”

He is an High Priest, whose eye is never weary, whose heart never ceases to love, whose hand never fails to reach down. We have an High Priest who never changes, never tires, is never forgetful. His eye is always upon us in our behalf. It is a wonderful thing to us to know that there is a High Priest who ever liveth, and who never fails us.

“His eye is on the sparrow,

And I know He cares for me.”

There is One, up yonder, who is able to save to the completion. He will not let you go.

“When I fear my feet will fall,

Christ will hold me fast.”

Aren’t you glad there is someone in Heaven, the ever-living One, who is taking you even now by the right hand and saying, “Fear not, I will help you, for I am your representative in the courts of Heaven”?

“Wherefore He is able also to save them to the completion, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to manage our affairs for us.”

II. CHRIST, A PRIEST HOLY, HARMLESS, UNDEFILED (Heb 7:26-27)

Every high priest, who lived in the days past, had to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of others; but the Lord Jesus Christ, our High Priest, is holy and harmless and undefiled. We have such an High Priest in Heaven. How we can trust Him, How we can lean upon Him!

I thank God that we have an High Priest who is holy, and harmless, and undefiled, and that through Him we have access to the Father.

There are many who seek access to God apart from Jesus. That is impossible. No man can worship God, unless he comes to God through the ascended and seated High Priest, the One who is holy and undefiled. He is the One who gives us access.

In the old days, approach was made unto God through the high priest, who went in once a year, to the Holy of Holies, but not without blood. We have an High Priest, who has gone in to the Holiest of All, and is ever there for us. Before He went in, as He died, the veil of the Temple was rent, and we all have the right of approach through Him unto the Father.

There were many priests of old, of the Levitical line, but, beloved, there is but one Priest today. Do not think for one moment that you can get audience to God through men, they are not your priests.

Since we have an High Priest who is undefiled, and harmless, and holy, and since He is in Heaven to give us access to the Father; Let us enter in boldly by the Blood of Jesus. I would be afraid to go into that Holy Place, if it were not that the Blood of Christ had made me whiter than snow.

“By a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an High Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

We have an High Priest who is in Heaven for us; He is the minister of the new Tabernacle. Let us pass in, through Him, into the presence of God.

“Take time to be holy,

Speak oft with thy Lord.

Abide with Him always,

And feast on His Word.”

God has given us the privilege of access; do we use our privilege?

III. CHRIST, A PRIEST SEATED (Heb 8:1)

“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum.”

Let us read it thus: “Now, of the things which we have spoken, this is the climax, this is the predominant note”: “We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.”

We want you to see Christ seated there. Only once, so far as I know in the Word of God, is Jesus described as standing in Heaven. That was when Stephen was stoned. As his spirit was about to leave his body, God opened Heaven and Stephen was permitted to look through, and he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Jesus, now, is seated there. He passed up through the heavens and He sat down. What does it all mean? When one finishes a task, they sit down. Taking a seat means that service is completed, that work is accomplished. We have an High Priest at the right hand of God, who sat down. That is, He finished His task on Calvary’s Cross. Remember how He said, “It is finished.” Then, He went up, and sat down. Aren’t you glad that He is sitting there? I wonder how He feels when He sees a poor sinner running around trying to work out his own redemption? Christ would not be sitting down, it there was anything left for a sinner to do. If your redemption was incomplete, He would be here toiling; He could not have gone to the Father, and He could not have sat down. Thus, the picture of our High Priest seated, is the picture of a finished earthly task.

We remember that, just before He returned to the Father, He said: “I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do.” Then on the Cross He cried: “It is finished,” and committing His spirit to the Father, He cried with a loud voice, and yielded up the ghost.

IV. CHRIST, A PRIEST SEATED IN THE HEAVENS (Heb 8:1)

Let us notice where Christ is seated. He is seated in the Heavens. How did He get there? He passed up through principalities and powers and took His seat above them all. Thus, the picture of Christ in Hebrews, is the picture of our High Priest, as a conqueror, who, having subdued death and hell, and having overcome principalities and powers, (Satan and all his forces) is seated far above them all. Now, brethren, with such an High Priest, we can press forward to victory. He is able to help us and carry us through, for He is seated above all opposing forces, and He says, “I will lead you in the train of My triumph.”

“The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose,

I will not, I will not, desert to his foes;

That soul, though all hell shall endeavor to shake,

I’ll never, no, never, no, never forsake.”

The story is told of a certain soldier who was put into an underground dungeon. He was led by one of the soldiers, down and on through a long labyrinth underground, and then the soldier left him. He heard the click of the gates, as the one who left him captive, went his way. The man said, “When I realized that I was all alone in a darkness blacker than night, I felt my brain reel, my mind was crazed. It was awful, such a darkness.” Then, all of a sudden, the imprisoned soldier heard the tramp, tramp, tramp of feet above him. He wondered what those steps could mean. Then he heard the faint, far away voice of the chaplain of his regiment as he said, “I know where you are. I know the darkness of your prison, and the loneliness. When you get nervous and afraid, listen, and you will hear the tramp of my feet. I will be walking just above your head.” Thus, through the time of his incarceration, what time he would feel the darkness and be afraid, he could hear the tramp, tramp, tramp of the feet above, and he knew that one was near.

V. CHRIST, A PRIEST SEATED AT THE FATHER’S RIGHT HAND (Heb 8:1)

Not only is Christ seated above principalities and powers, but He is seated at the right hand of the Father. Ah, beloved, do not tell me that Christ is disowned and dishonored of God, for He is seated at His right hand. Do not tell me that God will not have Him. That is what they said of Christ as He hung on Calvary’s Cross. However, God did have Him, for God raised Him from the dead, and God gave Him a seat at His own right hand.

Unsaved man or woman, God is satisfied with Christ, are you? “God is now willing, in Christ, reconciled; ready to save you and make you His child; God is now willing, are you? Are you?”

Christ is an accepted High Priest. He has taken His seat. When you sit down by a friend if he looks toward you with favor, you know that you are accepted. Jesus Christ is seated in Heaven by the side of the Father. When He hung upon the Cross He said, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Ah, God forsook Him then because He was there in the sinner’s stead. After the work of Calvary was completed; after Jesus cried, “It is finished”; after Christ said, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit”; after His resurrection, and the forty days had passed, then Christ ascended up to the Father, and sat down at His right hand.

Today, He sits the approved, accepted and exalted Son. He who was once forsaken of God, is now recognized and received. You know, it is one thing to be seated on the left side, and another thing to be seated on the right. Jesus Christ is the Man at “the Father’s right hand.” Now, what does that mean? It means just this-“All authority is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth.” Isn’t it wonderful? We have an High Priest in with God, in whom God is well pleased.

VI. CHRIST, A PRIEST OF THE TRUE TABERNACLE (Heb 8:2)

Now, the last statement! We have an High Priest of the True Tabernacle. “A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.”

Oh, beloved, there is something in this that is so wonderful! Let me read just a statement about the old tabernacle. It is in Heb 8:5 :

“Who serve unto the example and shadow of Heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”

You know God gave Moses a pattern, showed it to him in the mount, then Moses builded the tabernacle according to a pattern. Why did God give Moses a pattern? Why did God say, “See that you build according to this pattern”? It was because the earthly tabernacle was a pattern of the Heavenly.

Why didn’t God say, “Come, Moses, I will take you up to Heaven and let you see the True Tabernacle”? Why did not God show Moses the True Tabernacle, and then say, “Now, go down to earth and build Me one like it”? The True Tabernacle was so wonderful, so beautiful, so. all-glorious, that Moses could not duplicate it. So God did not suffer Moses to see it. He knew it would dishearten him. He said, “I want to give you a pattern of the True Tabernacle, now build it in the wilderness according to the pattern.” The tabernacle with its outer court, and its brazen bowl and laver; with its holy place, and its shew-bread; its altar of incense and seven golden candlesticks; with its Holy of Holies and its ark, with the cherubim and the mercy-seat, where the blood was carried once a year, and the wings of the cherubims overlapping, was a type of the True Tabernacle which the Lord pitched in Heaven. There under the stretched-forth wings of the cherubims, God met with His people. That was a pattern of something that is up in Heaven, the True Tabernacle which God hath pitched and not man.

In that true Tabernacle, Christ sits as our Great High Priest-a priest for ever.

AN ILLUSTRATION

You say, “Will you not go to God for me?” I can pray for you, but you can also pray for yourself. Either or both of us must have access unto the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ. Aren’t you glad that you have an High Priest who is holy and undefiled; He is with the Father, and through Him you can go?

If you were dying in the desert, where there was no one near you, you would have perfect access, through the Lord Jesus Christ unto the Father. He will take anyone and everyone who comes to God by Him, and carry them through. “For such an High Priest became us, who was holy and undefiled.” What then is my conclusion? Let me read this time from Hebrews the 10th chapter, Heb 10:19; listen to it:

“Having therefore, -brethren, boldness” (you can be bold about it) “to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus.”

There is a knock at my door. I say, “Who is there?” “I am a man named Jones; is Mr. Neighbour in?” “Yes, I am here.” “Well, could I have a few moments of your time?” “I guess so, Mr. Jones; perhaps I can give you a few moments of my time. I am pretty busy, but I will be glad to see you. Come in, Mr. Jones.”

Here is another scene. I am sitting alone, in the midst of my study, digging away, preparing for my Lord’s Day message. Suddenly I hear the patter of little feet; there is no knock, there is no “Is Mr. Neighbour in?” My own little Martha, pushes the door open, runs in, curls up right into my lap. I say, “What are you doing in here?” “Why, granddaddy, I came to help you get up your sermon.” “Oh, you did? Well, don’t tip the ink-well over.” She entered in boldly.

Trust Him, He will manage your affairs. You take care of your baby’s needs. You work by day, and sometimes at night in order to feed and clothe your little ones. They never have a worry or care. Run up to that little four-year-old and ask, “Where are you going to get your supper?” He will answer in one word, “Mamma,” “Where do your clothes come from?” “Mamma.” It is all mamma. The child thinks the sun rises and sets in mamma. When you say to mamma, “Where do you get your all?” She just lifts her eyes up toward Heaven and says, “His eye is on me.” Your little one looks to you and depends on you, and you depend on Him.

“He ever liveth to manage my affairs.”

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

Heb 7:1. This epistle was written for the special benefit of the Hebrews (or Jews) who had become Christians. The Judaizers in those days were very busy in trying to force the Mosaic system upon Christians, claiming it to be still in force. The argument of this book is based on both contrasts and likenesses between the t w o systems. But a special argument is made in connection with the priesthood of Melchisedec. All readers of the Old Testament know it was predicted that the “other priest” (verse 11) was to be more like Melchisedec than Aaron. The present argument, therefore, is concerning that remarkable character. Salem is a short name for Jerusalem (Psa 76:2), where this man was located as both king and priest. The Jews made great claim of being related to Abraham, yet this verse (citing Gen 14:18-20) shows that Melchisedec blessed Abraham. And since a person would need to be greater than another in order to be able to bless him (verse 7), this circumstance shows that even their father Abraham was not as great a person as Mel-chisedec. Proper nouns in Bible times often had distinctive meanings, and Thayer says that the name Melchisedec means, “King of righteousness,” which is the statement in our verse. Salem is defined in this verse as King of peace, and the brief information given in Thayer’s lexicon does not contradict it. Melchisedec is set forth as a type of Christ, hence it was fitting to connect him with a place signifying “peace.” (See Isa 9:6.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 7:1. For this Melchisedec . . . abideth a priest continually. And who is he? King of Salem, i.e Jerusalem, as is taught in the old tradition given in the Targums (see Gill); and in Josephus (Antiq. i. 10, 2), the Salem of the 76th Psalm (Heb 7:3). The later tradition, though earlier than Jeromes day, that it was a Salem in Samaria (Joh 3:23), is not probable. Nor only was he king of Salem, he was also Priest of the Most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth, a title intended to assert not only that He is God alone, but that Melchisedec was priest of the God not of a particular people, but of all nations; his priesthood belonged therefore to the primitive dispensation of religion, the early Catholicism of the first ages, and not to the temporary and typical economy of Judaism.

Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and gave him, when at the summit of his earthly greatness, after he had overthrown four kings and delivered five, his priestly benediction (see Deu 21:5)a benediction which Abraham welcomed by paying the tithe which was of old offered to priests, that they might present it as a symbol of the consecration of all the gains of the offerer unto God. Abraham therefore acknowledged what the blessing implied, the reality and the greatness of his priesthood.

Nor less instructive is his name and the name of his city, and the very silence of the Scripture record on other questions. Melchisedec, his personal name, when interpreted, is significant of his character. He is king of Righteousness, he rules in righteousness, he maintains and diffuses righteousness.

And after that (in the next place) he is king of Peace, and righteousness and peace are, as we know, the glory of the reign of the Messiah (Psalms 72). This reasoning rests upon a double principle. Names are in the Old Testament largely descriptive of character, and as God arranges all the developments of history, and sets up this king as a type of the Messiah, we may safely reason from him to the antitype, and gather lessons and proofs of Gods purpose and grace.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

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.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Melchizedek, the Man

Melchizedek was both priest and king, just as Christ was, so it could be said that Christ was like him. Remember that Melchizedek was introduced in 5:10-11 ( Gen 14:18-20 ). Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek to maintain his worship and support the true religion. Melchizedek is called “King of righteousness” because that is the meaning of his name. Fudge states, “To the Hebrew, ‘righteousness’ meant the faithful performing of all duties proper to a relationship.”

As far as the scriptural revelation concerning him, we know nothing of his parents, his beginning, or his end. Melchizedek was without father and mother in the priesthood. Christ was of the tribe of Judah and did not, therefore, have parents, or ancestors, who were priests. Because he had no one before him or after him in the priesthood, Melchizedek is said to be a priest forever. Thus, he was made like Christ, who is eternal ( Heb 7:1-3 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

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 Abrahams way, as he returned from Damascus to Sodom, after the slaughter of the kings, many are of Jeromes opinion, that the northern Salem was Melchisedecs 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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 Aarons, 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 Aarons 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 Gods 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.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

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 Lords 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 Gods 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 Lords 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 mens 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 Gods 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 weeks 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 Gods 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 Saviors 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. Gods 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 Lords money, by reference to the gorgeous splendors and beauties and costliness of Solomons temple. In that argument they confess judgment against themselves. The wilderness tabernacle and Solomons 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 Lords 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.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Heb 7:1. This Melchizedec, to whose illustrious history he now returns, from Heb 5:11, was first by name or title king of righteousness, and afterwards king of Salem, that is, king of peace. But surely it is hard work for critics to write a commentary of this, the most remarkable of ancient characters, after St. Paul has given the finishing touch to the portrait. How would the rabbins read it, to find an illustration here which none of the doctors could see.

Priest of the most high God, which was the right of the firstborn. He blessed Abraham, who had delivered the country from the robbers and murderers that had invaded it; for those who have defeated the fleets and armies of the enemy, have the justest claims of eulogy and reward. How strange that jews and christian fathers should waste their time in researches, whether Melchizedec were a patriarch, or the Messiah sojourning with men, when Moses has described him as a patriarch, a priest, and prince, and the city where he reigned. Those three characteristics of this ancient man, being typical, demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

Heb 7:3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. As a man he must have had father and mother, and must have died, but his pedigree was unknown, and he had no descendants. As a priest he had no predecessor, and no successor; his priesthood, by the special appointment of heaven, was one and indivisible, out of the ordinary course of things, that in this he might be a more eminent type of the great Highpriest to come, whose supreme and original dignity the Aaronic priesthood did but inadequately represent. Hence the prophets, when speaking of Christ, declare him to have been without beginning of days or end of life, saying, From everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Psa 90:2. Micah also uses the same word: whose goings forth were of old, from everlasting: Mic 5:2. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old. Pro 8:22.

Melchizedec was made like to the Son of God, a priest (cohen, era) continually. The learned Syrus reads, sed in similitudinem filii Dei permanet pontificatus ejus in ternum. But in the similitude of the Son of God he remaineth a priest for ever, as in Heb 7:25. The rabbins having written largely on Melchizedec, St. Paul turns here the whole artillery of the temple upon the infidelity of the jews.

Heb 7:4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levis house could boast. The priests of Aarons line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.

Heb 7:11. If therefore perfection were by the Leviticum, as the jews with one voice contend, what further need that another priest should arise? A priest holy and undefiled, a priest whose sacrifice should be offered up once for all; once, and but once. A priest who should not be succeeded by another; a priest and prince who should live and reign for ever. The rabbins are silent here.

Heb 7:12. The priesthood being changed, translated, or transferred, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. The transfer is not only to another tribe, but to a priest of an infinitely superior order; to a priest touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but at the same time of divine descent. He is the priest also, as was Melchizedec, according to the better covenant and richer promises of mercy. He was always a king, but on the assumption of our nature, and the oblation of his sacrifice, he became a priest for ever unto God. By consequence, the shadows of Aarons priesthood and his tabernacle have for ever ceased. It could not save, because it does not remain; and though the moral law remain as the brightness of the deity, yet, as Mr. Fletcher remarks in his last check, we may, under this better covenant, the priest himself being clothed with our infirmities, enjoy the Comforter in all his grace, and the Father and Son to make his abode with us, notwithstanding the weaknesses of our nature. Love is the end of the commandment, and the fulfilling of the law.

Heb 7:18. There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before. It was proper that the shadows should go before the substance, to instruct the ancients by figures till the heir should be born. But Paul, in addition to the eleventh verse, here uses the epithet of verily, certainly, or indeed, to speak with assurance to the Hebrew christians, that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to those that believe. As the pharisees who had believed in Christ were all zealous of the law, it is requisite to speak in strong words. Aaron, in case of infirmity, had a sagon or second priest, but our Melchizedec has no sagon, being himself the only Mediator.

Heb 7:25. Wherefore he is able also [even] to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him. This is the conclusive and luminous inference drawn from the glory of our regal Highpriest at the Fathers right hand. Aarons altar could save ceremonially only, and leave the road to glory open to those who died in the faith of him that was to come. But Christ being the minister of a more perfect tabernacle, is able to save to the uttermost, by opening the eyes of our understanding, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and by a glorious resurrection from the dead. In other places Paul adds, that he is able to do far more abundantly above all that we can ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us. Like the serpent of brass in the wilderness, his virtue does not diminish by healing; he saves to the uttermost all that come to God by him. As the unclean and the guilty came to Aaron, so the foulest lepers, and the chief of sinners may come, and receive assurance of life and salvation.

Above all, he ever lives to make intercession for us. He lives, he never dies, he pleads the merits of his death, which have through all ages an infinitude of virtues. He prays not as sinners for mercy, but solicits our salvation as a right, not due to us, but in reward of his own obedience. His sacrificial prayers have the form of demands: Father, let that sinner live, for I have died. These are the prayers which the rigours of justice cannot deny, for justice itself is fully satisfied.

Heb 7:26. Such a Highpriest became us. One less in dignity and in sanctity could not appear in the presence of God for us.

REFLECTIONS.

What grandeur of argument runs through the whole of this chapter. The circumstances, few and brief, are placed in the most advantageous light. All opens with the glory of Christ, and throws judaism into the shade. We are charmed with the contrast, and the image of truth rests on the mind.

The illustrious Melchizedec was a type of Christ, who as touching his divine descent hath neither father nor mother on earth, as we considered on Genesis 14. This priest, this prince, was greater than Abraham; and Levi paid him tithes. The levitical priesthood was therefore altogether inferior, shadowy, temporary.

This Melchizedec was both a king and a priest. Now the sceptre was promised to Judah. Hence David predicted an eternal priesthood to the Messiah. And it was the more necessary that the leviticum should give way to Christ, because it could purify the flesh only; but the gospel purifies the heart, and cleanses the whole soul by grace. Besides, the eternal order of the church required a perfect and an abiding prince and priest, able to save to the uttermost, and who dieth no more, but ever lives to plead our cause, and present the prayers of his saints. These are all grand and solid arguments that the glory of the law should be absorbed in the superior glory of the gospel, clothed with eternal perfection.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Heb 7:1-28. The Melchizedek Priesthood of Christ.It is shown that Scripture itself makes reference to a type of priesthood which is quite distinct from the Levitical. The nature of this priesthood is set forth (Heb 7:1-10) in terms of the description given in Genesis 14 of the priest Melchizedek. That some peculiar significance attached to him may be inferred from his name, and the name of his city. Still more suggestive is the fact that nothing is said as to his parentage, or his descent, or his birth and death. He was not one of a family of priests, but stands solitary, a priest in his own right, who never assumed and never lost his office. In all his attributes he comes before us as an earthly type of the Son of God (Heb 7:1-3).

Heb 7:3. without father, etc.: nothing more is meant than that his father, etc., are not mentioned. It was a rule of allegorical exegesis that inferences might be drawn not only from what the Scripture said, but from what it omitted.

Heb 7:4-10. His priesthood was unique in dignity. Even the ordinary priests have a place given them by Mosaic law above their brethren, and in token of this they are authorised to exact tithes. But Melchizedek took rank above Abraham himself receiving tithes from him and blessing him, as the greater blesses the less. Moreover, the honour which he claimed as his right was not one that would presently pass from him, as in the case of a mortal priest; for his priesthood, according to the implicit testimony of Scripture, was not broken short by death. So much higher was he than the Levitical priests that this whole line of priests may be said to have bowed down before him in the person of Abraham its ancestor.

Heb 7:11-25. Transition is now made to Christ, whom Melchizedek was meant to prefigure. The exposition, therefore, departs from Genesis 14 and attaches itself to Psalms 110, in which the correspondence between Melchizedek and Christ is plainly intimated. First it is shown (Heb 7:11-14) that the Levitical priesthood was at best provisional. If it had achieved perfectioni.e. if it had fully realised the purpose of priesthoodthe psalm would not have spoken of another priest. Those words imply the abrogation, not merely of the Levitical priesthood, but of the whole legal system which is inseparably bound up with it. How completely the priesthood is changed is made evident by its being vested henceforth in another tribe; for Christ, who was the priest foretold in the psalm, came of the tribe of Judah, although the Law had ordained that the tribe of Levi alone should exercise the priesthood.

Heb 7:11. under it, etc.: rather, in connexion with it. The meaning is that the high priesthood is like the keystone of the whole structure of the Mosaic Law; all the other regulations fell away of their own accord when the priesthood passed over to Christ. In this incidental way the writer disposes of the great problem of the Law which had so perplexed the earlier Church.

Heb 7:15-17. But the change of priesthood goes much further than the transference of the office to another tribe. The psalm speaks of a priest for ever. It contemplates one who holds his priesthood not by the accidental operation of a law which attaches the dignity to a particular descent, but by the intrinsic right of a life that never ends.

Heb 7:16. carnal commandment: i.e. a rule which takes account only of outward and physical qualifications.power of an endless life: an immortal energy resides in him as a Divine being, and in virtue of this he continues for ever to exercise his priesthood.

Heb 7:18 f. The appointment of the Melchizedek priest, then, involved a change in the whole institution of priesthood; and this change has at once its negative and its positive sides. On the one hand, it meant the abolition of the old legal relation between God and man as altogether inadequate; for the Law, by its very nature, was provisional. On the other hand, it replaced the legal relation by another, grounded in a living hope, which made possible a true communion with God. The contrast before the writers mind is that of a religion of external ordinances and an inward, spiritual religion, which alone can ensure true fellowship with God.

Heb 7:20-25. The superiority of the Melchizedek priest is apparent from two further facts. (a) Unlike the Levitical priests he is appointed with an oath. In this manner God affirmed the lasting validity of his priesthood; and the covenant for which it stands is one, therefore, that cannot be broken. (b) The Levitical priests, being only mortal men, held office for a brief time and then gave place to others. But he who is a priest for ever is not merely one in a long succession. The priesthood which he exercises is vested eternally in his own person, and for this reason he is able to secure for his people a complete salvation. Amidst all changes they can look to the same priest as their unfailing refuge.

Heb 7:26-28. Other points of contrast are indicated in a closing summary, which makes it abundantly clear that the priesthood of Christ is far superior to that of the old covenant. The Levitical priests were required to be free from all outward blemish; Jesus was altogether pure within. He was marked off from sinful men, not by dress and ceremonial circumstance, but by ascending out of this world of sin to a throne above the heavens. He did not need to maintain a routine of daily sacrifices, interceding for Himself as well as for the people; for the one great sacrifice, in which He was both priest and victim, availed for ever. In one word, the Law could only appoint weak men to the priestly office; while the solemn oath of God, recorded in that psalm which was later than the Law and therefore superseded it, ordained His own Son to be the ideal and ever-living Priest.

Heb 7:27. daily: strictly speaking the sacrifice of the High Priest was offered once a year, on the Day of Atonement, but the idea of this sacrifice is blended here with that of the sacrifice which was offered daily on his behalf by the ordinary priests (cf. Lev 6:4-16).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

“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: 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: 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.” The brief record of Melchisedec found in Gen 14:1-24 is as a shining light appearing momentarily and vanishing. But only thus is God’s purpose served As typical of Christ’s present official Priesthood in resurrection, this record is exquisitely beautiful. First, Melchisedec means “King of righteousness,” and secondly, “King of Salem” means “King of peace.” Being the one perfect upholder of righteousness, Christ is also the one true Source of peace. The two cannot be divorced. And He is the one Mediator between God and men, the High Priest upon the throne of God. As Melchisedec blessed Abraham, bringing forth bread and wine for his refreshment after the stress of his contest with the kings, so the Lord Jesus, in the present day of grace, ministers to His saints the memorials of His wondrous death. for sustenance in an evil world, and for protection against the world’s seductions, as instanced in the offer of the king of Sodom to Abraham (Gen 15: 21, 22). Abraham, in response to Melchisedec’s grace, rendered him a tenth of all the spoils, not as a legal requirement, but in willing-hearted recognition of his superior position. We cannot fail to see a typical character in this.

Verse 3 does not imply that Melchisedec personally had no parentage, no beginning or end, but that the record has designedly omitted any reference to these things, in order that he might be a striking type of Christ. He is not (as some have imagined) the Lord Himself, “but made like unto the Son of God.” Since there is no record of his death, this implies that the Melchisedec priesthood is perpetual. How good to observe that this perpetual priesthood is so shown to have been in God’s thoughts long before the introduction of the temporary priesthood of Aaron and his sons in Judaism. But only by means of these many omissions as to Melchisedec’s history could this man serve as a type of Christ as Son of God. How intricately beautiful is the Word of God in its wisdom and precision!

“Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” What profound significance this should have for an Israelite! Abraham, the highest, most honored of all Israel’s progenitors, had himself fully acknowledged another as greater than himself!

“And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham.” While Abraham had given tithes, yet the Levites, who came out of the loins of Abraham, were commanded to take tithes of their Hebrew brethren. In Abraham they were subordinate to Melchisedec: under law their brethren were subordinate to them. How clearly this shows that law was an inferior thing to the Melchisedec priesthood, and therefore only temporary in character.

‘But he whose descent is not counted from them, received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; hut there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes paved tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” Thus Melchisedec, long prior in time to Levi, received tithes from Levi’s great father, and conferred blessing on him, as one himself greater. Lovely picture of the blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ bestowed on the man of faith!

The Levites also received tithes until they died, at which time this dignity ceased. This order of things was continually interrupted by death: how then could the order itself be permanent? But now, the true Receiver of tithes, the true Blesser, is the One of whom it is truly witnessed that He liveth. Melchisedec is a type of this only in the fact that Scripture gives no record of his death. Christ’s Priesthood is permanent, because he lives.

Moreover, inasmuch as Levi’s progenitor, Abraham, payed tithes to Melchisedec, then we conclude that Levi did so, for he was at that time “yet in the loins of his father.” The entire legal system is therefore seen to be inferior to the blessed Person whom Melchisedec typifies, the Lord Jesus Christ.

“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priest-hood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?” Here the apostle adds another strong and conclusive proof from the Old Testament that a change of the priesthood and of the law was imperative. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Perfection is a vital subject in Hebrews, and one which the Jew must fully approve. But was it found in the law? Impossible! for if so why did the law bear witness that another priest should rise of an order not known under the law? Law in fact excluded all others from the priesthood except the line of Aaron; but it prophesied of a different order entirely. Moreover, if the priesthood were to change to a completely different order, then the law must change: God’s methods of dealing would certainly conform to the character of the priesthood He instituted.

“For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” Indeed, King Uzziah, of the tribe of Judah, for his daring to enter the temple in a priestly capacity, was immediately smitten of God with leprosy (2Ch 26:16-21). And the Lord Jesus while on earth sought no place whatever in the official priesthood; made no suggestion of assuming the place or duties of a priest in the temple.

Nevertheless, Scripture had established the fact that Israel’s Messiah must be of the tribe of Judah; that the Son of David would sit upon David’s throne in perpetuity (Isa 9:6-7). And more than this, Zec 6:12-13 boldly says of this same blessed Person, “He shall be a priest upon His throne.”

“And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment. but after the power of an endless life. For He testifieth, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.” The type is the more complete when we consider that Melchisedec was both king and priest. The Aaronic priesthood could never fill the former qualification, for the king could not rise out of Levi; but this lone, striking statement in Psa 110:4 opens out wonderfully the truth of the necessary change in the order of priesthood.

This new priest must be constituted so, not by the law of a carnal commandment, – that is, a law governing the flesh in its condition subject to decay and death, – “but after the power of an endless life.” He must be One Personally superior to death, though indeed He has in voluntary grace passed through it for our sakes, triumphed over it in the power of an endless life, which law could never have, nor give.

“For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” In one respect therefore the dispensation of law was weak and unprofitable. While it was perfectly just and holy, hard and inflexible, yet it had no strength to introduce righteousness among men. True, it condemned unrighteousness, but was utterly weak as regards providing any remedy: it could expose the terrible loss that man had incurred by sin, but could provide no semblance of profit. It could change nothing: it made nothing perfect, but rather confirmed the hopelessness of the actual condition that existed. Therefore, how infinitely greater is the “better hope” which brings perfection with it. Of course, this perfection is in the living Person of the blessed Son of God, Him whose endless life is the very essence of power and profit, Who in pure grace communicates life and eternal blessing to those once under sin and the sentence of death. And thus indeed “we draw nigh unto God,” in contrast to the rigid distance that law had maintained.

But another great contrast in these two orders of priesthood must he noted. “And inasmuch as not without an oath He was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto Him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec) by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant.” An oath involves what is binding and unalterable; hence no oath was made at all in reference to the induction of priests of Aaron’s line; but it has been made in reference to Christ. Such an unchangeable oath then means that He is the surety of a better covenant, a covenant sure and unalterable.

And to this another contrast is added: “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this Man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.” Law required many priests, that is, High Priests: the new covenant allows but One. This was impossible under law, of course, for death intervened. But how blessed to contemplate this Priest, who “continueth ever,” and His priesthood therefore unchangeable. All of these details are perfectly interwoven in marvelous consistency, bearing witness to the minute accuracy of the Old Testament as well as the New.

“Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come ‘unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” We may observe here how vitally the perpetuity of our salvation is bound together with the perpetuity of His Priesthood. This is salvation in its fullest and all-inclusive character, not simply the initial salvation of the soul, nor present salvation from the evils and pitfalls that beset the Christian path; but both of these, beside future salvation out of this world and for eternal glory. Blessed fulness indeed, and dependent utterly upon Him who “ever liveth to make intercession.” Does this mean eternally dependent? Indeed so: and we should not want it to be otherwise, for it is dependence upon One eternally dependable.

“For such an High Priest became us, Who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” Aaron and his sons were not at all suited to meet our actual need. The High Priest fully becoming to us must have infinitely higher characteristics. First, in character He must be holy, having unvarying love of good and hatred of evil. Secondly, in conduct He must be harmless, having no element of disregard for the need or welfare of others. Thirdly, in contact He must be undefiled, not in any measure contaminated by circumstances of corruption. Fourthly, His communion must be “separate from sinners,” His path one that drew a clear line of demarcation between Himself and those in a course of sin. All these are seen beautifully in our blessed Lord in His entire path on earth, and of course in no other. But fifthly, He must he “made higher than the heavens.” A mere earthly level of priesthood would not do. He must be given a position higher than all others, everything being subordinate to His authority, that He might use all things for the welfare of those for whose blessing He is appointed.

“Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.” One who must sacrifice daily could never actually meet the need of our souls, for the daily repetition only hears witness that the need has not been met. The first part of the verse then speaks strictly of the Aaronic priesthood, under which order the priest must offer both “for his own sins, and then for the people’s.” The concluding phrase is the blessed contrast seen in the Lord Jesus. His sacrifice is perfectly completed: “this He did once when He offered up Himself.” The eternity of His Person gives eternal value to His blessed work. In this the believer has rest. “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated (or perfected) for evermore.” Here is an added testimony as to the weakness of law: it appointed men who have infirmity as high priests. A system in the hands of failing creatures must be a failing system. But “the Son” is again seen in beautiful contrast: in resurrection, having accomplished propitiation, He is perfected forever. Indeed, in life on earth, He has proven Himself without infirmity, and now in resurrection as superior to death, – perfect in every respect as High Priest forever.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Hebrews 7

Hebrews 7:1 This Melchisedec; that is, the one to whom the writer had referred. (Hebrews 5:6,6:20.) In the history of Abraham, contained in the book of Genesis, there is an account of his meeting, on one occasion, with a king, of high rank and distinction, named Melchisedec, a worshipper of the true God, and a priest as well as a king; to whom Abraham paid a tenth part of the spoils which be had then recently taken from his enemies in acknowledgment of his spiritual superiority. In respect to this Melchisedec, no account is given of his ancestry or origin,–nor of the end of his life. He enters the field of view, and, after a brief appearance, leaves it again in the full possession and exercise, during the whole period, of all his royal and priestly powers. (Genesis 14:18-20.) The incident of his appearing in this manner, is employed by David, (Psalms 110:4,) and now by the writer of this Epistle, as furnishing an apt emblem or type of the permanence and perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ.–The slaughter of the kings. (Genesis 14:14-16.)–And blessed him; Genesis 14:19.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

6 The New Order of Priesthood

(Hebrews 7)

Having given the word of warning and encouragement contained in the parenthetical portion from Heb 5:11 to the end of Hebrews 6, the apostle resumes the great theme of Hebrews 5. In that chapter he had brought before us the dignity of the priesthood of Christ by reminding us that, as risen, Christ is addressed as an High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. In Hebrews 7 the apostle proceeds to set forth the exalted character of this order of priesthood by showing its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood.

It is important to distinguish between the order of the priesthood and the exercise of the priestly functions. When it is a question of the order or rank of priesthood, Melchisedec is the fitting type of the priesthood of Christ. When it is a question of the exercise of His work as Priest on behalf of Christians, Aaron is the type that very largely prefigures the work of Christ. The Aaronic priesthood introduces sacrifice, intercession and the sanctuary furniture, of which we have no mention in connection with Melchisedec. Thus we are reminded that no single person can, even typically, set forth the glories of Christ.

(Vv. 1, 2). The apostle refers to the striking episode in the history of Abraham when, for a brief moment, the patriarch is met by Melchisedec, a greater person than himself. This man is purposely surrounded with an air of mystery in order that, being in certain respects made like unto the Son of God, he may fittingly prefigure our great High Priest, the Son Of God. The passage in Gen 14:17-24, in which this scene is described, is typical of the Millennium. After the slaughter of the kings, by whom the people of God had been taken captive, Melchisedec comes forth to meet Abraham. His name and that of his country signify that he was King of righteousness and King of peace. Further, he was the priest of the Most High God, the God who, by the slaughter of the kings, had shown that He can deliver His people from their enemies and overthrow every rival power.

In position, Melchisedec was a king. His reign was marked by righteousness and peace, and in the exercise of his priesthood he stood between Abraham and God. As the representative of God before man, he blessed Abraham on behalf of God; as the representative of man before God, he blessed the Most High God on behalf of Abraham. He brings blessing from God to man, and leads the praise from man to God.

Thus, in coming millennial days, God will be known as the Most High God, who will deliver His earthly people and deal in judgment with every hostile power. Then indeed Christ will shine forth as King and Priest. As we are told by direct prophecy, 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 6:13). He will be the true King of Righteousness, King of Peace and the Priest of the Most High God.

(V. 3). Moreover, Melchisedec is purposely invested with mystery, inasmuch as no record is given of his descent, his birth or his death. As far as the story is concerned, he is without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. He comes upon the scene without any details of his origin, and passes off without any sequel to his story. As far as the record is concerned, he abideth a priest continually, in striking contrast with Aaron.

In all these ways he is made like unto the Son of God and therefore fittingly sets forth the dignity of the priesthood of the Son of God, who abides a Priest continually.

(Vv. 4-7). We are further asked to consider other incidents in this story which show the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood over that of Aaron. Firstly, this king-priest is so great in dignity that even the patriarch Abraham gave him the tenth of the spoils. From Abraham, however, the sons of Levi are descended, who, in the exercise of their priesthood, take tithes of the people. But, though taking tithes, they themselves paid tithes to Melchisedec in the person of Abraham their father.

Further, not only did Melchisedec receive tithes from Abraham, but he blesses the one who is the recipient of the promises. The one of whom it was said he should be a blessing, and through his seed all the nations of the earth are to be blessed, is himself blessed, and without contradiction the less is blessed of the greater.

(Vv. 8-10). Moreover, in the case of Aaron and his sons, dying men receive tithes. But of Melchisedec we have no hint of his death. As far as the story goes, it is witnessed that he liveth.

Thus, in the person of their father Abraham, the priests after the Aaronic order paid tithes and received the blessing, instead of receiving tithes and dispensing blessing. Moreover, as dying men they paid tithes to one of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Clearly, then, the rank of the Melchisedec priesthood is far above that of Aaron.

(V. 11). If, however, the Melchisedec priesthood is superior to the Aaronic, it is clear proof of the imperfection of the Aaronic priesthood. It was transitory in its character and imperfect in its work. Later in the Epistle we learn that it gave no permanent relief to the conscience and did not enable the offerer to draw nigh to God. This very imperfection proved the need of another Priest to rise after the order of Melchisedec. This Priest is found in Christ in whom alone is perfection.

(Vv. 12-14). This change of the order of the priesthood necessitates a change of the law, for it is evident that Christ belonged to the tribe of Judah from which no man is called to priestly service under the law of Moses.

(Vv. 15-17). It is equally plain that though the Lord came from the tribe of Judah, He is called to be a priest. Being a priest after the similitude of Melchisedec, He is such, but not after any fleshly commandment, which recognises the priest as being in the flesh and therefore subject to death, for which provision has been made by a succession of priests. In contrast, the priesthood of Christ stands alone in all its solitary dignity, for it is after the power of an endless life. It is as risen in the power of a life beyond death that the Lord is called to be a Priest, and therefore not for a lifetime, but for ever.

(Vv. 18, 19). The commandment of Moses as to priesthood is therefore set aside because of its weakness and unprofitableness. It was weak because the priest, being subject to death, could not continue. It was unprofitable because it could not set the offerer in the presence of God with a conscience free from the fear of judgment. The law points to better things, but in itself made nothing perfect. With the priesthood of Christ there is the bringing in of a better hope. It has in view the believer being brought to glory, though before we reach the glory we can draw nigh to God through our High Priest. (Compare Heb 10:21; Heb 10:22.)

(Vv. 20-22). We are further assured of the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over that of Aaron by the fact that, in contrast with Aaron, the call of Christ to the priesthood is confirmed with an oath. To prove this the apostle again quotes Psa 110:4. The oath involves that there can be no revoking or setting aside of the priesthood of Christ, as in the case of the Levitical priesthood. The oath makes all the more sure the blessings of the New Covenant, which rest upon Jesus and His work.

(Vv. 23, 24). Under law men were appointed priests who were unable to continue their office by reason of death. A priest could in his measure sympathise with and succour those for whom he exercised his priestly function, but death cut him off and another priest arose who would be a stranger to the sorrows of those who had drawn near to his predecessors. With Christ how different! Having triumphed over death He continues ever in the exercise of unchangeable priesthood: Thou remainest and Thou art the Same (Heb 1:11; Heb 1:12).

(V. 25). Having shown the superiority of the priesthood of Christ, the apostle sums up the blessings that flow to the believer through this priesthood. As we have such an High Priest who ever lives and never changes, we are assured that He is able to save to the uttermost point of our wilderness journey, while through Him we can approach to God while on the journey. He can save us from every enemy, bring us to God and intercede for us in all our infirmities.

(Vv. 26, 27). The apostle closes this portion of the Epistle by showing us that such an High Priest becomes us. In Heb 2:10 we learn that such an High Priest becomes God; here we learn that He becomes us. Because of who God is in all His holiness, none less than Christ as great High Priest would be suitable for God. Because of what we are in all our weakness, none less than Christ would avail for us. He becomes us because of His intrinsic holiness; because of the purity of His motives – He is harmless, without a single evil thought; because in passing through this scene He was undefiled – untainted by the corruptions of the world; because of His exaltation on high; above all, because of His finished work for sins, when He offered Himself up on the cross.

(V. 28). Thus the Son, consecrated to be a Priest for evermore by the word of the oath, is declared to be in striking contrast with the men, encompassed with infirmity, who were called to be priests by the law.

To sum up the teaching of the chapter, there passes before us:

Firstly, the dignity of the order of Christ’s priesthood as typified by Melchisedec (verses 1-3);

Secondly, the greatness of Christ’s priesthood, as evidenced by the superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood over the Levitical priesthood (verses 4-10);

Thirdly, the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, necessitating a change of priesthood (verse 11);

Fourthly, the change of priesthood makes necessary a change of the law in relation to the earthly priesthood (verses 12-19);

Fifthly, the priesthood of Christ confirmed with an oath (verses 20-22);

Sixthly, the priesthood of Christ continuing and unchangeable (verses 23, 24);

Seventhly, Christ’s perfect competency for His priestly work verse 25);

Eighthly, Christ’s personal suitability for His priestly office (verses 26-28).

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

7:1 For this {1} Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and {a} blessed him;

(1) Declaring those words, “According to the order of Melchizedek” upon which the comparison of the priesthood of Christ with the Levitical priesthood rests: first, Melchizedek himself is considered to be the type of Christ and these are the points of that comparison. Melchizedek was a king and a priest, as is Christ alone. He was a king of peace and righteousness as is Christ alone.

(a) With a solemn and priestly blessing.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

C. The Son’s High Priestly Ministry 7:1-10:18

The great resource of Christians when tempted to apostatize is our high priest, Jesus Christ. The writer therefore spent considerable time and space expounding His high priesthood to enable his readers to benefit from their resource. This section of the book continues to glorify Jesus Christ so the readers would appreciate Him sufficiently and not turn from Him. The priesthood of Melchizedek provided an analogy, for the writer, of Jesus’ priesthood.

"Here begins the longest single expository passage in the epistle. Its very length suggests its importance. Its theme is the core theme of Hebrews. The real resource of the readership, in the midst of their pressures, is the high priesthood of Christ. They must realize the greatness of that priesthood, its superiority to the Levitical institutions, and the perfect access they have to it on the basis of Christ’s death." [Note: Hodges, "Hebrews," p. 797.]

"In Hebrews 7, the writer argued that Christ’s priesthood, like Melchizedek’s, is superior in its order. In Hebrews 8, the emphasis is on Christ’s better covenant; in Hebrews 9, it is His better sanctuary; and Hebrews 10 concludes the section by arguing for Christ’s better sacrifice." [Note: Wiersbe, 2:299.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The significance of Melchizedek 7:1-10

The writer began by explaining the significance of Melchizedek since understanding him is foundational to appreciating Jesus Christ’s high priestly ministry. [Note: See James Swetnam, "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13," Biblica 55 (1974):333-48.]

"The dominant text in Heb 7:1-10 is Gen 14:17-20, but in chap. 7 as a whole Gen 14:17-20 is subordinated to Psa 110:4 . . .

"The limits of the first section are confirmed literarily by an inclusio established between Heb 7:1; Heb 7:10 by the repeated statement that Melchizedek met Abraham." [Note: Lane, p. 159.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The particulars of Melchizedek’s significance 7:1-3

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The writer referred to Melchizedek (lit. righteous king, probably a title rather than a proper name) as the head of a priestly order. It was not uncommon for one individual to combine the roles of priest and king in antiquity. [Note: Morris, pp. 62-63.] Aaron was also the head of a priestly order. The writer explained that Jesus Christ was a member of Melchizedek’s order, not Aaron’s (Heb 6:20). Melchizedek was a prototype of Jesus Christ in two respects. He was both a king and a priest, and what characterized him was righteousness and peace (cf. Heb 12:10-11; Psa 85:10; Isa 32:17; Rom 5:1; Jas 3:17-18). The fact that Melchizedek was a priest is clear from two facts: he blessed Abraham, and Abraham paid tithes to him of all the spoils that he had taken in war (Heb 7:4; cf. Gen 14:23-24). According to Moffatt, the Jews under the Mosaic Covenant did not pay tithes from the spoils of war. [Note: Moffatt, p. 91.] This was a pagan custom.

These verses point out four important facts about Melchizedek: (1) he was a king-priest, (2) he was a blesser, (3) he received tithes, and (4) he had a significant name.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

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 Maccaban 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 Galilan 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’ auts (Heb 7:11).

[123] Cf. Heb 6:1.

[124] Anatetalken. Cf. Zec 6:12. Anatol, dawn. The citation, as usual, is from the Septuagint.

[125] Heb 7:14.

[126] Heb 7:16.

[127] athetsis, a setting aside (Heb 7:18).

[128] ouden eteleisen (Heb 7:19).

[129] epeisagg.

[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.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary