Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 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.

3. without father, without mother, without descent ] Rather, “without lineage” or “pedigree” as in Heb 7:6. The mistake is an ancient one, for in consequence of it Irenus claims Melchisedek as one who had lived a celibate life (which in any case would not follow). The simple and undoubted meaning of these words is that the father, mother, and lineage of Melchisedek are not recorded, so that he becomes more naturally a type of Christ. In the Alexandrian School, to which the writer of this Epistle belonged, the custom of allegorising Scripture had received an immense development, and the silence of Scripture was regarded as the suggestion of mysterious truths. The Jewish interpreters naturally looked on the passage about Melchisedek as full of deep significance because the Psalmist in the 110th Psalm, which was universally accepted as a Psalm directly Messianic (Mat 22:44) had found in Melchisedek a Priest-King, who, centuries before Aaron, had been honoured by their great ancestor, and who was therefore a most fitting type of Him who was to be “a Priest upon his Throne.” The fact that he had no recorded father, mother, or lineage enhanced his dignity because the Aaronic priesthood depended exclusively on the power to prove direct descent from Aaron which necessitated a most scrupulous care in the preservation of the priestly genealogies. (See Ezr 2:61-62; Neh 7:63-64, where families which could not actually produce their pedigree are excluded from the priesthood.) The idiom by which a person is said to have no father or ancestry when they are not recorded, or are otherwise quite unimportant, was common to Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. In a Greek tragedy “Ion” calls himself “ motherless ” when he supposes that his mother is a slave (Eurip. Ion, 850). Scipio taunted the mob of the Forum as people “who had neither father nor mother ” (Cic. De Orat. ii. 64). Horace calls himself “a man sprung from no ancestors ” (Hor. Sat. i. 6, 10). In the Bereshith Rabba we find the rule “a Gentile has no father,” i.e. the father of a proselyte is not counted in Jewish pedigrees. Further the Jews mystically applied the same sort of rule which holds in legal matters which says “that things not producible are regarded as non-existent.” Hence their kabbalistic interpretation of particulars not mentioned in Scripture. From the fact that Cain’s death is nowhere recorded in Genesis, Philo draws the lesson that evil never dies among the human race; and he calls Sarah “motherless” because her mother is nowhere mentioned. There is then no difficulty either as to the idiom or its interpretation.

without mother ] The mention of this particular may seem to have no bearing on the type, unless a contrast be intended to the Jewish Priests who were descended from Elisheba the wife of Aaron (Exo 6:23). But “Christ as God, has no mother, as man no Father.” The early Church neither used nor sanctioned the name Theotokos “Mother of God” as applied to the Virgin Mary.

without descent ] Rather, “without a genealogy.” Melchisedek has no recorded predecessor or successor. Bishop Wordsworth quotes “Who shall declare His generation?”

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life ]. The meaning of this clause is exactly the same as that of the last namely that neither the birth nor death of Melchisedek are recorded, which makes him all the more fit to be a type of the Son of God. Dean Alford’s remark that it is “almost childish” to suppose that nothing more than this is intended, arises from imperfect familiarity with the methods of Rabbinic and Alexandrian exegesis. The notion that Melchisedek was the Holy Spirit (which was held by an absurd sect who called themselves Melchisedekites); or “the Angel of the Presence;” or “God the Word, previous to Incarnation;” or “the Shechinah;” or “the Captain of the Lord’s Host;” or” an Angel;” or “a reappearance of Enoch;” or an “ ensarkosis of the Holy Ghost;” are, on all sound hermeneutical principles, not only “almost” but quite “childish.” They belong to methods of interpretation which turn Scripture into an enigma and neglect all the lessons which result so plainly from the laws which govern its expression, and the history of its interpretation. No Hebrew, reading these words, would have been led to these idle and fantastic conclusions about the super-human dignity of the Canaanite prince. If the expressions here used had been meant literally, Melchisedek would not have been a man, but a Divine Being and not the type of one and he could not therefore have been “a Priest” at all. It would then have been not only inexplicable, but meaningless that in all Scripture he should only have been incidentally mentioned in three verses, of a perfectly simple, and straightforward narrative, and only once again alluded to in the isolated reference of a Psalm written centuries later. The fact that some of these notions about him may plead the authority of great names is no more than can be said of thousands of the most absolute and even absurd misinterpretations in the melancholy history of slowly-corrected errors which pass under the name of Scripture exegesis. Less utterly groundless is the belief of the Jews that Melchisedek was the Patriarch Shem, who, as they shewed, might have survived to this time (Avodath Hakkodesh, iii. 20, &c. and in two of the Targums). Yet even this view cannot be correct; for if Melchisedek had been Shem (1) there was every reason why he should be called by his own name; and (2) Canaan was in the territory of Ham’s descendants, not those of Shem; and (3) Shem was in no sense, whether mystical or literal, “without pedigree.” Yet this opinion satisfied Lyra, Cajetan, Luther, Melanchthon, Lightfoot, &c.

Who then was Melchisedek? Josephus and some of the most learned fathers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, &c), and many of the ablest modern commentators, rightly hold that he was neither more nor less than what Moses tells us that he was the Priest-King of a little Canaanite town, to whom, because he acted as a Priest of the True God, Abraham gave tithes; and whom his neighbours honoured because he was not sensual and turbulent as they were, but righteous and peaceful, not joining in their wars and raids, yet mingling with them in acts of mercy and kindness. How little the writer of this Epistle meant to exaggerate the typology is shewn by the fact that he does not so much as allude to the “bread and wine” to which an unreal significance has been attached both by Jewish and Christian commentators. He does not make it in any way a type of the shewbread and libations; or an offering characteristic of his Priesthood; nor does he make him (as Philo does) offer any sacrifice at all. How much force would he have added to the typology if he had ventured to treat these gifts as prophecies of the Eucharist, as some of the Fathers do! His silence on a point which would have been so germane to his purpose is decisive against such a view.

made like unto the Son of God ] Lit. “having been likened to the Son of God,” i.e. having been invested with a typical resemblance to Christ. The expression explains the writer’s meaning. It is a combination of the passage in Genesis with the allusion in Psalms 110, shewing that the two together constitute Melchisedek a Divinely appointed type of a Priesthood received from no ancestors and transmitted to no descendants. The personal importance of Melchisedek was very small; but he is eminently typical, because of the suddenness with which he is introduced into the sacred narrative, and the subsequent silence respecting him. He was born, and lived, and died, and had a father and mother no less than any one else, but by not mentioning these facts, the Scripture, interpreted on mystic principles, “throws on him a shadow of Eternity: gives him a typical Eternity.” The expressions used of him are only literally true of Him whose type he was. In himself only the Priest-prince of a little Canaanite community, his venerable figure was seized upon, first by the Psalmist, then by the writer of this Epistle, as the type of an Eternal Priest. As far as Scripture is concerned it may be said of him, that “he lives without dying fixed for ever as one who lives by the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as a type of the Son, the ever-living Priest.”

continually ] The Greek expression is like the Latin in perpetuum.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Without father – The phrase without father – apator – means literally one who has no father; one who has lost his father; one who is an orphan. Then it denotes one who is born after the death of his father; then one whose father is unknown – spurious. Passow. The word occurs often in these senses in the classic writers, for numerous examples of which the reader may consult Wetstein in loc. It is morally certain, however, that the apostle did not use the word here in either of the senses, for there is no evidence that Melchizedek was fatherless in any of these respects. It was very important in the estimation of the Jews that the line of their priesthood should be carefully kept; that their genealogies should be accurately marked and preserved; and that their direct descent from Aaron should be susceptible of easy and certain proof. But the apostle says that there was no such genealogical table in regard to Melchizedek. There was no record made of the name either of his father, his mother, or any of his posterity. He stood alone.

It is simply said that such a man came out to meet Abraham – and that is the first and the last which we hear of him and of his family. Now, says the apostle, it is distinctly said Psa 110:4, that the Messiah was to be a priest according to his order – and in this respect there is a remarkable resemblance, so far as the point of his being a priest – which was the point under discussion – was concerned. The Messiah thus, as a priest, StooD alone. His name does not appear in the line of priests. He pertained to another tribe; Heb 7:14. No one of his ancestors is mentioned as a priest; and as a priest he has no descendants, and no followers. He has a lonely conspicuity similar to that of Melchizedek; a standing unlike that of any other priest. This should not, therefore, be construed as meaning that the genealogy of Christ could not be traced out – which is not true, for Matthew Matt. 1, and Luke Luke 3, have carefully preserved it; but that he had no genealogical record as a priest. As the reasoning of the apostle pertains to this point only, it would be unfair to construe it as implying that the Messiah was to stand unconnected with any ancestor, or that his genealogy would be unknown. The meaning of the word rendered without father here is therefore, one the name of whose father is not recorded in the Hebrew genealogies.

Without mother – The name of whose mother is unknown, or is not recorded in the Hebrew genealogical tables. Philo calls Sarah – ametora – without mother, probably because her mother is not mentioned in the sacred records. The Syriac has given the correct view of the meaning of the apostle. In that version it is, Of whom neither the father nor mother are recorded in the genealogies. The meaning here is not that Melchizedek was of low and obscure origin – as the terms without father and without mother often signify in the classic writers, and in Arabic, (compare Wetstein) – for there is no reason to doubt that Melchizedek had an ancestry as honorable as other kings and priests of his time. The simple thought is, that the name of his ancestry does not appear in any record of those in the priestly office.

Without descent – Margin, pedigree. The Greek word – agenealogetos – means without genealogy; whose descent is unknown. He is merely mentioned himself, and nothing is said of his family or of his posterity. Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. This is a much more difficult expression than any of the others respecting Melchizedek. The obvious meaning of the phrase is, that in the records of Moses neither the beginning nor the close of his life is mentioned. It is not said when he was born, or when he died; nor is it said that he was born or that he died. The apostle adverts to this particularly, because it was so unusual in the records of Moses, who is in general so careful to mention the birth and death of the individuals whose lives he mentions. Under the Mosaic dispensation everything respecting the duration of the sacerdotal office was determined accurately by the Law. In the time of Moses, and by his arrangement, the Levites were required to serve from the age of thirty to fifty; Num 4:3, Num 4:23, Num 4:35, Num 4:43, Num 4:47; Num 8:24-25.

After the age of fifty, they were released from the more arduous and severe duties of their office. In later periods of the Jewish history they commenced their duties at the age of twenty; 1Ch 23:24, 1Ch 23:27. The priests, also, and the high priest entered on their office at thirty years of age, though it is not supposed that they retired from it at any particular period of life. The idea of the apostle here is, that nothing of this kind occurs in regard to Melchizedek. No period is mentioned when he entered on his office; none when he retired from it. From anything that appears in the sacred record it might be perpetual – though Paul evidently did not mean to be understood as saying that it was so. It cannot be that he meant to say that Melchizedek had no beginning of days literally, that is, that he was from eternity; or that he had no end of life literally, that is, that he would exist forever – for this would be to make him equal with God. The expression used must be interpreted according to the matter under discussion, and that was the office of Melchizedek as a priest.

Of that no beginning is mentioned, and no end. That this is the meaning of Paul there can be no doubt; but there is a much more difficult question about the force and pertinency of this reasoning; about the use which he means to make of this fact, and the strength of the argument which he here designs to employ. This inquiry cannot be easily settled. It may be admitted undoubtedly, that it would strike a Jew with much more force than it would any other person, and to see its pertinency we ought to be able to place ourselves in their condition, and to transfer to ourselves as far as possible their state of feeling. It was mentioned in Psa 110:4, that the Messiah was to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. It was natural then to turn to the only record which existed of him – the very brief narrative in Gen. 14. There the account is simple and plain – that he was a pious Canaanitish king, who officiated as a priest. In what point, then, it would be asked, was the Messiah to resemble him? In his personal character; his office; his rank; or in what he did? It would be natural, then, to run out the parallel and seize upon the points in which Melchizedek differed from the Jewish priests which would be suggested on reading that account, for it was undoubtedly in those points that the resemblance between Christ and Melchizedek was to consist. Here the record was to be the only guide, and the points in which he differed from the Jewish priesthood according to the record, were such as these.

1. That there is no account of his ancestry as a priest – neither father nor mother being mentioned as was indispensable in the records of the Levitical priesthood.
2. There was no account of any descendants in his office, and no reason to believe that he had any, and he thus stood alone.
3. There was no account of the commencement or close of his office as a priest, but so far as the record goes, it is just as it would have been if his priesthood had neither beginning nor end.

It was inevitable, therefore, that those who read the Psalm, and compared it with the account in Gen. 14, should come to the conclusion that the Messiah was to resemble Melchizedek in some such points as these – for these are the points in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood – and to run out these points of comparison is all that the apostle has done here. It is just what would be done by any Jew, or indeed by any other man, and the reasoning grew directly out of the two accounts in the Old Testament. It is not, then, quibble or quirk – it is sound reasoning, based on these two points,

(1)That it was said in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and

(2)That the only points, according to the record, in which there was anything special about the priesthood of Melchizedek, or in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood, were such as those which Paul specifies.

He reasons from the record; and though there is, as was natural, something of a Jewish cast about it, yet it was the only kind of reasoning that was possible in the case.

But made like – The word used here means to be made like, to be made to resemble; and then to be like, to be compared with. Our translation seems to imply that there was a divine agency or intention by which Melchizedek was made to resemble the Son of God, but this does not seem to be the idea of the apostle. In the Psalm it is said that the Messiah would resemble Melchizedek in his priestly office, and this is doubtless the idea here. Paul is seeking to illustrate the nature and perpetuity of the office of the Messiah by comparing it with that of Melchizedek. Hence, he pursues the idea of this resemblance, and the true sense of the word used here is, he was like, or he resembled the Son of God. So Tyndale and Coverdale render it, is likened unto the Son of God. The points of resemblance are those which have been already suggested:

(1)In the name – king of righteousness, and king of peace;

(2)In the fact that he had no ancestors or successors in the priestly office;

(3)That he was, according to the record, a perpetual priest – there being no account of his death; and perhaps.

(4)That he united in himself the office of king and priest.

It may be added, that the expression here, was made like unto the Son of God, proves that he was not himself the Son of God, as many have supposed. How could he be made like himself? How could a comparison be formally made between Christ and himself?

Abideth a priest continually – That is, as far as the record in Genesis goes – for it was according to this record that Paul was reasoning. This clause is connected with Heb 7:1; and the intermediate statements are of the nature of a parenthesis, containing important suggestions respecting the character of Melchizedek, which would be useful in preparing the readers for the argument which the apostle proposed to draw from his rank and character. The meaning is, that there is no account of his death, or of his ceasing to exercise the priestly office, and in this respect be may be compared with the Lord Jesus. All other priests cease to exercise their office by death Heb 7:23; but of the death of Melchizedek there is no mention. It must have been true that the priesthood of Melchizedek terminated at his death; and it will be also true that that of Christ will cease when his church shall have been redeemed, and when he shall have given up the mediatorial kingdom to the Father; 1Co 15:25-28. The expression, abideth a priest continually, therefore, is equivalent to saying that he had a perpetual priesthood in contradistinction from those whose office terminated at a definite period, or whose office passed over into the hands of others; see the notes on ver. 24.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 3. Without father, without mother] The object of the apostle, in thus producing the example of Melchisedec, was to show,

1. That Jesus was the person prophesied of in the 110th Psalm; which psalm the Jews uniformly understood as predicting the Messiah.

2. To answer the objections of the Jews against the legitimacy of the priesthood of Christ, taken from the stock from which he proceeded.

The objection is this: If the Messiah is to be a true priest, he must come from a legitimate stock, as all the priests under the law have regularly done; otherwise we cannot acknowledge him to be a priest: but Jesus of Nazareth has not proceeded from such a stock; therefore we cannot acknowledge him for a priest, the antitype of Aaron. To this objection the apostle answers, that it was not necessary for the priest to come from a particular stock, for Melchisedec was a priest of the most high God, and yet was not of the stock, either of Abraham or Aaron, but a Canaanite. It is well known that the ancient Hebrews were exceedingly scrupulous in choosing their high priest; partly by Divine command, and partly from the tradition of their ancestors, who always considered this office to be of the highest dignity.

1. God had commanded. Le 21:10, that the high priest should be chosen from among their brethren, i.e. from the family of Aaron;

2. that he should marry a virgin;

3. he must not marry a widow;

4. nor a divorced person;

5. nor a harlot;

6. nor one of another nation.

He who was found to have acted contrary to these requisitions was, jure divino, excluded from the pontificate. On the contrary, it was necessary that he who desired this honour should be able to prove his descent from the family of Aaron; and if he could not, though even in the priesthood, he was cast out, as we find from Ezr 2:62, and Ne 7:63.

To these Divine ordinances the Jews have added,

1. That no proselyte could be a priest;

2. nor a slave;

3. nor a bastard;

4. nor the son of a Nethinim;

5. nor one whose father exercised any base trade.

And that they might be well assured of all this, they took the utmost care to preserve their genealogies, which were regularly kept in the archives of the temple. When any person aspired to the sacerdotal function, his genealogical table was carefully inspected; and, if any of the above blemishes were found in him, he was rejected.

He who could not support his pretensions by just genealogical evidences, was said by the Jews to be without father. Thus in Bereshith Rabba, sect. 18, fol. 18, on these words, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, it is said: If a proselyte to the Jewish religion have married his own sister, whether by the same father or by the same mother, they cast her out according to Rabbi Meir. But the wise men say if she be of the same mother, they cast her out; but if of the same father, they retain her, shein ab legoi, “for a Gentile has no father;” i.e. his father is not reckoned in the Jewish genealogies. In this way both Christ and Melchisedec were without father and without mother; i.e. were not descended from the original Jewish sacerdotal stock. Yet Melchisedec, who was a Canaanite, was a priest of the most high God. This sense Suidas confirms under the word Melchisedec, where, after having stated that, having reigned in Salem 113 years, he died a righteous man and a bachelor, , , , , , he adds, “He is, therefore, said to be without descent or genealogy, because he was not of the seed of Abraham, but of Canaanitish origin, and sprung from an accursed seed; therefore he is without the honour of a genealogy.” And he farther adds, “That, because it would have been highly improper for him, who was the most righteous of men, to be joined in affinity to the most unrighteous of nations, he is said to be , without father and without mother.” This sort of phraseology was not uncommon when the genealogy of a person was unknown or obscure; so Seneca, in his 108th epistle, speaking of some of the Roman kings, says: De Servii matre dubitatur; Anci pater nullus dicitur. “Of the mother of Servius Tullus there are doubts; and Ancus Marcus is said to have no father.” This only signifies that the parents were either unknown or obscure. Titus Livius, speaking of Servius, says he was born of a slave, named Cornicularia, da patre nullo, of no father, i.e. his father was unknown. Horace is to be understood in the same way: –

Ante potestatem Tulli, atque ignobile regnum,

Multos saepe viros, NULLIS MAJORIBUS ortos,

Et vixisse probos, amplis et honoribus auctos.

Serm. l. 1. Sat. vi., ver. 9.

Convinced that, long before the ignoble reign

And power of Tullius, from a servile strain

Full many rose, for virtue high renown’d,

By worth ennobled, and with honours crown’d.

FRANCIS.

The viri nullis majoribus orti, men sprung from no ancestors, means simply men who were born of obscure or undistinguished parents; i.e. persons, who had never been famous, nor of any public account.

The old Syriac has given the true meaning by translating thus: –

[Syriac]

Dela abuhi vela, emeh ethcathebu besharbotho.

Whose father and mother are not inscribed among the genealogies.

The Arabic is nearly the same:-

[Arabic]

He had neither father nor mother; the genealogy not being reckoned.

The AEthiopic: He had neither father nor mother upon earth, nor is his genealogy known.

As this passage has been obscure and troublesome to many, and I have thought it necessary to show the meaning of such phraseology by different examples, I shall, in order to give the reader fall information on the subject, add a few observations from Dr. Owen.

“It is said of Melchisedec in the first place that he was , without father and without mother, whereon part of the latter clause, namely, without beginning of days, doth depend. But bow 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 on record. And so, on the contrary, is not he who has no descent, no genealogy; but he whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered, recorded, reckoned up. Thus the apostle himself plainly expresses this word, Heb 7:6: , ‘whose descent is not counted;’ that is, reckoned up in record. Thus was Melchisedec without father or 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 to this purpose concerning him. He is introduced as it were one falling from heaven, appearing on a sudden, reigning in Salem, and officiating in the office of priesthood to the high God.

“2. On the same account is he said to be , , ‘without beginning of days or 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 up to the first man; and not only so, but the time of their birth, the beginning of their days, and the end of their life, are exactly recorded. For it is constantly said of them, such a one lived so long, and begat such a son, which fixed 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 to him in his historical narration, wherein our faith and knowledge are alone concerned.”

Made like unto the Son of God] Melchisedec was without father and mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. His genealogy is not recorded; when he was born and when he died, is unknown. His priesthood, therefore, may be considered as perpetual. In these respects he was like to Jesus Christ, who, as to his Godhead, had neither father nor mother, beginning of time nor end of days; and has an everlasting priesthood. The priesthood of Melchisedec is to abide continually on the same ground that he is said to be without father and mother; i.e. there is no record of the end of his priesthood or life, no more than there is any account of his ancestry.

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

In this verse is a mystical description of the eternity of Christs person and priesthood, set out by the Spirit in the silence and omission of things that concerned Melchisedec and his glory; so that what here is represented to be typically and in shadow, that was Christ really and substantially; for he gives no account of his father, mother, genealogy, birth, or death; the Spirit either not revealing it to him, or ordering him to leave it out, that he might appear the more lively and perfect type of Christ, being represented in all things different from all the men that ever were, or shall be: such a priest therefore as he was, was Christ to be; not deriving his priesthood from any by birth, nor leaving it to any after him. As Melchisedec was without father, that was a priest before him, or is recorded, from whom he should derive, as the Levitical priesthood had; so Christ, as to his humanity, was without any human father, conceived only by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Without mother: as to any Scripture records of it, or to any title of the priesthood by her, as those of Aarons family had: so Christ, as to his Deity, was without a mother, being the eternal Son of the Father only, and without any title in his humanity to the priesthood from the virgin, she being of Davids family, and not of Aarons.

Without descent; there is no line of him described in the Scripture, mentioning from whence he descended, or by what genealogy he came to the priesthood, as the Aaronites did clear their right, Neh 7:64. As to Christ, who shall declare his generation, or produce the lineal roll by which he claimeth the priesthood? Isa 53:8; compare Heb 7:12,15.

Having neither beginning of days, nor end life: there is no record of his birth or death, though he had a father or mother, as there is of Adams beginning and end, who had neither: so Christ, as to his priesthood, had no predecessor, nor shall have any successor, Heb 7:16,24,28. As a sacrifice and the Lamb of God, he had his time of entrance into the world, and of his leaving it; yet, as Gods Priest, he had neither beginning nor end of days. Pure eternity is its rise, and its end shall not be till God be all in all.

But made like unto the Son of God; afwmoiwmenov he was in these things the shadow, picture, and resemblance of what Christ should be in his royal priesthood; in these singular prerogatives a visible type of God-man; he was the sign likening, and Christ was the truth and substance of it.

Abideth a priest continually: these words are the key to all the description before. God made many other persons eminent types of his Son, but Melchisedec was the only type of the eternity of his royal priesthood; for which the Holy Ghost singled him out, dropped him down, as it were, from above, and then took him up again, without any further account of him in the Scripture, that he might convey this mystery to us. That which hath no beginning nor end of it recorded, is as abiding for ever; which this type had not, and so fully sets out the truth designed to be conveyed by it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. Without father, c.explainedby “without genealogy” (so the Greek is for “withoutdescent) compare Heb 7:6, thatis, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priestcould not dispense with the proof of his descent.

having neither beginning ofdays nor end of lifenamely, history not having recorded hisbeginning nor end, as it has the beginning and end of Aaron. TheGreek idiom expressed by “without father,” c., onewhose parentage was humble or unknown. “Days” meanhis time of discharging his function. So the eternity spokenof in Ps 110:4 is that of thepriestly office chiefly.

made likeIt is notsaid that he was asbsolutely “like.” Made like,namely, in the particulars here specified. Nothing is said in Genesisof the end of his priesthood, or of his having had in his priesthoodeither predecessor or successor, which, in a typical point of view,represents Christ’s eternal priesthood, without beginning or end.Aaron’s end is recorded Melchisedec’s not: typicallysignificant. “The Son of God” is not said to be made likeunto Melchisedec, but Melchisedec to be “made like the Son ofGod.” When ALFORDdenies that Melchisedec was made like the Son of God in respect ofhis priesthood, on the ground that Melchisedec was prior intime to our Lord, he forgets that Christ’s eternal priesthood wasan archetypal reality in God’s purpose from everlasting, towhich Melchisedec’s priesthood was “made like” in due time.The Son of God is the more ancient, and is the archetype: compare Heb8:5, where the heavenly things are represented as the primaryarchetype of the Levitical ordinances. The epithets, “withoutfather,” c. “beginning of days, “nor end,””abideth continually,” belong to Melchisedec only inrespect to his priesthood, and in so far as he is the type ofthe Son of God, and are strictly true of Him alone. Melchisedecwas, in his priesthood, “made like” Christ, as far as theimperfect type could represent the lineaments of the perfectarchetype. “The portrait of a living man can be seen on thecanvas, yet the man is very different from his picture.” Thereis nothing in the account, Ge14:18-20, to mark Melchisedec as a superhuman being: he isclassed with the other kings in the chapter as a living historicpersonage: not as ORIGENthought, an angel nor as the Jews thought, Shem, son of Noah; nor asCALMET, Enoch; nor as theMelchisedekites, that he was the Holy Ghost; nor as others, theDivine Word. He was probably of Shemitic, not Canaanite origin: thelast independent representative of the original Shemitic population,which had been vanquished by the Canaanites, Ham’s descendants. Thegreatness of Abraham then lay in hopes; of Melchisedec, in presentpossession. Melchisedec was the highest and last representative ofthe Noahic covenant, as Christ was the highest and ever enduringrepresentative of the Abrahamic. Melchisedec, like Christ, unites inhimself the kingly and priestly offices, which Abraham doesnot. ALFORD thinks theepithets are, in some sense, strictly true of Melchisedec himself;not merely in the typical sense given above; but that he had not, asmortal men have, a beginning or end of life (?). A very improbabletheory, and only to be resorted to in the last extremity, which hasno place here. With Melchisedec, whose priesthood probably lasted along period, the priesthood and worship of the true God in Canaanceased. He was first and last king-priest there, till Christ,the antitype; and therefore his priesthood is said to last for ever,because it both lasts a long time, and lasts as long as the nature ofthe thing itself (namely, his life, and the continuance of God’sworship in Canaan) admits. If Melchisedec were high priest for everin a literal sense, then Christ and he would now still be highpriests, and we should have two instead of one (!). THOLUCKremarks, “Melchisedec remains in so far as the typeremains in the antitype, in so far as his priesthood remains inChrist.” The father and mother of Melchisedec, asalso his children, are not descended from Levi, as the Leviticalpriests (Heb 7:6) were requiredto be, and are not even mentioned by Moses. The wife of Aaron,Elisheba, the mother from whom the Levitical priests spring,is mentioned: as also Sarah, the original mother of the Jewish nationitself. As man, Christ had no father; as God, no mother.

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

Without father, without mother, without descent,…. Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts: or this is to be interpreted, not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, and a mother, and a natural lineage and descent; but of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore said to be without them; and so the Syriac version renders it; “whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies”; or there is no genealogical account of them. The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus d, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of. Patricides e, another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner

“they who say Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, and argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, asserting the same, do not rightly understand the saying of the Apostle Paul; for Shem, the son of Noah, after he had taken Melchizedek, and withdrew him from his parents, did not set down in writing how old he was, when he went into the east, nor what was his age when he died; but Melchizedek was the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah; and yet none of those patriarchs is called his father. This only the Apostle Paul means, that none of his family served in the temple, nor were children and tribes assigned to him. Matthew and Luke the evangelists only relate the heads of tribes: hence the Apostle Paul does not write the name of his father, nor the name of his mother.”

And with these writers Sahid Aben Batric f agrees, who expressly affirms that Melchizedek was , “the son of Peleg”: though others of them make him to be the son of Peleg’s son, whose name was Heraclim. The Arabic Catena g on Ge 10:25, “the name of one was Peleg”, has this note in the margin;

“and this (Peleg) was the father of Heraclim, the father of Melchizedek;”

and in a preceding chapter, his pedigree is more particularly set forth:

“Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber; and his mother’s name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah; and Heraclim, the son of Eber, married his wife Salathiel, and she was with child, and brought forth a son, and called his name Melchizedek, called also king of Salem: after this the genealogy is set down at length. Melchizedek, son of Heraclim, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Arphaxad, c. till you come to, which was the son of Adam, on whom be peace.”

It is very probable Epiphanius has regard to this tradition, when he observes h, that some say that the father of Melchizedek was called Eracla, and his mother Astaroth, the same with Asteria. Some Greek i writers say he was of the lineage of Sidus, the son of Aegyptus, a king of Lybia, from whence the Egyptians are called: this Sidus, they say, came out of Egypt into the country of the Canaanitish nations, now called Palestine, and subdued it, and dwelled in it, and built a city, which he called Sidon, after his own name: but all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ, who, as man, is “without father” for though, as God, he has a Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man, he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God will raise up, shall be without father j. And he is without mother, though not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine sense, as God: and he is “without descent or genealogy”; not as man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in Mt 1:1 and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and Valentinians. It follows,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died; and in this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from everlasting; as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace, and in the election of his people; and he has no end of life, both as God and man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more, but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,

but made like unto the Son of God: in the above things; from whence it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not take this character from his incarnation or resurrection:

abideth a priest continually; not in person, but in his antitype Christ Jesus; for there never will be any change of Christ’s priesthood; nor will it ever be transferred to another; the virtue and efficacy of it will continue for ever; and he will ever live to make intercession; and will always bear the glory of his being both priest and King upon his throne: the Syriac version renders it, “his priesthood abides for ever”; which is true both of Melchizedek and of Christ.

d In Hottinger. Smegma Orientale, l. 1. c. 8. p. 269, 254. e In ib. p. 305, 306, 254. f In Mr. Gregory’s Preface to his Works. g In ib. h Contra Haeres. Haeres. 55. i Suidas in voce Melchisedec, Malala, l. 3. Glycas, Cedrenus, & alii. j R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Without father, without mother, without genealogy (, , ). Alliteration like Ro 1:30, the first two old words, the third coined by the author (found nowhere else) and meaning simply “devoid of any genealogy.” The argument is that from silence, made much of by Philo, but not to be pressed. The record in Genesis tells nothing of any genealogy. Melchizedek stands alone. He is not to be understood as a miraculous being without birth or death. Melchizedek has been made more mysterious than he is by reading into this interpretation what is not there.

Made like (). Perfect passive participle of , old verb, to produce a facsimile or copy, only here in N.T. The likeness is in the picture drawn in Genesis, not in the man himself. Such artificial interpretation does not amount to proof, but only serves as a parallel or illustration.

Unto the Son of God ( ). Associative instrumental case of .

Abideth a priest ( ). According to the record in Genesis, the only one in his line just as Jesus stands alone, but with the difference that Jesus continues priest in fact in heaven.

Continually ( ). Old phrase (for the continuity) like , in N.T. only in Hebrews (Heb 7:3; Heb 10:1; Heb 10:14; Heb 10:21).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Without father, without mother, without descent [, , ] . The three adjectives N. T. o, o LXX The meaning is that there is no record concerning his parentage. This is significant as indicating a different type of priesthood from the Levitical, in which genealogy was of prime importance. No man might exercise priestly functions who was not of the lineage of Aaron.

Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. That is to say, history is silent concerning his birth and death.

But made like unto the Son of God [ ] . The verb N. T. o. Made like or likened, not like. “The resemblance lies in the Biblical representation, and not primarily in Melchisedec himself” (Westcott). Son of God, not Son of man, for the likeness to Jesus as Son of man would not hold; Jesus, as man, having had both birth and death. The words likened unto the Son of God stand independently. Not to be connected with the following sentence, so as to read abideth a priest continually like the Son of God; for, as a priest, Melchisedec, chronologically, was prior to Christ; and, therefore, it is not likeness with respect to priesthood that is asserted. The likeness is in respect to the things just predicated of Melchisedec. Christ as Son of God was without father, mother, beginning or end of days; and, in these points, Melchisedec is likened in Scripture to him.

Abideth a priest continually [ ] . Dihnekhv from diaferein to bear through; born on through ages, continuous. Only in Hebrews. There is no historical account of the termination of Melchisedec’s priesthood. The tenure of his office is uninterrupted. The emphasis is on the eternal duration of the ideal priesthood, and the writer explains the Psalm as asserting eternal duration as the mark of the Melchisedec order. Accordingly, he presents the following characteristics of the ideal priesthood : royal, righteous, peace – promoting, personal and not inherited, eternal. Comp. Isa 9:6, 7; Isa 4:10; Isa 32:17; Isa 53:7. It is, of course, evident to the most superficial reader that such exposition of O. T. scripture is entirely artificial, and that it amounts to nothing as proof of the writer’s position. Melchisedec is not shown to be an eternal high priest because his death – record is lost; nor to be properly likened unto the Son of God because there is no notice of his birth and parentage.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Without father, without mother, without descent,” (apator, amator, agenealogetos) “Not having (without) a father, not having (without) a mother, not having (without) a family line (pedigree), without foreparents,” in the priesthood. Tho he was born of human parents and died as others die, his priestly office was not tied to a family pedigree.

2) “Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” (mete archen hemeron mete zoes telos echon) “Having, holding, or possessing neither a beginning (origin) of days nor an end of life,” in the line of priesthood. Levitical priests had not only a priestly line by natural birth but also ending their official priesthood, Num 4:3; Num 4:23; Num 4:30; Num 4:35; Num 4:39; Num 4:43; Num 4:47.

3) “But made like unto the Son of God,” (aphomoiomenos de to huio tou theou) “But having been made like (similar to) the Son of God,” who was not of the priesthood family line of the Levites, but who could be both a priest, and a king as Melchisedec was a type of the coming Christ, as a common priest while once on earth, Joh 17:1-26, but now our High Priest in heaven.

4) “Abideth a priest continually,” (menei heireus eis to dienekes) “Remains or abides as a priest in perpetuity,” without end or cessation. With the passing of the law of Moses, the ceremonies and Mosaic rites passed in fulfilling their purposes, but the intercessory, advocacy High Priesthood of Jesus is one in perpetuity; continuing forever, Col 2:14-17; Heb 7:24-25; Rom 8:34; 1Ti 2:5; 1Jn 2:1.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

3. Without father, etc. I prefer this rendering to that of “unknown father;” for the Apostle meant to express something more emphatic than that the family of Melchisedec was obscure or unknown. Nor does this objection disturb me, that the reality does not correspond with the figure or type, because Christ has a Father in heaven, and had a mother on earth; for the Apostle immediately explains his meaning by adding without descent, or kindred. He then exempts Melchisedec from what is common to others, a descent by birth; by which he means that he is eternal, so that his beginning from men was not to be sought after. It is indeed certain that he descended from parents; but the Apostle does not speak of him here in his private capacity; on the contrary, he sets him forth as a type of Christ. He therefore allows himself to see nothing in him but what Scripture contains. For in treating of things respecting Christ, such reverence ought to be observed as not to know anything but what is written in the Word of the Lord. Now, as the Holy Spirit in mentioning this king, the most illustrious of his age, is wholly silent as to his birth, and makes afterwards no record of his death, is not this the same thing as though eternity was to be ascribed to him? And what was shadowed forth in Melchisedec is really exhibited in Christ. It behooves us then to be satisfied with this moderate view, that while Scripture sets forth to us Melchisedec as one who had never been born and never died, it shows to us as in a mirror, that Christ has neither a beginning nor an end. (112)

But we hence also learn how much reverence and sobriety is required as to the spiritual mysteries of God: for what is not found read in Scripture the Apostle is not only willing to be ignorant of, but also would have us to seek to know. And surely it is not lawful for us to allege anything of Christ from our own thoughts. And Melchisedec is not to be considered here, as they say, in his private capacity, but as a sacred type of Christ; nor ought we to think that it was accidentally or inadvertently omitted that no kindred is ascribed to him, and that nothing is said of his death; but on the contrary, that this was done designedly by the Spirit, in order to give us an idea of one above the common order of men. There seems therefore to be no probability in the conjecture of those who say that Melchisedec was Shem the son of Noah; for if we make him to be some known individual, we destroy this third likeness between Melchisedec and Christ.

Made like, or assimilated, etc. Not as far as what was typified required; for we must always bear in mind that there is but an analogy between the thing signified and the sign; for they make themselves ridiculous who imagine that he came down from heaven, in order that there might be a perfect similarity. It is enough that we see in him the lineaments of Christ, as the form of the living man may be seen in his picture, while yet the man himself is very different from what represents him. (113) It seems not to be worth one’s while to refute the delirious notions of those who dream that Christ himself, or the holy Spirit, or an angel, appeared at that time; unless indeed one thought it to be the duty of a right­minded man to dispute with Postillus and such fanatics; for that impostor asserts that he is Melchisedec with no less supercilious folly than those mad spirits of old, mentioned by Jerome, who pretended that they were Christ.

(112) Some regard what is said of Melchisedec being without father, etc., as meaning that he was so in his office as a king and priest, there being no account of a predecessor or of a successor to him; but this view cannot be taken on account of these words, “without mother, without descent,” etc., Calvin gives the explanation commonly received. — Ed.

(113) Our version “made like,” etc., is objected to by Stuart; and he renders it, “being like,” alleging that the Apostle’s object is to show, not that Melchisedec was “made like” to Christ as a priest, but the contrary, according to Psa 110:4. But the object here seems to be different: he shows why it is that there is no record of Melchisedec’s office as to its beginning or end; it was that he might be made a fit type to represent the Son of God. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(3) Without father, without mother, without descent.The last words, without descent (or rather, without genealogy), throw light on the meaning of those which precede. Not because we find no mention of the parents of Melchizedek is he thus spoken of as fatherless and motherless, but because he is suddenly introduced as priest, without any token whatever that he held the office by right of genealogy, the only claim familiar to Hebrew readers. It is not necessary to adduce proof of the care with which inquiry was made into the parentage of the Jewish priests (Neh. 7:64): in their marriages they were subject to strict restraints (Lev. 21:13-14); their statement of pedigree (in which was given the name not of father only, but also of every mother) must be complete, ascending to Aaron, and containing no doubtful link. He who is a priest like Melchizedek holds a priesthood that rests on no such rights or claims. The words that follow are of similar character. No commencement and no close of priestly position or function are recorded in the sacred history. As the Scripture is silent as to his reception of the office, so also as to any transmission of it to another. In these respects made like (as a divinely ordained type) unto the Son of God, he bears perpetually the character of priest.

There have from the first been many who have been dissatisfied with such an explanation of these remarkable words, and have understood them to ascribe to Melchizedek a mysterious and superhuman existence and character. It has been maintained that he was the Son of God Himself, or the Holy Spirit,an angel or a Power of God. The last tenet was the distinguishing mark of a sect bearing the name of Melchizedekians in the third century. The feeling that the most startling of the expressions here used must surely be intended to point to more than the silence of Scripture on certain points, is not at all unnatural; but perhaps it is not too much to say that every such difficulty is removed by the consideration that here the writer is simply analysing the thought of the inspired Psalmist. Such an oracle as that of Psa. 110:4 must yield up to him its full significance. The divine words are not to be measured by the meaning which man may at first assign to them. The true import of the prophecy which declared that the future priesthood would bear the likeness of Melchizedeks can only be known when all the characteristics of that priesthood have been traced. The narrative of Genesis was the basis of the prophecy; all that the history presented was taken up in the Psalm.

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

3. Without descent Without place in any priestly genealogical table, and so without father, without mother, as a priest, showing his unlikeness to, and superiority over, the Aaronic priest, and his likeness to Christ. The want of priestly genealogy, which is his unlikeness to the Jewish priests, is his likeness to Christ; who, being of the tribe of Judah, was, as to the priestly record, without father, without mother. Personally and humanly, Jesus had a mother, the blessed Virgin.

Neither beginning nor end Some one has said, that when an infant dies it remains to the parent an infant forever. It never grows old, but is ever the same image of infancy. And so the image of this king-priest, as seen in the divine tableau, is not born, and never dies. The Aaronic priests are successively dying. A genealogical successor pushes his predecessor out of office and out of life. This priest has no genealogical successor or predecessor. He is thus the image of perpetuity, the type of the permanent priesthood of our Christ.

Made like unto The group of traits are seen to frame an image and likeness in shadow of the Son of God.

Abideth a priest continually One thousand years after this king-priest lived, the inspired psalmist contemplated the tableau, and there beheld him still, a priest forever. One thousand years later our writer looked, and there was the same, a priest forever; shadowy and only conceptual, indeed, yet the definite shadow of our great High Priest. Alford objects, that language so strong as “neither beginning of days nor end of life,” is unsatisfactorily accounted for by the birth and life not being mentioned; he even styles this exposition “childish;” and he thinks there must be some mysterious literal fulfilment which he admits to be above explanation. But why are the name-types of Heb 7:2 any less “childish?” We do not, wisely, require that the type should be a literal, but a shadowy, representation of its object. And, inevitably, any fulfilment, as demanded by Alford, would require two literal eternal high priests, which is entirely inadmissible. He further objects, that to make a transient appearance on the stage typical, would require us to make a type of Hobab, for instance. The reply is, that no such isolated trait could possess any typical significance. There must be a full assemblage of traits to form a definite typical image. The question may be raised, Whence did this grouping of shadowy traits into a significant image arise? Was it purposed by Providence in shaping the existence of the facts so as to form a type? Or did inspiration in Genesis purposely so narrate the facts? Or did the inspired imagination of the psalmist, seeing the facts as incidentally narrated, group them into form? These questions, interesting as they are, we leave a beautiful and sacred mystery. But we may note that in Genesis the passage of the tableau stands in a striking isolation. If a primitive pair of scissors had cut the passage out, we should not miss it, and should never imagine what a gem we had lost. We may easily concede, therefore, that it is placed and modelled there for this typical purpose.

THE PARALLEL SUPERIORITIES OF MELCHIZEDEK AND CHRIST OVER AARON MAY BE REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING TABULATION:

Melchizedek. Aaron. Christ. A priest-king. Priest only. Priest-king. King of righteousness of peace. King of righteousness of peace. Universal. Limited to Hebraism. Universal. Unlineal. Lineal. Unlineal. Without beginning or end. Beginning and ending. Without beginning or end. Without priestly ancestry or descent With father and mother. Without priestly parentage. But this superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham is not literal. The former has no such real importance as the latter in human history. His superiority is solely within the tableau. As indicated by blessing and tithes, it is theocratic; and so forms basis for a typical superiority. That is, Melchizedek is superior to Abraham only as a type of Christ. It is, therefore, good only for our author’s argument.

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

Heb 7:3. Without father, without mother, No more is intended by this, in the opinion of most of the great expositors than to observe, that the father and mother of Melchisedec are no where mentioned, nor are they pretended to be known; nor is any hint of his family taken notice of in the scriptures which speak of him. He was indeed king of Salem, that is, king of Jerusalem, as the Jews and ancient fathers commonly understood it. But it is no where said from whom he descended, nor who his parents were; or that he was of any line or family to which priesthood was annexed, as was the case of the Aaronical priests. As we know nothing of his birth or death, his parentage or pedigree (for he is said to be , without genealogy,not enrolled, among the priests), it is certain that no particular succession was necessary either to constitute him a priest, or to continue him in that office: for had that been at all necessary, something of that sort would have been mentioned. The next clause [having neither beginning of days nor end of life] is expressed for the same reason as the former words, in opposition to the Levitical priests, who were obliged to be of a certain age before they were admitted to minister, and dismissed the service at a certain age again. Num 4:3-47. Had this been mentioned with any other view than to shew that succession was unnecessary to one who acted upon the footing that Melchisedec did, the apostle would not have said, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but would have mentioned some period for beginning or ending his ministry; but designing only to shew that succession was not in the priesthood of Melchisedec, he observes, that neither beginning nor end is mentioned at all; and consequently that the Melchisedechian priesthood had this advantage over the Aaronical, as not being liable to change. Lists of genealogies were always kept among the Jews, that it might appear how every one was descended: nor could any one be admitted to act as a priest, unless he could prove his descent not only from the tribe of Levi, but from the family of Aaron: but Melchisedec was a priest of God, like the Son of God in this respect, who had no genealogyfrom which his privilege of acting in the sacerdotal office was derived. Nor is there any mention of any alteration or change of his office by death, nor any successors to him specified; wherefore those that are priests as he was, abide priests for ever. Some would read this last clause, like unto the Son of God, who abideth a priest continually.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 7:3 . , , ] without father, without mother, without pedigree, i.e. of whom neither father, nor mother, nor pedigree stands recorded in Holy Scripture. This is the usual interpretation of the words, which has been the prevalent one in the church from early times to the present. Less natural, and only in repute here and there, is the explanation: who possessed neither father nor mother , etc., according to which the sacred writer must have recognised in Melchisedec a higher, superhuman being, who had only for a time assumed a human form. The latter view was taken by Origen and Didymus, who would maintain that Melchisedec is to be regarded as an angel; in like manner the unknown authority in Jerome, ad Evagr .; Hilary, Quaestt. in V. T . quaest. 109, and the Egyptian Hieracas in Epiph. Haeres . 67, who saw in him an ensarcosis of the Holy Ghost; as also the Melchisedecites, a section of the Theodotians, who described him as , surpassing in exaltedness even Christ Himself, since Christ appeared after the likeness of Melchisedec; finally, single individuals in the orthodox church, in Epiphanius, Haer . 55. 7; as also afterwards, P. Molinaeus, Vates , Heb 4:11 sq.; P. Cunaeus, l.c. ; J. C. Hottinger, de Decimis Judaeorum , p. 15; d’Outrein, Starck, and others, who supposed that in Melchisedec the Son of God Himself had appeared in human form. This whole method of interpretation has against it the fact that for not is placed can be understood without violence only of the neglect to cite the genealogical table of Melchisedec in the narrative of the Book of Genesis [comp. Heb 7:6 ]; and , must be taken conformably with the elucidatory , thus are likewise to be explained merely of the father and mother being passed over unnamed in the historic account, not of their actual nonexistence. The characteristics , , , moreover, are to be referred since cannot yet be brought into correspondence therewith only to Melchisedec, without our being obliged to seek for them a special point of comparison with Christ, as is done by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Cappellus, Bisping, al . (comp. also Kurtz ad loc .), in applying the to Christ’s humanity, the to His divinity, and the either likewise to His divinity or to His New Testament high priesthood. Comp. e.g. Theodoret: , .

By means of , , , Melchisedec appears as presenting a contrast to the Levitical priests, since in the case of these scrupulous attention was paid to the descent.

The expression only here in all Greek literature.

] without beginning of days and without end of life , namely, in that nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his birth or his death. The statement is quite a general one. To limit it to the beginning and end of the priesthood (Cameron, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Whitby, Kuinoel, Hofmann, al .) is arbitrary. Nor is the meaning of the words, that Melchisedec was not born in the ordinary human way, and, something like Enoch and Elijah, was taken up to heaven without experiencing death (Hunnius, Braun, Akersloot; comp. also Bleek, p. 322 ff.; Nagel: “On the significance of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in the Stud. u. Krit . 1849, H. 2, p. 332 ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor . 1858, Feb. p. 102 f.; Alford), a sense which conflicts with the right apprehension of the opening words of the verse.

] on the contrary (therein) made entirely like unto the Son of God , namely, as type of the same. The words do not belong to (Peshito, Grotius, al .). For with justice does Theodoret already observe: , . They form, by means of the closely combining , a more precise positive defining to the negative . Chrysostom: , , ; , .

] remains priest for ever , in that, as of his end of life so also of the cessation of his priesthood, nothing is recorded. He remains so in the reality of his office, but only as a figure and type of Christ. Against the view of Auberlen ( l.c. p. 497), that Melchisedec is termed an everlasting priest in no other sense than as, according to the Apocalypse, all the blessed in heaven are so, see the observations of Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 202 f., Remark. The subject, moreover, in is naturally the Melchisedec of Genesis, not, as Wieseler contends ( Schrr. d. Univ. zu Kiel aus d. J . 1860, VI. 1, p. 40): “the Melchisedec of the passage in the Psalms just mentioned (Heb 6:20 ), or the true antitypal Melchisedec or Messiah.” For it is not grammatically allowable, with Wieseler, to take the words as an apposition merely to , and not to the whole expression , and in connection with to rest the emphasis exclusively upon .

] of the same import as , Heb 6:20 . Comp. Heb 10:12 ; Heb 10:14 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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.

Ver. 3. Without father ] viz. That we find mentioned in the Holy Scripture. Hence the Melchisedechian heretics held that he was the Holy Ghost; or at least some created angel. See Cunaeus de Rep.Heb 3:3Heb 3:3 . Without father and mother he was not in respect of generation, but in respect of commemoration; his parents are not mentioned: no more are Job’s, or the three children’s.

Like unto the Son of God ] As having neither fellow nor successor. And being a lively type of Christ, who is the true Trismegist, in regard of his three offices. The heathens called their Mercury (haply the same with Melchisedec) Trismegist, or thrice great; because he was the greatest philosopher, the greatest priest, and the greatest king. (Marcil. Ficin. in arg. ad Tris. Pimandr.)

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

Heb 7:3 . , resolved in Heb 7:6 into , does not occur in classical nor elsewhere in Biblical Greek. The dependence of Levitical priests on genealogies and their registers is illustrated by Neh 7:64 . “having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” i.e. , again, as he is represented in Scripture. No mention is made of his birth or death, of his inauguration to his office or of his retirement from it. The idea is conveyed that so long as priestly services of that particular type were needed, this man performed them. He is thus the type of a priest who shall in his single person discharge for ever all priestly functions. . “but made like to the Son of God”. attaches this clause to the immediately preceding, “having neither etc.,” but in this respect made like to the Son of God, see Heb 1:2 , Heb 9:14 and Heb 1:10 ; Heb 1:12 . “Such a comparison is decisive against attributing these characteristics to Melchisedek in a real sense. They belong to the portrait of him, which was so drawn that he was “made like” the Son of God, that by the features absent as well as by the positive traits a figure should appear corresponding to the Son of God and suited to suggest Him” (Davidson). “abideth a priest continually”. This statement, directly resting upon the preceding clause, is that towards which the whole sentence (Heb 7:1 ; Heb 7:3 ) has been tending. It is the permanence of the Melchisedek priesthood on which stress is laid. See below. is not precisely “for ever,” but “for a continuance,” or permanence. Appian ( De Bell. civ. , i. 4) says of Julius Csar that he was created Dictator , permanent Dictator. “The permanent character of the priesthood is here described, not its actual duration” (Rendall). It was not destined to be superseded by another. Bruce is not correct in saying: “The variation in expression ( instead of , Heb 6:20 ) is probably made out of regard to style, rather than to convey a different shade of meaning”. But he gives the sense well: “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.”

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Without father, &c. Greek. apator, ametor, agenealogetos. Therefore without recorded pedigree. These three words found only here

neither, nor. Greek. mete.

life. Greek. zoe. App-170.

made like. Greek. aphomoioo. Only here

unto = to

the Son of God. App-98.

abideth. See p. 1511.

continually. See App-151. Melchisedec is presented to us without reference to any human qualifications for office. His genealogy is not recorded, so essential in the case of Aaron’s sons (Neh 7:64). Greek.inary priests began their service at thirty, and ended at fifty, years of age (Num 4:47). The high priest succeeded on the day of his predecessor’s decease. Melchisedec has no such dates recorded; he had neither beginning of days nor end of life. We only know that he lived, and thus he is a fitting type of One Who lives continually.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Heb 7:3. , , , without father, without mother, without genealogy [descent]) The parents, ancestors, children, posterity of Melchisedec are not descended from Levi, as was required to be the case with the Levites, Heb 7:6, and they are not even mentioned by Moses; and this silence is full of mystery, which is immediately unfolded. There are even few of the Levitical priests whose mothers are mentioned in Scripture; but yet their Levitical sanctity (as to their wives) is universally enjoined, Lev 21:13-14; and, at all events, the wife of Aaron, from whom all the priests are descended, is mentioned, Exo 6:23 : and Sarah, the wife of Abraham himself, Isa 51:2.- , nor beginning) The eternity of the Son of God is intimated.-, having) with Moses, who nevertheless relates the death of Aaron.-, of days) It was not so suitable to say, the beginning of life or the end of days, Heb 7:16, where power is mentioned along with life.- , but made like to the Son of GOD) , but, properly has respect to the opposition between the negatives, which precede, and the positive, which follows, and takes the former for granted. The likeness of Melchisedec to the Son of God refers both to the former and the latter; but it is also more directly connected with the latter, because it has more reference to the purpose in hand. The Son of GOD is not said to be made like to Melchisedec, but the contrary (vice versa); for the Son of GOD is more ancient, and is the archetype; comp. Heb 8:5, [where in like manner heavenly things are set forth as more ancient than the things belonging to the Levitical priesthood.-V. g.]-, remains) The positive for the negative in respect of Melchisedec: he remains and lives, Heb 7:8 : i.e. nothing is mentioned of his decease or succession. But it holds good in its strict meaning from Christ.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Without father: That is, as the Syriac renders, “Whose father and mother are not inscribed among the genealogies; and therefore it was not known who he was.”

descent: Gr. pedigree, Exo 6:18, Exo 6:20-27, 1Ch 6:1-3

a priest: Heb 7:17, Heb 7:23-28

Reciprocal: Gen 14:18 – the priest Gen 48:21 – Behold Exo 40:15 – everlasting Num 1:18 – their pedigrees Isa 9:6 – The Prince of Peace Joh 1:1 – the beginning Joh 1:34 – this Act 10:36 – preaching Heb 1:2 – spoken Heb 5:6 – Thou Heb 7:6 – descent Heb 7:15 – after Heb 7:16 – the power Heb 7:28 – maketh the

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Heb 7:3. The key to this misunderstood verse is in the meaning of the phrase without descent. It is from the Greek word AGENEALOGETOS which Thayer defines as follows: “Of whose descent there is no account.” This was no accident nor is it due to a lack of custom or facilities for recording descent which means a record of family names. Many other persons of those times had their pedigrees or family names recorded in the Bible. (See Genesis 10.) This shows that God had a purpose in leaving out all record of Melchisedec’s family, namely, so that he would appear in that sense to be like that “other priest” who actually was not to have any descendants. (See Isa 53:8; Act 8:33.) In other words, the verse describes the situation of Melchisedec as God permitted it to appear in history, in order to form a type of Christ whose situation as to family relationship was to be actually that way. Withnut father and without mother means he did not obtain his priesthood from his ancestors as did the Levitical priests (Exo 29:29-30; Num 20:28). The beginning of the days of Melchisedec and the end of life are all kept from the record for the purpose of carrying out the type, and it is to be understood on the same principle as “without descent” explained above. In this way he was made like unto the Son of God. This shows they were two separate persons, but were like unto each other in certain respects. If no record is given of the death or replacement of Mel-chisedec, then logically his priesthood was continous. This was true of him apparently, as it was true of Christ actually.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 7:3. He is without father or mother, appearing out of the darkness without ancestors or successors; without pedigree either immediate or remote; owing his priesthood, therefore, and dignities to no connection with priests on his fathers side or even on his mothers: his is a priesthood purely personal, and not to be traced to natural descent or hereditary claim. In contrast with this tenure of office was the tenure of the Levites; they held their priesthood only on condition that they could prove their descent from Levi; and so, after the captivity, those who could not prove this descent were not allowed to act as priests till God Himself gave counsel by Urim and Thummim (Ezr 2:62-63; Neh 7:63-65).

Without beginning of days or end of life, unlike the Jewish priests therefore, who began their ministry at thirty and closed it at fifty, the high priest holding his office until he died.

But made like (in the respect named) unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually. These words still refer to the history and not properly to the Psalm (Psa 110:4), where it is said that Melchisedec was made like to Christ, and so, instead of a priest for ever, the phrase of the Psalm, we have a priest continually, one whose office remains unbroken either at the beginning or at the close. Though this is the simplest and the natural interpretation of the words, some find a deeper meaning in them. The terms used are wide and sweeping, and while the Targums and Philo, and modern commentators, find no difficulty in the explanations given above of the phrases without father or mother or genealogy, a deeper meaning is not without its attractions, especially when the words are applied to the great antitype Christ Without father, it has been thought, may refer to the fact that Christ had no earthly father and no Divine mother (answering to His higher nature), while the later expressions, without beginning of days or end of life, are descriptive, they think, of Him whose going forth are from everlasting, and who, though He died, conquered death, and has taken the nature He assumed into union with His essential eternity. What in the type means no record, meant in the antitype no existence. It may fairly be admitted that the phrases are finely chosen so as to be true of the type in some degree, and more profoundly true of our Lord; but beyond this it is unsafe to go. Origen regarded Melchisedec as the incarnation of an angel; Bleek thinks that the writer shared a supposed Jewish opinion that he was called into existence miraculously and miraculously withdrawn, then abiding a priest for ever. Others, ancient and modem, think he was the Son of God Himselfan opinion untenable, inconsistent alike with the Psalm and with the entire teaching of this Epistle. The Jewish writers supposed him to have been Shem (see Gill), or Enoch, or Job. It is enough to say that he probably represents a royal worshipper of the true God, the head of his race, before as yet the primitive worship had become corrupt, and before there had arisen any need for selecting a particular family as the depositary and the guard of the Divine will. … It is solemn and instructive to note how most of the false religions on earth and most of the corruptions of the time owe their power to mens desire to have a human priest who may forgive them and plead for them, and even offer sacrifice for them. The doctrine is even more popular than the opposite extreme, forgiveness without sacrifice and without priest. All sacrifices are superseded, by the sacrifice of the cross, and all priesthoods by the priesthood of our Lord. The recognition of one priest is as essential to true religion as the recognition of one king.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 3

Without father, &c.; that is, so appearing in the sacred narrative.– Made like unto; made a type or emblem of.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

7:3 {2} 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.

(2) Another type: Melchizedek is set before us to be considered as one without beginning and without ending, for neither his father, mother, ancestors, or his death are written of. Such a one is indeed the Son of God, that is, an everlasting Priest: as he is God, begotten without mother, and man, conceived without father.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

A literal interpretation of this verse might lead one to conclude that Melchizedek was an angelic being, and the Qumran Community evidently regarded Melchizedek as an angel. [Note: Hodges, "Hebrews," p. 798.] But there is no indication elsewhere in Scripture that he was anything but a human being. Consequently most commentators have adopted a metaphorical interpretation of what the writer said of him here. Limiting our knowledge of Melchizedek to what Moses specifically stated, this first priest mentioned in Scripture had no parents or children and no birth or death. In this, too, he represented the eternal Son of God. It was essential that the Levitical priests be able to prove their ancestry (cf. Ezr 2:61-63; Neh 7:63-65). Since Moses did not record Melchizedek’s death, this writer could say that he continued as a priest forever, another respect in which he was like Jesus Christ.

"When nothing is recorded of the parentage of this man, it is not necessarily to be assumed that he had no parents but simply that the absence of the record is significant.

"What was true of Melchizedek simply as a matter of record was true of Christ in a fuller and more literal sense. So the silence of the Scripture points to an important theological truth. . . . Thus it is not that Melchizedek sets the pattern and Jesus follows it. Rather, the record about Melchizedek is so arranged that it brings out certain truths, that apply far more fully to Jesus than they do to Melchizedek. With the latter, these truths are simply a matter of record; but with Jesus they are not only historically true, they also have significant spiritual dimensions." [Note: Morris, pp. 63, 64. See also Charles P. Baylis, "The Author of Hebrews’ Use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis," (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989); and Lane, pp. 164, 166.]

"It is when the writer bases his exposition on the silence of Scripture that his method of exegesis seems strangest to modern readers.

"The idea of basing exegesis on silence is familiar in Philo’s writings and would not in itself have seemed strange to Jewish readers." [Note: Guthrie, pp. 156, 157.]

This verse highlights a fifth important fact about Melchizedek: he had a significant family history, according to the biblical record.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)