Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:8
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he [receiveth them,] of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
8. And here ] As things now are; while the Levitic priesthood still continues.
men that die ] “Dying men” men who are under liability to die (comp. Heb 7:23), as in the lines
“He preached as one who ne’er should preach again
And as a dying man to dying men.”
it is witnessed that he liveth ] i.e. he stands as a living man on the eternal page of Scripture, and no word is said about his death; so far then as the letter of Scripture is concerned he stands in a perpetuity of mystic life. This is the third point of superiority.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And here men that die receive tithes – Another point showing the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. They who thus received tithes, though by the right to do this they asserted a superiority over their brethren, were mortal. Like others, they would soon die; and in regard to the most essential things they were on a level with their brethren. They had no exemption from sickness, affliction, or bereavement, and death came to them with just as much certainty as he approached other men. The meaning of this is, that they are mortal like their brethren, and the design is to show the inferiority of their office by this fact. Its obvious and natural signification, in the apprehension of the great mass of readers, would not be, as the meaning has been supposed to be, that it refers to the brief and mutable condition of the Levitical priesthood; see Stuart in loco. Such an interpretation would not occur to anyone if it were not to avoid the difficulty existing in the correlative member of the verse where it is said of Melchizedek that he liveth. But is the difficulty avoided then? Is it not as difficult to understand what is meant by his having an immutable and perpetual priesthood, as it is to know what is meant by his not dying literally? Is the one any more true than the other? Whatever difficulties, therefore, there may be, we are bound to adhere to the obvious sense of the expression here; a sense which furnishes also a just and forcible ground of comparison. It seems to me, therefore, that the simple meaning of this passage is, that, under the Levitical economy, those who received tithes were mortal, and were thus placed in strong contrast with him of whom it was said he liveth. Thus, they were inferior to him – as a mortal is inferior to one who does not die; and thus also they must be inferior to him who was made a priest after the order of him who thus lived.
But there – In contrast with here in the same verse. The reference here is to the account of Melchizedek, Here, in the Levitical economy, men received tithes who are mortal; there, in the account of Melchizedek, the case is different.
He receiveth them – Melchizedek – for so the connection evidently demands.
Of whom it is witnessed – Of whom the record is. There is not in Genesis, indeed, any direct record that he lives, but there is the absence of a record that he died, and this seems to have been regarded as in fact a record of permanency in the office; or as having an office which did not pass over to successors by the death of the then incumbent.
That he liveth – This is an exceedingly difficult expression, and one which has always greatly perplexed commentators. The fair and obvious meaning is, that all the record we have of Melchizedek is, that he was alive; or as Grotins says, the record is merely that he lived. We have no mention of his death. From anything that the record shows, it might appear that he continued to live on, and did not die. Arguing from the record, therefore, there is a strong contrast between him and the Levitical priests, all of whom we know are mortal; Heb 7:23. The apostle is desirous of making out a contrast between them and the priesthood of Christ on this point among others, and in doing this, he appeals to the record in the Old Testament, and says that there was a case which furnished an intimation that the priestly office of the Messiah was not to pass over from him to others by death.
That case was, that he was expressly compared Psa 110:4 with Melchizedek, and that in the account of Melchizedek there was no record of his death. As to the force of this argument, it must be admitted that it would strike a Jew more impressively than it does most readers now; and it may not be improbable that the apostle was reasoning from some interpretation of the passages in Gen. 14: and Ps. cx., which was then prevalent, and which would then be conceded on all hands to be correct. If this was the admitted interpretation, and if there is no equivocation, or mere trick in the reasoning – as there cannot be shown to be – why should we not allow to the Jew a uniqueness of reasoning as we do to all other people? There are modes of reasoning and illustration in all nations, in all societies, and in all professions, which do not strike others as very forcible. The ancient philosophers had methods of reasoning which now seem weak to us; the lawyer often argues in a way which appears to be a mere quirk or quibble, and so the lecturer in science sometimes reasons.
The cause of all this may not be always that there is real quibble or quirk, in the mode of argumentation, but that he who reasons in this manner has in his view certain points which he regards as undisputed which do not appear so to us; or that he argues from what is admitted in the profession, or in the school where he is taught, which are not understood by those whom he addresses. To this should be added also the consideration, that Paul had a constant reference to the Messiah, and that it is possible that in his mind there was here a transition from the type to the antitype, and that the language which he uses may be stronger than if he had been speaking of the mere record of Melchizedek if he had found it standing by itself. Still his reasoning turns mainly on the fact that in the case of Melchizedek there was no one who had preceded him in that office, and that he had no successor, and, in regard to the matter in hand, it was all one as if he had been a perpetual priest, or had continued still alive.
(The reasoning in the whole passage is founded on the Scripture account of Melchizedek. He is not to be regarded absolutely, but typically. View him just as he appears in the record in Genesis, and the difficulty will be greatly lessened, if it do not altogether disappear. There, he is presented to us, in his typical character, as living. All notice of his death is studiously omitted with the express design, that, appearing only as a living priest, he might the better typify our immortal Redeemer. In this view, which indeed is so well brought out in the commentary above, the apostles argument unto the dignity, and pre-eminence of Melchizedek above the Levitical priests, in this instance, is of an unquestionable evidence. For, consider Melchizedek, not in his natural being and existence, which belongs not unto this mystery, but in his Scripture being and existence, and he is immortal, always living, wherein he is more excellent than those who were always obnoxious to death in the exercise of their office – Owen. McKnight, observing that the Greek verb ze here is not in the present, but the imperfect of the indicative, translates – lived, a priest all his life, in contradistinction from those who ceased to be priests at a certain age. But whatever view may be taken of the passage, whatever solution of the difficulty may be adopted, apology for the mode of reasoning may well be spared. An inspired writer needs it not. All his reasoning has, doubtless, a solid basis in truth. It is impossible he should proceed on any peculiarities or modes of reasoning, but such as are strictly true, the accuracy of which might, any where, and at any time, be admitted, by those who had the means and patience for a right understanding of them.)
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. Here men that die receive tithes] The apostle is speaking of the ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, which was standing at the time this epistle was written. Under the Jewish dispensation, though the priests were successively removed by death, yet they were as duly replaced by others appointed from the same family, and the payment of tithes was never interrupted. But as there is no account of Melchisedec ceasing to be a priest, or of his dying, he is represented as still living, the better to point him out as a type of Christ, and to show his priesthood to be more excellent than that which was according to the law, as an unchanging priesthood must be more excellent than that which was continually changing.
But there he receiveth them] The , here, in the first clause of this verse refers to Mosaical institutions, as then existing: the , there, in this clause refers to the place in Genesis (Ge 14:20) where it is related that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec, who is still considered as being alive or without a successor, because there is no account of his death, nor of any termination of his priesthood.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
His greatness as to his priesthood above the Levitical, is proved from its immortality. Immortal is greater and better than mortal; such is his order of priesthood. This argument he brings in to heighten the former, and so connects it to it.
And here men that die receive tithes: the particle , here, if referred to time, notes during Mosess economy, while the Levitical law lasted; if it refer to place, it notes Jerusalem in the land of Canaan, where the temple was: in that habitation of the Israelitish church the Levitical priests were not only as to their nature and persons withering and decaying, ceasing to be on earth, though they had the honour to decimate their brethren, but as to their order and office, mortal, they were no better than the tithed and blessed by them, in prospect of death. Aaron himself, the first of the order, died, and so did all his successors, as well as Israel.
But there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth: but how much better is Melchisedec and his order! , there, may refer either to the place where his business was transacted with Abraham, near Salem; or to the place of Scripture record concerning him, either Gen 14:18-20, where there is no account of his death, or in Psa 110:4. By the prophet David is the testimony borne, that his order is for ever; that Melchisedec, as to his order and office of priesthood, now liveth and subsisteth in the Son of God incarnate, and continueth for ever. It is suggested by a great light in the church, as if Melchisedec was translated as Enoch was, and so continued a priest to the very moment of his translation; and that neither his person nor priesthood died, but liveth for ever: but in this the Scripture is silent. An other refers it immediately to Christ, reading it thus: Here, i.e. in this world, they receive tenths, or are priests; but there, i.e. within the innermost of the veil, whither the foreranner is for us entered, Jesus; supplying this out of Heb 6:19,20. Here, is to be understood, not who receiveth tithes, but who is, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. He saith this sense is to be found in so many words in Heb 7:23-25, where those who receive tenths, and die, are no other men than those many priests who were not suffered to continue by reason of death, Heb 7:23. Nor can
he, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, be any other than Jesus, who, Heb 7:24, is the man that continueth for ever; and, Heb 7:25, is ever-living.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. Second point of superiority:Melchisedec’s is an enduring, the Levitical a transitory,priesthood. As the law was a parenthesis between Abraham’sdispensation of promise of grace, and its enduring fulfilment atChrist’s coming (Ro 5:20,Greek, “The law entered as something adscititious and bythe way”): so the Levitical priesthood was parenthetical andtemporary, between Melchisedec’s typically enduring priesthood, andits antitypical realization in our ever continuing High Priest,Christ.
herein the Leviticalpriesthood.
therein the priesthoodafter the order of Melchisedec. In order to bring out thetypical parallel more strongly, Paul substitutes, “He of whom itis witnessed that he liveth,” for the more untypical, “Hewho is made like to Him that liveth.” Melchisedec”liveth” merely in his official capacity, hispriesthood being continued in Christ. Christ, on the other hand, is,in His own person, “ever living after the power of anendless life” (Heb 7:16;Heb 7:25). Melchisedec’s deathnot being recorded, is expressed by the positive term “liveth,”for the sake of bringing into prominence the antitype, Christ, ofwhom alone it is strictly and perfectly true, “that He liveth.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And here men that die receive tithes, c,] The priests and Levites were not only men, and mortal men, subject to death, but they did die, and so did not continue, by reason of death, Heb 7:24
but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth which is to be understood of Melchizedek; who is not opposed to men, as if he was not a man, nor to mortal men, but to men that die; nor is he said to be immortal, but to live: and this may respect the silence of the Scripture concerning him, which gives no account of his death; and may be interpreted of the perpetuity of his priesthood, and of his living in his antitype Christ; and the testimony concerning him is in Ps 110:4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Here (). In the Levitical system.
There (). In the case of Melchizedek.
Of whom it is witnessed (). “Being witnessed,” present passive participle of (personal construction, not impersonal).
That he lives ( ). Present active indicative of ). The Genesis record tells nothing of his death.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Here [] . In the Levitical economy.
Men that die receive tithes. The emphasis is on ajpoqnhskontev dying. The Levites are dying men, who pass away in due course, and are succeeded by others.
But there [ ] . In the case of Melchisedec.
(He receiveth them of whom) it is witnessed that he liveth [ ] . The Greek is very condensed : being attested that he liveth. The A. V. fills it out correctly. Melchisedec does not appear in Scripture as one who dies, and whose office passes to another. See on abideth continually, ver. 3.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And here men that die receive tithes,” (kai hode men dekatos apothneskontes anthropoi lambanousin) “And here on the one hand dying men receive tithes,” those dying, in dying bodies, as the patriarch priests and the Levite priests, and pastors of churches, as it is appointed to all men once to die, Ecc 9:5; Heb 9:26-27. In this too men are inferior to their High Priest who lives to bless.
2) “But there he receiveth them,” (ekei de) “Yet out there, on the other hand,” in heaven, he receives them, Jesus Christ, “at the Father’s right hand,” receives honor of those who pay tithes to give him honor, thru the church, Eph 3:21; 2Co 8:12.
3) “Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth,” (marturoumenos hoti ze) “Of whom it is being witnessed that he lives; and is alive forevermore, Rev 1:18; Heb 7-25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8. Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. He takes the silence respecting his death, as I have said, as an evidence of his life. This would not indeed hold as to others, but as to Melchisedec it ought rightly to be so regarded, inasmuch as he was a type of Christ. For as the spiritual kingdom and priesthood of Christ are spoken of here, there is no place left for human conjectures; nor is it lawful for us to seek to know anything farther than what we read in Scripture. But we are not hence to conclude that the man who met Abraham is yet alive, as some have childishly thought, for this is to be applied to the other person whom he represented, even the Son of God. And by these words the Apostle intended to show, that the dignity of Melchisedec’s priesthood was to be perpetual, while that of the Levites was temporary. (116)
For he thus reasons, — those to whom the Law assigns tithes are dying men; by which it was indicated that the priesthood would some time be abrogated, as their life came to an end: but the Scripture makes no mention of the death of Melchisedec, when it relates that tithes were paid to him; so the authority of his priesthood is limited by no time, but on the contrary there is given an indication of perpetuity. And this is added for this purpose, lest a posterior law, as it is usual, should seem to take away from the authority of a former law. For it might have been otherwise objected and said, that the right which Melchisedec formerly possessed is now void and null, because God had introduced another law by Moses, by which he transferred the right to the Levites. But the Apostle anticipates this objection by saying, that tithes were paid to the Levites only for a time, because they did not live; but that Melchisedec, because he is immortal, retains even to the end what was once given to him by God.
(116) Critics often make a difficulty where is none. The obvious meaning of this verse is given by Calvin, — continual succession, owing to death, betokened the unenduring character of the Levitical priesthood; but the perpetuity of that Melchisedec is proved by this, that he lives. To live often means to be perpetual; and to die intimates what is evanescent. The Levites were dying men, which showed the character of their office, Melchisedec is represented as not dying, which betokens that his office as a priest is perpetual. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) Here, under the Levitical economy, dying men receive the various tithes. Men enter by birth into a state with which this right is associated, and by death again pass out of it. No special significance, therefore, attaches to the men themselves. There, in the history now considered, one (receives tithes) of whom the Scripture simply witnesses that he lives. The narrative of Genesis gives no other basis for his priesthood than the mere fact of his life. What he holds, he holds by personal right.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. Point second. Here, under Mosaic law, the priests that tithe are only lifelong; there, under patriarchal law, there is a perpetual priest.
Here Under the law of Moses. Those who receive tithes are men that die; and so their priesthood is but life-long. The priest dies with the man, and a new priest succeeds.
But there In Genesis and in Psalms 110.
Witnessed By the testimony of the inspired psalmist.
He liveth This priest “never dies,” as truly as the king “never dies,” though for a different reason. The king, conceptually, never dies, because he lives in his successor; this priest, conceptually, never dies, because he stands forever without a successor. Alford objects that the die of the Levitical priest is personal, and, therefore, the never die of Melchizedek must be personal, and so he must be, mysteriously but literally, still living. But the die of the priest was not only personal but official; the priest died with the man. And it is the official death at the personal death that is here the point.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And here men who die receive tithes, but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.’
He then adds that here on earth the priests who receive tithes are mortal men, they are depicted as ‘men who die’ (the noun ‘men’ is specifically included for emphasis, they are all ‘as but men’), and yet they still receive tithes. For even though they are destined to die, and their deaths will be recorded (e.g. Num 20:24-29), within their limited priesthood they still receive tithes.
How much more then should that priest receive tithes whose beginning or ending is not recorded or stipulated, who is not spoken of as dying, who bears no taint of death in the description of him, who is simply described as ‘living’, and whose priesthood disappears into oblivion (as far as Scripture is concerned), but only for his priesthood to come out from that oblivion in a time to come, the time of the Psalmist in Psalms 110, so that he was then seen as living on in the Messianic priest. Thus, as far as the records go, he was, at least in as far as his priesthood was concerned, shown to be ‘still living’ on in some way. Had it not been so his priesthood could not be a pattern for the Davidic priesthood.
The point being made is that ageing and death are nowhere directly connected with his priesthood. It is simply there. That there is no record of beginnings or endings, which were clearly not important to his priesthood, and his priesthood (but not he himself) continues in the time of the Psalmist. And that there is therefore no suggestion in Scripture of the cessation of his priesthood. His priesthood is depicted as having been in existence from the beginning and to continue as an undying priesthood in quite the opposite way to the levitical priesthood which is very much connected with beginnings and endings, with living and dying, and as being earthly. He can therefore be seen as representing ‘a continually existing priesthood’ to whom no shadow of death is applied, a perfect ‘type’ of our everlasting High Priest.
‘Of whom it is witnessed that he lives.’ These words can be interpreted in different ways. Some see them as specifically indicating that Melchizedek never died. This seems unlikely to be the writer’s intention as otherwise he would surely have brought the fact out more clearly and emphasised it more. The passage as a whole does not give the impression of the eternity of Melchizedek. Indeed apart from his being an example of a unique priesthood he is not seen as over-important except in terms of Abraham’s day. All the emphasis is on the superiority of his priesthood, and once that is established he himself disappears, and just fades from the scene. It is his priesthood that is seen as still living on. And this is precisely because the writer is not primarily concerned with Melchizedek but with his priesthood. Indeed in context the Psalmist indicates that another is to arise in a like priesthood, ‘another priest’, taking up all priesthood into Himself, suggesting that Melchizedek is in fact then no longer around (Heb 7:11). He is of the past.
Others consider that it is intended to indicate that his priesthood is described (‘it is witnessed’) as continuing, as ‘living’, with no mention of death, so that death is not linked with his priesthood, and he lives on in his priesthood. Death is ignored. His priesthood lives on, even though unheralded in Scripture, until Psa 110:4, until the perfect Priest comes. We often say of some great person, ‘he will never die, he lives on in his achievements (or his writings)’. Thus did the writer see Melchizedek as living on in his priesthood, just as David lived on in his sons.
And still others consider that it indicates that he had no retirement age at which he ‘died as a priest’ like the levitical priests did, and that in his case he ‘lived on’, his priesthood continued on until he literally died, and then he lived on in his successors. His priesthood was thus never brought to an abrupt halt as with the levitical priests who had a signing off date. (Although in that case ‘living on’ could also have been said to be true of the Aaronic High Priest. However, even their deaths were heavily emphasised. Their deaths brought in a new era – Num 35:25; Num 35:28).
In view of the importance in Israel of the idea of the ‘taint of death’ (which rendered unclean), and the general indication that Melchizedek himself is not otherwise seen as living on, the second seems the most likely meaning intended.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 7:8. And here men that die, &c. Here [according to the law] men that die take tithes; but there, [in the case of Melchisedec,] he, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. As to the single point of taking tithes, the case was the same both with the Levitical priests and with Melchisedec: but the difference here considered, is that of men who die, and of one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Men that died had their successors, to whom tithes were regularly and constantly paid; but Melchisedec is not said to have any successor, but was himself to continue a priest for ever. So much then as a priesthood for ever is superior to a successive priesthood, so much must that of Melchisedec excel that of Aaron.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 7:8 . Second point of superiority . The Levitical priests are mortal men; but of Melchisedec it is testified that he lives.
By , “and here,” reference is made to the Levitical priests, by , “but there,” to Melchisedec, because the Levitical priesthood still continues to exist to the time of our author, thus having something about it near and present; the historic appearing of Melchisedec, on the other hand, falls in the period of hoary antiquity.
] The plural, on account of the plurality of tithes levied by the Levitical priests.
] as the principal notion placed before .
] men who die (irrevocably or successively), comp. Heb 7:23 .
] but there, one who has testimony that he lives, sc . . That by reason of the coherence with that which precedes only Melchisedec can be understood, and not (with Justinian, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, and Pyle) Christ , scarcely stands in need of mention. , as opposition to , can be interpreted only absolutely, of the life which is not interrupted by death. That the author, in connection with , had before his mind a testimony contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant, admits of no doubt. Whether, however, he derived the testimony of Melchisedec’s continued life from the silence of Scripture as to Melchisedec’s death, or found in the declaration, Psa 110:4 , a direct proof therefor, or, finally, combined the two facts together, and deduced his conclusion from both in common, is a question hardly to be decided. The first supposition is entertained by Calvin, Estius, Drusius, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Stein, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Moll, and others; the second , by Theodoret, Zeger, Whitby, Heinrichs, Bleek, Bloomfield, Alford, Conybeare, Kurtz, M‘Caul, Woerner, and others; the third , by Bhme, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . pp. 201, 454, and others.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them , of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
Ver. 8. That he liveth ] Tithes then are due to the ministers of Christ that liveth, because due to Melchisedec, to whom Abraham paid them as a priest and tithe-taker, and type of Christ. Who therefore should receive them for him, but those that are in his stead? 2Co 5:20 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8 .] Second item of superiority , in that M.’s is an enduring , the Levitical a transitory priesthood. And here indeed ( , ‘ut res nunc se habent:’ the Levitical priesthood being still in existence in the Writer’s time: , , . Thl.) men who die ( . first for emphasis as bringing out the point of the argument: but there is also a secondary emphasis on : men , who die . Otherwise it need not have been expressed: see below) receive tithes (plur. as we also use the word, signifying the different sorts of tenths taken of different things): but there ( , , Thl.), one of whom it is testified ( is not again expressed, nor is it to be supplied. The mysterious character of Melchisedek is still before the Writer. It is hardly needful to say that Christ cannot be meant, as Justiniani, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, and Pyle have imagined.
This passive sense of (reff.) is unknown in classical Greek.
The testimony meant is certainly that of scripture ; probably, that in Psa 110:4 , where an eternal priesthood, and therefore duration, is predicated of Melchisedek. So Thdrt., Bleek, al. It cannot well be, as Calv., Est., Drusius, Grot., Wolf, Bengel, Bisping, al., the mere negative fact of his death not being recorded, which would not amount to a testimony that he lives: and it is improbable that in so express a word as the Writer should, as Bhme, al. imagine, intend to combine both the positive testimony and the inference from the omission) that he liveth (this clearly cannot be interpreted of the priesthood of Melchisedek enduring, as c.: , , , : for what is here said is eminently personal, and that Melchisedek himself is meant, is shewn by the historical reference to the fact of his receiving tithes of Abraham. As Bleek well remarks, if applies personally to the sons of Levi, must also apply personally to Melchisedek).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 7:8 . Another note of the superiority of Melchizedek. “And here men that die receive tithes, but there one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.” “here,” i.e. , in this Levitical system with which we who are Hebrews are familiar, , “there” in that system identified with that ancient priest. , “dying men,” who therefore as individuals passed away and gave place to successors, and were in this respect inferior to Melchizedek, who, so far as is recorded in Scripture, had no successor. Giving to the silence of Scripture the force of an assertion, the writer speaks of Melchizedek as , a person of whom it is witnessed; note absence of article. So Theoph., . Westcott distinguishes between the plural of this verse, , appropriate to the manifold tithings under the Mosaic system and the singular, , of Heb 7:4 , one special act.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
here. Add “indeed”.
men. App-123.
tithes. Same as “tenth”, Heb 7:2.
he. Read one. receiveth them. Omit.
witnessed. Greek. martureo. See p. 1511.
liveth i.e. as there is no mention of his death Melchisedec in the Scripture record is an illustration of perpetuity of life, a type of Him Who liveth for ever.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
8.] Second item of superiority, in that M.s is an enduring,-the Levitical a transitory priesthood. And here indeed (, ut res nunc se habent: the Levitical priesthood being still in existence in the Writers time: , , . Thl.) men who die (. first for emphasis as bringing out the point of the argument: but there is also a secondary emphasis on : men, who die. Otherwise it need not have been expressed: see below) receive tithes (plur. as we also use the word, signifying the different sorts of tenths taken of different things): but there ( , , Thl.), one of whom it is testified ( is not again expressed, nor is it to be supplied. The mysterious character of Melchisedek is still before the Writer. It is hardly needful to say that Christ cannot be meant, as Justiniani, Jac. Cappellus, Heinsius, and Pyle have imagined.
This passive sense of (reff.) is unknown in classical Greek.
The testimony meant is certainly that of scripture; probably, that in Psa 110:4, where an eternal priesthood, and therefore duration, is predicated of Melchisedek. So Thdrt., Bleek, al. It cannot well be, as Calv., Est., Drusius, Grot., Wolf, Bengel, Bisping, al., the mere negative fact of his death not being recorded, which would not amount to a testimony that he lives: and it is improbable that in so express a word as the Writer should, as Bhme, al. imagine, intend to combine both the positive testimony and the inference from the omission) that he liveth (this clearly cannot be interpreted of the priesthood of Melchisedek enduring, as c.: , , , : for what is here said is eminently personal, and that Melchisedek himself is meant, is shewn by the historical reference to the fact of his receiving tithes of Abraham. As Bleek well remarks, if applies personally to the sons of Levi, must also apply personally to Melchisedek).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 7:8. ) He of whom it is witnessed (Who was honoured with the testimony).- , that He liveth) The death of Melchisedec is not mentioned in the Old Testament. That circumstance is positively expressed by the term, life, for the sake of the Apodosis, respecting Christ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
The eighth verse carrieth on the same argument, by a particular application unto the matter in hand of the things which he had in general observed before in Melchisedec; for whereas the apostle had before declared, that he was without father, without mother, without beginning of days or end of life, he now shows how all this conduced unto his purpose.
Heb 7:8. , , .
. Syr., by a usual idiotism of that language, the sons of man. , qui moriuntur, who die. Vulg. Lat., homines morientes, dying men; of which difference we must speak afterwards. , generally, de quo testatum est, quod vivat. Vulg. Lat., ibi autem contestatur quia vivit; which the Rhemists render, but there he hath witness that he liveth: both obscurely. Arias, testatione dictus quia vivit; to no advantage. is properly, is de quo testatur; as Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Schmidt, render it. The Arabic concurs with the Vulgar. The Syriac, by way of paraphrase, he of whom the Scripture witnesseth that he liveth.[3]
[3] EXPOSITION. . , can be nothing else than a concise representation of the idea, , : and is therefore to be explained thus: Of whom only his life is recorded, not his death (Bleek); or, in other words, it is not the individual Melchisedec who has the testimony that he liveth, but it is again the typical figure of him, as it appeared to the eye of the psalmist [Psalms 110. ] in the framework of Genesis 14 : Ebrard. ED.
Heb 7:8. And here men verily that die receive tithes; but there he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
There is in the words a comparison and opposition between the Levitical priests and Melchisedec, in this matter of receiving tithes, which in general was common to them both. And we may consider in them,
1. The circumstances of the comparison.
2. The general agreement of both sorts, which is the ground of the comparison.
3. The parts of the antithesis, or opposition, or dissimilitude between them:
1. The circumstances of the comparison are two:
(1.) The manner of its introduction, or the earnestness of the assertion, in the particle . It is as much as quidem or equidem, truly, verily; which is omitted in our translation, though elsewhere the same particle is so rendered. This, moreover, is the state of the case in this matter.And the insertion of it is proper unto an affirmation upon a concession, as this here is.
(2.) The determination of the time, or place, or manner of the opposition, in these adverbs and here and there. usually refers unto place; and some think that the apostle hath respect unto Jerusalem, the seat of the Levitical priesthood, and the land of Canaan, which alone was tithable according to the law; for the Jews do judge, and that rightly, that the law of legal tithing extended not itself beyond the bounds of the land of Canaan, a sufficient evidence that it was positive and ceremonial. In opposition hereunto, , there, must signify some other place, or any place where the priesthood of Melchisedec hath its signification; that is, in Christian religion. But the truth is, if , here, signifies a certain and determinate place, that opposed in , there, must be Salem, where Melchisedec dwelt; which was not only afterwards tithable, as within the bounds of Canaan, but most probably was Jerusalem itself, as we have declared. This conjecture, therefore, is too curious; nor do we need to tie up ourselves unto the precise signification of the word , although that also be sometimes used with respect unto time as well as place. Wherefore these words, here and there, do express the several different states under consideration. here, is in the case of the Levitical priesthood; and there respects the case of Melchisedec, as stated, Genesis 14.
2. The foundation of the comparison, that wherein both agreed, is in this, that they received tithes. It is expressed of the one sort only, namely, the Levitical priests, they received tithes; but it is understood of the other also, whereon the word is repeated and inserted in our translation, But there he receiveth them. , They do receive tithes, in the present tense. But it may be said, there was none that then did so, or at least de jure could do so, seeing the law of tithing was abolished. Wherefore an enallage may be allowed here of the present time for that which was past; they do, that is, they did so whilst the law was in force. But neither is this necessary; for, as I have before observed, the apostle admits, or takes it for granted, that the Mosaical system of worship was yet continued, and argueth on that concession unto the necessity of its approaching abolition. And yet we need not here the use of this supposition; for the words determine neither time nor place, but the state of religion under the law. According unto the law are tithes to be paid unto, and received by such persona This, therefore, is agreed, that both the Levitical priests and Melchisedec received tithes.
3. The opposition and difference lies in the qualification and properties of them by whom they are received. For,
(1.) Those on the one side, that is, of the Levitical priesthood, were , homines qui moriuntur, or homines morientes, men that die, dying men; that is, men subject unto death, mortal men, who lived and died in the discharge of their office, according unto the common laws of mortality. And the observation of Schlichtingius on these words is, as far as I can understand, useless unto his own design, much more to the apostles:
Notandum vero quod non mortalibus hominibus, sed morientibus tantum Melchisedecum auctor opponat, nec immortalem eum esse, sed vivere dicit; vita autem non mortalitati sed morti proprie opponitur.
Something is aimed at in way of security unto another opinion, namely, that all men were created in a state of mortality, without respect unto sin. But nothing is gotten by this subtilty. For by dying men the apostle intends not men that were actually dying, as it were at the point of death; for in that condition the priests could neither execute their office nor receive tithes of the people. Only he describes such persons as in the whole course of their ministry were liable unto death from the common condition of mortality, and in their several seasons died accordingly. Wherefore dying men, or men subject to death, and mortal men, are in this case the same. And although life as to the principle of it be opposed unto death, yet as unto a continual duration, the thing here intended by the apostle, it is opposed unto mortality, or an obnoxiousness unto death. For a representation is designed of him who was made a priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Wherefore, saith the apostle,those who received tithes after the law were all of them mortal men, that had both beginning of days and end of life.So the death of Aaron, the first of them, and in him of all his successors, is recorded in the Scripture.
(2.) In opposition unto this state of the Levitical priests, it is affirmed that , in the case of Melchisedec, , it is witnessed that he liveth. How he liveth, and how it is witnessed unto that he liveth, we must inquire. For it is apparently Melchisedec of whom in the first place, as the type, these things are spoken; and yet we know that really and in his own person he was dead long before. But there are several things on the account whereof it is said that it is witnessed that he liveth. For,
[1.] Whatever the Scripture is silent in as to Melchisedec, which it usually relates of others in the like state, our apostle takes for a contrary testimony unto him. For he lays down this general principle, that what the Scripture conceals of Melchisedec, it doth it to instruct us in the mystery of his person and ministry, as types of Christ and his. Hence the silence of the Scripture, in what it useth to express, must in this case be interpreted as a testimony unto the contrary. So it witnesseth of him that he was without father, without mother, without descent, in that it mentioneth none of them. And whereas he hath neither beginning of days nor end of life recorded in the Scripture, it is thereby witnessed that, not absolutely, but as to his typical consideration, he liveth. For there are no bounds nor periods fixed unto his priesthood, nor did it expire by the bringing in that of Levi, as that did by the introduction of Christs.
[2.] He did actually continue his office unto the end of that dispensation of God and his worship wherein he was employed: and this witnesseth the perpetuity of his life, in opposition unto the Levitical priests; for these two states are compared by the apostle, that of Melchisedecand that of Levi. There was a time limited unto this priesthood in the house of Aaron; and during that time one priest died and another succeeded in several generations, until they were greatly multiplied, as the apostle observeth, verse 23. But during the whole dispensation of things with respect unto Melchisedec, he continued in his own person to execute his office, from first to last, without being subject unto death; wherein it is witnessed that he liveth.
[3.] He is said to live, that is, always to do so, because his office continueth for ever, and yet no mere mortal man succeeded him therein.
[4.] In this whole matter he is considered not absolutely and personally, but typically, and as a representation of somewhat else; and what is represented in the type, but is really, subjectively, and properly found only in the antitype, may be affirmed of the type as such. So it is in all sacramental institutions; as the paschal lamb was called expressly the LORDS passover, Exo 12:11, when it was only a pledge and token thereof; as, under the new testament, the bread and wine in the sacred supper are called the body and blood of Christ, which they do represent. Thus it is true really and absolutely of the Lord Jesus Christ, that he liveth for ever, that he is a priest for ever; which the apostle much insisteth on and urgeth unto his purpose afterwards. This eternity, or ever-living of Jesus Christ, was represented in Melchisedec, in that it is not said anywhere in the Scripture that he died: it is witnessed, therefore, that he liveth, because he whom he represents doth really do so, and his own death is not mentioned, on purpose that he might so represent him. And the apostles argument unto the dignity and pre-eminence of Melchisedec above the Levitical priests in this instance is of an unquestionable evidence: for consider Melchisedec, not in his natural being and existence, which belongs not unto this mystery, but in his Scripture being and existence, and he is immortal, always living; wherein he is more excellent than those who were always obnoxious unto death in the exercise of their office. And from the branches of this comparison we may take two observations:
Obs. 1. In the outward administration of his worship, God is pleased to make use of poor, frail, mortal, dying men. So he did of old, and so he continues still to do. Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever? Zec 1:5. The prophets of old, the most eminent administrators under the old testament, they were all mortal, dying men; and whilst they lived in this world they were subject unto like passions with other men, Jas 5:17. And the same account the apostle giveth us of the principal administrators of the new testament, 2Co 4:8-12; 2Co 6:8-10. And we know it is so with all those into whose hands the same work is transmitted. Yea, ofttimes, as to the infirmities of body and outward condition, their weakness and frailty are signalized above others. Nor doth any advantage accrue to the gospel by the secular exaltation of such as pretend unto the same employment; wherein, without other qualifications, they do little resemble the ministry of Christ himself. Such, I say, doth God please to make use of; persons obnoxious unto all infirmities and temptations with all other believers, and equally with them falling under the stroke of mortality. He could have accomplished his whole design immediately by his grace and Spirit, without the institution of any administrators; he could have employed his holy angels in the declaration and dispensation of the gospel; or he could have raised up men so signalized with wisdom, and all endowments of mind and body, as should have eminently distinguished them from the whole race of mankind besides: but waiving these, and all other ways possible and easy unto his infinite wisdom and power, he hath chosen to make use, in this great occasion, of poor, infirm, frail, tempted, sinning, dying men. And sundry reasons of this his holy counsel are expressed in the Scripture:
1. He doth it to make it evident that it is his own power, and nothing else, which gives efficacy and success unto all gospel administrations: 2Co 4:7,
We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
There is an excellency of power accompanying the dispensation of the word. Mighty spiritual effects are produced by it, such as wherein the glory of God doth consist, and whereon the eternal welfare of the souls of men doth depend. This glory, in subduing the adverse power of sin, Satan, and the world; in the quickening, sanctifying, saving the souls of the elect; God will be seen and owned in, he will not give it unto another. Whereas, therefore, those by whom these treasures are communicated unto others, are frail, perishing, earthen vessels, or those by whom the gospel is dispensed are poor, frail, weak men, seen and known so to be, there is no veil by their ministry cast over the glory of God. There is not a soul convinced, converted, or comforted by their word, but they may truly say of it as the apostles did of the miracle which they wrought, Act 3:12,
Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power and holiness we had made this man to walk,
this blind man to see, this dead man to live? By the consideration of our meanness all may discern that the excellency of this power is of God, and not of us. Yea, for this very end our apostle refused to make use of such a persuasiveness of words and exercise of wisdom as might give any appearance or countenance unto such an apprehension as though by them this effect were produced: 1Co 2:4-5,
My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.
And herein ought he to be an example unto us all. But it is come to that with many, that being destitute utterly of what he had, namely, an ability to dispense the word in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, they do wholly betake themselves unto what he refused, or the enticing words of mans wisdom, according to their ability. But what the Jews spoke blasphemously of Christ, upon his opening the eyes of him who was born blind, may in a sense be truly spoken of any of us upon the opening of the eyes of them that were spiritually blind, Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner, Joh 9:24.
2. God hath so ordered things, in wisdom and grace, that the administrators of holy things unto others might have experience in themselves of their state and condition, so as to be moved with compassion towards them, care about them, and zeal for them. Without these graces, and their constant exercise, men will be but very useless instruments in this work. And they will not grow anywhere but in mens own experience. For how shall he be tender, compassionate, careful towards the souls of others, who knows no reason why he should be so towards his own? The high priest of old was such an one a
could have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that were out of the way; for that he himself also was compassed with infirmity, Heb 5:2.
And therein was he a type of Christ, who was in all points tempted like as we are, that he might be ready to succor them that are tempted. This gave him the experience of compassion in the exercise of it. Wherefore, when a minister of the gospel knows his own weakness, infirmities, and temptations, his need of mercy and grace, the way of his obtaining supplies of them, the danger of the snares which he is exposed unto, the value of his own soul, the preciousness of the blood of Christ, and excellency of the eternal reward, he cannot, considering the charge committed unto him, and the duty required of him, but be moved with pity, compassion, tenderness, love, and zeal, towards those unto whom he doth administer; especially considering how greatly their eternal welfare depends on his ability, diligence, and faithfulness in the discharge of his duty. And this proves, on sundry accounts, greatly to the advantage of the poor tempted disciples of Christ; for it makes a representation unto them of his own compassion and love, as the great shepherd of the sheep, Isa 40:11; and causeth a needful supply of spiritual provision to be always in readiness for them, and that to be administered unto them with experience of its efficacy and success.
3. That the power of gospel grace and truth may be exemplified unto the eyes of them unto whom they are dispensed, in the persons of them by whom they are administered, according unto Gods appointment. It is known unto all who know aught in this matter, what temptations and objections will arise in the minds of poor sinners against their obtaining any interest in the grace and mercy that is dispensed in the gospel. Some, they judge, may be made partakers of them; but for them, and such as they are, there seems to be no relief provided. But is it no encouragement unto them, to see that, by Gods appointment, the tenders of his grace and mercy are made unto their souls by men subject unto like passions with themselves; and who, if they had not freely obtained grace, would have been as vile and unworthy as themselves? For as the Lord called the apostle Paul to the ministry, who had been a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious, that he might in him show forth all long- suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting, that is, for the encouragement even of such high criminal offenders to believe, 1Ti 1:13; 1Ti 1:16; so in more ordinary cases, the mercy and grace which the ministers of the gospel did equally stand in need of with those unto whom they dispense it, and who have received it, is for a pattern, example, and encouragement of them to believe after their example.
4. In particular, God maketh use of persons that die in this matter, that their testimony unto the truth of gospel grace and mercy may be complete and unquestionable. Death is the great touchstone and trial of all things of this nature, as to their efficacy and sincerity. Many things will yield relief in life, and various refreshments, which upon the approach of death vanish into nothing. So it is with all the comforts of this world, and with all things that have not an eternal truth and substance in them. Had not those, therefore, who dispense sacred things, been designed themselves to come unto this touchstone of their own faith, profession, and preaching, those who must die, and know always that they must do so, would have been unsatisfied what might have been the condition with them, had they been brought unto it; and so have ground to fear in themselves what will become of that faith wherein they have been instructed, in the warfare of death, when it shall approach. To obviate this fear and objection, God hath ordained that all those who administer the gospel shall all of them bring their own faith unto that last trial; that so, giving a testimony unto the sincerity and efficacy of the things which they have preached, in that they commit the eternal salvation of their souls unto them (and higher testimony none can give), they may be encouragements unto others to follow their example, to imitate their faith, and pursue their course unto the end. And for this cause also doth God ofttimes call them forth unto peculiar trials, exercises, afflictions, and death itself in martyrdom, that they may be an example and encouragement unto the whole church.
I cannot but observe, for a close of this discourse, that as the unavoidable infirmities of the ministers of the gospel, managed and passed through in a course of faith, holiness, and sincere obedience, are on many accounts of singular use and advantage unto the edification and consolation of the church; so the evil examples of any of them, in life and death, with the want of those graces which should be excited unto exercise by their infirmities, are pernicious thereunto.
Obs. 2. The life of the church depends on the everlasting life of Jesus Christ. It is said of Melchisedec, as he was a type of him, It is witnessed that he liveth. Christ doth so, and that for ever; and hereon, under the failings, infirmities, and death of all other administrators, depend the preservation, life, continuance, and salvation of the church. But this must be spoken to peculiarly on verse 25, whither it is remitted.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
men: Heb 7:23, Heb 9:27
he liveth: Heb 3:16, Heb 5:6, Heb 6:20, Heb 9:24, Heb 9:25, Joh 11:25, Joh 11:26, Joh 14:6, Joh 14:19, Rev 1:18
Reciprocal: Gen 48:21 – Behold Luk 24:5 – the living Heb 7:24 – he continueth Heb 7:25 – ever Rev 4:9 – who
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE EUCHARIST
It is witnessed that He liveth.
Heb 7:8
Amidst the manifold, the inexhaustible significance of the Holy Communion, there is one side or element not very often dwelt upon, but which is fit to be of the utmost help in some states of the soul. I mean the evidential aspect of it.
I. It is the supreme thanksgiving of the Church; and this it has been, in all reasonable certainty, from the very first. And from the very first, from a time long before the writing of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, it has been the commemoration of precisely the Lords Death. To us, habituated to Christianity, the collocation of Eucharist and Crucifixion is hardly seen, without an effort, to be the immeasurable and eloquent paradox which it is.
II. But reflection as simple as possible carries us to the consideration, which then only gains in felt solidity and force as we test it from every side, that nothing could conceivably have put those two things togethercould have called out the adoring Thanksgivings of the Church in immediate connection with the murderous execution of her Lordbut His victory, out and out, and from every point of view, over death; His resurrection from the dead, in the power of an indissoluble life.
III. Do we want to reassure ourselves that, in the faith by which we live, the holy love-power of the Unseen and an impregnable history fuse themselves into one unique truth of light and peace? Let us frequent the Holy Communion. There, made concrete to our very senses, is the whole Gospel of the grace of God. There, poured at the same moment into our reason and into our love, is the certainty, across all enigmas, that Jesus died and rose again.
Bishop H. C. G. Moule.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Heb 7:8. The word here stands for the Levitical priesthood, and there refers to that of Melchisedec. Men that die is said because the priests under the Levitical order ceased to serve because of death and the event was recorded. Whereas there is no record of the death of Melchisedec, and as far as the historical account is concerned he is still living. The point is that while the priests designated by here had tithes given them, yet they were subject to death. The priest designated by there also received tithes, but there is no account of his death. This makes him superior to the other priests notwithstanding both orders received tithes.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 7:8. And here indeed (as in Heb 7:5, indeed is useful only to make more clear the contrast of the following clause; an emphatic and here would be better) refers not to the time of Melchisedec, though that is last spoken of, but to the time of the Levitical priesthood, which extends down to the writers own age.
Men that die (literally, dying men they are who) receive tithes; but there (i.e in the case of Melchisedec of which he is immediately speaking, but which as belonging to the past is more remote) he receiveth them, of whom It is witnessed that he liveth, i.e we read of him not as dying but as living. No end of life is affirmed of him at all. This is spoken not of Melchisedec as man, but of the Melchisedec of the sacred narrative, who is made in this way like unto the eternal priest. As man he no doubt died, but as priest he did not belong to that order. Under the law the priesthood was temporary. Before the law the priest was priest as long as he lived, and so was perpetual (as at Rome the dictator for life was known as Dictator perpetuus); and as Christ lives for ever, so for ever He is able to make intercession for us.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle still carrieth on the same argument, proving Melchizedek’s priesthood to surpass and excel the Aaronical and Levitical priesthood in the immortality of it: As the less is blessed of the greater, so is that which is immortal greater and better than what is mortal: But such is Melchizedek, and his order of priesthood, though the priests be superior to the people, and take tithes of them, yet they do die as well as the people: But we read not a word of Melchizedek’s death, he is a priest for ever; that is, he did typically prefigure Christ, who doth properly and indeed live for ever. Melchizedek ever lives secundam historiam, Christ secundam veritatem.
Learn hence, That the life of the church depends upon the everlasting life of Jesus Christ: He liveth for ever, when ministers die or have their mouths stopped. This great High Priest lives, upon whom the life and preservation, the continuance and salvation of the church does depend: Here men die that receive tithes.
Note, From their mortality, that in the outward administration of God’s worship, he is pleased to make use of the ministry of frail, mortal and dying men. Zec 1:5.
The prophets, do they live for ever?
Hereby it does evidently appear, that it is the power of God, and nothing else, which gives efficacy and success to all gospel-administrations, 2Co 4:7.
We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Melchizedek’s Superiority to Levi
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Heb 7:8-10. And here In the Levitical priesthood; men that die, receive tithes, but there In the case of Melchisedec; he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him, but is represented only as living, being mentioned in such a way as if he lived for ever. And even Levi, who received tithes Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes in the person of Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father This might justly be said of Levi, who descended from Abraham in the ordinary course of generation. But it cannot be said of Christ, who was born in a miraculous manner, without any human father. While, therefore, the apostles argument, taken from Abrahams paying tithes to Melchisedec, and his receiving the blessing from him, proves that both Abraham and the Levitical priests, his natural descendants, were inferior to Melchisedec, it does not apply to Christ at all. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 8
Here; under the Mosaic dispensation.–There; referring to Melchisedec.–It is witnessed that he liveth; he appears, so far as there is any witness or testimony concerning him, in life, and in the full possession of power.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
The sons of Levi, who received tithes from their brethren, died, but Melchizedek, who received tithes from Abraham, lived on. Melchizedek was immortal as far as the specific revelation of Scripture states. In contrast, Moses wrote that Abraham, Levi, and the Aaronic priests all died.