Text -- Hebrews 7:1-16 (NET)

The Nature of Melchizedek’s Priesthood

7:1 Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him. 7:2 To him also Abraham apportioned a tithe of everything. His name first means king of righteousness, then king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time. 7:4 But see how great he must be, if Abraham the patriarch gave him a tithe of his plunder. 7:5 And those of the sons of Levi who receive the priestly office have authorization according to the law to collect a tithe from the people, that is, from their fellow countrymen, although they too are descendants of Abraham. 7:6 But Melchizedek who does not share their ancestry collected a tithe from Abraham and blessed the one who possessed the promise. 7:7 Now without dispute the inferior is blessed by the superior, 7:8 and in one case tithes are received by mortal men, while in the other by him who is affirmed to be alive. 7:9 And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. 7:10 For he was still in his ancestor Abraham’s loins when Melchizedek met him.

Jesus and the Priesthood of Melchizedek

7:11 So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood– for on that basis the people received the law– what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order? 7:12 For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come as well. 7:13 Yet the one these things are spoken about belongs to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever officiated at the altar. 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord is descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests in connection with that tribe. 7:15 And this is even clearer if another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 7:16 who has become a priest not by a legal regulation about physical descent but by the power of an indestructible life.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Heb 7:1

This Melchizedek ( houtos ho Melchisedek ).

The one already mentioned several times with whose priesthood that of Christ is compared and which is older and of a higher type than that of Aaron. See Gen 14:18-20; Psa 110:1-7 for the only account of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is a daring thing to put Melchizedek above Aaron, but the author does it. Moffatt calls Heb 7:1-3 "a little sermon"on Heb 6:20. It is "for ever"(eis ton aiōna ) that he explains. Melchizedek is the only one in his line and stands alone in the record in Genesis. The interpretation is rabbinical in method, but well adapted to Jewish readers. The description is taken verbatim from Genesis except that "who met"(ho sunantēsas ) is here applied to Melchizedek from Gen 14:17 instead of to the King of Sodom. They both met Abraham as a matter of fact. For this verb (first aorist active participle of sunantaō ) see Luk 9:37.

Robertson: Heb 7:1

Slaughter ( kopēs ).

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

Robertson: Heb 7:1

Priest of God Most High ( hiereus tou theou tou hupsistou ).

He is called "priest"and note tou hupsistou applied to God as the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews did. It is used also of Zeus and the Maccabean priest-kings. The demons apply it to God (Mar 5:7; Luk 8:28).

Robertson: Heb 7:2

A tenth ( dekatēn ).

It was common to offer a tenth of the spoils to the gods. So Abraham recognized Melchizedek as a priest of God.

Robertson: Heb 7:2

Divided ( emerisen ).

First aorist active of merizō , from meros (portion), to separate into parts. From this point till near the end of Heb 7:3 (the Son of God) is a long parenthesis with houtos of Heb 7:1 as the subject of menei (abideth) as the Revised Version punctuates it. Philo had made popular the kind of exegesis used here. The author gives in Greek the meaning of the Hebrew words Melchizedek (King of righteousness, cf. Heb 1:8) and Salem (peace).

Robertson: Heb 7:3

Without father, without mother, without genealogy ( apatōr ,amētōr ,agenealogētos ).

Alliteration like Rom 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.

Robertson: Heb 7:3

Made like ( aphōmoiōmenos ).

Perfect passive participle of aphomoioō , 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.

Robertson: Heb 7:3

Unto the Son of God ( tōi huiōi tou theou ).

Associative instrumental case of huios .

Robertson: Heb 7:3

Abideth a priest ( menei hiereus ).

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.

Robertson: Heb 7:3

Continually ( eis to diēnekes ).

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

Robertson: Heb 7:4

How great ( pēlikos ).

Geometrical magnitude in contrast to arithmetical (posos ), here only in N.T., "how distinguished."He received tithes from Abraham (Heb 7:4-6) and he blessed Abraham (Heb 7:6-7) and even Levi is included (Heb 7:8-10).

Robertson: Heb 7:4

Out of the chief spoils ( ek tōn akrothiniōn ).

Old word from akros , top, and this , a heap (the top of the pile).

Robertson: Heb 7:4

Patriarch ( patriarchēs ).

lxx word (patria , tribe, archō , to rule) transferred to N.T. (Act 2:29).

Robertson: Heb 7:5

The priest’ s office ( tēn hierateian ).

lxx and Koiné word from hiereus , in N.T. only here and Luk 1:9.

Robertson: Heb 7:5

To take tithes ( apodekatoin ).

Present active infinitive (in -oin , not -oun , as the best MSS. give it) of apodekatoō a lxx word (apo ,dekatoō ), to take a tenth from (apo ).

Robertson: Heb 7:5

Brethren ( adelphous ).

Accusative case in apposition with laon (people) unaffected by the explanatory phrase tout' estin (that is).

Robertson: Heb 7:5

Though come out ( kaiper exelēluthotas ).

Concessive participle (cf. Heb 5:8) with kaiper (perfect active of exerchomai ).

Robertson: Heb 7:6

He whose genealogy is not counted ( ho mē genealogoumenos ).

Articular participle with negative mē (usual with participles) of the old verb genealogeō trace ancestry (cf. Heb 7:3)

Robertson: Heb 7:6

Hath taken tithes ( dedekatōken ).

Perfect active indicative of dekatoō , standing on record in Genesis.

Robertson: Heb 7:6

Hath blessed ( eulogēken ).

Perfect active indicative of eulogeō , likewise standing on record. Note the frequent perfect tenses in Hebrews.

Robertson: Heb 7:6

Him that hath the promises ( ton echonta tas epaggelias ).

Cf. Heb 6:12, Heb 6:13-15 for allusion to the repeated promises to Abraham (Gen 12:3, Gen 12:7; Gen 13:14; Gen 15:5; Gen 17:5; Gen 22:16-18).

Robertson: Heb 7:7

Dispute ( antilogias ).

Ablative case with chōris . For the word see Heb 6:16. The writer makes a parenthetical generalization and uses the article and neuter adjective (to elasson , the less, hupo tou kreittonos , by the better), a regular Greek idiom.

Robertson: Heb 7:8

Here ( hōde ).

In the Levitical system.

Robertson: Heb 7:8

There ( ekei ).

In the case of Melchizedek.

Robertson: Heb 7:8

Of whom it is witnessed ( marturoumenos ).

"Being witnessed,"present passive participle of martureō (personal construction, not impersonal).

Robertson: Heb 7:8

That he lives ( hoti zēi ).

Present active indicative of zaō ). The Genesis record tells nothing of his death.

Robertson: Heb 7:9

So to say ( hōs epos eipein ).

An old idiom, here only in the N.T., common in Philo, used to limit a startling statement, an infinitive for conceived result with hōs .

Robertson: Heb 7:9

Hath paid tithes ( dedekatōtai ).

Perfect passive indicative of dekatoō , "has been tithed."This could only be true of Levi "so to speak."

Robertson: Heb 7:10

In the loins of his father ( en tēi osphui tou patros ).

Levi was not yet born. The reference is to Abraham, the forefather (patros ) of Levi. This is a rabbinical imaginative refinement appealing to Jews.

Robertson: Heb 7:11

Perfection ( teleiōsis ).

Abstract substantive of teleioō . More the act than the quality or state (teleiotēs , Heb 6:1). The condition is of the second class, "if there were perfection, etc."The Levitical priesthood failed to give men "a perfectly adequate relation to God"(Moffatt).

Robertson: Heb 7:11

Priesthood ( hierosunēs ).

Old word, in N.T. only here, Heb 7:12, Heb 7:24. Cf. hieretia in Heb 7:5. The adjective Leueitikē occurs in Philo.

Robertson: Heb 7:11

Received the law ( nenomothetētai ).

Perfect passive indicative of nomotheteō , old compound to enact law (nomos ,tithēmi ), to furnish with law (as here), only other N.T. example in Heb 8:6.

Robertson: Heb 7:11

What further need was there? ( tis eti chreia ).

No copula expressed, but it would normally be ēn an , not just ēn : "What need still would there be?"

Robertson: Heb 7:11

Another priest ( heteron hierea ).

Of a different line (heteron ), not just one more (allon ). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive anistasthai (present middle of anistēmi intransitive).

Robertson: Heb 7:11

And not to be reckoned ( kai ou legesthai ).

The negative ou belongs rather to the descriptive clause than just to the infinitive.

Robertson: Heb 7:12

The priesthood being changed ( metatithemenēs tēs hierosunēs ).

Genitive absolute with present passive participle of metatithēmi , old word to transfer (Gal 1:6).

Robertson: Heb 7:12

A change ( metathesis ).

Old substantive from metatithēmi . In N.T. only in Heb. (Heb 7:12; Heb 11:5; Heb 12:27). God’ s choice of another kind of priesthood for his Son, left the Levitical line off to one side, forever discounted, passed by "the order of Aaron"(tēn taxin Aarōn ).

Robertson: Heb 7:13

Belongeth to another tribe ( phulēs heteras meteschēken ).

See Heb 2:14 for metechō , perfect active indicative here. A different (heteras ) tribe.

Robertson: Heb 7:13

Hath given attendance at ( proseschēken ).

Perfect active indicative (watch perfects in Hebrews, not "for"aorists) of prosechō , old verb, here with either noun (mind) or self (heauton ) understood with dative case (tōi thusiastēriōi , the altar, for which word see Mat 5:23; Luk 1:11).

Robertson: Heb 7:14

It is evident ( prodēlon ).

Old compound adjective (pro ,dēlos ), openly manifest to all, in N.T. only here and 1Ti 5:24.

Robertson: Heb 7:14

Hath sprung ( anatetalken ).

Perfect active indicative of anatellō , old compound to rise up like the sun (Mat 5:45).

Robertson: Heb 7:15

Yet more abundantly evident ( perissoteron eti katadēlon ).

Only N.T. instance of the old compound adjective katadēlos thoroughly clear with eti (still) added and the comparative perissoteron (more abundantly) piling Ossa on Pelion like Phi 1:23.

Robertson: Heb 7:15

Likeness ( homoiotēta ).

See Heb 4:15, only N.T. examples. Cf. the verb in Heb 7:3.

Robertson: Heb 7:15

Ariseth another priest ( anistatai hiereus heteros ).

As said in Heb 7:11, now assumed in condition of first class.

Robertson: Heb 7:16

Carnal ( sarkinēs ).

"Fleshen"as in 1Co 3:1, not sarkikēs (fleshlike, 1Co 3:3). The Levitical priests became so merely by birth.

Robertson: Heb 7:16

Of an endless life ( zōēs akatalutou ).

Late compound (alpha privative and verbal adjective from kataluō , to dissolve, as in 2Co 4:1), indissoluble. Jesus as priest lives on forever. He is Life.

Vincent: Heb 7:1

For this Melchisedec, etc.

See Gen 14:18-20; Psa 110:1-7.

Vincent: Heb 7:2

First being by interpretation King of righteousness ( πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης )

The first designation is the literal interpretation of the Hebrew name. Being interpreted belongs only to this designation. So Joseph Ant . 1:10, 2: σημαίνει δε τοῦτο βασιλεὺς δίκαιος " and this (the name Melchisedec) signifies righteous king ."

Vincent: Heb 7:2

And after that also ( ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ )

Then follows a designation derived from his character, king of peace . Supply being ; not being interpreted .

Vincent: Heb 7:2

Salem

Commonly regarded as the site of Jerusalem. It has also been supposed to represent Σαλείμ Salim , mentioned in Joh 3:23. Jerome says that the place retained that name in his day, and that the ruins of Melchisedec's palace were shown there. The ancient name of Jerusalem was Jebus. Others, again, suppose that Salem is not the name of a place, but is merely the appellation of Melchisedec. The passage in Genesis, however, points to a place, and the writer might naturally have desired to indicate the typical meaning of the city over which Melchisedec reigned.

Vincent: Heb 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent ( ἀπάτωρ, ἀμὴτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος )

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.

Vincent: Heb 7:3

Having neither beginning of days nor end of life

That is to say, history is silent concerning his birth and death.

Vincent: Heb 7:3

But made like unto the Son of God ( ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ )

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.

Vincent: Heb 7:3

Abideth a priest continually ( μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές )

Διηνεκής from διαφέρειν 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, Isa 9:7; Isa 11:4, Isa 11:10; 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.

Vincent: Heb 7:4

The superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood to the Levitical.

Consider ( θεωρεῖτε )

Only here in Hebrews and o P. Except this passage, confined to the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and Johannine writings. See on Luk 10:18; see on Joh 1:18.

Vincent: Heb 7:4

How great ( πηλίκος )

Only here and Gal 6:11.

Vincent: Heb 7:4

The patriarch ( ὁ πατριάρχης )

Only here and in Acts.

Vincent: Heb 7:4

The tenth ( δεκάτην )

Properly an adjective, but used as a noun for tithe . Only in Hebrews, as is the kindred verb δεκατοῦν to impose or take tithes . Ἀποδεκατοῖν to exact tithes , Heb 7:5. Comp. Mat 23:23; Luk 11:42.

Vincent: Heb 7:4

Of the spoils ( ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων )

The noun N.T.o , from ἅρκον topmost point , and θίς a heap . The top of the pile: the " pick" of the spoil.

Vincent: Heb 7:5

If Melchisedec was greater than Abraham, he was greater than Abraham's descendants, including the tribe of Levi.

They that are of the sons of Levi who receive, etc. ( οἱ ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Λευεὶ λαμβάνοντες )

Those out of the sons of Levi who become priests. Not those who receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi. Not all Levites were priests, but only those of the house of Aaron.

Vincent: Heb 7:5

The office of the priesthood ( τὴν ἱερατίαν )

Only here and Luk 1:9.

Vincent: Heb 7:5

A commandment ( ἐντολὴν )

A special injunction. See on Jam 2:8; see on Eph 2:15.

Vincent: Heb 7:5

To take tithes ( ἀποδεκατοῖν )

See on Heb 7:4.

Vincent: Heb 7:5

That is of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham

The people, the brethren of the Levites, are descended from their common ancestor, Abraham, yet the Levites exact tithes from them.

Vincent: Heb 7:6

But he whose descent is not counted from them ( ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν )

Lit. he who is not genealogically derived from them: Melchisedec. The verb N.T.o .

Vincent: Heb 7:6

Received tithes of Abraham

Melchisedec, who has no part in the Levitical genealogy, and therefore no legal right to exact tithes, took tithes from the patriarch himself. Hence he was greater than Abraham. The right of the Levitical priest to receive tithes was only a legal right, conferred by special statute, and therefore implied no intrinsic superiority to his brethren; but Melchisedec, though having no legal right, received tithes from Abraham as a voluntary gift, which implied Abraham's recognition of his personal greatness.

Vincent: Heb 7:6

And hath blessed him that had the promises

Melchisedec accepted the position accorded to him by Abraham's gift of tithes by bestowing on Abraham his blessing, and Abraham recognized his superiority by accepting his blessing. He who had received the divine promises might have been supposed to be above being blessed by any man. The significance of this acceptance is brought out in the next verse.

Vincent: Heb 7:7

Without all contradiction ( χωρὶς πάσης ἀντιλογίας )

Asserting a principle which no one thinks of questioning: it is the less who is blessed, and the greater who blesses.

Vincent: Heb 7:8

Here ( ὧδε )

In the Levitical economy.

Vincent: Heb 7:8

Men that die receive tithes

The emphasis is on ἀποθνήσκοντες dying . The Levites are dying men, who pass away in due course, and are succeeded by others.

Vincent: Heb 7:8

But there ( ἐκεῖ δὲ )

In the case of Melchisedec.

Vincent: Heb 7:8

(He receiveth them of whom) it is witnessed that he liveth ( μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ )

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 , Heb 7:3.

Vincent: Heb 7:9

Levi himself, in the person of Abraham, was tithed by Melchisedec.

As I may say ( ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν )

= so to speak . N.T.o . o lxx. Introducing an unusual statement, or one which may appear paradoxical or startling to the reader, as this statement certainly is, to a modern reader at least.

Vincent: Heb 7:9

In Abraham ( δι ' Ἀβραὰμ )

Lit. through Abraham.

Vincent: Heb 7:10

In the loins of his father ( ἐν τῇ ὀσφύΐ τοῦ πατρὸς )

His own father; not of Abraham.

Vincent: Heb 7:10

When Melchisedec met him

In the person of Abraham. The whole Jewish law, its ordinances and priesthood, are regarded as potentially in Abraham. When Abraham paid tithes, Levi paid tithes. When Abraham was blessed, Israel was blessed. It is a kind of reasoning which would appeal to Hebrews, who so strongly emphasized the solidarity of their race. Comp. Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5.

Vincent: Heb 7:11

In Christ, as the Melchisedec-priest, the ideal of the priesthood is realized.

Perfection ( τελείωσις )

Only here and Luk 1:45. The act or process of consummating. By this word is signified the establishment of a perfect fellowship between God and the worshipper. See Heb 9:9; Heb 10:1.

Vincent: Heb 7:11

Priesthood ( ἱερωσύνης )

Only in Hebrews. See Heb 7:12, Heb 7:14. It expresses the abstract notion of the priest's office; while ἱερατία Heb 7:5, expresses the priestly service .

Vincent: Heb 7:11

For under it the people received the law ( γὰρ ἐπ ' αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται )

Under , rather on the basis of . The verb lit. the law has been laid down . Only here and Heb 8:6.

Vincent: Heb 7:11

What further need ( τίς ἔτι χρεία )

Ἔτι after that , assuming that there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood.

Vincent: Heb 7:11

Another priest ( ἕτερον ἱερέα )

Not merely another , but a different kind of priest. See on Mat 6:24.

Vincent: Heb 7:11

Should rise ( ἀνίστασθαι )

In Hebrews only here and Heb 7:15, both times in connection with priest .

Vincent: Heb 7:12

Being changed ( μετατιθεμένης )

Or transferred to another order. See on Gal 1:6.

Vincent: Heb 7:12

A change ( μετάθεσις )

A transfer to a new basis. Only in Hebrews. See Heb 11:5; Heb 12:27. The inferiority of the Levitical priesthood is inferred from the fact that another priesthood was promised. If perfection was possible at all under the Mosaic economy, it must come through the Levitical priesthood, since that priesthood was, in a sense, the basis of the law. The whole legal system centered in it. The fundamental idea of the law was that of a people united with God. Sin, the obstacle to this ideal union, was dealt with through the priesthood. If the law failed to effect complete fellowship with God, the priesthood was shown to be a failure, and must be abolished; and the change of the priesthood involved the abolition of the entire legal system.

Vincent: Heb 7:13

As the law prescribed that the priesthood should be of the order of Aaron, a new priesthood, not of that order, must set aside the law.

Pertaineth to another tribe ( φυλῆς ἑτέρας μετέσχηκεν )

Lit. hath partaken of another tribe . Not only another , but a different tribe; one not specially set apart to sacerdotal service.

Vincent: Heb 7:13

Of which no man gave attendance at the altar ( ἀφ ' ἧς οὐδεὶς προσέσχηκεν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ )

Προσέχειν originally to bring to ; bring the mind to ; attend to . See on Heb 2:1. θυσιαστήριον altar , o Class. Strictly an altar for the sacrifice of victims; but used of the altar of incense, Luk 1:11; Rev 8:3; comp. Exo 30:1. See on Act 17:23. It was also used of the enclosure in which the altar stood. See Ignat. Eph . v; Trall . vii. See Lightfoot's interesting note, Ignatius and Polycarp , Vol. II., p. 43.

Vincent: Heb 7:14

Evident ( πρόδηλον )

Obvious. See on 1Ti 5:24.

Vincent: Heb 7:14

Sprang ( ἀνατέταλκεν )

Rend. hath sprung . In N.T. always of the rising of a heavenly body, sun or star, except Luk 12:54, of a cloud, and here. See lxx, Gen 32:31; Exo 22:3; Num 24:17; Jdg 9:33; Isa 14:12; Isa 40:1; Mal 4:2. Also of the springing up of plants, Gen 2:5; Gen 3:18; Deu 29:23; of the growing of the beard, 2Sa 10:5.

Vincent: Heb 7:15

Evident ( κατάδηλον )

N.T.o . Thoroughly evident. Not referring to that which is declared to be πρόδηλον evident in Heb 7:14, viz., that Christ sprang out of Judah, but to the general proposition - the unsatisfactory character of the Levitical priesthood.

Vincent: Heb 7:15

Similitude ( ὁμιότητα )

Better, likeness: answering to made like , Heb 7:3, and emphasizing the personal resemblance to Melchisedec.

Vincent: Heb 7:16

The law of a carnal commandment ( νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης )

The phrase N.T.o . Νόμον the norm or standard , as Rom 7:21, Rom 7:23. Εντολῆς, the specific precept of the Mosaic law regarding Levitical priests. Comp. Eph 2:15. Σαρκίνης fleshly , indicates that the conditions of the Levitical priesthood had reference to the body. Fitness for office was determined largely by physical considerations. The priest must be of proper descent, without bodily blemish, ceremonially pure. See Heb 9:1-5, Heb 9:10, and comp. Rom 8:3. Such a priesthood cannot be eternal.

Vincent: Heb 7:16

After the power of an endless life ( κατὰ δύαναμιν ἀκαταλύτου )

Δύναμιν inherent virtue . Rend. for endless , indissoluble . Comp. καταλύθῃ loosened down , of a tent, 2Co 5:1; of the stones of the temple, Mat 24:2. Jesus was high priest in virtue of the energy of indissoluble life which dwelt in him, unlike the priests who die, Heb 7:8. This truth the writer finds in the Psalm.

Wesley: Heb 7:1

The sum of this chapter is, Christ, as appears from his type, Melchisedec, who was greater than Abraham himself, from whom Levi descended, has a priesthood altogether excellent, new, firm, perpetual. Gen 14:18, &c.

Wesley: Heb 7:2

According to the meaning of his own name. King of righteousness, then - According to the name of his city.

Wesley: Heb 7:2

So in him, as in Christ, righteousness and peace were joined. And so they are in all that believe in him.

Wesley: Heb 7:3

Recorded, without any account of his descent from any ancestors of the priestly order. Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life - Mentioned by Moses.

Wesley: Heb 7:3

In all these respects.

Wesley: Heb 7:3

Who is really without father, as to his human nature; without mother, as to his divine; and in this also, without pedigree - Neither descended from any ancestors of the priestly order.

Wesley: Heb 7:3

Nothing is recorded of the death or successor of Melchisedec. But Christ alone does really remain without death, and without successor.

Wesley: Heb 7:4

The greatness of Melchisedec is described in all the preceding and following particulars. But the most manifest proof of it was, that Abraham gave him tithes as to a priest of God and a superior; though he was himself a patriarch, greater than a king, and a progenitor of many kings.

Wesley: Heb 7:5

Sprung from Abraham as well as themselves. The Levites therefore are greater than they; but the priests are greater than the Levites, the patriarch Abraham than the priests, and Melchisedec than him.

Wesley: Heb 7:6

The Levites Blessed - Another proof of his superiority.

Wesley: Heb 7:6

That was so highly favoured of God. When St. Paul speaks of Christ, he says, "the promise;" promises refer to other blessings also.

Wesley: Heb 7:7

Authoritatively, of the greater.

Wesley: Heb 7:8

In the Levitical priesthood.

Wesley: Heb 7:8

In the case of Melchisedec.

Wesley: Heb 7:8

Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him; but is represented only as living, no mention being made either of his birth or death.

Wesley: Heb 7:9

Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes - In the person of Abraham.

Wesley: Heb 7:11

The apostle now demonstrates that the Levitical priesthood must yield to the priesthood of Christ, because Melchisedec, after whose order he is a priest, Is opposed to Aaron, Heb 7:11-14. Hath no end of life, Heb 7:15-19, but "remaineth a priest continually." If now perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - If this perfectly answered all God's designs and man's wants For under it the people received the law - Whence some might infer, that perfection was by that priesthood. What farther need was there, that another priest - Of a new order, should be set up? From this single consideration it is plain, that both the priesthood and the law, which were inseparably connected, were now to give way to a better priesthood and more excellent dispensation.

Wesley: Heb 7:12

One of these cannot be changed without the other.

Wesley: Heb 7:13

But the priesthood is manifestly changed from one order to another, and from one tribe to another.

Wesley: Heb 7:13

Namely, Jesus.

Wesley: Heb 7:13

That of Judah. Of which no man was suffered by the law to attend on, or minister at, the altar.

Wesley: Heb 7:14

Whatever difficulties have arisen since, during so long a tract of time, it was then clear beyond dispute.

Wesley: Heb 7:15

Both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, but of a quite different order.

Wesley: Heb 7:16

A priest.

Wesley: Heb 7:16

Not according to the Mosaic law, which consisted chiefly of commandments that were carnal, compared to the spirituality of the gospel.

Wesley: Heb 7:16

Which he has in himself, as the eternal Son of God.

JFB: Heb 7:1

(Heb 6:20; Psa 110:4). The verb does not come till Heb 7:3, "abideth."

JFB: Heb 7:1

Christ unites these offices in their highest sense, and so restores the patriarchal union of these offices.

JFB: Heb 7:1

Jerusalem, that is, seeing peace; others make Salem distinct, and to be that mentioned (Gen 33:18; Joh 3:23).

JFB: Heb 7:1

Called also "Possessor of heaven and earth" (Gen 14:19, Gen 14:22). This title of God, "the Most High," handed down by tradition from the primitive revelation, appears in the Phœnician god "Elion," that is, Most High. It is used to imply that the God whom Melchisedec served is THE TRUE GOD, and not one of the gods of the nations around. So it is used in the only other cases in which it is found in the New Testament, namely in the address of the demoniac, and the divining damsel constrained to confess that her own gods were false, and God the only true God.

JFB: Heb 7:1

In company with the king of Sodom (Gen 14:17-18).

JFB: Heb 7:1

Perhaps defeat, as ALFORD translates. So Gen 14:17 (compare Gen 14:15) may be translated. Arioch, king of Ellasar, lived and reigned after the disaster [BENGEL]. However, if Chedorlaomer and Amraphel and Tidal were slain, though Arioch survived, "slaughter of the kings" would be correct.

JFB: Heb 7:1

As priest he first blessed Abraham on God's part; next he blessed God on Abraham's part: a reciprocal blessing. Not a mere wish, but an authoritative and efficacious intercession as a priest. The Most High God's prerogative as "Possessor of heaven and earth," is made over to Abraham; and Abraham's glory, from his victory over the foe, is made over to God. A blessed exchange for Abraham (Gen 14:19-20).

JFB: Heb 7:2

Greek, "apportioned"; assigned as his portion.

JFB: Heb 7:2

Namely, the booty taken. The tithes given are closely associated with the priesthood: the mediating priest received them as a pledge of the giver's whole property being God's; and as he conveyed God's gifts to man (Heb 7:1, "blessed him"), so also man's gifts to God. Melchisedec is a sample of how God preserves, amidst general apostasy, an elect remnant. The meeting of Melchisedec and Abraham is the connecting link between to two dispensations, the patriarchal, represented by Melchisedec, who seems to have been specially consecrated by God as a KING-PRIEST, the highest form of that primitive system in which each father of a household was priest in it, and the Levitical, represented by Abraham, in which the priesthood was to be limited to one family of one tribe and one nation. The Levitical was parenthetical, and severed the kingdom and priesthood; the patriarchal was the true forerunner of Christ's, which, like Melchisedec's, unites the kingship and priesthood, and is not derived from other man, or transmitted to other man; but derived from God, and is transmitted in God to a never-ending perpetuity. Melchisedec's priesthood continueth in Christ for ever. For other points of superiority, see Heb 7:16-21. Melchisedec must have had some special consecration above the other patriarchs, as Abraham, who also exercised the priesthood; else Abraham would not have paid tithe to him as to a superior. His peculiar function seems to have been, by God's special call, KING-priest whereas no other "patriarch-priest" was also a God-consecrated king.

JFB: Heb 7:2

Paul begins the mystical explanation of the historical fact (allegorical explanations being familiar to JEWS), by mentioning the significancy of the name.

JFB: Heb 7:2

Not merely righteous: so Christ. Hebrew "Malchi" means king: "Tzedek," righteousness.

JFB: Heb 7:2

Not only his own name, but that of the city which he ruled, had a typical significance, namely, peace. Christ is the true Prince of peace. The peace which He brings is the fruit of righteousness.

JFB: Heb 7:3

Explained by "without genealogy" (so the Greek is for "without descent); compare Heb 7:6, that is, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priest could not dispense with the proof of his descent.

JFB: Heb 7:3

Namely, history not having recorded his beginning nor end, as it has the beginning and end of Aaron. The Greek idiom expressed by "without father," &c., one whose parentage was humble or unknown. "Days" mean his time of discharging his function. So the eternity spoken of in Psa 110:4 is that of the priestly office chiefly.

JFB: Heb 7:3

It is not said that he was asbsolutely "like." Made like, namely, in the particulars here specified. Nothing is said in Genesis of the end of his priesthood, or of his having had in his priesthood either 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: typically significant. "The Son of God" is not said to be made like unto Melchisedec, but Melchisedec to be "made like the Son of God." When ALFORD denies that Melchisedec was made like the Son of God in respect of his priesthood, on the ground that Melchisedec was prior in time to our Lord, he forgets that Christ's eternal priesthood was an archetypal reality in God's purpose from everlasting, to which Melchisedec's priesthood was "made like" in due time. The Son of God is the more ancient, and is the archetype: compare Heb 8:5, where the heavenly things are represented as the primary archetype of the Levitical ordinances. The epithets, "without father," &c. "beginning of days, "nor end," "abideth continually," belong to Melchisedec only in respect to his priesthood, and in so far as he is the type of the Son of God, and are strictly true of Him alone. Melchisedec was, in his priesthood, "made like" Christ, as far as the imperfect type could represent the lineaments of the perfect archetype. "The portrait of a living man can be seen on the canvas, yet the man is very different from his picture." There is nothing in the account, Gen 14:18-20, to mark Melchisedec as a superhuman being: he is classed with the other kings in the chapter as a living historic personage: not as ORIGEN thought, an angel; nor as the Jews thought, Shem, son of Noah; nor as CALMET, Enoch; nor as the Melchisedekites, that he was the Holy Ghost; nor as others, the Divine Word. He was probably of Shemitic, not Canaanite origin: the last independent representative of the original Shemitic population, which had been vanquished by the Canaanites, Ham's descendants. The greatness of Abraham then lay in hopes; of Melchisedec, in present possession. Melchisedec was the highest and last representative of the Noahic covenant, as Christ was the highest and ever enduring representative of the Abrahamic. Melchisedec, like Christ, unites in himself the kingly and priestly offices, which Abraham does not. ALFORD thinks the epithets are, in some sense, strictly true of Melchisedec himself; not merely in the typical sense given above; but that he had not, as mortal men have, a beginning or end of life (?). A very improbable theory, and only to be resorted to in the last extremity, which has no place here. With Melchisedec, whose priesthood probably lasted a long period, the priesthood and worship of the true God in Canaan ceased. 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 of the thing itself (namely, his life, and the continuance of God's worship in Canaan) admits. If Melchisedec were high priest for ever in a literal sense, then Christ and he would now still be high priests, and we should have two instead of one (!). THOLUCK remarks, "Melchisedec remains in so far as the type remains in the antitype, in so far as his priesthood remains in Christ." The father and mother of Melchisedec, as also his children, are not descended from Levi, as the Levitical priests (Heb 7:6) were required to 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 nation itself. As man, Christ had no father; as God, no mother.

JFB: Heb 7:4

Not merely see, but weigh with attentive contemplation, the fact.

JFB: Heb 7:4

"to whom (as his superior) Abraham even paid tithe (went so far as to pay tithe) of (consisting of, literally, 'from') the best of the spoils (literally, 'the top of the heap"; whether of corn, the first-fruits of which, taken from the top, used to be consecrated to God; or of spoils, from the top of which the general used to take some portion for consecration to God, or for his own use)." He paid "tithes of ALL," and those tithes were taken out of the topmost and best portion of the whole spoils.

JFB: Heb 7:4

In the Greek emphatically standing at the end of the whole sentence: And this payer of tithe being no less a personage than "the patriarch," the first forefather and head of our Jewish race and nation See on Heb 7:3, on Melchisedec's superiority as specially consecrated king-priest, above the other patriarch-priests.

JFB: Heb 7:5

Namely, those alone who belonged to the family of Aaron, to whom the priesthood was restricted. Tithes originally paid to the whole tribe of Levi, became at length attached to the priesthood.

JFB: Heb 7:5

Sanctioned by Jehovah (Heb 9:19).

JFB: Heb 7:5

With whom, in point of natural descent, they are on a level.

JFB: Heb 7:5

Though thus on a level by common descent from Abraham, they yet pay tithe to the Levites, whose brethren they are. Now the Levites are subordinate to the priests; and these again to Abraham, their common progenitor; and Abraham to Melchisedec. "How great" (Heb 7:4) then, must this Melchisedec be in respect to his priesthood, as compared with the Levitical, though the latter received tithes! and now unspeakably great must "the Son of God" be, to whom, as the sacerdotal archetype (in God's purpose), Melchisedec was made like! Thus compare the "consider," Heb 7:4, in the case of Melchisedec, the type, with the "consider" (Greek, "contemplate attentively," see on Heb 3:1, a stronger word than here) in the case of Christ, the archetype.

JFB: Heb 7:6

Not from "the sons of Levi," as those "who receive the priesthood." This verse explains "without descent" (Greek, "genealogy" in both verses, Heb 7:3). He who needs not, as the Levitical priests, to be able to trace his genealogy back to Levi.

JFB: Heb 7:6

Greek, "hath received tithes."

JFB: Heb 7:6

Greek, "hath blessed." The perfect tense implies that the significance of the fact endures to the present time.

JFB: Heb 7:6

"the possessor of the promises," Abraham's peculiar distinction and designation. Paul exalts Abraham in order still more to exalt Melchisedec. When Christ is the subject, the singular "promise" is used. "The promises" in the plural, refer to God's promise of greatness to himself and his seed, and of the possession of Canaan, twice repeated before the blessing of Melchisedec. As the priests, though above the people (Heb 7:7) whom it was their duty to "bless," were yet subordinate to Abraham; and as Abraham was subordinate to Melchisedec, who blessed him, Melchisedec must be much above the Levitical priests.

JFB: Heb 7:7

The principle that the blesser is superior to him whom he blesses, holds good only in a blessing given with divine authority; not merely a prayerful wish, but one that is divinely efficient in working its purport, as that of the patriarchs on their children: so Christ's blessing, Luk 24:51; Act 3:26.

JFB: Heb 7:8

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

JFB: Heb 7:8

In the Levitical priesthood.

JFB: Heb 7:8

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

JFB: Heb 7:9

To preclude what he is about to say being taken in the mere literal sense; I may say that, virtually, Levi, in the person of his father Abraham, acknowledged Melchisedec's superiority, and paid tithes to him.

JFB: Heb 7:9

(Compare Heb 7:5).

JFB: Heb 7:9

Greek, "by means of (by the hand of) Abraham"; through Abraham. "Paid tithes," literally, "hath been tithed," that is, been taken tithes of.

JFB: Heb 7:10

That is, forefather Abraham. Christ did not, in this sense, pay tithes in Abraham, for He never was in the loins of an earthly father [ALFORD]. Though, in respect to His mother, He was "of the fruit of (David's, and so of) Abraham's loins," yet, being supernaturally, without human father, conceived, as He is above the natural law of birth, so is he above the law of tithes. Only those born in the natural way, and so in sin, being under the curse, needed to pay tithe to the priest, that he might make propitiation for their sin. Not so Christ, who derived only His flesh, not also the taint of the flesh, from Abraham. BENGEL remarks, The blessings which Abraham had before meeting Melchisedec were the general promises, and the special one of a natural seed, and so of Levi; but the promises under which Christ was comprehended, and the faith for which Abraham was so commended, followed after Abraham's meeting Melchisedec, and being blessed by him: to which fact. Gen 15:1, "After these things," calls our attention. This explains why Christ, the supernatural seed, is not included as paying tithes through Abraham to Melchisedec.

JFB: Heb 7:11

Absolute: "the bringing of man to his highest state, namely, that of salvation and sanctification."

JFB: Heb 7:11

The reading in the oldest manuscripts is, "Upon it (that is, on the ground of it as the basis, the priest having to administer the law, Mal 2:7 : it being presupposed) the people (Heb 9:19, 'all the people') have received the law (the Greek is perfect, not aorist tense; implying the people were still observing the law)."

JFB: Heb 7:11

(Heb 8:7). For God does nothing needless.

JFB: Heb 7:11

Rather as Greek, "that a different priest (one of a different order) should arise (anew, Heb 7:15).

JFB: Heb 7:11

Greek, "not be said (to be) after the order of Aaron," that is, that, when spoken of in the Psa 110:4, "He is not said to be (as we should expect, if the Aaronic priesthood was perfect) after the order of Aaron."

JFB: Heb 7:12

The reason why Paul presses the words "after the order of Melchisedec" in Psa 110:4, namely, because these presuppose a change or transference of the priesthood, and this carries with it a change also of the law (which is inseparably bound up with the priesthood, both stand and fall together, Heb 7:11). This is his answer to those who might object, What need was there of a new covenant?

JFB: Heb 7:13

Confirming the truth that a change is made of the law (Heb 7:12), by another fact showing the distinctness of the new priesthood from the Aaronic.

JFB: Heb 7:13

(Psa 110:4).

JFB: Heb 7:13

Greek, "hath partaken of" (the perfect tense implies the continuance still of His manhood).

JFB: Heb 7:13

"a different tribe" from that of Levi.

JFB: Heb 7:14

Literally, "manifest before the eyes" as a thing indisputable; a proof that whatever difficulties may now appear, then Jesus Christ's genealogy labored under none.

JFB: Heb 7:14

The only place where this now common title occurs without "Jesus," or "Christ," except 2Pe 3:15.

JFB: Heb 7:14

As a plant, and a branch.

JFB: Heb 7:14

Gen 49:10; Luk 1:27, Luk 1:39 (Hebron of Judah, where LIGHTFOOT thinks Jesus was conceived) Luk 2:4-5; Rev 5:5.

JFB: Heb 7:14

"in respect to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests" (so the oldest manuscripts read, nothing to imply that priests were to be taken from it).

JFB: Heb 7:15

Another proof that the law, or economy, is changed, namely, forasmuch as Christ is appointed Priest, "not according to the law of a carnal (that is, a mere outward) commandment," but "according to the power of an indissoluble (so the Greek) life." The hundred tenth Psalm appoints Him "for ever" (Heb 7:17). The Levitical law required a definite carnal descent. In contrast stands "the power"; Christ's spiritual, inward, living power of overcoming death. Not agreeably to a statute is Christ appointed, but according to an inward living power.

JFB: Heb 7:15

The change of the law or economy, the statement (Heb 7:12, Heb 7:18).

JFB: Heb 7:15

Greek, "more abundantly."

JFB: Heb 7:15

"seeing that," literally, "if"; so Rom 5:10.

JFB: Heb 7:15

Answering to "after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb 5:10). The "order" cannot mean a series of priests, for Melchisedec neither received his priesthood from, nor transmitted it to, any other mere man; it must mean "answering to the office of Melchisedec." Christ's priesthood is similar to Melchisedec's in that it is "for ever" (Heb 7:16-17).

JFB: Heb 7:15

Rather as Greek, "a different."

JFB: Heb 7:16

Mutually contrasted. As "form" and "power" are opposed, 2Ti 3:5; so here "the law" and "power," compare Rom 8:3, "The law was weak through the flesh"; and Heb 7:18, "weakness." "The law" is here not the law in general, but the statute as to the priesthood. "Carnal," as being only outward and temporary, is contrasted with "endless," or, as Greek, "indissoluble." Commandments is contrasted with "life." The law can give a commandment, but it cannot give life (Heb 7:19). But our High Priest's inherent "power," now in heaven, has in Him "life for ever"; Heb 9:14, "through the eternal Spirit"; Heb 7:25, "able . . . ever liveth" (Joh 5:26). It is in the power of His resurrection life, not of His earthly life, that Christ officiates as a Priest.

Clarke: Heb 7:1

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem - See the whole of this history largely explained in the notes, See Gen 14:18 (note), etc., and the concluding observations at the end of that chapter

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

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

Clarke: Heb 7:2

Gave a tenth part of all - It was an ancient custom, among all the nations of the earth, to consecrate a part or tenth of the spoils taken in war to the objects of their worship. Many examples of this kind occur. This however was not according to any provision in law, but merely ad libitum , and as a eucharistic offering to those to whom they imagined they owed the victory. But neither Abraham’ s decimation, nor theirs, had any thing to do, either with tithes as prescribed under the Mosaic dispensation, or as claimed under the Christian.

Clarke: Heb 7:3

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. Lev 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 honor 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 Neh 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, שאין אב לגוי 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, Αγενεαλογητος ειρηται, παρα το μη υπαρχειν εκ του σπερματος Αβρααμ ὁλως, ειναι δε Χαναναιον το γενος, και εκ της επαρατου σπορας ὁρμωμενον, ὁθεν ουδε γενεαλογιας ηξιωτο, 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 honor 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 απατορα και αμητορα, 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 reig

And power of Tullius, from a servile strai

Full many rose, for virtue high renown’ d

By worth ennobled, and with honors 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: -

Dela abuhi vela emeh ethcathebu besharbotho

Whose father and mother are not inscribed among the genealogies

The Arabic is nearly the same: -

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

The Ethiopic

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

1. "It is said of Melchisedec in the first place that he was απατωρ, αμητωρ, 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 αγενεαλογητος· ‘ without descent,’ say we. But γενεαλογια is a generation, a descent, a pedigree, not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded. Γενεαλογητος is he whose stock and descent is entered on record. And so, on the contrary, αγενεαλογητος 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 : ὁ μη γενεαλογουμενος εξ αυτων, ‘ 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 μητε αρχην ἡμερων, μητε ζωης τελος εχων, ‘ 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.

Clarke: Heb 7:3

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.

Clarke: Heb 7:4

Consider how great this man was - There is something exceedingly mysterious in the person and character of this king of Salem; and to find out the whole is impossible. He seems to have been a sort of universal priest, having none superior to him in all that region; and confessedly superior even to Abraham himself, the father of the faithful, and the source of the Jewish race. See Heb 7:7

Clarke: Heb 7:4

The patriarch Abraham - Ὁ πατριαρχης· Either from πατηρ, a father, and αρχη, a chief or head; or from πατριας αρχη, the head of a family.’ But the title is here applied, by way of eminence, to him who was the head or chief of all the fathers - or patriarch of the patriarchs, and father of the faithful. The Syriac translates it Rish Abahatha , "head of the fathers."The character and conduct of Abraham place him, as a man, deservedly at the head of the human race.

Clarke: Heb 7:5

They that are of the sons of Levi - The priests who are of the posterity of the Levites, and receive the priesthood in virtue of their descent from Aaron, have authority from the law of God to receive tithes from the people

Clarke: Heb 7:5

According to the law - That is, the Levites received a tenth from the people. The priests received a tenth of this tenth from the Levites, who are here called their brethren, because they were of the same tribe, and employed in the same sacred work. The apostle is proceeding to show that Melchisedec was greater even than Abraham, the head of the fathers, for to him Abraham gave tithes; and as the Levites were the posterity of Abraham, they are represented here as paying tithes to Melchisedec through him. Yet Melchisedec was not of this family, and therefore must be considered as having a more honorable priesthood than even Aaron himself; for he took the tenth from Abraham, not for his maintenance, for he was a king, but in virtue of his office as universal high priest of all that region.

Clarke: Heb 7:6

Blessed him that had the promises - This is a continuation of the same argument, namely, to show the superiority of Melchisedec; and, in consequence, to prove the superiority of the priesthood of Christ beyond that of Aaron. As in the seed of Abraham all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, Abraham received a sacerdotal blessing from Melchisedec, who was the representative of the Messiah, the promised seed, to show that it was through him, as the high priest of the human race, that this blessing was to be derived on all mankind.

Clarke: Heb 7:7

The less is blessed of the better - That the superior blesses the inferior is a general proposition; but Abraham was blessed of Melchisedec, therefore Melchisedec was greater than Abraham. "The blessing here spoken of,"says Dr. Macknight, "is not the simple wishing of good to others, which may be done by inferiors to superiors; but it is the action of a person authorized to declare God’ s intention to bestow good things on another. In this manner Isaac and Jacob blessed their children under a prophetic impulse; in this manner the priests under the law blessed the people; in this manner, likewise, Melchisedec, the priest of the most high God, blessed Abraham."

Clarke: Heb 7:8

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

Clarke: Heb 7:8

But there he receiveth them - The ὡδε, here, in the first clause of this verse refers to Mosaical institutions, as then existing: the εκει, there, in this clause refers to the place in Genesis (Gen 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.

Clarke: Heb 7:9

And as I may so say - Και ὡς επος ειπειν· And so to speak a word. This form of speech, which is very frequent among the purest Greek writers, is generally used to soften some harsh expression, or to limit the meaning when the proposition might otherwise appear to be too general. It answers fully to our so to speak - as one would say - I had almost said - in a certain sense. Many examples of its use by Aristotle, Philo, Lucian, Josephus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Plutarch, may be seen in Raphelius and Kypke

Clarke: Heb 7:9

Payed tithes in Abraham - The Levites, who were descendants of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchisedec δια through, Abraham, their progenitor and representative.

Clarke: Heb 7:10

For he was yet in the loins of his father - That is, Levi was seminally included in Abraham, his forefather.

Clarke: Heb 7:11

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - The word τελειωσις, as we have before seen, signifies the completing or finishing of any thing, so as to leave nothing imperfect, and nothing wanting. Applied here to the Levitical priesthood, it signifies the accomplishment of that for which a priesthood is established, viz.: giving the Deity an acceptable service, enlightening and instructing the people, pardoning all offenses, purging the conscience from guilt, purifying the soul and preparing it for heaven, and regulating the conduct of the people according to the precepts of the moral law. This perfection never came, and never could come, by the Levitical law; it was the shadow of good things to come, but was not the substance. It represented a perfect system, but was imperfect in itself. It showed that there was guilt, and that there was an absolute need for a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, and it typified that sacrifice; but every sacrificial act under that law most forcibly proved that it was impossible for the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin

Clarke: Heb 7:11

For under it the people received the law - That is, as most interpret this place, under the priesthood, ἱερωσυνῃ being understood; because, on the priesthood the whole Mosaical law and the Jewish economy depended: but it is much better to understand επ ’ αυτῃ on account of it, instead of under it; for it is a positive fact that the law was given before any priesthood was established, for Aaron and his sons were not called nor separated to this office till Moses came down the second time from the mount with the tables renewed, after that he had broken them, Exo 40:12-14. But it was in reference to the great sacrificial system that the law was given, and on that law the priesthood was established; for, why was a priesthood necessary, but because that law was broken and must be fulfilled

Clarke: Heb 7:11

That another priest should rise - The law was given that the offense might abound, and sin appear exceeding sinful; and to show the absolute necessity of the sacrifice and mediation of the great Messiah, but it was neither perfect in itself, nor could it confer perfection, nor did it contain the original priesthood. Melchisedec had a priesthood more than four hundred years (422) before the law was given; and David prophesied, Psa 110:4, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, nearly five hundred years (476) after the law was given. The law, therefore, did not contain the original priesthood; this existed typically in Melchisedec, and really in Jesus Christ.

Clarke: Heb 7:12

The priesthood being changed - That is, The order of Aaron being now abrogated, to make way for that which had preceded it, the order of Melchisedec

Clarke: Heb 7:12

There is made of necessity a change also of the law - The very essence of the Levitical law consisting in its sacrificial offerings; and as these could not confer perfection, could not reconcile God to man, purify the unholy heart, nor open the kingdom of heaven to the souls of men, consequently it must be abolished, according to the order of God himself; for he said, Sacrifice and offering, and burnt-offering, and sacrifice for sin, he would not; see Psa 40:6, Psa 40:7, compared with Heb 10:5-10, and with Psa 110:4, where it is evident God designed to change both the law and the priesthood, and to introduce Jesus as the only Priest and Sacrifice, and to substitute the Gospel system for that of the Levitical institutions. The priesthood, therefore, being changed, Jesus coming in the place of Aaron, the law of ordinances and ceremonies, which served only to point out the Messiah, must of necessity be changed also.

Clarke: Heb 7:13

For he of whom these things are spoken - That is, Jesus the Messiah, spoken of in Psa 110:4, who came, not from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah, of which tribe no priest ever ministered at a Jewish altar, nor could minister according to the law.

Clarke: Heb 7:14

For it is evident - As the apostle speaks here with so much confidence, it follows that our Lord’ s descent from the tribe of Judah was incontrovertible. The genealogical tables, both in Matthew and Luke, establish this point; and whatever difficulties we may find in them now, there were none apprehended in those days, else the enemies of the Gospel would have urged these as a chief and unanswerable argument against Christ and his Gospel.

Clarke: Heb 7:15

And it is yet far more evident - Και περισσοτερον ετι καταδηλον εστιν· And besides, it is more abundantly strikingly manifest. It is very difficult to translate these words, but the apostle’ s meaning is plain, viz., that God designed the Levitical priesthood to be changed, because of the oath in Psa 110:1-7, where, addressing the Messiah, he says: Thou art a Priest for ever after the order, or ὁμοιοτητα, similitude, of Melchisedec, who was not only a priest, but also a king. None of the Levitical priests sustained this double office; but they both, with that of prophet, appear and were exercised in the person of our Lord, who is the Priest to which the apostle alludes.

Clarke: Heb 7:16

Who is made - Appointed to this high office by God himself, not succeeding one that was disabled or dead, according to that law or ordinance directed to weak and perishing men, who could not continue by reason of death

This is probably all that the apostle intends by the words carnal commandment, εντολης σαρκικης· for carnal does not always mean sinful or corrupt, but feeble, frail, or what may be said of or concerning man in his present dying condition

Clarke: Heb 7:16

But after the power of an endless life - Not dying, or ceasing through weakness to be a priest; but properly immortal himself, and having the power to confer life and immortality on others. He ever lives, as Priest, to make intercession for men; and they who believe on him shall never perish, but have everlasting life.

Calvin: Heb 7:1

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

Let us now consider each of those particulars in which the Apostle makes Christ like Melchisedec. ¹¹⁰

The first likeness is in the name; for it was not without a mystery that he was called the King of righteousness. For though this honor is ascribed to kings who rule with moderation and in equity, yet this belongs really to Christ alone, who not only exercises authority justly as others do, but also communicates to us the righteous of God, partly when he makes us to be counted righteous by a gratuitous reconciliation, and partly when he renews us by his Spirit, that we may lead a godly and holy life. He is then called the King of righteousness, because of what he effects in diffusing righteousness on all his people. ¹¹¹ It hence follows, that out of his kingdom nothing but sin reigns among men. And therefore Zechariah, when he introduces him, as by the solemn decree of God, into the possession of his kingdom, thus extols him, —

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

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

The second likeness which the Apostle states is as to the kingdom of peace. This peace indeed is the fruit of that righteousness which he has mentioned. It hence follows that wherever Christ’s kingdom extends, there peace ought to be, as we find in Isa 2:1, and in other places. But as peace among the Hebrews means also a prosperous and happy state, it may be so taken here: yet I prefer to understand it here of that inward peace which tranquilizes the conscience and renders it confident before God. And the excellency of this blessing cannot be sufficiently estimated, unless you consider on the other hand, how miserable a thing it is to be tormented by constant inquietude; which must necessarily be the case until we have our consciences pacified by being reconciled to God through Christ.

Calvin: Heb 7:3

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.

Calvin: Heb 7:4

4.Now consider, etc. This is the fourth comparison between Christ and Melchisedec, that Abraham presented tithes to him. But though tithes were instituted for several reasons, yet the Apostle here refers only to what serves his present purpose. One reason why tithes were paid to the Levites was, because they were the children of Abraham, to whose seed the land was promised. It was, then, by a hereditary right that a portion of the land was allotted to them; for as they were not allowed to possess land, a compensation was made to them in tithes. There was also another reason, — that as they were occupied in the service of God and the public ministry of the Church, it was right that they should be supported at the public cost of the people. Then the rest of the Israelites owed them tithes as a remuneration for their work. But these reasons bear not at all on the present subject; therefore, the Apostle passes them by. The only reason now alleged is, that as the people offered the tithes as a sacred tribute to God, the Levites only received them. It hence appears that it was no small honor that God in a manner substituted them for himself. Then Abraham, being one of the chief sergeants of God and a prophet, having offered tithes to Melchisedec the priest, thereby confessed that Melchisedec excelled him in dignity. If, then, the patriarch Abraham owned him more honourable than himself, his dignity must have been singular and extraordinary. The word patriarch is mentioned for the sake of setting forth his dignity; for it was in the highest degree honourable to him to have been called a father in the Church of God.

Then the argument is this, — Abraham, who excelled all others, was yet inferior to Melchisedec; then Melchisedec had the highest place of honor, and is to be regarded as superior to all the sons of Levi. The first part is proved, for what Abraham owed to God he gave to Melchisedec: then by paying him the tenth he confessed himself to be inferior.

Calvin: Heb 7:5

5.=== And verily they, === etc. It would be more suitable to render the words thus, “because they are the sons of Levi.” The Apostle indeed does not assign it as a reason that they received tithes because they were the sons of Levi; but he is comparing the whole tribe with Melchisedec in this way. Though God granted to the Levites the right of requiring tithes from the people, and thus set them above all the Israelites, yet they have all descended from the same parent; and Abraham, the father of them all, paid tithes to a priest of another race: then all the descendants of Abraham are inferior to this priest. Thus the right conferred on the Levites was particular as to the rest of their brethren; yet Melchisedec, without exception, occupies the highest place, so that all are inferior to him. Some think that the tenths of tenths are intended, which the Levites paid to the higher priests; but there is no reason thus to confine the general declaration. The view, then, I have given is the most probable.

Calvin: Heb 7:6

6.=== Blessed him, === etc. This is the fifth comparison between Christ and Melchisedec. The Apostle assumes it as an admitted principle that the less is blessed by the greater; and then he adds that Melchisedec blessed Abraham: hence the conclusion is that the less was Abraham. But for the sake of strengthening his argument he again raises the dignity of Abraham; for the more glorious Abraham is made, the higher the dignity of Melchisedec appears. For this purpose he says that Abraham had the promises; by which he means that he was the first of the holy race with whom God made the covenant of eternal life. It was not indeed a common honor that God chose him from all the rest that he might deposit with him the privilege of adoption and the testimony of his love. But all this was no hindrance that he should not submit himself in all his preeminence to the priesthood of Melchisedec. We hence see how great he was to whom Abraham gave place in these two things, — that he suffered himself to be blessed by him, and that he offered him tithes as to God’s vicegerent.

Calvin: Heb 7:7

7.The less is, ¹¹⁴ etc. Let us first know what the word blessed means here. It means indeed a solemn praying by which he who is invested with some high and public honor, recommends to God men in private stations and under his ministry. Another way of blessing is when we pray for one another; which is commonly done by all the godly. But this blessing mentioned by the Apostle was a symbol of greater authority. Thus Isaac blessed his son Jacob, and Jacob himself blessed his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. (Gen 27:27.) This was not done mutually, for the son could not do the like to the father; but a higher authority was required for such a blessing as this. And this appears more evident still from Num 6:23, where a command is given to the priest to bless the people, and then a promise is immediately added, that they would be blessed whom they blessed. It hence appears that the blessing of the priest depended on this, — that it was not so much man’s blessing as that of God. For as the priest in offering sacrifices represented Christ, so in blessing the people he was nothing more than a minister and legate of the supreme God. In the same sense ought to be understood what Luke records when he says, that Christ lifted up his hands and blessed the Apostles. (Luk 24:50.) The practice of lifting up the hands he no doubt borrowed from the priests, in order to show that he was the person by whom God the Father blesses us. Of this blessing mention is also made in Psa 116:17

Let us now apply this idea to what the apostle treats of: The blessing of the priest, while it is a divine work is also an evidence of a higher honor; then Melchisedec, in blessing Abraham, assumed to himself a higher dignity. This he did, not presumptuously, but according to his right as a priest: then he was more eminent than Abraham. Yet Abraham was he with whom God was pleased to make the covenant of salvation; though, then, he was superior to all others, yet he was surpassed by Melchisedec. ¹¹⁵

Calvin: Heb 7:8

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.

Calvin: Heb 7:9

9.=== Levi also, === etc. He advances farther, and says, that even Levi himself, who was then in the loins of Abraham, was not exempt from the same subordination; for Abraham, by paying tithes, made himself and his posterity inferior to the priesthood of Melchisedec. ¹¹⁷ But here one, on the other hand, may say, that in the same way Judas also of whose seed Christ was born, paid tithes. But this knot can be easily untied, when one considers two things which are settled beyond all dispute among Christians: first, Christ is not to be counted simply as one of the sons of Abraham, but is to be exempted by a peculiar privilege from the common order of men; and this is what he himself said, “If he is the son of David, then does David call him his Lord?” (Mat 22:45;) secondly, since Melchisedec is a type of Christ, it is by no means reasonable that the one should be set in opposition to the other; for we must remember that common saying, that what is subordinate is not in opposition: hence the type, which comes short of the reality, ought by no means to be opposed to it, nor can it be, for such is the conflict of equals.

These five particulars, mentioned by the Apostle, complete the comparison between Christ and Melchisedec, and thus is dissipated the gloss of those who seek to show that the chief likeness between them is in offering of bread and wine. We see that the Apostle carefully, and even scrupulously, examines here each of these points; he mentions the name of the man, the seat of his kingdom, the perpetuity of his life, his right to tithes, and his benediction.

There is, forsooth! in these things, less importance than in the oblation! Shall we say that the Spirit of God, through forgetfulness, omitted this, so that he dwelt on minor things, and left unnoticed the chief thing, and what was most necessary for his purpose? I marvel the more that so many of the ancient doctors of the Church were so led away by this notion, that they dwelt only on the offering of bread and wine. And thus they spoke, “Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedec; and Melchisedec offered bread and wine; then the sacrifice of bread and wine is suitable to the priesthood of Christ.” The Apostle will hereafter speak largely of the ancient sacrifices; but of this new sacrifice of bread and wine he says not a word. Whence then did ecclesiastical writers derive this notion? Doubtless, as one error usually leads to another, having of themselves imagined a sacrifice in Christ’s Supper without any command from him, and thus adulterated the Supper by adding a sacrifice, they afterwards endeavored to find out plausible arguments here and there in order to disguise and cover their error. This offering of bread and wine pleased them, and was instantly laid hold on without any discretion. For who can concede that these men were more intelligent than the Spirit of God? Yet if we receive what they teach, we must condemn God’s Spirit for inadvertence in having omitted a matter so important, especially as the question is avowedly handled!

I hence conclude, that the ancients invented a sacrifice, of which Moses had never thought; for Melchisedec offered bread and wine, not to God, but on the contrary to Abraham and his companions. These are the words, “Melchisedec, king of Salem, went out to meet him, and brought forth bread and wine; and the same was priest to the most high God, and blessed him.” (Gen 14:18.) The first thing mentioned was a royal act; he refreshed those wearied after the battle and their journey with sustenance; the blessing was the act of a priest. If then his offering had anything mystical in it, the completion of it is to be found in Christ, when he fed the hungry and those wearied with fatigue. But the Papists are extremely ridiculous, who though they deny that there is bread and wine in the Mass, yet prattle about the sacrifice of bread and wine.

Calvin: Heb 7:11

11.If therefore perfection, or, moreover if perfection, ¹¹⁸ etc. From the same testimony the Apostle concludes, that the old covenant was abrogated by the coming of Christ. He has hitherto spoken of the office and person of the priest; but as God had instituted a priesthood for the purpose of ratifying the Law, the former being abolished, the latter necessarily ceases. That this may be better understood, we must bear in mind the general truth, — That no covenant between God and man is in force and ratified, except it rests on a priesthood. Hence the Apostle says, that the Law was introduced among the ancient people under the Levitical priesthood; by which he intimates, that it not only prevailed during the time of the Law, but that it was instituted, as we have said for the sake of confirming the Law.

He now reasons thus, If the ministry of the Church was perfect under the order of Aaron, why was it necessary to return to another order? For in perfection nothing can be changed. It then follows, that the ministry of the Law was not perfect, for that new order was to be introduced of which David speaks. ¹¹⁹

===For under it the people received the Law, === etc. This parenthesis is inserted in order that we may know that the Law was annexed to the priesthood. The Apostle had in view to prove that in the Law of Moses there was no ultimate end at which we ought to stop. This he proves by the abrogation of the priesthoods and in this way: Had the authority of the ancient priesthood been such as to be sufficient fully to establish the Law, God would have never introduced in its place another and a different priesthood. Now, as some might doubt whether the abolition of the Law followed the abolition of the priesthood, he says that the Law was not only brought in under it, but that it was also by it established. ¹²⁰

Calvin: Heb 7:12

12.For the priesthood being changed, or, transferred, etc. As the authority of the Law and the priesthood is the same, Christ became not only a priest, but also a Lawgiver; so that the right of Aaron, as well as of Moses, was transferred to him. The sum of the whole is, that the ministry of Moses was no less temporary than that of Aaron; and hence both were annulled by the coming of Christ, for the one could not stand without the other. By the word Law, we understand what peculiarly belonged to Moses; for the Law contains the rule of life, and the gratuitous covenant of life; and in it we find everywhere many remarkable sentences by which we are instructed as to faith, and as to the fear of God. None of these were abolished by Christ, but only that part which regarded the ancient priesthood.

For Christ is here compared with Moses; whatever then they had in common, is not to be taken to the account, but only the things in which they differ. They in common offer God’s mercy to us, prescribe the rule of a holy and godly life, teach us the true worship of God, and exhort us to exercise faith and patience, and all the duties of godliness. But Moses was different from Christ in this respect, that while the love of the Gospel was not as yet made known, he kept the people under veils, set forth the knowledge of Christ by types and shadows, and, in short, accommodated himself to the capacity of ignorant people, and did not rise higher than to puerile elements. We must then remember, that the Law is that part of the ministration which Moses had as peculiarly his own, and different from that of Christ. That law, as it was subordinate to the ancient priesthood, was abolished when the priesthood was abolished. And Christ, being made a priest, was invested also with the authority of a legislator, that he might be the teacher and interpreter of the new covenant. At the same time, the word Law is applied, though not in its strict sense, to the Gospel; but this impropriety of language is so far from having anything harsh in it, that on account of the contrast it adds beauty to the sentence, as we find in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans

Moreover, the impiety of the Pope is extremely arrogant, who has inserted this article in his decretals, that he himself is now invested with the same authority as Aaron formerly had, because the Law and also the priesthood have been transferred to him. We see what the Apostle says; he maintains that ceremonies have ceased since the time when Christ came forth with command to proclaim the new covenant. It is then absurd hence to conclude, that anything has been transferred to the ministers of Christ; for Christ himself is alone contrasted here with Moses and Aaron. Under what pretext then can Antichrist arrogate to himself any such authority? I do not indeed speak now for the sake of disproving so gross an arrogance; but it is worth while to remind readers of this sacrilegious audacity, that they may know that this notorious servant of the servants of Christ wholly disregards the honor of his Master, and boldly mangles the Scriptures, that he may have some cloak for his own tyranny.

Calvin: Heb 7:13

13.For he of whom these things are spoken, or, said, ¹²¹ etc. As the Apostle was speaking to them who confessed Jesus the Son of Mary to be the Christ, he proves that an end was put to the ancient priesthood, because the new Priest, who had been set in the place of the old, was of another tribe, and not of Levi; for according to the Law the honor of the priesthood was to continue, by a special privilege, in that tribe. But he says that it was evident that Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, for it was then a fact commonly known. As then they acknowledged that he was the Christ, it was also necessary that they should be persuaded that he was the son of David; for he who had been promised could derive his origin from no other.

Calvin: Heb 7:15

15.=== And it is yet far more evident, === etc. He proves by another argument, that the Law is abolished. He reasoned before as to the person of the priest, but now as to the nature of the priesthood, and the reason for which it was appointed. The ancient priesthood, he says, had to do with external rites; but in Christ’s priesthood there is nothing but what is spiritual. It hence appears, that the former was evanescent and temporary; but that the latter was to be perpetual.

Calvin: Heb 7:16

16.Carnal commandment, === etc. It was called carnal, because it refers to things corporal, that is, to external rites. We know how Aaron and his sons were initiated into their office. What was fulfilled in Christ by the hidden and celestial power of the Spirit, was shadowed forth under the Law by ointment, various vestments, the sprinkling of blood, and other earthly ceremonies. Now this kind of institution was suitable to the nature of the priesthood; it hence follows, that the priesthood itself was liable to change. At the same time, as we shall hereafter see, the priesthood was not so carnal, but that it was still spiritual; but the Apostle here refers only to the difference between Christ and Aaron. However spiritual then might have been the meaning of these shadows, they were yet but shadows in themselves; and as they were made up of the elements of this world, they may justly be called earthly.

===After the power of an endless life, or, of an indissoluble life. As Christ is a perpetual priest, it was necessary, that he should be different from Aaron as to the manner of his appointment; and so it was, for it was not Moses, a mortal man, who consecrated him, but the Holy Spirit, and that not with oil, nor with the blood of goats, nor with the outward pomp of vestments, but with celestial power, which the Apostle here sets in opposition to weak elements. We hence see how the eternity of his priesthood was exhibited in Christ.

Defender: Heb 7:1

See Gen 14:17-19, note; Heb 5:5, note."

Defender: Heb 7:2

The name Melchisedec means "King of Righteousness" and Salem means "peace," so this mysterious person is identified as King of Peace and Righteousness, as well as "priest of the most high God" (Heb 7:1). A number of modern archaeologists have speculated that the name Salem was actually "Salim," a god of the Amorites, but this idea is entirely hypothetical and is explicitly contradicted by this verse. Similarly, it is commonly assumed that Salem was the original name of Jerusalem, but there is no other record of such a city at this time, either in archaeology or Scripture. Speculations as to the identity of Melchisedec have been many and varied. Certain writers, ancient and modern, have suggested that he was either Shem or Job, both of whom were probably living at that time. If that were the case, however, there could seem no reason why he would not be called by his actual name. Certain Seventh Day Adventists have speculated that he was the unfallen Adam from another planet, translated here to observe the process of redemption on this planet. This unorthodox notion must first overcome the hard fact that there is no valid evidence whatsoever, either in science or Scripture, that other inhabitable planets even exist at all - there are certainly none in the solar system. Most evangelicals say he was merely an obscure king of a small city state about whom neither history nor the Bible know anything other than the facts mentioned here. If that was his status, how did he get to be the founder of a priestly order greater than that of Aaron, one to whom even Abraham paid tithes? If anyone could be called "the priest of the most high God" (Gen 14:18) at this time in history, it would seem that it should be Abraham himself, or possibly Job, "none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man" (Job 2:3), or even the patriarch Shem, who was still alive at this time, assuming there are no significant gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 11. But all of these have already been ruled out. If Melchisedec were greater than Shem or Job or Abraham, he must have been more than mortal man. The next verse confirms this."

Defender: Heb 7:3

This unique description surely implies far more than a mere failure to mention Melchisedec's genealogy, as the standard naturalistic explanation of this passage has it. The only one of whom these statements could actually be true is God Himself, appearing to Abraham in a pre-incarnate theophany. God appeared to Abraham on other later occasions (Gen 17:1; Gen 18:1), but on this occasion, almost overwhelmed by the hostile, ungodly world around him, Abraham needed special comfort and encouragement from God. Thus, the Lord (actually God the Son), appearing as the King of Righteousness (Rev 19:11, Rev 19:16), the King of Peace (Isa 9:6), and the Mediator between God and Man (1Ti 2:5), came to give Abraham His blessing (Gen 14:19).

Defender: Heb 7:3

No mere earthly king was ever "made like unto the Son of God," nor was there ever one who "abideth a priest continually" (same word as "forever"). It is difficult to see how these descriptions could be properly applied to anyone but the Lord Jesus Christ who came to encourage Abraham in this unique, pre-incarnate experience, assuming a human form "like unto" that which He would assume forever when He became the incarnate Son of God. For the first time, He founded and implemented forever the priestly order of Melchisedec."

Defender: Heb 7:8

This "witness" was in Psa 110:4, where the coming Messiah was recognized by God as "a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." There could be only one such high priest forever. The King of Righteousness (meaning "Melchisedec") who blessed Abraham is also our eternal High Priest, the "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1Ti 2:5)."

Defender: Heb 7:14

"Sprang" means "rose" like the sun. As the light of the world, Christ rose up out of Judah, but He was not actually descended genetically from Judah, for He was miraculously conceived by God in Mary's womb."

Defender: Heb 7:15

Neither was Christ descended genetically from Melchisedec, though He was spiritually of the same priestly order. Melchisedec had no physical descendants (Heb 7:3) or parents, for He was a priest forever. The Lord Jesus was after that similitude, actually the same personage as Melchisedec."

TSK: Heb 7:1

this : Heb 6:20; Gen 14:18-20

Salem : Psa 76:2

the most : Psa 57:2, Psa 78:35, Psa 78:56; Dan 4:2, Dan 5:18, Dan 5:21; Mic 6:6; Mar 5:7; Act 16:17

the slaughter : Gen 16:14-16; Isa 41:2, Isa 41:3

TSK: Heb 7:2

a tenth : Gen 28:22; Lev 27:32; Num 18:21; 1Sa 8:15, 1Sa 8:17

King of righteousness : 2Sa 8:15, 2Sa 23:3; 1Ki 4:24, 1Ki 4:25; 1Ch 22:9; Psa 45:4-7, Psa 72:1-3, Psa 72:7, Psa 85:10,Psa 85:11; Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Isa 32:1, Isa 32:2, Isa 45:22-25; Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6, Jer 33:15, Jer 33:16; Mic 5:5; Luk 2:14; Rom 3:26, Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2; Eph 2:14-18

TSK: Heb 7:3

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

TSK: Heb 7:4

the patriarch : Act 2:29, Act 7:8, Act 7:9

Abraham : Gen 12:2, Gen 17:5, Gen 17:6; Rom 4:11-13, Rom 4:17, Rom 4:18; Gal 3:28, Gal 3:29; Jam 2:23

gave : Gen 14:20

TSK: Heb 7:5

who : Heb 5:4; Exo 28:1; Num 16:10,Num 16:11, Num 17:3-10, Num 18:7, Num 18:21-26

to take : Lev 27:30-33; Num 18:26-32; 2Ch 31:4-6; Neh 13:10

come : Heb 7:10; Gen 35:11, Gen 46:26; Exo 1:5; 1Ki 8:19

TSK: Heb 7:6

descent : Gr. pedigree, Heb 7:3

received : Heb 7:4; Gen 14:19, Gen 14:20

had : Heb 6:13-15, Heb 11:13, Heb 11:17; Gen 12:2, Gen 12:13, Gen 13:14-17, Gen 17:4-8, Gen 22:17, Gen 22:18; Act 3:25; Rom 4:13, Rom 9:4; Gal 3:16

TSK: Heb 7:7

without : 1Ti 3:16

the less : Heb 11:20,Heb 11:21; Gen. 27:20-40, Gen 28:1-4, Gen 47:7-10, Gen 48:15-20, Gen 49:28; Num 6:23-27; Deu 32:1; 2Sa 6:20; 1Ki 8:55; 2Ch 30:27; Luk 24:50,Luk 24:51; 2Co 13:14

TSK: Heb 7:8

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

TSK: Heb 7:9

payed : Heb 7:4; Gen 14:20; Rom 5:12 *marg.

TSK: Heb 7:10

Heb 7:5; Gen 35:11, Gen 46:26; 1Ki 8:19

TSK: Heb 7:11

perfection : Τελειωσις [Strong’ s G5050], completion, or fulfilment of the plan and purpose of God. Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19, Heb 8:7, Heb 8:10-13, Heb 10:1-4; Gal 2:21, Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9; Col 2:10-17

what : Heb 7:26-28

another : Heb 7:15, Heb 7:17, Heb 7:21, Heb 5:6, Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20

TSK: Heb 7:12

a change : Isa 66:21; Jer 31:31-34; Eze 16:61; Act 6:13, Act 6:14

TSK: Heb 7:13

of which : Num 16:40, Num 17:5; 2Ch 26:16-21

TSK: Heb 7:14

Our Lord : Luk 1:43; Joh 20:13, Joh 20:28; Eph 1:3; Phi 3:8

sprang : Gen 46:12, Gen 49:10; Rth 4:18-22; Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6; Mic 5:2; Mat 1:3-16; Luk 2:23-33, Luk 3:33; Rom 1:3, Rom 2:3; Rev 5:5, Rev 22:16

TSK: Heb 7:15

after : Heb 7:3, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:17-21; Psa 110:4

TSK: Heb 7:16

the law : Heb 9:9, Heb 9:10, Heb 10:1; Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9; Col 2:14, Col 2:20

the power : Heb 7:3, Heb 7:17, Heb 7:21, Heb 7:24, Heb 7:25, Heb 7:28; Rev 1:18

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Heb 7:1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 hat it is a part of the name Jerusalem itself - the name "Jerus,"altered from "Jebus,"having been afterward added, because it was the residence of the "Jebusites."

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 he name "Salem"is itself given to Jerusalem; Psa 76:2, "In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnes: Heb 7:2

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all - That is, a tenth part of all the spoils which he had taken Gen 14:20, thus acknowledging that in dignity of office Melchizedek was greatly his superior; Heb 7:4, Heb 7:6, Heb 7:8. This does not appear to have been on the part of Abraham so much designed as a present to Melchizedek personally, as an act of pious thankfulness to God. He doubtless recognized in Melchizedek one who was a minister of God, and to him as such he devoted the tenth of all which he had taken, as a proper acknowledgment of the goodness of God and of his claims. From this it is evident that the propriety of devoting a tenth part of what was possessed to God, was regarded as a duty before the appointment of the Levitical law. "Some"expression of this kind is obviously demanded, and piety seems early to have fixed on the "tenth"part as being no more than a proper proportion to consecrate to the service of religion. For the propriety of the use which the apostle makes of this fact, see the notes on Heb 7:4, Heb 7:6, Heb 7:8.

First being - The "first"idea in the interpretation of his name and office, etc. First being mentioned as king of righteousness, and then as king of peace.

King of righteousness - The literal translation of the name Melchizedek; see the notes on ver. 1. The "argument"implied in this by the remarks of the apostle is, that he bore a name which made him a proper emblem of the Messiah. There was a propriety that one in whose "order"the Messiah was to be found, should have such a name. It would be exactly descriptive of him, and it was "worthy of observation"that he of whose "order"it was said the Messiah would be, should have had such a name. Paul does not say that this name was given to him with any such reference; or that it was "designed"to be symbolical of what the Messiah would be, but that there was a "remarkable coincidence;"that it was a fact which was worth at least "a passing thought."This is a kind of remark that might occur to anyone to make, and where the slight use which Paul makes of it would not be improper anywhere; but it cannot be denied that to one accustomed to the Jewish mode of reasoning - accustomed to dwell much on hidden meanings, and to trace out concealed analogies, it would be much more obvious and striking than it is with us.

We are to place ourselves in the situation of those to whom Paul wrote - trained up with Jewish feelings, and Jewish modes of thought, and to ask how this would strike "their"minds. And this is no more unreasonable than it would be in interpreting a Greek classic, or a work of a Hindu philosopher, that we should endeavor to place ourselves in the situation of the writer and of those for whom he wrote, and ascertain what ideas would be conveyed to them by certain expressions. It is not meant by these observations that there was really no intrinsic force in what Paul here said respecting the import of the "name."There was force; and all the use which he makes of it is proper. His meaning appears to be merely that it was a fact worthy of remark, that the "name"had a meaning which corresponded so entirely with the character of him who was to be a high priest of the same "order.""And after that."He is mentioned after that with another appellation equally significant.

King of peace - A literal translation of the appellation "king of Salem;"Heb 7:1. The idea of Paul is, that it was "worthy of remark"that the appellation which he bore was appropriate to one whose ministry it was said the priesthood of the Messiah would resemble.

Barnes: Heb 7:3

Without father - The phrase "without father"- ἀπάτωρ apatōr - 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 - ἀμήτορα amētora - "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 - ἀγενεαλόγητος agenealogētos - 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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat it was said in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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)\caps1     i\caps0 n the name - "king of righteousness, and king of peace;"

(2)\caps1     i\caps0 n the fact that he had no ancestors or successors in the priestly office;

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat he was, according to the record, a perpetual priest - there being no account of his death; and perhaps.

(4)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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.

Barnes: Heb 7:4

Now consider how great this man was - The object of the apostle was to exalt the rank and dignity of Melchizedek. The Jews had a profound veneration for Abraham, and if it could be shown that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, then it would be easy to demonstrate the superiority of Christ as a priest to all who descended from Abraham. Accordingly he argues, that he to whom even the patriarch Abraham showed so much respect, must have had an exalted rank. Abraham, according to the views of the East, the illustrious ancestor of the Jewish nation, was regarded as superior to any of his posterity, and of course was to be considered as of higher rank and dignity than the Levitical priests who were descended from him.

Even the patriarch Abraham - One so great as he is acknowledged to have been. On the word "patriarch,"see the notes on Act 2:29. It occurs only in Act 2:29; Act 7:8-9, and in this place.

Gave the tenth of the spoils - see the notes, Heb 7:2. The argument here is, that Abraham acknowledged the superiority of Melchizedek by thus devoting the usual part of the spoils of war, or of what was possessed, to God by his hands, as the priest of the Most High. Instead of making a direct consecration by himself, he brought them to him as a minister of religion, and recognized in him one who had a higher official standing in the matter of religion than himself. The Greek word rendered here "spoils"- ἀκροθίνιον akrothinion - means literally, "the top of the heap,"from ἄκρον akron , "top,"and θίν thin , "heap."The Greeks were accustomed, after a battle, to collect the spoils together, and throw them into a pile, and then, before they were distributed, to take off a portion from the top, and devote it to the gods; Xen. Cyro. 7, 5, 35; Herod. i. 86, 90; 8:121, 122; Dion. Hal. ii. In like manner it was customary to place the harvest in a heap, and as the first thing to take off a portion from the top to consecrate as a thank-offering to God. The word then came to denote the "first-fruits"which were offered to God, and then the best of the spoils of battle. It has that sense here, and denotes the spoils or plunder which Abraham had taken of the discomfited kings.

Barnes: Heb 7:5

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi - The meaning of this verse is, that the Levitical priests had a right to receive tithes of their brethren, but still that they were inferior to Melchizedek. The apostle admits that their superiority to the rest of the people was shown by the fact that they had a right to require of them the tenth part of the productions of the land for their maintenance, and for the support of religion. But still he says, that their inferiority to Melchizedek, and consequently to Christ as a priest, was shown by the fact that the illustrious ancestor of all the Jewish people, including the priests as well as others, had confessed his inferiority to Melchizedek by paying him tithes.

Who receive the office of the priesthood - Not all the descendants of Levi were priests. The apostle, therefore, specifies particularly those who "received this office,"as being those whom he specially designed, and as those whose inferiority to Christ as a priest it was his object to show.

Have a commandment to take tithes - Have by the Law a commission, or a right to exact tithes of the people. Deu 14:22, Deu 14:27-29.

Barnes: Heb 7:6

But he whose descent is not counted from them - Melchizedek. The word "descent"is "pedigree"in the margin. The meaning is, that he was not "in the same genealogy"- μὴ γενεαλογούμενος mē genealogoumenos - he was not of the order of Levitical priests. That Melchizedek is meant there can be no doubt; at the same time, also, the thought is presented with prominence on which Paul so much insists, that he was of a different order from the Levitical priesthood.

And blessed him - Blessed him as a priest of God; blessed him in such a manner as to imply acknowledged superiority; see Heb 7:1.

That had the promises - The promise that he should have a numerous posterity; that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed; see Heb 6:12-16.

Barnes: Heb 7:7

And without all contradiction - It is an admitted principle; a point about which there can be no dispute.

The less is blessed of the better - The act of pronouncing a blessing is understood to imply superiority of rank, age, or station. So when a father lays his hand on his children and blesses them, it is understood to be the act of one superior in age, venerableness, and authority; when a prophet pronounced a blessing on the people, the same thing was understood, and the same is true also when a minister of religion pronounces a blessing on a congregation. It is the act of one who is understood to sustain an office above the people on whom the blessing is pronounced. This was understood of the Saviour when parents brought their children to him to lay his hands on them and bless them Mat 19:13; and the same was true of Jacob when dying he blessed the sons of Joseph; Heb 11:21; Gen. 48:5-20. The word "less"here means the one of inferior rank; who is less in office, honor, or age. It does not imply inferiority of moral or religious character, for this is not the point under consideration. The word "better"means one who is of superior office or rank, not one who has necessarily a purer or holier character. That Melchizedek was thus superior to Abraham, Paul says, is implied by the very declaration that he "blessed him."It is also seen to be true by the whole comparison. Abraham was a petty prince; an "Emir"- the head of a company of Nomades, or migratory shepherds, having, it is true, a large number of dependants, but still not having the rank here given to Melchizedek. Though called "a prophet"Gen 20:7, yet he is nowhere called either a priest or a king. In these respects, it was undoubted that he was inferior to Melchizedek.

Barnes: Heb 7:8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnes: Heb 7:9

And as I may so say - So to speak - ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν hōs epos eipein . For numerous examples in the classic writers of this expression, see Wetstein in loc. It is used precisely as it is with us when we say "so to speak,"or "if I may be allowed the expression."It is employed when what is said is not strictly and literally true, but when it amounts to the same thing, or when about the same idea is conveyed. "It is a "softening down"of an expression which a writer supposes his readers may deem too strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology for employing an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase.""Prof. Stuart."Here Paul could not mean that Levi had actually paid tithes in Abraham - for he had not then an existence; or that Abraham was his representative - for there had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi; or that the act of Abraham was imputed or reckoned to Levi, for that was not true, and would not have been pertinent to the case if it were so. But it means, that in the circumstances of the case, the same thing occurred in regard to the superiority of Melchizedek, and the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood, as if Levi had been present with Abraham, and had himself actually paid tithes on that occasion. This was so because Abraham was the distinguished ancestor of Levi, and when an ancestor has done an act implying inferiority of rank to another, we feel as if the whole family or all the descendants, by that act recognized the inferiority, unless something occurs to change the relative rank of the persons. Here nothing indicating any such change had occurred. Melchizedek had no descendants of which mention is made, and the act of Abraham, as the head of the Hebrew race, stood therefore as if it were the act of all who descended from him.

Levi - The ancestor of the whole Levitical priesthood, and from whom they received their name. He was the third son of Jacob and Leah, and was born in Mesopotamia. On account of the conduct of Simeon and Levi toward Shechem, for the manner in which he had treated their sister Dinah Gen 34:25, and which Jacob characterized as "cruelty"Gen 49:5-6, Jacob said that they should be "scattered in Israel."Gen 49:7. Afterward the whole tribe of Levi was chosen by God to execute the various functions of the priesthood, and were "scattered"over the land, having no inheritance of their own, but deriving their subsistence from the offerings of the people; Num 3:6 ff. Levi is here spoken of as the ancestor of the tribe, or collectively to denote the entire Jewish priesthood.

Who receiveth tithes - That is, his descendants, the priests and Levites, receive tithes.

Payed tithes in Abraham - It is the same as if he had payed tithes in or by Abraham.

Barnes: Heb 7:10

For he was yet in the loins of his father - Abraham is here called the father of Levi, by a common use of the word, referring to a more remote ancestor than the literal father. The meaning of the apostle is, that he was even then, in a certain sense, in the loins of Abraham, when Melchizedek met him; or it was all the same as if he were there, and had then an existence. The relation which subsisted between him and Abraham, in the circumstances of the case, implied the same thing as if he had then been born, and had acted for himself by paying tithes. Instances of this occur constantly. A father sells a farm, to which his son would he heir, and it is the same as if the son had sold it. He has no more control over it than if he had been present and disposed of it himself. A father acknowledges fealty to a government for a certain title or property which is to descend to his heirs, and it is all one as if the heir had himself done it; and it is not improper to say that it is the same as if he had been there and acted for himself.

For some valuable remarks on the nature of the reasoning here employed, see Stuart on the Hebrews; Excursus xiv. The reasoning here is, indeed, especially such as would be suited to impress a Jewish mind, and perhaps more forcibly than it does ours. The Jews valued themselves on the dignity and honor of the Levitical priesthood, and it was important to show them on their own principles, and according to their own sacred writings, that the great ancestor of all the Levitical community had himself acknowledged his inferiority to one who was declared also in their own writings Psa 110:1-7 to be like the Messiah, or who was of the same "order."At the same time, the reasoning concedes nothing false; and conveys no wrong impression. It is not mere fancy or accommodation, nor is it framed on allegory or cabalistic principles. It is founded in truth, and such as might be used anywhere, where regard was shown to pedigree, or respect was claimed on account of the illustrious deeds of an ancestor. It would be regarded as sound reasoning in a country like England, where titles and ranks are recognized, and where various orders of nobility exist. The fact that a remote ancestor had done homage or fealty to the ancestor of another class of titled birth, would be regarded as proof of acknowledged inferiority in the family, and might be used with force and propriety in an argument. Paul has done no more than this.

(Several excellent and evangelical commentators explain the passage on the principle of representations, the admission of which relieves it from many difficulties. If we allow that Abraham was the representative of his seed, and of the sons of Levi among the number, then they unquestionably may be said to have paid tithes in him, in a most obvious and intelligible sense. That Abraham is to be here regarded, as not only the natural but covenant head of Israel, is argued from what is said in Psa 110:6, of his having "had the promises,"which promises manifestly did not belong to him alone, but to him and to his seed, Gen 17:4-9. The land of Canaan never was actually given to Abraham. He obtained the promise or grant of it, as the representative of his posterity, who came to its enjoyment when four hundred years had expired. By those who adopt this view, the passage is supposed to contain an illustration of the manner in which Adam and Christ represent those who respectively belong to them.

And here let it be noticed, that the objection against Abraham’ s representative character, grounded by our author on the fact, "that there had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi,"might with equal force be urged against the representation of Adam and Christ, which the reader will find established in the supplementary notes on Rom. 5. As to the force of the argument, on this principle, there can be no doubt. If the representative, the covenant, as well as the natural head, of the sons of Levi, paid tithes and acknowledged inferiority to Melchizedek, their inferiority follows as a matter of course. They are supposed to be comprehended in their head. "This,"says Mr. Scott, "incontestibly proved the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to that of the Messiah, nay, its absolute dependence on him, and subserviency to him;"and, we may add, is sound reasoning alike in every country, in Palestine and in ours, in England or America. On the whole we cannot but think that whatever difficulties some may have in admitting the principle of representation here, far greater difficulties lie on the other side.

Even Prof. Stuart, in his celebrated 14th Excursus, (which for ingenuity deserves, perhaps, all the praise awarded by Bloomfield, Barnes, and others,) resolves the apostle’ s reasoning into a mere "argumentum a.d. hominem,"although, in the passage, there is no evidence of any such thing. He has indeed instanced two cases of "argumentum a.d. hominem,"or rather two passages, in both of which the same example occurs Mat 12:27; Luk 11:19. But if the reader consult these passages, he will find that mistake is impossible. The plainest indication is given, that the argument proceeds on the principle of all adversary. It would require no small ingenuity, however, to press this passage into the same rank with those now quoted. It clearly belongs to a different class, and the apostle proceeds with his argument, without the slightest indication that it was grounded rather on what was admitted, than on what was strictly true.)

Barnes: Heb 7:11

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - As the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect. It was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent that a priest was to arise of another order, and of a more permanent character, and this he says was full proof: that there was defect of some kind in the previous order. What this defect was, he does not here specify, but the subsequent reasoning shows that it was in such points as these - that it was not permanent; that it could not make the worshippers perfect; that the blood which they offered in sacrifice could not take away sin, and could not render those who offered it holy; compare Heb 7:19, Heb 7:23-24; Heb 10:1-4.

For under it the people received the law - This assertion seems necessary in order to establish the point maintained in Heb 7:12, that if the priesthood is changed there must be also a change of the Law. In order to this, it was necessary to admit that the Law was received under that economy, and that "it was a part of it,"so that the change of one involved also the change of the other. It was not strictly true that the whole Law was given after the various orders of Levitical priest were established - for the Law on Sinai, and several other laws, were given before that distinct arrangement was made; but it was true:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 hat a considerable part of the laws of Moses were given under that arrangement; and,

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the whole of the ceremonial observances was connected with that. They were parts of one system, and mutually dependent on each other. This is all that the argument demands.

What further need was there ... - "If that system would lead to perfection; if it was sufficient to make the conscience pure, and to remove sin, then there was no necessity of any other. Yet the Scriptures have declared that there "would be"another of a different order, implying that there was some defect in the former."This reasoning is founded on the fact that there was an express prediction of the coming of a priest of a different "order"Psa 110:4, and that this fact implied that there was some deficiency in the former arrangement. To this reasoning it is impossible to conceive that there can be any objection.

Barnes: Heb 7:12

For the priesthood being changed - According to the prediction in Ps. cx., that it would be. When that occurs, the consequence specified will also follow.

There is made of necessity a change also of the law - The Law so far as it grew out of that, or was dependent on it. The connection requires us to understand it only of the Law "so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood."This could not apply to the ten commandments - for they were given before the institution of the priesthood; nor could it apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a large number of laws - constituting a code of considerable extent and importance - was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or superintend, it followed that when their office was superseded by "one of a wholly different order,"the Law which had regulated them vanished also, or ceased to be binding. This was a very important point in the introduction of Christianity, and hence, it is that it is so often insisted on in the writings of Paul. The argument to show that there had been a change or transfer of the priestly office, he proceeds to establish in the sequel.

Barnes: Heb 7:13

For he of whom these things are spoken - The Lord Jesus, the Messiah, to whom they had reference. The things here spoken of pertain to his office as priest; his being of the order of Melchizedek. The apostle here "assumes"it as a point concerning which there could be no dispute, that these things referred to the Lord Jesus. Those whom he addressed would not be disposed to call this in question, and his argument had conducted him to this conclusion.

Pertaineth to another tribe - To the tribe of Judah; Heb 7:14.

Of which no man gave attendance at the altar - The priestly office pertained only to the tribe of Levi. No one of the tribe of Judah had any part in the performance of the duties of that office. This was settled by the Jewish Law.

Barnes: Heb 7:14

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah - It is well known: it cannot be a matter of dispute. About the fact that the Lord Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, there could be no doubt; compare Mat 1:3. But probably the apostle means here to refer to more than that simple fact. It was a doctrine of the Old Testament, and was admitted by the Jews, that the Messiah was to be of that tribe; see Gen 49:10; Isa 11:1; Mic 5:2; Mat 2:6. This was an additional consideration to show that there was to be a change of some kind in the office of the priesthood, since it was declared (Ps. cx) that the Messiah was to be a priest. The fact that the Messiah is to be of the tribe of Judah is still admitted by the Jews. As their distinction of tribes now, however, is broken up, and as it is impossible for them to tell who belongs to the tribe of Judah, it is held by them that when he comes this will be made known by miracle.

Of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood - That is, in the Mosaic laws respecting the office of priest, this tribe is not mentioned. All the arrangements pertain to the tribe of Levi.

Barnes: Heb 7:15

And it is yet far more evident - Not that our Lord would spring out of Judah, but the point which he was endeavoring to establish that there must be a change of the priesthood, was rendered still more evident from another consideration. A strong proof of the necessity of such a change of the priesthood was furnished from the fact that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah; but a much stronger, because "as a priest"he was to be of the order of Melchizedek - that is, he was of the same rank with one who did not even belong to that tribe.

After the similitude - Resembling; that is, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek.

Barnes: Heb 7:16

Who is made - That is, the other priest is made, to wit, the Messiah. He was made a priest by a special law.

Not after the law of a carnal commandment - Not according to the Law of a commandment pertaining to the flesh. The word "carnal"means "fleshly;"and the idea is, that the Law under which the priests of the old dispensation were made was external, rather than spiritual; it related more to outward observances than to the keeping of the heart. That this was the nature of the Mosaic ritual in the main, it was impossible to doubt, and the apostle proceeds to argue from this undeniable truth.

But after the power of an endless life - By an authority of endless duration. That is, it was not concerned mainly with outward observances, and did not pass over from one to another by death, but was unchanging in its character, and spiritual in its nature. It was enduring and perpetual as a priesthood, and was thus far exalted above the service performed by the priests under the former dispensation.

Poole: Heb 7:1

Heb 7:1-10 Christ, a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, is

proved to be of a more excellent order than that of

Aaron, from the character of Melchisedec, and his

confessed superiority to Abraham and Levi,

Heb 7:11-19 from the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, which

induced the necessity of a change to one more perfect,

Heb 7:20-22 from the confirmation of Christ’ s priesthood by an oath,

Heb 7:23-25 from the unchangeableness,

Heb 7:26-28 and spotless innocence, of the person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poole: Heb 7:2

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all by which tithing to him. Abraham owns him to be God’ s priest. As he had received blessing from God by him, so he returns to God, through him, his acknowledgments; he divided, shared, and gave out his part to him, even the tenth part of all the spoils, Heb 7:4 . This is the first scripture, Gen 14:20 , that gives us any account of paying the tenths of goods to God in his priests; which custom afterwards obtained among most nations, to give the tenths of the spoils after victory to God. And this Abraham did, as due to the office by Divine institution, having received a blessing from it.

First being by interpretation King of righteousness: the mystery of his name, title, and descent, the Holy Ghost now opens to them. His name is a compound of Kym or yklm which signifieth a king or governor, or my king, and Kwu righteousness. A supreme governor, not only formally righteous in his own disposition, but efficiently by just and excellent laws making his subjects righteous; a king working righteousness in a Canaan, and in such a time of universal degeneracy from it. This God ordered for some special use, viz. to type out his own Son, God-man, the great gospel minister, to be the King of righteousness, who purchased it for, imputeth it to, and infuseth it into, sinners; who is so fully the Lord our righteousness, that we are made the righteousness of God in him, Isa 32:1 Jer 23:6 33:16 Zec 9:9 2Co 5:21 .

And after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace: the mystery of his title of office, King of Salem. The due order of this is observable; he is first King of righteousness, and after that he is King of Salem, that is, of peace; the fruit of whose righteous government was peace. He kept this among his people, and round about him, while others were wasting and destroying their kingdoms by lusts and wars. This is eminently true of Christ The Prince of Peace, Isa 9:6,7 , who gave some signal of his government, and begun his priesthood, in the same Salem, or Jerusalem, where Melchisedec reigned, Mat 21:5,9,10 . He is eminently the royal purchaser, maker, and distributer of peace, reconciling all things to God, angels and men in heaven and in earth, and all persons, Jews and Gentiles, and the creation itself to recovered man, Col 1:20,21 ; compare Eph 2:13-17 . The Prince and price of our peace, setting peace within souls, giving it to them without, peace spiritual, temporal, and eternal: his kingdom aboundeth in it, Psa 72:1,3,7 Isa 54:10,13Jo 14:27 Jam 3:18 .

Poole: Heb 7:3

In this verse is a mystical description of the eternity of Christ’ s 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 Aaron’ s 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 David’ s family, and not of Aaron’ s.

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 Adam’ s 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 God’ s 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 Godafwmoiwmenov 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.

Poole: Heb 7:4

Now consider how great this man was: the Spirit compares with, and prefers, Melchisedec before Abraham, as he was God’ s high priest; he introduces it with pressing these Hebrews to exercise an act of judgment under the metaphor of seeing, denoting it to be such a serious and intent act, as calls for the utmost exercise of the discerning faculty; a carelessness in it, or an oversight, might make the proposal to be to no purpose. The greatness of this high priest is what he sets in their view, and that indefinitely: How great is this officer! Intimating him to be somewhat excessive to other great ones: and how much greater then must be Christ, if his type be so great! Beyond not only Abraham, Levi, and his posterity, but this great Melchisedec, as to his sacerdotal power and dignity.

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

Poole: Heb 7:5

This is a proof by instance out of the Levitical law, that he who receiveth is greater than he who giveth.

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood: the seed of Levi the son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, Num 1:48-50 3:1-5 , and not all of them neither, but the sons of Levi descending from Aaron, were separated and consecrated in the priesthood by God’ s precept, and vindicated from those who would usurp it, Num 16:1-17:13 , and confirmed in it by miracle.

Have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law: God himself gave them a law from heaven to tithe by, and a charge to observe this law, as to all parts of tithes, such as were due to all Levites, Num 18:24 , to the high priest only as God’ s substitute, Num 18:8-19,25-29 ; to the Levites, widows, and poor together, Deu 14:22-29 . These the same law obliged all the Israelites to pay to these Levites as a homage due from them to God, and so delivered to his substitutes superior unto them, as his priests and ministers, and due to them by his own constitution, being the first-fruits of his own blessing.

That is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: yet these Israelites who were to pay those tithes to these as superior to them in office, were their own brethren by nature, of the same rank, coming out of the same loins of Abraham, but subjected to these priests, who, by God’ s ordinance, were set above them in their office; and their receiving tithes was an inseparable property of that superiority.

Poole: Heb 7:6

The proof is here applied, showing Melchisedec to be greater, not than the Levitical priest only, but than Abraham himself.

But he whose descent is not counted from them he drew not his genealogy from any priests before him, but is greater than those priests, who by genealogy and succession were made such, and set above their brethern by God himself: he being independent, having no progenitor, priest, or successor, is greater than whom he decimateth.

Received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises he decimated Abraham, the father of the Levitical priests, and by the Most High’ s order blessed him, by assuring him of his peace with God, grace continually from him, and multiplying temporal and spiritual blessings to him, according as God promised, Gen 15:1 , &c. And this he did to him, though Abraham was a patriarch, and privileged with promises above any other; yet though God were made over to him in all his fulness, the blessing given him of fatherhood to a numerous nation, even the visible church of God among Israel, as to all believing Gentiles, who had Canaan literally promised to his posterity, and even this Salem, among the rest, of which Melchisedec was king, and the heavenly Canaan to himself; and above all, the promised Messiah to descend from him, in whom himself and all nations were to be blessed; he, so great in promises, is tithed and blessed by a greater Melchisedec.

Poole: Heb 7:7

This principle is commonly acknowledged, it is a most apparent truth, you Hebrews cannot deny it; it is your common judgment, that a priest blessing, as God’ s officer, is greater than those blessed by him. He that is in a lower state in God’ s church, is blessed by one set above him in office by God himself, better and greater than he for his place and dignity in office. He must have the pre-eminency for his blessing, which he authoritatively, powerfully, and effectually conveyeth from God to those he blesseth, representing therein God communicating by him the good he wanteth in his benediction.

Poole: Heb 7:8

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

But there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth: but how much better is Melchisedec and his order! ekei , 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.

Poole: Heb 7:9

And as I may so say: the Spirit now sets this priesthood above the Levitical by instance, which instance being not so proper or direct, his form of introducing it is considerable, as wv epov eipein , as to say the word, which is a Greek elegancy of speech, when that is uttered which is remarkable, and yet hard to be understood; and it is not only conclusive to what was spoken before, I will speak a word more, and then end the discourse, but interpretative of what he was about to say concerning Levi, born a hundred and sixty-two years after this transaction; As I may so say, or, in some sense it may be said.

Levi also Levi, not so much taken personally as collectively, for the tribe that sprung of him, who were priests or ministers to Israel, which Levi personally was not. He was the third son of Jacob, and his seed God separated for, and consecrated to, his service, settling the priesthood in Aaron’ s family, which was a branch of that tribe, and making all the rest servants to them.

Who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham these did receive these tenths by God’ s law from their brethren, and these paid tenths by or in Abraham, and so showed them to be inferior in office to Melchisedec, who received this homage from them as due to God, and to him as his high priest. This was not properly, but figuratively; true parents and children being accounted here as one person before they exist, as well as after; Levi, not actually existing then, but virtually in his parent. Christ was in his loins virtually too, as to his humanity, but not to descend of him by natural propagation, but by miracle; and in him as an antitype to this Melchisedec, and one to be set above him, in whom Melchisedec himself was to be blessed, and therefore could not pay tenths to him in Abraham.

Poole: Heb 7:10

For introduceth the proof, that Levi tithed in Abraham, being virtually in him, as his productive cause; so near is the unity and identity of descending children; and as truly were the posterity of Adam in him when he ate, sinned, and fell, Rom 5:12 . To remove all question of the truth of it, the time is annexed to it, when Melchisedec met Abraham, and blessed him, then did Levi pay tenths in him; so as Melchisedec was greater than the Levitical priest: Christ, typified by him, being greater than himself, must be greater than them also.

Poole: Heb 7:11

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood: now the Spirit infers from the doctrine of Melchisedec’ s priesthood, the dignity and perpetuity of Christ’ s, typified by it: so that it is not Aaron’ s priesthood, but Christ’ s, which the Hebrews were to use for their salvation after Aaron’ s was expired. For perfection was not to be had by Aaron’ s priesthood or law, but by a better, of another order, even Christ and his law. The form of these words are interrogative, implying a vehement denial of what is queried in them. A perfecting of persons to life eternal by expiation, justification, renovation, &c.; see Heb 9:9 10:1 ; freeing sinners from the guilt, stain, filth, and consequents of their sins by an expiatory, satisfactory sacrifice to God, and fitting of them for an eternal enjoying him; a self-efficiency to these things without Christ, is, as to the Aaronical priesthood, vehemently denied; as to this, that is defective.

For under it the people received the law for with the priesthood, about the time of its institution by God, the Iraelitish church, God’ s covenanted people, received the law; by which, as well as by its priesthood, there is no expiation, remission, nor eternal life to be obtained, Gal 3:17-19 ; compare Mal 2:4-8 . This law and priesthood being types of far better to succeed them, they were but leading to them, which in the fulness of time were to be revealed, and which should perfect what they could not, Gal 3:23,24 4:3-5 .

What further need was there, &c.? It was needful, since the Levitical priesthood and law could not perfect sinners, that another should take place which could perfect them. David therefore, who lived above four hundred years after their institution, and feeling their imperfection, did by the Spirit foresee and tell of a royal priesthood and law to take place after this, that should perfect sinners, which could not be done by any called after Aaron’ s imperfect order. This was the Lord Christ the Messiah, who must be after the order of Melchisedec, Psa 110:4 , and who by his priesthood and law should abundantly effect it; which was far more excellent for both, than any of the Levitical family can pretend to.

Poole: Heb 7:12

For the priesthood being changed : for refers to the expiration of the Aaronical order, to which these Hebrews now were not bound, for that a better priesthood and law were to fill up their room in the church. The Levitical priesthood was changed and abolished to make way for this; God designing that to continue for a time, and then to expire, when the truth perfecting it should take place.

There is made of necessity a change also of the law the mutation of the priesthood indispensably requireth the change of the law, i.e. the legal dispensation of the covenant of grace, and the bringing in with another priesthood a better hope, Gal 3:17-27 ; compare Heb 7:18,19 of this chapter; even the covenant of grace in the gospel dispensation of it. This was made necessary by the decree of God, who determined, that both priesthood and law should expire together, and accordingly hath fulfilled it. For when Christ, the gospel High Priest, had in his person and work perfected all of it in heaven, he roots out that order of priesthood, abolisheth the law, scatters the people which would cleave to it; demolisheth the temple and city to which he confined the administration, so as all designs and endeavours of Jews, or of apostate Christhins, to repair, or to restore it, have been ineffectual to this day.

Poole: Heb 7:13

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe: that this priesthood was so altered, he proves by Christ’ s being of another tribe than Levi. This is a periphrasis, describing the priest after Melchisedec’ s order. Of whom was this said in Psa 110:4 , but of Christ, God-man, the royal High Priest of God? Mat 21:42 . He, as to his human nature, descended of the tribe of Judah, and not of Levi; and so the Aaronical priesthood was ended by him, Heb 2:14 Gen 49:10 .

Of which no man gave attendance at the altar of which tribe none was at priest, whose work was to attend the altar, and offer sacrifice; if any of another tribe pretended to, or would usurp it, God either smote them, as Uzziah, 2Ch 26:18 , or destroyed them, as those rebels, Num 16:1-3,28-35 ; neither was the priesthood hereby made tribual, or continued in any such tribe as in Levi, but confined to our Lord only, not because he descended of Judah, but extraordinarily selected of God out of it to discharge it.

Poole: Heb 7:14

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda the proof of this change of the tribe, and of what tribe he was, was undeniably evident to these Hebrews from their own genealogies, and the Roman census and enrolment of him; the providence of God ordering this, that it might be universally known that he was David’ s seed, as well as Abraham’ s, and as called by his name, Eze 34:23,24 37:24,25 . Our Lord was God-man, Lord-mediator, Psa 110:1,4 Mt 22:42,46 . He was, as to his humanity, born of the tribe of Judah, as his genealogy by his mother doth evince, Luk 3:33 , and the concomitant evidence of the Roman rolls, in which his name was registered and kept in their archives above an age after his ascension.

Of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood: no man of which tribe was so designed by God, or so revealed to have the royal priesthood, but himself; none of them having any right to it, as they could prove out of Moses’ s writing; and the rule of priesthood is to be found there, and no where else: so that a negative argument taken from Scripture in matters of religion is valid, though never so much puffed at in this age.

Poole: Heb 7:15

And it is yet far more evident: the change and abolition of the Levitical priesthood, and law, that the perfecting of Christ might succeed, is not only clearly represented to the understanding of all, that they assent to it, but it is far more evident from the eternity of this priesthood’ s constitution, as is proved, Heb 7:16 .

For thatei it, is a particle vehemently asserting, as in form of swearing, and not doubting, and therefore rendered for that.

After the similitude of Melchisedec like and parallel in order to him, and in all the properties foretold, which make him a most excellent priest; a priesthood far above that of Aaron, upon the account of the law and covenant to which it is related, which was not only the law of nature, serving God as Creator, but the law of grace, as he was Redeemer in Christ, who with the patriarchs worshipped God by, as believed in, a Christ to come.

There ariseth another priest not only of another tribe than Aaron, but of a different order from his; is constituted, manifested, and beginneth the exercise of his office with the abolition of Aaron’ s.

Poole: Heb 7:16

Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment the gospel High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, was not constituted nor consecrated after that order and rule of God which did bind the Aaronical priesthood, and regulate it as to their consecrations and ministrations, obliging them by annexed temporal promises and comminations, which could not reach an immortal soul. The Mosaical rites and ceremonies were bodily, fleshly, only external. He was not made a priest by legal purifying with water, nor anointed with oil, nor sprinkled with blood, nor clothed with priestly garments, as Aaron and his order was, Exo 39:1-43 40:13-15,31,32 ; nor initiated with sacrifices of bulls, goats, &c. He was not to minister in a tabernacle or temple, as they did, which was carnal, and reached only the flesh, could not expiate sins, nor procure spiritual and eternal blessings, Heb 9:1-12,19-26 .

But after the power of an endless life but was constituted and consecrated by God according to his powerful law. He was anointed with the Holy Ghost and power, Act 10:38 , which mighty influence enabled him to execute his oifice effectually for saving sinners; and by it he receiveth life peculiar to his priesthood, opposed to the dead letter of the commandment, by which, and under which, souls perished by multitudes. But this High Priest hath by this law life in himself, and the best of life to give out to those who wait on his ministry, Joh 5:21,24-26 , and such life as is indissoluble, opposite to carnal and bodily, which corrupts and perisheth; but the powerful life of this priest is not to be destroyed, neither in himself, nor his people. He by his death and life makes eternal expiation, and procureth eternal blessings for them: see Heb 7:25 , and Heb 9:11,12,28 .

PBC: Heb 7:11

Characteristics of Christ’s Priesthood Heb 7:11-8:6

Christ’s priesthood is clearly superior to the Aaronic priesthood, as the author now demonstrates. The word " better" appears four times in this section, indicating the superior blessings associated with Christ’s priesthood in contrast to the Levitical priesthood. The priesthood of Christ is characterized by a better hope, {Heb 7:19} a better testament, {Heb 7:22} a better covenant {Heb 8:6} and better promises. {Heb 8:6} His ministry is simply better than the ministry of those who represented the people to God under the Law, a " more excellent ministry." {Heb 8:6} In what ways is it better and superior?

Our priest is superior to their priest, first, in terms of the fact that he was ordained by God. {Heb 7:16-17,20-21}

Secondly, he is superior in terms of the fact that his priesthood will never cease. Unlike the Levitical priests, he will never die {Heb 7:23-24}[a]. He will " continue ever" cf. {Heb 7:3,16-17,28}

Third, he is superior because he will never change. {Heb 7:24} For that reason, nothing can thwart his power to deliver those who come to the God by him. {Heb 7:25} His power has no limit: He can save to the uttermost!

Fourth, he is superior to the Levitical priests in his person. Unlike the sons of Aaron, the Lord Jesus Christ had no sin {Heb 7:26} or infirmity. {Heb 7:28}

Fifthly, he is superior in his function. It is the priest’s function to make offerings. {Heb 8:3} Our priest’s sin offering, however, is superior to the Levitical priests because it was a " once for all" sacrifice. {Heb 7:27} It will never need repetition for Jesus was not only the priest that made the offering, he was also the offering. {Heb 7:27} Furthermore, his priesthood and the efficacy of his offering will never end. He has an ongoing ministry {Heb 8:2-3,6} as our " mediator" {Heb 8:6} and " intercessor" who ever lives to make intercession for us. {Heb 7:25}

All in all, the sum of these truths is simply this: Believers have a high priest who is eminently qualified to minister to God the Father on their behalf. The Old Testament priesthood pointed forward to this One who now intercedes for us before the Father. Christ’s priesthood is the substance of that which Aaron’s was only the shadow. {Heb 8:2,5} The priests under the Law were exemplars and figures; Jesus Christ is the reality.

Because we have a new priest, we also have a new and better covenant of worship and service. No longer do sinners have to approach God through the Levitical priesthood; now, we can draw near to Him through the merits of our great high priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.

" Return my soul unto thy rest,

The merits of thy Great High Priest

Have bought thy liberty;

Trust in his efficacious blood,

Nor fear thy banishment from God,

Since Jesus died for Thee."

374

Haydock: Heb 7:1

This Melchisedech. If we look for the construction, Melchisedech may be joined with what follows, (ver. 3.) continueth a priest for ever. (Witham) ---

The excellency of this personage was so transcendent, that some of the ancients took him to be an Angel, and some the Holy Ghost. This the Fathers condemn; for had he not been a man, a king, and a priest, he would not have been so worthy a type of our Saviour.

Haydock: Heb 7:2

King of justice, according to the signification of the word Melchisedech , and of peace, signified by the place Salem, of which he was king. By Salem is commonly expounded Jerusalem, though St. Jerome thinks it was a town in Samaria afterwards called Sichem. This king was also a priest of the Most High; i.e. of the true God. He blessed Abraham, after he had defeated Chodorlahomor and the other kings; (Genesis xiv.) and Abraham gave him the tithes of all things which he had taken from his enemies. He is said (ver. 3.) to have been without father, without mother, without any genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, inasmuch as we have no account in the Scripture of these particulars. He is said in Genesis to have brought out, inasmuch as he was a priest, that is, to have offered up a sacrifice to God of bread and wine. The apostle here shews two things, that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham, and that he is a figure of Christ, who is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. (Psalm cix. 4.) (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 7:3

Without father, &c. Not that he had no father, &c. but that neither his father, nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in Scripture. (Challoner) ---

Not that he was without father and mother, says St. Jerome, (ep. cxxxvi.) for Christ himself was not without a Father according to his divinity, nor without a Mother in his humanity; but because his genealogy is not given in Genesis, as of the other patriarchs is, but he is abruptly introduced without any mention of either his birth or death. In Melchisedech all was prophetical and figurative of Jesus Christ; and Abraham undoubtedly in this patriarch saw Jesus Christ in spirit, and exulted that all the nations of the earth were to be blessed in him. Abraham, your father, greatly desired, says our Lord to the Jews, to see the day of my coming: he saw it, and was filled with joy. (John viii. 56.)

Haydock: Heb 7:4

Consider how great this man (Melchisedech) was, and greater than our great patriarch, Abraham: 1. Because Abraham, of his own accord, paid tithes to this priest of all the chief things he had: which was to own himself inferior to him: as the rest of the Jewish people are inferior to the sons of Levi, the descendants of Aaron, who being raised to the dignity of the priesthood by the command of God, have a right to take tithes or tenths of the people; and so are honoured above the rest. 2. This Melchisedech blessed, or gave a benediction to our great father Abraham, to whom the promises of blessing all nations was made. Now he that gives a blessing to another, must be better or greater than he to whom the blessing is given; therefore Melchisedech was greater than Abraham. 3. To shew another pre-eminence of the priesthood of Melchisedech (which was a figure of the eternal priesthood of Christ) above the priesthood of Aaron, the apostle takes notice that the sons of Levi, the priests of the ancient law, to whom tithes were to be paid, were no more than mortal men, always dying, whereas the Scripture only witnesseth of Melchisedech that he liveth; he is represented as one that hath neither beginning nor end of his days. This agrees chiefly with Christ, who by the psalmist is called, a priest for ever. And, though Christ also died for us, for it was chiefly by his death that he offered his sacrifice, yet he presently rose again, and continues for ever a priest, without a successor as to his priesthood, and as to the sacrifice of expiation for the sins of mankind. His priesthood, his sacrifice, and oblation for our redemption, lasts for ever. 4. Another reason that shews the priesthood of Melchisedech (and of our Saviour, Christ) to be above the Aaronical priesthood, is, that not only Abraham, but even Aaron and Levi, and all their successors, may be said in the person of Abraham to have paid tithes to Melchisedech, because we may consider them as yet in the loins of Abraham, from whom they descended; though it cannot be said, in like manner, that Christ himself was in the loins of Abraham, because though he was Son of Abraham, yet his conception was not in the ordinary way of human generation, but by the operation of the Holy Ghost. See St. Augustine, lib. x. de Gen. ad lit. chap. 20. tom. 3. p. 270. nov. edit. 5. St. Paul (ver. 11.) brings another reason to shew that the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech was more perfect, because true justice and sanctification could not be given either by the priesthood of Aaron or by the law of Moses, which began as it were together; for if the former law and sacrifices offered by the priests of Aaron, had been sufficient for man's justification and salvation, there would have been no necessity of a new priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech. Of this St. Paul speaks elsewhere to the Romans. And, as there is a new priesthood, so there is a new law, by which the former is no longer in force. 6. He takes notice of this difference from the former priesthood, that they were priests of the tribe of Levi, but that Christ, the priest according to the order of Melchisedech, is of the tribe of Juda. 7. Another difference is, that the former law, and all belonging to it, consisted of carnal precepts, (ver. 16) in outward ceremonies and sacrifices, with promises of temporal blessings and a long life in this world; but the new law and sacrifice of Christ, is according to the power of an indissoluble and never-ending life, conferring inward graces, with the remission of sins, by which men are justified and saved, with promises of eternal happiness. 8. He tells us that Christ's priesthood was confirmed by God himself with an oath: not so the priesthood of Aaron. This second testament therefore is much better, and more excellent. 9. The former testament brought nothing to perfection. (ver. 19.) It had nothing but types and figures of what was to be fulfilled under the priesthood of Christ. The priests died, and succeeded one to another; and there was need of different sacrifices, which they were to offer daily for their own sins and for the sins of the people; but Christ was innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, (ver. 26) could not sin, but by suffering once has redeemed all, has satisfied for the sins of all mankind, and by this one sacrifice can save all that come to him by faith, hope, and love; he lives for ever to make intercession for us, as our Mediator and Redeemer. As he remains for ever, he is a priest for ever; and by virtue of that one sacrifice on the cross, all that believe in him and obey him may be may be saved, and be happy for eternity. Christ's sacrifice and oblation on the cross, is that one sacrifice of the new law which remains and will be continued by his ministers, the priest of the new law, to the end of the world, the manner only being different, but not the sacrifice. This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, delivered to the faithful in the Council of Trent,[1] (session 22. cap. 2.) where it is declared, that in the Mass is continued the same sacrifice and oblation which Christ offered, who is still the chief priest, in whose name only his ministers, the bishops and priests, speak and act as his instruments. The Victim that is offered is also the same, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, after a spiritual and unbloody manner, according to his command at his last supper. The oblation at the Mass is indeed a true and proper sacrifice, yet not a new or different sacrifice of expiation for the sins of mankind, but an application of Christ's satisfactions and merits, which, though of infinite value, and more than sufficient to satisfy for the sins of the whole world, yet by the will of God are to be applied to us by faith, by the sacraments, by the same sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, offered at the mass, &c. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Una eademque est Hostia, idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa. (Sess. 22. cap. 2.) Canon 1. Si quis dixerit in missa non offerri verum et proprium sacrificium, &c. anathema. Canon 3. Si quis dixerit missæ sacrificium tantum esse laudis, et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, vel soli prodesse sumenti, &c. Anathema sit.

====================

Haydock: Heb 7:12

After giving a decided preference to Melchisedech, and his priesthood, over the Levitical priesthood, St. Paul proves the abrogation of the latter, and even of the law, by the introduction of a new priesthood, according to the order of Melchisedech.

Gill: Heb 7:1

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

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

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

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

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

Gill: Heb 7:2

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all,.... Or tithes, as in Gen 14:20. Philo the Jew ^b renders the Hebrew phrase, מעשר מכל, just as the apostle does δεκατην απο παντων, "a tenth part of all", or "out of all"; not of all that he brought back, as Lot's goods, or the king of Sodom's, or any others; only of the spoils of the enemy, as in Heb 7:4 which is no proof of any obligation on men to pay tithes now to any order of men; for this was a voluntary act, and not what any law obliged to; it was done but once, and not constantly, or every year; it was out of the spoils of the enemy, and not out of his own substance, or of the increase of the earth; nor was it for the maintenance of Melchizedek, as a priest, who also was a king, and was richly provided for; but to testify his gratitude to God, for the victory obtained, and his reverence of, and subjection to the priest of God.

First being by interpretation king of righteousness; or a "righteous king", as Melchizedek was; not the king of a righteous place, as Aben Ezra thought, a place wherein dwelt righteousness, or righteous persons; but it was his proper name, which so signifies, and in which he was a type of Christ; who is righteous, not only as God, and as man, and as Mediator, but particularly in the administration of his kingly office: his kingdom lies in righteousness, as well as peace; the subjects of it are righteous persons, and all his ways are just and true; his Gospel, by which he rules, is a declaration of righteousness; and he himself is the author of righteousness to all his people:

and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace; and may respect his peaceable government; and is very applicable to Christ, the Prince of peace; whose kingdom is a kingdom of peace; his sceptre is a sceptre of peace; his royal proclamation is the Gospel of peace; and his subjects are the sons of peace; and he himself is the author of peace, not only between Jew and Gentile, but between God and his people; and he is the donor of peace, external, internal, and eternal. So Philo the Jew ^c interprets this name, "king of peace", just as the apostle does.

Gill: Heb 7:3

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 אבן פאלג, "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 Gen 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 Mat 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.

Gill: Heb 7:4

Now consider how great this man was,.... Melchizedek, of whom so many great and wonderful things are said in the preceding verses: and as follows,

unto whom the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils; of Abraham's giving tithes to him; see Gill on Heb 7:2 and Melchizedek's greatness is aggravated, not only from this act of Abraham's, but from Abraham's being a "patriarch", who did it; he was the patriarch of patriarchs, as the sons of Jacob are called, Act 7:8 he is the patriarch of the whole Jewish nation, and of many nations, and of all believers, the friend of God, and heir of the world; how great then must Melchizedek be, to whom he paid tithes? and how much greater must Christ, the antitype of Melchizedek, be?

Gill: Heb 7:5

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi,.... Or Levites; who are of the tribe of Levi, whose descent is from him:

who receive the office of the priesthood; as some of them were priests, though not all; and the Levites therefore are sometimes called priests. R. Joshua ben Levi says, that in twenty four places the priests are called Levites; and this is one of them, Eze 44:15 "and the priests and Levites", &c. ^k.

these have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law; the ceremonial law, Num 18:20, these they took of all the people of Israel in the rest of the tribes, by the commandment of God, on account of their service in the tabernacle; and because they had no inheritance in the land; and to show that the Israelites held their land of God himself:

that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham; who are their brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh, though of different tribes; and from these they receive, notwithstanding they are the sons of Abraham: but here a difficulty arises, how the Levites that were priests can be said to receive tithes from the people, when they received the tenth part of the tithes, or the tithe of tithes from the Levites, Num 18:26, but it should be observed, that it was not necessary that the Levites should give these tithes to the priests themselves; an Israelite might do it, and so give the Levites the less; on which account the priests may be said to receive from the people; besides, Ezra in his time ordered, that the first tithe should not be given to the Levites, but to the priests, because they would not go up with him to Jerusalem ^l.

Gill: Heb 7:6

But he whose descent is not counted from them, &c. That is, Melchizedek, whose genealogy or pedigree is not reckoned from the Levites, nor from any from whom they descend; his lineal descent is not the same with theirs; and so did not receive tithes by any law, as they did, but by virtue of his superiority: received tithes of Abraham; not from the people, or his brethren, but from Abraham, the father of the people of Israel, and of Levi himself:

and blessed him that had the promises; of a Son, and of the Messiah, that should spring from him, in whom all nations should be blessed, and of the land of Canaan, and of the blessings of grace and glory. This shows that Melchizedek had a descent, though it was not known; and that, since his descent was not the same with the Levites, he was a more proper type of Christ, who belonged not to that, but another tribe.

Gill: Heb 7:7

And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater. This is a self-evident truth, and is undeniable; it admits of no controversy, and cannot be gainsaid, that he that blesseth is greater in that respect than he that is blessed by him; as the priests were greater in their office than the people who were blessed by them; and so Melchizedek, as a priest of the most high God, and as blessing Abraham, was greater than he; and so must be greater than the Levites, who sprung from him; and his priesthood be more excellent than theirs; and consequently Christ, his antitype, and who was of his order, must be greater too; which is the design of the apostle throughout the whole of his reasoning.

Gill: Heb 7:8

And here men that die receive tithes, 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 Psa 110:4.

Gill: Heb 7:9

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

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

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

Gill: Heb 7:10

For he was yet in the loins of his father,.... Abraham; namely, Levi and his whole posterity; which is to be understood seminally, just as all mankind were in the loins of Adam, when he sinned and fell, and so they sinned and fell in him; and so Levi was in Abraham's loins,

when Melchisedec met him; which, as it proves Melchizedek to be greater than Levi, and much more Jesus Christ, who is a priest of his order, which is the grand thing the apostle has in view; so it serves to illustrate several points of doctrine, in which either of the public heads, Adam and Christ, are concerned, with respect to their seed and offspring; such as personal election in Christ, an eternal donation of all blessings of grace to the elect in him, eternal justification in him, the doctrine of original sin, and the saints' crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and session in Christ, and together with him.

Gill: Heb 7:11

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,.... The priesthood which was established in the tribe of Levi; so called, to distinguish it from that which was before this institution, from the times of Adam, as well as from the priesthood of Melchizedek, and from the priesthood of Christ, and from that of his people under the Gospel, who are all priests; as well as to restrain it to the subject of the apostle's discourse: the design of which is to show, that there is no perfection by it; as is clear from the priests themselves, who were but men, mortal men, sinful men, and so imperfect, and consequently their priesthood; and from their offerings, between which, and sin, there is no proportion; and at best were but typical of the sacrifice of Christ; and could neither make the priests nor the worshippers perfect, neither in their own consciences, nor in the sight of God: moral actions are preferred before them, and yet by these there is no perfection, justification, and salvation; to which may be added, that the sacrifices the priests offered did not extend to all kind of sins, only to sins of ignorance, not to presumptuous ones; and there were many under that dispensation punished with death; and at most they only delivered from temporal, not eternal punishment, and only entitled to a temporal life, not an eternal one.

For under it the people received the law: not the moral law, which was given to Adam in innocence, and as it came by Moses, it was before the Levitical priesthood took place; but the ceremonial law, and which was carnal, mutable, and made nothing perfect: the Syriac version renders it, "by which a law was imposed upon the people"; to regard the office of priesthood, and the priests in it, and bring their sacrifices to them; and the Arabic version reads, "the law of a the priest's office"; which office was after the law of a carnal commandment, and so imperfect, as is manifest from what follows: for had perfection been by it,

what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? that there was another priest promised and expected, and that he should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and who was to make his soul an offering for sin, is certain, Ezr 2:63 and such an one is risen, even Jesus of Nazareth; and yet there would have been no need of him, and especially that he should be of a different order from Aaron's, had there been perfection by the Levitical priesthood.

Gill: Heb 7:12

For the priesthood being changed,.... Not translated from one tribe, family, or order, to another, but utterly abolished; for though it is called an everlasting priesthood, yet that is to be understood with a limitation, as the word "everlasting" often is, as relating to things under that dispensation; for nothing is more certain than that it is done away: it was of right abrogated at the death of Christ, and it is now in fact; since the destruction of Jerusalem, the daily sacrifice has ceased, and the children of Israel have been many days without one, and without an ephod. And the Jews themselves own, that the high priesthood was to cease in time to come ^m, and which they say Azariah the son of Oded prophesied of in 2Ch 15:3.

There is made of necessity a change also of the law; not the moral law, that was in being before the priesthood of Aaron, nor do they stand and fall together; besides, this still remains, for it is perfect, and cannot be made void by any other; nor is it set aside by Christ's priesthood: though there is a sense in which it is abolished; as it is in the hands of Moses; as it is a covenant of works; as to justification by it; and as to its curse and condemnation to them that are Christ's; yet it still remains in the hands of Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation; and is useful, and continues so on many accounts: but either the judicial law; not that part of it which is founded on justice and equity, and was a means of guarding the moral law, for that still subsists; but that which was given to the Jews as Jews, and some parts of which depended on the priesthood, and so ceased with it; as the laws concerning the cities of refuge, raising up seed to a deceased brother, preserving inheritances in families, and judging and determining controversies: or rather the ceremonial law, which was but a shadow of good things to come, and was given but for a time; and this concerned the priesthood, and was made void by the priesthood of Christ; for that putting an end to the Levitical priesthood, the law which related to it must unavoidably cease, and become of no effect. This the Jews most strongly deny; God, they ⁿ say, will not change nor alter the law of Moses for ever. The nineth article of their creed, as drawn up by Maimonides, runs thus ^o;

"I believe with a perfect faith that this law לא תהא מוחלפת "shall not be changed", nor shall there be another law from the Creator, blessed be his name.''

But the reasoning of the apostle is strong and unanswerable.

Gill: Heb 7:13

For he of whom these things are spoken,.... In Psa 110:4 and in the type of him Melchizedek, in the preceding verses; for not Melchizedek is here meant, but the Lord Jesus Christ, as appears by what follows; the antitype of Melchizedek, the Lord our righteousness, the Prince of peace, the priest of God, that lives for ever, without father, without mother, &c.

pertaineth to another tribe; the tribe of Judah, and not the tribe of Levi:

of which no man gave attendance at the altar; either of burnt offering or of incense; that is, no man waited there, or took upon him and exercised the priest's office that was of the tribe of Judah: no man might lawfully do it; Uzziah, indeed, thrust himself into the priest's office, who was of that tribe, and went into the temple and burnt incense upon the altar of incense; but then he had no right to do it, and was punished for it.

Gill: Heb 7:14

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah,.... Out of the tribe of Judah; it is certain that the Messiah was to spring from that tribe, Gen 49:10 he was to be of the family of Jesse, and of the house of David; and hence he is sometimes called David himself; and so the Jews expect that he will come from the tribe of Judah, and not from any other ^p; and it is evident that Jesus, who is our Lord by creation, redemption, and the conquest of his grace, sprung from this tribe: this is clear from the place of his birth, Bethlehem of Judah; and from his reputed father Joseph, and real mother Mary, being both of the house of David; and this was known to the Jews, and it is owned by them that he was near to the kingdom ^q, which he could not be if he was not of that tribe; and hence he is called the lion of the tribe of Judah;

of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood: he said many things of it in Deu 33:8 and relates many things concerning it as spoken by Jacob, but nothing about the priesthood, as if it belonged to that, or that any that should spring from it should exercise that office, The Alexandrian copy, the Claromontane manuscript, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, "concerning the priests"; whence it follows that there is a change of the priesthood, and that the Messiah, as he was not to be, so he is not a priest of Aaron's order, not being of the same tribe.

Gill: Heb 7:15

And it is yet far more evident,.... From a fact which cannot be denied;

for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest; or another has risen, even Jesus the son of David, of the tribe of Judah; another from Aaron, one that is not of his family or tribe, but one like to Melchizedek: hence we learn that Melchizedek and Christ are not the same person; and that the order and similitude of Melchizedek are the same; and that Christ's being of his order only imports that there is a resemblance and likeness between him and Melchizedek, in many things, which are observed in the beginning of this chapter: and this "arising" does not intend Christ's setting up himself, only his appearance in this form; and being expressed in the present tense, denotes the continual being, and virtue of his priesthood.

Gill: Heb 7:16

Who was made,.... Not as man, much less as God; but as a priest, constituted and appointed one:

not after the law of a carnal commandment: either the ceremonial law in general, which was a carnal one, if we consider the persons to whom it belonged, the Israelites according to the flesh; it was incumbent upon, and might be performed by such who were only carnal; and it was performed by and for men that were in the flesh, or mortal; and if we consider the matter of it, the subject on which various of its rites were exercised was the flesh or body, and which were performed by manual operation; and the sacrifices of it were the flesh of beasts; and these were for the sins of the flesh, and for the removing the ceremonial uncleanness of it; and the virtue of them reached only to the purifying of the flesh; and the whole of it is distinct from the moral law, which is spiritual, and reaches to the spirit or soul of man; whereas this only was concerned about temporal and external things: or else the law of the priesthood is particularly intended; or that commandment which respected the priesthood of Aaron; which law regarded the carnal descent of his sons; enjoined a carnal inauguration of them, and provided for their succession and continuance in a carnal way; after which, Christ the great high priest did not become one:

but after the power of an endless life; this may be understood either of the Gospel, according to which Christ is a priest; and which is called "life", in opposition to the law which is the ministration of death; and because it is the means of quickening dead sinners, and of reviving drooping saints; and points out Christ the way of life, and has brought life and immortality to light: and may be said to be "endless", in distinction from the law, which is temporary; and because it is itself permanent and everlasting; contains in it the promise of eternal life, and is the means of bringing souls unto it: and there is a "power" goes along with it; which distinguishes it from the weak and beggarly elements of the ceremonial law, which is abolished, because of the weakness of it; for it is attended with the power of the Spirit of God, and is the power of God unto salvation: or else this intends the endless life which Christ has, in and of himself; and which qualifies him for a priest; and stands opposed to the mortality of the priests, and to that law which could not secure them from it: the priests died, and the law by which they were priests could not prevent their death; Christ is the living God, the Prince of life, he had power to lay down his life as man, and power to take it up again; and his life, as man, is an endless one, which qualifies him for that part of his priestly office, his intercession and advocacy: or it may design that power, which his Father has given him as Mediator, of an endless life, both for himself and for all his people; and regards his ever living as a priest, and the perpetuity of and the continual virtue and efficacy of it.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Heb 7:1

¹ sn A series of quotations from Gen 14:17-19.

NET Notes: Heb 7:2

¹ tn Grk “to whom,” continuing the description of Melchizedek. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

² tn Or “a tenth part.”

³ sn A quotation from Gen 14:20.

⁴ tn Grk “first being interpreted,” describing Melchizedek.

NET Notes: Heb 7:4

¹ tn Grk “to whom.”

² tn Or “a tenth part.”

NET Notes: Heb 7:5

¹ tn Or “the priesthood.”

² tn Grk “from their brothers.” See BDAG 18-19 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.b.

³ tn Grk “have come from the loins of Abraham.”

NET Notes: Heb 7:6

¹ tn Grk “the one”; in the translation the referent (Melchizedek) has been specified for clarity.

² tn Grk “is not descended from them.”

³ tn Or “a tenth part.”

⁴ sn The verbs “collected…and blessed” emphasize the continuing effect of the past actions, i.e., Melchizedek’s importance.

NET Notes: Heb 7:10

¹ tn Grk “in the loins of his father” (a reference to Abraham). The name “Abraham” has been repeated in the translation at this point (cf. v. 9) in order to clarify the referent (i.e., what ancestor was in view).

sn The point of the phrase still in his ancestor’s loins is that Levi was as yet unborn, still in his ancestor Abraham’s body. Thus Levi participated in Abraham’s action when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

NET Notes: Heb 7:11

¹ tn Grk “based on it.”

NET Notes: Heb 7:12

¹ tn Grk “of necessity a change in the law comes to pass.”

NET Notes: Heb 7:13

¹ tn Grk “shares in.”

² tn Grk “from which no one.”

NET Notes: Heb 7:16

¹ tn Grk “a law of a fleshly command.”

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:1

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

^{( 1 )} Declaring those words, "According to the order of Melchizedek" upon which the comparison of the priesthood of Christ with the Levitical priesthood rests: first, Melchizedek himself is considered to be the type of Christ and these are the points of that comparison. Melchizedek was a king and a priest, as is Christ alone. He was a king of peace and righteousness as is Christ alone.

^{( a )} With a solemn and priestly blessing.

Geneva Bible: Heb 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.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:4

^{( 3 )} Now consider how great this man [was], unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

^{( 3 )} Another figure: Melchizedek in his priesthood was above Abraham for he took tithes from him, and blessed him as a priest. Such a one indeed is Christ, on whom depends even Abraham's sanctification and all the believers, and whom all men should worship and reverence as the author of all.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:5

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they ^{( b )} come out of the loins of Abraham:

^{( b )} Were begotten by Abraham.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:7

And ^{( c )} without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

^{( c )} He speaks of the public blessing which the priests used.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:9

^{( 4 )} And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

^{( 4 )} A twofold amplification: The first, that Melchizedek took the tithes as one immortal (that is, in respect that he is the figure of Christ, for his death is not mentioned, and David sets him forth as an everlasting Priest) but the Levitical priests, took tithes as mortal men, for they succeed one another: the second, that Levi himself, though yet in Abraham, was tithed by Melchizedek. Therefore the priesthood of Melchizedek (that is, Christ's, who is pronounced to be an everlasting Priest according to this order) is more excellent than the Levitical priesthood.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:11

^{( 5 )} If therefore ^{( d )} perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

^{( 5 )} The third treatise of this Epistle, in which after he has proved Christ to be a King, Prophet and a Priest, he now handles distinctly the condition and excellency of all these offices, showing that all these were shadows, but in Christ they are true and perfect. He begins with the priesthood that the former treatise ended with, that by this means all the parts of the debate may better hold together. First of all he proves that the Levitical priesthood was imperfect because another priest is promised later according to an other order, that is, of another rule and fashion.

^{( d )} If the priesthood of Levi could have made any man perfect.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:12

^{( 6 )} For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the ^{( e )} law.

^{( 6 )} He shows how by the institution of the new priesthood, not only the imperfection of the priesthood of Levi was declared, but also that it was changed for this: for these two cannot stand together, because the first appointment of the tribe of Levi shut out the tribe of Judah and made it inferior to Levi: and this latter passage places the priesthood in the tribe of Judah.

^{( e )} Of the institution of Aaron.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:13

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man ^{( f )} gave attendance at the altar.

^{( f )} Had anything to do with the altar.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:15

^{( 7 )} And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

^{( 7 )} Lest any man object, the priesthood was indeed translated from Levi to Judah. Nonetheless the same still remains, he both considers and explains those words of David "for ever, according to the order of Melchizedek" by which also a different institution of priesthood is understood.

Geneva Bible: Heb 7:16

^{( 8 )} Who is made, not after the ^{( g )} law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

^{( 8 )} He proves the diversity and excellency of the institution of Melchizedek's priesthood, by this that the priesthood of the law rested on an outward and bodily anointing: but the sacrifice of Melchizedek is set out to be everlasting and more spiritual.

^{( g )} Not after the ordination, which commands frail ad temporary things, as was done in Aaron's consecration, and all of that whole priesthood.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Heb 7:1-28

1 Christ Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec;

11 and so far more excellent than the priests of Aaron's order.

Combined Bible: Heb 7:1-3

  

(Hebrews 7:1-3)   

In Hebrews 2:17, the apostle announced that the Lord Jesus is "a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God", while in Hebrews 3:1 he calls on those who are partakers of the heavenly calling to "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession". Having shown in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 the superiority of Christianity’ s Apostle over Judaism’ s, viz. Moses, whose work was completed by Joshua, Paul then declared that "We have a great High Priest, that is passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God", an High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, seeing that He also was tempted in all points like us (in His spirit, His soul, and His body), sin excepted; for which reason we are bidden to "Come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:14-16).  

In the opening verses of Hebrews 5 we are shown how Christ fulfilled the Aaronic type, and how that He possessed every necessary perfection to qualify Him for filling the sacerdotal office, see articles 19 to 21. But while the Holy Spirit there shows how Christ provided the substance of what was foreshadowed by the Levitical priests, He is also particular to exhibit how that Christ excelled them at every point. Finally, he declares that the Lord Jesus was, "Called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchizedek" (verse 10). We have previously called attention to it, but as this detail is so important and so little understood, we repeat: it is highly essential to observe that Christ is not there said to be "High Priest of the order of Melchizedek", but "alter the order of", etc. The difference between the two expressions is real and radical: "of" would have limited His priesthood to that particular order; "after" simply shows that there is a resemblance between them, as there also was between Aaron’ s and Christ’ s.  

At Hebrews 5:11 the apostle declared, "Of whom we have many things to say and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing". The difficulty lay in the strong disinclination of man to relinquish that which has long been cherished, which nowhere appears more evident than in connection with religious things. To say that Christ was a High Priest "after the order of Melchizedek" was tantamount to affirming that the Aaronic order was Divinely set aside, and with it, all the ordinances and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. "This", as we said in an earlier article, "was the hardest thing of all for a Hebrew, even a converted one, to bow to, for it meant repudiating everything that was seen, and cleaving to that which was altogether invisible. It meant forsaking that which their fathers had honored for fifteen hundred years, and espousing that which the great majority of their brethren according to the flesh denounced as Satanic.  

The Hebrews had become "dull of hearing". They were too slothful to make the effort needed for a proper understanding of the nature of Christ’ s priestly office and work. In Hebrews 3:1 the apostle had called on them to, "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession", and in Hebrews 7:4 he again says, "Now consider". The Greek word means to "ponder intensely" to "behold diligently", to "weigh thoroughly" the things proposed unto us. It is at this point so many fail: they imagine all that is required of them is to hear the Word of God expounded, and if anything appears to them hard to understand, they conclude it is not for them; hence, they make little progress in Divine things and fail to "increase in the knowledge of God" (Col. 1:10). And this is not simply an "infirmity", it reveals a sad state of soul; it shows a lack of interest in spiritual things. This was the state of the Hebrews: they had gone back.  

The condition of soul in which a Christian is has very much to do with his spiritual receptivity. He may hear the best of preaching and read the soundest of books, yet if his heart be not right with God, he will not be profited. His head knowledge of Truth may be increased and his pride puffed up, but his soul is not fed, nor is his walk influenced Godwards. It was thus with the Corinthians, therefore we find the apostle writing to them, "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as babes in Christ" (1 Cor. 3:1). It was thus with the Hebrews: the spirit of the apostle was straitened. He longed to expound to them the excellency of the glories of Christ’ s priesthood, but he had to pause and address himself to their sorrowful state of heart. In this he has left an example which all teachers do well to weigh and imitate.  

As we have seen, at Hebrews 5:11 the apostle makes a digression, which is continued to the end of the 6th chapter. It is most instructive to observe the order he followed. The better to appreciate it, let us review the contents of this parenthetical section in their inverse order. In chapter 7, he sets forth the official glories of Christ. But what immediately precedes? This: at the close of Hebrews chapter 6 (verses 16-20) he presents the sure ground which true Christians occupy for having a "strong consolation". Thus, it is only as the heart is set at perfect rest before God, fully assured of His favor, of His unchanging grace, that the soul is in any condition to ponder, to appreciate, to revel in the glories of Christ. It is faith’ s realization of the unceasing and effectual intercession of our great High Priest within the veil, which keeps the heart in peace. The contemplation of the essential Holiness of God would fill the soul with despair, but it is turned into hope and joy by seeing Jesus at His right hand "for us". The secret of victory is to be, in spirit, where our Forerunner is.  

And what precedes the blessed assurance which the closing verses of Hebrews chapter 6 are designed to convey to the believer? This: a call to faithful perseverance in running the race set before us; a bidding of us "be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises" (verses 9-15). We are not entitled to the comfort which comes from resting upon the immutability of the Divine counsels while we are following a course of self-will and self-pleasing. Only those who are really walking with God have any right to the joy of His salvation. To talk of our certainty of reaching Heaven while out of the path of obedience, is nothing but a carnal presumption.  

And what, in turn, precedes the call to a steady continuation in well-doing, to the exercise of faith and love? This: a solemn warning against the danger of apostasy (verses 4-7). The sluggards of Hebrews 5:11-14 must be aroused, the careless plainly told of what the final outcome would be were indifference to the righteous claims of God persisted in. There are some who refuse to allow that verses 4-7 contain a warning given to real Christians against the danger of apostasy. They say it would be quite inconsistent for the Holy Spirit to so warn them, while in verses 16-20 He gives the most absolute assurance of their security. Ah, but mark it well, the assurance in verses 16-20 is for "the heirs of promise", and not for all professing believers. The warning is to make us examine ourselves and make sure that we are "heirs". This, the truly regenerate will do; whereas the self-complacent and presumptuous will ignore it, to their own eternal undoing.  

In confirmation of what has been pointed out above, we quote the following from John Owen: "As the minds of men are to be greatly prepared for the communication of spiritual mysteries unto them, so the best preparation is by the cure of their sinful and corrupt affections, with the removal of their barrenness under what they have already heard and been instructed in. It is to no purpose, yea, it is but the putting of new wine into old bottles to the loss of all, to be daily leading men into the knowledge of higher mysteries, whilst they live in a neglect of the practice of what they have been taught already".  

At the close of his hortatory digression, the apostle returns to the precise point at which his orderly argument had been interrupted, as will immediately appear by comparing Hebrews 5:10 and Hebrews 6:20. Jesus was, and is for ever, High Priest. This was an entirely new doctrine for the Hebrews. Our Lord Himself had made no specific reference to it during the days of His earthly ministry, nor is there any record of it in the preaching of the apostles. Yet the teaching of both One and the others was based upon and assumed this fundamental fact. But now the Holy Spirit was pleased to give a clear unfolding of this precious truth. It was "hard" for even converted Jews to receive. Their chief objection would be that, to assert Christ was High Priest, yea, the only High Priest of His Church, was affirming something inconsistent with and contrary to the Law, for He did not (according to the flesh) belong to the Levitical tribe, He was not in the line of the priests.  

It is most important for us to take account of this difficulty which presented itself to the minds of the Hebrews, for unless we recognize that one of the chief objects before the apostle in chapter 7 was to remove this very difficulty, we are certain to err in our understanding of the details of his argument. It was not the design of the apostle to teach that the nature and functions of Christ’ s priesthood had no resemblance to that of the Aaronic. Far from it. He could not now contradict all that he has so explicitly set forth in Hebrews 5:1-9. There he had plainly shown that the Lord Jesus had fulfilled the Aaronic type by Himself offering to God a perfect and final Sacrifice for the sins of His people. To this he again returns in chapter 9, where he declares that Christ had (as Aaron foreshadowed) "by His own blood entered into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption" (verse 12). Let it not be forgotten that the atoning ministry of Israel’ s high priest was consummated within the veil, Leviticus 16:12-14.  

In Hebrews 7 the apostle proves that so far from the priestly office and work of the Lord Jesus conflicting with what God had instituted through Moses, it was the fulfillment of His own counsels as made known in the Old Testament Scriptures. At the same time he takes occasion to submit the proof that the priesthood of Christ was far more glorious than that of Aaron’ s. This he does by an appeal to an ancient oracle, the mystical meaning of which had been hidden from the Jews, yea, the very letter of which appears to have been quite forgotten by them. We refer to the 110th Psalm, which will come before us in the course of examining our present chapter.  

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God" (verse 1). At the close of chapter 6 the Holy Spirit directs our gaze into the Holiest, whither for us the Forerunner hath entered, even Jesus our great High Priest. He now proceeds to emphasize the dignity of His priesthood, showing that it is accompanied by royal majesty, that it is intransmissible, and that it abideth forever. Thus our confidence in Him should be complete and entire, unwavering and unceasing. Thus too we may perceive again the immeasurable superiority of Christianity over Judaism by the super-excellency of its Priest.  

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God". The opening "For" has, we believe, a double connection. More immediately, it forms the closest possible link between what is declared in Hebrews 6:20, and what is to immediately follow. There it was affirmed that "Jesus is made an High Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek"; here it will be shown that thus it was, mystically, with Melchizedek himself. This will be the more apparent if the second half of verse 2 and the whole of verse 3, saving its final clause, be placed in a parenthesis, reading it thus: "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, abideth a priest continually". More remotely the opening "For" of the verse, looks back to Hebrews 5:10, 11: he now brings forth the "many things" he had to say to him.  

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God". Two things are here affirmed of Melchizedek: be was king, and he was priest. Almost endless conjectures have been made as to the identity of Melchizedek. Questions have been raised as to what order of beings he belonged to. Some have insisted that he was a Divine person, others that he was an angel, still others that he was Christ Himself in theophanic manifestation — as when He appeared to Joshua (Josh. 5:14), or in Babylon’ s furnace (Dan. 3:25), etc. Others, allowing that he was only a man, have speculated as to his nationality, family connections, and so on. But as the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to give us any information on these points, we deem it irreverence (Deut. 29:29) to indulge in any surmises thereon.  

The first time Melchizedek is brought before us on the pages of Holy Writ is in Genesis 14. There he confronted Abraham, without introduction, in the land of Canaan. At that time all the world had fallen into the grossest of idolatry and the most awful immorality: Romans 1:19-31. Even the progenitors of Abraham worshipped false gods: Joshua 24:2. At that time Canaan was inhabited chiefly by the Sodomites on the one hand (Gen. 13), and by the Amorites (Gen. 15:16) on the other. Yet, in the very midst of these people who were sinners above others, God was pleased to raise up a man who was an illustrious type of Christ! A signal instance was this of the absolute sovereignty of God. He can raise up instruments for His service and unto His glory, when, where, and as it pleases Him. He can raise up the greatest light in the midst of the greatest darkness: Matthew 4:16.  

Melchizedek was "king of Salem": in the light of Psalm 76:2 there can be no doubt but what this was the earlier or original name for Jerusalem: "In Salem also is His tabernacle, and His dwelling-place in Zion". Only Jerusalem can there be intended. Further, Melchizedek was "priest of the most high God", and this in the days of Abraham! Thus, Jerusalem had a king many centuries before David, and God had a priest which He owned long ere Aaron was called! It has been rightly pointed out that, "The argument of the apostle, deducing and illustrating the superiority of Christ’ s priesthood over the Aaronic, from and by the relation of Melchizedek to the Levitical priesthood, is in some respects analogous to the argument of the apostle with regard to the law, and its parenthetical and inferior position, as compared with the Gospel.... the Jews were shocked when the apostle Paul taught that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to observe the law; that for the new covenant church the law of Moses was no longer the rule and form of life. And therefore the apostle in his epistle to the Galatians, tells them that the law was given four hundred years after the promise had been made unto Abraham, and that therefore there was no injustice, and no inconsistency, in the bringing in of a new dispensation, which was in fact only a return in a fuller and more perfect manner to that which was from the beginning in the mind of God" (Adolph Saphir).  

There is, indeed, a still closer analogy than has been pointed out by Mr. Saphir between Paul’ s argument in Hebrews 7 and that which he used to the Galatians. Melchizedek was the king-priest of Jerusalem. Now in Galatians 4:26, we are told that, "Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all". The word "above" there has misled almost all of the commentators. The primary reference is not to location, but to time, it is antithetical from "now is", not, from "below"! In the immediate context the apostle contrasts two covenants, each of which was associated with a city. Paul there calls attention to the fact that the "promise" which God made to Abraham both preceded and outlasted the law! so too does the "Jerusalem" of the promise. Melchizedek was connected with Jerusalem before the Law was first given, and it was a type of Heaven: Hebrews 11:10, etc.  

It is indeed striking to discover that God’ s first priest was this king of Salem— which signifies "peace", Jerusalem meaning "the foundation of peace". Jerusalem was to be the place where the incarnate Son of God was to begin the exercise of His sacerdotal office; moreover, it was to be the seat of His local church (Acts 1endash 15) until the significance of the type had been effected. In the history of that unique city we see the sovereign pleasure of God again exercised and exemplified, for He appoints various intervals of blessing unto places. Jerusalem was first privileged with the presence of this priest of the most high God. Afterwards, for a long season, it was given over to the idolatrous Jebusites: see Joshua 15:63, 2 Samuel 5:6, etc. Then, in process of time, it was again visited with Divine favor and made the headquarters of the solemn worship of Jehovah. Now, as for centuries past, it is "trodden down of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). But in the future it will again be the center of Divine blessing on earth: Isaiah 2:1-4. In like manner God hath dealt with many another place and city.  

"Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him" (verse 1). The historical reference is to Genesis 14:18,19. "Whether any intercourse had previously taken place between these two venerable men, or whether they afterwards continued to have occasional intercourse, we cannot tell; though the probability seems to be, that Melchizedek was not a stranger to Abraham when he came forth to meet him, and that, in an age when the worshippers of the true God were comparatively few, two such men as Abraham and Melchizedek did not live in the same district and country without forming a close intimacy" (Dr. J. Brown).  

"And blessed him". This was a part of the priestly office as we learn from Deuteronomy 21:5: "And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near for the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the Lord". The "blessing" Abraham received, is recorded in Genesis 14:19: "Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, Possessor of heaven and earth". Absolutely, only God can either bless or curse, for He only has sovereign power over all good and evil. This power He exercises directly (Gen. 12:3): yet by a gracious concession and by His institution, God also allows men to invoke blessings on others. In the Old Testament we find parents blessing their children (Gen. 9:26, 27:27, 48:20. etc.), and the priests blessing the people (Num. 6:24-26).  

In both instances it was Christ that was typically in view. "In the blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek, all believers are virtually blessed by Jesus Christ, — Melchizedek was a type of Christ, and represented Him in what He was and did, as our apostle declares. And Abraham in all these things, bare the person of, or represented, all his posterity according to the faith. Therefore doth our apostle in the foregoing chapter entitle all believers, unto the promises made unto him, and the inheritance of them. There is, therefore, more than a bare story in this matter. A blessing is in it conveyed unto all believers in the way of an ordinance forever" (John Owen). It deserves to be noticed that the final act of Christ ere leaving this earth was that "He led them out as far as to Bethany, and He lifted up His hands, and blessed them" (Luke 24:50).  

"To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all" (verse 2). Melchizedek’ s "blessing" of Abraham was the exercise of his priesthood; Abraham’ s paying him tithes was the recognition of it. Abraham had just obtained a most memorable victory over the kings of Canaan, and now in his making an offering to Melchizedek, he acknowledged that it was God who had given him the victory and owned that Melchizedek was His servant. Under the Mosaic dispensation we find the Levitical priests were supported by the tithes of the people: Numbers 18:24. In like manner, God’ s servants today ought to be so maintained: 1 Corinthians 9:9, 10. Melchizedek’ s receiving of Abraham’ s tithe was a sacerdotal act: it was given as to God, and received by His officer in this world. This comes out plainly in the apostle’ s reasoning thereon in the later verses.  

"First being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace" (verse 2). The Holy Spirit now gives us the mystical signification of the proper names used in the previous verse, which conveys more than a hint to us that there is nothing meaningless or superfluous in the perfect Word of God. Everything has an "interpretation". "In the Scripture everything is of importance; we cannot read and interpret the Scripture as any other book, since Scripture is not like any other book, even as no other book is like the Scripture. The Scripture is among books what the man Christ Jesus is among men.... These quotations and expositions of Scripture in Scripture are ‘ grapes of Eshcol’ , examples of, not exceptions to, the fruitful Carmel, whence they come. Thus who can fail to see the significance of the name Seth , who was given instead of Abel, one who was ‘ firm and enduring’ in the place of him who ‘ vanished’ ? or of the name of Joshua (God’ s Savior), who brought Israel into the promised land"? (Adolph Saphir).  

This 2nd verse of Hebrews 7 furnishes a clear and decisive proof of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. The revelation which God has given to us was not communicated in the rough, and then left to men to express it in their own words. No; so far from that being the case, every "jot and tittle" of the originals were given under the immediate superintendence of the Holy Spirit. "Hence the names of persons and places, the omissions of circumstances, the use of the singular or plural number, the application of a title— all things are under the control of the all-wise and gracious Spirit of God. Compare Paul’ s commentary on the word ‘ all’ in Psalm 8:7, and the important deductions from it in Hebrews 2:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:27; on the word ‘ new’ Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8:13; the singular ‘ seed’ Galatians 3:16. What a wonderful superstructure is built on Psalm 110:4! Each word is full of most important and blessed meaning. In Psalm 32:1, 2 no mention is made of works, hence Romans 4:6’ (Adolph Saphir).  

Let us consider now the "interpretation" which is here given us. Melchizedek means "king of righteousness" and Salem "king of peace". But observe it well that the Holy Spirit has also emphasized the order of these two: "first" king of righteousness, "after that also" king of peace. This calls attention to another important and blessed detail in our type. Doubtless, the historical Melchizedek was both a righteous and peaceable king, but what the apostle here takes up is not the personal characteristics of this man, but how he represented Christ in His mediatorial office and work. Now the "King of righteousness" and "of peace" is the Author, Cause, and Dispenser of righteousness and peace. Christ is the Maker and Giver of peace because He is "the Lord our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6). Righteousness must go first, and then peace will follow after. This is the uniform order of Scripture wherever the two are mentioned together: peace never precedes righteousness. Mark well the following passages:  

"Surely His salvation is nigh them that fear Him; that glory may dwell in our land. Mercy and truth are met together: righteousness and peace have kissed" (Ps. 85:9, 10). "And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever" (Isa. 32:17). "In His days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth" (Ps. 72:7). Jesus Christ is "the Righteous" One (1 John 2:1). He came here to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15), to "magnify the law and make it honorable" (Isa. 42:21). He came here as the vicarious Representative of His people, being made under the law for them (Gal. 4:4), obeying the law for them (Matthew 5:17), and thus wrought out a perfect obedience for them (Rom. 5:19). Therefore are they made "the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). He also came here to pacify the wrath of God against His people’ s sins (Eph. 2:3) to be a propitiation (Rom. 3:25), to "make peace through the blood of His cross" (Col. 1:20). Hence we are told, "Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).  

How minutely accurate, then, how Divinely perfect was the type! The very word Melchizedek means "King of righteousness", while the name of his capitol signifies "peace". Well did John Owen remark: "I am persuaded that God Himself, by some providence of His, or other intimation of His mind, gave that name of ‘ peace’ first unto that city, because there He designed not only to rest in His typical worship for a season, but also in the fullness of time, there to accomplish the great work of peace-making between Himself and mankind.... Wherefore our apostle doth justly argue from the signification of those names which were given, both to the person and place, by divine authority and guidance, that they might teach and fore-signify the things whereunto by him they are applied".  

Christ is not only the Producer of righteousness and the Maker and Giver of peace, but He is also the King of both. All authority has been given to Him in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). He is, even now, upholding all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). He is expressly declared to be "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and the Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15). In the Millennium this will be openly demonstrated here upon earth. Then it will appear to all that He is a righteous Branch, for as King He shall "reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth" (Jer. 23:5), and, as Isaiah 9:7 tells us, "Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end". Meanwhile, faith views Him today as King, King of righteousness and King of peace.  

"Without father, without mother, without pedigree, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God" (verse 3). Up to this point everything has been plain and simple, but here, judging from the laborious strugglings of most expositors, we enter deep water. Yet, in reality, it is not so. Men, as usual, have created their own difficulty; and, as is generally the case, they have done so through ignoring the immediate context. Had these statements in verse 3 referred to him as a man, it would surely be quite impossible to understand them. But it is not as man he is referred to, but as priest. Once this is clearly seen and firmly grasped little or no difficulty remains.  

That Melchizedek was not a superhuman creature, a divine or angelic being, is unequivocally established by Hebrews 5:1, where we are expressly told, "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God". To be possessed of human nature is an essential prerequisite in order for one to occupy and exercise the sacerdotal office. The Son of God could not serve as Priest till He became incarnate. Observe carefully how that in verse 4 Melchizedek is expressly declared to be a "man". What, then, it may be asked, is the meaning of the strange statements about him in verse 3? We answer, their meaning is to be explained on the principle of the apostle’ s subject in this passage.  

"Without father, without mother, without descent". Now in connection with the Aaronic priesthood, personal genealogy was a vital prerequisite, hence the great care with which they preserved their pedigree: see Ezra 2:61,62. But, in contradistinction from them, Melchizedek was priest of an order where natural descent was not regarded, an order free from the restrictions of the Levitical, Numbers 3:10, etc; therefore was he an accurate type of Christ, who belonged not to the tribe of Levi. Neither the book of Genesis, nor any of the later scriptures, say a word about Melchizedek’ s parentage, and this silence was a part of the type.  

"Having neither beginning of days nor end of life" is to be explained on the same principle. The Jewish priests "began" their "days" as priests at the age of twenty-five, when they were permitted to wait upon their brethren: Numbers 8:24 and cf. 1 Chronicles 23:27, 28. At the age of thirty they began their regular priestly duties: Numbers 4:3. At the age of fifty their priestly "life" ended: "from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service, and shall serve no more" (Num. 8:25). But no such restriction was placed upon the sacerdotal ministry of Melchizedek: so, in this too, he was an eminent type of Christ.  

"But made like unto the Son of God", or, more literally "but assimilated to the Son of God". It is very striking to note that it is not the Son of God who was "assimilated to Melchizedek", but vice versa. In the order of time Christ subsisted before Melchizedek; in the order of nature, Melchizedek was a priest before Christ was. The priesthood of the Son of God, ordained and appointed by the Eternal Three, was the original, and Melchizedek’ s priesthood furnished the copy, and a copy given in advance is the same thing as the type. Melchizedek was "assimilated to the Son of God" as a type. First, as priest of the most high God. Second, as being a royal priest, possessing personal majesty and authority. Third, as being the king of righteousness. Fourth, as king of peace. Fifth, as the one who "blessed Abraham". Sixth, as the one who received the grateful gifts of God’ s people represented by Abraham. Seventh, as not owing his priesthood to natural genealogy. Eighth, as abiding a priest beyond the bounds of the Levitical limitations.  

"Abideth a priest continually" (verse 3). Note carefully it is not that the natural life of Melchizedek had no end, but that his priestly life did not cease at the age of fifty; in other words, he continued a priest to the very end of his earthly existence, which shows he had no vicar or successor, deriving a priesthood from his. "The expression ‘ abideth a priest continually’ , therefore, is the 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" (A. Barnes). In the verses that follow, the apostle reasons from these facts and shows the superiority of Melchizedek as a priest to Aaron and his sons. This, D.V. will come before us in our next article.  

  

  

Combined Bible: Heb 7:4-10

Continued   

(Hebrews 7:4-10)   

The chief design of the apostle in this chapter was not to declare the nature of Christ’ s priesthood, nor to describe the exercise thereof; instead, he dwells upon the excellency of it. The nature of Christ’ s sacerdotal office had been treated of in the first half of Hebrews chapter 5 and is dealt with again, at length, in Hebrews chapter 9. But here he occupies us with the great dignity of it. His reason for so doing was to display the immeasurable superiority of Christianity’ s High Priest over that of Judaism’ s, and that, that the faith of the Hebrews might be established and their hearts drawn out in love and worship to Him. Unless the scope of the apostle’ s theme in this chapter be clearly apprehended, it is well-nigh impossible to appreciate and understand the details of his argument.  

The proof for the excellency of Christ’ s priesthood is drawn from the Old Testament. In His written Word God had given hints of an alteration from the Levitical priesthood, and the introduction of another more efficacious and glorious. It is true that those hints were of such a character that their signification could not be perceived at the time, for it is "the glory of God to conceal a thing" (Prov. 25:2), and this (in part) that His creatures may be taught their complete dependency upon Him, and that He may have the honor of revealing what they by mere searching cannot find out. He has chosen to make known His counsels gradually, so that "the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18).  

As "life and immortality", so all spiritual truth, was brought to light by the Gospel (2 Tim. 1:10). Much truth was enfolded in the prophecies, promises, and institutions of the Old Testament, yet in such a way as that it was in a great measure incomprehensible until God’ s time came to unfold them (1 Pet. 1:10,11). The great secret of the manifold wisdom of God was hidden in Himself from the beginning of the world (Eph. 3:9, 10), yet not so absolutely so, that no intimation of it had been given. But it had been given in such a way in the Scriptures that much was obscure to the understanding of the saints in all generations till it was interpreted and displayed by the Gospel. More than once we read of Israel’ s chief seer and singer speaking of inclining his ear unto a "parable" and opening his "dark saying" upon the harp (Ps. 49:4, 78:2). In sharp contrast therefrom, in the New Testament dispensation, "the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth" (1 John 2:8).  

In consequence of the fuller revelation which God has made to us through the Gospel, all the glorious evidences of His grace which now appear unto us in the Old Testament Scriptures, is in consequence of a reflection of light upon them from the New Testament. This it is which supplies the key to our present Epistle. In Luke 24:27, we read of how Christ began at Moses and the prophets, expounding unto the two disciples who were journeying to Emmaus, "the things concerning Himself", while in verse 45 we are told that He "opened the understanding" of the eleven "that they might understand the Scriptures". It has been thought by some (and we deem it quite probable) that in this very Hebrews’ Epistle the Holy Spirit has recorded for our instruction and joy the very things which the risen Savior communicated to those two favored disciples. Whether this be the case or no, certain it is that the leading design of the Spirit in this Epistle is to give us light on many Old Testament mysteries by means of the fuller revelation which God has now made by and through Jesus Christ.  

A notable illustration and example of this principle appears in the case of Melchizedek, the priest-king. That strange and striking individual is first introduced to us in the sacred narrative in Genesis 14. Then a single verbal reference is made to him again in the 110th Psalm, and nothing more is said of him in the Old Testament. Therefore we need not be surprised that the Jews appear to have given little or no consideration to him. It is not until he is contemplated in the light of the New Testament that we are able to discern in him an eminent type of Christ. This we sought to examine in our last article, all that we now emphasize is that the chief points which the apostle dwells upon are that Melchizedek had neither predecessor nor successor in his sacred office. Melchizedek did not belong to a line of priests as did Eleazar, Eli, etc. It was in this respect, more especially, that he was "made like unto the Son of God", our great High Priest.  

The various appellations under which our Lord is referred to in this Epistle call for due attention. They are not used at haphazard, but with precision and design. In Hebrews 2:9 it is "Jesus" that faith beholds— the humiliated but now glorified Savior. In Hebrews 3:6 it is "Christ", the Anointed One, who is over God’ s house. But in Hebrews 7:3, it is "the Son of God", as High Priest, unto whom Melchizedek was made a similitude. The Spirit here jealously guards the honor of Him whom it is His office and delight to glorify. He hereby intimates to the Hebrews that though Melchizedek were such an excellent person, yet he was infinitely beneath Him whom he represented. The typical person was but man; the antitype, Divine! Furthermore, one who was more than mortal was required in order to fulfill that which Melchizedek foreshadowed: he who should be capable of discharging an always-living, constant-abiding, uninterrupted priesthood, must be "the Son of God"!  

In the first three verses of Hebrews 7 the apostle mentions those details in which Melchizedek resembled the great and glorious Priest of Christianity; in verses 4-10 he applies the type unto his immediate purpose and design. Having affirmed that Christ, the promised Messiah, was a Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20), and having given a description of the person and office of that typical character from the inspired narrative of Moses (Gen. 14:), he now dwells upon various details in the type in order to establish the argument which he has in hand. That which the apostle particularly designed to prove, was that a more excellent priesthood than that of Aaron’ s, having been introduced according to the purpose and promise of God, it necessarily followed that the ceremonies and institutions connected with it had now been abolished.  

"Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils" (verse 4). The apostle here calls upon the Hebrews to attentively mark and seriously ponder the official dignity of this ancient servant of God. The word "man" has been supplied by the translators, and should have been placed in italics. In the Greek it is simply "now consider how great this", i.e. royal priest. Think of how great he "must have been", seems preferable to "was". His exalted rank appears from the fact that none other than Abraham, the father and head of Israel, had shown him deference.  

The force of the apostle’ s reasoning here is easily perceived. To give tithes to another who is the servant of God is a token of official respect, it is the recognition and acknowledgement of his superior status. The value of such official tokens is measured by the dignity and rank of the person making them. Now Abraham was a person of very high dignity, both naturally and spiritually. Naturally he was the founder of the Jewish nation; spiritually he was the "father" of all believers (Rom. 4). In his person was concentrated all the sacred dignity belonging to the people of God. How "great" then must be Melchizedek, seeing that Abraham himself owned his official superiority! And therefore how "great" must be that order of priesthood to which he belonged!  

That upon which the Jews insisted as their chief and fundamental privilege, and which they were unwilling to forego, was the greatness of their ancestors, considered as the high favorites of God. They so gloried in Abraham and their being his children, that they opposed this to the person and doctrine of Christ Himself (John 8:33, 53). With regard to official dignity, they looked upon Aaron and his successors as to be preferred above all the world. Whilst they clung to such fleshly honors, the Gospel of Christ, which addressed them as lost sinners, could not be but distasteful to them. To disabuse their minds, to demonstrate that those in whom they trusted came far short in dignity, honor, and greatness, of the true High Priest, the apostle presses upon them the eminence of him who was a type of Christ, and shows that the greatest of all their ancestors paid obeisance to him.  

Three proofs of the eminence of Melchizedek are found in the verse before us. First, in the nomination of the person that was subject unto him: "even Abraham". Second, in the dignity of Abraham; "the patriarch". Third, in that Abraham gave him a tenth of the spoils. Abraham was not only the root and stock of the Israelitish people, but he was the one who first received the promise of the covenant (Gen. 15:18); therefore they esteemed him next unto God Himself. A "patriarch" is a father, prince or ruler of a family. The sons of Jacob are thus denominated (Acts 7:8, 9), for the twelve tribes descended from them. None else is termed a "patriarch" except David (Acts 2:29), and he, because the royal family came from his loins. But David and Jacob’ s sons, all sprang from Abraham, thus was he, pre-eminently, "the patriarch". Yet great as Abraham was, Melchizedek was still greater, for he was "priest of the most high God", and as such the father of the faithful owned him.  

Let us not miss the practical lesson which the above facts teach us. Therein we learn of what true "greatness" consists. The Christian is to measure things by a different standard from that which worldlings employ. They look upon those who occupy prominent social and political positions as being the eminent of the earth. The vulgar mind esteems the wealthy and opulent as those who are most to be envied. But the anointed eye sees things in another light: the fashion of this world passeth away. Death levels all distinctions. Presidents and millionaires, kings and queens, are no more than the poorest beggar when their bodies are reduced to lifeless clay. And what of their souls? Ah, what concern have such after eternal interests? Learn, my reader, that true "greatness" consists in the favor of God and our nearness to Him. The meanest of His saints have been made "kings and priests unto God" (Rev. 1:6).  

Ere leaving this verse, a few words need to be said upon the subject of tithing. There are few things on which many of the Lord’ s people are more astray than the matter of giving to His cause and work. Are our offerings to be regulated by sentiment and impulse, or by principle and conscience? That is only another way of asking, Does God leave us to the promptings of gratitude and generosity, or has He definitely specified His mind and stated what portion of His gifts to us are due Him in return? Surely He has not left this important point undefined. He has given us His Word to be a lamp unto our feet, and therefore He cannot have left us in darkness concerning any obligation or privilege that pertains to our dealings with Him.  

At a very early date the Lord made it known that a definite portion of the saints’ income should be devoted to Him who is the Giver of all. There was a period of twenty-five centuries from Adam until the time that God gave the law to Israel at Sinai, but it is a great mistake to suppose that His people were, at that time, without a definite communication from Him upon their several duties. A careful study of the book of Genesis reveals clear traces of a primitive revelation, which seems to have centered about these things: the offering of sacrifices to God, the observance of the Sabbath, and the giving of tithes. While we cannot today place our finger upon any positive enactment or command of God for any of those three things in those early days, nevertheless, from what is recorded we are compelled to assume that such must have been given.  

No one can point to a "thus saith the Lord" requiring Noah to offer a sacrifice to Him, nor can we assign chapter and verse giving a command for the saints to tithe ere the law was given; yet is it impossible to account for either without presupposing a revelation of God’ s mind on those points. The fact that Abraham did give a tithe or tenth to Melchizedek, intimates that he acted in accordance with God’ s will. So too the words of Jacob in Genesis 28:22 suggests the same thing. This principle of recognizing God’ s ownership and owning His goodness, was later incorporated into the Mosaic law: Leviticus 27:30. Finally, it is taken note of here in Hebrews 7, and in the humble judgment of the writer the passage which is before us presents an argument which admits of no refutation. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, and Abraham is the father of all that believe (Rom. 4; Galatians 3). He is the pattern man of faith. He is the outstanding exemplar of the stranger and pilgrim on earth whose Home is in Heaven. Melchizedek is the type of Christ. If then Abraham gave the tithe to Melchizedek, most assuredly every Christian should give tithes to Christ, our great High Priest.  

"And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham; But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises" (verses 5, 6). In these verses the apostle strengthens the argument drawn from the important facts presented in verse 4, while at the same time he anticipates and obviates any counter argument which might be advanced against him. His argument consists of two parts: Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, Abraham was blest by him. In response, the Jews might reply, That does not establish the superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical order, for the Aaronic priesthood also received tithes. To this the apostle answers by pointing out that Aaron’ s sons were all descended from Abraham, and therefore they, in their progenitor, paid tithes to the royal priest of Jerusalem, and by so doing owned his pre-eminence. Let us amplify this analysis.  

In verse 5 the apostle acknowledges that God had granted the Levitical priests the right to receive tithes from His people (Num. 18:21-24), and thus they were set above all other Israelites; nevertheless, they too had "come out of the loins of Abraham", and inasmuch as he had given a tenth to a priest of another order, his descendants were therefore inferior to that priest. Moreover, the Levites had "received" the priestly office, and accepted tithes by command "according to the law". Thus, the Aaronic priesthood was wholly derived in its functions and privileges. But not so Melchizedek’ s. He was under no law. He was "king", as well as priest, and therefore belonged to a superior order. In this also he was a type of Christ, who, by virtue of His Divine nature, has authority in Himself, to receive and to bless. The words "take tithes... of their brethren" finds its counterpart in 1 Corinthians 9:11-14. The Aaronic priesthood was not supported by a tax levied on the idolatrous Canaanites, but by the gifts of the Lord’ s people!  

The manner in which the apostle expresses himself in verse 5 deserves our closest notice, his language plainly intimating that his eye was on the high sovereignty of God. Observe that he did not simply say, "the priests have a commandment to take tithes", but "they that are of the sons of Levi". God distributed dignity and bestowed office in His Church (Acts 7:38) as it pleased Him. Not all the posterity of Abraham were set apart to receive tithes, and not all who belonged to the tribe of Levi; but only the family of Aaron was called to the priesthood. This appointment of His imperial will God required all to submit to: Numbers 16:9,10. It was something new to Israel to see the whole tribe of Levi taken into peculiar (official) nearness to Jehovah; yet to it they submitted. But when the "priests" were taken out of the tribe of Levi and exalted above all, some rebelled: Numbers 16:1-3, etc.  

The same principle holds good today. It is true, blessedly true, and God forbid that we should say a word to weaken it, that all believers enjoy equal nearness to God, that every one of them belongs to that "holy priesthood" who are to "offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5). Nevertheless, all believers are not called by God to occupy the same position of ministerial honor, all are not called to be preachers of His Gospel or teachers of His Word (James 3:1). God calls and equips whom He pleases to engage in His public service, and bids the rank and the of His people "obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves" (Heb. 13:17). Yet, sad to say, in some circles the sin of Korah is repeated. They demand an ecclesiastical socialism, where any and all are allowed to speak. They "heap to themselves teachers" (2 Tim. 4:3). This ought not to be.  

In verse 6 the apostle repeats the same thing he had said in verse 2. The Levitical priesthood received tithes from those descended from Abraham, and that was an evidence of official dignity conferred upon them by God’ s appointment. But Melchizedek received tithes of Abraham himself, which not only manifested his superiority to Aaron but to him from whom Aaron sprang. The apostle’ s insisting on this so particularly shows how difficult a matter it is to dispossess the minds of men of things which they have long held and in which they boast. The Jews clung tenaciously to their descent from Abraham, in fact rested upon it for salvation. Much patience is required in order to deal faithfully but lovingly with those in error. "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves" (2 Tim. 2:25) is a needed word for every teacher.  

Melchizedek not only received tithes from Abraham, but he actually pronounced blessing upon him, which was a further evidence of his official superiority to the patriarch. To make this detail the more emphatic, the apostle stresses the dignity of Abraham, for the more glorious he was, the more illustrious the dignity of the one qualified to pronounce a benediction upon him. Thus Abraham is here referred to as he who "had the promises". He was the first of the Israelitish race with whom God made the covenant of life. It was no ordinary honor which Jehovah conferred upon the father of the faithful. As the immediate result of his receiving the promises, Abraham "saw" the Day of Christ (John 8:56). Yet great as was the privilege and honor bestowed upon Abraham it did not hinder him from showing subjection to Melchizedek, God’ s vicegerent.  

There is an important practical lesson for us in verse 6. The one who had received the "promises" of God was now blest! Ah, we may have the promises of God stored in our minds and at our tongue’ s end, but unless we also have the blessing of God, what do they avail us? Moreover, it is particularly, the blessing of Christ (typified by Melchizedek) which makes the promises of God effectual to us. Christ is Himself the great subject of the promises (2 Cor. 1:20), and the whole blessing of them comes forth from Him alone (Eph. 1:3). In Him, from Him, and by Him, are all blessings to be obtained. Apart from Christ all are under the curse. "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better" (verse 7). This verse summarizes the argument contained in verses 4-6. "These words are plainly to be understood with limitations. It does not follow that, because a priest under the law blessed the king, he was in a civil capacity the king’ s superior, any more than that a Christian minister instructing or even reproving a man of high civil rank who is a member of the church of which he is pastor, is civilly his superior. The apostle’ s argument is: The person who accepts of priestly benediction from an individual acknowledges his spiritual superiority, just as the highest authority in the land, if he were becoming a member of a voluntary Christian society, would acknowledge that its pastor was ‘ over him in the Lord’ " (John Brown).  

"Let us first know what the word blessed means here. It means indeed a solemn praying, by which he who is invested with some high and public honor, recommends to God men in private stations and under his ministry. Another way of blessing is when we pray for one another, which is commonly done by all the godly. But this blessing mentioned by the apostle was a symbol of greater authority. Thus Isaac blessed his son Jacob, and Jacob himself blessed his grandsons (Gen. 27:30, 48:15). This was not done mutually, for the son could not do like the father; but a higher authority was required for such a blessing as this. And this appears more evident still from Numbers 6:23, where a command is given to the priest to bless the people, and then a promise is immediately added, that they would be blessed whom they blessed. It hence appears that the blessing of the priest depended on this,— that it was not so much man’ s blessing as that of God. For as the priest in offering sacrifices represented Christ, so in blessing the people he was nothing more than a minister and legate of the supreme God" (John Calvin).  

The application of the principles expressed by the above writers to the case in hand is apparent. The blessing of the priest in Old Testament times (type of Christ’ s blessing His people now), though pronounced as the minister of God, was an evidence of high honor of the one uttering it. Though Abraham was more eminent than any of his descendants, yet he himself was indebted to the royal priest of Jerusalem.  

"And here men that die receive tithes; but there he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" (verse 8). Here the apostle advances a further argument to support his demonstration of the inferiority of the Aaronic order of priesthood to the Melchizedekean: the "here" referring to the former, the "there" to the latter as stated in Genesis 14. The point singled out for notice is that, the Levitical order of office was but temporary, not so of that priest who blest Abraham. "The type is described as having no end; the order of priesthood which it represents is therefore eternal" (Calvin). The Scripture makes no mention of the death of Melchizedek when it relates that tithes were paid to him; so the authority of his priesthood is limited to no time, but on the contrary there is given an intimation of perpetuity.  

Some have stumbled over the statement here made about Melchizedek: "it is witnessed that he liveth". These words have been appealed to in proof that he was a superhuman being. But if this statement be interpreted in the light of its context, there is no difficulty. It was not absolutely and personally that Melchizedek still lived, but typically and as a representation of Christ. Scripture frequently attributes to the type what is found alone in the and-type. Thus, the paschal lamb was expressly called God’ s passover (Ex. 12:11), when in reality it was only a pledge and token thereof. So the emblems on the Lord’ s table are denominated the body and blood of Christ, because they represent such. The blessedness of this detail will come before us, D.V., in the later verses.  

"And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him" (verses 9, 10). In these verses the apostle meets the last objection which a carping Jew could make upon the subject. Against what the apostle had been saying, it might be advanced: Granting that Abraham himself paid tithes to Melchizedek, it does not follow that Melchizedek was superior to all Abraham’ s descendants. Abraham was, in some sense, a priest (Gen. 12:7), yet he was not so by virtue of any office which God had instituted in His Church. But in the days of Moses, Jehovah did institute an order and office of priesthood in the family of Aaron, and were not they, by Divine appointment, superior, because superceding the earlier order of Melchizedek? This the apostle makes reply to.  

Many find it difficult to follow his line of thought, and that, because they are so ill-acquainted with the most important truth of headship and representation. Let us quote here from F.S. Sampson, "Abraham was truly the covenant-head of his posterity in the line of Isaac and Jacob, in whose descendants the promises made to him were fulfilled. It was in virtue of this covenant with Abraham, that the Jews inherited their distinguished privileges as a nation. It was the transaction with Abraham which brought them into the relation of a ‘ peculiar people’ to Jehovah; and hence, in his patriarchal character and acts, he stood forth as the representative or federal head of the nation, so far as all the promises, privileges, and institutions of the Judaical were concerned. He was both their natural progenitor and their covenant-head, by the appointment of God. We must remember that He was concerned, through His providence and promises, in all this business. Therefore, when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek as a priest of the most High God, and received a blessing from him, it was a historical fact intentionally introduced by God’ s providence, with a view to its becoming a feature of the type (so to speak) which Melchizedek, in his history and functions, was foreordained to present, of the supreme and eternal High Priest. This providential incident prefigured and represented, by the Divine intention, the supremacy of the antitype; and in it Abraham acknowledged the official superiority of the type, not only over himself, but over his posterity then in his loins, represented by and acting in him".  

The principle of federal representation lies at the very base of all God’ s dealings with men, as a careful study of Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 reveals. Adam stood for and transacted on the behalf of the whole human race, so that what he did, they legally did; hence his sin, guilt and death, are imputed to all his posterity, and God deals with them accordingly. So too Christ stood for and transacted on the behalf of all His seed, so that what He did, they legally did; hence, His meeting the demands of the law, His death and resurrection-life, are imputed to all who believe on Him. In like manner, Abraham stood for and transacted on the behalf of all his posterity, so that God’ s covenanting with him, is to be regarded as His covenanting with them also. Proof of this is found in the title here (and nowhere else) given to Abraham, viz., "the patriarch" (verse 4), which means, head or father of a people.  

Thus the apostle here brings to a head his argument by pointing out that, virtually and representatively (not personally and actually), Levi himself had paid tithes to Melchizedek. We repeat, that Abraham in Genesis is not to be considered only as a private individual, but also as the head and representative of all his children. When Abraham gave tithes he did so not only in his own name, but also in that of all his descendants. Abraham had been called of God and separated to His service as the head of His elect people. There was more than a natural relation between him and his descendants. Jehovah promised to be a God unto him and to his seed after him, and therefore Abraham covenanted with God in the name of and as the representative of his seed. What God gave unto Abraham He gave unto his children, but he received the grant of it as the representative of his children, who, four hundred years later, took possession of it.  

The typical teaching of Genesis 14 is exceedingly rich, but difficult to apprehend through lack of familiarity with the leading principles which interpret it. In Melchizedek’ s blessing of Abraham, we have a foreshadowing of Christ, as our great High Priest, blessing the whole election of grace (Luke 24:50). In Abraham’ s owning Melchizedek as priest of the most high God by giving him tithes, we have prefigured the subjection to Christ of all His believing people. It lay outside the apostle’ s scope to fully expound this type in Hebrews 7 (cf. Hebrews 9:5). Here he practically confines himself to a single point, viz., showing that the High Priest of Christianity far exceeded in honor and glory that of Judaism’ s. His argument in verses 9, 10 is to the effect that Melchizedek had been as much and as truly honored by Abraham as though the whole Levitical priesthood had personally done him homage.  

The all-important and inexpressibly blessed truth for us to lay hold of is that in verses 9, 10 we have an illustration of the most soul-satisfying truth revealed in Holy Writ. Just as Levi was "in Abraham", not only seminally but representatively, so every one of God’ s children was "in Christ" when He wrought out that glorious work which has honored and pleased God high above everything else. When the death-sentence of the law fell upon Christ, it fell upon the believer, so that he can unhesitatingly say, "I was crucified with Christ" (Gal. 2:20). So too when Christ arose in triumph from the tomb, all His people shared His victory (Eph. 2:5, 6). When He ascended on high, they ascended too. Let all Christian readers pray earnestly that God may be pleased to reveal to them the meaning, blessedness, and fullness of those words "In Christ".  

  

  

Combined Bible: Heb 7:11-16

Priesthood Changed   

(Hebrews 7:11-16)   

In Hebrews 5:1-9 the apostle has shown (in part, for he returns to the same theme again in Hebrews chapter 9) how Christ fulfilled that which Aaron had foreshadowed of Him as the High Priest of His people. Then, in Hebrews 5:11 he declares Christ had been hailed by God as High Priest "after the order of Melchizedek". Immediately following, the apostle adds that, though he had "many things" to say of him, he was restrained through the Hebrews’ dullness. After a lengthy parenthesis in which he corrects their faulty condition, return is made to the subject of Christ’ s priesthood in Hebrews 6:20, which is amplified in Hebrews chapter 7. The main object now before him was to show that Christ is superior to the Jewish high priest, and, in proof, he appeals to the striking type of Melchizedek. Concerning that type he pointed out that not only was Melchizedek greater in his own person than Aaron, but that his superiority had been owned by the whole Levitical stock, inasmuch as they, represented by Abraham, had done homage to him.  

In the second section of Hebrews chapter 7 which begins at verse 11, the apostle points out the inevitable inferences which must be drawn from and the certain corollaries which are involved in what had just been shown. The fact that the Messiah was Priest after the order of Melchizedek, necessarily set aside the Levitical order. The fact that God had sent His Son to perform a sacerdotal work, plainly signified that the ministry of Aaron and his successors was inadequate. The fact that "perfection" was not brought in till Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice to God, clearly showed that imperfection attached to those who preceded Him. To bring this out the more clearly was the great design of the apostle in the verses which are to be before us. He had now reached that which was the most difficult for the Jews to receive, viz., that what had been so long venerated by their fathers had now been set aside by God.  

To announce that the Mosaic economy was temporary, inadequate, defective, was unbelievable to a pious but unregenerate Israelite, and it was something which was far from easy to prove to a regenerated Jew. They believed that the Levitical system of priesthood was "perfect". It had been instituted by Jehovah Himself, so surely it must be sufficient and permanent! If the whole Aaronic system was of Divine appointment how could it possibly be, in itself, so unsatisfactory that it must now be discarded? The apostle might have reasoned from the analogies supplied by Nature. Many things made by God— such as chrysalis for the butterfly— serve a temporary purpose and then become useless when a more perfect stage of development is reached. But the apostle takes much higher ground and proves by invincible logic that the Levitical system was imperfect, and therefore had been superceded by something else.  

God had raised up a Priest who belonged not to the Levitical tribe. This the believing Hebrews freely granted: that Jesus Christ had by His sacrifice put away their sins and brought them nigh unto God, was the glorious truth they espoused when they received the Gospel. But they were slow to perceive and acknowledge the necessary implications of it. That the Lord Jesus was Priest "after the order of Melchizedek", intimated unequivocally that the priesthood which preceded His was incapable of producing "perfection", for there was no need of introducing something new if the old met all the requirements of God. But more: not only did Christ’ s bringing in "perfection" presuppose the imperfection of the old order, but it necessarily involved a change of economy, i.e. all that was distinctly associated with the Levitical system was now effete, out of date. It is this which the apostle proceeds to show.  

It was never the intention of God that the Levitical priesthood should remain forever, for in the Old Testament Scriptures He gave intimation of another Priest, of another order, rising to supercede the former. That intimation was to be found, first, in Genesis 14, where the head and representative of the whole Jewish race had owned Melchizedek as the priest of the most High God. Still plainer was the prophecy which God gave to David. In the 110th Psalm He had greeted the Messiah with these words, "Sit Thou at My right hand" (verse 1), and then He had declared, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (verse 4). This the apostle here cites, and by so doing bases his argument on a ground which no pious Jew could gainsay: the inspired and infallible testimony of Holy Scripture. Therefore if Christ was Priest "after the order of Melchizedek", the Aaronic must be imperfect, or there had been no need for introducing this change.  

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" (verse 11). The apostle now points out some of the consequences of Christ’ s being a Priest "after the order of Melchizedek". The first he mentions is that the Levitical was unable to bring in "perfection". This was evident. Had it done so there was no need for introducing another. But wherein was it that the Levitical system fell short? What was it that it failed to procure? To answer these questions we need to carefully weigh the expression "perfection".  

The term "perfection" is one of the characteristic and key-words of this Epistle. It has a different shade of meaning than it has in the other Pauline Epistles. Unless careful attention be paid to its immediate connections, we are almost certain to fall into an erroneous conception of its force. It has to do more with relationship than experience, though as the relationship is spiritually apprehended a corresponding experience follows. It concerns the objective side of things rather than the subjective. It looks to the judicial and vital aspect rather than to the experimental and practical. Its first occurrences are in Hebrews 2:10 and Hebrews 5:9, used of Christ Himself, where the obvious reference is what pertained to Him officially rather than personally. Then it is found in Hebrews 6:1— compare our comments thereon. In Hebrews 9:9 we are told that in Old Testament times the gifts and sacrifices offered "could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience". The same thing is affirmed in Hebrews 10:1. But in blessed contrast therefrom we read, "For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14).  

"Perfection" means the bringing of a thing to that completeness of condition designed for it. Doctrinally it refers to the producing of a satisfactory and final relation between God and men. It speaks of that unchangable standing in the favor and blessing of God which Christ has secured for His people. In Hebrews 12:23 we read of "the spirits of just men made perfect", which does not mean that the Old Testament saints had been perfected in holiness and happiness (though that, of course, was true of them), but that they had been "made perfect" as their title to heavenly glory. This did not take place till the sacrifice of Christ had been offered, though, in the certain prospect of its accomplishment, they had received the blessings which flow from it long before: cf. Hebrews 11:40.  

In our present section the apostle insists that "perfection" could not be produced by the Levites, and that a priesthood which did bring in perfection must be superior. It therefore remains for us to enquire next, What are the great ends of priesthood? What is it that the priest should effect? The priest was the mediator who drew near unto God on behalf of others. His work was to present to Him a sacrifice for the satisfying of Divine justice. It was to effect such a procuring of His favor and such a securing of a standing-ground before Him for those whom he represented, that their conscience might be at peace. It was to come forth from His presence that he might pronounce blessing. Had the Levitical priesthood been able to obtain these things? Had Aaron and his successors obtained God’ s remission from all the consequences of sin and brought in a complete and abiding redemption? No, indeed.  

The office and work of a priesthood may be considered two ways: first, as it respects God, who is the prime and immediate object of all the proper acts of that office; second, as it respects His people, who are the subject of its blessings and the beneficiaries of its administration. As priesthood respects God, its chief design was to make expiation of sin by means of an atoning sacrifice. But this the Levitical priesthood was unable to do. A typical, ceremonial, and temporary value attached to their sacerdotal ministrations; but an effectual, vital, and permanent did not. This is positively stated in Hebrews 10:4, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins". Why, then, were such appointed? To exhibit the holy claims of God and the requirements of His justice; to prefigure the great Sacrifice yet to come.  

Let us next inquire, What was the "perfection" which Christ hath brought in? And here we cannot do better than give a summary of the most helpful exposition of John Owen. That which Christ hath produced to the glory of God and the blessing of His people is, First , righteousness. The introduction of all imperfection was by sin. This made the law weak (Rom. 8:3) and sinners to be "without strength" (Rom. 5:6). Therefore perfection must be introduced by righteousness. That was the fundamental of the new covenant: see Isaiah 60:21, Psalm 72:7, etc. Therefore do the saints speak of Christ as "The Lord our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6). Christ has brought in an "everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24), and therefore are believers "made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21).  

Second, peace is the next thing which belongs to the evangelical "perfection" of Christianity. As the High Priest of the covenant it pertained to the Lord Jesus to make peace between God and sinners. "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:10). Therefore is He denominated "The Prince of peace" (Isa. 9:6): He is such because He has "made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col. 1:20). The result of this is that believers have "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1). Thus the evangel we proclaim is "The Gospel of peace" (Eph. 6:15).  

Third, light. God designed for Christians a greater measure of spiritual light and knowledge of the mysteries of His wisdom and grace than were attainable under the law. God reserved for His Son the honor of making known the fullness of His counsels (John 1:18, Hebrews 1:1, 2). There was under the Levitical priesthood but a "shadow of good things to come" (Heb. 10:1), but the mystery of them remained hid in God (Eph. 3:9). The prophets themselves perceived not the depths of their own predictions (1 Pet. 1:11, 12). Hence, the attitude of the Old Testament Church was a looking forward unto a fuller revelation: "till the day break, and the shadows flee away" (Song 2:17, 4:6). The contrast between the two economies is seen in 1 John 2:8, "The darkness is past, and the true light now shineth".  

Fourth, access to God. There belongs to the "perfection" which Christ hath brought in, a liberty and boldness of approach unto the throne of grace that was not only unknown but expressly forbidden under the law. At Sinai the people were fenced off at the foot of the mount, when Jehovah appeared to Moses on its summit. In the tabernacle, none save the priests were suffered to go beyond the outer court, and they not at all into the holy of holies where God dwelt. How blessed is the contrast today. "For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph. 2:18). To us the word is, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith" (Heb. 10:19, 22).  

Fifth, the unveiling of the future state. Christ hath "brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel" (2 Tim. 1:10). Whatever knowledge of resurrection and eternal blessedness individual saints enjoyed in Old Testament times, it was not conveyed to them by the ministrations of the Levitical priesthood. That which characterized the people under the Mosaic law was that they "through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb. 2:15). Nor could it be otherwise while the curse of the law hung over them. But now our great High Priest has endured the curse for us. He entered the devouring jaws of death. But He did not remain there. He triumphed over the grave, and in the resurrection of Christ His people have the evidence, guarantee, and pattern, of their own victory too. He has gone on High, and that as our "Forerunner" (Heb. 6:20). And His request is, "Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am" (John 17:24).  

Sixth, joy. "The kingdom of God is . . . righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17). True it is that many of the Old Testament saints rejoiced greatly in the Lord, yet it was not by virtue of the Levitical priesthood. The ground of their joy was that death would be swallowed up in victory (Isa. 25:8), and that awaited the death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore did Abraham rejoice to see His day (John 8:56). But ordinarily their joy was mixed and allayed with a respect unto temporal things: see Leviticus 23:39-41, Deuteronomy 12:11, 12, 18, etc. But the Christian has a joy "unspeakable, and full of glory" (1 Pet. 1:8). It is that inexpressible satisfaction which is wrought in the love of God by Jesus Christ. This gives the soul a repose in all trials, refreshment when it is weary, peace in trouble, delight in tribulations: Romans 5:1-5.  

Seventh, glorying in the Lord. This is the fruit of joy. One chief design of the Gospel is to exclude all human boasting, to empty us of glorying in self (Rom. 3:27, Ephesians 2:9). God has so ordered things that no flesh should now glory in His presence, so that he that glorieth must glory in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:29, 31). Thus it was promised of old: see Isaiah 45:25. Glorying in the Lord is that high exultation of spirit which causes believers to esteem their interest in heavenly things high above things present, to despise and condemn all that is contrary thereto, to say with the apostle, "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ". If the reader desires to follow up more fully the contrast between the glory and excellency of the two economies, the Mosaic and the Christian, let him study 2 Corinthians 3.  

Ere leaving this blessed subject, let us make a brief practical application of what has been before us. To be a real Christian is to have a personal and vital interest in and be an actual participant of those blessings which the "perfection" of Christ has brought in. Multitudes make an outward profession of the same; few have an experimental acquaintance with them. Again; the pre-eminence of Christianity over Judaism is entirely spiritual and cannot be discerned by the carnal eye: wherein it excels has been pointed out above— it consists of a clearer knowledge of God, a freer approach to Him, a fuller enjoyment of Him. Finally, let it be said that the attempts to find glory and satisfaction in outward forms and ceremonies is to prefer the Levitical priesthood before that of Christ’ s. That is the outstanding sin of all ritualists.  

A brief word needs to be added upon the parenthetic clause of verse 11: "For under it the people received the law". Its evident design was to strengthen the apostle’ s argument. It is brought in as a subsidiary proof that "perfection" could not be by the Levitical priesthood. We are therefore disposed to regard "the law" here as referring to the whole system of the Mosaic economy. The passive "received the law" is a single word in the Greek, and really means "were legalized". The reference is not to bring to the actual giving of the law, but to the state of the people under it, their being brought beneath its power. The law demanded perfect righteousness, but fallen man was incapable of producing it (Rom. 3:19, 20; 8:3); nor could the Levitical priesthood effect it. Thus the only hope lay outside of themselves. "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom. 10:4).  

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (verse 12). Here the apostle names the second consequence which must be drawn from the facts stated in verses 1-10. First , the Levitical priesthood was inadequate, incapable of producing "perfection". Second , therefore it was but a temporary institution, and the whole economy connected with it must be set aside. In other words, Judaism as such, was now defunct. Thus "a change of the law" means a change of dispensation, a change of Divine administration. This at once fixes the meaning of "law" in the parenthetic clause of the previous verse. The reference is not to the ten commandments, but to the Mosaic system.  

The "change also of the law" or setting aside of the Mosaic system was that to which the Jews were so strenuously opposed. They stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58, 59), and vented their rage upon Paul, on this very charge (Acts 21:28). Yea, many who professed the faith of the Gospel continued to obstinately contend that the Mosaic law remained in force (Acts 21:20). It was this same contention which caused so much trouble in the early churches, the Judaisers harassing the Gentile converts with their insistence upon circumcision and subjection to the ceremonial law. Difficult as it was for a pious Jew to believe that God should have set aside as dead and useless the whole solemn system of worship, which He had appointed in so glorious a manner and accepted for so many centuries, yet the proof that He had done so was abundant and clear. The law and the Gospel could not mix. Works and grace are antithetical. Moses must disappear when Christ was revealed: carefully compare Mark 9:5-8! So far from God’ s people being the losers they are immeasurably the gainers by His bringing in the "better hope" (Heb. 7:19).  

"For He of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar" (verse 13). The argument of this verse, introduced by the "for" makes it plain that it is not the moral law which the apostle had reference to at the close of the preceding verse: the closing words of the next verse make this still more evident. We mention this because certain "Dispensationalists" have appealed to Hebrews 7:12 in their misguided efforts to show that Christians are, in no sense, under the ten commandments. The moral law is not at all under discussion in this passage. 1 Corinthians 9:21, Matthew 5:18, etc. are quite sufficient to prove that the moral law has not been (and never will be) repealed.  

"For He of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar". The apostle’ s object here is to give further proof that the Levitical priesthood, and the entire ceremonial law, has been set aside by God. He appeals to the fact that our Lord, according to the flesh, belonged not to the tribe of Levi, and therefore His sacerdotal office was not according to the Aaronic order. The expression "attendance at the altar" signifies, "exercising priestly functions". The "these things" looks back to what is said at the end of verse 11, which receives amplification in verses 17, 21.  

The honor of the Aaronic order of priesthood continued, by Divine appointment and privilege, within the bounds of the Levitical tribe: Exodus 40:12-16. None belonging to any other tribe in Israel was suffered to officiate at the altar or minister in the holy place. So strictly was this institution observed, that when one of Israel’ s kings dared to violate it, the judgment of God fell immediately upon him (2 Chron. 26:18-21). In smiting Uzziah with leprosy God maintained the sanctity of His law, and gave a most solemn warning against any obtruding into holy office who have received no Divine call to it. Furthermore, this exercise of God’ s severity should have been more than a hint to Israelites that when He did introduce a priest of another tribe then the priesthood of the old order must have been Divinely set aside.  

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (verse 14). The opening "for" at once denotes the apostle is here continuing his proof that the Levitical priesthood and economy was now a thing of the past so far as God’ s recognition of it was concerned. His words here contain a double assertion: our Lord, according to His humanity, belonged to the tribe of Judah; of that tribe Moses revealed nothing concerning priesthood. All that was needed to complete the proof of his argument was that Christ was a Priest: this he shows in the ensuing verses. The appeal made to this verse by those who deny that the Lord Jesus entered upon His priestly office till after His ascension, proceeds from such gross ignorance or malice that it deserves no direct refutation.  

First, it was "evident" that our Lord "sprang"— as the "Rod" out of Jesse’ s stem— from Judah. This was included in the faith of believers that the Messiah was to come out of the royal tribe. Such prophecies as Genesis 49:8-10, 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:1-5, Micah 5:2 had made that very plain. The genealogy recorded in Matthew 1 established the same fact. Whoever therefore acknowledge the Lord Jesus to be the true Messiah, as all to whom the apostle was directly writing did, (though most of them still clung to the ceremonial law), granted that He was of the tribe of Judah. Nor did the unbelieving Jews deny it. In passing, we have noted that Judah signifies "praise": Christ still dwells in the midst of His people’ s praises!  

Second, about Judah Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. The apostle’ s object is to render it conclusive that God’ s raising up of a Priest out of the royal tribe, must necessarily exclude all the house of Aaron from sharing His office. Moses did specify that the priesthood should be exercised by those belonging to the tribe of Levi, but he nowhere intimated that a time would come when it should be transferred to the royal family. Again we may take note of the significance of the silences of Scripture, and the justification of arguing therefrom. As, for example, no mention is made of the month in which the Savior was born, intimating that God did not intend us to celebrate the anniversary of His birth: cf. Jeremiah 7:31. Paul here reasons from the silence of Moses as being quite sufficient to show that the legal or Aaronic priesthood could not be transferred to the tribe of Judah.  

"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest" (verse 15). In this and the next verse the apostle presents the third consequence which follows from the facts set forth in verses 1-10. First, he had pointed out from those facts that, it necessarily followed the Levitical priesthood was inadequate, for it was unable to bring in "perfection". Second, therefore it was evident that the Levitical priesthood could only be a temporary institution, and that the whole economy connected with and based upon it must be set aside. Third, he now insists that the priesthood of Christ must be radically different from and be immeasurably superior to the Levitical order. So much for the general scope of these two verses. Let us now attend to their details.  

"And it is yet far more evident". What is it that was "far more evident"? What was the particular point to which the apostle was here calling the Hebrews’ attention? Not that Christ had sprung from the tribe of Judah, nor that He fulfilled the Melchizedek type, but that the Levitical priesthood and economy was now obsolete. The proof that this was so obvious is presented in what immediately follows. That proof may be expressed thus: the priesthood of Christ was no temporary expedient, brought in only to supply the deficiency of the Levitical order. No; it was a permanent office and abiding ministry. Therefore as God would not own two separate and different priesthoods, the former and inferior must give place to the latter. The second, "consequence" had been drawn from the tribal humanity of Christ; this third "consequence", from the character of His priesthood.  

"And it is yet far more evident". It is to be carefully noted that the apostle did not say "it is far more certain". No, he was not absolutely comparing one thing with another, but comparing them only with respect to their evidential significance, the relative force of those facts to all who were capable of weighing them. The fact that God had caused our great "High Priest" to spring from the tribe of Judah rather than from that of Levi, made it obvious that the Aaronic order could no longer continue. But the further fact that He had been made "after the similitude of Melchizedek", rendered this still more obvious. The apostle is but adding argument to argument, in order to show how wrong it was for the Hebrews to still cling to Judaism.  

"For that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest". The Greek word for "similitude" means "likeness" and occurs elsewhere only in Hebrews 4:15. The emphatic here is "another priest". It is not "allos" which means another of the same species, but "heteros", another of a totally different order: one who was a stranger to the house of Aaron. Let the reader consult Exodus 29:33, Leviticus 22:10, Numbers 16:40, and he will see how impossible it was for one from the tribe of Judah to perpetuate the Levitical priesthood. The word "ariseth" is also very emphatic. It means to be brought forth after an extraordinary manner: cf. Judges 5:7, Deuteronomy 18:18, Luke 1:69. The arising of Christ in His priestly office put an end to the Aaronic, just as His arising in the hearts of His people (2 Pet. 1:19) puts an end to their looking to anything or anyone else for salvation.  

"Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life" (verse 16). This completes the sentence begun in verse 15. The apostle is still showing how manifest it was that the Levitical priesthood had been set aside, for one infinitely superior had now been set up by God. The contrast here made between the two is very striking. The Aaronic was constituted "according to the law of commandment fleshly". The same expression is used in Ephesians 2:15 to designate the whole system of worship under Judaism. This emphatic denomination may be accounted for by the fact that under it commandments were so multiplied, and because of the severity wherewith obedience was exacted. The Levitical priesthood was "carnal", First, inasmuch as the sacrifices offered at their consecration were the bodies of beasts. Second, inasmuch as the priesthood was by fleshly propagation, from father to son. Third, inasmuch as their ministration availed only to the "purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13). In sharp contrast, Christ was not dedicated to His office by the sacrifice of beasts, nor did He claim any right to it by His natural descent.  

"Who is made . . . after the power of an endless life". Let the reader compare our remarks on Hebrews 5:5. The Lord Christ did not merely on His own authority and power take the priestly office upon Himself, but by the appointment of His Father. The way or manner in which He was "made priest" is here stated: according to "the power of an indissoluable life". These words have been grossly wrested by those who seek to prove by them that Christ never entered upon the priestly office until after His resurrection. It is truly pitiable to find those who ought to know better echoing the errors of "annihilationists". Christ officiated as priest before His resurrection, or He could not have offered Himself as a sacrifice to God. As this will, D.V., come before us again in the 9th chapter we will say no more thereon at the present juncture.  

Christ’ s "indissoluable life" here has unquestionable reference to His life as the Son of God. Upon that depends His own mediatorial life forever, and His conferring eternal life upon His people: John 5:26, 27. It was only by the Mediator being made priest "after the power of an indissoluable life" that He was qualified to discharge that office, whereby God was to redeem His church with His own blood (Acts 20:28)— i.e., here called "His blood" because the humanity had been taken up into union with the second person in the Godhead. Should it be objected, But Christ died! True, yet his person still lived: though actually dead in His human nature, He was still alive in His indissoluable person, and therefore there was no interruption whatever to the discharge of His sacerdotal office; no, not for a moment. Thus the contrast between Aaron and Christ is that of a mortal man and "The King eternal, immortal, invisible" (1 Tim. 1:17).  

How deeply thankful should every Christian be for such a Priest. The eternal Word became flesh. The Lord of glory stooped to become man. As the God-man He mediates between the ineffably holy God and sinful creatures. The Savior is none other than Immanuel (Matthew 1:21, 23). In His humanity, He suffered, bled and died. But in His Divine-human person He Himself quickened that humanity (John 2:19, 10:18). We profess not to understand the mystery, but by grace, we believe what the Scriptures record concerning Him. The "life" that was given to Christ as the Mediator (unlike that of His humanity) was an indestructible one. Therefore He is "a Priest forever", and therefore "He ever liveth to make intercession" (Heb. 7:25). Hallelujah!  

  

  

Maclaren: Heb 7:2

Righteousness First, Peace Second

First being, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem. which is, King of peace.'--Heb. 7:2.

THAT mysterious, shadowy figure of the priest-king Melchizedec has been singularly illuminated and solidified by recent discovery. You can see now in Berlin and London, letters written fourteen centuries before Christ, by a king of Jerusalem who describes himself almost in the very words which the Old and the New Testaments apply to Melchizedec. He says that he is a royal priest or a priestly king. He says that he derived his royalty neither from father nor mother, nor by genealogical descent; and he says that he owes it to the great King'--possibly an equivalent to the Most High God'; of whom Melchizedec is in Scripture said to have been a worshipper. The name of the letter-writer is not Melchizedec, but the fact that his royalty was not hereditary, like a Pharaoh's, may explain how each monarch bore his own personal appellation, and not one common to successive members of a dynasty.

And are not the names of King and city significant --King of righteousness … King of peace'? It sounds like a yearning, springing up untimely in those dim ages of oppression and strife, for a royalty founded on something better than the sword, and wielded for something higher than personal ambition. Such an ideal at such a date is like a summer day that has wandered into a cold March.

But the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews imposes a meaning not only on the titles, but on their sequence. Of course therein he is letting a sanctified imagination play round a fact, and giving to it a meaning which is not in it. None the less in that emphatic expression first King of righteousness, and after that also King of peace,' he penetrated very deeply into the heart of Christ's reign and work, and echoed a sentiment that runs all through Scripture. Hearken to one psalmist: The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness.' Hearken to another: Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.' Hearken to a prophet: The work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever.' Hearken to the most Hebrais-tic of New Testament writers: The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace.' Hearken to the central teaching of the most Evangelical, if I may so say, of New Testament writers: Being justified'-- made righteous'by faith, we have peace with God.' So the first' and the after that' reveal to us the very depth of Christ's work, and carry in them not only important teaching as to that, but equally important directions and guides for Christian conduct; and it is to this aspect of my text, and this only, that I ask your attention now.

The order which we have here, first of all King of righteousness, and after that King of peace,' is the order which I shall try to illustrate in two ways. First, in reference to Christ's work on the individual soul; second, in reference to Christ's work on society and communities.

First, then, here we have laid down the sequence in which

I. Christ Comes With His Operations And His Gifts To The Soul That Clings To Him.

First righteousness, after, peace.' Now I need not do more than in a sentence remind you of the basis upon which the thoughts in the text, and all right understanding of Christ's work on an individual, repose, and that is that without righteousness no man can either be at peace with God or with himself. Not with God--for however shallow experience may talk effusively and gushingly about a God who is all mercy, and who loves and takes to His heart the sinner and the saint alike; such a God drapes the universe in darkness, and if there are no moral distinctions which determine whether a man is in amity or hostility with God, then the pillared firmament itself is rottenness, and earth's base built on stubble.' No, no, brethren; it sounds very tender and kindly; at bottom it is the cruellest thing that you can say, to say that without righteousness a man can please God. The sun is in the heavens, and whether there be mist and fog down here, or the bluest of summer skies, the sun is above. But its rays coming through the ethereal blue are warmth and blessedness, and its rays cut off by mists are dim, and itself turned into a lurid ball of fire. It cannot be--and thank God that it cannot--that it is all the same to Him whether a man is saint or sinner.

I do not need to remind you that in like manner righteousness must underlie peace with oneself. For it is true to-day, as it was long "generations ago, according to the prophet, that the wicked is like the troubled sea which cannot rest, whose waters throw up mire and dirt,' and, on the other hand, the promise is true still and for ever; O that thou hadst hearkened unto me, then had thy peace been like a river,' because thy righteousness' will be like the waves of the sea.' For ever and ever it stands true that for peace with God, and for a quiet heart, and a nature at harmony with itself, there must be righteousness.

Well, then, Jesus Christ comes to bring to a man the righteousness without which there can be no peace in his life. And that is the meaning of the great word which, having been taken for a shibboleth and test of a falling or a standing Church,' has been far too much ossified into a mere theological dogma, and has been weakened and misunderstood in the process. Justification by faith; that is the battle-cry of Protestant communities. And what does it mean? That I shall be treated as righteous, not being so? That I shall be forgiven and acquitted? Yes, thank God! But is that all that it means, or is that the main thing that it means? No, thank God! for the very heart of the Christian doctrine of righteousness is this, that if, and as soon as, a man puts his trembling trust in Jesus Christ as his Saviour, then he receives not merely pardon,which is the uninterrupted flow of the divine love in spite of his sin, nor an accrediting him with a righteousness which does not belong to him, but an imparting to him of that new life, a spark from the central fire of Christ's life, the new man which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.' Do not suppose that the great message of the gospel is merely forgiveness. Do not suppose that its blessed gift is only that a man is acquitted because Christ has died. All that is true. But there is something more than that which is the basis of that other, and that is that by faith in Jesus Christ, I am so knit to Him--He that is joined to the Lord' being one spirit'--as that there passes into me, by His gift, a life which is created after His life, and is in fact cognate and kindred with it.

No doubt it is a mere germ, no doubt it needs cultivating, development, carefully guarding against gnawing insects and blighting frosts. But the seed which is implanted, though it be less than the least of all seeds, has in itself the promise and the potency of triumphant growth, when it will tower above all the poisonous shrubs and undergrowth of the forest, and have the light of heaven resting on its aspiring top. Here is the great blessing and distinctive characteristic of Christian morality, that it does not say to a man: First aim after good deeds and so grow up into goodness,' but it starts with a gift, and says,' Work from that, and by the power of that. "I make the tree good,"says Jesus to us, do you see to it that the fruit is good.' No doubt the vegetable metaphor is inadequate, because the leaf is wooed from out the bud, and grows green and broad, and takes no care,' but that effortless growth is not how righteousness increases in men. The germ is given them, and they have to cultivate it. First, there must be the impartation of righteousness, and then there comes to the man's heart the sweet assurance of peace with God, and he has within him a conscience like a sea at rest, imaginations calm and fair.' First, King of righteousness; after that, King of peace.'

Now if we keep firm hold of this sequence, a great many of the popular objections to the gospel, as if it were merely a means of forgiveness and escape, and a system of reconciliation by some kind of forensic expedient, fall away of themselves, and a great many of the popular blunders that Christian people make fall away too. For there are good folks to whom the great truth that God is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their trespasses,' and welcoming them to all the fulness of an overflowing love, has obscured the other truth thai; there is no peace for a Christian man continuous through his life, unless equally continuous through his life are his efforts to work out in acts the new nature which he has received.

Thus my text, by the order in which it places righteousness and peace, not only illuminates the work of Christ upon each individual soul, but comes with a very weighty and clear direction to Christian people as to their course of conduct. Are you looking for comfort? Is what you want to get out of your religion mainly the assurance that you will not go to hell? Is the great blessing that Christ brings to you only the blessing of pardon, which you degrade to mean immunity from punishment? You are wrong. First of all, King of righteousness'--let that which is first of all in His gifts be first of all in your efforts too; and do not seek so much for comfort as for grace to know and to do your duty, and strength to cast off the unfruitful works of darkness,' and to put on the armour of light.' The order which is laid down in my text was laid down with a different application, by our Lord Himself, and ought to be in both forms the motto for all Christian people. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things'--comfort, sense of reconciliation, assurance of forgiveness, joyful hope, and the like, as well as needful material good--shall be added unto you.'

And now, secondly, my text gives the order of,

II. Christ's Work In The World, And Of His Servant's Work After Him.

Of course, our Lord's work in the world is simply the aggregate of His work on individual souls. But for the sake of clearness we may consider these two aspects of it somewhat apart. In regard to this second part of my subject, I would begin, as I began in the former section, by reminding you that the only basis on which harmonious relations between men in communities, great or small, can be built, is righteousness, in the narrowest sense of the word, meaning thereby justice, equal dealing as between man and man, without partiality or class favouritism. Wherever you get an unjustly treated section or order of men, there you get the beginnings of war and strife. A social order built upon injustice, just in the measure in which it is so built, is based upon a quicksand which will suck it down, or on a volcano which will blow it to pieces. Injustice is the grit in the machine; you may oil it as much as you like with philanthropy and benevolence, but until you get the grit out, it will not work smoothly. There is no harmony amongst men unless their association is based and bottomed upon righteousness.

Jesus Christ comes into the world to bring peace at the far end, but righteousness at the near end, and therefore strife. The herald angels sang peace upon earth. They were looking to the deepest and ultimate issues of His mission, but when He contemplated its immediate results He had to say, Suppose ye that I bring peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather division.' He rode into Jerusalem the King, meek, and having salvation,' throned upon the beast of burden which symbolised peace. But He will come forth in the last fight, as He has been coming forth through all the ages, mounted on the white horse, with the sword girt upon His thigh in behalf of meekness and righteousness and truth. Christ, and Christianity when it keeps close to Christ, is a ferment, not an emollient. The full and honest application of Christ's teaching and principles to any society on the face of the earth at this day is bound to result in agitation and strife. There is no help for it. When a pure jet of water is discharged into a foul ditch, there will be much uprising of mud. Effervescence will always follow when Christ's principles are applied to existing institutions. And so it comes to pass that Christian men, in the measure in which they are true to their Master, turn the world upside down. There will follow, of course, the tranquillity that does follow on righteousness; but that is far ahead, and there is many a weary mile to be trod, and many a sore struggle to be undertaken, before the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and strife ends for ever.

Now, if this be so, then in this necessary characteristic of Christ's operation on the world, viz., disturbance arising from the endeavour to enthrone righteousness where its opposite has ruled- there results very plainly important teaching as to the duties of Christ's servants to take their full share in the fight, to be the knights of the Holy Ghost, the champions of righteousness. The Church ought to lead in the van of all assaults on hoary wrongs or modern forms of unrighteousness in municipal, political, national life. And it is the disgrace of the Church that so largely it leaves that contest to be waged by men who make no pretence to be Christians.

There is, unfortunately, a type of Christian thinking and life, of which in many respects one would speak with all sympathy and admiration, which warns the Christian Church against casting itself into this contest, in the alleged interest of a superior spirituality and a loftier conception of Evangelical truth. I believe, as heartily as any man can--and I venture to appeal to those who hear me Sunday by Sunday, and from year to year, whether it is not so--that the preaching of Jesus Christ is the cure for all the world's miseries, and the banishment of all the world's unrighteousness; but am I to be told that the endeavour to apply the person and the principles of Jesus Christ, in His life and death, to existing institutions and evils, is not preaching Christ? I believe that it is, and that the one thing that the Church wants to-day is not less of holding up the Cross and the Sacrifice, but more of pointing to the Cross and the Sacrifice as the cure of all the world's evils, and the pattern for all righteousness.

It is difficult to do, it is made difficult by our own desire to be what the prophet did not think a very reputable position, at ease in Zion.' It is also made difficult by the way in which, as is most natural, the world, meaning thereby godless, organised society, regards an active Church that desires to bring its practices to the test of Christ's word. Muzzled watchdogs that can neither bark nor bite are much admired by burglars. And a Church that confines itself to theory, to what it calls religion, and leaves the world to go to the devil as it likes, suits both the world and the devil. There was once a Prime Minister of England who came out of church one Sunday morning in a state of towering indignation because the clergyman had spoken about conduct. And that is exactly how the world feels about an intrusive Church that will push its finger into all social arrangements, and say about each of them, This must be as Christ commanded.'

Brethren! would God that all Christian men deserved the name of troublers of Israel.' There was once a prophet to whom the men of his day indignantly said, O sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? Put up thyself in thy scabbard, rest and be still.' And the answer was the only possible one, How can it be quiet, seeing that the Lord hath appointed it?' If you and I are Christ's servants, we shall follow the sequence of His operations, and seek to establish righteousness first and then peace.

The true Salem is above.My soul, there is a countryAfar beyond the stars.'

There sweet peace sits crowned with smiles.' The swords will then be wreathed with laurel and men shall learn war no more,' for the King has fought the great fight, and of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end … in righteousness and justice, from henceforth even for ever.' Let us take Him for the Lord our righteousness,' and we shall blessedly find that' this Man is our peace.' Let us take arms in the Holy War which He wages, and we shall have peace in our hearts whilst the fight is sorest. Let us labour to be found in Him … having the righteousness which is of God by faith,' and then we shall' be found in Him in peace, without spot, blameless'

MHCC: Heb 7:1-3

Melchisedec met Abraham when returning from the rescue of Lot. His name, " King of Righteousness," doubtless suitable to his character, marked him as a type of the Messiah and his kingdom. The name of his city signified " Peace;" and as king of peace he typified Christ, the Prince of Peace, the great Reconciler of God and man. Nothing is recorded as to the beginning or end of his life; thus he typically resembled the Son of God, whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting, who had no one that was before him, and will have no one come after him, in his priesthood. Every part of Scripture honours the great King of Righteousness and Peace, our glorious High Priest and Saviour; and the more we examine it, the more we shall be convinced, that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

MHCC: Heb 7:4-10

That High Priest who should afterward appear, of whom Melchisedec was a type, must be much superior to the Levitical priests. Observe Abraham's great dignity and happiness; that he had the promises. That man is rich and happy indeed, who has the promises, both of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This honour have all those who receive the Lord Jesus. Let us go forth in our spiritual conflicts, trusting in his word and strength, ascribing our victories to his grace, and desiring to be met and blessed by him in all our ways.

MHCC: Heb 7:11-25

The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come, are done away; a Priest is risen, and a dispensation now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. That there is such a change is plain. The law which made the Levitical priesthood, showed that the priests were frail, dying creatures, not able to save their own lives, much less could they save the souls of those who came to them. But the High Priest of our profession holds his office by the power of endless life in himself; not only to keep himself alive, but to give spiritual and eternal life to all who rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. The better covenant, of which Jesus was the Surety, is not here contrasted with the covenant of works, by which every transgressor is shut up under the curse. It is distinguished from the Sinai covenant with Israel, and the legal dispensation under which the church so long remained. The better covenant brought the church and every believer into clearer light, more perfect liberty, and more abundant privileges. In the order of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests one after another; but in the priesthood of Christ there is only one and the same. This is the believer's safety and happiness, that this everlasting High Priest is able to save to the uttermost, in all times, in all cases. Surely then it becomes us to desire a spirituality and holiness, as much beyond those of the Old Testament believers, as our advantages exceed theirs.

Matthew Henry: Heb 7:1-10

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew Henry: Heb 7:11-28

Observe the necessity there was of raising up another priest, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron, by whom that perfection should come which could not come by the Levitical priesthood, which therefore must be changed, and the whole economy with it, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12, etc. Here,

I. It is asserted that perfection could not come by the Levitical priesthood and the law. They could not put those who came to them into the perfect enjoyment of the good things they pointed out to them; they could only show them the way.

II. That therefore another priest must be raised up, after the order of Melchisedec, by whom, and his law of faith, perfection might come to all who obey him; and, blessed be God, that we may have perfect holiness and perfect happiness by Christ in the covenant of grace, according to the gospel, for we are complete in him.

III. It is asserted that the priesthood being changed there must of necessity be a change of the law; there being so near a relation between the priesthood and the law, the dispensation could not be the same under another priesthood; a new priesthood must be under a new regulation, managed in another way, and by rules proper to its nature and order.

IV. It is not only asserted, but proved, that the priesthood and law are changed, Heb 7:13, Heb 7:14. The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come are abolished, and a priest has arisen, and a dispensation is now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. Now that there is such a change is obvious.

1. There is a change in the tribe of which the priesthood comes. Before, it was the tribe of Levi; but our great high priest sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood, Heb 7:14. This change of the family shows a real change of the law of the priesthood.

2. There is a change in the form and order of making the priests. Before, in the Levitical priesthood, they were made after the law of a carnal commandment; but our great high priest was made after the power of an endless life. The former law appointed that the office should descend, upon the death of the father, to his eldest son, according to the order of carnal or natural generation; for none of the high priests under the law were without father or mother, or without descent: they had not life and immortality in themselves. They had both beginning of days and end of life; and so the carnal commandment, or law of primogeniture, directed their succession, as it did in matters of civil right and inheritance. But the law by which Christ was constituted a priest, after the order of Melchisedec, was the power of an endless life. The life and immortality which he had in himself were his right and title to the priesthood, not his descent from former priests. This makes a great difference in the priesthood, and in the economy too, and gives the preference infinitely to Christ and the gospel. The very law which constituted the Levitical priesthood supposed the priests to be weak, frail, dying, creatures, not able to preserve their own natural lives, but who must be content and glad to survive in their posterity after the flesh; much less could they, by any power or authority they had, convey spiritual life and blessedness to those who came to them. But the high priest of our profession holds his office by that innate power of endless life which he has in himself, not only to preserve himself alive, but to communicate spiritual and eternal life to all those who duly rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. Some thing the law of the carnal commandment refers to the external rites of consecration, and the carnal offerings that were made; but the power of an endless life to the spiritual living sacrifices proper to the gospel, and the spiritual and eternal privileges purchased by Christ, who was consecrated by the eternal Spirit of life that he received without measure.

3. There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men's persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage.

4. There is a change in God's way of acting in this priesthood. He has taken an oath to Christ, which he never did to any of the order of Aaron. God never gave them any such assurance of their continuance, never engaged himself by oath or promise that theirs should be an everlasting priesthood, and therefore gave them no reason to expect the perpetuity of it, but rather to look upon it as a temporary law. But Christ was made a priest with the oath of God: The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, Heb 7:21. Here God has upon oath declared the immutability, excellency, efficacy, and eternity, of the priesthood of Christ.

5. There is a change in that covenant of which the priesthood was a security and the priest a surety; that is, a change in the dispensation of that covenant. The gospel dispensation is more full, free, perspicuous, spiritual, and efficacious, than that of the law. Christ is in this gospel covenant a surety for us to God and for God to us, to see that the articles be performed on both parts He, as surety, has united the divine and human nature together in his own person, and therein given assurance of reconciliation; and he has, as surety, united God and man together in the bond of the everlasting covenant. He pleads with men to keep their covenant with god, and he pleads with God that he will fulfil his promises to men, which he is always ready to do in a way suitable to his majesty and glory, that is, through a Mediator.

6. There is a remarkable change in the number of the priests under these different orders. In that of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests, not at once, but successively; but in this of Christ there is but one and the same. The reason is plain, The Levitical priests were many, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. Their office, how high and honourable soever, could not secure them from dying; and, as one died, another must succeed, and after a while must give place to a third, till the number had become very great. But this our high priest continues for ever, and his priesthood is aparabaton - an unchangeable one, that does not pass from one to another, as the former did; it is always in the same hand. There can be no vacancy in this priesthood, no hour nor moment in which the people are without a priest to negotiate their spiritual concerns in heaven. Such a vacancy might be very dangerous and prejudicial to them; but this is their safety and happiness, that this ever-living high priest is able to save to the utmost - in all times, in all cases, in every juncture - all who come to God by him, Heb 7:25. So that here is a manifest alteration much for the better.

7. There is a remarkable difference in the moral qualifications of the priests. Those who were of the order of Aaron were not only mortal men, but sinful men, who had their sinful as well as natural infirmities; they needed to offer up sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the people. But our high priest, who was consecrated by the word of the oath, needed only to offer up once for the people, never at all for himself; for he has not only an immutable consecration to his office, but an immutable sanctity in his person. He is such a high priest as became us, holy, harmless, and undefiled, etc., Heb 7:26-28. Here observe, (1.) Our case, as sinners, needed a high priest to make satisfaction and intercession for us. (2.) No priest could be suitable or sufficient for our reconciliation to God but one who was perfectly righteous in his own person; he must be righteous in himself, or he could not be a propitiation for our sin, or our advocate with the Father. (3.) The Lord Jesus was exactly such a high priest as we wanted, for he has a personal holiness, absolutely perfect. Observe the description we have of the personal holiness of Christ expressed in various terms, all of which some learned divines consider as relating to his perfect purity. [1.] He is holy, perfectly free from all the habits or principles of sin, not having the least disposition to it in his nature; no sin dwells in him, though it does in the best of Christians, not the least sinful inclination [2.] He is harmless, perfectly free from all actual transgression, has done no violence, nor is there any deceit in his mouth, never did the least wrong to God or man. [3.] He is undefiled, he was never accessory to other men's sins. It is a difficult thing to keep ourselves pure, so as not to partake in the guilt of other men's sins, by contributing in some way towards them, or not doing what we ought to prevent them. Christ was undefiled; though he took upon him the guilt of our sins, yet he never involved himself in the fact and fault of them. [4.] He is separate from sinners, not only in his present state (having entered as our high priest into the holiest of all, into which nothing defiled can enter), but in his personal purity: he has no such union with sinners, either natural or federal, as can devolve upon him original sin. This comes upon us by virtue of our natural and federal union with the first Adam, we descending from him in the ordinary way. But Christ was, by his ineffable conception in the virgin, separate from sinners; though he took a true human nature, yet the miraculous way in which it was conceived set him upon a separate footing from all the rest of mankind. [5.] He is made higher than the heavens. Most expositors understand this concerning his state of exaltation in heaven, at the right hand of God, to perfect the design of his priesthood. But Dr. Goodwin thinks this may be very justly referred to the personal holiness of Christ, which is greater and more perfect than the holiness of the hosts of heaven, that is, the holy angels themselves, who, though they are free from sin, yet are not in themselves free from all possibility of sinning. And therefore we read, God putteth no trust in his holy ones, and he chargeth his angels with folly (Job 4:18), that is, with weakness and peccability. They may be angels one hour and devils another, as many of them were; and that the holy angels shall not now fall does not proceed from an indefectibility of nature, but from the election of God; they are elect angels. It is very probable that this explanation of the words, made higher than the heavens, may be thought too much strained, and that it ought to be understood of the dignity of Christ's state, and not the perfect holiness of his person; and the rather because it is said he was made higher genomenos ; but it is well known that this word is used in a neutral sense, as where it is said, genesthē ho Theos alēthēs - Let God be true. The other characters in the verse plainly belong to the personal perfection of Christ in holiness, as opposed to the sinful infirmities of the Levitical priests; and it seems congruous to think this must do so too, if it may be fairly taken in such a sense; and it appears yet more probable, since the validity and prevalency of Christ's priesthood in Heb 7:27 are placed in the impartiality and disinterestedness of it. He needed not to offer up for himself: it was a disinterested mediation; he mediated for that mercy for others which he did not need for himself; had he needed it himself, he had been a party, and could not have been a Mediator - a criminal, and could not have been an advocate for sinners. Now, to render his mediation the more impartial and disinterested, it seems requisite not only that he had no present need of that favour for himself which he mediated for in behalf of others, but that he never could stand in need of it. Though he needed it not today, yet if he knew he might be in such circumstances as to need it tomorrow, or at any future time, he must have been thought to have had some eye upon his own interest, and therefore could not act with impartial regard and pure zeal for the honour of God on one hand, and tender pure compassion for poor sinners on the other. I pretend not here to follow the notes of our late excellent expositor, into whose labours we have entered, but have taken the liberty to vindicate this notion of the learned Dr. Goodwin from the exceptions that I know have been made to it; and I have the rather done it because, if it will hold good, it gives us further evidence how necessary it was that the Mediator should be God, since no mere creature is of himself possessed of that impeccability which will set him above all possible need of favour and mercy for himself.

Barclay: Heb 7:1-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the words Hebrews piles up here are amazing. He says that Jesus was without descent (agenealogetos, 35). That is a word that, so far as we know, no Greek writer ever used before. It may well be that in his eagerness to stress the fact that Jesus' power did not depend on descent, he invented it. It is very likely a new word to describe a new thing. He says that Melchizedek was without father (apator, 540) and without mother (ametor, 282). These words are very interesting. They have certain uses in secular Greek. They are the regular description of waifs and strays and of people of low pedigree. They contemptuously dismiss a man as having no ancestry. More, apator (540) has a technical legal use in the contemporary Greek of the papyri. It is the word which is used on legal documents, especially on birth certificates, for father unknown and, therefore, illegitimate. So, for instance, there is a papyrus which speaks of--"Chairemon, apator (540), father unknown, whose mother is Thases." It is amazing that the writer to the Hebrews took words like this to stress his meaning. The Christian writers had a strange way of redeeming words as well as men and women. No phrase seemed too strong to the writer to the Hebrews to insist upon the fact that Jesus' authority was in himself and came from no man.

Barclay: Heb 7:4-10

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

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

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

Barclay: Heb 7:11-20

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

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

Further, there was another great change which had fundamental implications. The law was definite that all priests must belong to the tribe of Levi; they must be descendants of Aaron; but Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah. Therefore, the very fact that he was the supreme priest meant that the law was cancelled; it was wiped out. The word used for cancellation is athetesis (115); that is the word used for annulling a treaty, for abrogating a promise, for scoring a man's name off the register, for rendering a law or regulation inoperative. The whole paraphernalia of the ceremonial law was wiped out in the priesthood of Jesus.

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

Constable: Heb 5:11--11:1

III. The High Priestly Office of the Son 5:11--10:39

The transition from exposition (4:15-5:10) to exhortation (5:11-6:20) marks the beginning of a new division in this sermon. The structure of this division is as follows.¹⁵⁸

a Preliminary exhortation (5:11-6:20)

A The priest like Melchizedek (7:1-28)

B The single, personal sacrifice for sins (8:1-9:28)

C The achievement of eternal salvation (10:1-18)

a' Concluding exhortation (10:19-39)

A central theme of Hebrews, redemptive sacrifice, comes into prominence in this section of the text.

Constable: Heb 7:1--10:19

C. The Son's High Priestly Ministry 7:1-10:18

The great resource of Christians when tempted to apostatize is our high priest, Jesus Christ. The writer therefore spent considerable time and space expounding His high priesthood to enable his readers to benefit from their resource. This section of the book continues to glorify Jesus Christ so the readers would appreciate Him sufficiently and not turn from. Him.

"In Hebrews 7, the writer argued that Christ's priesthood, like Melchizedek's, is superior in its order. In Hebrews 8, the emphasis is on Christ's better covenant; in Hebrews 9, it is His better sanctuary; and Hebrews 10 concludes the section by arguing for Christ's better sacrifice."²¹¹

Constable: Heb 7:1-28

1. The person of our high priest ch. 7

"For the Jews of his day, it would have been axiomatic that there was no priesthood other than the Aaronic. We are now shown that the Law itself proves that there is a higher priesthood than that."²¹²

Constable: Heb 7:1-10

The significance of Melchizedek 7:1-10

The writer began by explaining the significance of Melchizedek since understanding him is foundational to appreciating Jesus Christ's high priestly ministry.²¹³

"The dominant text in 7:1-10 is Gen 14:17-20, but in chap. 7 as a whole Gen 14:17-20 is subordinated to Ps 110:4 . . .

"The limits of the first section are confirmed literarily by an inclusio established between vv 1 and 10 by the repeated statement that Melchizedek met Abraham."²¹⁴

Constable: Heb 7:1-3

The particulars of Melchizedek's significance 7:1-3

7:1-2 The writer referred to Melchizedek (lit. righteous king, probably a title rather than a proper name) as the head of a priestly order. It was not uncommon for one individual to combine the roles of priest and king in antiquity.²¹⁵ Aaron was also the head of a priestly order. The writer explained that Jesus Christ was a member of Melchizedek's order, not Aaron's (6:20). Melchizedek was a prototype of Jesus Christ in two respects. He was both a king and a priest, and what characterized him was righteousness and peace (cf. 12:10-11; Ps. 85:10; Isa. 32:17; Rom. 5:1; James 3:17-18). The fact that Melchizedek was a priest is clear from two facts: he blessed Abraham, and Abraham paid tithes to him of all the spoils that he had taken in war (v. 4; cf. Gen. 14:23-24).

These verses point out four important facts about Melchizedek: (1) he was a king-priest, (2) he was a blesser, (3) he received tithes, and (4) he had a significant name.

7:3 A literal interpretation of this verse might lead one to conclude that Melchizedek was an angelic being, 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. Ezra 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."²¹⁶

This verse highlights a fifth important fact about Melchizedek: he had a significant family history.

Constable: Heb 7:4-10

The exposition of Melchizedek's significance 7:4-10

In these straightforward verses, which expound verses 1-3, the writer explained further how Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, the ancestor of Levi, the head of the priestly tribe under the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. He said more about three of the facts mentioned above: Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham, he blessed Abraham, and he lived longer than Abraham.

7:4 The writer's purpose was to show how great Melchizedek was compared to the venerated patriarch Abraham.

7:5-6a The descendants of Abraham paid tithes to their priests, the sons of Levi, but Abraham himself paid tithes to Melchizedek.

7:6b-7 Greater people bless lesser people, so the fact that Melchizedek blessed Abraham shows his superiority over Abraham.

7:8 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 died.

7:9-10 In a sense even Levi himself paid tithes to Melchizedek since he was still in the loins of Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. In the ancient oriental view of things, people regarded a descendant as in one sense participating in the actions of his ancestors (Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2-3; Rom. 9:11-13). This is true to reality in certain respects (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22), though we are responsible for our own actions too (Ezek. 18:20). Levi, the head of the priestly tribe in Israel, had not yet begun his independent existence, but he was involved in everything that Abraham did.²¹⁷

Constable: Heb 7:11-25

The superior priesthood of Jesus 7:11-25

Having shown the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham and Levi, the writer proceeded to point out the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood and Jesus' priesthood. He did so to clarify for his readers the inferiority of the Mosaic Covenant and its priesthood. Not only was Melchizedek greater than Aaron, but Melchizedek replaced Aaron.

"Within the structure of the homily, 7:1-28 is clearly defined as a literary unit. The reference to the Son of God' in v 3 prepares for the climactic reference to the Son' in v 28. The entire chapter is concerned with the Son as priest, or high priest, like Melchizedek,' who is superior to the Levitical priests. The fact that v 28 summarizes and concludes the comparison of Jesus as Son with the Levitical priesthood, a subject that occupies the writer in a preparatory way in 7:1-10 and directly in 7:11-28, is of special importance . . ."²¹⁸

Genesis 14:17-20 now falls into the background, and Psalm 110:4 becomes dominant.²¹⁹ Note also the key words "perfection" (v. 11) and "perfect" (vv. 19, 28). These two words not only form an inclusio but begin and end the argument of the pericope. Perfection did not come through the Old Covenant priests but through the Son.

Why would God replace the Levitical priesthood? Four reasons follow.

Constable: Heb 7:11-14

The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law 7:11-14

7:11 The writer's point was that since God promised in Psalm 110:4 that the coming Messiah would be a priest after Melchizedek's order, He intended to terminate the Levitical priesthood because it was inadequate. If the Levitical priesthood had been adequate, the Messiah would have functioned as a Levitical priest.

7:12 The priesthood was such a major part of the whole Mosaic Covenant that this predicted change in the priesthood signaled a change in the whole Covenant. This verse is one of the clearest single statements in the New Testament indicating that God has terminated the Mosaic Law (cf. Rom. 10:4). Paul went on to say that Christians, therefore, are not under it (Rom. 6:14-15; Gal. 3:24-25; 5:1; 6:2; 2 Cor. 3:7-11). It is not what God has given to regulate the lives of Christians.

"If Christ is our high priest today, then there has to be a change in the law, since He could not qualify as a priest under the Levitical arrangement (being of the tribe of Judah). If the law has not been done away today, then neither has the Levitical priesthood; but if Christ is our high priest, we cannot be under the law. Every prayer offered in the name of Christ is an affirmation of the end of the law."²²⁰

"So by his own independent line of argument our author reaches the same conclusion as Paul: the law was a temporary provision, our tutor to bring us unto Christ . . . but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor' (Gal. 3:24f.)."²²¹

7:13-14 Further confirmation of this change is the prophecy that Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah, not from the priestly tribe of Levi (Gen. 49:10; Mic. 5:2; Isa. 11:1).

Constable: Heb 7:15-19

The need for a better replacement 7:15-19

7:15-17 A third proof that God made a change in the priesthood is that God predicted that Messiah would live forever (Ps. 110:4). Jesus Christ did not become a priest because He met a physical requirement, namely, was born into the priestly tribe and qualified by his descent to serve as high priest. He became a priest because He would not die. In this He showed Himself to be a member of Melchizedek's "order" since Melchizedek appears from the scriptural record to have lived forever. Jesus is a priest forever because of His resurrection.²²²

7:18-19 These verses summarize the argument that God has superseded the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law (Covenant). He has replaced the old system with a system that can do what the old one could not do, namely, bring us into intimate relationship with God.

"The term athetesis, annulment,' is a stronger term than metathesis, alteration' (v 12)."²²³

The "better hope" we have is the assurance that this relationship is now possible for us to experience thanks to our great High Priest.

College: Heb 7:1-28

HEBREWS 7

E. MELCHIZEDEK LIKE THE SON OF GOD (7:1-3)

Having returned to the subject, our writer will now complete his description of the priestly ministry of Jesus. His climactic discussion of the nature of the new covenant in chapter 8 will tie together the preceding discussion about Jesus' priesthood (chapters 5-7) and the subsequent discussion about Jesus' sacrifice (chapters 9-10) as integral components of the covenant, both of which demonstrate its superiority to "that first covenant" (8:7). The present chapter builds on what was introduced in chapters five and six to provide the doctrinal substance of this unique dimension of New Testament Christology.

Others have referred to the awkwardness of introducing the figure of Melchizedek into the line of argument, suggesting that it is an unnecessary complication of the contrast between the old and new priesthoods. We could argue, however, that quite the opposite is true, for the figure of Melchizedek plays an essential role in the argument of our writer. The messianic application of Psalm 110:4 (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21) serves as important textual grounding for the legitimacy and superiority of Jesus' ministry as high priest. 7:13-16 suggest the need to defend the legitimacy of viewing Jesus as the messianic high priest in light of his ancestry and "the order of Melchizedek" provides a transcendent standard to which our writer appeals. Further, our author sees even greater significance in the specific parallels which introduce the issues of resurrection and oath. Hence, Melchizedek plays a key role in our writer's argument, offering scriptural grounds both for (1) the legitimacy of viewing Jesus as messianic high priest and (2) the two key themes which demonstrate the superiority of his "permanent priesthood" (7:24).

These first three verses identify several key characteristics in which "this Melchizedek" (v. 1) is "like the Son of God" (v. 3). The foundational similarity is that "he remains a priest forever." In the Greek text, these three verses represent a single, complex sentence in which "remains" (v. 3) serves as the main verb and "Melchizedek" is qualified by several descriptive phrases organized around a series of participles. Each of these characteristics introduces a theme which will be elaborated upon at some later point in the chapter and collectively they progress from historical description (v. 1) to messianic interpretation (v. 2) to that specific parallel which forms the heart of the chapter (v. 3).

¹ This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, ² and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." ³ Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

7:1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High.

Having alluded again to Psalm 110:4, our writer turns to the account in Genesis 14:17-20 to suggest more specific parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus. These passages, together with the middle chapters of Hebrews, represent the only references to Melchizedek in Scripture. According to the Genesis narrative, Abraham recognized Melchizedek as serving the same God as he by (1) giving him a "tenth of everything" (14:20) and (2) referring to the Lord by the same title ("God Most High," 14:22).

His status as both king and priest was not unique in antiquity. As to their possible significance here, we can observe that (1) elements of both kingship and priesthood are present in Psalm 110:1-4 (v. 1 having already been cited in 1:12), (2) v. 14 of the present chapter reminds readers that Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah, as any successor to the royal line of David would have been, and (3) Jesus is described as both priest and king within the broad scope of NT Christology. In the verses that follow, however, our writer shows little interest in expounding upon the significance of the dual role, choosing to focus on Jesus' ministry as high priest. Even in v. 2 he is less concerned with the office of king than with the messianic significance of "righteousness" and "peace" (see notes below). Probably, then, the title occurs here simply because it is extracted from the Genesis passage.

Salem is probably a shortened form of Jerusalem (cf. Ps 76:2), although its exact identification has been debated. This was c.1000 years prior to David's conquest of the city (2 Sam 5:6-10). Our writer, however, is more interested in its typological significance than in its historical identity (v. 2).

He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,

When the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah rebelled against their subjection to the king of Elam, Lot was seized and carried away during the battle in the Valley of Siddim (Gen 14:1-12). Abraham (then Abram) learned of this and led his own trained men in attack of the captors, rescuing Lot along with the others and their possessions (Gen 14:13-16). Upon Abraham's return, he was met by the king of Sodom and by Melchizedek, although there is no previous reference to indicate that Melchizedek was involved in the conflict (Gen 14:17-18). Melchizedek brought out bread and wine, pronounced a blessing upon Abraham, and received from him "a tenth of everything" (Gen 14:19-20). Our writer glosses over some of these details in order to foreground his similarities with Jesus. He will return to the act of "blessing" in vv. 6-7.

7:2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything.

Genesis 14:20 is the first reference to the tithe in the Bible, indicating that it existed as a practice even before it was commanded in the Law given through Moses. In Egyptian, Syrian, and Babylonian cultures of antiquity, tithes were both political (taxes imposed by rulers) and religious (presented as offerings) and could consist of produce, property or the spoils of war. In Abraham's case, it is clear from the Genesis narrative that his gift was intended to honor and praise God as his provider and protector since, apart from the tithe offered to the priest, his share in the spoils was refused (Gen 14:22-24).

The word here translated "gave" (merivzw , merizô ) is not the same word employed in v. 4 (divdwmi , didômi ) and is supplied by the author rather than the text of the LXX (which employs didômi ). It often includes the idea of "division" (merivsmo" , merismos is used in 4:12 to describe the division between soul and spirit wrought by the word of God) or "distribution" (of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 2:4). It is the same word which, outside of Hebrews, is used to describe the sharing of possessions within the early church (Acts 2:45, diamerizô ), the distribution of the two fish among the more than 5,000 people miraculously fed by Jesus (Mark 6:41), and in Jesus' description of a kingdom or house against itself (Matt 12:25-26; Mark 3:24-26). Although "to give a part of" is probably the best translation in relationship to the tithe, Ellingworth is thus probably correct in suggesting that the word is more specific than didômi and "heightens the idea of sharing a tenth."

First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."

The significance accorded to name changes and to etymological interpretations of names throughout the OT suggests the possible import of a name to Jewish readers. Guthrie suggests that "names denoted the nature as well as the identity of the person." Here our writer engages in a combination of etymological and "typological exegesis" to describe the Messianic significance of the "type" or pattern to be found in the person and priesthood of Melchizedek.

The name "Melchizedek" is composed of the Hebrew word for king ( melek ) to which is added a pronoun suffix ( melki , "my king") and the word for righteous or righteousness ( zedek ). A literal etymology, then, is "my king is righteous" but our writer offers an interpretive rendering,"king of righteousness." The word for Salem ( shalem ) is a cognate of the Hebrew word for "completeness, soundness, welfare, [or] peace" ( shalom ). Morris observes that the Greek word which our writer employs here (eijrhvnh , eirçnç ) conveys a negative idea ("absence of war") but that in both the NT and in the LXX (where it regularly translates shalom ) it picks up the notion of "positive blessing." Both righteousness and peace were part of the Jewish expectation for the Messianic kingdom (Isa 9:6-7) and in the NT it is clear that Jesus is both our righteousness (Rom 3:21-2; 2 Cor 5:21) and our peace (Eph 2:14-18; Col 1:19-20). Although our writer does not elaborated upon these specific themes, they are certainly the purpose of the sacrifice presented by Jesus the high priest (7:27; 9:14, 17-28).

7:3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

A priest's genealogy was of great significance because of the commandments of the law (which limited the high priesthood to descendants of Aaron - Exod 28-29 - and the priesthood to the Levites - Num 3, 8, cf. Heb 7:11) and the precedent of history (when, following the exile, those who could not produce their family records were excluded from the priesthood, Neh 7:64). Because Jesus was not of priestly lineage according to the law (7:14), this dimension of the Melchizedek "type" is important for establishing a pattern which transcends those legal requirements and demonstrates Jesus to be "another priest like Melchizedek" (7:11, 15). That our writer probably has the question of genealogy in mind is suggested by his use of the word ajgenealovghto" (agenealogçtos , "without genealogy"). Whereas ajpavtwr ( apatôr , "without father") and ajmhvtwr (amçtôr , "without mother") were commonly used for children whose parents had died or were unknown, there is no other evidence of any use of this word in Greek literature. Moulton and Milligan note that it is "a good sample of a class of words which any author might coin for a special purpose."

Our writer refers here not to historical facts about Melchizedek but to what Scripture fails to record about him, employing an argument from silence which, Bruce notes, played "an important part in rabbinical interpretation of scripture." As with the etymology employed in v. 2, the method is employed to offer a typological interpretation which anticipates the resurrection of Jesus - "like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." The use of a passive form in the Greek (possibly "being compared to") may reflect the fact that Jesus is the point of comparison, rather than Melchizedek. In other words, we recognize the ways in which Melchizedek's priesthood foreshadowed that of Jesus only after we see the realities in Jesus himself.

Jesus is first introduced to us as God's "Son" in the second verse of the letter and our writer's first use of the title "Son of God" is when he introduced his discussion of our "great high priest" (4:14), although a title which alludes to his divine identity could be part of the focus on his eternal nature both here and later in the chapter (7:16-17, 21, 23-24). His ability to serve as a permanent priest as a result of his resurrection becomes the main point of the comparison with Melchizedek ("forever" is the repeated element - 5:6; 6:10; 7:17, 21, 24) and, together with the sufficiency of his sacrifice, will serve as the main proof of the superiority of his priesthood.

F. MELCHIZEDEK GREATER THAN ABRAHAM (7:4-10)

⁴ Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! ⁵ Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people - that is, their brothers - even though their brothers are descended from Abraham. ⁶ This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. ⁷ And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. ⁸ In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. ⁹ One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, ¹⁰ because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

7:4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!

Although the NIV translates "how great he was," the Greek syntax is more naturally read as present tense, parallel to mevnei ( menei ) in v. 4. For the sake of the parallel with Christ, neither the priesthood nor the greatness of the priest are confined by time. Although the verb think could be taken as either indicative or imperative, the context probably justifies Lane's suggestion that it is an "oratorical imperative" by which the main theme of the section "is announced homiletically." Here we find the main claim in the argument of vv. 4-10: the surpassing greatness of Melchizedek. The initial phase consists of a lesser to greater argument which proceeds from Abraham to Melchizedek. Eventually, Abraham will be treated as a representative figure of the entire Levitical priesthood in order to demonstrate the surpassing greatness of Melchizedek's priesthood as well. The two main "proofs" of Melchizedek's greatness are the tithe (which Abraham gave to Melchizedek) and the blessing (which Melchizedek gave to Abraham).

The force of the argument, then, depends upon "how great" Abraham was in the eyes of the readers. Just how great he was is suggested by the syntax of the sentence. Although English syntax forces us to render "the patriarch Abraham" or "Abraham the patriarch," Greek syntax permits a separation of the name from the title. The actual order of words is as follows:

to whom - also - a tenth - Abraham - gave -

of the plunder - the patriarch

It is worth noting which terms occupy the prominent positions. The word "tenth" occupies the initial place, frequently a position which foregrounds the primary focus of the sentence - as, in fact, the tenth serves as the dominant subject of vv. 4-10. The other position of emphasis is the final position which our author, by choice rather than necessity, gives to the title "the patriarch." The title itself is rare in the NT, occurring elsewhere only in Acts 2:29 (of David) and 7:8 (of the twelve sons of Jacob). By choice of both term and syntax our author seems to be using the linguistic alternatives available to give the strongest possible presence to the ethos of Abraham, the great father of the nation of Israel. Jesus' confrontations with Jewish leaders suggest the great significance they attached to being "children of Abraham" (Matt 3:9; John 8:33ff). When Jesus suggested his own superiority to Abraham, their response was "Who do you think you are?" (John 8:53). Yet this is exactly the point which the author of Hebrews is about to make.

=Akroqivnion ( akrothinion , "plunder") occurs only here in the NT. A literal etymology suggests "top of the heap" (a[kro" , "highest" and qiv" , qivno" , "heap"), hence the suggestion "first fruits" or "best part" of the booty. Our author, however, does not seem as concerned with what Abraham gave or why but with the simple fact that he gave the tenth.

7:5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people - that is, their brothers - even though their brothers are descended from Abraham.

This verse serves two purposes. First, it introduces the descendants of Levi, extending the argument from Abraham to the Levitical priesthood and anticipating the shift in focus which will begin in v. 11. Second, it adds a further measure of the greatness of Melchizedek - the authority by which the tenth is collected.

The "descendants of Levi" are described, at the same time, as one in nature with their fellow descendants of Abraham and yet exalted in stature. Their identity with their fellow descendants is stressed by the progression from "people" to "brothers." Since all Israelites were descended from Abraham, the Levites possessed no inherent superiority. The collected tithes "even though" - concessive condition - they were from "the loins of Abraham" (KJV), a more literal translation which the NIV replaces with a second instance of the word "brothers."

Their authority for collecting tithes is derived. The NIV simply renders "the law requires" which fails to indicate the presence of both the words ejntolhΙ (entolç , "commandment") and novmo" ( nomos , "law") in the text. One might render the phrase: they "have the commandment to collect tithes from the people according to the law." Entolç is never used in the letter apart from nomos which itself appears no less than fourteen times in the letter. Whereas nomos appears to refer primarily to the whole law of Moses (as in 9:19 and 10:28), entolç seems to refer to a specific commandment - in this case the commandment found in Numbers 18:21, 24. Though like their brothers in their descent from Abraham, the Levites were authorized by the law of Moses to receive the tithe from their brothers.

7:6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7:7 And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater.

This verse completes the contrast anticipated in v. 5 yet the participle gevnealogouvmeno" ( genealogoumenos , "trace descent") echos the adjective ajgenealovghto" (agenealogçtos , "without genealogy) in v. 3 as well. The point of the first part of this verse is that Melchizedek lacked the authorization to receive a tithe which the Levites derived from the law of Moses. The questions as to whence Melchizedek derived his authority and/or whether his authority was derived in its nature are left unanswered at this point. But the fact that he received it from Abraham suggests that it was possible to have such authority apart from the Law of Moses.

The other sign of Melchizedek's greatness is the blessing he bestowed upon Abraham when he said,

"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,

Creator of heaven and earth.

And blessed be God Most High,

who delivered your enemies into your hand"

(Gen 14:19-20).

Our writer draws the conclusion for his readers: the facts that (1) Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek and (2) Abraham received a blessing from Melchizedek suggest that even the great patriarch recognized the surpassing greatness of the one who was priest of God Most High. This is true even though Abraham already "had the promises" before he encountered Melchizedek (see notes on 6:12, 13, 15, 17).

Our author returns to the forensic terminology of 6:16 (cwriΙ" deΙ pavsh" ajntilogiva" [chôris de pasçs antilogias ], "without doubt" or "without any argument") to express his conclusion with a high degree of certainty. The word translated "greater" here, however, is not the same word translated "great" in v. 4. Here our writer employs kreivttwn (kreittôn ), elsewhere translated "better" or "superior," a word which he uses no less than twelve times in this letter. It was used in 1:4 to describe the Son's superiority to the angels and will be the key word used to describe the myriad ways in which the new covenant is superior to the old (see 7:19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:40). Melchizedek's superiority to Abraham and the Levites sets the stage for our writer's description of the superiority of the Son's priesthood and covenant.

7:8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living.

Here our author employs the same construction used to create the contrast of vv. 6-7 to point out the key difference between Melchizedek and the Levites. We learn two important truths about his qualification to receive the tithe: (1) it is based on life rather than law and (2) it is inherent rather than derived.

The key contrast here is between life and death. The phrase "men who die" renders a present tense adjectival participle which could easily be translated "men who are dying" or "men who are in the process of dying" (or even "mortal men," NASB). Even as they serve in their priestly office, the mortal Levites are dying. But in the "other case," the priest lives (also a present tense). From the permanence of his life his greatness is derived and by virtue of the fact that "he remains a priest forever" (7:3) he is worthy to receive the tithe.

The description of Melchizedek here anticipates the greater point about Jesus "who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (7:16) and who therefore "has a permanent priesthood" (7:24), superior to that of other priests. In neither case is it necessary for the law to authorize their priesthood. Their own permanence of life exalts them. Yet the life is not without a witness (marturevw , martyreô , "declare" or "bear witness"). This is the same term used regularly in Acts to describe the "witness" or firsthand "testimony" which the apostles bore to the resurrection of Jesus (1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 20:21, 24). Yet, if the occurrences of the term in chapter 11 are taken as references to Scripture, then the author of Hebrews almost always uses the word in reference to Scripture and in the immediate context the allusion would appear to be to Psalm 110:4 which is introduced with the same word (martyreô , "it is declared").

7:9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 7:10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

These last verses complete the transition from Abraham to Levi and the comparative worth of the Levitical priesthood will figure prominently into the remainder of the chapter. The argument is extended from Abraham to the Levites via the genealogical connection through which Abraham is treated as a representative figure of his future ancestors. The point is that if Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, then he is also greater than the Levites.

There is some disagreement as to whether this verse represents an additional "afterthought" or the actual climax of the writer's argument. Since the comparison between the priesthood of Jesus and that of the Levites is the core of the rest of the chapter, treating these verses as a mere afterthough seems to understate their significance. Yet vv. 7-8 would seem to best express the climactic point of the section. Westcott's suggestion that the opening phrase (translated "one might even say") "serves to introduce a statement which may startle a reader, and which requires to be guarded from misinterpretation" thus seems more appropriate to the context. Though the point is not anticlimactic, our writer nevertheless attaches a lesser degree of certainty to it than he did to the conclusion advanced in v. 7, introduced by the phrase "without doubt" in v. 7. Our writer draws this portion of his discussion to a close by framing it with an inclusio ("met Abraham" as in 7:1 and "Melchizedek" is the last word in the Greek sentence whereas "This Melchizedek" opens 7:1).

G. JESUS IS HIGH PRIEST BASED ON HIS RESURRECTION WHICH INTRODUCES A BETTER HOPE (7:11-19)

¹¹ If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come - one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? ¹² For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. ¹³ He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. ¹⁴ For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. ¹⁵ And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, ¹⁶ one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. ¹⁷ For it is declared:

"You are a priest forever,

in the order of Melchizedek." ^a

¹⁸ The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless ¹⁹ (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

^a 17,21 Psalm 110:4

This section introduces the running theme of the remainder of the chapter - "perfection." Just as vv. 1-10 are set apart by inclusio ("met Abraham," v. 1 and v. 10) so are vv. 11-19 which open with the question as to whether "perfection" could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (v. 11) and close with the affirmation that the Son "has been made perfect forever" (v. 28). Similarly, a reference to the inability of the law to make anything "perfect" frames the first phase of the discussion.

Our writer begins the present section by turning his attention to the Levitical priesthood but before he is finished he will introduce Jesus into the fuller discussion of Melchizedek for the first time (v. 14, the first reference to him since 6:20). The climax of the section is the "better hope" which is introduced by his priesthood (v. 19). In subsequent sections, we will read of the "better covenant" guaranteed by the oath (vv. 20-22) as well as those aspects of the priesthood of Christ which enable it to accomplish what the Levitical priesthood could not - the permanency of his priesthood (vv. 23-25) and the sufficiency of his sacrifice (vv. 26-28).

7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come - one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

To begin his demonstration of the superiority of Christ's priesthood, our writer introduces a sign argument: the fact that the Scriptures confer a priestly identity upon the Messiah is a sign that the perfection of believers demanded more than the Levitical priesthood could accomplish and that this priesthood was never intended by God to exhaust the priestly functions. The argument is cast in a first class conditional sentence. The protasis ("if" clause) assumes the condition to be true (for the sake of argument, apart from its objective truth or falsity) and the apodosis (the second part) expresses the conclusion. It is common for the apodosis to take the form of a rhetorical question (i.e., one which presents the conclusion by suggesting its own answer) as it does here (cf. Matt 12:27).

The "perfection" of Christ, believers and the interconnection between the two "perfections" comprise one of the central themes of the letter (2:10; 5:9; 6:1; 7:11, 19, 28; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:2, 23) and are an integral aspect of its theology of salvation (including the vocation of Christ as Savior and Priest as well as the salvation of believers as it consists of their justification, sanctification and glorification). Given the variety of objects and dimensions associated with the theme of perfection, the significance of each reference must be carefully considered in its own immediate context as well as within the broader context of the letter.

To this point in the letter, we have learned that Christ's suffering made him "perfect" as the author of our salvation (2:10), as both the source of our salvation and our high priest (5:9-10). The context of chapter 5 was suggestive as to at least one dimension of how Christ's suffering "perfected" him for his role as our priest - he is able to "sympathize with our weaknesses" (4:15) and thus able to "deal gently with those who are ignorant and going astray" (5:2) - although the cross, which made him "perfect" as our Savior, was probably not far from view (see notes on 5:9-10). 5:14 and 6:1 introduced us to the "perfection" of believers - in these contexts, the "present" dimension of their salvation, the ongoing process of their sanctification or growth toward "maturity" (as the NIV translates cognates of the same Greek word; see comments on 5:14).

It is probably the "perfection" of believers which our writer has in mind in the present verse - and the inability of the Levitical priesthood to attain it (in any of its dimensions) - since the purpose of the sacrificial system which that priesthood oversaw was to deal with the sins of the people. The rest of the chapter progresses from the perfection of believers (here and v. 18), to the perfection of Christ and the connection between the two (vv. 24-28). In the intervening argument, the two ways in which Jesus "has been made perfect" (v. 28) - his death and resurrection - serve as the two proofs of the superiority of his priesthood.

Another important issue introduced in this verse is the connection between the priesthood and the law. The Greek grammar is not clear about the relationship and this has given rise to competing views about two aspects of this verse. First, there is ambiguity as to the antecedent of the pronoun ("on the basis of it"). Technically, Greek syntax would permit either "perfection" or "Levitical priesthood" as the antecedent. The latter would seem the better choice since (1) it is difficult to make sense of "perfection" as the genitive case object of the preposition which precedes the pronoun and (2) the context seems to favor the connection between law and priesthood (v. 12, see also v. 5, 28).

Second, the meaning of the preposition ejpi ( epi ) followed by the genitive is still difficult to construe with precision in this context ("on the basis of," NIV and NASB; "under," KJV, RSV, and NRSV). The verb in this case (nenomoqevthtai , nenomothetçtai , "receive law(s)") is rare in the NT but Lane notes that it occurs elsewhere with epi followed by the genitive in a manner which supports the rendering "in the case of" or "concerning." This also seems more natural in a context which stresses that the law authorized the priesthood rather than vice versa (v. 5, v. 28). Either way, what seems most important to our author is that what is true of one is also true of the other (cf. v. 11 and v. 19) and what affects the one affects the other as well (v. 12).

Aaron was last mentioned in 5:4. Here our writer mentions him again, perhaps because it is more appropriate to connect his name (rather than that of Levi) with the "order" (tavxi" , taxis ). Outside of this verse, this term is used only in relation to Melchizedek and it may well be that our writer has in mind 5:4-6 when his first appeal to Psalm 110:4 was introduced by the comparison of Christ to Aaron. The Son, after all, is not merely another priest but "high priest" (4:14; 5:10; 7:26-28).

7:12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 7:13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

The sign argument for the need of another priesthood, coupled with the parenthetical acknowledgment of the legal basis for the Levitical priesthood, permits our writer to address directly an issue anticipated in vv. 5-8: the relationship between the law of Moses and the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. It would have been natural and quite probable for Jewish readers to question our writer's claim that Jesus was a priest on the basis of his known ancestry. This verse and Revelation 5:5 are the only verses outside of the Gospels to confirm the royal lineage of Jesus, but the fact that they do suggests that it was well known within early Christian communities. Our writer was confident that it was "clear" (the pro- in prodhΙlo" (prodçlos ) is intensive, hence "perfectly clear," NASB) to his readers.

Our author draws upon two established premises to resolve this issue. The first is the close tie between the Levitical priesthood and the law which authorized it. The second is what is known to be true about Jesus.

Verses 5 and 11 have both argued the close relationship between the Mosaic law and the Levitical priesthood, and now our writer advances a conclusion: they are so closely bound together that a change in one demands a change in the other. The law authorized that priesthood (v. 5) and the bulk of its regulations pertained to its function (v. 12). Any significant change in either the law or priesthood would necessitate (ajnagkhΙ , anangkç , from ajnagkavzw , anangkazô , "to compel, to force") corresponding changes in the other. Metativqhmi (metatithçmi, "change") can literally mean "transfer" or "convey to another place" and this would seem to support a reading similar to that of ajqevthsi" (athetçsis , "set aside) in v. 18. However, this literal sense of the term depends upon a spatial context clearly lacking here and the relationship between novmo" ( nomos , v. 12) and e[ntolh (entolç , v. 10) (see comments on 7:5) could easily justify a distinction between metatithçmi (v. 12) and athetçsis (v. 18) as well. Hence, the idea is probably not that law and priesthood are "removed" but that they have changed from one state to another.

The second working premise of our writer consists of what is known to be true about Jesus. Each of these three verses is introduced by an explanatory gavr ( gar , "for," omitted from v. 13 in the NIV) and in each case the progression in thought is from a known truth about Jesus to some consequence pertaining to the law.

The syntax of v. 12 is that of the elliptical condition. The "when" phrase translates a present tense participle which describes the set of circumstances or conditions which prompt the subsequent action. Since the law authorized (v. 5) and instructed (v. 11) the priesthood, we would expect a change in the law to affect a change in the priesthood. Instead, we read the reverse. Similarly, vv. 13-14 each proceed from what is known about "the one of whom these things are spoken" (he "belonged to a different tribe") and "our Lord" (he "descended from Judah") to their obvious import in view of the law ("no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar . . . in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests"). What is true about our Lord determines what can be said to be true of the law - not vice versa. As subsequent verses make clear, his greatness so transcends that of the Levitical priests that the old legal requirements are no longer relevant.

7:15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,

"What we have said" includes the main line of argument introduced in v. 11 and now further proof is offered to make the case "even more clear." Not only does Scripture anticipate "another priest" (vv. 11, 15) but he has, in fact, appeared. Again our author uses ajnivsthmi (anistçmi , "appears"), the same word translated "to come" in v. 11, indicating that what was predicted has now come to pass.

This priest is "like Melchizedek" (lit., "in the likeness of," the same syntax rendered "in the order of" in v. 11). Although cognates of oJmoiovth" (homoiotçs , "likeness") are frequent in the parabolic language of the Gospels and the typological exegesis of our author is reminiscent of similitude, he has not shown any inclination to employ the word in this sense. It is perhaps best taken as a stylistic variation which means no more than "in the same way as."

7:16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 7:17 For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

Yet the key similarity between Jesus and Melchizedek is by no means insignificant for it is the ultimate proof that he has appeared as the Messianic High Priest. In v. 8 we learned that Melchizedek's right to receive the tithe (and thus to serve as priest) was based on life rather than law and was inherent rather than derived (see comments there). Here we see that the same is true of Jesus' qualifications to serve as our great high priest. It is on the basis of "the power of an indestructible life" rather than "a regulation as to his ancestry" (lit., "law of a fleshly commandment"). Our writer employs rare terms and structures his sentence in a manner that heightens the contrast:

not according to - law - of - commandment - fleshly

but according to - power - of - life - indestructible

Aside from this verse, the form savrkino" ( sarkinos ) is rare in the NT. A variant in v. 16 substitutes the more common sarkikov" ( sarkikos ) but the textual evidence strongly favors sarkinos ; and ajkataluvtou ( akatalytou ) does not appear elsewhere in the NT. Yet both are employed here in an epistrophic style which foregrounds their presence. Just as the mortal priests are already in the process of dying (see comments on v. 8) as they serve, so the law which authorizes and regulates their priesthood partakes of that same temporary, fleshly existence which is doomed to pass away. Jesus, on the other hand, has been raised to a life which cannot be destroyed and is thus "endless."

It is this "forever" dimension of his high priesthood to which Psalm 110:4 bears "witness" (marturevw , martyreô , translated "declare" both here and in v. 8) as in 5:6 (as a result of which he is the source of "eternal" salvation), 6:20 and 7:3. By virtue of his resurrection, Jesus is clearly proven to be the Messianic High Priest by a standard which transcends the Mosaic covenant, outlasts its law and is derived from no authority external to its own.

7:18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

The dawning of the Messianic High Priesthood has significant and specific consequences for the believer, some of which are described here as our "better hope." When the topic of "hope" has arisen previously in the epistle (3:6; 6:11, 18), our writer has focused on its benefits for and demands upon the believers' life in the present. Here, however, he describes qualities of the hope itself (for ejlpiv" [ elpis ] in Hebrews see comments on 6:11).

First, it is a "better" hope. kreivttono" ( kreittonos , "better") is a key word in the letter. It first appeared in 1:4 when the Son was contrasted with angels, later in 6:9 to express our author's confidence in his readers and then in 7:7 to distinguish the greater stature of the one who pronounces blessing upon another (thus of Melchizedek in relation to Abraham). Here, however, is the first in a significant series of comparisons designed to demonstrate the superiority of the new covenant (cf. 7:22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:40; 12:24).

In this case, the hope introduced by Christ's eternal priesthood is better than that regulation which has been "set aside." =Aqevthsi" (athetçsis , "annulment") probably carries a legal force in this context as suggested by its use in technical legal formula in the papyri. It has been set aside because it is "weak" (or "ineffective," see comments in 5:2 on asthençs ) and "useless" in bringing about that for which believers hope. There is little difference between the meaning of the two terms but the anaphora (ajuth'" asqeneΙ" kaiΙ ajnwfelev" , autçs asthenes kai anôpheles ) creates a strong presence for the idea. We hope to be "perfect" and to "draw near to God." Neither the law nor the Levitical priesthood could accomplish our perfection - past, present, or future (see comments on v. 11) - nor consequently secure our ability to draw near to God himself (which requires the removal of our sins as 10:1-4 will explain in more detail) since it is by (or "through") this hope that we do so.

This reference to the running theme of the chapter ("perfection," v. 11) also marks a transition to the second of the two main proofs for the superiority of Christ's priesthood (resurrection and oath) which will subsequently be brought together to explain how his perfection makes ours possible as well (v. 28).

H. JESUS IS HIGH PRIEST BASED ON GOD'S OATH WHICH PRODUCES A BETTER COVENANT (7:20-22)

²⁰ And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, ²¹ but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind:

'You are a priest forever.'" ^a

²² Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

^a 17,21 Psalm 110:4

Our author now returns to a theme introduced earlier (6:13-18) and also drawn from Psalm 110:4 (7:21) for a second major proof of the superiority of Christ's priesthood: the oath which God swore. Like the first proof, this one also has a significant consequence for the believer: a "better covenant."

The syntax of these verses suggests that they represent a single unit of thought. Verse 20 is introduced by kaq= o{son ( kath' hoson , "to the degree that") which is completed by the phrase kataΙ tosou'to ( kata tosouto , "to the same degree") in verse 22. Hence, the conclusion is announced in v. 22 ("Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant") and the grounds offered in v. 20a ("it was not without an oath" that he became priest). The parenthesis of 20b-21 provides the specific data.

7:20 And it was not without an oath!

Ellingworth suggests that the double negative is equivalent to a strong positive statement such as the one in the NEB: "How great a difference it makes that an oath was sworn!" In the NT, oJrkwmosiva (horkômosia , "oath") appears only in this chapter and is a compound of the usual word for "oath" (o{rko" , horkos ) and the verb for "swear" (o[mnumi , omnymi ) - used separately in 6:16 - suggesting that the term foregrounds the act of taking the oath rather than the oath itself. Horkos is a cognate of e{ko" ( hekos , "fence") from which it probably draws its meaning ("something that shuts you in").

6:13-18 form the background to this statement and have informed us of the significance of the oath (see comments on 6:16). Adding an oath to a promise was considered additional confirmation, sufficient evidence to establish someone in their belief, ending the need for doubt or debate. God did it to confirm his promise to Abraham and now we learn that he has done the same in appointing Jesus as priest.

Others became priests without any oath,

What is true of Jesus was never the case for the others. They did not take the honor upon themselves but were called and appointed by God (5:1, 4). In this, Jesus was like them (5:5). But their call and appointment did not include an oath. The oath demonstrates the uniqueness and superiority of Jesus' priesthood.

7:21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'"

Our writer returns to Psalm 110:4 for scriptural evidence of the oath. It has been cited previously in 5:6 and 7:17, and alluded to in 5:10; 6:20; 7:3, 11 and 15. But the use here is unique. The key phrase which occurs in all three citations - "You are a priest forever" - is retained but the phrase which follows - "in the order of Melchizedek" - is omitted while the preceding phrase - "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind" - is now included. The focus is no longer on Christ's similarity to Melchizedek but on the oath of God, a dimension of his priesthood which is unique even in relation to Melchizedek. Both similarities and uniqueness have now been drawn from this messianic psalm.

Omnymi ("sworn") was part of the compound word translated "oath" in vv. 20-21 (horkômosia , see comments on v. 20) and is the direct link between the psalm and our author's conclusion. Because he has sworn, we can know that the Lord will never "change his mind." Metamelomai often carries the force of "regret," but the context here (and in Psalm 110) justifies the rendering of the NIV which follows Bauer's recommendation. The focus is on the permanency of Christ's priesthood (v. 24) and the certainty we can attach to it.

7:22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

The NIV renders "because" to suggest the concluding force of kata tosouto which completes kath' hoson in v. 20 (see comments on v. 20). The argument has progressed to its climax. Not only does the oath demonstrate the uniqueness and superiority of Christ's priesthood, it also demonstrates the superiority of the "covenant" of which he is the "guarantee."

This is but the first of 17 instances of diaqhvkh (diathçkç , "covenant") in the letter, and it will become the climactic theme of the letter in chapters 8 and 9 where we find 12 of its 17 occurrences. The full discussion of "superior" ( kreittonos , the same word translated "better" in this verse) will begin in 8:6 but the remainder of chapter 7 provides an approach to this summit.

"Egguo" ( engyos , "guarantee") occurs only here in the NT and only three times in the LXX but was otherwise common in legal and other documents of the period in connection with down payments on debts and purchases or even a prisoner's bail or a bride's dowry. Moulton and Milligan point out that it was probably derived from an old word for "hand" (i.e., "what is put in hand"). Jesus himself, as the high priest appointed by God's oath, is our guarantee that the new covenant is better than the old. Verses 23-28 will explain in what ways this is true.

I. JESUS' RESURRECTION CREATES A PERMANENT PRIESTHOOD (7:23-25)

²³ Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; ²⁴ but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. ²⁵ Therefore he is able to save completely ^a those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

^a 25 Or forever

The next two sections (vv. 23-25, vv. 26-28) explain how the priesthood of Jesus accomplishes what the Levitical priesthood could not (v. 11) - the perfection of believers. The key to our salvific perfection is the perfection of Jesus in his priestly vocation ("perfect" in v. 28 completes the inclusio). Each of these sections (1) connects a kerygmatic event in the incarnate life of Christ to (2) his perfection for his ministry as high priest and (3) a consequence of his perfection which enables ours.

7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

This first section proceeds from Jesus' resurrection. The structural contrast here is identical to that in vv. 20-21 (oiJ men . . . oJ de . . . [ hoi men . . . ho de . . . ], i.e., many to one) but the thematic contrast is more significant. The "death" of those many priests anticipates the statement that Jesus "always lives" in v. 25. Another parallel which heightens the contrast is more explicit in the Greek text. Death prevented those priests from "continuing in office" (the compound verb paramevnw , paramenô , "remain with") whereas Christ "lives" (the simple form of the same verb, mevnw , "remain"). Although "forever" sometimes translates a stylistic variation (as in 7:3, eij" toΙ dihnekev" , eis to diçnekes ), here our author repeats the exact phrase in Psalm 110:4 (eij" toΙ aijw'na , eis to aiôna ), perhaps to reinforce the connection to the passage just cited.

Jesus' resurrection makes him perfect for his priestly vocation because it makes his priesthood "permanent." =Aparavbato" ( aparabatos ) occurs only here in the NT and conveys the sense of "unchangeable.'' Both legal and literary use outside of the NT suggest "inviolable" which reflects the term's etymology (aj , "not" + parav , "beyond" + baivnw [bainô ], "go, walk"). Because Jesus lives forever, there is no change in the office and no successor will ever step into his role.

7:25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

"Therefore" identifies the consequence for believers. Jesus is thus able to "save completely." Sw/'zw (sôzô , "save, rescue") is the common term for salvation in the NT. Our author uses it occasionally and employs "perfection" terminology to articulate his theology of salvation (see comments on 5:9-10, 13-14 and 7:11; 6:1-8 contextualizes one dimension of our perfection - sanctification - in the covenant nature of salvation). Here the phrase rendered "completely" (eij" toΙ pantelev" , eis to panteles ) does not represent the exact same terminology but in the context of the inclusio (v. 11, 19, 28) suggests the connection. Jesus is able to secure for us the perfection of which our salvation consists.

One means of this salvation is Jesus' intercessory ministry as high priest which pertains to the present, continuing dimension of our salvation. During this time when we "grow up in" our salvation (1 Pet 2:2; cf. also Phil 2:12) - i.e., grow to become sinless in the actual state of our lives after having received a sinless standing in the sight of God (Heb 10:14) - we still need a priest who can mediate our continuing relationship with God, one who can not only identify with our weaknesses and deal with us gently (see 4:14; 5:1-2) but who can also appeal to God on our behalf and enable us to receive the mercy and grace necessary for remaining in God's presence (4:15). Because Jesus "always lives" (pavntote [ pantote ] with the present tense zw'n [zôn ] strongly expresses the curative sense), he is always able to "intercede" for us. =Entugcavnw (entyngchanô ) was common in legal contexts for the "appeal" one might make to an authority or on behalf of a client and it is so used in the NT (Acts 25:24). Paul uses this same word in Romans 8:34 to describe how the risen Jesus, who is now at the right hand of God, intercedes for us. As a result, no one can condemn us and nothing can separate us from his love.

J. JESUS' DEATH PROVIDES THE PERFECT SACRIFICE (7:26-28)

²⁶ Such a high priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. ²⁷ Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. ²⁸ For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

In these last verses of the chapter, the author turns from the resurrection to the cross to describe the second way in which the Son "has been made perfect forever" in his vocation as priest. As with the resurrection discussed in vv. 23-25, he again describes how this event has made Jesus a perfect priest and the consequence for believers.

7:26 Such a high priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

That Jesus can meet our need is the climactic conclusion not only of this chapter but of the entire section on his priestly ministry (extending as far back as 4:14). In fact, it is quite possible that our author had these next verses in view when he first introduced the themes of suffering, perfection and priesthood in chapter 2, for the wording here mirrors that in 2:10 (e[prepen , eprepen , translated "is fitting" in 2:10 but "meets our need" here).

To present Jesus as the perfect sacrifice, our writer first reminds us of his sinless life. Under the Mosaic covenant it had been required that sin and guilt offerings be "without defect" (Lev 1:3, 10; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; and 5:15, 18; 22:17-25 specify those defects which made a sacrifice unacceptable).

The five descriptors in this verse progress from Jesus' character (three adjectives) to his station following his ascension in which he serves as our high priest (two participles). There is little to distinguish between the meanings of the three adjectives but their cumulative sense is clear: what other priests were only by ritual, Jesus was by nature ("without sin," 4:15). The two participles suggest a different idea, however. The passive use of cwrivzw (chôrizô , "separate") followed by ajpoΙ ( apo , "from") suggests separation of location. Morris notes that the Levitical high priest was required to leave home for a period of seven days prior to the Day of Atonement in order to avoid ritual defilement. However, Jesus maintained his purity while among us and was not "separated from sinners" until his ascension, following his sacrifice and resurrection. As a result, he is "exalted above the heavens" where he is now able to intercede for us with our heavenly Father (Rom 8:34).

7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

The first part of this verse continues the sentence which began in v. 26, adding a sixth descriptor which (1) is a consequence of Jesus' sinlessness and (2) explains why he is able to enter the presence of God ("exalted above the heavens") on our behalf. In 5:3, we were reminded that other priests had to offer sacrifices for their own sins as well as for those of the people (for themselves first on the Day of Atonement, that they might enter the presence of God purified, to then offer sacrifice for the people; Leviticus 16).

This, then, is ultimately why Jesus is a "fitting" high priest: he needs not a sacrifice for himself but alone was able to offer a sacrifice of himself. The deaths of the other high priests prevented them from continuing in office. His death executed his office and his resurrection enabled him to continue to serve as our intercessor. Their need to sacrifice both for themselves and for the people arose "day after day." His sacrifice was "once for all" for both the priest and the sacrifice were perfectly without defect. They offered sacrifices for themselves and for others. He offered a sacrifice of himself for others. Because of what he did not need, he could provide what we do.

Qusiva" ( thysias , "sacrifice") appeared first in 5:1 but will now become a key point of comparison between the old and new covenants in chapters 8-10 and occurs more often in Hebrews than in the entire rest of the NT. On its use in the letter, see comments on 5:1.

7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

The parallelism in this verse sums up the entire chapter around pairs of opposite terms. The law appoints men who are weak, whereas the oath appoints the Son who has been made perfect. The initial positions are occupied by that which appointed each priesthood (the law, 7:5, 11; God's oath, 7:20-22), the middle positions by those appointed (men who are dying, 7:8; the Son who lives forever, 7:16, 24), and the final positions by their fitness for the task (weak, 5:2; perfect, cf. the blamelessness of Jesus in 7:26 with the comments on ajsqenhv" [asthençs ] in 5:2).

This verse actually ends with the word "perfect," framing an inclusio with v. 11 which begins with the same term. What the Levitical priesthood could not attain for us, Jesus does because he is the perfect high priest. His death was a perfect sacrifice which "once for all" provided for our atonement. His endless life enables him to intercede for us forever. He is thus able to "save completely" (v. 25). A summary of how his perfection leads to ours, according to vv. 23-28, might be as follows:

Event Perfect Priest Perfected Believers resurrection permanent priesthood continuing intercessor cross perfect sacrifice once for all forgiveness -College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Heb 7:3

HEBREWS 7:3 —Does this verse support reincarnation?

PROBLEM: Hebrews tells us that Melchizedek, “having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.” Since Jesus assumed this priesthood ( 7:21 ), some reincarnationalists use this verse to prove that Jesus is a reincarnation of Melchizedek. Are they correct?

SOLUTION: No, this is a misuse of this passage. This is clear for several reasons. First of all, it says Melchizedek was only “made like”Jesus, not that Jesus was Melchizedek ( Heb. 7:3 ). Second, Christ was only a priest “according to the order of” ( Heb. 7:21 ) Melchizedek. It does not affirm that He was Melchizedek. Finally, the fact that Melchizedek had a mysterious and unrecorded birth and death ( Heb. 7:3 ) does not prove reincarnation—it was merely used as an analogy for the eternal Messiah, Jesus Christ.   

Critics Ask: Heb 7:9

HEBREWS 7:9-10 —Do these verses indicate that an embryo is merely a potential human being, not an actual human person?

PROBLEM: The writer of Hebrews declares that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham. However, Levi was not even born until hundreds of years after this time. So Levi could not possibly have actually paid tithes to Melchizedek—he could only have done it potentially.

SOLUTION: This text is not speaking of an embryo, to say nothing of calling it a potential human being.      

First, it does not say that Levi was potentially in Abraham. He was probably only there representatively or figuratively.

Second, even if Levi was potentially in Abraham, it certainly does not follow that he was an embryo in Abraham.

Third, if Levi, who was not even conceived when he was said to be “in Abraham,” was a potential human being, then we are potential humans before we are even conceived.

Fourth, if this is so, then even human sperm (before they fertilize an ovum) are potential human beings just like embryos. But this is genetically incorrect. Sperm have only 23 chromosomes while embryos have 46 (see comments on Ps. 139:13-16 ).   

Critics Ask: Heb 7:10

HEBREWS 7:9-10 —Do these verses indicate that an embryo is merely a potential human being, not an actual human person?

PROBLEM: The writer of Hebrews declares that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham. However, Levi was not even born until hundreds of years after this time. So Levi could not possibly have actually paid tithes to Melchizedek—he could only have done it potentially.

SOLUTION: This text is not speaking of an embryo, to say nothing of calling it a potential human being.      

First, it does not say that Levi was potentially in Abraham. He was probably only there representatively or figuratively.

Second, even if Levi was potentially in Abraham, it certainly does not follow that he was an embryo in Abraham.

Third, if Levi, who was not even conceived when he was said to be “in Abraham,” was a potential human being, then we are potential humans before we are even conceived.

Fourth, if this is so, then even human sperm (before they fertilize an ovum) are potential human beings just like embryos. But this is genetically incorrect. Sperm have only 23 chromosomes while embryos have 46 (see comments on Ps. 139:13-16 ).   

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

By Way of Introduction

Unsettled Problems

Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

The Picture of Christ

At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Heb_1:1-3), this Son who is God’s Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in Phi_2:5-11; Col_1:13-20; John 1:1-18. This high doctrine of Jesus as God’s Son with the glory and stamp of God’s nature is never lowered, for as God’s Son he is superior to angels (Heb 1:4-2:4), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Heb_2:5-18). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God’s Son over God’s house (Heb 3:1-4:13), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Heb 4:14-12:3). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Heb 4:14-7:28), works under a better covenant of grace (Heb_8:1-13), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Heb_9:1-12), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Heb 9:13-10:18), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Heb 10:19-12:3). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. So W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, High Priesthood and Sacrifice (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mar_10:46; Mat_20:28; Joh_10:17; Mat_26:28; Rom_8:32; 1Pe_1:18.; 1Jo_2:1.; Rev_5:9, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

The Style

It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: " It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" ( Light from the Ancient East , pp. 70f.). But Blass ( Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa , 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of " a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many " parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of " the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary Koiné rather than to the vernacular. Moulton ( Cambridge Biblical Essays , p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

The Author

Origen bluntly wrote: " Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul’s while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in Heb_11:32 ( me diēgoumenon ) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply Pros Hebraious as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

The Recipients

If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew) Christians in a local church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in his Commentary (pp. xv to xvii) challenges the title and insists that the book is written for Gentile Christians as truly as First Peter. He argues this largely from the author’s use of the lxx. For myself Dr. Moffatt’s reasons are not convincing. The traditional view that the author is addressing Jewish Christians in a definite locality, whether a large church or a small household church, is true, I believe. The author seems clearly to refer to a definite church in the experiences alluded to in Heb_10:32-34. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Heb_13:24), though " they of Italy" ( hoi apo tēs Italias ) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.

The Date

Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between a.d. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between a.d. 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written Heb_10:1.: " Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in Heb_8:13 " nigh to vanishing away" ( eggus aphanismou ) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in Heb_13:23 as being " set free" ( apolelumenon ) raises an inquiry concerning Paul’s last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Ti_4:11-13). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero’s own death (June 8, a.d. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 a.d. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Purpose

The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary aeons (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it " a profound homily."

JFB: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT OF ROME, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term "Scripture," which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles "apostle," as well as "angel," as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of Pantænus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the "apostle" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as "more Grecian," but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the "ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer" (that is, probably "transcriber" of the apostle's thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas. IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, NOVATIAN OF ROME, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, and VICTORINUS, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF POITIERS (A.D. 368), LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI (A.D. 371), AMBROSE OF MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, "Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style." Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his Hebræo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his Hebræo-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two (Heb 10:30; Heb 13:5), are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, Heb 9:15-17 would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek "diathece," a "covenant," or a "testament," whereas the Hebrew "berith" means only "covenant."

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare 2Co 3:6-18; Gal 3:23-25; Gal 4:1-9, Gal 4:21-31, wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in Heb 1:3, &c., as in other Epistles of Paul (Phi 2:6; Col 1:15-20), as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare Heb 2:9, with 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:7-8. Also His final exaltation, compare Heb 2:8; Heb 10:13; Heb 12:2, with 1Co 15:25, 1Co 15:27. The word "Mediator" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare Heb 8:6, with Gal 3:19-20. Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare Rom 3:22-26; 1Co 5:7, with Heb. 7:1-10:39. The phrase, "God of Peace," is peculiar to Paul, compare Heb 13:20; Rom 15:33; 1Th 5:23. Also, compare Heb 2:4, Margin, 1Co 12:4. Justification, or "righteousness by faith." appears in Heb 11:7; Heb 10:38, as in Rom 1:17; Rom 4:22; Rom 5:1; Gal 3:11; Phi 3:9. The word of God is the "sword of the Spirit," compare Heb 4:12, with Eph 6:17. Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare Heb 5:12-13; Heb 6:1, with 1Co 3:1-2; 1Co 14:20 Gal 4:9; Col 3:14. Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare Heb 10:19, with Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12. Afflictions are a fight, Heb 10:32; compare Phi 1:30; Col 2:1. The Christian life is a race, Heb 12:1; compare 1Co 9:24; Phi 3:12-14. The Jewish ritual is a service, Rom 9:4; compare Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6. Compare "subject to bondage," Heb 2:15, with Gal 5:1. Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity "to go off at a word" and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by "and again," compare Heb 1:5; Heb 2:12-13, with Rom 15:9-12. Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare Heb 2:8, with 1Co 15:27; Eph 1:22. Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition "saith the Lord," not found in the Hebrew, in Heb 10:30; Rom 12:19.

The supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth "to the Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews" (1Co 9:20). This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed, there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it as such.

The personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled "our brother," Heb 13:23; his being then in prison, Heb 13:19; his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to English Version reading, Heb 10:34; the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy, Heb 13:24. A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary address.

DESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which, even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode, with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.

HIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians, for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle, though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience and respect in relation to their rulers (Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17, Heb 13:24); a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them (Heb 13:22). So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction, Rom 12:9, literally, "Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring . . . evil, cleaving to . . . good," which is found nowhere else save Heb 13:5, literally, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being content with," &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute, suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would, "God spoke to our fathers," not, "it is written." So Heb 13:18, "We trust we have a good conscience" is an altogether Pauline sentiment (Act 23:1; Act 24:16; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; 2Ti 1:3). Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation, "Grace be with you all"; this "salutation with his own hand" he declared (2Th 3:17-18) to be "his token in every Epistle": so 1Co 16:21, 1Co 16:23; Col 4:18. The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles, and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing (whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul by the Spirit's gift of interpreting tongues, 1Co 12:10, transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his, and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem, their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the Novatian heresy (Heb 6:4-6), was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been written (Col 4:10), and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived), and thence to Alexandria. Moreover, 2Pe 3:15-16, written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle written by him, "the apostle of the circumcision," to the "Hebrew" Christians dispersed in the East, says, "As our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you" (2Pe 3:15), that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, "As also in all his Epistles" (2Pe 3:16), distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he further speaks of it as on a level with "other Scriptures," thus asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love; Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:7-14), fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13); and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the Gentiles (Act 10:1, &c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.

Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church.

It plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before, compare Heb 13:10; and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge of Christendom. Moreover, "the Epistle to the Alexandrians," mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly "the people of God" (Heb 2:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 13:12), "the seed of Abraham," that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile believers are grafted, to which Rom 11:16-24 corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:18-23; Heb 13:13).

The use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare 2Pe 3:15-16, explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively, addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and were settled in Asia Minor.

The notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify all earthly relations.

JFB: Hebrews (Outline)

• THE HIGHEST OF ALL REVELATIONS IS GIVEN US NOW IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS, AND WHO, HAVING COMPLETED REDEMPTION, SITS ENTHRONED AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND. (Heb 1:1-14)
• DANGER OF NEGLECTING SO GREAT SALVATION, FIRST SPOKEN BY CHRIST; TO WHOM, NOT TO ANGELS, THE NEW DISPENSATION WAS SUBJECTED; THOUGH HE WAS FOR A TIME HUMBLED BELOW THE ANGELS: THIS HUMILIATION TOOK PLACE BY DIVINE NECESSITY FOR OUR SALVATION. (Heb. 2:1-18)
• THE SON OF GOD GREATER THAN MOSES, WHEREFORE UNBELIEF TOWARDS HIM WILL INCUR A HEAVIER PUNISHMENT THAN BEFELL UNBELIEVING ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS. (Heb. 3:1-19)
• THE PROMISE OF GOD'S REST IS FULLY REALIZED THROUGH CHRIST: LET US STRIVE TO OBTAIN IT BY HIM, OUR SYMPATHIZING HIGH PRIEST. (Heb. 4:1-16)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD; NEEDED QUALIFICATIONS; MUST BE A MAN; MUST NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE DIGNITY HIMSELF, BUT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD; THEIR LOW SPIRITUAL PERCEPTIONS A BAR TO PAUL'S SAYING ALL HE MIGHT ON CHRIST'S MELCHISEDEC-LIKE PRIESTHOOD. (Heb 5:1-14)
• WARNING AGAINST RETROGRADING, WHICH SOON LEADS TO APOSTASY; ENCOURAGEMENT TO STEADFASTNESS FROM GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD AND OATH. (Heb 6:1-14)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC SUPERIOR TO AARON'S. (Heb. 7:1-28)
• CHRIST, THE HIGH PRIEST IN THE TRUE SANCTUARY, SUPERSEDING THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD; THE NEW RENDERS OBSOLETE THE OLD COVENANT. (Heb 8:1-13)
• INFERIORITY OF THE OLD TO THE NEW COVENANT IN THE MEANS OF ACCESS TO GOD: THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS OF NO REAL AVAIL: THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ALL-SUFFICIENT TO PURGE AWAY SIN, WHENCE FLOWS OUR HOPE OF HIS APPEARING AGAIN FOR OUR PERFECT SALVATION. (Heb. 9:1-28)
• PROOF OF AND ENLARGEMENT ON, THE "ETERNAL REDEMPTION" MENTIONED IN. Heb 9:12 (Heb. 9:13-28)
• CONCLUSION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT. THE YEARLY RECURRING LAW SACRIFICES CANNOT PERFECT THE WORSHIPPER, BUT CHRIST'S ONCE-FOR-ALL OFFERING CAN. (Heb. 10:1-39) Previously the oneness of Christ's offering was shown; now is shown its perfection as contrasted with the law sacrifices.
• DEFINITION OF THE FAITH JUST SPOKEN OF (Heb 10:39): EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD COVENANT FOR OUR PERSEVERANCE IN FAITH. (Heb. 11:1-40) Description of the great things which faith (in its widest sense: not here restricted to faith in the Gospel sense) does for us. Not a full definition of faith in its whole nature, but a description of its great characteristics in relation to the subject of Paul's exhortation here, namely, to perseverance.
• EXHORTATION TO FOLLOW THE WITNESSES OF FAITH JUST MENTIONED: NOT TO FAINT IN TRIALS: TO REMOVE ALL BITTER ROOTS OF SIN: FOR WE ARE UNDER, NOT A LAW OF TERROR, BUT THE GOSPEL OF GRACE, TO DESPISE WHICH WILL BRING THE HEAVIER PENALTIES, IN PROPORTION TO OUR GREATER PRIVILEGES. (Heb. 12:1-29)
• EXHORTATION TO VARIOUS GRACES, ESPECIALLY CONSTANCY IN FAITH, FOLLOWING JESUS AMIDST REPROACHES. CONCLUSION, WITH PIECES OF INTELLIGENCE AND SALUTATIONS. (Heb. 13:1-25)

TSK: Hebrews 7 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Heb 7:1, Christ Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec; Heb 7:11, and so far more excellent than the priests of Aaron’s order.

Poole: Hebrews 7 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 7

MHCC: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

This epistle shows Christ as the end, foundation, body, and truth of the figures of the law, which of themselves were no virtue for the soul. The great truth set forth in this epistle is that Jesus of Nazareth is the true God. The unconverted Jews used many arguments to draw their converted brethren from the Christian faith. They represented the law of Moses as superior to the Christian dispensation, and spoke against every thing connected with the Saviour. The apostle, therefore, shows the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of God, and the benefits from his sufferings and death as the sacrifice for sin, so that the Christian religion is much more excellent and perfect than that of Moses. And the principal design seems to be, to bring the converted Hebrews forward in the knowledge of the gospel, and thus to establish them in the Christian faith, and to prevent their turning from it, against which they are earnestly warned. But while it contains many things suitable to the Hebrews of early times, it also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of God; for the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the very marrow and kernel of all the Scriptures. The ceremonial law is full of Christ, and all the gospel is full of Christ; the blessed lines of both Testaments meet in Him; and how they both agree and sweetly unite in Jesus Christ, is the chief object of the epistle to the Hebrews to discover.

MHCC: Hebrews 7 (Chapter Introduction)

(Heb 7:1-3) A comparison between the priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Christ.

(Heb 7:4-10) The excellence of Christ's priesthood above the Levitical priesthood is shown.

(Heb 7:11-25) This is applied to Christ.

(Heb 7:26-28) The faith and hope of the church encouraged from this.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle to the Hebrews

Concerning this epistle we must enquire, I. Into the divine authority of it; for this has been questioned by some, whose distempered eyes could not bear the light of it, or whose errors have been confuted by it; such as the Arians, who deny the Godhead and self-existence of Christ; and the Socinians, who deny his satisfaction; but, after all the attempts of such men to disparage this epistle, the divine original of it shines forth with such strong and unclouded rays that he who runs may read it is an eminent part of the canon of scripture. The divinity of the matter, the sublimity of the style, the excellency of the design, the harmony of this with other parts of scripture, and its general reception in the church of God in all ages - these are the evidences of its divine authority. II. As to the divine amanuensis or penman of this epistle, we are not so certain; it does not bear the name of any in the front of it, as the rest of the epistles do, and there has been some dispute among the learned to whom they should ascribe it. Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul's name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavour it was to exalt Christ. Some think that the apostle Peter refers to this epistle, and proves Paul to be the penman of it, by telling the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, of Paul's having written to them, 2Pe 3:15. We read of no other epistle that he ever wrote to them but this. And though it has been objected that, since Paul put his name to all his other epistles, he would not have omitted it here; yet others have well answered that he, being the apostle of the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, might think fit to conceal his name, lest their prejudices against him might hinder them from reading and weighing it as they ought to do. III. As to the scope and design of this epistle, it is very evident that it was clearly to inform the minds, and strongly to confirm the judgment, of the Hebrews in the transcendent excellency of the gospel above the law, and so to take them off from the ceremonies of the law, to which they were so wedded, of which they were so fond, that they even doted on them, and those of them who were Christians retained too much of the old leaven, and needed to be purged from it. The design of this epistle was to persuade and press the believing Hebrews to a constant adherence to the Christian faith, and perseverance in it, notwithstanding all the sufferings they might meet with in so doing. In order to this, the apostle speaks much of the excellency of the author of the gospel, the glorious Jesus, whose honour he advances, and whom he justly prefers before all others, showing him to be all in all, and this in lofty strains of holy rhetoric. It must be acknowledged that there are many things in this epistle hard to be understood, but the sweetness we shall find therein will make us abundant amends for all the pains we take to understand it. And indeed, if we compare all the epistles of the New Testament, we shall not find any of them more replenished with divine, heavenly matter than this to the Hebrews.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews 7 (Chapter Introduction)

The doctrine of the priestly office of Christ is so excellent in itself, and so essential a part of the Christian faith, that the apostle loves to dwell upon it. Nothing made the Jews so fond of the Levitical dispensation as the high esteem they had of their priesthood, and it was doubtless a sacred and most excellent institution; it was a very severe threatening denounced against the Jews (Hos 3:4), that the children of Israel should abide many days without a prince or priest, and without a sacrifice, and with an ephod, and without teraphim. Now the apostle assures them that by receiving the Lord Jesus they would have a much better high priest, a priesthood of a higher order, and consequently a better dispensation or covenant, a better law and testament; this he shows in this chapter, where, I. We have a more particular account of Melchisedec (Heb 7:1-3). II. The superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron (Heb 7:4-10). III. An accommodation of all to Christ, to show the superior excellency of his person, office, and covenant (Heb 7:11 to the end).

Barclay: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS

God Fulfils Himself In Many Ways

Religion has never been the same thing to all men. "God," as Tennyson said, "fulfils himself in many ways." George Russell said: "There are as many ways of climbing to the stars as there are people to climb." There is a well-known saying which tells us very truly and very beautifully that "God has his own secret stairway into every heart." Broadly speaking, there have been four great conceptions of religion.

(i) To some men it is inward fellowship with God. It is a union with Christ so close and so intimate that the Christian can be said to live in Christ and Christ to live in him. That was Paulconception of religion. To him it was something which mystically united him with God.

(ii) To some religion is what gives a man a standard for life and a power to reach that standard. On the whole that is what religion was to James and to Peter. It was something which showed them what life ought to be and which enabled them to attain it.

(iii) To some men religion is the highest satisfaction of their minds. Their minds seek and seek until they find that they can rest in God. It was Plato who said that "the unexamined life is the life not worth living." There are some men who must understand or perish. On the whole that is what religion was to John. The first chapter of his gospel is one of the greatest attempts in the world to state religion in a way that really satisfies the mind.

(iv) To some men religion is access to God. It is that which removes the barriers and opens the door to his living presence. That is what religion was to the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews. With that idea his mind was dominated. He found in Christ the one person who could take him into the very presence of God. His whole idea of religion is summed up in the great passage in Heb_10:19-23 .

"Therefore, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith."

If the writer to the Hebrews had one text it was: "Let us draw near."

The Double Background

The writer to the Hebrews had a double background into both of which this idea came. He had a Greek background. Ever since the time of Plato, five hundred years before, the Greeks had been haunted by the contrast between the real and the unreal, the seen and the unseen, the temporal and the eternal. It was the Greek idea that somewhere there was a real world of which this was only a shadowy and imperfect copy. Plato had the idea that somewhere there was a world of perfect forms or ideas or patterns, of which everything in this world was an imperfect copy. To take a simple instance, somewhere there was laid up the pattern of a perfect chair of which all the chairs in this world were inadequate copies. Plato said: "The Creator of the world had designed and carried out his work according to an unchangeable and eternal pattern of which the world is but a copy." Philo, who took his ideas from Plato, said: "God knew from the beginning that a fair copy could never come into being apart from a fair pattern; and that none of the objects perceivable by sense could be flawless which was not modelled after an archetype and spiritual idea, and thus, when he prepared to create this visible world, he shaped beforehand the ideal world in order to constitute the corporeal after the incorporeal and godlike pattern." When Cicero was talking of the laws men know and use on earth, he said: "We have no real and life-like likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is a shadow and a sketch."

The thinkers of the ancient world all had this idea that somewhere there is a real world of which this one is only a kind of imperfect copy. Here we can only guess and grope; here we can work only with copies and imperfect things. But in the unseen world there are the real and perfect things. When Newman died they erected a statue to him, and on the pedestal of it are the Latin words: Ab umbris et imaginibus ad veritatem, "Away from the shadows and the semblances to the truth." If that be so, clearly the great task of this life is to get away from the shadows and the imperfections and to reach reality. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus Christ can enable us to do. To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been trying to get from the shadows to the truth. That is just what Jesus Christ can enable you to do."

The Hebrew Background

But the writer to the Hebrews also had a Jewish background. To the Jew it was always dangerous to come too near to God. "Man," said God to Moses, "shall not see me and live" (Exo_33:20 ). It was Jacobastonished exclamation at Peniel: "I have seen god face to face and yet my life is preserved" (Gen_32:30 ). When Manoah realised who his visitor had been, he said in terror to his wife: "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." The great day of Jewish worship was the Day of Atonement. That was the one day of all the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies where the very presence of God was held to dwell. No man ever entered in except the High Priest, and he only on that day. When he did, the law laid it down that he must not linger in the Holy Place for long "lest he put Israel in terror." It was dangerous to enter the presence of God and if a man waited too long he might be struck dead.

In view of this there entered into Jewish thought the idea of a covenant. God, in his grace and in a way that was quite unmerited, approached the nation of Israel and offered them a special relationship with himself. But this unique access to God was conditional on the observance by the people of the law that he gave to them. We can see this relationship being entered into and this law being accepted in the dramatic scene in Exo_24:3-8 .

So then Israel had access to God, but only if she kept the law. To break the law was sin, and sin put up a barrier which stopped the way to God. It was to take away that barrier that the system of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices was constructed. The law was given; man sinned; the barrier was up; the sacrifice was made; and the sacrifice was designed to open the closed way to God. But the experience of life was that this was precisely what sacrifice could not do. It was proof of the ineffectiveness of the whole system that sacrifice had to go on and on and on. It was a losing and ineffective battle to remove the barrier that sin had erected between man and God.

The Perfect Priest And The Perfect Sacrifice

What men needed was a perfect priest and a perfect sacrifice, someone who was such that he could bring to God a sacrifice which once and for all opened the way of access to him. That, said the writer to the Hebrews, is exactly what Christ did. He is the perfect priest because he is at once perfectly man and perfectly God. In his manhood he can take man to God and in his Godhead he can take God to man. He has no sin. The perfect sacrifice he brings is the sacrifice of himself, a sacrifice so perfect that it never needs to be made again. To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been looking for the perfect priest who can bring the perfect sacrifice and give you access to God. You have him in Jesus Christ and in him alone."

To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for the way from the shadows to reality; you will find it in Jesus Christ." To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for that perfect sacrifice which will open the way to God which your sins have closed; you will find it in Jesus Christ." Jesus was the one person who gave access to reality and access to God. That is the key-thought of this letter.

The Riddle Of The New Testament

So much is clear but when we turn to the other questions of introduction Hebrews is wrapped in mystery. E. F. Scott wrote: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is in many respects the riddle of the New Testament." When it was written, to whom it was written, and who wrote it are questions at which we can only guess. The very history of the letter shows how its mystery is to be treated with a certain reserve and suspicion. It was a long time before it became an unquestioned New Testament book. The first list of New Testament books, The Muratorian Canon, compiled about A.D. 170, does not mention it at all. The great Alexandrian scholars. Clement and Origen, knew it and loved it but agreed that its place as scripture was disputed. Of the great African fathers, Cyprian never mentions it and Tertullian knows that its place was disputed. Eusebius, the great Church historian, says that it ranked among the disputed books. It was not until the time of Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth century, that Hebrews was definitely accepted as a New Testament book, and even Luther was not too sure about it. It is strange to think how long this great book had to wait for full recognition.

When Was It Written?

The only information we have comes from the letter itself. Clearly it is written for what we might call second generation Christians (Heb_2:3 ). The story was transmitted to its recipients by those who had heard the Lord. The community to whom it was written were not new to the Christian faith; they ought to have been mature (Heb_5:12 ). They must have had a long history for they are summoned to look back on the former days (Heb_10:32 ). They had a great history behind them and heroic martyr figures on which they ought to look back for inspiration (Heb_13:7 ).

The thing that will help us most in dating the letter is its references to persecution. It is clear that at one time their leaders had died for their faith (Heb_13:7 ). It is clear that they themselves had not yet suffered persecution, for they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding their blood (Heb_12:4 ). It is also clear that they have had ill-treatment to suffer for they have had to undergo the pillaging of their goods (Heb_10:32-34 ). And it is clear from the outlook of the letter that there is a risk of persecution about to come. From all that it is safe to say that this letter must have been written between two persecutions, in days when Christians were not actually persecuted, but were none the less unpopular with their fellow-men. Now the first persecution was in the time of Nero in the year A.D. 64; and the next was in the time of Domitian about A.D. 85. Somewhere between these dates this letter was written, more likely nearer to Domitian. If we take the date as A.D. 80 we shall not be far wrong.

To Whom Was It Written?

Once again we have to be dependent on such hints as we get from the letter itself. One thing is certain--it cannot have been written to any of the great Churches or the name of the place could not have so completely vanished. Let us set down what we know. The letter was written to a long-established Church (Heb_5:12 ). It was written to a Church which had at some time in the past suffered persecution (Heb_10:32-34 ). It was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders (Heb_13:7 ). It was written to a Church which had not been directly founded by the apostles (Heb_2:3 ). It was written to a Church which had been marked by generosity and liberality (Heb_6:10 ).

We do have one direct hint. Amongst the closing greetings we find the sentence, as the Revised Standard Version translates it: "Those who come from Italy send you greetings" (Heb_13:24 ). Taken by itself that phrase could mean either that the letter was written from Italy or that it was written to Italy, the greater likelihood is that it was written to Italy. Suppose I am in Glasgow and am writing to some place abroad. I would not be likely to say, "All the people from Glasgow greet you." I would be much more likely to say, "All the people in Glasgow greet you." But suppose I am somewhere abroad where there is a little colony of Glaswegians, I might well say, "All the people from Glasgow send you their greetings." So then we may say that the letter was written to Italy; and if it was written to Italy it was almost certainly written to Rome.

But quite certainly it was not written to the Church at Rome as a whole. If it had been it would never have lost its title. Furthermore, it gives the unmistakable impression that it was written to a small body of like-minded persons. Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group. From Heb_5:12 we can see that they had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith. Still further, Hebrews demands such a knowledge of the Old Testament that it must always have been a book written by a scholar for scholars.

When we sum it all up, we can say that Hebrews is a letter written by a great teacher to a little group or college of Christians in Rome. He was their teacher; at the moment he was separated from them and was afraid that they were drifting away from the faith; and so he wrote this letter to them. It is not so much a letter as a talk. It does not begin like Paulletters do, although it ends with greetings as a letter does. The writer himself calls it "a word of exhortation."

By Whom Was It Written?

Perhaps the most insoluble problem of all is the problem of its authorship. It was precisely that uncertainty which kept it so long on the fringes of the New Testament. The title in the earliest days was simply, "To the Hebrews." No authorname was given, no one connected it directly with the name of Paul. Clement of Alexandria used to think that Paul might have written it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it, for the style is quite different from that of Paul. Origen made a famous remark, "who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews only God knows for certain." Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Jerome said the Latin Church did not receive it as Pauland speaking of the author said, "the writer to the Hebrews whoever he was." Augustine felt the same way about it. Luther declared that Paul could never have written it because the thought was not his. Calvin said that he could not bring himself to think that this letter was a letter of Paul.

At no time in the history of the Church did men ever really think that Paul wrote Hebrews. How then did it get attached to his name? It happened very simply. When the New Testament came into its final form there was of course argument about which books were to be included and which were not. To settle it one test was used. Was a book the work of an apostle or at least the work of one who had been in direct contact with the apostles? By this time Hebrews was known and loved throughout the Church. Most people felt like Origen that God alone knew who wrote it, but they wanted it. They felt it must go into the New Testament and the only way to ensure that was to include it with the thirteen letters of Paul. Hebrews won its way into the New Testament on the grounds of its own greatness, but to get in it had to be included with the letters of Paul and come under his name. People knew quite well that it was not Paulbut they included it among his letters because no man knew who wrote it and yet it must go in.

The Author Of Hebrews

Can we guess who the author was? Many candidates have been put forward. We can only glance at three of the many suggestions.

(i) Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus; the people of Cyprus were famous for the excellence of the Greek they spoke; and Hebrews is written in the best Greek in the New Testament. He was a Levite (Act_4:36 ) and of all men in the New Testament he would have had the closest knowledge of the priestly and sacrificial system on which the whole thought of the letter is based. He is called a son of encouragement; the Greek word is paraklesis (G3874); and Hebrews calls itself a word of paraklesis (G3874) (Heb_13:22 ). He was one of the few men acceptable to both Jews and Greeks and at home in both worlds of thought. It might be that Barnabas wrote this letter, but if so it is strange that his name should vanish in connection with it.

(ii) Luther was sure that Apollos was the author. Apollos, according to the New Testament mention of him, was a Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures (Act_18:24 ; 1Co_1:12 ; 1Co_3:4 ). The man who wrote this letter knew the scriptures; he was eloquent; and he thought and argued in the way that a cultured Alexandrian would. The man who wrote Hebrews was certainly a man like Apollos in thought and in background.

(iii) The most romantic of all conjectures is that of Harnack, the great German scholar. He thought that maybe Aquila and Priscilla wrote it between them. Aquila was a teacher (Act_18:26 ). Their house in Rome was a Church in itself (Rom_16:5 ). Harnack thought that that is why the letter begins with no greetings and why the writername has vanished--because the main author of Hebrews was a woman and a woman was not allowed to teach.

But when we come to the end of conjecture, we are compelled to say as Origen said seventeen hundred years ago, that only God knows who wrote Hebrews. To us the author must remain a voice and nothing more; but we can be thankful to God for the work of this great nameless one who wrote with incomparable skill and beauty about the Jesus who is the way to reality and the way to God.

FURTHER READING

Hebrews

J. Moffatt, Hebrews (ICC; G)

W. Neil, Hebrews (Tch: E)

J. H. Robinson, Hebrews (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Hebrews 7 (Chapter Introduction)

A Priest After The Order Of Melchizedek (Heb_7:1-28)

We come now to a passage of such paramount importance for the writer to the Hebrews and in itself so difficult to understand that we must deal with it in a special way. Heb 6, (Heb_6:20), ended with the statement that Jesus had been made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is the most characteristic thought of Hebrews. Behind it lie ways of thinking and of arguing and of using scripture which are quite strange to us and which we must yet try to understand. It will be best first to collect together all that the writer to the Hebrews has to say about the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and to read that as a whole before we divide it into shorter passages to study in detail. We shall then try to understand what the writer to the Hebrews was getting at before we study this chapter in detail. So then, we first collect the passages which deal with this idea. The first is Heb_5:1-10 .

7:1-28 Every high priest who is chosen from among men, is appointed on men's behalf to deal with the things which concern God. His task is to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, in that he himself is able to feel gently to the ignorant and to the wandering, because he himself wears the garment of human weakness. By reason of this very weakness it is incumbent upon him, just as he makes sacrifice for the people, so to make sacrifice for sins on his own behalf also. No one takes this honourable position to himself, but he is called by God to it, just as Aaron was. So it was not Christ who gave himself the glory of becoming high priest; but it was he who said to him: "You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you." "You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek." In the days when he lived this human life of ours, he offered prayers and entreaties to him who was able to bring him safely through death, with strong crying and with tears. And when he had been heard because of his reverence, although he was a Son he teamed obedience from the sufferings through which he passed. When he had been made fully fit for his appointed task, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, for he had been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

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

Now this Melchizedek was King of Salem and priest of the most high God. He met Abraham when he was returning from the smiting of the kings and blessed him and set apart for him a tenth part of the spoils. In the first place, the interpretation of his own name means King of Righteousness and, in the second place, King of Salem means King of Peace. His father is never mentioned nor his mother; nor is there any record of his descent; there is no mention of the beginning of his days, nor any of the end of his life; he is exactly like the Son of God; and he remains a priest for ever. Just see how great this man was--Abraham gave him the tenth part of the spoils of victory--and Abraham was no less than the founder of our nation. Now look at the difference--when the sons of Levi receive their priesthood, they receive an injunction laid down by the law to exact tithes from the people. That i& to say, they exact tithes from their own brothers, even although they are descendants of Abraham. But this man, whose descent is not traced from them at all, exacted tithes from Abraham and actually blessed the man who had received the promises. Beyond all argument, the lesser is blessed by the greater. Just so, in the one instance, it is a case of men who die receiving tithes; but in this instance it is the case of a man whom the evidence proves to live. Still further--if I may put it this way--through Abraham, Levi, too, the very man who receives the tithes, had tithes exacted from him, for he was in his father's body when Melchizedek met him. If then the desired effect could have been achieved by the Levitical priesthood--for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the people became a people of the law--what further need was there to set up another priest and to call him a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and not to call him a priest after the order of Aaron? Once the priesthood was altered, of necessity there follows an alteration of the law too, for the person of whom the statements are made belongs to another tribe altogether, from which no one ever served at the altar. It is obvious that it was from Judah that our Lord sprang and, with regard to that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests. And certain things are still more abundantly clear--if a different priest is set up, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, a priest who became so, not according to the law of a mere human injunction but according to the power of a life that is indestructible--for the witness of scripture in regard to this is: "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek"--if all that is so, two things emerge. On the one hand there emerges the cancellation of the previous injunction because of its own weakness and uselessness (for the law never achieved the effect which it was designed to produce) and, on the other hand, them emerges the introduction of a better hope through which we can come near to God. And inasmuch as it happened with an oath--for the Levitical priests are made priests without an oath but he with an oath, because scripture says of him: "The Lord swore and will not repent of it, 'You are a priest forever'"--in so far Jesus has become the surety of a better covenant. Further, of the Levitical priests more and more were made priests because they were prevented from continuing permanently by death, whereas he has a priesthood which will never pass away because he remains for ever. For that very reason it is in every possible way and for all time that he, who is for ever alive, can save those who come to God through him. We needed such a high priest--one who is holy, one who has never hurt any man, one who is stainless, one who is different from sinners, one who has become higher than the heavens. He does not need, as the high priests do, daily first to offer sacrifices for his own sins and then thereafter for the sins of the people. For he did this once and for all when he offered himself. For the law appointed as high priests men subject to weakness; but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appointed one who is a Son who is fully equipped to carry out his office for ever.

These are the passages in which the writer to the Hebrews describes Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Now let us see just what he is trying to say when he uses that conception. We must begin by understanding the general position from which he starts. He starts with the basic idea that religion is access to God. It was to make that access to God possible that two things existed. First, the law. The basic idea of the law is that so long as a man faithfully observes its commandments he is in a position of friendship with God and the door to his presence is open to him. But men cannot keep the law and therefore their fellowship with God and their access to his presence are interrupted. It was exactly to deal with that situation of estrangement that the second thing existed, the priesthood and the whole sacrificial system. The Latin word for priest is pontifex which means a bridge-builder; the priest was a man whose function was to build a bridge between men and God by means of the sacrificial system. A man broke the law; his fellowship with God was interrupted and his access to God was barred; by the offering of the correct sacrifice that breach of the law was atoned for and so the fellowship was restored and the barrier removed. That was the theory of the matter. But in practice life showed that that was precisely what the priesthood and the sacrificial system could not do. There was no escaping the human estrangement from God which followed sin; and the problem was that not all the efforts of the priesthood and not all the sacrifices could restore that lost relationship. It is therefore the argument of the writer to the Hebrews that what is needed is a new and a different priesthood and a new and effective sacrifice. He sees in Jesus Christ the only High Priest who can open the way to God; and he calls the priesthood of Jesus a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. He got that idea from two passages in the Old Testament. The first was Psa_110:4 where it is written:

"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'."

The second is Gen_14:17-20 where the story of the original Melchizedek is told.

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

The writer to the Hebrews is here doing what any skilled Jewish Rabbi might do and following the rabbinic method of interpretation. To understand that method we must understand two things. (i) To the scholarly Jew any passage of scripture had four meanings to which he gave four different names: (a) First, there was Peshat (compare H6584), which is the literal and factual meaning. (b) Second, there was Remaz, which is the suggested meaning. (c) Third, there was Derush (compare H1875), which is the meaning arrived at after long and careful investigation. (d) Fourth, there was Sod, which is the allegorical or inner meaning. To the Jew the most important meaning by far was Sod, the inner meaning. He was not nearly so much interested in the factual meaning of a passage as in the allegorical and mystical meaning which could be extracted from it, even although it might have no connection whatever with the literal meaning. It was quite permissible, and in fact the regular practice, to take things right out of their context and read into them meanings which we would consider fantastic and quite unjustified. That is what the writer to the Hebrews is doing here. (ii) Second, it is essential to note that the Jewish interpreters considered themselves completely justified in arguing not only from the utterances but also from the silences of scripture. An argument could be built, not only on what scripture said but also on what it did not say. In fact the writer to the Hebrews bases his argument in this passage at least as much on what scripture did not say about Melchizedek as on what it did. Now let us see how the quality of the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek differs from the quality of the ordinary Aaronic priesthood. (i) Melchizedek has no genealogy; he is without father and without mother (Heb_7:3). Note straight away that this is one of the arguments drawn from the silence of scripture which does not provide Melchizedek with any genealogy. This was unusual for two reasons. (a) It is the reverse of the habitual practice of Genesis. Genealogies are a feature of Genesis where long lists of a man's ancestors constantly occur. But Melchizedek arrives on the scene, as it were, from nowhere. (b) Far more important--it is the reverse of the rules which governed the Aaronic priesthood which depended entirely on descent. Under Jewish law a man could not under any circumstances become a priest unless he could produce a certificated pedigree going back to Aaron. Character and ability had nothing to do with it; the one essential was that pedigree. When the Jews came back to Jerusalem from exile certain priestly families could not produce their genealogical records and were therefore debarred from the priesthood for ever (Ezr_2:61-63; Neh_7:63-65). On the other hand, if a man could produce a pedigree reaching back to Aaron, apart only from certain specified physical blemishes nothing on earth could stop him being a priest. Genealogy was literally everything. So then, the first difference between the two priesthoods was this--the Aaronic priesthood depended on genealogical descent; the priesthood of Melchizedek depended on personal qualification alone. Melchizedek's priesthood was based on what he was, not on what he had inherited. As one scholar puts it--the difference was between a claim based on legality and a claim based on personality. (ii) Heb_7:1-3 collects further qualities about Melchizedek. The name Melchizedek literally means King of righteousness. The word Salem (H8004) means peace; therefore he was also King of Peace. We have seen that he has no genealogy. Again the writer to the Hebrews draws on the silence of scripture. We are told of no time when Melchizedek began or ended his priesthood; we are told of no time when he was born or died. Therefore he had no beginning and has no end; and his priesthood lasts for ever. From this we gather five great qualities in the priesthood of Melchizedek. (a) It is a priesthood of righteousness. (b) It is a priesthood of peace. (c) It is a royal priesthood, for Melchizedek was a king. (d) It is personal and not inherited because he has no genealogy. (e) It is eternal, because he has no birth or death, and his priesthood has no beginning or end. (iii) Supposing all this to be true, how can it be proved that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic? The Hebrews seizes on two points in the Genesis story about Melchizedek. First, there is the saying that Abraham gave Melchizedek tithes of all. The priests also exact tithes; but there are two differences. The priests tithe their brethren, their fellow Jews; and they tithe them as a result of legal enactment. But Melchizedek tithed Abraham who had no racial connection with him whatsoever and was in fact the founder of the Jewish nation; further, he exacted the tithes not because the law gave him the right to do so but because of an unquestionable personal right. Obviously that set him far above the ordinary priesthood. Second, there is the saying that Melchizedek blessed Abraham. It is always the superior who blesses the inferior; therefore Melchizedek was superior to Abraham although Abraham was the founder of the Jewish race and the unique recipient of the promises of God. That indeed gives Melchizedek a place than which none could be higher. A. B. Bruce thus sums up the points in which Melchizedek was superior to the ordinary Levitical priesthood. (a) He tithed Abraham and was therefore superior to him. Abraham was one of the patriarchs; the patriarchs are superior to their descendants; therefore Melchizedek is greater than the descendants of Abraham; the ordinary priests are the descendants of Abraham; therefore Melchizedek is greater than they. (b) Melchizedek is greater than the sons of Levi because they exacted tithes by legal enactment but he did it as a right he personally possessed given to him by no man. (c) The Levites received tithes as mortal men; he received them as one who lives for ever (Heb_7:8). (d) Levi, to whom the Israelites paid tithes, may be said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek, because he was Abraham's grandson and was therefore in Abraham's body at the time Abraham paid tithes. (iv) Heb_7:11 onwards shows wherein the superiority of the nets, priesthood lay. (a) The very fact that a new priesthood was promised (Heb_7:11) shows that the old one was inadequate. If the old priesthood had fulfilled the function of bringing men to the presence of God there would have been no need for any other. Further, the introduction of the new priesthood was a revolution. According to the law, all priests must belong to the tribe of Levi; but Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. This shows that the whole old system was superseded. Something greater than the law had come. (b) The new priesthood was for ever (Heb_7:15-19). Under the old system the priests died and there was no permanency; but now there had come a priest who lives for ever. (c) The new priesthood was introduced by an oath of God Psa_110:4 says: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind 'You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'." Clearly God does not swear lightly. He never introduced the ordinary priesthood like that. This was something new. (d) The new priest offered no sacrifice for himself (Heb_7:27). The ordinary priest always had to make sacrifice for his own sin before he could do so for the sins of the people. But Jesus Christ, the new High Priest, was sinless and needed no sacrifice for himself. (e) The new priest did not need endlessly to repeat sacrifices (Heb_7:27). He made the one perfect sacrifice, which never needs to be made again because it has for ever opened the way to the presence of God. We now sum up briefly the ideas in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews when he thinks of Jesus in terms of the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. To make it clearer we set out only the great salient ideas without the side-lines. (i) Jesus is the High Priest, whose priesthood depends not on any genealogy but on himself alone. (ii) Jesus is the High Priest who lives for ever. (iii) Jesus is the High Priest who himself is sinless and never needs to offer any sacrifice for his own sin. (iv) Jesus is the High Priest who in the offering of himself made the perfect sacrifice which once and for all opened the way to God. No more sacrifice need be made. Having seen the general ideas in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews concerning Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, we now turn to this passage in detail and study it in sections.

The True King And The True Priest (Heb_7:1-3)

The Greatness Of Melchizedek (Heb_7:4-10)

The New Priest And The New Way (Heb_7:11-20)

The Greater Priesthood (Heb_7:21-25)

The High Priest We Need (Heb_7:26-28)

Constable: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

The writer said that he and those to whom he wrote had come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of others who had heard Jesus (2:3-4). Apparently those preachers had since died (13:7). The original readers had been Christians for an extended period of time (5:12). So probably the earliest possible date of composition was about A.D. 60.

Some scholars believe that the book must have been written before A.D. 70 since the writer spoke of the sacrifices as being offered when he wrote (7:27-28; 8:3-5; 9:7-8, 25; 10:1-3, 8; 13:10-11). However, the writer showed no interest in the temple but spoke of the sacrifices as the Israelites offered them when the tabernacle stood. He evidently used the present tense to give these reference a timeless quality rather than indicating that temple worship was still in practice. Nevertheless a date of composition before A.D. 70 seems probable.¹

"The best argument for the supersession of the old covenant would have been the destruction of the Temple."²

The reference to Timothy's release from imprisonment (13:23) appears to date the book later in the life of that outstanding man.³ No other New Testament writer mentioned his imprisonment. The imprisonment of Christians seems to have been a well-known fact of life (10:34; 13:3). This was true after Nero launched an empire-wide persecution in A.D. 64. All of these factors when taken together seem to point to a writing date near A.D. 68-69.

As to authorship, most students of this subject are not dogmatic or even certain for good reason.⁴ As early as Origen, the Alexandrian church father who died about A.D. 255, no one knew who the writer was for sure. After careful study of the authorship of Hebrews, Origen wrote, "But who it was that really wrote the epistle, God only knows."⁵

"The language of the Epistle is both in vocabulary and style purer and more vigorous than that of any other book of the New Testament.

". . . The vocabulary is singularly copious. It includes a large number of words which are not found elsewhere in the apostolic writings, very many of which occur in this book only among the Greek Scriptures . . ."⁶

"All that can be said with certainty is that Hebrews was composed by a creative theologian who was well trained in the exposition of the Greek Scriptures. . . . He was surely a hellenistic Jewish-Christian."⁷

Commentators have made cases for the writer being Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Peter, Jude, Stephen, Silvanus (Silas), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Philip the Evangelist, Priscilla, Mary the mother of Jesus, Clement of Rome, Aristion, and others.⁸ None of these suggestions has found enthusiastic general reception for various reasons. Probably we should be content to share Origen's agnosticism on this question and look forward to getting the answer in heaven.⁹

The early Christians originally accepted all the New Testament books as inspired by God because they contained apostolic teaching. For this reason the writer was probably either an apostle or a close associate of at least one of the apostles (cf. 13:23).

The original recipients of the epistle are also unknown. The title "The Epistle to the Hebrews" implies that they were Jewish Christians. This title is ancient and is probably a safe guide to the identity of the first readers. References in the epistle also suggest that the original readers were mainly Jewish. The writer assumed that they were very familiar with the institutions of Judaism. The warnings against turning away from Jesus Christ back to the Old Covenant also imply this identity. Other indications are the emphasis on the superior priesthood of Jesus and the many appeals to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. However the brand of Judaism in view seems to have been Hellenistic rather than Palestinian.

The reference to the generosity of the readers and their helping other believers (6:10) suggests that the original audience did not live in Palestine. The Palestinian churches had a reputation for needing material assistance rather than for giving it to other Christians (cf. Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:3). Probably they were Jews of the Diaspora therefore. This conclusion has support in the writer's consistent use of the Septuagint Old Testament version. Hellenistic Jews used this translation widely, but Palestinian Jews did not use it as much.¹⁰

In most of the New Testament churches there was a mixture of Jewish and Gentile believers. The appeal of this epistle would certainly have been great to Gentiles tempted to return to paganism as it would have been to Jews facing temptation to return to Judaism. However the writer's primary concern appears to have been that his Jewish readers were failing to appreciate that Christianity is the divinely revealed successor to Judaism. He did not want them to abandon Christianity and return to Judaism.

Probably the letter originally went to a house-church outside Palestine that had a strong Hellenistic Jewish population. This church may have been in or near Galatia in view of conditions that existed there that the Epistle to the Galatians reflects. However they may very well have lived in another area. Many scholars believe that the letter went first to a church in or near Rome.¹¹

In view of 13:24b it has seemed to some scholars that the writer was in Italy when he sent this epistle, perhaps in Rome. However the expression "from Italy" in that verse probably refers to those living outside Italy, such as Priscilla and Aquilla who were Jews forced to leave Rome by Emperor Claudius' edict in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2).¹² This expression suggests that the writer was not in Italy when he wrote.

Purpose

Many students of the book have observed that Hebrews is more of a sermon in written form than an epistle in the traditional New Testament sense.¹³ The writer even described it as a "word of exhortation" (13:22). He urged the original readers to persevere in their faith rather than turning from Christianity and returning to Judaism. A note of urgency and pastoral concern permeates the whole letter. This tone comes through especially strongly in the five warning passages and in the encouragements that follow these warnings.

". . . the purpose of the writer to the Hebrews is not to give us an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. . . . Using material not from the prophets but primarily from the Psalms, with other materials added to elaborate the argument, the writer's goal was to establish the superiority of the gospel in contrast to all that went before, particularly the levitical system. The primary evidence of the supremacy of Christianity is presented in its finality. Coming to Christ means final access to God without any barrier."¹⁴

". . . Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women who discovered that they could be penetrated by adverse circumstances over which they exercised no control. It throbs with an awareness of the privilege and the cost of discipleship. It is a sensitive pastoral response to the sagging faith of older and tired individuals who were in danger of relinquishing their Christian commitment. It seeks to strengthen them in the face of a new crisis so that they may stand firm in their faith. It warns them of the judgment of God they would incur if they were to waver in their commitment. Exhortations to covenant fidelity and perseverance are grounded in a fresh understanding of the significance of Jesus and his sacrifice."¹⁵

Message¹⁶

We could summarize the message of this epistle in the following words. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him in this life.

The ultimate goal that the writer had in view was our full eternal reward as believers. I do not believe it was the conversion of the unsaved members of his audience. He addressed his readers consistently as believers. He wrote to encourage Christians to persevere faithfully so we will receive all that God wants to give us at the judgment seat of Christ. Our rewards are at issue in this letter. He did not want us to suffer loss but to enter into our full inheritance, our full rest, our full salvation.

To do this he wrote that we must know one thing and do two things, one positive and one negative.

We must know the greatness of Jesus Christ. In this epistle the writer presented Him as the greatest revelation that God has given mankind. God's revelation in His Son is superior to all other revelations He has given in three respects.

1. It supersedes all other revelations: God's revelation through angels (the Mosaic Law), His revelation through humans (the prophets), and His revelation through rituals (the Old Covenant). When Jesus Christ came to reveal God, He brought revelation that superseded what had preceded Him.

2. God's revelation in His Son is sufficient to meet every basic human need. God spoke through His Son, so the need for a prophet (a revealer of God) no longer exists. He established a new Covenant, so the need for a priest (a mediator for man) no longer exists. Moreover He exalted His Son to His right hand, so the need for a king (a righteous ruler) no longer exists.

3. God's revelation in His Son insures final victory in every basic sphere. The individual (the human order) attains perfection through the Son. Society (the social order) will experience perfection through the Son. The universe (the cosmic order) will reach perfection through the Son.

This is what we need to know objectively to do subjectively what is necessary to gain our full reward as believers.

What we must do is continue to trust God. Hebrews places great emphasis on the importance of living by faith. It teaches us three things about faith.

1. Hebrews defines faith. Faith is volitional surrender and obedience to God regardless of appearances. It is not just intellectual conviction. It is the action of the will that expresses intellectual conviction. This epistle regards unbelief as disobedience as does all of Scripture. People in the past who lived by faith made decisions and acted because they believed God in spite of appearances (ch. 11).

2. Hebrews also illustrates faith. It describes faith as doing, as suffering, and as waiting. These are the primary activities of faith that the writer of Hebrews emphasized. They are progressively more difficult. It is harder to suffer persecution for our faith than it is to obey God when obedience does not involve suffering. It is most difficult to keep on trusting God when suffering does not end. Waiting for God to fulfill His promises is hardest of all when our hopes do not materialize (e.g., Christ's return).

3. In addition, Hebrews vindicates faith. It assures us of the ultimate triumph of faith. People in the past who acted in faith achieved. People who suffered for their faith triumphed. People who waited in faith received their reward.

On the positive side we need to continue to trust God to realize our full reward as believers.

What we must not do is turn away from God. This is the negative responsibility that the letter also stresses. If we apostatize, we will lose our full reward. Hebrews teaches us three things about apostasy (as it does about faith).

1. This epistle defines apostasy descriptively. It is the opposite of faith. It consists of disobedience because of appearances (e.g., the 10 spies; cf. Jude). Apostasy for a Christian is turning away from faith having previously embraced faith. An apostate, however, can be a believer or an unbeliever.

2. Hebrews also illustrates apostasy in the same three ways it illustrates faith. Apostasy acts. It involves a deliberate turning away. It also suffers, not now but in the future because of what the apostate loses. It also waits, even though it lives for the present rather than for the future.

3. Likewise Hebrews condemns apostasy. It assures us of the ultimate tragedy of apostasy. Apostates may achieve what they want in the present, namely success, but they lose what is far more valuable in the future. They may avoid suffering now, but later they will be sorry. They may not want to wait for their reward now, but they will wait forever for it later and never get it.

This is the central message of the epistle. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him.

The writer urged his readers to persevere in faith by using two appeals, one negative and one positive.

The first appeal is negative: the warnings. There are five warning passages in Hebrews. Each one warns of the danger of apostasy from a different angle.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) warns of the danger of drifting away from the truth (2:1). It pictures a ship dragging its anchor. The tides of our age can draw us away from our moorings. We need to keep on standing firm in faith (cf. Col. 1:23).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) warns of the danger of disbelief (3:12). Disbelief results in heart hardening (3:13). We need to keep on believing rather than ceasing to believe (cf. Luke 17:3).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) warns of the danger of immaturity (5:12). When we do not put truth into practice, we do not just remain in the same spiritual state. We regress. Therefore we need to keep on growing (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) warns of the danger of willful sinning (10:26-27). If we abandon confidence in the efficacy of Jesus Christ's sacrifice, there is no other sacrifice that can protect us from God's judgment as believers. We need to keep on submitting to God (cf. Rom. 6:16).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) warns of the danger of unresponsiveness (12:25). The message of this letter demands positive response. If we do not respond positively, we will lose part of our reward (12:17). We need to keep on obeying God (cf. Titus 3:8).

The second appeal is positive: the encouragements. Accompanying each of the warning passages is at least one word of encouragement. The writer balanced his negative warnings with positive words of encouragement.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) encourages with a reminder of God's confirming His promises with miracles in the apostolic age (2:3b-4).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of faithfulness (3:1-6) and our resources as believers (4:12-16).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) encourages with a reminder of the readers' past faithfulness (6:9-12) and God's firm promises (6:13-20).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) also encourages with a reminder of the readers' past perseverance (10:32-39).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of perseverance (12:1-2) and the divine reason for discipline (12:3-11).

By way of application let me make three observations based on the three major revelations in the epistle.

1. An appreciation for Jesus Christ is foundational to faithful perseverance. The reason many Christians turn away from the Lord is that they do not appreciate His greatness. Preach Christ in your ministry.

2. We need to emphasize the Christian's hope more in our ministries. We live in a present oriented culture that values immediate self-gratification. Many Christians are apostatizing because they do not appreciate the reward they will receive if they remain faithful to the Lord. This life is preparation for the next.

3. We need to realize that God will judge Christians who apostatize. We will not lose our salvation, but we will lose much that we will wish we never gave up if we stop walking by faith.

Outline¹⁷

I. The culminating revelation of God 1:1-2:18

A. The agent of God's final revelation 1:1-4

B. The superiority of the Son 1:5-14

C. The danger of negligence (the first warning) 2:1-4

D. The humiliation and glory of God's Son 2:5-9

E. The Son's solidarity with humanity 2:10-18

II. The high priestly character of the Son 3:1-5:10

A. The faithfulness of the Son 3:1-6

B. The danger of disbelief (the second warning) 3:7-19

C. The possibility of rest for God's people 4:1-14

D. The compassion of the Son 4:15-5:10

III. The high priestly office of the Son 5:11-10:39

A. The danger of immaturity (the third warning) 5:11-6:12

1. The readers' condition 5:11-14

2. The needed remedy 6:1-3

3. The dreadful alternative 6:4-8

4. The encouraging prospect 6:9-12

B. The basis for confidence and steadfastness 6:13-20

C. The Son's high priestly ministry 7:1-10:18

1. The person of our high priest ch. 7

2. The work of our high priest chs. 8-9

3. The accomplishment of our high priest 10:1-18

D. The danger of willful sinning (the fourth warning) 10:19-39

1. The three-fold admonition 10:19-25

2. The warning of judgment 10:26-31

3. The encouragement to persevere 10:32-39

IV. The proper response 11:1-12:13

A. Perseverance in faith ch. 11

1. Faith in the antediluvian era 11:1-7

2. Faith in the patriarchal era 11:8-22

3. Faith in the Mosaic era 11:23-31

4. Faith in subsequent eras 11:32-40

B. Demonstrating necessary endurance 12:1-13

1. The example of Jesus 12:1-3

2. The proper view of trials 12:4-11

3. The need for greater strength 12:12-13

V. Life in a hostile world 12:14-13:25

A. The danger of unresponsiveness (the fifth warning) 12:14-29

1. The goal of peace 12:14-17

2. The superiority of the New Covenant 12:18-24

3. The consequences of apostasy 12:25-29

B. Life within the church ch. 13

1. Pastoral reminders 13:1-21

2. Personal explanations 13:22-25

Constable: Hebrews

Hebrews

Bibliography

Andersen, Ward. "The Believer's Rest (Hebrews 4)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):31-38.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Hebrews. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1963.

Bateman, Herbert W., IV. "Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5-13 and 4QFlor 1.1-19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):11-27.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' Use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Black, David Alan. "A Note on the Structure of Hebrews 12, 1-2." Biblica 68:4 (1987):543-51.

_____. "The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):163-77.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Bligh, John. "The Structure of Hebrews." Heythrop Journal 5 (April 1964):170-77.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Early Christian Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

_____. "The Kerygma of Hebrews." Interpretation 23:1 (January 1969):3-19.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Casey, J. M. "Eschatology in Heb 12:14-29: An Exegetical Study." Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, 1977.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

Cockerill, G. L. The Melchizedek Christology in Heb. 7:1-28. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1979.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Colijn, Brenda B. "Let Us Approach': Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):571-86.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

____. "The Substitutionary Death of Christ in Hebrews." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.

Cosby, M. R. "The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11 in Light of Example-lists in Antiquity." Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1985.

Cross, Frank M. "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Custer, Stewart. "The Awfulness of Apostasy (Hebrews 6)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):45-50.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to," by A. B. Bruce.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton, 1965.

Dunham, Duane A. "An Exegetical Examination of the Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1974.

Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Translated by Christian Frederick Cruse. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Elliott, J. H. Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1976.

Estes, Daniel J. "Looking for Abraham's City." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):399-413.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Hebrews." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 369-415.

Farrar, F. W. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge: University Press, 1894.

Filson, Floyd V. "Yesterday": A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. Studies in Biblical Theology 2nd series 4. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gleason, Randall C. "The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7-4:11." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:627 (July-September 2000):281-303.

_____. "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):62-91.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Gourgues, M. "Lecture christologique du Psaume CX et fête de la Pentecôte." Revue Biblique 83 (1976):5-24.

Govett, Robert. Entrance into the Kingdom. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1978.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert G. Stand Bold in Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):333-40.

Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Hebrews." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 777-813. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Horning, Estella B. "Chiasmus, Creedal Structure, and Christology in Hebrews 12:1-2. Biblical Research 23 (1978):37-48.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. "The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):99-109; 519 (July-September 1973):195-212; 520 (October-December 1973):305-14; 131:521 (January-March 1974):26-33.

_____. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. "Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Peril of Apostasy." Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973):137-55.

Hughes, R. Kent. Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul. 2 vols. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by T. Rees.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

Kendall, R. T. Once Saved, Always Saved. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

_____. Hebrews 9-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lang, G. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Paternoster Press, 1951.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 11: Galatians--Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braume, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1976.

_____. The Problem of Pain. 1940. Reprint ed. London: Collins Press, Fontana Books, 1959.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lovelace, Richard F. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. Hebrews. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

MacDonald, William. Hebrews from Shadow to Substance. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

Mackay, Cameron. "The Argument of Hebrews." Church Quarterly

Review 168 (1967):325-38.

MacLeod, David J. "The Cleansing of the True Tabernacle." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):60-63.

_____. "The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:583 (July-September 1989):291-300.

_____. "The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):185-97.

_____. "The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):184-200.

_____. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena, and Doctrinal Center." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.

MacRae, G. W. "Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews." Semeia 12 (1978):179-99.

Man, Ronald E. "The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):146-57.

Manson, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951.

Marshall, I. Howard. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

_____. "New Wine in Old Wine-Skins: V. The Biblical Use of the Word Ekklesia.'" Expository Times 84:12 (1973):359-64.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Mauro, Philip. God's Pilgrims. Revised ed. New York: Gospel Publishing House, n.d.

McCullough, J. C. "The Impossibility of a Second Repentance in Hebrews." Biblical Theology 20 (1974):1-7.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Millar, Merland Ray. "What Is the Literary Form of Hebrews 11?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):411-17.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.

Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Black, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. "Hebrews." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Mugridge, Alan. "Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 46:3 (September-December 1987):74-82.

Neal, Marshall. "The New Covenant (Hebrews 8)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):59-65.

Neighbor, R. E. If They Shall Fall Away. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1984.

Newell, William R. Hebrews Verse by Verse. Chicago: Moody Press, 1947.

Oberholtzer, Thomas Kem. "The Warning Passages in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):83-97; 578 (April-June 1988):185-96; 579 (July-September 1988):319-28; 580 (October-December 1988):410-19; 146:581 (January-March 1989):67-75.

Parsons, Mikael C. "Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews." Evangelical Quarterly 60:3 (July 1988):195-215.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. A Faith That Endures. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers. 1992.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1990.

Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972.

Peterson, D. G. "An Examination of the Concept of Perfection' in the Epistle to the Hebrews.'" Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1978.

_____. "The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979):74-81.

Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Reich, Max I. The Glories of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1960.

Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul). "Chiasm and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 11." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):327-45.

_____. "Christology and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 5:11-6:20." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):83-96.

Rice, George E. "Apostasy As a Motif and Its Effect on the Structure of Hebrews." Andrews University Seminary Studies 23:1 (Spring 1985):29-35.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 6th ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Robinson, S. E. "The Apocraphal Story of Melchizedek." Journal for the Study of Judaism 18:1 (June 1987):26-39.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):71-84.

Ross, Robert W. "Hebrews." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1401-27. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Ryken, Leland. The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The Scofield Reference Bible. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909.

Scott, Brett R. "Jesus' Superiority over Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):201-10.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. "Archegos in the Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):47-54.

Selby, Gary S. "The Meaning and Function of Suneidesis in Hebrews 9 and 10." Restoration Quarterly 28:3 (Third Quarter 1985/86):145-54.

Sharp, Jeffrey R. "Typology and the Message of Hebrews." East Asia Journal of Theology 4:2 (1986):95-103.

Smith, T. C. "An Exegesis of Hebrews 13:1-17." Faith and Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):70-78.

Soden, John. "The Use of Psalm 45:7-8 (6-7) in Hebrews 1:8-9." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):51-70.

Spencer, William David. "Christ's Sacrifice as Apologetic: An Application of Heb 10:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997):189-97.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stedman, Ray C. What More Can God Say? Bible Commentary for Laymen series. Reprint ed. Glendale, Calif.: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1977.

Swete, H. B. The Ascended Christ. London: Macmillan and Co., 1916.

Swetnam, James. "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6." Biblica 53 (1972):368-85.

_____. "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13." Biblica 55 (1974):333-48.

Tenney, Merrill C. "A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):230-36.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Fredrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1964-74. S. V. "aphistemi, apostasia, dichostasia," by Heinrich Schlier, 1 (1964):512-14.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Exchatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews." Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):67-80.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Guides to New Testament Exegesis series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.

Vanhoye, Albert. A Structureal Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by James Swetnam. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Ware, Bruce A. "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 68-97. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Wills, L. "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity." Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984):277-99.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East. Part III: The Temple in Palestine-Syria." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wuest, Kenneth S. "Hebrews Six in the Greek New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 119:473 (January-March 1962):45-53.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE HEBREWS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Catholic Church hath received and declared this Epistle to be part of the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, though some doubted of it in the first ages [centuries], especially in the Latin Church, witness St. Jerome on the 8th chap. of Isaias; Luther and most of his followers reject it, but the Calvinists and the Church of England have received it. Others, who received this Epistle in the first ages [centuries], doubted whether it was written by St. Paul, but thought it was written by St. Barnabas, or by St. Clement, or St. Luke, or at least that St. Paul only furnished the matter and the order of it, and that St. Luke wrote it, and St. Paul afterwards read it and approved it. It was doubted again, whether this Epistle was first written in Hebrew (that is, in Syro-Chaldaic, then spoken by the Jews) or in Greek, as Estius pretends. The ancient writers say it was written in Hebrew, but that it was very soon after translated into Greek either by St. Luke or St. Clement, pope and martyr. Cornelius a Lapide thinks the Syriac which we have in the Polyglot to have been the original; but this is commonly rejected. See Tillemont on St. Paul, Art. 46, and note 72; P. Alleman on the first to the Hebrews, &c. St. Paul wrote this letter about the year 63, and either at Rome or in Italy. See Chap. xii. 24. He wrote it to the Christians in Palestine, who had most of them been Jews before. This seems the reason why he puts not his name to it, nor calls himself their apostle, his name being rather odious to the Jews, and because he was chosen to be the apostle of the Gentiles. The main design is to shew that every one's justification and salvation is to be hoped for by the grace and merits of Christ, and not from the law of Moses, as he had shewn in his Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans, where we many observe this kind of difference: To the Galatians he shews, that true justice cannot be had from circumcision and the ceremonies of the law: to the Romans, that even the moral precepts and works of the law were insufficient without the grace of Christ: and in this to the Hebrews, he shews that our justice could not be had from the sacrifices of the old law. As to the chief contents: He exhorts them to the faith of Christ, by shewing his dignity and pre-eminence above the Angels, and above Moses, Chap. i, ii, iii.; that Christ's priesthood was above that of Aaron, from the 4th to the 8th chap. ver. 6; that the new law and testament is preferable to the old, form thence to the middle of chap. x.; he commends faith by the example of the ancient Fathers, Chap. xi. and in the beginning of the twelfth; then he exhorts them to patience, constancy, brotherly love, &c. The like exhortations are mixed in other parts of this Epistle. (Witham) --- We must here remark, that our separated brethren, relying solely upon tradition, admit in general this Epistle into their canon of Scriptures, though they are necessitated to allow that for some centuries great doubts were entertained on the subject. According to Mr. Rogers, in his Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles, whilst several among the Protestants have rejected as apocryphal the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the 2nd and 3rd of John, and Jude, others have as strenuously maintained that they ought to be admitted into the sacred canon. The Catholic Church admits them as deutero-canonical books, and of equal authority with the proto-canonical books....After the arguments had been justly weighed on both sides, they seem to have been admitted by the general consent of the Latin Church, as they had all along been admitted by the Greek Church. The canon, as it now stands, both of the Old and New Testament, we find enumerated in Pope Innocent's letter to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, an. 405 [the year A.D. 405], in St. Augustine, (lib. ii. de doct. christ. chap. viii.) and in the decrees of an African Council, an. 419 [the year A.D. 419], consisting of 217 bishops, who declare that in giving a catalogue of the Holy Scriptures, they only confirm and ratify what they have received from their Fathers. This canon is attributed to the third Council of Carthage, an. 397 [the year A.D. 397]. Dr. Cosin, an eminent Protestant divine, tells us in his canon of Scripture, p. 4, "that to know the books of Scripture, there is no safer course to be taken than to follow the public voice and the universal testimony of the Church." The sixth of the thirty-nine articles gives a similar rule, which excludes private judgment. And "what is this," asks Hooker, "but to acknowledge ecclesiastical tradition?" The mind of man, naturally fickle and unsettled, stands in need of a guide in the road to eternal life. I shall never hesitate, says a spirited author, to take for my guide the Catholic Church, which contains in herself the authority of past and future ages. The Syriac version of the Old and New Testament, which is deservedly allowed to be of greatest antiquity and authority, comprises the same deutero-canonical books as the canon of the Council of Trent; a convincing proof that the Church of Syria, immediately after the times of the apostles, considered them as part of the sacred canon, no less than the Catholics of the present day. For a very satisfactory account respecting the authenticity and inspiration of this Epistle, as also for an excellent commentary with notes moral, doctrinal, and critical, see a late work entitled, An Explanation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, by the Rev. Henry Rutter. --- What can be the reason why Protestants admit the deutero-canonical books of the New and reject those of the Old Testament? --- This Epistle merits the particular attention of Christians of every denomination, since it points out to them their various duties in respect to the necessity of faith and the practice of a holy life. In opposition to the Socinians, it tends to shew not only the divinity of Jesus Christ, but also that his death was a true and real sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind. See Chap. i, ver. 5, &c. In opposition to other sectarists, it proves that the bloody sacrifice of Christ, once offered on the cross, though a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of redemption, does not exclude the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, by which he is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. See Chap. v, &c. It is no less applicable to Catholics, in order to confirm them in the faith once delivered to the saints, and to point out the dreadful consequences of abandoning that religion which Jesus Christ came to establish in the world. The just man lives by faith; but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Let us, therefore, hold fast the confession of our hope, without wavering, or forsaking our assembly, the Catholic Church, as many have done to follow Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other separatists. But we, says the apostle, are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them who have faith unto the saving of the soul. (Hebrews x. 39.)

====================

Gill: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS

That this epistle was written very early appears from hence, that it was imitated by Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, who took whole sentences out of it; and therefore it could not be a new work, as Eusebius ^a observes: it has been denied to be authentic by some heretics, as the Marcionites and Arians, but has been generally received as such by the orthodox: some indeed doubted of it, because it was not received by the Roman church, as an epistle of the Apostle Paul ^b; though others, who have thought it was not his, as Origen, yet looked upon it as genuine ^c. It has been ascribed to different persons, as to Barnabas, to Apollos, to Luke the Evangelist, and to Clement of Rome, but without any just reason. Clement of Alexandria, a very ancient writer, asserts it to be the Apostle Paul's ^d; and his name stands in the title of it, in all R. Stephens's exemplars, and in all Beza's copies, excepting one, and so it does in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and that it is his, is highly probable from the agreement there is between this, and other epistles of his; compare Heb 1:2 with Col 1:15 and Heb 5:12 with 1Co 3:1 and Heb 12:1 with 1Co 9:24 and Heb 13:7 with 1Th 5:11, and Heb 13:9 with Eph 4:14 and Heb 13:18 with 2Co 1:12 and Heb 13:20 with Rom 15:13 and many other places; and also from the order and method of it, first treating of doctrines, and then proceeding to practical exhortations, which is the common form of Paul's epistles: to which may be added various circumstances; as that it was written from Italy, where Paul was a prisoner; and the mention the author of it makes of his bonds, and of Timothy, as well known unto him, who was Paul's companion; besides, the token of his epistles appears in this, namely, his usual salutation to the churches; see Heb 13:23. But above all, the testimony of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of its being his, 2Pe 3:15 from whence it clearly appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; see 1Pe 1:1 and what epistle could it be but this? and what Peter refers to is to be found in it; see Heb 10:25 and which is written with great wisdom; in none of Paul's epistles is there a greater discovery of his knowledge of divine mysteries than in this; and in it also are things hard to be understood, Heb 5:11. The common objections to its being his are, its not bearing his name, the diversity of its style, and the author of it seeming to be not an apostle, but a disciple of the apostle's: as to his not setting his name to it, the reasons might be, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not so much of the Jews; and because of the prejudice of the Jews against him, both believers, and unbelievers; wherefore had his name been to it, it might have prevented the usefulness of it to the one, and have stirred up the rage of the other: as to the difference of style, different subjects require a different style; and yet in many things there is a likeness, as before observed: and as to the author's not being an apostle, which is concluded from Heb 2:3 the word "us" there is to be understood of the believing Hebrews, the disciples of the apostle, and not inclusive of the author, by a figurative way of speaking often used by Paul; and besides, the apostle received a confirmation of the Gospel from Ananias, who might have been an hearer of Christ, though he was at first taught it by Christ himself; add to this, that whoever was the writer of it, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and when several of the apostles were living, and therefore he could never design by those words to put himself in a succeeding generation. The persons to whom this epistle was written were Hebrews, or Jews; so called, as some think, from the name of Abraham, the father of them; or, as others, from his passing over the river Euphrates, when he came out of Chaldea into Palestine. So Abram the Hebrew, in Gen 14:13 is by the Septuagint rendered, perathv, "one that passes over", taking it to come from the word rbe, which signifies to "pass over"; with this compare Jos 24:3 and this is the opinion of some of the Jewish Rabbins ^e; though it seems rather that they were called so from Heber, who lived at the time of the confusion of languages; see Gen 10:21. And this is the sense of many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, of Josephus ^f, of Jonathan ben Uzziel ^g, of R. Nehemiah ^h, of Aben Ezra ⁱ, and Kimchi ^k, and others; 2Co 11:22. And these were the Hebrews that dwelt in the land of Judea, and particularly at Jerusalem; nor were they the unbelieving inhabitants of those parts, but believers in Christ, who were embodied in a Gospel church state, It was a tradition of the ancients ^l, that this epistle was written originally in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek, either by Luke the Evangelist, or by Clement of Rome. But for this there is no foundation; no Hebrew copy can be produced; Munster's edition of it in Hebrew is a translation from the Greek, in which it was, no doubt, originally written, that being the common language, and well known to the Jews; and which appears from the citations in it out of the Old Testament, which are made, not from the Hebrew text, but from the Greek version; and besides, had it been written in Hebrew, the writer would not have interpreted the Hebrew words, Melchizedek and Salem, as he does, in Heb 7:1. The time of its writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in this book is signified by the coming of the Lord, and the day approaching; and after Timothy was released from prison, and some time within the two years of his own imprisonment at Rome; when he hoped for a release, as his epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon show. Dr. Lightfoot places it in the year 62, and in the eighth of Nero. And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

Gill: Hebrews 7 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS 7

The apostle having made mention of Melchizedek in the latter part of the preceding chapter, proceeds in this to give some account of him, and of the excellency of his priesthood, and to show that Christ is a priest of his order, and is superior to Aaron and his sons. He first declares what Melchizedek was, that he was both king and priest; he names the place he was king of, and tells whose priest he was, even the priest of the most high God; and goes on to observe what he did, that he met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, that he blessed him, and took tithes of him, Heb 7:1 and then interprets his name, and royal title, the one signifying king of righteousness, the other king of peace; that for anything that can be learned from the Scriptures, it is not known who was his father or his mother; what his lineage and descent; when he was born, or when he died; and that he is like to the Son of God, and continues a priest, Heb 7:2 upon which the apostle calls upon the Hebrews to consider the greatness of his person; and as it appears from that single instance of his receiving tithes from the patriarch Abraham, Heb 7:4 by which it is evident, that he is greater than the Levites; and which is demonstrated in the following particulars: the Levites received tithes of their brethren that came out of Abraham's loins, as they did, but Melchizedek, whose descent was not from them, received tithes from Abraham himself, and besides blessed him; and it is a clear case, that the lesser is blessed of the greater, Heb 7:5 the Levites were mortal men that received tithes, but a testimony is bore to Melchizedek, that he lives, Heb 6:8 yea, Levi himself paid tithes to Melchizedek, since he was in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchizedek met him, and took tithes of him; and therefore must be greater than Levi, Heb 7:9. And next the apostle proves the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood from this consideration, that there is another priest risen up, not of the order of Aaron, but of the order of Melchizedek, of which there would have been no need, if the Levitical priesthood had been perfect; nor would it have been changed, as it is, and which has also made a change of the law, by which it is established, necessary, Heb 7:11 that the priest that is risen up is not of the order of Aaron, is clear, because he is of another tribe, even of the tribe of Judah, to which the priesthood did not belong, Heb 7:13, and that he is of the order of Melchizedek, and so not according to the ceremonial law, but after the power of an endless life, is manifest from the testimony of the sacred Scripture, Heb 7:15 which lies in Psa 110:4 and that the ceremonial law, on which the Levitical priesthood stood, is changed and abrogated, is strongly asserted, and the reasons of it given, because it was weak and unprofitable, and made nothing perfect; and this was disannulled by Christ, the better hope brought in, who has made something perfect, and through whom we have access to God, Heb 7:18. Moreover, the superior excellency of Christ's priesthood to the Levitical one is shown in several particulars; the priests of Aaron's order were made without an oath; Christ was made with one, as is evident from the above cited testimony, Heb 7:20 they were many, he but one; they were mortal, and did not continue, he continues ever, having an unchangeable priesthood, Heb 7:23 wherefore, as they were not suffered to continue by reason of death, their priesthood was ineffectual; they could not take away sin, and save sinners; but Christ is able to save to the uttermost all that draw nigh to God by him, as a priest, and that because he ever lives to complete his office by intercession, Heb 7:25 wherefore such an high priest as he is, must become men, and be suitable to them, especially since he is pure and holy, and in such an exalted state, Heb 7:26 and this is another difference between him and the priests under the law; they were men that had infirmity, and were guilty of sins themselves, and so had need to offer for their own sins, and then for the sins of others; but Christ, the Son of God, who was consecrated a priest for evermore, by the word of the oath, had no sin of his own to offer sacrifice for, only the sins of his people, which he did once, when he offered himself, Heb 7:27.

College: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of Hebrews for understanding the nature of the new covenant. No other document in the New Testament canon comments as directly and extensively upon this covenant as does Hebrews. Its description of Jesus as the great high priest of the believer is a unique contribution to New Testament Christology.

Yet Hebrews is perhaps as well known for the difficulties it presents as it is for its distinctive contributions to our understanding of the ministry of Jesus and the nature of our salvation. It is difficult to be certain about who wrote it, when and to whom. It is a letter and not quite a letter. Many find its line of argument intricate and complex, its theology abstract and obscure, and its use of the Old Testament puzzling if not problematic. This commentary will begin by addressing some of these considerations.

AUTHORSHIP

Over the years, most of the debate about the authorship of Hebrews has focused on whether or not Paul wrote this letter. Arguments have been made for other possible authors as well. What we can know for certain about the author is best gleaned from the letter itself, but many will want to know how this debate affects our confidence in the authority and inspiration of the letter.

Did Paul write the Letter to the Hebrews?

Though few defend Pauline authorship of Hebrews today, in the past this view has enjoyed the support of significant church leaders and traditions. The earliest extant copy of Hebrews (early third century) has been received as part of a collection of Paul's letters, in which it was placed after Romans. Pauline authorship was defended by notable church fathers in the East, e.g., Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) and Origen (185-253) who, despite reservations, defended it as essentially Pauline, at least in part on the weight of what was then received tradition. Later, Jerome and Augustine helped to shift opinion in the West and the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419) established a tradition of support for Pauline authorship which lasted until the Reformation.

However, the weight of the evidence - both historical and texual - is far from clear. Early church opinion was far from universal. In the West, prior to Jerome and Augustine, such leaders as Irenaeus and Hippolytus of Rome did not accept Hebrews as Pauline. The Muratorian Canon (a list of documents accepted as New Testament Scripture, c. 170) included thirteen letters identified as Pauline but excluded Hebrews. When reformers such as Calvin and Luther reexamined the question centuries later, neither concluded that Paul was its author. Contemporary critics consider Pauline authorship implausible in light of clear differences between the vocabulary and style of Hebrews and epistles known to be Pauline. Further, it has been argued as improbable for Paul to refer to himself as the author does in 2:3 ("This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him") in light of what he says of himself in Galatians 1:11-12 ("I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ").

Who else could have written the letter to the Hebrews?

As early as the second century, Tertullian identified Barnabas as the author of the letter. Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:26), and there is much about levitical ritual in the epistle. He was also a Hellenistic Jew, a member of the Jerusalem church and a missionary partner of Paul (Acts 9:27; 11:30; 12:1-14:28). All of this evidence is circumstantial, however, and nothing but Tertullian's opinion connects him to the letter directly.

Clement of Alexandria first suggested that Luke translated a Hebrew text written by Paul. Calvin affirmed this possiblity centuries later. There are some similarities in the Greek style of Luke-Acts and Hebrews. But there is little other evidence and there are also some differences in style. Calvin also suggested Clement of Rome as a possibility. However, Clement of Rome widely quoted from the letter himself. It is unlikely that he would quote himself and his use of the Old Testament is often at variance with that in Hebrews.

Luther was the first to suggest Apollos as the possible author of Hebrews, a view which continues to enjoy some popularity. He was a "learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" who "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:24-28). Presumably, he would have been capable of the careful handling of the LXX found in Hebrews. Also, he probably had some connection to the Pauline mission (1 Corinthians 1-4). But concluding that he was therefore the author of Hebrews is, at best, conjecture.

Among others, arguments have been made for Peter, Jude, Stephen, Aristion, Priscilla, Silas, Timothy, Epaphras, Philip and Mary the mother of Jesus as possible authors of Hebrews. Two other possibilities remain. An associate of Paul could have written the letter for him (a view first suggested by Origen in 220). It is also possible that Hebrews was written by some other anonymous Christian unknown to us. The letter itself does not clearly identify its author. Perhaps the fairest conclusion is that advanced by Origen, in spite of his inclination to defend Pauline authorship: "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth."

How does the debate about authorship affect our view of the letter?

It is important to note that, although the debate over authorship has extended over the centuries, the question of the letter's canonicity (i.e., its inspiration and authority) has not. Even though church fathers in the East may have had doubts about its authorship, there is no evidence that they ever questioned its canonicity. Though the Muratorian Canon excluded Hebrews (as well as James and 1-2 Peter), all four books were included in the New Testament canon by the Synod of Hippo (393) and the Third (397) and Sixth (419) Synods of Carthage. Subsequent questions about its authorship during the Reformation had no effect at all upon the reformers' view of its authority or inspiration.

It is clear that apostolicity, as well as other issues such as universality and the "rule of faith," were important in the early decisions about the New Testament canon. We must keep in mind, however, that a document's "canonical" status is the result of a human process which does not bestow divine authority or inspiration upon a document but recognizes the authority and inspiration which it inherently possesses because it has been "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). In other words, if it is true that Hebrews is a divinely inspired and authoritative document, its inspiration and authority remain factual in an objective sense apart from our own inability to clearly discern the identity of its author. In his providence, God bore witness to the inspiration and authority of this letter in a manner that left little room for doubt, as Hebrews persistently silenced the questions of men who soon found that it "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

What do we know about the author?

Though the question of authorship is not determinative of either the letter's inspiration or authority, it is significant for our interpretation of Hebrews. Knowing as much as we can about the author can be helpful for discerning the meaning of a text. We may not be able to know the identify of our author with any degree of certainty, but there is much that we can know about him.

He was probably a Hellenistic Jew for he was both steeped in the LXX and possessed of an excellent vocabulary and a polished style for writing in the Greek language. Presumably, then, he was well educated. He was probably a second generation Christian (2:3) but one with direct connection to apostolic influence since he was a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly an associate of Paul. It is possible that he wrote from Italy, although 13:24 could also be taken to mean that the recipients were in Italy and some in his own party were from there as well. The rhetoric of the letter and his description of it as "my word of exhortation" (13:22) suggest that he was probably a preacher. His "short letter" reveals a compassionate pastor, a keen theologian and a superior logician who applies all the resources of revelation and rhetoric at his command so that his dear friends will "not drift away" (2:1).

DATE, DESTINATION AND PURPOSE

Three important facts suggest at least a general date for the letter. First, Clement of Rome cited Hebrews frequently. 1 Clement was written in A.D. 95 or 96 and thus Hebrews would not only have been completed but well circulated by this date. Second, there is thus little reason to doubt that the Timothy of 13:23 was the associate of Paul referred to elsewhere in the New Testament. Though we do not know how old Timothy was when he joined Paul in his work, it is unlikely that this reference would place the letter very late in the first century. Finally, much is made of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. Although it is possible that the author would not have referred to this event if it had happened by the time of writing, it seems improbable that he would omit reference to an event that not only had a significant effect on the lives of first-century Jews (including Christians) but would have added great force to his own argument. Further, he refers to old covenant worship rituals in the present tense (8:4-5; 10:1-3).

Other considerations as to the probable date of the letter pertain to the identity and location of its recipients. The title "To the Hebrews" may have been added later and reflect later opinions about its contents but it accompanies the letter in all of the oldest Greek manuscripts and there is no evidence that the letter ever bore any other title. Some suggest that the phrase could be translated "against the Hebrews" but it is the same formula used in Paul's letters which were hardly "against" the Romans, Galatians, etc. The title of the letter thus suggests that its recipients were Jewish, and the content that they were both Jewish and Christian.

The letter itself indicates that its recipients were enduring persecution (10:33-34; 12:4; 13:3, 23). The more natural reading of 13:24 suggests that the author wrote to Italy rather than from Italy (for which the expression "those in Italy send you their greetings" would have been more appropriate). The Edict of Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome in 49 but many had returned by the time of the persecution begun by Nero in 64. Since our earliest quotes of Hebrews come to us from Clement of Rome, its circulation there was likely at an early date. The cumulative evidence thus suggests that the letter was addressed to Jewish Christians in Rome who suffered under the persecutions of Nero.

The combination of these circumstances and statements in the letter suggest its purpose. Though some have suggested that Hebrews was written foremost to combat an early Jewish perversion of Christian doctrine or as a generic tract to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, key verses in the letter suggest that it was addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need. The following verses are all suggestive:

Passage Exhortation End in View

2:1 We must pay more careful attention so that we do not . . . to what we have heard drift away

3:1 fix your thoughts on Jesus (cp. 12:2)

3:6 hold on to our courage and the

3:6 hope of which we boast

3:12 See to it . . . that none of you has a

. . . heart that turns away from the

living God

3:13 encourage one another daily so that none of you

may be hardened by

sin's deceitfulness

3:14 . . . if we hold firmly till the end the We have come to

confidence we had at first share in Christ . . .

4:1 let us be careful that none of you be

found to have fallen

short of it [rest]

4:11 Let us . . . make every effort to enter so that no one will

that rest fall

4:14 let us hold firmly to the faith we

profess

6:11 show this same diligence to the very in order to make your

end hope sure

10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the

hope we profess

10:35 So do not throw away your it will be richly

confidence rewarded

10:36 You need to persevere so that when you

have done the will of

God, you will receive

what he has promised.

12:1 Let us run with perseverance the

12:1 race marked out for us

12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus (cp. 3:1)

12:3 Consider him who endured such so that you will not

opposition from sinful men grow weary and lose

heart

Hebrews is, without doubt, a theologically valuable document which presents a well arranged argument in defense of the superiority of the new covenant. Yet these verses suggest that the author had an immediate purpose in mind for his theology and his rhetoric - the encouragement of Christian brothers and sisters who, suffering under persecutions which threatened even martyrdom, were tempted to abandon their strength. In the midst of their suffering, our author sends his "short letter" and "word of exhortation" (13:22) that they might fix their eyes on Jesus (3:1; 12:2), whose greatness he demonstrates from their own beloved Scriptures and cherished heritage.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

Since Hebrews includes some of the formal features of an epistle (e.g., personal greetings and closing formula) but not others (e.g., typical introductory greeting or address), there has been much debate as to whether it is more of a letter or a sermon. However, this particular formulation of the genre question probably reads a sharper distinction between written and oral communication back into an era when rhetoric rarely made such a rigid separation. Other epistles in the New Testament were clearly written in the knowledge that they would be read in the presence of congregations. It is thus possible to argue that, though written, they should be viewed primarily as oral documents. Writing lengthy treatises with significant oral features was a typical "rhetorical" practice for the ancients (e.g., the "template" or model speeches of Isocrates and others). Hence, Hebrews could well have been constructed as a "written homily," i.e., a letter with sermonic features.

This is to propose a variation of Deissmann's suggestion that Hebrews could have been an example of Christian literary art (i.e., a kind of treatise). Guthrie's criticism - that the writer's purpose was too serious to be regarded in this light - assumes that literary art cannot be addressed to particular communities and urgent occasions, when in fact, rhetoric is chiefly defined by (1) its "addressed" nature and (2) its "contingent" character. The fact that it is addressed to specific communities, their circumstances and the demands of those circumstances is precisely what, according to Aristotle, distinguishes "rhetoric" from its counterpart "dialect." It is quite in keeping with at least one significant ancient rhetorical tradition to regard Hebrews as a written homily - an extended written treatise with significant oral features, addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need.

Of what import is this conclusion? There is little value in examining Hebrews for exact correspondence to any particular classical scheme of rhetoric as some have done for (1) a strong case has been made that there is no single classical tradition of rhetoric and (2) our uncertainty about the identity of the author makes it impossible for us to do anything more than speculate about the possible significance of any such similarities.

There are several values, however, in recognizing the "rhetorical" nature of the document. First, this encourages us to keep in mind that, above all, Hebrews is an attempt to persuade its recipients (to take action, i.e., a case of deliberative rhetoric). Close attention should thus be paid to its argumentative dimensions. Also, as we attempt to follow the writer's development of thought, we should be alert for the use of rhetorical devices which signal transitions from argumentative sections to hortatory sections that address the contingiences of the community's situation. Further, apart from the complexities which separated competing rhetorical traditions in the ancient world, it is not inappropriate to look for evidence of the kinds of topoi (argumentative commonplaces) more widely employed and with which a well educated author was likely to be familiar. This should aid our understanding of the nature of the proofs employed by our author. Finally, it reminds us to seek the relevance of the subject matter of Hebrews in relationship to particular sets of life circumstances (persecution, suffering, temptation, and discouragement among them).

Hebrews is organized around a series of quotations from the Old Testament which are not only presented as argument but also developed with a variety of exegetical procedures (see below). If we use these quotations as a guideline for discerning its structure, the following picture of Hebrews emerges.

Chapter One is an introduction. This chapter is full of Old Testament quotations demonstrating Jesus' superiority over angels.

Chapter Two appeals to Psalm 8. Jesus rescues man by coming down beneath angels, joining man in flesh and blood, dying, and then returning to his place of exaltation above the angels. All who cling to him in faith return with him to the throne.

Chapters Three and Four deal with Psalm 95. God offers rest to all who trust him. The land of Canaan was not that rest, for this Psalm spoke of a rest long after the Israelites who wandered in the desert hardened their hearts and lost the rest which God offered to them. God's rest is still available for all who believe him.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven are organized around Psalm 110. Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek, who was also superior to the priesthood of the old covenant. Jesus, in fact, is a priest forever by God's oath.

Chapter Eight introduces Jeremiah 31. The new covenant, created by Jesus our great high priest, is superior to the old covenant. It is founded on better promises than the old covenant, which was a mere copy and shadow of this new covenant.

Chapters Nine and Ten treat Psalm 40. Jesus' living sacrifice of himself through obedience is far superior to the Old Testament sacrifices of dead bulls and goats repeatedly offered in the old tabernacle. Jesus took this sacrifice into the very presence of God, thus fully taking away sins and cleansing our consciences.

Chapter Eleven develops a theme from Habakkuk 2, that the righteous will live by faith. This principle by which we live is illustrated by numerous examples of people living by faith.

Chapter Twelve treats Proverbs 3. We must accept the discipline God brings upon us, for God disciplines those he loves.

Chapter Thirteen is the conclusion. It is full of exhortations on how to give ourselves to God in the life of faith.

Remove the introductory and concluding chapters for a moment and an interesting picture of the structure of the main body of thought emerges. The new covenant (chapter 8) is central, tying together his priesthood (chapters 5-7) and his sacrifice (chapters 9-10). This is prepared for by the offer of rescue (chapter 2) and rest (chapters 3-4) and followed by the re

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle. The "Art" of Rhetoric . Loeb Classical Library. Translated by J. H. Freese. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.

____________ . On Rhetoric . Edited and translated by George A. Kennedy. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews . Hermeneia Commentaries. Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Translated by William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. "Baptism." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 1. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Bietenhard, H. "Name." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 2. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blowers, Paul. "Patterns of Perfection in Hebrews." Unpublished paper presented to a Fellowship of Professors at Johnson Bible College in Knoxville, Tennessee, September. 21, 1990.

Boatman, Don Earl. Helps From Hebrews . Bible Study Textbook. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1960.

Bromiley, Geoffery, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . 4 Vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Brown, Francis, et al . The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon . Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1980.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews . Trans. by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Chamberlain, William. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1941. Reprinted 1979.

Crouch, Owen. God Has Spoken: Expository Preaching and Teaching - Hebrews . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983. Reprinted 1990.

Davidson, A.B. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.

Dods, Marcus. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Vol. IV in The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910.

Douglas, J.D., ed. The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd. Ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1992.

Ellingworth, Paul. Commentary on Hebrews . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Enos, Theresa, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication From Ancient Times to the Information Age . New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Fant, Clyde E. and Pinson, William E., eds. Twenty Centuries of Great Preaching: An Encyclopedia of Preaching . 23 Vols. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1971.

Feinberg, C.L. "Tithe." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Fensham, F.C. "Oath." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. III, ed. by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Fiensy, David. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Gooding, D.W. and D.J. Wiseman. "Censer." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Gregory, T.M. "Oath." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Guthrie, Donald. "Epistle to the Hebrews," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. 2. Edited by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

____________ . Hebrews . Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

____________ . New Testament Introduction . 3rd ed. rev. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1970.

Hatch, Edwin and Henry Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint . Two Volumes including supplement. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck - Univ. Verlagstalt, 1954.

Héring, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities . Books I-IV. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

____________ . The Jewish War . Books IV-VII. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928.

Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . 10 Vols. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews . New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Konig, Eduard. "Tabernacle." The Jewish Encyclopedia . Ed. by Isadore Singer. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D. W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

____________ . Hebrews 9-13 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D.W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James . Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1966.

Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon . 9th ed. Rev. and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.

Lindars, Barnabas. "The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews." New Testament Studies Vol. 35 (1989), pp. 382-406.

Louw, Johannes and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains . 2 Vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students . 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek Testament . New York, London: United Bible Societies, 1971, corrected edition, 1975.

Meyer, F.B. The Way into the Holiest: Expositions of the Epistle to the Hebrews . Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1982.

Milligan, R. Epistle to the Hebrews . The New Testament Commentary, Vol. IX. Cincinnati: Standard Pub., n.d.

Moffat, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews . The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924. Reprinted 1968.

Montefiore, Hugh. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1964. Reprinted 1987.

Morris, Leon, et al. The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 12. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Moule, Charles F. Idiom Book of New Testament Greek . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James H. and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. Reprinted 1980.

Moulton, James H., Wilbert F. Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963-79.

Moulton, W.F. and A.S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897. 5th ed., 1978.

Nairne, A. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921.

Paterson, J. H. "Sea." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta . 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel Stiftung, 1935.

Schiappa, Edward. "Protagoras." Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication . ed. by Theresa Enos. New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Silva, Moises. "Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews." Westminster Theological Journal . Vol. 39 (1976), pp. 60-71.

Singer, Isadore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia . New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Spicq, C. L'Épitre Aux Hebreux . Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1952.

Soulen, Richard. Handbook of Biblical Criticism . 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976, 1981.

Swetnam, J. "Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observations and Surmises on Hebrew 9, 26." Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 30 (1968), pp. 227-254.

Tenney, Merrill C., ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . 5 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974-76.

Thayer, Joseph. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament . 4th Edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901.

Thompson, James. The Letter to the Hebrews . The Living Word Commentary. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Co., 1971.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpeting the Epistle to the Hebrews . Guides to New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Waltke, B.K. "Melchizedek." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-76.

Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . 2nd Edition. 1892. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994.

Wiseman, D.J. "Weights and Measures." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Ed. By J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament . Rev. ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Press, 1993.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDB New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English

Lexicon

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Bromiley)

KJV King James Version

LN Louw & Nida's Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

MHT Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar

MM Moulton & Milligan's Vocabulary of Greek Testament

NASB New American Standard Bible

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament

Theology

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

ZPED Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Hebrews (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS - 1:1-14

A. The Preeminence of the Son - 1:1-4

B. The Son Superior to the Angels - 1:5-14

II. JESUS RESCUES MAN - 2:1-18

A. Warning Not to Ignore Such a Great Salvation - 2:1-4

B. Jesus Became a Man to Bring Men to Glory - 2:5-18

III. GOD OFFERS REST TO ALL WHO TRUST HIM - 3:1-4:16

A. Jesus Is Superior to Moses - 3:1-6

B. Psalm 95:7-11 - 3:7-11

C. Hold Firm to the End - 3:12-15

D. Unbelieving Israelites Fell in the Desert - 3:16-19

E. A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God - 4:1-5

F. A Sabbath-Rest Remains - 4:6-11

G. The Message from God Does Its Part to Save Us - 4:12-13

H. Jesus, the Great High Priest - 4:14-16

IV. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE OLD COVENANT AND A PRIEST FOREVER BY GOD'S OATH - 5:1-7:28

A. Requirements of the High Priest - 5:1-4

B. Jesus Fulfills the Requirements and Offers Eternal Salvation - 5:5-10

C. [Excursus: Responding to God] - 5:11-6:12

1. Still Infants - 5:11-14

2. On to Maturity - 6:1-3

3. Those Who Fall Away - 6:4-8

4. Confident of Better Things - 6:9-12

D. God's Oath Makes His Purpose Sure - 6:13-20

E. Melchizedek Like the Son of God - 7:1-3

F. Melchizedek Greater than Abraham - 7:4-10

G. Jesus Is High Priest Based on His Resurrection which Introduces a Better Hope - 7:11-19

H. Jesus Is High Priest Based on God's Oath which Produces a Better Covenant - 7:20-22

I. Jesus' Resurrection Creates a Permanent Priesthood - 7:23-25

J. Jesus' Death Provides the Perfect Sacrifice - 7:26-28

V. THE NEW COVENANT BROUGHT BY JESUS OUR HIGH PRIEST IS SUPERIOR TO THE OLD COVENANT - 8:1-13

A. Our High Priest Reigns and Serves in the True Tabernacle, Prefigured by Old Testament Shadows - 8:1-5

B. Our High Priest Is Mediator of the New Covenant, Promised through the Prophet Jeremiah - 8:6-13

VI. JESUS' SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF IS SUPERIOR TO THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD COVENANT AND SETS US FREE FROM SIN - 9:1-10:39

A. The Tabernacle and Its Tools - 9:1-5

B. The Day of Atonement - 9:6-10

C. Jesus' Sacrifice Cleanses Our Conscience - 9:11-14

D. Jesus' Death Inaugurates the New Covenant - 9:15-22

E. Jesus' Sacrifice Was Once for All - 9:23-28

F. Old Covenant Sacrifices Could Not Take Away Sin - 10:1-4

G. Christ Offered His Body to Make Us Holy - 10:5-10

H. Our High Priest Now Reigns - 10:11-14

I. Witness of the Holy Spirit through Jeremiah - 10:15-18

J. Let Us Draw Near to God and Spur One Another On - 10:19-25

K. The Judgment of God on Those Who Keep Sinning - 10:26-31

L. Reminder of Earlier Suffering - 10:32-34

M. The Need to Persevere - 10:35-39

VII. GOD EXPECTS US TO SHOW FAITH - 11:1-40

A. The Nature of Faith - 11:1-3

B. Faith Illustrated by Abel, Enoch, and Noah - 11:4-7

C. Faith Illustrated by Abraham - 11:8-19

D. Faith Illustrated by Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph- 11:20-22

E. Faith Illustrated by Moses - 11:23-28

F. Faith Illustrated in Israel - 11:29-38

G. God Planned to Make Them Perfect with Us - 11:39-40

VIII. GOD EXPECTS US TO ENDURE DISCIPLINE - 12:1-29

A. A Call to Perseverance - 12:1-3

B. The Word of Encouragement - 12:4-6

C. God Disciplines His Children - 12:7-11

D. Practical Actions - 12:12-17

E. Terrifying Mt. Sinai - 12:18-21

F. Mt. Zion, the Heavenly Jerusalem - 12:22-24

G. A Kingdom which Cannot Be Shaken - 12:25-29

IX. CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS - 13:1-25

A. Keep Loving Each Other - 13:1-3

B. Stay Pure - 13:4-6

C. Remember Your Leaders - 13:7-8

D. Counterparts to Old Covenant Practices - 13:9-16

E. Obey Your Leaders and Pray for Us - 13:17-19

F. Benediction and Closing Exhortations - 13:20-22

G. Personal Greetings - 13:23-25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV