1. HEBREWS 7 COMMENTARY EDITED BY GLENN PEASE INTRODUCTION 1.ROGER HAHN, Hebrews 7 is the center of the book of Hebrews. Not only are there six chapters both before and after chapter 7, but it also presents the central argument of the book. The author was attempting to convince his Jewish Christian readers not to abandon their faith in Christ. In a variety of ways he argued Christ's superiority to the important persons and concepts of Judaism. The central point in his argument was that Jesus was a better priest than any that could be provided by Judaism. The key support to that argument was that Jesus was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:1-25 had argued the superiority of Melchizedek to the Jewish priests. However, in Hebrews 7:26-28 the author introduces another aspect of Christ's priesthood that is different from both the Aaronic priesthood of Judaism and from Melchizedek. That unique aspect was the sinless character of Jesus. The superiority of Jesus as high priest had several important implications in the mind of the author. As a better high priest Jesus performed a better ministry, a concept developed in Hebrews 8:1-5, and was the mediator of a better covenant, as Hebrews 8:6-13 argues. Both paragraphs are structured in a similar way. Hebrews 8:1-2 introduces Jesus' new ministry and verses 3-5 then contrast that new ministry with the old ministry of the Jewish priests. Hebrews 8:6 introduces the new covenant and then verses 7-13 contrast the new covenant with the old covenant. The author then argues the superiority of the new covenant that is provided by Christ in Hebrews 9:1-10:18. The superior new covenant is provided by the superior priest, Jesus, and provides superior access to God in worship. 2. WILLIAM KELLY, The apostle now resumes his great theme, Christ called a Priest of God for ever after the order of Melchisedec. He alludes, in the beginning of our chapter, to the historical facts of Genesis. We must bear in mind that Melchisedec was a man like any other. There, is no ground, in my judgment, for the thought of anything mysterious in the facts as to his person. The manner in which scripture introduces him is such as to furnish a very striking type of Christ. There is no necessity for considering anything else, but that the Spirit of God, forecasting the future, was pleased to conceal the line of Melchisedec's parentage, or descendants if any, of their birth or death. He is suddenly ushered upon the scene. He has not been of by the reader before; he is never heard of again in history. Thus the only time when he comes into notice he is acting in the double capacity here spoken of: King of righteousness as to his name, King of Salem as to his place, blessing Abraham on his return from the victory over the kings of the Gentiles in the name of the Most High God, and blessing the Most High God the possessor of heaven earth in the name of 2. Abraham. The apostle does not dwell on the detailed application of His Melchisedec priesthood, as to the object and character of its exercise. He does not draw attention here to the account, that there was only blessing from man to God, and from God to man. He does not reason from the singular circumstance that there was no incense, any more than sacrifice. He alludes to several facts, but leaves them. The point to which he directs the reader is the evident and surpassing dignity of the case the unity too of the Priest and the priesthood; and this for an obvious reason. The time for the proper exercise of the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ is not yet arrived. The millennial day will see this. The battle which Abraham fought, the first recorded one in scripture, is the type of the last battle of this age. It is the conflict which introduces the reign of peace founded on righteousness, when God will manifest Himself as the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth. This is, as is well known, the special characteristic of the millennium. Heaven and earth have not been united, nor have they been in fact possessed for the blessing of man by the power of God, since sin severed between the earth and that which is above it, and the prince of the power of the air perverted all, so that what should have been, according to God's nature and counsels, the source of every blessing, became rather the point from which the guilty conscience of man cannot but look for judgment. Heaven, therefore, by man's own conviction, must be arrayed in justice against earth because of sin, But the day is coming when Israel shall be no more rebellious, and the nations shall be no longer deceived, and Satan shall be dethroned from his bad eminence, and all idols shall flee apace, and God shall be left the undisputed and evidently Most High, the possessor of heaven and earth. In that day it will be the joy of Him who is the true Melchisedec, to bring out not the mere signs, but the reality of all that can be the stay and comfort of man, and all that sustains and cheers, the patent proof of the beneficent might of God, when "no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly." But meanwhile, confessedly, the Spirit of God directs attention, not to the exercise, but to the order of the Melchisedec Priest. If we have to wait for the exercise at a future day, the order is as true and plain now as it ever can be. Indeed, at no time will its order be more apparent than at present; for I think there can be little doubt to any unbiassed Christian who enters with intelligence into the Old Testament prophecies, that there is yet to be an earthly sanctuary, and, consequently, earthly priests and sacrifices for Israel in their own land; that the sons of Zadok, as Ezekiel lets us know, will perpetuate the line at the time when the Lord shall be owned to be there, in the person of the true David their King, blessing His people long distressed but now joyful on earth. But this time is not yet come. There is nothing to divert the heart from Christ, the great High Priest in the heavens. No doubt all will be good and right in its due season then. Meanwhile Christianity gives the utmost force to every type and truth of God. The undivided place of Christ is more fully witnessed now, when there are no others to occupy the thought or to distract the heart from Him as seen by faith in glory on high. Hence the apostle applies the type distinctly now, as far as the "order" of the priesthood goes. We hear first of Melchisedec (King of righteousness), next of Salem or peace; without father, without mother, without genealogy. Unlike others in Genesis, neither parents are recorded, nor is there any hint of descent from him. In short, there is. no mention of family or ancestors, "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" neither is recorded in scripture; "but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually." The next point proved is the indisputable superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood to that of Aaron, of which the Jews naturally boasted. After all, the telling fact was before them that, whoever wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, it was not a Christian who wrote the book of Genesis, but Moses; and Moses bears witness to the homage which Abram rendered to Melchisedec by the payment of tithes. On the other hand, the priests, Aaron's family, among the sons of Levi, "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." Thus Melchisedec, "whose descent is not of Aaron nor of Levi," like Jesus, "received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises!" "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." No argument could be more distinct or conclusive. The other descendants of Abraham honoured the house of Aaron as Levitical priests; but Abraham himself, and so Levi himself, and of course Aaron, in his 3. loins honoured Melchisedec. Thus another and a higher priesthood was incontestably acknowledged by the father of the faithful. "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 Melchisedec met him." This leads to another point; for the change of the priesthood imports a change of the law. "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" This change was clearly taught in the book of Psalms. It was not only that there had been at the beginning such a priest, but that fact became the form of a glorious anticipation which the Holy Ghost holds out for the latter day. Psalm 110, which, as all the Jews owned, spoke., throughout its greater part at least, of the Messiah and His times, shows us Jehovah Himself by an oath, which is afterwards reasoned on signifying that another priest should arise after a different order from that of Aaron. "The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest." Thus the Pentateuch and the Psalms bore their double testimony to a Priest superior to the Aaronic. Further, that this Priest was to be a living one, in some most singular manner to be an undying Priest, was made evident beyond question, because in that Psalm it is said, "He testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." This was also a grand point of distinction. Where could they find such a Priest? where one competent to take up that word "for ever"? Such was the Priest of whom God spoke. "For," says he, "there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof (for the law made nothing perfect)." He uses in the most skilful manner the change of the priest, in order to bring along with it a change of the law, the whole Levitical system passing away "but [there is] the bringing in of a better hope." Such is the true sense of the passage. "For the law made nothing perfect" is a parenthesis. By that hope, then, "we draw nigh unto God." But again the solemn notice of Jehovah's oath is enlarged on. "Inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (for those priests were made without an oath" no oath ushers in the sons of Aaron "but he with an oath by him that said as to him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant." And, finally, he sums up the superiority of Christ in this, that "they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but he, because of his continuing for ever, hath the priesthood intransmissible." There was but one such Priest. In every point of view, therefore, the superiority of the Melchisedec priest was demonstrated over the line of Aaron. The fulfilment of the Melchisedec Order is found in Christ, and in Him alone. The Jews themselves acknowledge that Psalm 110 must be fulfilled in Christ, in His quality of Messiah. Nothing but stupid, obstinate, unbelieving prejudice, after the appearance of the Lord Jesus, could have suggested any other application of the Psalm. Before Jesus came, there was no question of it among the Jews. So little was it a question, that our Lord could appeal to its acknowledged meaning, and press the difficulty His person created for unbelief. By their own confession the application of that Psalm was to the Messiah, and the very point that Jesus urged upon the Jews of His day was this how, if He were David's Son, as they agreed, could He be his Lord, as the Psalmist David confesses? This shows that, beyond question, among the Jews of that day, Psalm 110 was understood to refer to the Christ alone. But if so, He was the Priest after the order of Melchisedec, as well as seated at Jehovah's right hand a cardinal truth of Christianity, the import of which the Jews did not receive in their conception of the Messiah. Hence throughout this epistle the utmost stress is laid on His being exalted in heaven Yet there was no excuse for a difficulty on this score. Their own Psalm, in its grand prophetic sweep, and looking back on the law, pointed to the place in which Christ is now seated above; and where it is of necessity He should be, in order to give Christianity its heavenly character. The doctrine follows: "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost." He does not mean by this the worst of sinners, but saving believers to the uttermost, bringing through every difficulty those "that 4. come unto God by him." A priest is always in connection with the people of God, never as such with those that are outside, but a positive known relation with God "seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." This statement is so much the more remarkable, because in the beginning of this epistle he had pointed out what became God. It 'became Him that Christ should suffer. It became us to have a Priest, "holy, harmless, undefiled, made higher than the heavens." What infinite thoughts are those that God's word gives; as glorifying for Himself as elevating for our souls! Yet who beforehand would have anticipated either? It became God that Christ should go down to the uttermost; it became us that He should be exalted to the highest. And why? Because Christians are a heavenly people, and none but a heavenly Priest would suit them. It became God to give Him to die; for such was our estate by sin that nothing short of His atoning death could deliver us; but, having delivered us, God would make us to be heavenly. None but a heavenly Priest would suffice for the counsels He has in hand. "Who needeth not daily," therefore says He, "as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's." He always keeps up the evidence of the utter inferiority of the Jewish priest, as well as of the accompanying state of things, to that of Christianity. "For this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath which was since the law, a Son perfected (or consecrated) for ever." This was the very difficulty that the Jew pleaded; but now, in point of fact, it was only what the Psalm of Messiah insisted on, the law itself bearing witness of a priest superior to any under the law. Holy Scripture then demanded that a man should sit down at the right hand of God. It was accomplished in Christ, exalted as the great Melchisedec in heaven. If they were Abraham's children, and not his seed only, surely they would honour Him. Melchizedek the Priest 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, 1. BARNES, "For this Melchisedek; - compare the notes on Heb_5:6. The name Melchizedek, from which the apostle derives a portion of his argument here, is Hebrew, Malkiy-Tsedeq, and is correctly explained as meaning king of righteousness - being compounded of two words - king and righteousness. Why this name was given to this man is unknown. Names, however, were frequently given on account of some quality or characteristic of the man: see the notes on Isa_8:18. This name may have been given on account of his eminent integrity. The apostle calls attention to it Heb_7:2 as a circumstance worthy of notice, that his name, and the name of the city where he reigned, were so appropriate to one who, as a priest, was the predecessor of the Messiah. The account of Melchizedek, which is very brief, occurs in Gen_14:18-20. The name occurs in the Bible only in Gen. 14, Psa_110:4, and in this Epistle. Nothing else is certainly known of him. Grotius supposes that he is the same man who in the history of Sanchoniathon is called Suduk. It has indeed been made a question by some whether such a person ever actually existed, 5. 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 6. acknowledged. It may be alleged, that the prophet simply states resemblance, without affirming that such resemblance was designed or intended. But that a prophet should be commissioned to declare, that Christs priesthood should be after such an order, and yet that in the institution of that exalted order there should have been no designed reference to Christ, is improbable. The prediction seems to involve the original design. And this order of priesthood, too, is far superior to that of Aaron, the typical character of which is admitted. Moreover, the last clause of verse third, in this chapter, according to our English translation as a designed connection. Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God. The translation is accurate. Aphomoiomenos, according to Parkhurst, is made very like. So also Scott: The composition is probably intended to add energy; made very like. And Bloomfield adopts, being made by the divine decree a type of that great High Priest, who, &c,; see the notes in Greek Testament. Lastly, on any other principle than that of designed typical relation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to give any just account of the remarkable omissions, the apparently studied silence, in the history of Melchizedek, in regard to those things that are commonly related in notices of lives, however brief. He is introduced to us with an air of impenetrable mystery. He appears on the stage as Priest of the most High God, and then disappears, leaving us in complete darkness concerning his birth, parentage, and death. In all these respects, says Mr. Scott, the silence of the Scripture is intentional and refers to the great antitype. Melchizedek, therefore, we may remark, seems not only to have been designed as a type, but special care has been taken, that the record of him should be in all things suited to that design. That the apostle lighted on a happy coincidence, deserving of a passing thought, is not probable, whether this remark be meant to apply to the name, or to other particulars in this remarkable story. Indeed, divest it of its designed typical character, and the grandeur of the passage vanishes. A simple resemblance has been discovered between Christ and a certain character in the old Testament. This is all the apostle means to affirm! And for this too, he introduces Melchizedek, with such wondrous caution in Heb_5:11; Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, but ye are dull of hearing. What was hard to be uttered, or difficult to be comprehended about a mere illustration, or resemblance? The following remarks of Owen are pertinent and beautiful. The true cause of all these omissions was the same with that of the institution of his (Melchizedeks) priesthood, and the introduction of his person into the story. And this was, that he might he the more express and signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. And we may herein consider the sovereign wisdom of the Holy Spirit in bringing forth truth unto light, according as the state and condition of the church doth require. And first he prophesieth only a naked story of a person that was a type of Christ. Something the people of the age wherein he lived, might learn by his ministrations, but not much. For what was principally instructive in him, for the use of the church, was not of force until all his circumstances were forgotten. Yea, the contrivance of any tradition concerning his parents, birth, and death, had been contrary to the mind of God, and what instruction he intended the church by him. Afterward, when, it may be, all thoughts of any use or design in this story were lost, and the church was fully satisfied in a priesthood quite of another nature, the Holy Spirit in one word of prophecy instructs her, not only that the things spoken concerning Melchizedek were not so recorded for his own sake, or on his own account, but with respect to another priest, which was afterward to arise, by him represented. This gave a new consideration to the whole story; but moreover gave the church to know, that the priesthood, which it then had, was not always to continue, but that one of another nature was to be introduced, as was signified long before the institution of that priesthood which they enjoyed, Psa_110:4. Yet the church was left greatly in the dark, and, at the coming of our Saviour, had utterly lost all knowledge of the mystery of the 7. type, and the promise renewed in the Psalm. Wherefore, our apostle entering on the unfolding of this mystery, doth not only preface it with an assertion of its difficulty, but also by a long previous discourse, variously prepareth their minds to a most diligent attention. The excellence of this quotation will, in the readers estimation, excuse the length of it. On the whole, he who reflects how all things in the ancient economy were ordered of God, and how great a part of that economy was meant to adumbrate the realities of the gospel, while he will be cautious in admitting typical analogies of a doubtful kind, will be slow to believe that the resemblance between Christs priesthood, and that of the most exalted order previously instituted, is casual, or undesigned - slow to believe, that the apostle would make so large use of such accidental analogy, and found on it an argument so great.) King of Salem - Such is the record in Gen_14:18. The word Salem - shalem - means peace; and from this fact the apostle derives his illustration in Heb_7:2. He regards it as a fact worth remarking on, that the name of the place over which he ruled expressed so strikingly the nature of the kingdom over which the Messiah was placed. In regard to the place here denoted by the name Salem, the almost uniform opinion has been that it was that afterward known as Jerusalem. The reasons for this opinion are, (1) That it is a part of the name Jerusalem itself - the name Jerus, altered from Jebus, having been afterward added, because it was the residence of the Jebusites. (2) The name Salem is itself given to Jerusalem; Psa_76:2, In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion. (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 Lords Supper, as has been sometimes supposed; 8. 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. 2. CLARKE, "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, is thus expounded in Bereshith Rabba, sec. 43, fol. 42, matsdie eth Yoshebaiv, The Justifier of those who dwell in him; and this is sufficiently true of Christ, but false of Jerusalem, to which the rabbins apply it, who state that it was originally called Tsedek, and that it justified its inhabitants. Salem is generally understood to be Jerusalem; but some think that it was that city of Shechem mentioned Jos_20:7. St. Jerome was of this opinion. 3. GILL, "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 9. 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.) 4. HENRY, "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 10. 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 5. JAMISON, "Heb_7:1-28. Christs High Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec superior to Aarons. this Melchisedec (Heb_6:20; Psa_110:4). The verb does not come till Heb_7:3, abideth. king ... priest Christ unites these offices in their highest sense, and so restores the patriarchal union of these offices. Salem Jerusalem, that is, seeing peace; others make Salem distinct, and to be that mentioned (Gen_33:18; Joh_3:23). the most high God 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 Phoenician 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. who met Abraham in company with the king of Sodom (Gen_14:17, Gen_14:18). 11. slaughter 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. blessed him As priest he first blessed Abraham on Gods part; next he blessed God on Abrahams part: a reciprocal blessing. Not a mere wish, but an authoritative and efficacious intercession as a priest. The Most High Gods prerogative as Possessor of heaven and earth, is made over to Abraham; and Abrahams glory, from his victory over the foe, is made over to God. A blessed exchange for Abraham (Gen_14:19, Gen_14:20). 5B. Wayne Jackson, M.A., The science of archaeology has been a multiple benefactor to the Bible student. It has helped to clarify some passages that heretofore may have been a bit obscure. Too, this discipline frequently has shown that the biblical record bears the marks of genuine history. After Abraham settled in Hebron, and Lot, his nephew, pitched his tent in the vicinity of Sodom, a confederation of Mesopotamian kings invaded the region of Sodom and Gomorrah and took numerous captives, among whom was Lot. The Genesis record reveals that when Abraham heard of the tragedy, he and 318 servants from his household pursued the hostile eastward-bound armies. The patriarch attacked the pagan forces and rescued his nephew, taking considerable booty in the process (Genesis 14:1ff.). The accuracy of the biblical record has been questioned in several particulars. First, the historicity of the names of the opposing kings (Anuaphel, Chedorlaomer, Arioch, and Tidal) has been disputed. However, it has been demonstrated from Mesopotamian inscriptions that these names were common to the Tigris/Euphrates region, and that they are not fictional forms (Vos, 1963, p. 69). It even has been shown that the name Abraham was not novel in that ancient environment (Finegan, 1946, p. 61). The Bible is remarkably precise. Second, some critics have contended that there was no eastward line of march at the time of Abraham, and thus have alleged that the Mosaic narrative is erroneous. At one point, the famous archaeologist W.F. Albright admitted that he formerly considered this extraordinary line of march as being the best proof of the essentially legendary character of the narrative (1935, p. 142, emp. added). Albrights discoveries in this region, however, forced him to revise his opinion of the Genesis text. Professor Stephen Caiger, who was not a strictly conservative writer, nevertheless conceded that there seems [to be] no reason to question a factual basis of Genesis 14 (1944, p. 34). As Abraham returned from his victory over the eastern kings, he encountered the mysterious Melchizedek, King of Salem (Jerusalem), who was designated as both a king and priest. Abraham paid tithes to the monarch and, in turn, was blessed by him. TheNewTestament makes Melchizedek a symbol of our king and priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:15). But the writer of the book of Hebrews makes a curious statement regarding Melchizedek. He says that the ancient ruler was without father, without mother, without genealogy (7:3). Numerous speculations have surrounded this allusion. Origen, an ancient writer (A.D. 185-253) imagined that Melchizedek was an angel. Hierakas, toward the end of the third century A.D., thought that he was a temporary incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Some have even suggested that he was the pre-incarnate Logos (Christ, as depicted in John 1:1,14)a concept contradicted by Hebrews 7:3, which notes that the king was merely like unto the Son of God. Archaeology has shed light on the enigmatic expression without 12. father, without mother, etc. A.H. Sayce, who served as professor of Assyriology at Oxford, called attention to an inscription from the famous Tell el-Amarna tablets (discovered in 1887 in Egypt). These tablets describe the conditions of Syria and Palestine about 1400-1360 B.C. Several of the Tell el-Amarna tablets are letters written to the Pharaoh by Ebed-tob...the king of Uru-Salim [Jerusalem], who begs for help against his enemies. He tells the Pharaoh that he was not like the other Egyptian governors in Palestine, nor had he received a crown by inheritance from his father or mother; it had been conferred on him by the Mighty King... (Sayce, 1906, 3:335). So, observing the similarity of language, we can conclude that Melchizedeks kingship/priesthood had not been derived genealogically; He had received his commission directly from God Himself. Indeed, as the Scriptures affirm, his was an appointment of God Most High (Genesis 14:18). Accordingly, by way of analogy, we are forced to affirm that the current reign/priesthood of our Lord is a direct and divinely authored administration.Weare grateful to archaeology for this bit of assistance in understanding what otherwise might be perceived as an obscure reference. 5C. UNKNOWN, Shem and Melchizedek Shem lived five hundred years after fathering Arkpasad, and then died at the age of six hundred (Gen. 11:10, 11). Therefore, his death took place thirteen years after the death of Sarah (1881 B.C.) and ten years after Rebecca and Isaac married (1878 B.C.) In that light, it has been opined that it is possible that Shem might have been Melchizedek (which does translate to King of Righteousness), the priest-king to whom Abraham paid tithes (Gen 14: 18-20). This interpretation was supported by Jewish midrashim. [edit] Gnostic Revelations A collection of early Gnostic scripts found in 1945, known as the Nag Hammadi Library, contains a tractate pertaining to Melchizedek. Here it is revealed that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ[8]. Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected. [edit] Confusion over Melchizedek's lineage See also: List of people who have claimed to be immortal Hebrews 7:3 creates some confusion between denominations regarding Melchizedek's nature and background. This is how it stands in the KJV, describing Melchizedek as: "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." Different denominations interpret this in vastly different ways. Some say that Melchizedek is literally like the Son of God (or even is the Son of God) in that he has no father or mother. Others say that he has been adopted into Christ's lineage through the Lord's suffering, [9] still others claim that the verse has been mistranslated, and that the Priesthood Melchizedek held is what is without lineage, not Melchizedek. [10] Others claim that the verse merely represents Melchizedek's not being a priesthood holder because of lineage (i.e. "without descent" meaning not a descendent of Levi as required by Mosaic Law.)[11] The Book of the Bee, a Syriac text, also offers insights contrary to Melchizedek's purported immortal nature: 13. 5D. ROGER HAHN, The Historical Melchizedek - Hebrews 7:1-10 The author's reflections on Melchizedek as a historical person are built on the story of the encounter between Abraham and Melchizedek found in Genesis 14:17-20. The author identifies the basic Biblical data about Melchizedek as a priest-king in Hebrews 7:1-3. He expounds the greatness of Melchizedek when compared to Abraham and Abraham's descendant, Levi, in verses 4-10. Verse 1 is an edition paraphrase from Genesis 14:18 and 20. Genesis 14 describes the invasion by four kings from the east of the Jordan River invading the Jordan Valley and the area around the Dead Sea. They defeated several cities, including Sodom, and carried off considerable plunder and a number of captives, including the nephew of Abraham, Lot. When a survivor escaped and reported the matter of Abraham he quickly formed a militia from his own servants and from his neighbors and set out in pursuit of the invading kings. Abraham caught the four kings near Damascus and in a surprise attack defeated them and recovered all the plunder and the captives. As he returned the king of Sodom met him offering to let him keep all the plunder if he would just return the captives. In the middle of that story Melchizedek appears on the scene, served bread and wine, and pronounced a blessing on Abraham. At that point Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the plunder he had re-captured. At that point Melchizedek disappeared from the scene and the conversation with the king of Sodom was resumed. Several goals are accomplished by verse 1 for the author of Hebrews. First, he quotes from Genesis 14:17-20 so that it is clear that he is drawing from the historical material found in Genesis. This is a shift from his earlier references to Melchizedek as mentioned in Psalm 110:4. However, our author only makes selective use of the Genesis 14 material. Melchizedek is first identified as king of Salem. The reference to Salem in Genesis 14:18 is usually identified as a reference to Jerusalem though some modern scholars believe that Shechem was the more probable location. The author of Hebrews showed no interest in identifying Salem with Jerusalem but he probably assumed that to be the meaning. It is Melchizedek's role as king that was of greater interest to the author of Hebrews. The kings of Old Testament Israel had been strictly limited in the priestly functions that they could perform. (1 Samuel 13:12-13 provides an interesting example.) That Melchizedek was both king and priest would not have been unusual in the Ancient Middle East. Verse 2 shows further interest in the kingship of Melchizedek when it is noted that the Hebrew roots of Melchizedek mean "king of righteousness." Further, the word Salem resembles the Hebrew word shalom which means "peace." Thus the author of Hebrews can also conclude that Melchizedek, as king of Salem was "king of peace." The comparison of Jesus to Melchizedek who was king of both righteousness and peace would have great potential for theological application, but the author of Hebrews made no effort to develop such ideas. The offering of bread and wine by the historical Melchizedek would provide an obvious connection to the Lord's Supper begun by Jesus. However, the author of Hebrews again showed no interest in developing that potential application and did not even mention the bread and wine. 14. The priestly actions of Melchizedek in blessing Abraham and in receiving the tithe from Abraham are mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. Both suggest the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham and will be used in the argument of that superiority in verses 4-10. Bruce notes that the author of Hebrews was as interested in what was not said about Melchizedek as he was in what was said in Genesis 14:17-20 (Bruce, pp. 157, 159-160). Verse 3 illustrates that fact. It is an example of the Jewish method of typological interpretation. The statement in verse 3 that Melchizedek had no father, mother, genealogy, beginning or ending of days is not a statement of literal fact. The author of Hebrews did not regard Melchizedek as some biological miracle or an angel. From the reference of Genesis 14:18 one would suppose that Melchizedek would "have belonged to a dynasty of priest-kings in which he had both predecessors and successors" (Bruce, p. 160). The author of Hebrews would have agreed with such a statement, but it is beside his point. Since Genesis 14:17-20 makes no mention of Melchizedek's lineage the author will deal with him as if he had no father, mother, or genealogy. This kind of typological interpretation is mind-boggling to some modern thinkers, but it was typical of one of the ways Jews interpreted Scripture in the time of the New Testament. Thus, to his readers the author is making an impressive argument from Scripture. Of course, compared to the extensive genealogies that the Old Testament gives for the tribe of Levi and especially the family of Aaron, the lack of a genealogy for Melchizedek is very noticeable. The point is clear: Melchizedek was a very unusual priest. He did not inherit his priesthood. It was given to him by appointment from God. That appointment is one point of comparison with Christ. Another is revealed in the words without beginning of days or ending of life. The Genesis account made no mention of the beginning or end of the priesthood of Melchizedek. His sudden appearance and disappearance gave an implication of eternality. The real point of the uniqueness of Melchizedek's priesthood is that it continues on forever. It is also important for us to realize that the point of verse 3 is that Melchizedek resembles Christ in that he remains a priest forever. The writer of Hebrews did not think that Jesus had no real earthly father, mother, or genealogy. That view of Christ was called Docetism and it was early condemned as a heresy. What the author wants his readers to understand is that just as behind Christ's earthly credentials there stood an eternal relationship with the Father that had no beginning or ending, so also Melchizedek's lack of earthly credentials points to his eternal priesthood. If Christ and Melchizedek "resemble" each other in the character of their priesthood the author's next step will be to argue for the superiority of Melchizedek over the priests of Judaism. If that can proved and if Christ is like Melchizedek, then Christ is superior to the priests provided by Judaism. The basis for the argument will be that Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek and was blessed by Melchizedek. For us to appreciate the power of this argument we need to remember the status that Abraham enjoyed within Judaism. He was the Father of the nation. He was a prince of God in the mind of his neighbors. God himself called Abraham his friend. Yet Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Melchizedek possessed a status greater than that of Abraham. However, the author is not most interested in the relationship of Abraham and Melchizedek. His goal is to compare the priesthood of Christ with that of Judaism. Since he has already compared 15. Christ to Melchizedek and shown Melchizedek to be superior to Abraham, the next step is to show that the priesthood of Judaism is comparable to Abraham (thus inferior to Melchizedek and thus inferior to Christ). The priesthood of Judaism is defined here in terms of the descendants of Levi. As priests they (like Melchizedek) receive tithes from the people, though the descendants of Levi are, in fact, brothers (related) to the people who pay the tithe to them. Thus there is some brotherly equality between the descendants of Levi (the Jewish priesthood) and all Jews because all are descendants of Abraham. This much is stated in verse 5. The argument is re-developed in the following verses by bringing the issue of blessing into the picture, but the conclusion comes in verses 9-10. One could almost say that Levi (the one who receives tithes) has paid tithes through Abraham. Jewish culture believed that a person contained within himself all his descendants. In modern language, the genes and chromosomes of Levi were already there in Abraham, just waiting the unfolding conceptions that eventually lead to Levi's birth and then to the birth of his descendants (the Jewish priests). Thus genetically Levi and his descendants the Jewish priests were all present in Genesis 14 inside Abraham paying tithe to Melchizedek. Thus Melchizedek has a greater priesthood than that of the Jewish priests because in the final analysis they paid tithe to Melchizedek and he blessed them. Since Christ was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek his superiority to the Jewish priests is proved. "NEITHER the fathers nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents5, but that p. 34 they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shlh and Mlh, Shlh was written down in the genealogies; but Mlh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When p. 35 Noah died, he commanded Shem concerning the bones of Adam, for they were with them in the ark, and were removed from the land of Eden to this earth. Then Shem entered the ark, and sealed it with his father's seal, and said to his brethren, 'My father commanded me to go and see the sources of the rivers and the seas and the structure of the earth, and to return.' And he said to Mlh the father of Melchizedek, and to Yzdk his mother...."[12] [edit] Representative of the priestly line In some translations, Psalms names Melchizedek as representative of the priestly line through which a future king of Israel's Davidic line was ordained. Alternatively, it may be more accurate to treat this term as an agglutinated improper noun, to be translated as rightful king rather than left as Melchizedek; this interpretation is taken by some modern translations, such as the New JPS Tanakh. 6. CALVIN, "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 16. 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," (Zechariah 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 Isaiah 2 and 9, 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 17. 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. 6B. PINK, "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 Babylons 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. 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 Christs 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). It is indeed striking to discover that Gods first priest was this king of Salemwhich 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 115) 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 18. 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). 7. PREECEPTAUSTIN, Chapter 7 is a critical section because it concerns the introduction of a better priesthood. No sacrifices were possible without a priest (therefore no "forgiveness") and therefore the priesthood was greatly revered by Jews. Remember that in Hebrews 5:5-10 the writer began to speak of the Melchizedek but then began a lengthy parenthetical section from Hebrews 5:11 throughHebrews 6:20. This parenthesis was to prepare his "dull of hearing" readers so that they might better understand of this important chapter. There is a point of application we in the modern church need to consider and it is this -- the solid food and sound doctrine of Scripture is not revealed by the Spirit to those who are spiritually lazy or apathetic. In Hebrews 7:4 we encounter the only command in this entire chapter (see note) and it is to give careful consideration (as contrasted with a superficial reading) to this teaching on Melchizedek because he is a type of Jesus Christ, the One Whose beauty and glory we desire to see. The background of course is Jewish readers who had professed belief in Christ and were being tempted to abandon their faith in the Messiah and return to Judaism under threat of persecution as described in chapter 10... But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly, by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, 19. knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one. (see notes Hebrews 10:30; 31; 32) And so the writer is writing to convince them to break with the familiar system and rituals that their forefathers had followed for centuries. He is saying that the religious system of sacrifices, rituals, and rules that had been practice for some 1,400 years had now been replaced by a better way. And so he focuses on the supremacy of Christ Jesus the great High Priest, Who is the fulfillment of all that was written by Moses and the prophets. And so he picks up his thoughts on Melchizedek from Hebrews 5 because he wants to explain that Jesus is not a priest like the familiar Levitical priests, but is of a different order of Melchizedek and because of that, He is a better priest than any of the priests in the old system. Ironically the old system was never intended to be the end but the means, a means which was always and in all ways intended to point to the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. 8. Ray Stedman points out that... The unfolding of the meaning of the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus is the goal toward which the author has been aiming ever since Hebrews 2:17 (note), where he first uses the term high priest with reference to Jesus... These themes are little noted or understood in the average church today but desperately needed if the church (or the individual Christian) is to confront the world with power and grace. (Stedman, Ray: Hebrews IVP New Testament Commentary Series or Logos) (Bolding added for emphasis) 9. Expositor's Greek Testament writes that... The subject of Christ's priesthood is resumed; the interpolated admonition (Hebrews 5:11-6:20) having been skillfully brought round to a second mention (actually strictly speaking the 4th mention) of Melchizedek. The chief reason for introducing the priesthood of Melchizedek as the type of Christ's priesthood was that it was "for ever". The Aaronic priesthood was successional, this single; and in this sense "for ever". There were, however, other reasons. The first question with a Jew who was enjoined to trust Christ's priestly mediation, would be "What are His orders?" He belonged to a tribe of which Moses had spoken nothing concerning priesthood. He might or might not be the true heir to David's throne; but if He was, did not this very circumstance exclude Him from the priestly office? Was it credible that the nation had been encouraged rigorously to exclude from the priesthood every interloper, only in order that at last this rigidly preserved order should be entirely disregarded? This writer seizes upon the fact that there was a greater priest than Aaron mentioned in Scripture -- a priest more worthy to be the type of the Messianic priesthood, because He was Himself a King, and especially because He belonged to no successional priestly order but was Himself the entire order. (!) This idea of a priesthood superseding that of Levi's sons found its way into Scripture through the hymn (Psalm 110:4-note)... The chapter may be divided thus I. Characteristics of Melchizedek, vv1-10 20. 1. In himself as depicted in Scripture, vv1-3 2. In his relation to Levi and his line, vv4-10 II. Inadequacy of Levitical priesthood in comparison with the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ, vv11-25 1. Levi, being provisional, Melchizedek being permanent, vv11-14 2. Official and hereditary : personal and eternal, vv15-19 3. Without oath: with oath, therefore final, vv20-22 4. Plural and successional : singular and enduring, vv23-25 III. Summary of the merits of the new Melchizedek Priest, Jesus (from Nicoll, W Robertson, Editor: Expositors Greek Testament: 5 Volumes. Out of print. Search Google) 10. John Piper helps us understand why all of this focus on Melchizedek and the priesthood, things which seem so foreign and even may seem unnecessary to us in the modern western culture. The writer is saying we are in desperate need of a High Priest for as Piper explains... the reason for all this talk about Christs relation to Melchizedek in verses 124 is because the eternal, superior priesthood of Jesus is our only hope of eternal salvation. Gods wrath never changes. There is only one hope for sinners like us. We must have a faithful High Priest, Who will intercede for us forever. We need a King of righteousness (He 7:2-note). We need a King of peace (He 7:2-note). We need Someone without beginning and ending (He 7:3-note). Someone Who has an indestructible life (verse 16) and will never die and need to be replaced (He 7:23,24-notes). We need Someone greater than Abraham and greater than Levisomething like Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham, (He 7:6,7-notes) and who received tithes from Abraham and, in a sense, from Levi in Abraham (He 7:5-note, He 7:6-note, He 7:8, 9, 10-notes). We need a new and greater Priestso much greater that verse 11 says there was no perfection through the Levitical priesthood. All the Old Testament priesthood could do was point toward the One superior Priest (after the order of Melchizedek, Psalm 110:4-note), Whose sacrifice of Himself and Whose eternal intercession would guarantee eternal salvation for all Gods people. So the first implication of He 7:25-note is that all this truth about priesthood is because what we need saving from is the wrath of God. Gods way of solving that problem is priesthood. This is not ours to figure out or solve. God has to do it for us. And He has done it. He ordains a Priest, His Son. And dont make a mistake here. Its not as though Jesus the Priest loves us and God the Father doesnt. God the Father ordains the priesthood for our salvation. It is His idea. He sends the Priest. It is His own Son Whom He sends. And He loves Him infinitely. All this is the love of God rescuing us from the wrath of God, in such a way that the justice of God is vindicated and the glory of God is exalted. 21. 11. MELCHIZEDEK Various Interpretations of His Identity John Calvin And it was doubtless necessary that in him who was to be a type of the Son of God (see discussion of Typology) all things excellent should be found: and that Christ was shadowed forth by this type is evident from the Ps 110 Steven Cole (his sermons are highly recommended) Melchizedek is a type of Christ in the dignity of his person. Everything we know about Melchizedek comes from Genesis 14:18-20, Psalm 110:4-note, and Hebrews 7. The first text is historical, the second is prophetic, and the third is theological. (open the Pdf of the entire sermon Why You Need to Know About Melchizedek) Alfred Edersheim That Melchizedek was not Christ Himself is evident from the statement that he was made like unto the Son of God (or likened unto Him, Heb. vii. 3); while it equally appears from these words, and from the whole tenor of Scripture, that he was a type of Christ. Matthew Henry 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 (see discussion of Typology), and was honoured by Abraham as such. Kent Hughes In the writers opening statement he concisely states the significance of the historical Melchizedek as a type of the ultimate priesthood of Christ: Melchizedek was without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, [and] like the Son of God he remains a priest forever (v. 3). Some have inferred from these words that Melchizedek must have been an angel who took on human form for Abraham, or even a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Himself. But such interpretations are unnecessary, because the writer is simply using a rabbinical method of interpretation from silence. His point is that the Genesis account does not mention Melchizedeks parents or genealogy or when he was born or died, thereby providing a fitting type of what would be fleshed out in the qualifications of Christ (see discussion of Typology). (Hughes, R. K. Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul. Volume 1. Crossway Books; Volume 2) H A Ironside There is no reason to think of Melchisedec as a mysterious person, possibly supernatural, or even as some have supposed a preincarnate appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. If any ask, "Who is Melchisedec?" the only proper answer is "Melchisedec." He was not Shem the son 22. of Noah, nor Job of the land of Uz, nor Cheops the builder of the great pyramid, as some have endeavored to prove. He was, as is distinctly stated, Melchisedec, King of Salem. KJV Commentary What is true of Melchizedek (the type) only because of silence is intrinsically true of Christ (the reality). Melchizedek is without parents only in that they are unknown. (Dobson, E G, Charles Feinberg, E Hindson, Woodrow Kroll, H L. Wilmington: KJV Bible Commentary: Nelson) John MacArthur But Melchizedek is described as made like the Son of God (7:3), not as being the Son of God. I believe that Melchizedek was a historical human being, whose priestly ministry typifies that of Christ (see discussion of Typology), a man whom God designed to use as a picture of Jesus Christ. But we cannot be sure of the details of his identity. (MacArthur, John: Hebrews. Moody Press ) William MacDonald We should not conclude that Melchizedek had no parents, that he was never born, and that he never died. That is not the point. The thought is that as far as his priesthood was concerned, there is no record of these vital statistics because his ministry as priest was not dependent on them. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible Commentary: Thomas Nelson) J Vernon McGee Melchizedek is a type of Christ. (McGee, J V: Thru the Bible Commentary: Thomas Nelson) Henry Morris... The usual interpretation ... is that he (Melchizedek) was made into a type of Christ since as a "King of Righteousness" (meaning of Melchizedek) and "King of Peace" (meaning of Salem), he appears and leaves the record suddenly, with no mention of either ancestry or death. It seems better to take the words literally, in which case they could be applicable to Christ Himself, appearing here to Abram in a theophany. This would also solve the problem of how such a godly king and priest as Melchizedek could be ruling a city in such an ungodly land as Canaan and, why, if he did, Abram would have had no other contact with him. The fact that he was "like unto the Son of God" (Hebrews 7:3) accords with one of Christ's pre-incarnate appearances; at His human birth, he became the incarnate Son of God forever. Melchizedek was also said to be a man (Hebrews 7:4), but the same is true in the case of other theophanies, one of which was likewise manifested to Abram (Genesis 18:2,22; 19:1-24). (Morris, Henry: Defenders Study Bible. World Publishing) Dwight Pentecost The question is often raised about whether what is recorded in Genesis 14 is a theophany; that is, a preincarnate appearance of the eternal Son of God. While many say it is, the 23. context of Genesis 14 seems to argue against it. Every verifiable theophany in the Old Testament fulfills the purpose of bringing a message from God to men. But that is not the case here. Further, the details of the accountgiving names and placesargue against it. Melchizedek could hardly be called the king of Salem unless he exercised legal authority there over an extended period of time. When the writer says he was made like the Son of God, he seems to imply that only those things had been recorded that could be used later by the writer of the Hebrews to reveal truth concerning Christs priestly office. Thus, in the historical context, Melchizedek is an individual, universal, timeless, unique priest whose ministry resulted in spiritual and material benefits; and he is never known outside of that picture. In this, as the writer of the Hebrews will show, he represents a perpetual foreshadowing of the priestly order Christ will fill. (Pentecost, J. D., & Durham, K. Faith that Endures: A Practical Commentary on the Book of Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications) Charles Ryrie Melchizedek is clearly a type of Christ (see discussion of Typology). Everything known about him from the OT is found in Ge14:17-20 and Ps. 110:4-note. He was a great king-priest, and it is to his order of priesthood that Christ belongs. (The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Translation: 1995. Moody Publishers) C I Scofield Melchizedek, a type of Christ the King-Priest. C H Spurgeon WE will not enlarge upon the story of Melchisedec, nor discuss the question as to who he was. It is near enough for us to believe that he was one who worshipped God after the primitive fashion, a believer in God such as Job was in the land of Uz, one of the worlds grey fathers who had kept faithful to the Most High God. He combined in his own person the kingship and the priesthood; a conjunction by no means unusual in the first ages. Of this man we know very little; and it is partly because we know so little of him that he is all the better type of our Lord, of whom we may enquire, Who shall declare his generation? The very mystery which hangs about Melchisedec serves to set forth the mystery of the person of our divine Lord. Ray Stedman Though some commentators have viewed Melchizedek as a preincarnate appearance of Christ, the phrase like the Son of God seems to militate against that. Melchizedek thus was the facsimile of which Christ is the reality (Howley 1969:552). To a modern congregation, this passage should be presented as a vivid picture of the help which is available for believers today from our great high priest who can give us righteousness and peace from within if we come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Stedman, Ray: Hebrews IVP New Testament Commentary Series or Logos) Will Varner 24. A more popular interpretation is that Melchizedek was Christ Himself in some preincarnate form. Thus, he would have been like the Old Testament angel of the LORD (e.g., Ge 16:7, 8, 9, 10, 11; Ex. 3:2; Jdg 13:3-21). Proponents of this view point to the language of Hebrews 7:3: Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of day nor end of life. There are some serious problems, however, with this idea. Six times the writer of Hebrews cited Psalm 110:4-note when stating that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek (He 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, 21). If Jesus actually was Melchizedek, He would not be said to be after the order of Melchizedek. Furthermore, language of similarity, not identity, is used to describe the relationship between the two. Hebrews 7:3 states that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God, not that he actually was the Son of God. Finally, Hebrews 7:15 states that Jesus is a priest after the similitude [likeness] of Melchizedek, not that he actually was Melchizedek. These verses indicate that Melchizedek was an individual who was a type of Christ, not that he actually was the preincarnate Christ. (Israel My Glory : Volume 51 Issue 6. 1999) John Walvoord Although some have thought that Melchizedek was actually a theophany, that is, an appearance of Christ in the form of Melchizedek to Abraham, the more probable view is that Hebrews means only that Melchizedek, unlike Aaronic priests, had no recorded genealogy. He was a priest independent of his father or his successor. In other words, he was not dependent on his genealogy, in sharp contrast to the Aaronic priesthood which depended upon it completely. The predecessors and successors of Melchizedek are not mentioned in the Bible, and the validity of the Melchizedek priesthood does not rest upon this background. Warren Wiersbe Melchizedek was a man (see Hebrews 7:4), so he had to have had a mother and a father. But there is no record of his genealogy (descent) in the Old Testament; and this is significant because most great persons in the Old Testament have their ancestry identified. (Wiersbe, W: Bible Exposition Commentary. 1989. Victor) Mormons (which I consider a non-Christian cult! [see critique of Mormonism] This note is only for completeness) Claim that their male members are priests of the order of Melchizedek and that their prophet, Joseph Smith, held both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. But this is a wholly gratuitous claim since it rests on no objective appointment by God but only on a subjective assertion in which they take this honor upon themselves. 12. In "The Way into the Holiest" F B Meyer writes that... History gives its unanimous judgment against the temporal and the spiritual power being vested in the same man. In Israel the two offices were kept rigorously separate; and when, on one occasion, a king passed the sacred barrier, and, snatching up a censer, strode into the inner court, he was at once followed by the remonstrances of the priestly band, whilst the 25. white brand of leprosy wrote his doom upon his brow; "and he himself hastened to go out, because the Lord had smitten him." But the simple monarch of whom we write, living before gathering abuses forbade the union, combined in his person the royal scepter and the sacerdotal censer. And herein he foreshadowed the Christ. Jesus is King and Priest. He is King because He is a priest. He is highly exalted, demanding homage from every knee, and confession from every lip, because He became obedient to the death of the cross. He bases His royal claims, not on hereditary descent, though the blood of David flowed in His veins; not on conquest or superior force; not on the legislation that underpins the kingdom of heaven among men: but on this, that He redeemed us to God by His blood. He is the King of glory, because He is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. The cross was the stepping-stone to His throne. And He cannot fulfill his office as Priest unless he be first recognized as King. Many fail to derive all the blessing offered to men through the Priesthood of Christ, because they are not willing to admit His claims as King. They do not reverence and obey Him. They do not open the whole of the inner realm to His scepter. They endeavor to serve two masters; and to stand well with empires as different as light and darkness, heaven and hell, God and Satan. There must be consecration before there can be perfect faith; coronation before deliverance; the King before the Priest. The order is invariable first King of Righteousness, and after that also King of Peace (Heb. 7:2). "Peace, give us peace!" is the importunate demand of men; peace at any price; by all means peace. But God, in the deep waters, lays the foundation of righteousness; "and the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever." It is of no use to heal the wound slightly, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is none. Infinitely better is it to probe to the bottom, and to build up from a sound and healthy foundation to the surface of the flesh. And the King of Peace will never enter your soul until you have first acknowledged him as King of Righteousness, submitting yourself to his righteous claims, and renouncing the righteousness which is of the law for that which is by faith. It is lamentable to find how few Christians, comparatively, are realizing the full meaning or power of Christianity. Joyless, fruitless, powerless, they are a stumbling block to the world, and a mockery to devils. And is not the reason here? They are not right. They are harboring traitors and aliens in their souls. They constantly condemn themselves in things that they allow. No doubt they excuse themselves, and invent special reasons to palliate their faults, so that what would be inadmissible with others is pardonable in them. What special pleading! What ingenious arguments! What gymnastic feats are theirs! But all in vain. Let any such who read these lines learn that it is peremptory to make Christ King, and King of Righteousness, before ever they can appreciate the peace which accrues from his Priesthood on our behalf. 12B. COFFMAN, MELCHIZEDEK AND JESUS 26. The following likenesses in type and antitype are plain: (1) The word "Melchizedek" means "King of righteousness," thus the very name becomes a title of the Lord Jesus Christ. (2) "King of Salem" means "King of peace," and thus the title of Melchizedek is another appropriate title of our Lord (Isaiah 9:6ff; Psalms 72:7). (3) Melchizedek was both king and priest, a double dignity not enjoyed by any illustrious Hebrew, not even Moses, and startlingly typical of Jesus Christ who is both king and high priest. (4) Melchizedek received tithes of Abraham, even as Christ receives gifts of them that love and follow him. (5) Melchizedek brought forth bread