Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 7:1 - 7:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The eternal and perfect high-priesthood of Jesus Christ
______
I
The person of Melchisedek has, as a type of Christ, a triple superiority to the Levitical priests
Heb_7:1-10
[Heb_7:2.— ἐìÝñéóåí , apportioned, imparted.— ðñῶôïí ìÝí , in the first place.— ἔðåéôá äÝ , and then, and in the next place. In the classics ἔðåéôá without äÝ , commonly answers to ðñῶôïí ìÝí .
Heb_7:3— ἀãåíåáëüãçôïò , ungenealogized, without recorded lineage; not as Eng. ver., without descent.— ἀöùìïéùìÝíïò , having been assimilated, or rendered similar.— ìÝíåé , remaineth, abideth, emphatic.— åἰò ôὸ äéçíåêÝò , perpetually.
Heb_7:4— èåùñåῖôå äå , and contemplate behold; not, “now consider.” “Now” impairs the natural flow of the sentence. Alford’s “But observe” is objectionable.—The patriarch Abraham: in the original ὁ ðáôñéÜñ÷çò , is separated from ἈâñáÜì , and thrown emphatically over to the end of the sentence.— ἐê ôῶí ἀêñïèéíßùí , from the top of the heap, hence, the selectest, or choicest spoils.
Heb_7:5.— êáὶ ïἱ ìÝí , and they indeed, or while they. Eng. ver., and verily, which Alf. says “is rather too strong.” It is not merely “too strong;” ‘verily,’ as a rendering of ìÝí is totally inappropriate.— ïἱ ἐê ôῶí õἰῶí — ëáìâ . they indeed, or while they, who, of the sons of Levi (or possibly, with Del., as being of the sons of Levi) receive the priesthood; or perhaps as suggested by Alf., “they of the sons of Levi when they receive (when receiving) the priesthood.— ἀðïäåêáôïῦí (Sin B. D.1 ἀðïäåêáôïῖí , received by Alf.), to tithe.— êáôὰ ôὸí íüìïí , belongs to ἐíôïëὴí ἔ÷ïõóéí — êáßðåñ ἐîåëçëõèüôáò , although having come out.
Heb_7:6— äåäåêÜôùêåí , hath tithed— åὐëüãçêåí , hath blessed—construction chiastic, the verb preceding in one clause, and following in the next.
Heb_7:7.— ὑðὸ ôïῦ êñåßôôï · íïò , by the greater, superior, not, of the better.
Heb_7:8.— Êáὶ ὦäå ìÝí , and here indeed, or, while here, i. e., in the case of the Levitical priests.
Heb_7:9.— ὡò ἔðïò åἰðåῖí , so to speak, very well rendered as to the sense, by the Eng. ver., as I may so say. Some take the phrase as=in a word, of which and the “so to speak,” Alf. says that they, “in fact both run into one,” which is incorrect. “So to speak,” always implies a certain conscious license on the part of the speaker, which in a word does not necessarily nor ordinarily imply at all. The former, so to speak, is, as in the immense majority of cases, the meaning.— äåäåêÜôùôáé , hath been tithed=stands before our eyes or recorded as tithed: Eng. ver., was tithed, exchanges the perfect for Aor., and loses in accuracy and picturesqueness.—K.].
[Alford (after Bleek) is still inclined to find in the author’s language some marvellous and inexplicable mystery investing the person of Melchisedek, though he confesses himself totally unable to conjecture what it may be. The emphatic phrase “having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” he conceives can scarcely be conceived as applying to a mere man. The language is certainly very striking, yet I cannot conceive it more striking than the purposes which call it forth, and these seem to me abundantly sufficient to account for its striking and apparently mysterious character. The author’s purpose is to show the points in Melchisedek’s recorded life and position, which fitted him in his priesthood to be a type of the priestly Son of God. For this purpose he turns to the record of the Old Testament, and draws his reasonings alike from what is and what is not there stated; alike from the recorded facts of Melchisedek’s transient and remarkable appearance, and the silence of the sacred narrative concerning all preceding or subsequent facts appertaining to his history. Both the record and the silence are equally remarkable. In the one Melchisedek appears as a king in relations which associate him at once with Righteousness and with Peace, as priest of the Most High God in the midst of idolatrous communities, and as blessing and receiving tithes from Abraham, the spiritual heir of the world. In the other, a personage so great and so remarkable, is, contrary to all the usage of the sacred history, which is generally very studious and exact in giving the lineage of its important personages, and usually notices alike their birth and their death, passed over without a solitary intimation as to his lineage or family relations, as to his birth or his death. The reason of this silence on the part of the Spirit that dictated the narrative, cannot be doubtful. It is intended to exhibit Melchisedek under personal relations, which should fit him also to be the priestly type of the High-Priest of the New Covenant. The facts seem abundantly sufficient to account for the Old Testament silence, and for the New Testament representation. Our author looks back to the Old Testament to see what there was in the record of Melchisedek to explain the language of the Psalm regarding his peculiar Priesthood. These facts present themselves prominently to him, and he exhibits them in such a manner as to bring out most strongly and forcibly the typical character of Melchisedek. We must remember that the sacred historian is generally studious to give the lineage of all the sacred persons with whom he has to do, and almost invariably signalizes the fact of their death. Here we have a singular and marked exception. Melchisedek, evidently, by the relations in which he appears in Genesis, one of the most extraordinary men of sacred history, is yet passed over without one gleam of light shed on the darkness either of his past or his future. He thus stands on the sacred page—amidst a narrative which, in its faithful record of births and deaths, seems intended to illustrate the truth that “Death reigned from Adam to Moses,”—as one who liveth. Without wishing, therefore, to derogate in the least from the depth of our author’s meaning, or from the dignity and mystery that invest the person of Melchisedek; without wishing to reduce him to the prosaic level of ordinary humanity, I yet can see no reason for finding in him any thing superhuman, or for departing from the prevailing view of the best modern expositors, which seems to me to have judiciously and wisely discarded all the old mysteries regarding Melchisedek. The truth is, our author’s language itself receives far greater depth and significance by our making its statements regarding Melchisedek derive their peculiar character and dignity from the supernatural personage whom he represented, than from any supposed supernatural attributes of Melchisedek himself. And we must remember, too, that for all the purposes which Melchisedek was to subserve as a type, the appearance, the mere representation of these qualities in him, answers precisely the same purpose as the realities. Here the principle truly applies, “De non existentibus, et non apparentibus, eadem est ratio.”—K.].
By Salem we are probably to understand Jerusalem (which bears this shortened name also at Psa_76:3; comp. Knobel Genesis , 2 Aufl., p. 149 ff.) although according to Jdg_19:10, the older name of Jerusalem was Jebus, and we find in Jerome (Ep. 126 ad Euagrium) that later tradition makes the Salim (or Salumias) of Joh_3:23, lying eight Roman miles south of Sycthopolis, the residence of Melchisedek, Bleek, Tuch., Ewald, Alf., decide after Primas., Rel., Rosenm., etc., in favor of this latter place, which is also probably mentioned Jdt_4:4. The author says designedly not åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá , but åἰò ôὸ äéçíåêÝò =perpetually, because the priesthood which he has in sacred history, from the beginning to the end, without interruption and without transmission to another, is his own (Hofm. Schriftb. I. 402; 2 Ed. II. 1, 550, Del., Stier, etc., after Theodor. Mops.); not because his priesthood is perpetuated in Christ, the type remaining in the antitype (Thol. after Primas., Haymo, Thom. Aquin.), nor because the name of Priest, according to Rev., is applied to all the blessed (Auberl. Stud. u. Krit., 1857, III. 497).
Heb_7:4. And consider how great, etc.—The metabatic äÝ introduces the consideration of the other side of the matter. It is more in harmony with the impassioned and elevated style of the passage, to take èåùñåῖôå as Imper. than as Indic. Ðçëßêïò refers ordinarily, according to the connection, to age, to size, or to moral greatness; but here to exaltedness and dignity of position. The êáß is to be referred, not to Abraham (Luth., Grot., etc.), but to äåêÜôçí , as indicated by the order of the words. Ἀêñïèßíéá literally, the top of the heap, denotes commonly the first fruits of the harvest offered to the Deity; sometimes, as here, the choicest spoils of war selected out as a sacred offering. Of such select portions consisted the tithe of the entire booty, that was now presented by Abraham: the entire spoils cannot be denoted by ἀêñïèßíéá , as supposed by Chrys., Erasm., Luth., Calv., etc. The name of honor ὁ ðáôñéÜñ÷çò , which denotes the ancestral father and head of the Israelitish nation, is applied Act_2:29, to David, and Act_7:8-9, to the twelve sons of Jacob.
Heb_7:5. And they indeed who, from the sons of Levi, etc.—In the words ἐê ôῶí õἱῶí ËåõÀ , Bl., De W., Lün., etc., take ἐê partitively; but it is better, with Hofm., Del., etc., taken causatively. For the contrast is not drawn between those who as descendants of Aaron were priests, and those who were mere Levites, but between the Levitical priests and Mel., who has tithed Abraham, although ( ìὴ ãåíåáëïã . ἐî áὐôῶí ) not deriving his lineage from them. [The reason is, however, hardly conclusive. For although the writer does not intend a contrast between the priests and the other sons of Levi, yet the natural method of designating the Levitical priest is precisely that which is here employed, viz., those of the sons of Levi who received the priesthood.—K.]. Ἐî áὐôῶí is by some erroneously referred to the Israelites, and by Grot, to Levi and Abraham together. A second contrast is this, that the Israelites received the tithes on the ground of a legal ordinance, while Melchisedek received it as a spontaneous offering. Add to this, that the Levites had to do with their countrymen over whom, although brethren, they were placed, and to whom they were at the same time restricted, while the relation of Melchisedec to Abraham was entirely different. The last point is the relation of him who blesses to the man who as Patriarch is the historical bearer of those promises of God which include the blessings. Ἱåñáôåßá denotes the priestly service, and the priestly prerogative. In all other passages of our Epistle stands ἱåñùóýíç =priesthood, i.e, priestly office and dignity (comp. Sir_45:7 with Sir_45:24). But even in the LXX. the meanings of the two words run into each other. Since, now, at Num_18:1, the term ἱåñáôåßá is used to designate the Aaronic service, and Jehovah calls the Levites in relation to Aaron ôïὺò ἀäåëöïýò óïõ , Biesenthal makes (see Del., p. 278 Anm.) the sagacious conjecture that our author refers to Num_18:25-32, where the Levites are required to give the tenth of the tenth to the priests, and that, instead of ἀðïäåêáôïῦí ôὸí ëáüí , we are to read at Heb_7:5, ËåõÀí . This would remove the difficulty occasioned by the fact that our author ascribes to the priests what, according to Lev_27:30, belonged to the Levites, viz., to receive all the tithes in Israel from Jehovah, to whom all the tithes of the land belong. For we cannot along with Bl. (followed by Bisp., while most recent intpp. do not touch the difficulty in question, and Ebr. seeks to evade it by a rendering inconsistent with the order of the words) assume that in the period after the exile the priests perhaps took the whole tithes for their own subsistence, and the maintenance of the temple service, and that the remaining members of the tribe of Levi surrendered to those who were actually engaged in the temple service what was demanded for their support. The passages Neh_10:38 ff; Neh_12:44; Neh_13:10; Tob_1:6-8, state precisely the reverse. The simplest solution is the assumption of the older comm. (Drus., Seb. Schmidt, etc.), that ἀðïäåêáôïῦí , is to be understood of the indirect tithing of the people by the priests, in that they received their tenth from the tenth of the Levites.
[The fact that there should ever have been any trouble about the solution of this point, shows how easily difficulties are found in the Scriptures, by an unnecessary rigidness of verbal interpretation. In a detailed account of the Mosaic Institutions, we should of course expect a statement of the precise relations of the priests to the Levites, and of the Levites to the people. But in a brief reference to them made merely for the sake of illustrating a principle, it is sufficient to state the general fact that the Levitical priests tithed the people, i.e, had their subsistence by the tithing of the people, without any intimation of the mode in which it was done, whether by tithing directly or through another body.—K.].
The conjecture of Ribera that under the term ëáüò , the author jointly includes the Levites, and that of Thom. Aquin. that the author starts from the supposition that the Priestly class furnish the ground and purpose of all the tithing, inasmuch as they alone receive tithes without rendering them, are both to be rejected. The Infin. form ἀðïäåêáôïῖí adopted by Tisch. after B. D*. (which MSS. also read at Mat_13:32, êáôáóêçíïῖí ), appears to be of Alexandrian origin; comp. îçëïῖí as a var. lec. in Dressel Patr. Apost. p. 322, n. 4, and óôåöáíïῖí , after an Inscription given by Krüger (I. 1, § 32, Anm. 7). Seb. Schmidt, Böhme, etc., connect the êáôὰ ôὸí íüìïí with ôὸí ëáüí , Bleek, Bisp., Lün., with ἐíôïëὴí ἔ÷ïõóéí , the majority with ἀðïäåêáôïῦí .
Heb_7:8. Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.—Inasmuch as the Melchisedek of history is certainly dead, while yet the author is speaking not of an office but of a person, Cappell., Heins., Storr, in entire violation of the context, take the subject to be Christ. Equally unnecessary too is it with Theod., Bl., etc., to appeal to Psalms 110., which speaks of the Antitype of Melchisedek. We need only refer for the explanation of the language to Genesis 14. (Œc., Calv., Este, etc.), as we have here but a variation in the statement of Heb_7:3, that Melchisedek is “without end of life.” The person of Melchisedek is indeed treated as historical, but only in so far as he is a type of the Christian Messiah.
[Alford heads his comm. on Heb_7:8 thus: “Second item of superiority in that Melchisedek’s is an enduring, the Levitical a transitory priesthood.” This language is not quite accurate. The author is not comparing the priesthood of Melchisedek with the Levitical priesthood, but illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedek, which he does by showing his superiority to Abraham, and then again his superiority to the Levitical priests, in that while they receive tithes as dying men, he receives them as one of whom it is testified that he liveth. His priesthood is not primarily in question.—K.].
Heb_7:9. And so to speak, etc.—In itself ὡò ἔðïò åἰðåῖí may mean, “to say in a word (briefly),” and “so to speak” (Theophyl.). The former signification which is here adopted by Camerar., Beng., etc., is much less appropriate than the second, which with the Vulg. and Luth. is maintained by most intpp. [I doubt the classical use of the phrase in the first signification. At all events it is incomparably more common with Greek writers in the second, which is here in like manner most decidedly in accordance with the context.—K.]. The phrase implies that the author is not speaking with strict accuracy, but only with virtual or approximative truth. Äé ’ ἈâñáÜì is not on account of Abraham (August., Phot.), but, through Abraham; the Gen. not the Acc.
2. In the narrative itself lies the basis of the author’s typical interpretation. For Melchisedek is designated Gen_14:19; Gen_14:22 priest ( ëּçֵï ) of the Most High God ( àֵì òֶìְéåֹï ). He thus not merely performed priestly acts, as did also Abraham as princely chief, and as did every father of a family. The language points to a priesthood distinct from his royal authority, and from the patriarchal character, which was united with royalty only in the person of Melchisedek. When, therefore Abraham bows before this priestly king, receives his blessing, and renders to him tithes, he recognizes not merely their relationship in modes of faith, in their common worship—a worship untainted by idolatry—of the God who created the world (while, at the same time, Abraham on his own part emphasizes, Heb_7:22, the specific reference of his faith to Jehovah, as the God who reveals himself in the work of human redemption), but he places himself personally in a subordinate relation in respect of office to this priestly king—a relation thus naturally and necessarily suggesting a typical explanation, and a Messianic reference. Historically, the phenomenon of his appearance is explicable in the fact that, according to Scripture itself, the worship of Jehovah, which characterized the descendants of Abraham (Gen_28:13; Exo_3:6) did not actually owe its origin to Abraham. Abraham is not the first professor of this faith, but only its main representative and transmitter among the children of Noah, as Seth among those of Adam. Just as at a later period, in contrast with the false particularism of the Jews, Jehovah is designated as the God who is îֵòåֹìָí , Psa_90:2; Psa_93:2; Psa_103:17, or îִ÷ֶּøֶí , Hab_1:12, so the Jehovah worshipped by Abraham appears in Gen. as the Creator of the world already worshipped by primitive men on the ground of the revelation of Himself. And the agency of Abraham in maintaining the knowledge and worship of this God, is expressed in the same words as that of Seth, Gen_4:26. In the statement, however, that men then “began to call on the name of Jehovah,” the historian cannot intend to be understood that then absolutely the name of Jehovah was first made known; for but a little before the same name had been put in the mouth of Eve. He employs the term of the religious worship of Jehovah, which also at Psa_79:6; Psa_116:17; Isa_12:4, this expression very decidedly designates.
3. The existence of a priestly king, entitled to utter a blessing and to receive tithes, and in this character acknowledged by Abraham—a personage who is indebted for his position to no lineal descent, or legal ordination, but who exercises a ministry purely personal, so that alike his origin and his end are veiled from our view, furnishes the natural ground and justification of the thought that a non-Levitical priesthood, outside indeed of the Mosaic legal enactments, yet still according to the will of God, holds an authorized relation to the descendants of Abraham; nay, that the Messiah predicted (Psalms 110) within the very sphere and by the very prophets of Judaism, as a priest after the order of Melchisedek, possesses alike in his royal priesthood and his personal character, an infinite elevation above the Levitical priests, and the Aaronic high-priests, and that to recognize this is a sacred duty of the Hebrews.
4. The typical elements which attach themselves to the Scripture account of Melchisedek are found not merely in the acts which the Scripture narrative ascribes to him, but also in the significance of his name. This designates him as a type of the Prince of Peace, Isa_9:5, and Branch of righteousness, Jer_23:5; Jer_33:15, who as a Ruler standing near to Jehovah, Jer_30:21, coming forth from the midst of Israel, spreads righteousness and peace in the land, Psalms 72.; Mic_2:13; Jer_23:5 ff.: establishes them according to the Divine will, Eze_34:24; Eze_37:25 : in that He creates peace among the nations, Zec_9:10, and is himself Peace, (Mic_5:5). This typical character is entirely overlooked by those who ascribe to our author the idea that Melchisedek came miraculously into life and miraculously departed from it, (Nagel, Zur Characteristik der Auffassung des A. T. im N. T., 1850); or that he is the incarnation of an angel (Orig., Didym.), or of the Holy Spirit; (The author of the Quæst. in vet. et Nov. Test. in Hilarius and the Ægyptian Hierakas, Epiph. hær., 67); or of a Divine power transcending even Christ in majesty (the Melchisedekites, a section of the Theodotians), or of the Son of God Himself (Molinæus, Cunæus, Hottinger, D’Outrein, Starke and others, after some orthodox Fathers in Epiphanius hær., 55).
5. “The Melchisedek of human history has indeed died; but the Melchisedek of sacred history lives without dying, fixed for ever as one who lives by the pen of the sacred historian, and thus stamped as type of the Son, the ever-living Priest.” (Del.).—“Likened, he says, to the Son of God.” And wherein does this likeness display itself? In the fact that we know neither the end nor the beginning either of the one or the other; but of the one, because the beginning and the end are not recorded; of the other, because they have no existence.” (Chrys.).—“As man, Christ was without Father, and as God, without mother; as high-priest He was without genealogy, and as Eternal Son of God without beginning and without end of days.” (Bisp.)—“Christ, in the Divine counsels, is before all figures and types: He is the original; all others are copies. They are modeled after Him, not He after them; so also Melchisedek after Jesus Christ, not Jesus Christ after Melchisedek.”—(Heubner).
Starke:—To heroes and warlike men, who venture their life to protect their country and people, belong respect, refreshment and intercessory prayer.—Happy are the kings who are kings of righteousness and of peace.—The Divine Administration has many a time wrought something through the primitive fathers, not merely for their sakes, but also for the sake of their posterity.
Heubner:—The priesthood of Christ, not the priesthood of the Law, is the source of all blessing.—To our Melchisedek belongs every thing in sacrifice, since we have all from Him and through Him.—Let us learn that our true nobility springs not from men but from Heaven; that we are to forget time, and think only of eternity.—The Levites take a tenth from their brethren; Melchisedek from Abraham; but Christ receives the reverence, the service of the whole world.
Footnotes:
Heb_7:1.—The Art. before ὑøßóôïõ , is attested by Sin. A. C. D. E. K. L., 28, 44, 46, 48.
Heb_7:2.—The êáß is sustained against the authority of B. D*. E*. by Sin. A. C. Dm. E**. K. L. and the minusc.
Heb_7:6.—The Art. before Abraham is erased by some, on the authority of B. C. D*. 23, 57, 109. The Sin. has it from a later hand. [It is retained by Tisch. on preponderating authority.—K.].
Heb_7:9.—The form ËåõÀò is found in A. B. C*. Ëåõåé in Sin., where the corrector has put Ëåõåéò , which is received by Tisch., Ed. VII.
Heb_7:10.—The Art. before Melch. is after Sin. B. C*. D*. 73, 118, to be omitted.