Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 7:3 - 7:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_7:3. Ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ , ἀγενεαλόγητος ] without father, without mother, without pedigree, i.e. of whom neither father, nor mother, nor pedigree stands recorded in Holy Scripture. This is the usual interpretation of the words, which has been the prevalent one in the church from early times to the present. Less natural, and only in repute here and there, is the explanation: who possessed neither father nor mother, etc., according to which the sacred writer must have recognised in Melchisedec a higher, superhuman being, who had only for a time assumed a human form. The latter view was taken by Origen and Didymus, who would maintain that Melchisedec is to be regarded as an angel; in like manner the unknown authority in Jerome, ad Evagr.; Hilary, Quaestt. in V. T. quaest. 109, and the Egyptian Hieracas in Epiph. Haeres. 67, who saw in him an ensarcosis of the Holy Ghost; as also the Melchisedecites, a section of the Theodotians, who described him as μεγάλην τινὰ δύναμιν θείαν , surpassing in exaltedness even Christ Himself, since Christ appeared after the likeness of Melchisedec; finally, single individuals in the orthodox church, in Epiphanius, Haer. 55. 7; as also afterwards, P. Molinaeus, Vates, Heb_4:11 sq.; P. Cunaeus, l.c.; J. C. Hottinger, de Decimis Judaeorum, p. 15; d’Outrein, Starck, and others, who supposed that in Melchisedec the Son of God Himself had appeared in human form. This whole method of interpretation has against it the fact that ἀγενεαλόγητος —for not ἀγένητος is placed—can be understood without violence only of the neglect to cite the genealogical table of Melchisedec in the narrative of the Book of Genesis [comp. Heb_7:6]; and ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ must be taken conformably with the elucidatory ἀγενεαλόγητος , thus are likewise to be explained merely of the father and mother being passed over unnamed in the historic account, not of their actual nonexistence. The characteristics ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ , ἀγενεαλόγητος , moreover, are to be referred—since ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ νἱῳ τοῦ θεοῦ cannot yet be brought into correspondence therewith—only to Melchisedec, without our being obliged to seek for them a special point of comparison with Christ, as is done by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Cappellus, Bisping, al. (comp. also Kurtz ad loc.), in applying the ἀπάτωρ to Christ’s humanity, the ἀμήτωρ to His divinity, and the ἀγενεαλόγητος either likewise to His divinity or to His New Testament high priesthood. Comp. e.g. Theodoret: Ἀμήτωρ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὡς θεός · ἐκ μόνου γὰρ γεγέννηται τοῦ πατρός · ἀπάτωρ δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωπος · ἐκ μόνης γὰρ ἐτέχθη μητρός , τῆς παρθένου φημί · ἀγενεαλόγητος ὡς θεός · οὐ γὰρ χρήζει γενεαλογίας ὁ ἐξ ἀγεννήτου γεγεννημένος πατρός .
By means of ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ , ἀγενεαλόγητος , Melchisedec appears as presenting a contrast to the Levitical priests, since in the case of these scrupulous attention was paid to the descent.
The expression ἀγενεαλόγητος only here in all Greek literature.
μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων ] without beginning of days and without end of life, namely, in that nothing is related in Holy Scripture either of his birth or his death. The statement is quite a general one. To limit it to the beginning and end of the priesthood (Cameron, Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Whitby, Kuinoel, Hofmann, al.) is arbitrary. Nor is the meaning of the words, that Melchisedec was not born in the ordinary human way, and, something like Enoch and Elijah, was taken up to heaven without experiencing death (Hunnius, Braun, Akersloot; comp. also Bleek, p. 322 ff.; Nagel: “On the significance of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, H. 2, p. 332 ff.; Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, Feb. p. 102 f.; Alford), a sense which conflicts with the right apprehension of the opening words of the verse.
ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ ] on the contrary (therein) made entirely like unto the Son of God, namely, as type of the same. The words do not belong to μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (Peshito, Grotius, al.). For with justice does Theodoret already observe: ἐν μέντοι τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ οὐ Μελχισεδὲκ μεμίμηται τὸν δεσπότην Χριστόν , ἀλλʼ ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶμα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ . They form, by means of the closely combining δέ , a more precise positive defining to the negative μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων . Chrysostom: Ἀφωμοιωμένος δέ , φησί , τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ποῦ ἡ ὁμοιότης ; Ὅτι καὶ τούτου κἀκείνου τὸ τέλος ἀγνοοῦμευ καὶ τὴν ἀρχήν · ἀλλὰ τούτου μὲν παρὰ τὸ μὴ γεγράφθαι , ἐκείνου δὲ παρὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι .
μένει ἱερεὺς εἶς τὸ διηνεκές ] remains priest for ever, in that, as of his end of life so also of the cessation of his priesthood, nothing is recorded. He remains so in the reality of his office, but only as a figure and type of Christ. Against the view of Auberlen (l.c. p. 497), that Melchisedec is termed an everlasting priest in no other sense than as, according to the Apocalypse, all the blessed in heaven are so, see the observations of Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 202 f., Remark. The subject, moreover, in μένει is naturally the Melchisedec of Genesis, not, as Wieseler contends (Schrr. d. Univ. zu Kiel aus d. J. 1860, VI. 1, p. 40): “the Melchisedec of the passage in the Psalms just mentioned (Heb_6:20), or the true antitypal Melchisedec or Messiah.” For it is not grammatically allowable, with Wieseler, to take the words βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ … ἀφωμοιώμενος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ as an apposition merely to ὁ Μελχισεδέκ , and not to the whole expression οὗτος ὁ Μελχισεδέκ , and in connection with οὗτος ὁ Μελχισεδέκ to rest the emphasis exclusively upon οὗτος .
εἰς τὸ διηνεκές ] of the same import as εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα , Heb_6:20. Comp. Heb_10:12; Heb_10:14.