CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Hebrews 7:1. Melchizedek.—Already three times referred to (chaps. Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 5:10, Hebrews 6:20); in each case the order of priesthood which Melchizedek represents, rather than the man himself, is in the writer’s mind. Melchizedek is a very vague and indistinct figure. All that is actually known concerning him is found in Genesis 14:18-20. He is mentioned in Psalms 110:4. The writer gives a mystical explanation of these brief references to a priestly order, antecedent to, and independent of, the order of Aaron. Notice that Melchizedek is the only priestly figure presented in tradition or history prior to the anointing of Aaron. Farrar reminds us that the “Jews attached high honour to the name of Melchizedek, whom they identified with Shem; and Philo had already spoken of Melchizedek as a type of the Logos.” The mystical explanation of his priestly order is the advanced truth for which the writer feared that his readers were hardly prepared. Salem.—Perhaps another name for Jebus, which was afterwards Jerusalem. Perhaps it is an appellative, rather than the name of a place (see Hebrews 7:2). Farrar identifies it with the town near Shechem (see Genesis 33:18; John 3:23); and this is the view of Jerome. Priest.— Genesis 14:18. It was common among the ancients for the kings to be priests also, as in the time of the Maccabees; but we look for something unusual in this priesthood of Melchizedek. The suggestion made by Miss Corbaux, in her work on the Rephaim, is worthy of special attention. She thinks that Salem was the central seat of their authority, and that the king who reigned there was the supreme head of their nation, to whom the different tribes were subordinate. If Melchizedek had been a mere local chief, it is difficult to see why the King of Sodom, an Emim prince, and why Abraham, should pay him the deference they did. “But the moment the important fact comes in by way of explanation, supported by sufficient extrinsic evidence, that the King of Salem was the supreme chief of the entire nation, and the local chiefs of the tribes were his subordinates, the whole transaction recorded in Genesis becomes intelligible, because we understand the mutual relation of all the parties concerned in it.” This suggests that Melchizedek was the one high priest of the day, and not one of many priests. Most high God.—R.V. “God most high.” El elión, also a title of God among the Phœnicians. Distinctly the one and only God, specially known to the Hebrews as “Jehovah.” A true high priest of the true God. There need be no assumption that the knowledge of the true God was confined to the family of Abraham. Slaughter.—Better, smiting, with the sense of defeat. Blessed him.—This is significant, as indicating a distinctly priestly act.
Hebrews 7:2. King of righteousness.—βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης. King of peace.—βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης. Philo also interprets “King of Salem” as “King of peace.” A mystical connection between the two names may be intended, since “righteousness” is the necessary antecedent to “peace.” See Isaiah 32:17; Ephesians 2:14-15; Ephesians 2:17; Romans 5:1.
Hebrews 7:3. Without father, etc.—These are not stated as actual facts concerning Melchizedek. They are true so far as the narrative of Genesis presents him to us. He is set before us without any genealogy. The writer argues from the silence of Scripture. “The fact that Melchizedek had no recorded father or mother or lineage enhanced his dignity, because the Aaronic priesthood depended exclusively on the power to prove a direct descent from Aaron, which necessitated a most sorupulous care in the preservation of the priestly genealogies.” The Arabians say of a man who has by his own efforts procured an exalted place of honour, and who is descended from ignoble parents, he had no father—that is, he is not named from his father, does not derive his titles and honours from his father. Beginning of days.—Or a fixed and limited period during which to exercise his priesthood. For limitation of Levitical service see Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:35; Numbers 4:43; Numbers 4:47; and compare Numbers 8:24-25. Continually.—Perpetually. As we have no intimation of its ever having ceased, we assume it is still going on.
We are now prepared for the arguments or illustrations that are to be based on this man’s name and history—on what is not known about him as well as what is known. The writer treats Scripture in a singular way.
A general sketch of the comparison of the orders may be given, in order to show that the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood better represents that of Christ than the Levitical. It should be noticed that Christ’s priesthood gets illustration from Melchizedek, but Christ’s work as a priest gets illustration from Aaron. These are the chief points brought out:—
(1) To show the dignity and superiority of the order of Melchizedek.
(a) Abraham, though founder of the Jewish people, gave tithes to Melchizedek.
(b) Though Levi was appointed to receive tithes, nevertheless, in the person of Abraham, he virtually paid tithes to Melchizedek.
(2) Continuing the comparison between the orders.
(a) The office of Levi was subject to change and death; the office of Melchizedek was permanent and perpetual.
(b) The prophecy of Messiah as belonging to another priesthood indicated the imperfection of the first priesthood.
(3) Proof that Christ is Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
(a) He sprang from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi.
(b) There was a priest promised after the order of Melchizedek.
(c) That promise is only fulfilled in Christ.
(4) Further extension of the comparisons.
(a) Appointment of priests was without an oath, and with an oath.
(b) Priests of Levi were many; Melchizedek was one priest.
(c) The sacrifices of Levi were many, the sacrifice of Christ was one.
(d) Christ is a heavenly, spiritual Priest; Levites were only earthly, ceremonial priests.
Christ could not be an earthly priest, seeing that God had already appointed such. He must be a priest after a new order. So the writer keeps close to his point, the uniqueness of Christ. He belongs to his own plane.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Hebrews 7:1-3
The Historical and Symbolical Melchizedek.—Only a passing allusion is made to Melchizedek in the book of Genesis. He flashes into view for a brief moment, and then passes back into the darkness. So vague is our knowledge of him that many have doubted whether he is to be regarded as an historical personage, or only a poetical or legendary character.
I. The Historical Melchizedek.—For many it settles the question of his historical character that he is mentioned in a Bible book; but the critical-minded are disturbed by the evident legendary character of some parts of the book of Genesis, and find it difficult to decide what is historical and what is not. This much may be said, Melchizedek is as real a person as Abraham. To accept the narrative of the slaughter of the kings involves accepting the paying of tithes to Melchizedek. Recent researches have confirmed the view that from very early times Salem, or Jerusalem, was inhabited, and occupied a central position, and a special sovereignty, in relation to the tribes that dwelt around. If this be so, the sovereign rights of Melchizedek may be fully understood. The word Melchizedek means “king of righteousness,” which may mean, or suggest the meanings, “king of morals,” “king of religion,” which is essentially righteousness; or “righteous king,” recognised and named because of his character; or “one who rules in righteousness”; or “one whose rule makes for righteousness.” The name at least suggests that he was no mere king of a ceremonial system, but a king of the spiritual things of character, and so a fitting foreshadowing of Him who was “Lord of lambs the lowly, King of saints the holy.” “Whence he came, from what parentage, remains untold; nay, even of what place he was king remains uncertain (for Salem may be either Jerusalem or the smaller town of which, in after-times, the ruins were shown to Jerome, not far from the scene of the interview). He appears for a moment, and then vanishes from our view altogether.” His name is Semitic, but he dwelt among Canaanitish people. Possibly he was a relic of the older inhabitants, and for this reason held in peculiar reverence. In some respects he may be compared to Balaam. Historically treated, three things claim attention:
1. His kingship, which may have been that of a particular town, but, more probably, was a suzerainty over the whole land. That kingship was exercised for righteousness, and therefore Melchizedek was a peacemaker. It is, however, quite possible that he was not an actual reigning king, but the kingly man of the age—the standard of goodness, the model of righteousness. If so, we can better understand his being also priest.
2. His priesthood. It is true that in early ages the heads of tribes were also priests of the tribe; but it is much more true that the exceptionally good man always is a priest to his fellows, a ministrant of heavenly blessings to them, and an intercessor with God for them. The best man is always both kingly and priestly.
3. His religion. There need be no difficulty about recognising this as the genuine religion of humanity, the worship of the one God according to the principles of His universal revelation to humanity. “His pure and holy faith in the ‘Most High God’ was doubtless a relic of the anciently universal recognition of the one Creator.… God has at no time left Himself without a witness even in lands secluded from the direct privileges of His people.” El or Il was the ancient supreme god of the Semitic races of Babylonia.
II. The Symbolical Melchizedek.—If he belonged to the earlier races of Palestine, and was above the average size of the existing inhabitants, vague ideas, and strange legends, might easily gather about him. The people around would know nothing about him, about his father, or about the office he held: they would only feel a vague reverence for the unusual-looking, beneficent, and other-world sort of man who moved to and fro amongst them. He became the symbol of the permanent priest of humanity; who must be—
1. Human, yet distinct from humanity.
2. Able to gain power by what he is in holy character.
3. Presenting the claims of righteousness wherever he goes.
4. Always the same, in order to stamp righteousness as an unchangeable thing. No more fitting, and no more suggestive, symbol of Christ, man’s spiritual and eternal priest, could be wished for
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Hebrews 7:1. The Historical Figure of Melchizedek.—This passage, which has ofttimes been misunderstood, presents no real difficulties. The last clause, “without descent,” is explanatory of the two former. Melchizedek is thus styled “without father and without mother” simply because he was not, as were the Levitical priests, recorded in any genealogy. This is made more plain by the language used in Hebrews 7:6: “But he whose descent is not counted from them [i.e. the sons of Levi, Hebrews 7:5] received tithes,” etc. “These words,” says Tholuck, “denote him whose genealogy is unknown; while a priest, in the Levitical sense, could not, by any means, dispense with the proof of his descent.” Stuart and others differ slightly from the explanation of the phrase “without descent” given above. They take the sense to be, “whose father and mother are not mentioned in Scripture.” Kuinoel takes the meaning to be, “who had not a father, a priest, nor a mother the daughter of a priest.” The sense given by Tholuck, from whom Kuinoel differs but little, appears to us the most simple. All these authors substantially agree in the meaning they attach to the first two clauses. That the words “without father and without mother” may be used in a modified sense to indicate those whose parentage is either obscure or unknown, is evident from many passages in the Greek and Latin writers. Thus Ion, in Euripides, conceiving himself of mean birth, says, “As I am without mother, and without father, I attend the temple of Apollo.” So Philo calls Sarah, of whose mother no mention is made, “without mother.” In Latin authors this usage is still more common. Seneca, in his 108th Epistle, writes: “There are two Roman kings, of whom the one has not a father, the other a mother.” He then refers to Servius Tullius and Ancus Martius. Of the former king, Livy states that he was born of a female slave, “of no father.” Horace speaks of men “sprung from no ancestors” who had risen to great eminence and renown. Even the Rabbins have the same sort of speech. In the Bereshith Rabbi, sect. 18, 18, 2, it is said, “The Gentiles have no father,” having no Jewish pedigree. The explanation given above is further sustained by the ancient versions and the most eminent commentators. The Syriac Version, peculiarly valuable for its antiquity and fidelity, admirably renders the passage thus: “Whose father and mother are not inscribed among the genealogies.” The Arabic, being taken from the Syriac, substantially agrees with it. Chrysostom and Theophylact entertain the same opinion. Suidas thus writes: “He is, therefore, declared to be without descent or genealogy, because he is not of the seed of Abraham, but of Canaanitish origin … therefore he is destitute of the honour of a genealogy.” “Thus,” says Dr. Owen, “was Melchizedek without father and mother, in that the Spirit of God, who so strictly and exactly recorded the genealogies of other patriarchs, etc., speaks nothing to this purpose concerning him.” The opinions of better and later critics have already been given; to these two or three more may be added. Dr. Robinson informs us that Melchizedek is styled “without father, without mother,” because neither his father nor his mother was found in the Hebrew genealogies. “Being a Canaanite, and not standing in the public genealogical registers, as belonging to the family of Aaron, he was a priest, not by right of sacerdotal descent, but by the grace of God.” His priesthood, therefore, is of a higher and more ancient order than that of Aaron. “The context,” says Schleusner, “requires us to believe that Melchizedek is called ‘without father’ by Paul because his father was not inscribed in the genealogies of the Jewish priests.” It may, however, appear somewhat to militate against this interpretation that Melchizedek is mentioned immediately after the passage cited above as having “neither beginning of days nor end of life.” We may answer this objection in two ways. With Tholuck, we may adopt the language of Chrysostom, and say, “How ‘having neither beginning of days nor end of life’? How? as it is not contained in Scripture; this is ‘having no beginning,’ this is ‘having no end.’ ” “We must,” Tholuck goes on to add, “at ‘having neither beginning of days nor end of life,’ conceive added, ‘in history.’ These words would then be understood of the Mosaic annals, or of the early chronologies referred to by Josephus.” There is another answer. It is this, in the language of Stuart: “ ‘Having neither beginning of days nor end of life’; i.e. who, as high priest, has no limited time assigned for the commencement and expiration of his office; for so the following clause leads us to interpret this expression. The Levitical priests were limited in their service (see Numbers 4:3; Numbers 33:35; Numbers 33:43; Numbers 33:47: compare Numbers 8:24-25). The meaning of the writer then is, that Melchizedek’s priesthood was limited to no definite time, i.e. sacerdos perpetuus, a priest without limitation of office.” The latter explanation strikes us as being the best. Melchizedek appears then, in history, as an enigmatic priest-king. From what race he sprang, where he obtained his knowledge of the true God, what was the nature and authority of his priestly office, we know not. He comes before us as a mysterious being. He disappears we know not when or where. In the dignity and perpetuity of his priesthood, how admirable a type he is of our High Priest—a priest for ever after the order (i.e. of an order or rank like that) of Melchizedek.—Biblical Treasury.
Hebrews 7:3. A Successor to Melchizedek.—Recent discoveries of Oriental archæology have established the strictly historical character of the account of the campaign of Chedorlaomer and his allies against Palestine. The accounts of Melchizedek, king of Salem, which the critics were unanimous in pronouncing to be mythical, have also received an unexpected confirmation from the same source. The new light has come from the decipherment of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets. “Among the correspondents of the Egyptian Pharaohs, whose letters have been found at Tel-el-Amarna, is a veritable successor of the priest-king Melchizedek. Ebed-Tob, the king of Uru-Salim, or Jerusalem, was indeed a vassal of Egypt; but he was a vassal who boasts that, unlike the other Egyptian governors in Canaan, he did not owe his position to the Egyptian monarch, nor was his royal dignity inherited; it was neither his father nor his mother, but an oracle of the god—‘the mighty king’—whom he worshipped, that had conferred it upon him. This god bore the name of Salim, the god of ‘peace.’ The royal priest, accordingly, who ruled in Uru-Salim, ‘the city of Salim,’ might be called ‘the king of Salim,’ with even more truth than ‘king of Jerusalem.’ Like the descendants of David, whom Isaiah beheld in prophetic vision (Hebrews 7:6), he was a ‘prince of peace.’ The description given of himself by Ebed-Tob, in his letters to the Egyptian monarch, explains the suddenness, as it were, with which Melchizedek is introduced upon the scene. His father is unmentioned. As the author of the epistle to the Hebrews says (Hebrews 7:3), he comes before us ‘without father, without mother, without descent.’ Like Ebed-Tob, it was not from his father or mother that he inherited his royal office—he had been appointed to it by the deity whom he worshipped, and he was king because he was also priest.”—After Sayce.