CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Hebrews 7:4. How great.—Lit. “of what exalted rank.” Jesus had shown great reverence for Abraham. Spoils.—Lit. “the top part of a heap of grain.” Then firstfruits. “As offerings were made to their gods, by the Greeks, from spoils taken in war, ἀκροθίνια came at last to signify, in the Greek language, any kind of spoils from which an offering for the gods was taken.
Hebrews 7:5. Take tithes.—See Numbers 18:28-30; Deuteronomy 14:22; Deuteronomy 14:27-29. Tithe-giving was a recognition of superior dignity. Out of the loins.—A Hebrew figure (Genesis 35:11): descendants from Abraham.
Hebrews 7:6. Descent.—R.V. “genealogy”; margin, “pedigree.” Received.—R.V. “hath taken.” δεδεκάτωκε is Hellenistic; found only in the New Testament and the LXX. Blessed.—The act of a superior.
Hebrews 7:7. Less.—Simply inferior in rank or office. Lit. “Inferiority is blessed by superiority.”
Hebrews 7:8. That die.—Not natural death; whose term of ministry ends. The writer has in mind the limitation of the Levitical priestly office, as a sign of its inferiority. There.—In the Scripture narrative of Melchizedek. Liveth.—No mention being made of his priesthood ending, it is taken as continuing. The writer is raising an argument to prove the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood.
Hebrews 7:9. May so say.—Or, “If I may be allowed the expression.” The apology indicates a fear that what he was about to say would seem far-fetched and exaggerated; and it is a kind of argument that Western minds are very imperfectly able to appreciate. Note that Isaac was not born until fourteen years after the incident of the tithe-paying. The writer’s suggestion must be taken as popular and rhetorical, not as logical or scientific. Payed tithes.—The whole race, according to Eastern ideas, may be spoken of as paying tithes, representatively, in Abraham, its head; and Levi is included in the race. “The descendants of Abraham cannot but occupy a lower position in presence of one who appears as Abraham’s superior.” Only “in a certain sense” was Levi then potentially existent. The argument depends on patriarchal and tribal notions and sentiments.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Hebrews 7:4-10
The Greatness of Melchizedek.—Not as a man, or as a king, but as the remarkable representative of an order of priesthood antecedent to the Aaronic, independent of the Aaronic, continuous in a line outside of Jewish exclusiveness, and coming into world-prominence once again in the priesthood of the Son of God. “We have long looked upon Abram as the one witness to monotheism among an idolatrous people, and to see him holding a position inferior to this hitherto unknown chieftain is an unexpected difficulty.” Abraham was himself a king-priest in his tribe, and yet he at once acknowledged a supremacy in Melchizedek. He did not look on him as one tribal patriarch would look upon another, who stood in a position of equality. Abraham distinctly recognised a superior person, one in a higher standing with the same God whom He served.
I. The greatness of Melchizedek is seen in his receiving tithes from Abraham.—It is not that Abraham made certain handsome presents to the supreme king of the country; it is that he “paid tithes,” which are distinctly religious dues, the proper claim of the priests. Jewish priests claimed tithes of their brethren by the authority of God; and Abraham must have realised that Melchizedek was priest by Divine authority, or he would never have given him the priest’s portion. The argument is, that Abraham’s act shows him to have recognised in Melchizedek one greater than himself; but Abraham was a race-father, and by his act represented his race. None of his descendants could be greater than himself, and none of them, therefore, could be greater than Melchizedek. The conclusion to which the writer would lead is this: Jesus is priest of the order of Melchizedek; therefore, if his priesthood is superior to the Aaronic, the priesthood of Jesus must also be superior. Abraham’s descendants may be required to pay tithes to the descendant—or, if you will, the continuance—of Melchizedek.
II. The greatness of Melchizedek is seen in his blessing Abraham.—The blessing given by a priest is the assurance of the acceptance and approval of God. The blessing of Melchizedek was the Divine recognition of Abraham’s prompt and decisive action in the overthrow of the invaders, and recovery of the spoil. But Abraham would never have cared to receive a blessing from a smaller man, and a man in a lower office than himself. “Without any dispute the less is blessed of the better.” The suggestion is, that Christ, as of the order of Melchizedek, wants no blessing from the house of Aaron. The bigoted Jews exaggerated the dignity and authority of the Jewish priests. The truth is, that they needed to seek the blessing of Him who represented the superior order of Melchizedek.
III. The greatness of Melchizedek as the type of an undying priest.—It was a distinct stamp of inferiority that the Levitical priests only held office for a fixed term of years. It was not for them an office belonging to their lives. Melchizedek’s office was continuous with his life. It is suggested that Christ’s office is also continuous with His life, and He lives for ever. It is not natural life, or future immortality, that is dealt with in Hebrews 7:8, but an enduring, unlimited time of priesthood. “So far as the letter of Scripture is concerned, Melchizedek stands in a perpetuity of mystic life.” And Christ, having risen from the dead, dieth no more, but “abideth a priest continually.”
IV. The greatness of Melchizedek as receiving tithes from Levi.—In a representative way Abraham’s act included that of his race, and therefore that of Levi. The writer presents this point in a way which would be more impressive on those who made much of genealogies than it is upon us. The representative act may be used to impress yet again the independence and superiority of Christ’s priesthood.
In conclusion show that Christ’s priesthood is—
1. For humanity, not for a section of it.
2. That it is spiritual, and concerns men’s primary, not merely ceremonial, relations with God. Therefore men need not fear to let formal, Aaronic priesthoods pass away, and satisfy themselves with the great, the true Melchizedek.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 7
Hebrews 7:5. Tithes in the Christian Church.—The revenue of the Church was increased by tithes or firstfruits. The primitive Church might be expected to have introduced this ordinance of the Jews from the beginning; but it was wholly unknown until the fourth or fifth century. Irenæus, indeed, speaks of firstfruits at an earlier period, but it is a disputed passage, and only relates to the wine and bread of the Eucharist as the firstfruits of Christ. Besides Irenæus, Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Augustine, and others, all enjoin the paying of tithes as a duty, and not in imitation of the Jews. These tithes and firstfruits the primitive Christians gave as a free-will offering, and not by constraint of law, of which there appears no indication in the first five centuries. The Council of Maçon, in the year 585, ordered the payment of tithes in the Church, as the restoration of an ancient and venerable custom. This, it will be observed, was merely an ecclesiastical law. No mention is made of any enactment of the State. Charlemagne first required the payment of tithes by statute law, and enforced the duty by severe penalties. That emperor himself paid tithes from his private property and his Saxon possessions. His successors confirmed and completed the system of tithe by law, which was subsequently introduced into England and Sweden.—L. Coleman.