to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, “king of righteousness”, and then also “king of Salem”, which means “king of peace”, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God), remains a priest continually.
Now consider how great this man was, to whom even Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the best plunder. They indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brothers, though these have come out of the body of Abraham, but he whose genealogy is not counted from them has accepted tithes from Abraham, and has blessed him who has the promises.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv3–6 3. Without father, etc. I prefer this rendering to…
3. Without father, etc. I prefer this rendering to that of “unknown father;” for the Apostle meant to express something more emphatic than that the family of Melchisedec was obscure or unknown. Nor does this objection disturb me, that the reality does not correspond with the figure or type, because Christ has a Father in heaven, and had a mother on earth; for the Apostle immediately explains his meaning by adding without descent, or kindred. He then exempts Melchisedec from what is common to others, a descent by birth; by which he means that he is eternal, so that his beginning from men was not to be sought after. It is indeed certain that he descended from parents; but the Apostle does not speak of him here in his private capacity; on the contrary, he sets him forth as a type of Christ. He therefore allows himself to see nothing in him but what Scripture contains. For in treating of things respecting Christ, such reverence ought to be observed as not to know anything but what is written in the Word of the Lord. Now, as the Holy Spirit in mentioning this king, the most illustrious of his age, is wholly silent as to his birth, and makes afterwards no record of his death, is not this the same thing as though eternity was to be ascribed to him? And what was shadowed forth in Melchisedec is really exhibited in Christ. It behooves us then to be satisfied with this moderate view, that while Scripture sets forth to us Melchisedec as one who had never been born and never died, it shows to us as in a mirror, that Christ has neither a beginning nor an end.
But we hence also learn how much reverence and sobriety is required as to the spiritual mysteries of God: for what is not found read in Scripture the Apostle is not only willing to be ignorant of, but also would have us to seek to know. And surely it is not lawful for us to allege anything of Christ from our own thoughts. And Melchisedec is not to be considered here, as they say, in his private capacity, but as a sacred type of Christ; nor ought we to think that it was accidentally or inadvertently omitted that no kindred is ascribed to him, and that nothing is said of his death; but on the contrary, that this was done designedly by the Spirit, in order to give us an idea of one above the common order of men. There seems therefore to be no probability in the conjecture of those who say that Melchisedec was Shem the son of Noah; for if we make him to be some known individual, we destroy this third likeness between Melchisedec and Christ.
Read full note →
Made like, or assimilated, etc. Not as far as what was typified required; for we must always bear in mind that there is but an analogy between the thing signified and the sign; for they make themselves ridiculous who imagine that he came down from heaven, in order that there might be a perfect similarity. It is enough that we see in him the lineaments of Christ, as the form of the living man may be seen in his picture, while yet the man himself is very different from what represents him. It seems not to be worth one’s while to refute the delirious notions of those who dream that Christ himself, or the holy Spirit, or an angel, appeared at that time; unless indeed one thought it to be the duty of a right-minded man to dispute with Postillus and such fanatics; for that impostor asserts that he is Melchisedec with no less supercilious folly than those mad spirits of old, mentioned by Jerome, who pretended that they were Christ.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv3–5 Another figure: Melchizedek set before us to be considered…
Another figure: Melchizedek set before us to be considered as one without beginning and without ending, for neither his father, nor his mother, nor his ancestors, nor his death are written of: and such an one indeed is the Son of God, to wit, an everlasting Priest: as he is God, without mother wonderfully begotten: as he is man, without father wonderfully conceived.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv2–6 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part…
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Ver. 2. Gave a tenth part of all] So to set forth his thankfulness to God for the victory. The Lord is the man of war, Exo 15:3; the Lord and victor of wars, as the Chaldee there expresseth it. Conquerors should send to him, as Joab to David, to take the honour of the day, 2Sa 12:28. The very heathens, after a victory, would consecrate something to their gods. The Romans had a custom, when they had received any great victory, the conqueror in his triumphant chariot rode to the Capitol, where in all humility he did present a palm to Jupiter, and offer in sacrifice a white bullock; so acknowledging it was his power whereby the conquest was achieved. {a}
Read full note →
{a} ... laurumque superbam in gremio Iovis abscissis deponere Poenis. Et taurum album Iovi mactabant. Livy.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv2–6 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of…
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; by which tithing to him. Abraham owns him to be God’s priest. As he had received blessing from God by him, so he returns to God, through him, his acknowledgments; he divided, shared, and gave out his part to him, even the tenth part of all the spoils, Heb 7:4. This is the first scripture, Gen 14:20, that gives us any account of paying the tenths of goods to God in his priests; which custom afterwards obtained among most nations, to give the tenths of the spoils after victory to God. And this Abraham did, as due to the office by Divine institution, having received a blessing from it.
First being by interpretation King of righteousness: the mystery of his name, title, and descent, the Holy Ghost now opens to them. His name is a compound of מיך or מלכי which signifieth a king or governor, or my king, and צוך righteousness. A supreme governor, not only formally righteous in his own disposition, but efficiently by just and excellent laws making his subjects righteous; a king working righteousness in a Canaan, and in such a time of universal degeneracy from it. This God ordered for some special use, viz. to type out his own Son, God-man, the great gospel minister, to be the King of righteousness, who purchased it for, imputeth it to, and infuseth it into, sinners; who is so fully the Lord our righteousness, that we are made the righteousness of God in him, Isa 32:1; Jer 23:6; 33:16; Zec 9:9; 2Co 5:21.
Read full note →
And after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace: the mystery of his title of office, King of Salem. The due order of this is observable; he is first King of righteousness, and after that he is King of Salem, that is, of peace; the fruit of whose righteous government was peace. He kept this among his people, and round about him, while others were wasting and destroying their kingdoms by lusts and wars. This is eminently true of Christ The Prince of Peace, Isa 9:6,7, who gave some signal of his government, and begun his priesthood, in the same Salem, or Jerusalem, where Melchisedec reigned, Mat 21:5,9,10. He is eminently the royal purchaser, maker, and distributer of peace, reconciling all things to God, angels and men in heaven and in earth, and all persons, Jews and Gentiles, and the creation itself to recovered man, Col 1:20,21; compare Eph 2:13-17. The Prince and price of our peace, setting peace within souls, giving it to them without, peace spiritual, temporal, and eternal: his kingdom aboundeth in it, Psa 72:1,3,7; Isa 54:10,13; Joh 14:27; Jam 3:18.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv4–5 These words are the apostle’s application of what was…
These words are the apostle’s application of what was before discoursed; by comparing Melchizedek’s excellency with Abraham’s; he shews Christ’s excellency above Melchizedek’s, and he calls upon them to consider this, consider how grat this man was. It will be fruitless, and to no advantage, to propose and declare the most important truths of the gospel, if those unto whom they are proposed do not diligently inquire into them, and duly ponder and consider of them. The Hebrews are here called upon to consider: But what? And whom? Why, who Melchizedek was, and how great a man he was?
Note here, That the greatness of Melchizedek did not respect either the endowments of his person, of the largeness of his dominion, or his riches and wealth, in which sense some are said to be great in Scripture: but he is pronounced great with respect to his office, and in regard of his nearness to God on that account, as also in his representing our Lord Jesus Christ.
Read full note →
Observe farther, The proof here given of the greatness of Melchizedek, in that no meaner person than Abraham, than Abraham the Patriarch, did give the tenth part of the spoils unto him.
Here remark, That notwithstanding the highest advantages and privileges which Abraham was possessed of, which rendered him almost adored by his posterity, yet when the meanest duty was presented to him, he readily complied with it. The highest privileges neither can nor ought to exempt any person from the performance of the meanest duty. Duty is our highest honour, and chiefest advantage; but privileges, promotions, dignities, and exaltations, may become snares, and end in the ruin of men’s souls. When a person is dignified and advanced in the church, if thereby he thinks himself exempted from the ordinary service of the ministry, he is guilty of horrid pride and in gratitude: But if he farther indulges himself in a course of idleness, sloth, sensuality, and worldliness, these are crimes unpardonable, and want a name to express them.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv2–6 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of…
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all,.... Or tithes, as in Gen 14:20. Philo the Jew (b) renders the Hebrew phrase, , just as the apostle does , "a tenth part of all", or "out of all"; not of all that he brought back, as Lot's goods, or the king of Sodom's, or any others; only of the spoils of the enemy, as in Heb 7:4 which is no proof of any obligation on men to pay tithes now to any order of men; for this was a voluntary act, and not what any law obliged to; it was done but once, and not constantly, or every year; it was out of the spoils of the enemy, and not out of his own substance, or of the increase of the earth; nor was it for the maintenance of Melchizedek, as a priest, who also was a king, and was richly provided for; but to testify his gratitude to God, for the victory obtained, and his reverence of, and subjection to the priest of God.
First being by interpretation king of righteousness; or a "righteous king", as Melchizedek was; not the king of a righteous place, as Aben Ezra thought, a place wherein dwelt righteousness, or righteous persons; but it was his proper name, which so signifies, and in which he was a type of Christ; who is righteous, not only as God, and as man, and as Mediator, but particularly in the administration of his kingly office: his kingdom lies in righteousness, as well as peace; the subjects of it are righteous persons, and all his ways are just and true; his Gospel, by which he rules, is a declaration of righteousness; and he himself is the author of righteousness to all his people:
Read full note →
and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace; and may respect his peaceable government; and is very applicable to Christ, the Prince of peace; whose kingdom is a kingdom of peace; his sceptre is a sceptre of peace; his royal proclamation is the Gospel of peace; and his subjects are the sons of peace; and he himself is the author of peace, not only between Jew and Gentile, but between God and his people; and he is the donor of peace, external, internal, and eternal. So Philo the Jew (c) interprets this name, "king of peace", just as the apostle does.
(b) De Congressu, p. 438. (c) Leg. Alleg. l. 2. p. 75.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv2–6 Being first - According to the meaning of his…
Being first - According to the meaning of his own name. King of righteousness, then - According to the name of his city. King of peace - So in him, as in Christ, righteousness and peace were joined. And so they are in all that believe in him.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv2–6 Verse 2. Gave a tenth part of all] It…
Verse 2. Gave a tenth part of all] It was an ancient custom, among all the nations of the earth, to consecrate a part or tenth of the spoils taken in war to the objects of their worship. Many examples of this kind occur. This however was not according to any provision in law, but merely ad libitum, and as a eucharistic offering to those to whom they imagined they owed the victory. But neither Abraham's decimation, nor theirs, had any thing to do, either with tithes as prescribed under the Mosaic dispensation, or as claimed under the Christian.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv2, 4 Heb 7:2-3. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth…
Heb 7:2-3. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth of all — Namely, of all the spoils of the vanquished kings, (Heb 7:4,) but not a tenth also of the goods that had been taken from the king of Sodom and from Lot; for of these Abraham took nothing to himself. By paying tithes to Melchisedec, Abraham acknowledged him to be a priest of the true God. It seems, indeed, his being supernaturally appointed a priest by God, was known through all that country. Being first — According to the meaning of his own name; king of righteousness; and after that also — According to the name of his city; king of peace — So that in him, as in Christ, righteousness and peace were joined. And so they are in all that believe in him. “In ancient times, it was usual to give names to persons and places expressive of their qualities, or in commemoration of some remarkable events. Thus Abram’s name was changed into Abraham, to signify that he was made the father of many nations; and Sarai was named Sarah, because she was made the mother of nations; and Jacob obtained the name of Israel, because he had power with God. Viewed in the light of this ancient practice, the apostle’s argument, from these names, is conclusive, to show what an excellent person Melchisedec was, and how fit to be made a type of the Son of God. Without father, without mother — Without any mention of his parents; without descent — Or rather, without genealogy, or pedigree, recorded; for so the word here used, αγενεαλογητος, signifies; not a person who hath no descent or genealogy, but one whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered on record. This was the case with Melchisedec. He was assuredly born, and did no less certainly die than other men; but neither his birth nor his death are recorded. Or the apostle’s principal meaning may be, that there is no account of his being descended from any ancestors of the priestly order, and that therefore he did not derive his priesthood from his parents, but was a priest of the most high God by a particular appointment. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life — Mentioned by Moses. But whence was it that Moses should introduce so great and excellent a person as Melchisedec, without making any mention of his race or stock, of his parents or progenitors, of his rise or fall, contrary to his own custom in other cases, and contrary to all rules of useful history? The true cause of the omission of all these things was the same with that of the institution of his priesthood, and the introduction of his person in the story. And this was that he might be a more express and signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. But in all these respects, made like the Son of God — Who was really without father as to his human nature, without mother as to his divine; and in this also, without pedigree; and not descending, even in human nature, from any ancestors of the priestly order; abideth a priest continually — That is, no mention is made of the end of the priesthood of his order, nor of the termination of his own personal administration of his office by death; and so he stands in the story as a kind of immortal priest, without any successor being mentioned. And this is that which the apostle chiefly designed to confirm from hence, namely, that there was in the Scripture, before the institution of the Aaronical priesthood, a representation of an eternal, unchangeable one, namely, that of Christ, who, as he was without beginning of days, alone does really remain without death and without successor.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv2–6 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of…
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all - That is, a tenth part of all the spoils which he had taken Gen 14:20, thus acknowledging that in dignity of office Melchizedek was greatly his superior; Heb 7:4, Heb 7:6, Heb 7:8. This does not appear to have been on the part of Abraham so much designed as a present to Melchizedek personally, as an act of pious thankfulness to God. He doubtless recognized in Melchizedek one who was a minister of God, and to him as such he devoted the tenth of all which he had taken, as a proper acknowledgment of the goodness of God and of his claims. From this it is evident that the propriety of devoting a tenth part of what was possessed to God, was regarded as a duty before the appointment of the Levitical law. “Some” expression of this kind is obviously demanded, and piety seems early to have fixed on the “tenth” part as being no more than a proper proportion to consecrate to the service of religion. For the propriety of the use which the apostle makes of this fact, see the notes on Heb 7:4, Heb 7:6, Heb 7:8.
First being - The “first” idea in the interpretation of his name and office, etc. First being mentioned as king of righteousness, and then as king of peace.
Read full note →
King of righteousness - The literal translation of the name Melchizedek; see the notes on ver. 1. The “argument” implied in this by the remarks of the apostle is, that he bore a name which made him a proper emblem of the Messiah. There was a propriety that one in whose “order” the Messiah was to be found, should have such a name. It would be exactly descriptive of him, and it was “worthy of observation” that he of whose “order” it was said the Messiah would be, should have had such a name. Paul does not say that this name was given to him with any such reference; or that it was “designed” to be symbolical of what the Messiah would be, but that there was a “remarkable coincidence;” that it was a fact which was worth at least “a passing thought.” This is a kind of remark that might occur to anyone to make, and where the slight use which Paul makes of it would not be improper anywhere; but it cannot be denied that to one accustomed to the Jewish mode of reasoning - accustomed to dwell much on hidden meanings, and to trace out concealed analogies, it would be much more obvious and striking than it is with us.
We are to place ourselves in the situation of those to whom Paul wrote - trained up with Jewish feelings, and Jewish modes of thought, and to ask how this would strike “their” minds. And this is no more unreasonable than it would be in interpreting a Greek classic, or a work of a Hindu philosopher, that we should endeavor to place ourselves in the situation of the writer and of those for whom he wrote, and ascertain what ideas would be conveyed to them by certain expressions. It is not meant by these observations that there was really no intrinsic force in what Paul here said respecting the import of the “name.” There was force; and all the use which he makes of it is proper. His meaning appears to be merely that it was a fact worthy of remark, that the “name” had a meaning which corresponded so entirely with the character of him who was to be a high priest of the same “order.” “And after that.” He is mentioned after that with another appellation equally significant.
King of peace - A literal translation of the appellation “king of Salem;” Heb 7:1. The idea of Paul is, that it was “worthy of remark” that the appellation which he bore was appropriate to one whose ministry it was said the priesthood of the Messiah would resemble.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv2–4 King of justice, according to the signification of the…
King of justice, according to the signification of the word Melchisedech, and of peace, signified by the place Salem, of which he was king. By Salem is commonly expounded Jerusalem, though St. Jerome thinks it was a town in Samaria afterwards called Sichem. This king was also a priest of the Most High; i.e. of the true God. He blessed Abraham, after he had defeated Chodorlahomor and the other kings; (Genesis xiv.) and Abraham gave him the tithes of all things which he had taken from his enemies. He is said (ver. 3.) to have been without father, without mother, without any genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, inasmuch as we have no account in the Scripture of these particulars. He is said in Genesis to have brought out, inasmuch as he was a priest, that is, to have offered up a sacrifice to God of bread and wine. The apostle here shews two things, that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham, and that he is a figure of Christ, who is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. (Psalm cix. 4.) (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–6 gave--Greek, "apportioned"; assigned as his portion.
gave--Greek, "apportioned"; assigned as his portion.
tenth . . . of all--namely, the booty taken. The tithes given are closely associated with the priesthood: the mediating priest received them as a pledge of the giver's whole property being God's; and as he conveyed God's gifts to man (Heb 7:1, "blessed him"), so also man's gifts to God. Melchisedec is a sample of how God preserves, amidst general apostasy, an elect remnant. The meeting of Melchisedec and Abraham is the connecting link between to two dispensations, the patriarchal, represented by Melchisedec, who seems to have been specially consecrated by God as a KING-PRIEST, the highest form of that primitive system in which each father of a household was priest in it, and the Levitical, represented by Abraham, in which the priesthood was to be limited to one family of one tribe and one nation. The Levitical was parenthetical, and severed the kingdom and priesthood; the patriarchal was the true forerunner of Christ's, which, like Melchisedec's, unites the kingship and priesthood, and is not derived from other man, or transmitted to other man; but derived from God, and is transmitted in God to a never-ending perpetuity. Melchisedec's priesthood continueth in Christ for ever. For other points of superiority, see Heb 7:16-21. Melchisedec must have had some special consecration above the other patriarchs, as Abraham, who also exercised the priesthood; else Abraham would not have paid tithe to him as to a superior. His peculiar function seems to have been, by God's special call, KING-priest whereas no other "patriarch-priest" was also a God-consecrated king.
Read full note →
first being--Paul begins the mystical explanation of the historical fact (allegorical explanations being familiar to JEWS), by mentioning the significancy of the name.
righteousness--not merely righteous: so Christ. Hebrew "Malchi" means king: "Tzedek," righteousness.
King of Salem--not only his own name, but that of the city which he ruled, had a typical significance, namely, peace. Christ is the true Prince of peace. The peace which He brings is the fruit of righteousness.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv2–6 2. Tenth part of all—That is, of all the…
2. Tenth part of all—That is, of all the spoils he had taken. The tithes were, no doubt, a confession by Abraham of the priestly character of Melchizedek, offered as by a layman. It is a marked proof of the authenticity of this narrative that the father of Hebraism is described as doing sacred homage to the Hamite.
By interpretation—That is, interpretation of his name Melchizedek, which signifies, in Hebrew, king of righteousness.
Read full note →
After that—For righteousness precedes peace, as, without it, there can be no real peace.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv2–6 2. first being] This seems to imply that of…
2. first being] This seems to imply that of his two names or titles “Melchisedec,” and “King of Salem,” the first means “King of Righteousness” and the second “King of Peace.” In a passage of mystic interpretation like this, however, the writer may intend to suggest that there is a direct connexion between the two titles, and that “Righteousness” is the necessary antecedent to “Peace,” as is intimated in Psa_72:7; Psa_85:10. Comp. Rom_5:1.
by interpretation King of righteousness] The name Melchisedek may mean “King of Righteousness.” This is the paraphrase of the Targums, perhaps with tacit reference to Isa_32:1, where it is said of the Messiah “Behold a king shall reign in righteousness.” (Comp. Zec_9:9; Jer_23:5.) In the Bereshith Rabba Tzedek is explained to mean Jerusalem with reference to Isa_1:21, “Righteousness lodged in it.” Josephus (Antt. i. 19 § 12; B. J. vi. 10) and Philo, however, render it “Righteous King.” Later on in Jewish history (Jos_10:3) we read of Adonizedek (“Lord of righteousness”) who was a king of Jerusalem. Apart from any deeper meaning “Righteousness” or “Justice” was one of the most necessary qualifications of Eastern Kings who are also Judges. In the mystic sense the interpretation of the names Melchizedek and Salem made him a fit type of “the Lord our Righteousness” (Jer_23:6) and “the Prince of Peace” (Isa_9:6): and he was also a fit type of Christ because he was a Kingly Priest; a Priest who blessed Abraham; a Priest who, so far as we are told, offered no animal-sacrifices; and a Priest over whom Scripture casts “the shadow of Eternity.” See Bishop Wordsworth’s note on this passage.
Read full note →
King of peace] “The work of Righteousness shall be Peace, and the effect of Righteousness quietness and assurance for ever” (Isa_32:17; Eph_2:14-15; Eph_2:17; Rom_5:1. Comp. Philo Leg. Alleg. iii. 25, Opp. i. 102).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv2–6 (2) Gave a tenth part.—Literally, divided a tenth. This…
(2) Gave a tenth part.—Literally, divided a tenth. This point is fully treated of in Heb_7:4-9.
King of righteousness.—Josephus notes the significance of this name: “The first founder of Jerusalem was a chief of the Canaanites, who in our tongue is called Righteous King; for indeed such he was.” Philo also interprets King of Salem as “King of Peace.” The special interest of these titles for the writer lies in the application to Jesus the Messiah. (See Heb_1:8-9; Isa_9:6-7; Isa_32:1; Jer_23:5-6; Zec_9:9; Eph_2:14.) On this, as obvious to every Christian reader, he does not further dwell.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv4–5 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom…
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, even gave a tenth of the spoils. The typical significance of Melchizedek is now further seen in what passed between him and Abraham, in respect to tithe and blessing. Alford"s inference, that phlikov outov , referring as it does, not to the antitype, but to the man himself, implies some mysterious greatness beyond what appears in the original record, does not follow. Of one who simply blessed and received tithes from the great patriarch, the expression is not too strong. Observe the emphatic position, at the end of the Greek sentence, of oo pariarchv , equivalent to "he, the patriarch." Abraham"s being this, the father and representative of the chosen race, is what is shown in what follows to give peculiar significance to the transaction. The word akroyinia (properly, "the chief spoils"), which is not in the LXX, seems introduced to enhance the picture: "Quae Abrahami proprie fuerant, ut victoris" (Bengel).
Vers. 4-10.
Read full note →
I THE GREATNESS OF OUR LORD IS FORESHADOWED BY MELCHIZEDEK"S RECEIVING TITHES FROM ABRAHAM. As the representative of Jehovah, Abraham paid tithes to this distinguished priest. There is here an instance of that corporate principle which appears in the writings of Paul, who affirms that by the sin of Adam there came upon the race spiritual loss and exposure to death; and by the appearance and glorious work of our Lord many are made righteous now, and obtain grace which reigns unto eternal life. Abraham here represents the Jewish people and the Jewish priesthood, who in the person of their illustrious ancestor acknowledges the authority of Melchizedek, who was the type of the Son of God. It was an impressive argument for the unrivalled glory of Christ as a Priest that the tribe of Levi paid tithes to him who foreshadowed him whose name is above every name. Reverting to the absence of all mention of Melchizedek"s death on the sacred page, there is a contrast supplied between the Levites who receive tithes and die, but, as they pass through their ministry, pay tithes representatively to him of whom "it is witnessed that he liveth." Being once upon the right track, the writer discovers abundant proofs of the superiority of Christ to all the priesthood of the earthly temple, and finds the fulfillment of the words of him who promised the gift of the Holy Spirit in those memorable words, "He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you". (Joh_16:14)
II THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST TYPIFIED BY MELCHIZEDEK"S OFFICIAL ACT OF BLESSING ABRAHAM. The object of this branch of the argument is to show the preeminence of the type, and consequently the glory of the Antitype. Melchizedek blessed Abraham (Gen_14:19, Gen_14:20) in an act of solemn prayer to the most high God. There is one ritual form of blessing which was pronounced by Aaron and his sons in these words: "The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace". (Num_6:24-26) The word "to bless," in Hebrew, is derived from a root which signifies" to bend the knee," and therefore to bow before him who invokes the blessing of Jehovah, which "maketh rich, and addeth no sorrow therewith." The less is blessed of the better in office, spiritual dignity, and connection with the resources of Heaven. The Hebrew Christians must see, as we may see, how arguments, illustrations, and typical events multiply to increase our confidence in him upon whose head are the many crowns of realized type, fulfilled prediction, and official glory. The last glimpse of our Lord"s earthly life seems to give the finishing touch to this subject. "For it came to pass, while he blessed his disciples, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven". B. (Luk_24:51)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv2–6 2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part…
2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all. Tithes were paid to him as priest of the Most High. King of righteousness. Such is the meaning of Melchizedek. The word may not be the name, but a title. King of Salem. This means “King of Peace.” It will be observed that the payment of tithes for religious purposes is at least 400 years older than the Jewish law. See also Gen. 28:22.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v4 Heb_7:4. How great.—Lit. “of what exalted rank.” Jesus had…
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Heb_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.
Read full note →
Heb_7:5. Take tithes.—See Num_18:28-30; Deu_14:22; Deu_14:27-29. Tithe-giving was a recognition of superior dignity. Out of the loins.—A Hebrew figure (Gen_35:11): descendants from Abraham.
Heb_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.
Heb_7:7. Less.—Simply inferior in rank or office. Lit. “Inferiority is blessed by superiority.”
Heb_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.
Heb_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.—Heb_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 Heb_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
Heb_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.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v2
Hebrews
RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST, PEACE SECOND
Read full note →
Heb 7:2.
THAT mysterious, shadowy figure of the priest-king Melchizedec has been singularly illuminated and solidi-fled by recent discovery. You can see now in Berlin and London, letters written fourteen centuries before Christ, by a king of Jerusalem who describes himself almost in the very words which the Old and the New Testaments apply to Melchizedec. He says that he is a royal priest or a priestly king. He says that he derived his royalty neither from father nor mother, nor by genealogical descent; and he says that he owes it to ‘the great King’ - possibly an equivalent to the ‘Most High God’; of whom Melchizedec is in Scripture said to have been a worshipper. The name of the letter-writer is not Melehizedec, but the fact that his royalty was not hereditary, like a Pharaoh’s, may explain how each monarch bore his own personal appellation, and not one common to successive members of a dynasty.
And are not the names of King and city significant - ‘King of righteousness... King of peace’? It sounds like a yearning, springing up untimely in those dim ages of oppression and strife, for a royalty founded on something better than the sword, and wielded for something higher than personal ambition. Such an ideal at such a date is like a summer day that has wandered into a cold March.
But the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews imposes a meaning not only on the titles, but on their sequence, of course therein he is letting a sanctified imagination play round a fact, and giving to it a meaning which is not in it. None the less in that emphatic expression ‘first King of righteousness, and after that also King of peace,’ he penetrated very deeply into the heart of Christ’s reign and work, and echoed a sentiment that runs all through Scripture. Hearken to one psalmist: ‘The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness.’ Hearken to another: ‘Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ Hearken to a prophet: ‘The work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever.’ Hearken to the most Hebraistic of New Testament writers: ‘The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace.’ Hearken to the central teaching of the most Evangelical, if I may so say, of New Testament writers: ‘Being justified’ - made righteous ‘by faith, we have peace with God.’ So the ‘first’ and the ‘after that’ reveal to us the very depth of Christ’s work, and carry in them not only important teaching as to that, but equally important directions and guides for Christian conduct; and it is to this aspect of my text, and this only, that I ask your attention now.
The order which we have here, ‘first of all King of righteousness, and after that King of peace,’ is the order which I shall try to illustrate in two ways. First, in reference to Christ’s work on the individual soul; second, in reference to Christ’s work on society and communities.
First, then, here we have laid down the sequence in which
I. Christ comes with His operations and His gifts to the soul that clings to Him.
First ‘righteousness... after... peace.’ Now I need not do more than in a sentence remind you of the basis upon which the thoughts in the text, and all right understanding of Christ’s work on an individual, repose, and that is that without righteousness no man can either be at peace with God or with himself. Not with God - for however shallow experience may talk effusively and gushingly about a God who is all mercy, and who loves and takes to His heart the sinner and the saint alike; such a God drapes the universe in darkness, and if there are no moral distinctions which determine whether a man is in amity or hostility with God, then ‘the pillared firmament itself is rottenness, and earth’s base built on stubble.’ No, no, brethren; it sounds very tender and kindly; at bottom it is the cruellest thing that you can say, to say that without righteousness a man can please God. The sun is in the heavens, and whether there be mist and fog down here, or the bluest of summer skies, the sun is above. But its rays coming through the ethereal blue are warmth and blessedness, and its rays cut off by mists are dim, and itself turned into a lurid ball of fire. It cannot be - and thank God that it cannot - that it is all the same to Him whether a man is saint
or sinner.
I do not need to remind you that in like manner righteousness must underlie peace with oneself. For it is true to-day, as it was long generations ago, according to the prophet, that ‘the wicked is like the troubled sea which cannot rest, whose waters throw up mire and dirt,’ and, on the other hand, the promise is true still and for ever; ‘O that thou hadst hearkened unto me, then had thy peace been like a river,’ because ‘thy righteousness’ will be ‘like the waves of the sea.’ For ever and ever it stands true that for peace with God, and for a quiet heart, and a nature at harmony with itself, there must be righteousness.
Well, then, Jesus Christ comes to bring to a man the righteousness without which there can he no peace in his life. And that is the meaning of the great word which, having been taken for a shibboleth and ‘test of a falling or a standing Church,’ has been far too much ossified into a mere theological dogma, and has been weakened and misunderstood in the process. Justification by faith; that is the battle-cry of Protestant communities. And what does it mean? That I shall be treated as righteous, not being sop That I shall be forgiven and acquitted? Yes, thank God! But is that all that it means, or is that the main thing that it means? No, thank God! for the very heart of the Christian doctrine of righteousness is this, that if, and as soon as, a man puts his trembling trust in Jesus Christ as his Saviour, then he receives not merely pardon, which is the uninterrupted flow of the divine love in spite of his sin, nor an accrediting him with a righteousness which does not belong to him, but an imparting to him of that new life, a spark from the central fire of Christ’s life, ‘the new man which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness.’ Do not suppose that the great message of the gospel is merely forgiveness. Do not suppose that its blessed gift is only that a man is acquitted because Christ has died. All that is true. But there is something more than that which is the basis of that other, and that is that by faith in Jesus Christ, I am so knit to Him - ‘He that is joined to the Lord’ being ‘one spirit’ - as that there passes into me, by His gift, a life which is created after His life, and is in fact cognate and kindred with it.
No doubt it is a mere germ, no doubt it needs cultivating, development, carefully guarding against gnawing insects and blighting frosts. But the seed which is implanted, though it be less than the least of all seeds, has in itself the promise and the potency of triumphant growth, when it will tower above all the poisonous shrubs and undergrowth of the forest, and have the light of heaven resting on its aspiring top. Here is the great blessing and distinctive characteristic of Christian morality, that it does not say to a man: ‘First aim after good deeds and so grow up into goodness,’ but it starts with a gift, and says,’ Work from that, and by the power of that. "I make the tree good,"‘ says Jesus to us, ‘do you see to it that the fruit is good.’ No doubt the vegetable metaphor is inadequate, because the leaf is wooed from out the bud, and ‘grows green and broad, and takes no care,’ but that effortless growth is not how righteousness increases in men. The germ is given them, and they have to cultivate it. First, there must be the impartation of righteousness, and then there comes to the man’s heart the sweet assurance of peace with God, and he has within him ‘a conscience like a sea at rest, imaginations calm and fair.’ ‘First, King of righteousness; after that, King of peace.’
Now if we keep firm hold of this sequence, a great many of the popular objections to the gospel, as if it were merely a means of forgiveness and escape, and a system of reconciliation by some kind of forensic expedient, fall away of themselves, and a great many of the popular blunders that Christian people make fall away too. For there are good folks to whom the great truth that ‘God is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their trespasses,’ and welcoming them to all the fulness of an overflowing love, has obscured the other truth that there is no peace for a Christian man continuous through his life, unless equally continuous through his life are his efforts to work out in acts the new nature which he has received.
Thus my text, by the order in which it places righteousness and peace, not only illuminates the work of Christ upon each individual soul, but comes with a very weighty and clear direction to Christian people as to their course of conduct. Are you looking for comfort? Is what you want to get out of your religion mainly the assurance that you will not go to hell? Is the great blessing that Christ brings to you only the blessing of pardon, which you degrade to mean immunity from punishment? You are wrong. ‘First of all, King of righteousness’ - let that which is first of all in His gifts be first of all in your efforts too; and do not seek so much for comfort as for grace to know and to do your duty, and strength to ‘cast off the unfruitful works of darkness,’ and to ‘put on the armour of light.’ The order which is laid down in my text was laid down with a different application, by our Lord Himself, and ought to be in both forms the motto for all Christian people.
‘Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things’ - comfort, sense of reconciliation, assurance of forgiveness, joyful hope, and the like, as well as needful material good - ‘shall be added unto you.’
And now, secondly, my text gives the order of.
II. Christ’s work in the world, and of His servant’s work after Him.
Of course, our Lord’s work in the world is simply the aggregate of HIS work on individual souls. But for the sake of clearness we may consider these two aspects of it somewhat apart. In regard to this second part of my subject, I would begin, as I began in the former section, by reminding you that the only basis on which harmonious relations between men in communities, great or small, can be built, is righteousness, in the narrowest sense of the word, meaning thereby justice, equal dealing as between man and man, without partiality or class favouritism. Wherever you get an unjustly treated section or order of men, there you get the beginnings of war and strife. A social order built upon injustice, just in the measure in which it is so built, is based upon a quicksand which will suck it down, or on a volcano which will blow it to pieces. Injustice is the grit in the machine; you may oil it as much as you like with philanthropy and benevolence, but until you get the grit out, it will not work smoothly.
There is no harmony amongst men unless their association is based and bottomed upon righteousness.
Jesus Christ comes into the world to bring peace at the far end, but righteousness at the near end, and therefore strife. The herald angels sang peace upon earth. They were looking to the deepest and ultimate issues of His mission, but when He contemplated its immediate results He had to say, ‘Suppose ye that I bring peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather division.’ He rode into Jerusalem ‘the King, meek, and having salvation,’ throned upon the beast of burden which symbolised peace. But He will come forth in the last fight, as He has been coming forth through all the ages, mounted on the white horse, with the sword girt upon His thigh in behalf of meekness and righteousness and truth. Christ, and Christianity when it keeps close to Christ, is a ferment, not an emollient. The full and honest application of Christ’s teaching and principles to any society on the face of the earth at this day is bound to result in agitation and strife. There is no help for it. When a pure jet of water is discharged into a foul ditch, there will be much uprising of mud. Effervescence will always follow when Christ’s principles are applied to existing institutions. And so it comes to pass that Christian men, in the measure in which they are true to their Master, turn the world upside down. There will follow, of course, the tranquillity that does follow on righteousness; but that is far ahead, and there is many a weary mile to be trod, and many a sore struggle to be undertaken, before the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and strife ends for ever.
Now, if this be so, then in this necessary characteristic of Christ’s operation on the world, viz., disturbance arising from the endeavour to enthrone righteousness where its opposite has ruled ‘there results very plainly important teaching as to the duties of Christ’s servants to take their full share in the fight, to be the knights of the Holy Ghost, the champions of righteousness. The Church ought to lead in the van of all assaults on hoary wrongs or modern forms of unrighteousness in municipal, political, national life. And it is the disgrace of the Church that so largely it leaves that contest to be waged by men who make no pretence to be Christians. There is, unfortunately, a type of Christian thinking and life, of which in many respects one would speak with all sympathy and admiration, which warns the Christian Church against casting itself into this contest, in the alleged interest of a superior spirituality and a loftier conception of Evangelical truth. I believe, as heartily as any man can - and I venture to appeal to those who hear me Sunday by Sunday, and from year to year, whether it is not so - that the preaching of Jesus Christ is the cure for all the world’s miseries, and the banishment of all the world’s unrighteousness; but am I to be told that the endeavour to apply the person and the principles of Jesus Christ, in His life and death, to existing institutions and evils, is not preaching Christ? I believe that it is, and that the one thing that the Church wants to-day is not less of holding up the Cross and the Sacrifice, but more of pointing to the Cross and the Sacrifice as the cure of all the world’s evils, and the pattern for all righteousness.
It is difficult to do, it is made difficult by our own desire to be what the prophet did not think a very reputable position, ‘at ease in Zion.’ It is also made difficult by the way in which, as is most natural, the world, meaning thereby godless, organised society, regards an active Church that desires to bring its practices to the test of Christ’s word- Muzzled watchdogs that can neither bark nor bite are much admired by burglars. And a Church that confines itself to theory, to what it calls religion, and leaves the world to go to the devil as it likes, suits both the world and the devil. There was once a Prime Minister of England who came out of church one Sunday morning in a state of towering indignation because the clergyman had spoken about conduct. And that is exactly how the world feels about an intrusive Church that will push its finger into all social arrangements, and say about each of them, ‘This must be as Christ commanded.’
Brethren! would God that all Christian men deserved the name of ‘troublers of Israel.’ There was once a prophet to whom the men of his day indignantly said, ‘O sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? Put up thyself in thy scabbard, rest and be still.’ And the answer was the only possible one, ‘How can it be quiet, seeing that the Lord hath appointed it?’ If you and I are Christ’s servants, we shall follow the sequence of His operations, and seek to establish righteousness first and then peace. The true Salem is above.
‘My soul, there is a country
Afar beyond the stars.’
There ‘sweet peace sits crowned with smiles.’ The swords will then be wreathed with laurel and men ‘shall learn war no more,’ for the King has fought the great fight, ‘and of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end... in righteousness and justice, from henceforth even for ever.’ Let us take Him for ‘the Lord our righteousness,’ and we shall blessedly find that ‘this Man is our peace.’ Let us take arms in the Holy War which He wages, and we shall have peace in our hearts whilst the fight is sorest. Let us labour to ‘be found in Him... having the righteousness which is of God by faith,’ and then we shall ‘be found in Him in peace, without spot, blameless.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v4 The superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priests:
The superiority of Melchizedek over the Levitical priests:
v. 4. Now, consider how great this man was, unto whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
Read full note →
v. 5. And, verily, they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, 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;
v. 6. but he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
v. 7. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
v. 8. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
v. 9. And as I may so say, Lev. also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.
v. 10. For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
In this second argument of the series the inspired author shows that Melchizedek was greater than the patriarch Abraham, from whom the Jewish nation descended, to whom was entrusted God’s blessing. How much more, then, is he greater than the members of the Levitical priesthood who descended from Abraham! The author purposely calls the attention of the Jewish Christian readers to this point: But observe how great this man was, to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave the tenth of the spoils. The dignity, the excellence, the superiority of Melchizedek appears here, if anywhere. All misunderstandings are avoided by designating the Abraham here spoken of as the patriarch, the forefather of the Jewish race. If even this man, who was looked upon as almost superhuman, paid to Melchizedek the tenth, the best part of the spoils which he brought back from battle, the latter must be the possessor of a greatness and dignity of a most extraordinary rank.
This fact is further emphasized by a comparison between the tithes paid to the priests and that paid by Abraham in the instance referred to: And they, indeed, of the sons of Lev. that receive the priestly service are ordered to tithe the people in accordance with the Law, that is, their brethren, although these have come out of the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not recorded among them tithed Abraham and blessed him that had the promises. The descendants of Aaron, the members of the Levitical priesthood, Exo 28:1-3; Num 3:10-38; Num 13:14-15, were ordered by a commandment of God to receive tithes from the people, their brethren, for their maintenance. There is no question of personal superiority or inferiority, but only of complying with the Law, both parties being sons of Abraham, both tracing their descent to the same illustrious ancestor. But the matter was decidedly different with regard to Abraham and Melchizedek. For the latter, whose genealogy is not known, is not reckoned, tithed, received the tenth from, Abraham. There was no special law, no special commandment of God in this case, and yet Abraham paid. What is more, although Abraham was the bearer of God’s blessings and promises, having been assured of the fact that the Messiah of the world would be among his descendants, Gen 12:2-3; Gen 13:14-15, yet Melchizedek pronounced his blessing upon this possessor of the Messianic promises. Abraham, great and high and distinguished by God as he was, yet was glad to receive the blessing of the king of Salem.
The conclusion therefore seems clear: Without all contradiction the inferior is blessed by the superior. And here men that die receive tithes; there, however, he of whom it is testified that he lives. There can be no question, no argument about the first statement; it is the universal rule that he who holds the superior position pronounces the blessing upon him that holds a station beneath him. It follows that Melchizedek was better, higher, than Abraham, superior to him, since his blessing was not only the expression of his personal good will, but an imparting of results backed up by God’s almighty power. In addition to this significant fact, the incident of Melchizedek teaches that, whereas in the Jewish Church mortal men, men subject to death, received tithes, in the case of this priest of Salem it was a man concerning whom we have the testimony that he is living, Psa 110:4. The members of the Levitical priesthood passed away one by one and gave place to successors, being also in this respect inferior to Melchizedek, for whom Scriptures record no successor.
This argument the writer now amplifies by fixing the position of Levi in his relation to Melchizedek through Abraham: And, I might almost say, through Abraham also Levi, who receives tithes, was tithed, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. In the person of Abraham, who paid the tenth part of the spoils to Melchizedek, even Levi, whose descendants received the tithes of their brethren for their support, was tithed. It is true that Lev. was as yet unborn, Abraham being his great-grandfather, as appeared later. But this argument from heredity was one which readily appealed to Jewish readers and had an excellent application in this case. From the fact that the great-grandfather of Lev. and the forefather of all the men in the Levitical priesthood paid tithes to Melchizedek it is clear that the latter was in every way superior to the Levitical priesthood.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v4 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
The writer states that the priesthood of Melchizedek is better than Aaron's priesthood and then reminds them that the priesthood of Aaron did not make anything perfect.
Read full note →
this man was
"Melchizedek was"
The sons of Levi who receive the priesthood
The author says this because not all of Levi's sons became priests. AT: "The descendants of Levi who became priests" (See: Distinguishing versus Informing or Reminding)
from the people
"from the people of Israel"
from their brothers
Here "brothers" means they are all related to each other through Abraham. AT: "from their relatives"
they, too, have come from Abraham's body
This is a way of saying that they were descendants of Abraham. AT: "they, too, are descendants of Abraham" (See: Metaphor)
whose descent was not traced from them
"who was not a descendant of Levi"
the one who had the promises
The things that God promised to do for Abraham are spoken of as if they were objects that he could possess. AT: the one to whom God had spoken his promises" (See: Metaphor)
translationWords
ancestor
tenth
Levi
command
law
descend
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv2–6 7:2 Abraham was giving a tenth to the Lord…
7:2 Abraham was giving a tenth to the Lord by giving it to Melchizedek, his priest. This act anticipates the giving of tithes under the law (Lev 27:30, 32) and becomes a key point in the author’s argument (Heb 7:4). • Melchi- (Hebrew melek) means king. • -zedek (Hebrew tsedeq) means justice or righteousness. • Salem (Hebrew shalom) means peace. It was common for rabbis to bring out the theological significance of a biblical figure’s name by making associations between the name and other Hebrew terms.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.