Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 7

CHAPTER VII.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

In Hebrews 5:10-11, the apostle had introduced the name of Melchisedek, and said that Christ was made a high priest of the same order as he. He added, that he had much to say of him, but that they were not in a state of mind then to receive or understand it. He then (Hebrews 5:12–14) rebukes them for the little progress which they had made in Christian knowledge; exhorts them to go on and make higher attainments (Hebrews 6:1–3); warns them against the danger of apostasy (Hebrews 6:4–8); and encourages them to hold fast their faith and hope to the end, in view of the covenant faithfulness of God (Hebrews 6:9–20); and now returns to the subject under discussion—the high priesthood of Christ. His object is to show that he was superior to the Jewish high priest, and for this purpose he institutes the comparison between him and Melchisedek. The argument is the following:

1. That which is drawn from the exalted rank of Melchisedek, and the fact that the ancestor of the whole Jewish priesthood and community—Abraham—acknowledged him as his superior, and rendered tribute to him. But Christ was of the order of Melchisedek, and the apostle, therefore, infers his superiority to the Jewish priesthood (Hebrews 7:1–10).

   In the prosecution of this argument, the apostle dwells on the import of the name Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:1–2); states the fact that he was without any known ancestry or descent, and that he stood alone on the pages of the sacred record, and was therefore worthy to be compared with the Son of God, who had a similar pre-eminence (Hebrews 7:3); urges the consideration that even Abraham, the ancestor of the whole Jewish community and priesthood, paid tithes to him, and thus confessed his inferiority (Hebrews 7:4); shows that he from whom a blessing was received must be superior to the one who receives it (Hebrews 7:6–7); and that even Levi, the ancestor of the whole Levitical priesthood, might be said to have paid tithes in Abraham, and thus to have acknowledged his inferiority to Melchisedek, and, consequently, to the Son of God, who was of his "order" (Hebrews 7:9–10).

2. The apostle shows that perfection could not arise out of the Levitical priesthood, and that a priesthood that introduced a perfect state must be superior (Hebrews 7:11–19). In the prosecution of this argument, he states that perfection could not be arrived at under the Hebrew economy, and that there was need that a priesthood of another order should be formed (Hebrews 7:11); that a change of the priesthood involved of necessity a change in the law of administration (Hebrews 7:12); that the necessity of change of the law also followed from the fact that the great high priest was now of another tribe than that of Levi (Hebrews 7:13–14); that the Christian High Priest was constituted not after a commandment pertaining to the flesh, and liable to change, but after the power of an endless life—adapted to a life that was never to change or to end (Hebrews 7:15–17); that, consequently, there was a disannulling of the commandment going before, because it was weak and unprofitable (Hebrews 7:18); and that the old law made nothing perfect, but that by the new arrangement a system of entire and eternal perfection was introduced (Hebrews 7:19).

3. The apostle shows the superiority of the priesthood of Christ to that of the Jewish system, from the fact that the great High Priest of the Christian system was constituted with the solemnity of an oath; the Jewish priesthood was not (Hebrews 7:20–22). His priesthood, therefore, was as much more important and solemn as an oath is superior to a command; and his suretyship became as much more certain as an oath is superior to a simple promise (Hebrews 7:22).

4. The superiority of the priesthood of Christ is further shown, from the fact that under the former dispensation there were many priests; but here there was but one. There they lived but a brief period, and then gave way to their successors; but here there was no removal by death, there was no succession, there was an unchangeable priesthood (Hebrews 7:23–24). He infers, therefore (Hebrews 7:25–26), that the Christian High Priest was able to save to the uttermost all that came to the Father by him, since he ever lived to make intercession.

5. The last argument is, that under the Levitical priesthood it was necessary for the priest to offer sacrifice for his own sins, as well as for those of the people. No such necessity, however, existed in regard to the High Priest of the Christian system. He was holy, harmless, undefiled; he had no need to offer sacrifices for his own sins; and in this respect there was a vast superiority of the Christian priesthood over the Jewish (Hebrews 7:26–28). The force of these several arguments we shall be able to estimate as we advance in the exposition.

For this Melchisedec. (See Barnes on Hebrews 5:6).

The name, Melchisedek, from which the apostle derives a portion of his argument here, is Hebrew and is correctly explained as meaning king of righteousness—being compounded of two words—king and righteousness. Why this name was given to this man is unknown. Names, however, were frequently given on account of some quality or characteristic of the man. (See Barnes on Isaiah 8:18).

This name may have been given on account of his eminent integrity. The apostle calls attention to it (Hebrews 7:2) as a circumstance worthy of notice, that his name, and the name of the city where he reigned, were so appropriate to one who, as a priest, was the predecessor of the Messiah.

The account of Melchisedek, which is very brief, occurs in Genesis 14:18-20. The name occurs in the Bible only in Genesis 14, Psalms 110:4, and in this epistle. Nothing else is certainly known of him. Grotius supposes that he is the same man who, in the history of Sanchoniathon, is called suduk—Sydyc.

It has indeed been made a question by some whether such a person ever actually existed, and consequently whether this be a proper name. But the account in Genesis is as simple an historical record as any other in the Bible. In that account there is no difficulty whatever. It is said simply, that when Abraham was returning from a successful military expedition, this man, who, it seems, was well known, and who was respected as a priest of God, came out to express his approbation of what he had done, and to refresh him with bread and wine.

As a tribute of gratitude to him, and as a thank-offering to God, Abraham gave him a tenth part of the spoils which he had taken. Such an occurrence was by no means improbable, nor would it have been attended with any special difficulty if it had not been for the use which the apostle makes of it in this epistle.

Yet on no subject has there been a greater variety of opinion than in regard to this man. The bare recital of the opinions which have been entertained of him would fill a volume. But in a case which seems to be plain, from the Scripture narrative, it is not necessary even to enumerate these opinions.

They only serve to show how easy it is for men to mystify a clear statement of history, and how fond they are of finding what is mysterious and marvelous in the plainest narrative of facts. That he was Shem, as the Jews suppose, or that he was the Son of God himself, as many Christian expositors have maintained, there is not the slightest evidence.

That the latter opinion is false is perfectly clear; for if he were the Son of God, with what propriety could the apostle say that he was made like the Son of God (Hebrews 7:3); that is, like himself; or that Christ was constituted a priest after the order of Melchisedec; that is, that he was a type of himself?

The most simple and probable opinion is that given by Josephus, that he was a pious Canaanitish prince; a personage eminently endowed by God, and who acted as the priest of his people. That he combined in himself the offices of priest and king furnished to the apostle a beautiful illustration of the offices sustained by the Redeemer, and was, in this respect, perhaps the only one whose history is recorded in the Old Testament who would furnish such an illustration.

That his genealogy was not recorded, while that of every other priest mentioned was so carefully traced and preserved, furnished another striking illustration. In this respect, like the Son of God, he stood alone. He was not in a line of priests; he was preceded by no one in the sacerdotal office, nor was he followed by any.

That he was superior to Abraham, and consequently to all who descended from Abraham; that a tribute was rendered to him by the great ancestor of all the fraternity of Jewish priests, was just an illustration which suited the purpose of Paul. His name, therefore, the place where he reigned, his solitariness, his lone conspicuity in all the past, his dignity, and perhaps the air of mystery thrown over him in the brief history in Genesis, furnished a beautiful and striking illustration of the solitary grandeur, and the inapproachable eminence of the priesthood of the Son of God. There is no evidence that Melchisedek was designed to be a type of the Messiah, or that Abraham so understood it. Nothing of this kind is affirmed; and how shall we affirm it when the sacred oracles are silent?

King of Salem. Such is the record in Genesis 14:18. The word Salem—which is Hebrew—means peace; and from this fact the apostle derives his illustration in Hebrews 7:2. He regards it as a fact worth remarking on, that the name of the place over which he ruled expressed so strikingly the nature of the kingdom over which the Messiah was placed. In regard to the place here denoted by the name Salem, the almost uniform opinion has been that it was that afterwards known as Jerusalem. The reasons for this opinion are:

1. That it is a part of the name Jerusalem itself—the name Jerus, altered from Jebus, having been afterwards added, because it was the residence of the Jebusites.

2. The name Salem is itself given to Jerusalem. Psalms 86:2: In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion.

3. Jerusalem would be in the direction through which Abraham would naturally pass on his return from the slaughter of the kings. He had pursued them to Dan (Genesis 14:14), and he was returning to Mamre, that is, Hebron (Genesis 14:13). On his return, therefore, he would pass in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Rosenmuller, however, supposes that by the name here Jerusalem is not intended, but the whole region occupied by the Jebusites and Hittites, or the royal seat of this region, situated not far from the cities of the plain—the vale of Siddim, where Sodom and Gomorrah were situated. But I see no reason for doubting that the common opinion, that Jerusalem is intended, is correct. That place was favorably situated for a capital of a nation or tribe; was easily fortified; and would be likely to be early selected as a royal residence.

Priest of the most high God. This is the account which is given of him in Genesis 14:18. The leading office of priest was to offer sacrifice. This duty was probably first performed by the father of the family (compare Barnes on Job 1:5; see also Genesis 8:20, Genesis 22:2); and when he was dead it devolved on the eldest son. It would seem, also, that in the early ages, among all nations whose records have reached us, the office of priest and king were united in the same person. It was long before it was found that the interests of religion would be promoted by having the office of priest pertain to an order of men set apart for this special work. That Melchisedek, who was a king, should also be a priest, was not, therefore, remarkable. The only thing remarkable is, that he should have been a priest of the true God. In what way he became acquainted with Him, is wholly unknown. It may have been by tradition preserved from the times of Noah, as it is possible that the arrival of Abraham in that land may have been in some way the means of acquainting him with the existence and character of JEHOVAH. The fact shows, at least, that the knowledge of the true God was not extinct in the world.

Who met Abraham. He came out to meet him, and brought with him bread and wine. Why he did this, is not mentioned. It was probably as an expression of gratitude to Abraham for having freed the country from oppressive and troublesome invaders, and in order to furnish refreshments to the party which Abraham headed, who had become weary and exhausted with the pursuit. There is not the slightest evidence that the bread and wine which he brought forth was designed to typify the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as has been sometimes supposed. (Compare Bush on Genesis 14:18). What did he know of this ordinance? And why should we resort to such a supposition, when the whole case may be met by a simple reference to the ancient rites of hospitality, and by the fact that the deliverance of the country by Abraham from a grievous invasion made some expression of gratitude on the part of this pious king in the highest degree proper?

Returning from the slaughter of the kings. Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and Tidal, king of nations, who had invaded the valley where Sodom and Gomorrah were, and had departed with a great amount of booty. Those kings Abraham had pursued beyond Dan, and to the neighborhood of Damascus, and had defeated them, and recovered the spoil.

And blessed him. For the important service which he had rendered in taking vengeance on these invaders; in freeing the land from the apprehension of being invaded again; and in recovering the valuable booty which they had taken away. From Hebrews 7:6-7, it appears that this act of blessing was regarded as that of one who was superior to Abraham: that is, he blessed him as a priest and a king. As such he was superior in rank to Abraham, who never claimed the title of king, and who is not spoken of as a priest.

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all. That is, a tenth part of all the spoils which he had taken (Genesis 14:20), thus acknowledging that, in dignity of office, Melchisedek was greatly his superior (Hebrews 7:4, 6, 8).

This does not appear to have been, on Abraham's part, so much designed as a personal present to Melchisedek, as an act of pious thankfulness to God. He doubtless recognized in Melchisedek 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 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 the apostle makes of this fact, see Hebrews 7:4, Hebrews 7:6, and Hebrews 7:8.

First being. The first idea in the interpretation of his name and office is this: he is first mentioned as king of righteousness, and then as king of peace.

King of righteousness. This is the literal translation of the name Melchisedek .

The argument implied in this by the apostle's remarks 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 symbolic of what the Messiah would be, but that there was a remarkable coincidence—that it was a fact worth at least a passing thought. This is a kind of remark that might occur to anyone to make, and where the slight use Paul makes of it would not be improper anywhere. However, 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. This is no more unreasonable than it would be, when interpreting a Greek classic or a work of a Hindu philosopher, to 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 said here respecting the import of the name. There was force, and all the use 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. This is a literal translation of the appellation "king of Salem" (Hebrews 7:1). Paul's idea is that it was worthy of remark that the appellation he bore was appropriate for one whose ministry the Messiah's priesthood was said to resemble.

Without father. The phrase without father (apatōr) means, literally, one who has no father, one who has lost his father, or one who is an orphan. It then denotes one who is born after his father's death, or one whose father is unknown—spurious (according to Passow). The word often occurs in these senses in classical writers; for numerous examples, the reader may consult Wetstein, in loc.

It is morally certain, however, that the apostle did not use the word here in any of these senses, as there is no evidence that Melchizedek was fatherless in any of these respects. It was very important, in the estimation of the Jews, that the line of their priesthood should be carefully kept, that their genealogies should be accurately marked and preserved, and that their direct descent from Aaron should be capable of easy and certain proof.

But the apostle says that there was no such genealogical table concerning Melchizedek. There was no record made of the name of his father, his mother, or any of his posterity. He stood alone. It is simply said that such a man came out to meet Abraham—and that is the first and the last that we hear of him and his family.

Now, the apostle says, it is distinctly stated in Psalm 110:4 that the Messiah was to be a priest according to his order. In this respect, there is a remarkable resemblance, so far as the point of his being a priest—which was the point under discussion—was concerned. The Messiah thus, as a priest, STOOD ALONE.

His name does not appear in the line of priests. He belonged to another tribe (Hebrews 7:14). No one of his ancestors is mentioned as a priest; and, as a priest, he has no descendants and no followers. He has a lonely prominence similar to that of Melchizedek, a standing unlike that of any other priest.

This should not, therefore, be construed as meaning that Christ's genealogy could not be traced—which is not true, as Matthew 1 and Luke 3 have carefully preserved it—but that he had no genealogical record as a priest. Since the apostle's reasoning pertains to this point only, it would be unfair to construe it as implying that the Messiah was to stand unconnected with any ancestor, or that his genealogy would be unknown. The meaning of the word rendered "without father" here is, therefore, one the name of whose father is not recorded in the Hebrew genealogies.

Without mother. This means one whose mother's name is unknown or is not recorded in the Hebrew genealogical tables. Philo calls Sarah amētora (without mother), probably because her mother is not mentioned in the sacred records. The Syriac version has given the correct understanding of the apostle's meaning: "Of whom neither the father nor mother are recorded in the genealogies."

The meaning here is not that Melchizedek was of low and obscure origin, as the terms "without father" and "without mother" often signify in classical writers and in Arabic (compare Wetstein). There is no reason to doubt that Melchizedek had an ancestry as honorable as other kings and priests of his time. The simple thought is that the name of his ancestry does not appear in any record of those in the priestly office.

Without descent (Margin: pedigree). The Greek word agenealogētos means without genealogy, whose descent is unknown. He himself is merely mentioned, and nothing is said of his family or his posterity.

Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. This is a much more difficult expression than any of the others concerning Melchizedek. The obvious meaning of the phrase is that, in the records of Moses, neither the beginning nor the end of his life is mentioned. It is not said when he was born or when he died, nor is it said that he was born or that he died.

The apostle refers to this particularly because it was so unusual in the records of Moses, who is generally so careful to mention the birth and death of the individuals whose lives he describes. Under the Mosaic dispensation, everything concerning the duration of the sacerdotal office was accurately determined by the law.

In the time of Moses, and by his arrangement, the Levites were required to serve from the age of thirty to fifty (Numbers 4:3, 23, 36, 43, 47; Numbers 8:24, 26). After the age of fifty, they were released from the more arduous and severe duties of their office. In later periods of Jewish history, they commenced their duties at the age of twenty (1 Chronicles 23:24, 27).

The priests and the high priest also entered their office at thirty years of age, though it is not supposed that they retired from it at any particular period of life. The apostle's idea here is that nothing of this kind occurs concerning Melchizedek. No period is mentioned when he entered his office, nor when he retired from it.

From anything that appears in the sacred record, his priesthood might seem perpetual—though Paul evidently did not mean to be understood as saying that it was so. It cannot be that he meant to say that Melchizedek literally had no beginning of days (that is, that he was from eternity) or that he literally had no end of life (that is, that he would exist forever), for this would be to make him equal with God.

The expression used must be interpreted according to the matter under discussion, which was the office of Melchizedek as a priest. Of that office, no beginning is mentioned and no end. There can be no doubt that this is Paul's meaning. However, there is a much more difficult question about the force and pertinence of this reasoning—about the use he intends to make of this fact and the strength of the argument he designs to employ here.

This inquiry cannot easily be settled. It may be admitted, undoubtedly, that it would strike a Jew with much more force than it would any other person. To see its pertinence, we should be able to place ourselves in their condition and, as far as possible, transfer their state of feeling to ourselves.

It was mentioned in Psalm 110:4 that the Messiah was to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. It was natural, then, to turn to the only existing record of him—the very brief narrative in Genesis 14. There, the account is simple and plain: he was a pious Canaanite king who officiated as a priest.

In what point then, it would be asked, was the Messiah to resemble him? In his personal character, his office, his rank, or in what he did? It would be natural, then, to extend the parallel and seize upon the points in which Melchizedek differed from the Jewish priests, points that would be suggested on reading that account. For it was undoubtedly in those points that the resemblance between Christ and Melchizedek was to consist. Here the record was to be the only guide, and the points in which he differed from the Jewish priesthood, according to the record, were these:

1. That there is no account of his ancestry as a priest—neither father nor mother being mentioned—as was indispensable in the records of the Levitical priesthood.
2. There was no account of any descendants in his office, and no reason to believe that he had any; thus, he stood alone.
3. There was no account of the commencement or end of his office as a priest; but, so far as the record goes, it is just as it would have been if his priesthood had neither beginning nor end. It was inevitable, therefore, that those who read the Psalm and compared it with the account in Genesis 14 should conclude that the Messiah was to resemble Melchizedek in some such points as these. These are the points in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood, and to trace out these points of comparison is all that the apostle has done here. It is just what would be done by any Jew, or indeed by any other person, and the reasoning grew directly out of the two accounts in the Old Testament. It is not, then, quibble or quirk; it is sound reasoning, based on these two points:
   1. that it was said in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek; and
   2. that the only points, according to the record, in which there was anything peculiar about the priesthood of Melchizedek, or in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood, were such as those Paul specifies. He reasons from the record; and though there is, as was natural, something of a Jewish cast about it, yet it was the only kind of reasoning that was possible in the case.

But made like. The word used here means to be made like, to be made to resemble, and then to be like, or to be compared with. Our translation seems to imply that there was a divine agency or intention by which Melchizedek was made to resemble the Son of God, but this does not seem to be the apostle's idea. In the Psalm, it is said that the Messiah would resemble Melchizedek in his priestly office, and this is doubtless the idea here. Paul is seeking to illustrate the nature and perpetuity of the Messiah's office by comparing it with that of Melchizedek. Therefore, he pursues the idea of this resemblance.

The true sense of the word used here is, "he was like, or he resembled the Son of God." So Tyndale and Coverdale render it, "is likened unto the Son of God." The points of resemblance are those already suggested:

1. in the name—King of Righteousness, and King of Peace;
2. in the fact that he had no recorded ancestors or successors in the priestly office;
3. that he was, according to the record, a perpetual priest, there being no account of his death; and perhaps
4. that he united in himself the offices of king and priest. It may be added that the expression here, was made like unto the Son of God, proves that he was not himself the Son of God, as many have supposed. How could he be "made like" himself? How could a comparison be formally made between Christ and himself?

Abideth a priest continually. That is, as far as the record in Genesis goes—because it was according to this record that Paul was reasoning. This clause is connected with Hebrews 7:1, and the intermediate statements are parenthetical, containing important suggestions about Melchizedek's character, which would be useful in preparing readers for the argument the apostle proposed to draw from his rank and character.

The meaning is that there is no account of his death or of his ceasing to exercise the priestly office; in this respect, he may be compared with the Lord Jesus. All other priests cease to exercise their office by death (Hebrews 7:23), but Melchizedek's death is not mentioned.

It must have been true that Melchizedek's priesthood terminated at his death. It will also be true that Christ's priesthood will cease when His church has been redeemed and when He has given up the mediatorial kingdom to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:25–28). The expression abideth a priest continually is, therefore, equivalent to saying that he had a perpetual priesthood, in contrast to those whose office terminated at a definite period or passed to others. (See Barnes on Hebrews 7:24).

Verse 4: Now consider how great this man was. The apostle's object was to exalt the rank and dignity of Melchizedek. The Jews had a profound veneration for Abraham; if it could be shown that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, then it would be easy to demonstrate Christ's superiority, as a priest, to all who descended from Abraham.

Accordingly, the apostle argues that the one to whom even the patriarch Abraham showed so much respect must have had an exalted rank. Abraham, according to the views of the East, as the illustrious ancestor of the Jewish nation, was regarded as superior to any of his posterity. Consequently, he was to be considered as having higher rank and dignity than the Levitical priests, who descended from him.

Even the patriarch Abraham was one so great as he is acknowledged to have been. Regarding the word patriarch (see the notes on Acts 2:29), it occurs only in Acts 2:29, Acts 7:8–9, and in this passage.

Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils (see the notes on Hebrews 7:2).

The argument here is that Abraham acknowledged Melchizedek's superiority by this act of devoting the usual part of the spoils of war (or of what was possessed) to God through Melchizedek's hands, as the priest of the Most High. Instead of making a direct consecration himself, Abraham brought the spoils to Melchizedek as a minister of religion, recognizing in him one who had a higher official standing in religious matters than himself.

The Greek word rendered "spoils"—akroyinion—literally means the top of the heap, from akron (top) and yin (heap). The Greeks were accustomed, after a battle, to collect the spoils, throw them into a pile, and then, before distribution, take a portion from the top to devote to the gods (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7.6.36; Herodotus 1.86, 1.90; 8.121, 8.122; Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2).

Similarly, it was customary to place the harvest in a heap and, as the first thing, take a portion from the top to consecrate as a thank-offering to God. The word then came to denote the first-fruits offered to God, and subsequently the best of the spoils of battle. It has that sense here, denoting the spoils or plunder Abraham had taken from the defeated kings.

And truly those who are of the sons of Levi. The meaning of this verse is that the Levitical priests had a right to receive tithes from their brothers, but still they were inferior to Melchizedek. The apostle admits that their superiority to the rest of the people was shown by the fact that they had a right to require from them the tenth part of the produce of the land for their maintenance and for the support of religion. But still he says that their inferiority to Melchizedek, and consequently to Christ as a priest, was shown by the fact that the illustrious ancestor of all the Jewish people, including the priests as well as others, had confessed his inferiority to Melchizedek by paying him tithes.

Who receive the office of the priesthood. Not all the descendants of Levi were priests. The apostle, therefore, specifies particularly those who received this office, as being those he particularly intended to discuss, and as those whose inferiority to Christ as a priest his object was to show.

Have a commandment to take tithes. By the law, they have a commission or a right to exact tithes from the people (Deuteronomy 14:22, 27-29).