Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 7:2

"to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all (being first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is King of peace;" — Hebrews 7:2 (ASV)

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.