Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 7:3

"without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God), abideth a priest continually." — Hebrews 7:3 (ASV)

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).