Charles Ellicott Commentary Hebrews 7

For this Melchizedek.—The sentence is completed in the last words of Hebrews 7:3, ... abideth a priest continually; the connection with the last chapter, therefore, is very clear. We know nothing about Melchizedek beyond what we learn from the brief narrative of Genesis 14. A Jewish legend, preserved in the later Targums on the Pentateuch but not in the Targum of Onkelos, identifies him with the patriarch Shem; and many later conjectures (stimulated by the remarkable language of these verses) have been far wilder in their extravagance. It may be that the result of these speculations has been to invest this chapter with a mystery that does not belong to it.

The object of the writer is, in reality, very simple—to deal with the question: What is the import of the divine utterance that David’s Lord is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek? His purpose is not to take up the history of Melchizedek and allegorize each part. Instead, it is to point out the full meaning of the comparison made in the prophecy, which declares the priesthood of the future King to be after the order of Melchizedek—i.e., to be such as the priesthood of Melchizedek typically set forth.

The first part of this sentence (Hebrews 7:1–2, as far as ...tenth part of all) enumerates the known facts of the history of Melchizedek; the following clauses are occupied with the interpretation of the history and with inferences from it. Of the facts recorded in Genesis, none are passed over, except the gift of bread and wine; the blessing also is mentioned in general terms only. The language of the Septuagint is, as a rule, closely followed throughout.

King of Salem.—Jewish tradition strongly affirms that this Salem occupied the site on which Jerusalem afterwards stood; and Salem is certainly a poetic name of Jerusalem (Psalms 76:2). This tradition, found in Josephus and in the earliest of the Targums, agrees well with the circumstances of the narrative as far as we can follow them and seems to deserve acceptance. Jerome maintained that Salem was situated near Scythopolis, where in his day ruins of “Melchizedek’s palace” were pointed out. Another tradition (probably of Samaritan origin) makes Mount Gerizim the place of meeting, in which case the city of Melchizedek would probably be near Shechem.

The most high God.—A title characteristic of the narrative (Genesis 14:18–20; Genesis 14:22). Melchizedek is the first who in Scripture is spoken of as priest, and the name is given without explanation. As in the earliest times this office was held by the head of a family (Job 1), it is not remarkable to find a union of regal and sacerdotal functions in the same man.

Returning from the slaughter.—Rather, from the smiting, or defeat. According to the narrative in Genesis, the meeting took place after Abraham had returned from the defeat of the king; but probably the meaning does not differ from that here given.

Gave a tenth part—Literally, divided a tenth. This point is fully discussed in Hebrews 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 (Isaiah 9:6–7; Isaiah 32:1; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Zechariah 9:9; Ephesians 2:14). On this, as obvious to every Christian reader, he does not further dwell.

Without father, without mother, without descent.—The last words, “without descent” (or rather, without genealogy), throw light on the meaning of those that precede. Not because we find no mention of the parents of Melchizedek is he spoken of in this way as fatherless and motherless, but because he is suddenly introduced as priest, without any indication whatever that he held the office by right of genealogy, the only claim familiar to Hebrew readers.

It is not necessary to offer proof of the care with which inquiry was made into the parentage of the Jewish priests (Nehemiah 7:64): in their marriages they were subject to strict restraints (Leviticus 21:13–14); their statement of pedigree (which included the name not only of the father, but also of every mother) had to be complete, ascending to Aaron, and containing no doubtful link. He who is a priest “like Melchizedek” holds a priesthood that rests on no such rights or claims. The words that follow are of a similar character. No beginning and no end of priestly position or function are recorded in the sacred history. As Scripture is silent regarding his reception of the office, so also regarding any transmission of it to another. In these respects, made like (as a divinely ordained type) to the Son of God, he perpetually bears the character of priest.

From the beginning, many have been dissatisfied with such an explanation of these remarkable words and have understood them to ascribe to Melchizedek a mysterious and superhuman existence and character. It has been maintained that he was the Son of God Himself, or the Holy Spirit—an angel or a Power of God.

This last tenet was the distinguishing mark of a sect bearing the name of Melchizedekians in the third century. The feeling that the most startling of the expressions used here must surely be intended to point to more than the silence of Scripture on certain points is not at all unnatural; but perhaps it is not too much to say that every such difficulty is removed by the consideration that here the writer is simply analyzing the thought of the inspired Psalmist.

Such an oracle as that of Psalms 110:4 must reveal its full significance to him. The divine words are not to be measured by the meaning that one may at first assign to them. The true significance of the prophecy that declared that the future priesthood would bear the likeness of Melchizedek’s can only be known when all the characteristics of that priesthood have been traced. The narrative of Genesis was the basis of the prophecy; all that the history presented was incorporated into the Psalm.

How great this man was.—Better, is: the greatness abides, set forth in the words of Scripture. In the rest of the verse (where the best manuscripts omit the word “even”), it is good to follow the literal rendering: to whom Abraham gave a tenth out of the chief spoils—(Abraham) the patriarch.

He gave him tithes of all (Genesis 14:20), but the tenth was selected from the choicest part of the spoils.

The word “Patriarch” is used in the Septuagint (in Chronicles only) for the head of a family or chief of a clan. In the New Testament, it is used of David in Acts 2:29, and twice in Acts 7:0 of Jacob’s sons.

The next verse deals with the same subject, but under a new aspect. Here the thought is that Melchizedek received tithes even from Abraham the patriarch; there, He has been so honored, though no enactment of law invested him with superior rights.

Those who are of the sons.—Rather, those of the sons of Levi who receive, etc. There is an apparent difficulty here. The priests, it is argued, did not receive tithes from the people; the tithe was paid to the Levites, and only the tenth part of this tithe went to the priests.

Two considerations seem to remove this difficulty entirely:

1. The question is not one of financial gain, but of position. The authority to exact tithes was, strictly speaking, vested in the priests, the supreme guardians of the laws relating to all religious duties and observances, and the Levites were only their assistants. That the priests received for their own use only a part of the tribute paid by the nation is not important here.
2. The Levites themselves paid tithes to the priests, who therefore stood alone in receiving tithes but paying none themselves. It is the positive ordinance of the law, and only this, that raises brothers above brothers and gives the priest this claim upon men who would otherwise be equal with him through common descent from Abraham.