Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Hebrews 7

The writer begins his explanation of the significance of Melchizedek by referring to Ge 14:17–20. Melchizedek is “king of Salem,” which may mean “king of Jerusalem” (“Salem” is another name for Jerusalem in Ps 76:2). But it is curious that if the writer thought that Jerusalem was in fact where Melchizedek ministered, he does not mention the fact that Jesus suffered there (cf. 13:12). Perhaps he saw Salem as some other place; the LXX of Ge 33:18 seems to identify Shechem with Salem. Melchizedek was not only a king but a “priest of God Most High.” It was not uncommon for one person to combine the roles of priest and king in antiquity. It is, however, the special characteristics of this man rather than the dual offices that are noteworthy. The author ignores the fact that the king of Sodom, who had suffered defeat at the hands of the kings Abraham had just routed, went out to meet the triumphant patriarch, and that Melchizedek brought out bread and wine. Instead, he focuses on what will help him make the points he has in mind about the work of Christ. The first of them is that he “blessed him,” a point to which he will return in v.7.

Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of everything,” i. e., of the spoils from the battle (cf. vv.4ff.). So far the author is simply identifying Melchizedek with his reference to the incident after the battle. Now he goes on to the significance of Melchizedek’s name and title: “king of righteousness” and “king of Salem” respectively. The place name “Salem” comes from the same root as shalom (Hebrew for “peace”—GK 8934), and it may accordingly be translated in this way. This word means more than absence of war; it signifies the presence of positive blessing. In the NT “peace” (GK 1645) means the result of Christ’s work for us (cf. Romans 5:1). We are reminded of the promised Messiah as “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6; cf. also “righteousness” in v.7, another distinctive aspect of Christ’s saving work).

The terms “without father” and “without mother” were often used for waifs of unknown parentage, for illegitimate children, for people who came from unimportant families, and sometimes for deities who were supposed to take their origin from one sex only. Some scholars hold that Melchizedek is viewed in the last mentioned way and is being pictured as an angelic being. But it seems more likely that the author is assuming that the silences of Scripture are as much due to inspiration as are its statements. When nothing is recorded of the parentage of this man, it need not be assumed that he had no parents but simply that the absence of the record is significant. Melchizedek is also “without genealogy.” Taken together, the three aspects are striking, for in antiquity a priest’s genealogy was considered all-important. After the Exile, certain priests whose genealogy could not be established “were excluded from the priesthood as unclean” (Nehemiah 7:64). Moreover, the priesthood of Melchizedek is without any end. What was true of Melchizedek simply as a matter of record was true of Christ historically, but they also have significant spiritual dimensions in a fuller sense. The writer is, of course, speaking of the Son’s eternal nature, not of his appearance in the Incarnation. He uses the official title of Jesus—“Son of God”—as in 4:14; 6:6; 10:29 (cf. 1:5; 5:5). Since the writer does not use this often, we may sense an emphasis on the high dignity of the Son of God. Moreover, it is the Son of God who is the standard, not the ancient priest-king. The writer says that Melchizedek is “made like” the Son of God, not that the Son of God is like Melchizedek. Thus it is not that Melchizedek sets the pattern and Jesus follows it. Rather, the record about Melchizedek is so arranged that it brings out certain truths that apply far more fully to Jesus than they do to Melchizedek.

The author proceeds to bring out the greatness of Melchizedek with an argument that the modern mind may find rather curious but which would have been compelling to his contemporaries. In the ancient world, it was generally recognized that there was an obligation to pay tithes to important religious functionaries. This implies a certain subjection on the part of those paying. So it was significant that Abraham paid to Melchizedek “a tenth of the plunder.” From the spoils of victory an offering would often be made to the gods as a thanksgiving. Abraham gave a tenth of the very best to Melchizedek.

(5–6a) Here the meaning of the payment of the tithe is spelled out. Not only was such a payment widely customary, but the law required it to be made. The writer speaks of “the descendants of Levi who become priests” as “collecting a tenth from the people.” In the law it was provided that the people were to pay tithes to the Levites (Numbers 18:21, 24). But the Levites similarly paid tithes to the priests (Numbers 18:26ff.); so it could well be said that the people paid tithes to the priests (and in the first century it seems that the priests themselves carried out the whole tithing operation). The writer is strongly interested in “the law” (GK 3795), which he mentions fourteen times. Here it means the law of Moses. The law required tithes to be taken from people of whom the priests were “brothers.” There is a sense in which the priests had no inherent superiority, for they were related to those who gave tithes to them. They owed their ability to collect tithes to the provision made in the law and not to any natural superiority. But with Melchizedek it was different. He “did not trace his descent from Levi.” Melchizedek was not simply one among a host of brothers. He was a solitary figure of grandeur. And he exacted tithes not simply from his brothers but from Abraham. His greatness stands out.

(6b–7) Not only did Melchizedek exact tithes from Abraham, but he also blessed him. The giving of a blessing was a significant act in antiquity. As used here, it is an official pronouncement given by an authorized person. When that happens, there is no denying that it proceeds from a superior: “The lesser person is blessed by the greater.” In the Genesis account Melchizedek makes no claims, nor does Abraham concede anything in words. But both Abraham’s giving of tithes and his receiving a blessing from Melchizedek implicitly acknowledge the superior place of Melchizedek. The situation is clear to all parties. The author is simply drawing attention to what the narrative clearly suggests about the superior status of Melchizedek. Even when Abraham is seen as the one “who had the promises,” Melchizedek is superior.