John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 7

For this Melchisedec, etc. He has until now been stimulating the Jews by exhortations, so that they would attentively consider the comparison between Christ and Melchisedec. At the end of the last chapter, so that he might return from his digression to his subject, he quoted again the passage from the Psalms; and now he enters fully into what he had previously referred to only slightly, for he particularly enumerates the things connected with Melchisedec in which he resembled Christ.

It is indeed no wonder that he dwells so minutely on this subject. It was undoubtedly no common thing that in a country abounding in the corruptions of so many superstitions, a man was found who preserved the pure worship of God. For on one side he was near Sodom and Gomorrah, and on the other to the Canaanites, so that he was on every side surrounded by ungodly people.

Besides, the whole world had so fallen into impiety that it is very probable God was faithfully worshipped nowhere except in the family of Abraham. For his father and his grandfather, who ought to have retained true religion, had long before degenerated into idolatry. It was therefore a memorable fact that there was still a king who not only retained true religion but also himself performed the office of a priest.

And it was undoubtedly necessary that in him who was to be a type of the Son of God all excellent things should be found. That Christ was foreshadowed by this type is evident from the Psalm referred to, for David did not say without reason, “Thou art a priest forever after the order Melchisedec;” indeed, on the contrary, by these words a sublime mystery was commended to the Church.

Let us now consider each of those particulars in which the Apostle makes Christ like Melchisedec.

The first likeness is in the name, for it was not without a mystery that he was called the King of righteousness. For though this honor is ascribed to kings who rule with moderation and equity, yet this truly belongs to Christ alone. He not only exercises authority justly, as others do, but also communicates to us the righteousness of God—partly when He makes us to be counted righteous by a gracious reconciliation, and partly when He renews us by His Spirit, so that we may lead a godly and holy life.

He is then called the King of righteousness because of what He accomplishes in diffusing righteousness on all His people. From this it follows that outside His kingdom, nothing but sin reigns among humanity. And therefore Zechariah, when he introduces Him, as by the solemn decree of God, into the possession of His kingdom, thus extols Him—

“Rejoice, O daughter of Sion, Behold thy righteous King
cometh to thee,” (Zechariah 2:10).

The second likeness which the Apostle states is related to the kingdom of peace. This peace indeed is the fruit of that righteousness which he has mentioned. From this it follows that wherever Christ’s kingdom extends, peace ought to be there, as we find in Isaiah 2, Isaiah 9, and in other places.

But since peace among the Hebrews also means a prosperous and happy state, it may be understood that way here. Yet I prefer to understand it in this context as that inward peace which calms the conscience and makes it confident before God. The excellence of this blessing cannot be fully appreciated unless you consider, on the other hand, how miserable it is to be tormented by constant restlessness; this must necessarily be the case until our consciences are pacified by being reconciled to God through Christ.

Without father, etc. I prefer this rendering to that of “unknown father,” for the Apostle meant to express something more emphatic than that the family of Melchizedek was obscure or unknown. Nor does this objection disturb me, that the reality does not correspond with the figure or type, because Christ has a Father in heaven and had a mother on earth; for the Apostle immediately explains his meaning by adding without descent, or relatives.

He then exempts Melchizedek from what is common to others, a descent by birth, by which he means that he is eternal, so that his human origin was not to be traced. It is indeed certain that he descended from parents, but the Apostle does not speak of him here in his private capacity; on the contrary, he presents him as a type of Christ.

He therefore allows himself to see nothing in him but what Scripture contains. For in treating things respecting Christ, such reverence should be observed that we know nothing but what is written in the Word of the Lord.

Now, as the Holy Spirit, in mentioning this king—the most illustrious of his age—is completely silent about his birth and afterward makes no record of his death, is this not the same as if eternity were to be ascribed to him? And what was foreshadowed in Melchizedek is truly exhibited in Christ. It is therefore fitting for us to be satisfied with this moderate view: that while Scripture presents Melchizedek to us as one who had never been born and never died, it shows us, as in a mirror, that Christ has neither a beginning nor an end.

But from this we also learn how much reverence and sobriety is required concerning the spiritual mysteries of God. For concerning what is not found written in Scripture, the Apostle is not only willing to be ignorant of it himself, but also would have us be so.

Surely it is not lawful for us to assert anything about Christ from our own thoughts.

And Melchizedek is not to be considered here, as they say, in his private capacity, but as a sacred type of Christ. Nor should we think that the omission of any mention of his relatives, or the silence about his death, was accidental or inadvertent; on the contrary, this was done intentionally by the Spirit to give us an idea of one above the common order of humanity.

Therefore, there seems to be no probability in the conjecture of those who say that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah; for if we make him some known individual, we destroy this third likeness between Melchizedek and Christ.

Made like, or assimilated, etc. This likeness does not extend as far as the reality it typified might seem to require; for we must always bear in mind that there is only an analogy between the thing signified and the sign. For those who imagine that he came down from heaven, so that there might be a perfect similarity, make themselves ridiculous.

It is enough that we see in him the lineaments of Christ, as the form of a living man may be seen in his picture, although the man himself is very different from what represents him. It hardly seems worthwhile to refute the delirious notions of those who dream that Christ himself, or the Holy Spirit, or an angel, appeared at that time—unless indeed one thought it the duty of a right-minded person to dispute with Postillus and such fanatics. For that impostor asserts that he is Melchizedek with no less arrogant folly than those mad spirits of old, mentioned by Jerome, who pretended that they were Christ.

Now consider, etc. This is the fourth comparison between Christ and Melchisedec, that Abraham presented tithes to him. But though tithes were instituted for several reasons, yet the Apostle here refers only to what serves his present purpose. One reason why tithes were paid to the Levites was because they were the children of Abraham, to whose seed the land was promised.

It was, then, by a hereditary right that a portion of the land was allotted to them; for as they were not allowed to possess land, a compensation was made to them in tithes. There was also another reason—that as they were occupied in the service of God and the public ministry of the Church, it was right that they should be supported at the public cost of the people.

Then the rest of the Israelites owed them tithes as a remuneration for their work. But these reasons do not bear at all on the present subject; therefore, the Apostle passes them by.

The only reason now alleged is that, as the people offered the tithes as a sacred tribute to God, the Levites only received them. Hence, it appears that it was no small honor that God, in a manner, substituted them for himself. Then Abraham, being one of the principal servants of God and a prophet, having offered tithes to Melchisedec the priest, thereby confessed that Melchisedec excelled him in dignity. If, then, the patriarch Abraham acknowledged him as more honorable than himself, his dignity must have been singular and extraordinary. The word patriarch is mentioned for the sake of emphasizing his dignity, for it was in the highest degree honorable to him to have been called a father in the Church of God.

Then the argument is this—Abraham, who excelled all others, was yet inferior to Melchisedec; then Melchisedec had the highest place of honor and is to be regarded as superior to all the sons of Levi. The first part is proved, for what Abraham owed to God he gave to Melchisedec: then by paying him the tenth, he confessed himself to be inferior.

And verily they, etc. It would be more suitable to render the words as follows: “because they are the sons of Levi.” The Apostle indeed does not say that the reason they received tithes was because they were the sons of Levi; instead, he is comparing the whole tribe with Melchizedek in this way.

Although God granted the Levites the right to require tithes from the people, and thus set them above all the Israelites, they have all descended from the same parent. Abraham, the father of them all, paid tithes to a priest of another race; therefore, all the descendants of Abraham are inferior to this priest.

Thus, the right conferred on the Levites was particular concerning the rest of their brothers; yet Melchizedek, without exception, occupies the highest place, so that all are inferior to him.

Some think that the tenths of tenths are intended—those which the Levites paid to the higher priests—but there is no reason to confine the general declaration in this way. The view, then, I have given is the most probable.

Blessed him, etc. This is the fifth comparison between Christ and Melchizedek. The Apostle assumes it as an accepted principle that the lesser is blessed by the greater; and then he adds that Melchizedek blessed Abraham. Therefore, the conclusion is that Abraham was the lesser. However, to strengthen his argument, he again emphasizes Abraham's dignity, because the more glorious Abraham is made, the higher Melchizedek's dignity appears.

For this purpose, he says that Abraham had the promises; by which he means that Abraham was the first of the holy race with whom God made the covenant of eternal life. Indeed, it was no common honor that God chose him from all others to entrust to him the privilege of adoption and the testimony of His love.

Yet, all this did not prevent him, in all his preeminence, from submitting himself to the priesthood of Melchizedek. Thus, we see how great Melchizedek was, to whom Abraham yielded in these two respects: he allowed himself to be blessed by him, and he offered him tithes as to God’s vicegerent.