John Calvin 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, 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.