John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 7:9

"And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes;" — Hebrews 7:9 (ASV)

Levi also, etc. He advances further and says that even Levi himself, who was then in the loins of Abraham, was not exempt from the same subordination; for Abraham, by paying tithes, made himself and his posterity inferior to the priesthood of Melchisedec. But here one, on the other hand, may say that in the same way Judas also, from whose seed Christ was born, paid tithes.

But this knot can be easily untied when one considers two things which are settled beyond all dispute among Christians:

1. Christ is not to be counted simply as one of the sons of Abraham, but is to be exempted by a peculiar privilege from the common order of men; and this is what he himself said, “If he is the son of David, then does David call him his Lord?” (Matthew 22:45).
2. Since Melchisedec is a type of Christ, it is by no means reasonable that the one should be set in opposition to the other. For we must remember that common saying that what is subordinate is not in opposition: hence the type, which comes short of the reality, ought by no means to be opposed to it, nor can it be, for such is the conflict of equals.

These five particulars, mentioned by the Apostle, complete the comparison between Christ and Melchisedec, and thus is dissipated the gloss of those who seek to show that the chief likeness between them is in the offering of bread and wine. We see that the Apostle carefully, and even scrupulously, examines here each of these points; he mentions the name of the man, the seat of his kingdom, the perpetuity of his life, his right to tithes, and his benediction.

So then! In these things there is less importance than in the oblation! Shall we say that the Spirit of God, through forgetfulness, omitted this, so that he dwelt on minor things, and left unnoticed the chief thing, and what was most necessary for his purpose? I marvel the more that so many of the ancient doctors of the Church were so led away by this notion, that they dwelt only on the offering of bread and wine.

And thus they spoke, “Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedec; and Melchisedec offered bread and wine; then the sacrifice of bread and wine is suitable to the priesthood of Christ.” The Apostle will later speak at length of the ancient sacrifices; but of this new sacrifice of bread and wine he says not a word.

From where then did ecclesiastical writers derive this notion? Doubtless, as one error usually leads to another, having themselves imagined a sacrifice in Christ’s Supper without any command from him, and thus adulterated the Supper by adding a sacrifice, they afterwards endeavored to find plausible arguments here and there to disguise and cover their error.

This offering of bread and wine pleased them and was instantly seized upon without any discretion. For who can concede that these men were more intelligent than the Spirit of God? Yet if we receive what they teach, we must condemn God’s Spirit for inadvertence in having omitted a matter so important, especially as the question is explicitly addressed!

I therefore conclude that the ancients invented a sacrifice of which Moses had never thought, for Melchisedec offered bread and wine not to God but, on the contrary, to Abraham and his companions.

These are the words: “Melchisedec, king of Salem, went out to meet him, and brought forth bread and wine; and the same was priest to the most high God, and blessed him” (Genesis 14:18). The first thing mentioned was a royal act: he refreshed those wearied after the battle and their journey with sustenance; the blessing was the act of a priest.

If then his offering had anything mystical in it, the completion of it is to be found in Christ, when he fed the hungry and those wearied with fatigue.

But the Papists are extremely ridiculous, who, though they deny that there is bread and wine in the Mass, yet prattle about the sacrifice of bread and wine.