John Gill Commentary Hebrews 7

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem
Various have been the opinions of writers concerning Melchizedek; some have thought him to be more than a man; some, that he was an angel; others, that he was the Holy Ghost; and others, that he was a divine person superior to Christ, which needs no refutation; others have supposed that he was the Son of God himself: but he is expressly said to be like unto him, and Christ is said to be of his order; which manifestly distinguish the one from the other; besides, there is nothing said of Melchizedek which proves him to be more than a man: accordingly others take him to have been a mere man; but these are divided; some say that he was Shem, the son of Noah, which is the constant opinion of the Jewish writers ^F26 : but it is not true of him, that he was without father, and without mother, an account of his descent being given in Scripture; nor is it probable that he should be a king of a single city in Ham's country, and Abraham be a stranger there: others say, that he was a Canaanitish king, of the posterity of Ham; others affirm him to be a perfect sinless man, and that all that is said of him in Genesis, and in this context, is literally true of him; but that he should be immediately created by God, as Adam, and be without sin as he, are things entirely without any foundation: others take him to be a mere man, but an extraordinary one, eminently raised up by God to be a type of the Messiah; and think it most proper not to inquire curiously who he was, since the Scripture is silent concerning his genealogy and descent; and that as it should seem on purpose, that he might be a more full and fit type of Christ; and this sense appears best and safest.

Aben Ezra says, his name signifies what he was, the king of a righteous place: Salem, of which he was king, was not Shalem, a city of Shechem, in the land of Canaan, (Genesis 33:18) afterwards called Salim, near to which John was baptizing, (John 3:23) where is shown the palace of Melchizedek in its ruins, which cannot be, since that city was laid to the ground, and sowed with salt by Abimelech, (Judges 9:45) but Jerusalem is the place; which is the constant opinion of the Jews ^F1 , and is called Salem in (Psalms 86:2) . The interpretation of this word is given in the next verse; some of the Jewish writers referred to say, that it was usual for the kings of Jerusalem to be called Melchizedek and Adonizedek, as in (Joshua 10:3) just as the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh. This king was also

priest of the most high God ,
as he is said to be, (Genesis 14:18) for he was both king and priest, in which he was an eminent type of Christ; and his being a king is no objection to his being a priest, since it was usual for kings to be priests; and though the Hebrew word "Cohen" sometimes signifies a prince, it cannot be so understood here, not only because the word is rendered "priest" by the Septuagint, and by the apostle, but because he is called the priest of God; and Christ is said to be of his order: and he is styled the priest of God, because he was called and invested by him with this office, and was employed in his service; who is said to be the most high God, from his dwelling on high, and from his superior power to all others, and to distinguish him from idol gods; this is a character of great honour given to Melchizedek;

who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings ;
the four kings, whose names are mentioned in (Genesis 14:1) whom Abraham slew, and over whom he got an entire victory, with only three hundred and eighteen men of his own house, after they had conquered the kings of Sodom, Gomorrha, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela: which shows that war is lawful; that enemies may be slain in war; that kings may fall as well as other men; and that those who have conquered others, may be conquered themselves: and as he was returning with his spoils, Melchizedek met him; not alone, which is not to be supposed of so great a person; nor empty, for he brought with him bread and wine, not for sacrifice, as the Papists would have it; but as Jarchi, a Jewish interpreter on the place observes, they used to do so to such as were fatigued in war; for this is to be considered as a neighbourly action, done in point of interest and gratitude, and was a truly Christian one, and very laudable and commendable; and doubtless had something in it typical of Christ, who gives to hungry and weary saints the bread of life, and refreshes them with the wine of divine love and grace:

and blessed him ;
Abraham, and the most high God also: the form of blessing both is recorded in (Genesis 14:19Genesis 14:20) . This was not a mere civil salutation, nor only a congratulation upon his success, nor only a return of thanks for victory, though these things are included; nor did he do this as a private person, but as the priest of the most high God, and blessed him in his name authoritatively, as the high priest among the Jews afterwards did, (Numbers 6:23–27) and in this he was a type of Christ, who blesses his people with all spiritual blessings, with redemption, justification, pardon, peace, and all grace, and with eternal glory.

(Gill changed his mind on the location of Salam when he later wrote the Old Testament portion of the Expositor. ( See Gill on Genesis 14:18). Ed.)

FOOTNOTES:

• F26: Targum in Jon. & Jerus. Jarchi, Baal Hatturim, Levi ben Gersom & Abendana in Gen. xiv. 18. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 4. fol. 182. 4. Pirke Eliezer, c. 8. Juchasin, fol. 135. 2. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 16. 2. Shalshelet Hakabala, fol. 1. 2. Peritzol. Itinera Mundi, p. 17.
• F1: Targ. Onk. Jon. & Jerus. Levi ben Gersom, Aben Ezra & ben Melec in Gen. xiv. 18. Tosaphot T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 16. 1.

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all
Or tithes, as in (Genesis 14:20) . Philo the Jew ^F2 renders the Hebrew phrase, (lkm rvem) , just as the apostle does (dekathn apo pantwn) , "a tenth part of all", or "out of all"; not of all that he brought back, as Lot's goods, or the king of Sodom's, or any others; only of the spoils of the enemy, as in (Hebrews 7:4)

which is no proof of any obligation on men to pay tithes now to any order of men; for this was a voluntary act, and not what any law obliged to; it was done but once, and not constantly, or every year; it was out of the spoils of the enemy, and not out of his own substance, or of the increase of the earth; nor was it for the maintenance of Melchizedek, as a priest, who also was a king, and was richly provided for; but to testify his gratitude to God, for the victory obtained, and his reverence of, and subjection to the priest of God.

First being by interpretation king of righteousness ;
or a "righteous king", as Melchizedek was; not the king of a righteous place, as Aben Ezra thought, a place wherein dwelt righteousness, or righteous persons; but it was his proper name, which so signifies, and in which he was a type of Christ; who is righteous, not only as God, and as man, and as Mediator, but particularly in the administration of his kingly office: his kingdom lies in righteousness, as well as peace; the subjects of it are righteous persons, and all his ways are just and true; his Gospel, by which he rules, is a declaration of righteousness; and he himself is the author of righteousness to all his people:

and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace ;
and may respect his peaceable government; and is very applicable to Christ, the Prince of peace; whose kingdom is a kingdom of peace; his sceptre is a sceptre of peace; his royal proclamation is the Gospel of peace; and his subjects are the sons of peace; and he himself is the author of peace, not only between Jew and Gentile, but between God and his people; and he is the donor of peace, external, internal, and eternal. So Philo the Jew ^F3 interprets this name, "king of peace", just as the apostle does.

FOOTNOTES:

• F2: De Congressu, p. 438.
• F3: Leg. Alleg. l. 2. p. 75.

Without father, without mother, without descent
Which is to be understood not of his person, but of his priesthood; that his father was not a priest, nor did his mother descend from any in that office; nor had he either a predecessor or a successor in it, as appears from any authentic accounts. This is to be interpreted not of his natural, but scriptural being; for no doubt, as he was a mere man, he had a father, mother, and natural lineage and descent. But of these no mention is made in Scripture, and therefore he is said to be without them. The Syriac version thus renders it: "whose father and mother are not written in the genealogies," or there is no genealogical account of them.

The Arabic writers tell us who his father and his mother were; some of them say that Peleg was his father: so Elmacinus {d}, his words are these; Peleg lived after he begat Rehu two hundred and nine years; afterwards he begat Melchizedek, the priest whom we have now made mention of.

Patricides ^F5 , another of their writers, expresses himself after this manner: "They who say Melchizedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, and argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, asserting the same, do not rightly understand the saying of the Apostle Paul; for Shem, the son of Noah, after he had taken Melchizedek, and withdrew him from his parents, did not set down in writing how old he was, when he went into the east, nor what was his age when he died; but Melchizedek was the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah; and yet none of those patriarchs is called his father. This only the Apostle Paul means, that none of his family served in the temple, nor were children and tribes assigned to him."

Matthew and Luke the evangelists only relate the heads of tribes: hence the Apostle Paul does not write the name of his father, nor the name of his mother. And with these writers Sahid Aben Batric ^F6 agrees, who expressly affirms that Melchizedek was (glap Nba) , "the son of Peleg":

Though others of them make him to be the son of Peleg's son, whose name was Heraclim. The Arabic Catena ^F7 on (Genesis 10:25) , "the name of one was Peleg", has this note in the margin; "and this (Peleg) was the father of Heraclim, the father of Melchizedek;" and in a preceding chapter, his pedigree is more particularly set forth: "Melchizedek was the son of Heraclim, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber; and his mother's name was Salathiel, the daughter of Gomer, the son of Japheth, the son of Noah; and Heraclim, the son of Eber, married his wife Salathiel, and she was with child, and brought forth a son, and called his name Melchizedek, called also king of Salem: after this the genealogy is set down at length. Melchizedek, son of Heraclim, which was the son of Peleg, which was the son of Eber, which was the son of Arphaxad till you come to, which was the son of Adam, on whom be peace."

It is very probable Epiphanius has regard to this tradition, when he observes ^F8 , that some say that the father of Melchizedek was called Eracla, and his mother Astaroth, the same with Asteria. Some Greek ^F9 writers say he was of the lineage of Sidus, the son of Aegyptus, a king of Lybia, from which the Egyptians are called:

This Sidus, they say, came out of Egypt into the country of the Canaanitish nations, now called Palestine, and subdued it, and dwelled in it, and built a city, which he called Sidon, after his own name: but all this is on purpose concealed, that he might be a more apparent of Christ, who, as man, is "without father"; for though, as God, he has a Father, and was never without one, being begotten by him, and was always with him, and in him; by whom he was sent, from whom he came, and whither he is gone; to whom he is the way, and with whom he is an advocate: yet, as man, he had no father; Joseph was his reputed father only; nor was the Holy Ghost his Father; nor is he ever said to be begotten as man, but was born of a virgin. Some of the Jewish writers themselves say, that the Redeemer, whom God will raise up, shall be without father ^F10 . And he is without mother, though not in a spiritual sense, every believer being so to him as such; nor in a natural sense, as man, for the Virgin Mary was his mother; but in a divine sense, as God: and he is "without descent or genealogy"; not as man, for there is a genealogical account of him as such, in (Matthew 1:1–17) (Luke 3:23–38) and his pedigree and kindred were well known to the Jews; but as God; and this distinguishes him from the gods of the Heathens, who were genealogized by them, as may be seen in Hesiod, Apollodorus, Hyginus, and other writers; and this condemns the blasphemous genealogies of the Gnostics and Valentinians. It follows,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life ;
that is, there is no account which shows when he was born, or when he died. In this he was a type of Christ, who has no beginning of days, was from the beginning, and in the beginning, and is the beginning, and was from everlasting, as appears from his nature as God, from his names, from his office as Mediator, and from his concern in the council and covenant of peace, and in the election of his people. And he has no end of life, both as God and man; he is the living God; and though as man he died once, he will die no more, but lives for ever. It is further said of Melchizedek,

but made like unto the Son of God :
in the above things; from which it appears, that he is not the Son of God; and that Christ, as the Son of God, existed before him, and therefore could not take this character from his incarnation or resurrection:

abideth a priest continually ;
not in person, but in his antitype Christ Jesus; for there never will be any change of Christ's priesthood, nor will it ever be transferred to another. The virtue and efficacy of it will continue for ever; and he will ever live to make intercession, and will always bear the glory of his being both priest and King upon his throne. The Syriac version renders it, "his priesthood abides for ever," which is true both of Melchizedek and of Christ.

FOOTNOTES:

• F5: In ib. p. 305, 306, 254.
• F6: In Mr. Gregory's Preface to his Works.
• F7: In ib.
• F8: Contra Haeres. Haeres. 55.
• F9: Suidas in voce Melchisedec, Malala, l. 3. Glycas, Cedrenus, & alii.
• F10: R. Moses Hadarsan apud Galatin. l. 3. c. 17. & l. 8. c. 2.

Now consider how great this man was Melchizedek, of whom so many great and wonderful things are said in the preceding verses: and as follows,

unto whom the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils ; of Abraham's giving tithes to him, (See Gill on Hebrews 7:2) and Melchizedek's greatness is aggravated, not only from this act of Abraham's, but from Abraham's being a "patriarch", who did it; he was the patriarch of patriarchs, as the sons of Jacob are called, (Acts 7:8Acts 7:9) he is the patriarch of the whole Jewish nation, and of many nations, and of all believers, the friend of God, and heir of the world; how great then must Melchizedek be, to whom he paid tithes? and how much greater must Christ, the antitype of Melchizedek, be?

And verily they who are of the sons of Levi
Or Levites; who are of the tribe of Levi, whose descent is from him:

who receive the office of the priesthood ;
as some of them were priests, though not all; and the Levites therefore are sometimes called priests. R. Joshua ben Levi says, that in twenty four places the priests are called Levites; and this is one of them, (Ezekiel 44:15) "and the priests and Levites" ^F11

these have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to
the law ;
the ceremonial law, (Numbers 18:20–26) , these they took of all the people of Israel in the rest of the tribes, by the commandment of God, on account of their service in the tabernacle; and because they had no inheritance in the land; and to show that the Israelites held their land of God himself:

that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of
Abraham ;
who are their brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh, though of different tribes; and from these they receive, notwithstanding they are the sons of Abraham: but here a difficulty arises, how the Levites that were priests can be said to receive tithes from the people, when they received the tenth part of the tithes, or the tithe of tithes from the Levites, (Numbers 18:26) (Nehemiah 10:38) .

But it should be observed, that it was not necessary that the Levites should give these tithes to the priests themselves; an Israelite might do it, and so give the Levites the less; on which account the priests may be said to receive from the people; besides, Ezra in his time ordered, that the first tithe should not be given to the Levites, but to the priests, because they would not go up with him to Jerusalem ^F12 .

FOOTNOTES:

• F11: T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 86. 2. & Becorot, fol. 4. 1.
• F12: Maimon. Hilchot Maaser, c. 1. sect. 4.