CHAPTER VII.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.
IN Hebrews 5:10,11, the apostle had introduced the name of Melchisedek,
and said that Christ was made an high priest after the same order as he.
He added, that he had much to say of him, but that they were not in a
state of mind then to receive or understand it. He then Hebrews 5:12-14
rebukes them for the little progress which they had made in Christian
knowledge; exhorts them to go on and make higher attainments,
Hebrews 6:1-3; warns them against the danger of apostasy, Hebrews 6:4-8;
and encourages them to hold fast their faith and hope to the end, in
view of the covenant faithfulness of God, Hebrews 6:9-20; and now
returns to the subject under discussion--the high priesthood of
Christ. His object is to show that he was superior to the Jewish
high priest, and for this purpose he institutes the comparison
between him and Melchisedek. The argument is the following :--
I. That which is drawn from the exalted rank of Melchisedek, and the fact
that the ancestor of the whole Jewish priesthood and community
--Abraham--acknowledged him as his superior, and rendered tribute to him.
But Christ was of the order of Melchisedek, and the apostle, therefore,
infers his superiority to the Jewish priesthood, Hebrews 7:1-10. In the
prosecution of this argument, the apostle dwells on the import of the name
Melchizedek, Hebrews 7:1,2; states the fact that he was without any
known ancestry or descent, and that he stood alone on the pages of the
sacred record, and was therefore worthy to be compared with the
Son of God, who had a similar pre-eminence, Hebrews 7:3; urges the
consideration that even Abraham, the ancestor of the whole Jewish
community and priesthood, paid tithes to him, and thus confessed his
inferiority, Hebrews 7:4; shows that he of whom a blessing was received
must be superior to the one who receives it, \\Heb 7:6,7\\; and that even
Levi, the ancestor of the whole Levitical priesthood, might be said to
have paid tithes in Abraham, and thus to have acknowledged his inferiority
to Melchisedek, and, consequently, to the Son of God, who was of his
"order," Hebrews 7:9,10.
II. The apostle shows that-"perfection" could not arise out of
the Levitical priesthood, and that a priesthood that introduced a
perfect state must be superior, Hebrews 7:11-19. In the prosecution
of this argument, he states that perfection could not be arrived
at under the Hebrew economy, and that there was need that a
priesthood of another order should be formed, Hebrews 7:11) that a
change of the priesthood involved of necessity a change in the
law of administration, Hebrews 7:12; that the necessity of change
of the law also followed from the fact that the great high priest was
now of another tribe than that of Levi, Hebrews 7:13,14;) that the
Christian High Priest was constituted not after a commandment pertaining
to the flesh, and liable to change, but "after the power of an endless
life"--adapted to a life that was never to change or to end,
Hebrews 7:15-17; that, consequently, there was a disannulling
of the commandment going before, because it was weak and unprofitable,
Hebrews 7:18; and that the old law made nothing perfect,
but that by the new arrangement a system of entire and eternal perfection
was introduced, Hebrews 7:19.
III. The apostle shows the superiority of the priesthood of Christ to that
of the Jewish system, from the fact that the great High Priest of the
Christian system was constituted with the solemnity of an oath; the Jewish
priesthood was not, Hebrews 7:20-22. His priesthood, therefore, was as
much more important and solemn as an oath is superior to a command; and
his suretyship became as much more certain as an oath is superior to a
simple promise, Hebrews 7:22.
IV. The superiority of the priesthood of Christ is further shown, from the
fact that under the former dispensation there were many priests; but
here there was but one. There they lived but a brief period, and then
gave way to their successors; but here there was no removal by death,
there was no succession, there was an unchangeable priesthood,
Hebrews 7:23,24. He infers, therefore, Hebrews 7:25,26, that the
Christian High Priest was able to save to the uttermost all that came to
the Father by him, since he ever lived to make intercession.
V. The last argument is, that under the Levitical priesthood it
was necessary for the priest to offer sacrifice for his own sins, as
well as for those of the people. No such necessity, however,
existed in regard to the High Priest of the Christian system. He
was holy, harmless, and undefiled; he had no need to offer sacrifices for
his own sins; and in this respect there was a vast superiority of the
Christian priesthood over the Jewish, Hebrews 7:26-28.
The force of these several arguments we shall be able to estimate
as we advance in the exposition.
Verse 1. For this Melchisedec. See Barnes "Hebrews 5:6". The name,
Melehisedek, from which the apostle derives a portion of his
argument here, is Hebrew \^HEBREW\^ and is correctly explained
as meaning king of righteousness--being compounded of two words
--king and righteousness. Why this name was given to this man
is unknown. Names, however, were frequently given on account
of some quality or characteristic of the man. See Barnes "Isaiah 8:18".
This name may have been given on account of his eminent integrity. The
apostle calls attention to it Hebrews 7:2 as a circumstance worthy of
notice, that his name, and the name of the city where he reigned, were so
appropriate to one who, as a priest, was the predecessor of the Messiah.
The account of Melchisedek, which is very brief, occurs in
Genesis 14:18-20. The name occurs in the Bible only in Genesis 14,
Psalms 110:4, and in this epistle. Nothing else is certainly known of
him. Grotius supposes that he is the same man who, in the history of
Sanchoniathon, is called \~suduk\~--Sydyc. It has indeed been made a
question by some whether such a person ever actually existed, and
consequently whether this be a proper name. But the account in Genesis is
as simple an historical record as any other in the Bible. In that
account there is no difficulty whatever. It is said simply, that when
Abraham was returning from a successful military expedition, this
man, who, it seems, was well known, and who was respected as a
priest of God, came out to express his approbation of what he had
done, and to refresh him with bread and wine. As a tribute of gratitude to
him, and as a thank-offering to God, Abraham gave him a tenth part of the
spoils which he had taken. Such an occurrence was by no means improbable,
nor would it have been attended with any special difficulty if it had not
been for the use which the apostle makes of it in this epistle. Yet on no
subject has there been a greater variety of opinion than in regard to this
man. The bare recital of the opinions which have been entertained of him
would fill a volume. But in a case which seems to be plain, from the
Scripture narrative, it is not necessary even to enumerate these opinions.
They only serve to show how easy it is for men to mystify a clear
statement of history, and how fond they are of finding what is mysterious
and marvellous in the plainest narrative of facts. That he was Shem; as
the Jews suppose, or that he was the Son of God himself, as many Christian
expositors have maintained, there is not the slightest evidence. That the
latter opinion is false is perfectly clear; for if he were the Son of God,
with what propriety could the apostle say that he "was made like the
Son of God," Hebrews 7:3; that is, like himself; or that Christ was
constituted a priest "after the order of Melchisedec;" that is, that
he was a type of himself? The most simple and probable opinion is that
given by Josephus, that he was a pious Canaanitish prince; a personage
eminently endowed by God, and who acted as the priest of his people. That
he combined in himself the offices of priest and king furnished to the
apostle a beautiful illustration of the offices sustained by the Redeemer,
and was, in this respect, perhaps the only one whose history is recorded
in the Old Testament who would furnish such an illustration. That his
genealogy was not recorded, while that of every other priest mentioned was
so careful traced and preserved, furnished another striking illustration.
In this respect, like the Son of God, he stood alone. He was not in a
line of priests; he was preceded by no one in the sacerdotal office,
nor was he followed by any. That he was superior to Abraham, and
consequently to all who descended from Abraham; that a tribute was
rendered to him by the great ancestor of all the fraternity of Jewish
priests, was just an illustration which suited the purpose of Paul. His
name, therefore, the place where he reigned, his solitariness, his lone
conspicuity in all the past, his dignity, and perhaps the air of mystery
thrown over him in the brief history in Genesis, furnished a beautiful and
striking illustration of the solitary grandeur, and the inapproachable
eminence of the priesthood of the Son of God. There is no evidence
that Melchisedek was designed to be a type of the Messiah, or that
Abraham so understood it. Nothing of this kind is affirmed; and
how shall we affirm it when the sacred oracles are silent?
King of Salem. Such is the record in Genesis 14:18. The word
Salem--\^HEBREW\^--means, peace; and from this fact the apostle
derives his illustration in Hebrews 7:2. He regards it as a fact worth
remarking on, that the name of the place ever which he ruled
expressed so strikingly the nature of the kingdom over which the
Messiah was placed. In regard to the place here denoted by the
name Salem, the almost uniform opinion has been that it was that
afterwards known as Jerusalem. The reasons for this opinion are,
(1.) that it is a part of the name Jerusalem itself--the name Jerus,
altered from Jebus, having been afterwards added, because it was
the residence of the Jebusites.
(2.) The name Salem is itself given to Jerusalem. Psalms 86:2: "In
Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion."
(3.) Jerusalem would be in the direction through which Abraham would
naturally pass on his return from the slaughter of the kings. He had
pursued them unto Dan, Genesis 14:14, and he was returning to Mamre, that
is, Hebron, Genesis 14:13. On his return, therefore, he would pass
in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Rosenmuller, however, supposes that by the
name here Jerusalem is not intended, but the whole region occupied by the
Jebusites and Hittites, or the royal seat of this region, situated not far
from the cities of the plain--the vale of Siddim, where Sodom and Gomorrah
were situated. But I see no reason for doubting that the common opinion,
that Jerusalem is intended, is correct. That place was favourably situated
for a capital of a nation or tribe; was easily fortified; and would be
likely to be early selected as a royal residence,
Priest of the most high God. This is the account which is given of him
in Genesis 14:18. The leading office of priest was to offer sacrifice.
This duty was probably first performed by the father of the family, (comp.
See Barnes "Job 1:5"; see also Genesis 8:20; 22:2; and when he was dead
it devolved on the eldest son. It would seem, also, that in the early
ages, among all nations whose records have reached us, the office of
priest and king were united in the same person. It was long before it was
found that the interests of religion would be promoted by having the
office of priest pertain to an order of men set apart for this special
work, That Melchisedek, who was a king, should also be a priest, was not,
therefore, remarkable. The only thing remarkable is, that he should have
been a priest of the true God. In what way he became acquainted with
Him, is wholly unknown. It may have been by tradition preserved from the
times of Noah, as it is possible that the arrival of Abraham in that land
may have been in some way the means of acquainting him with the existence
and character of JEHOVAH. The fact shows, at least, that the knowledge
of the true God was not extinct in the world.
Who met Abraham. He came out to meet him, and brought with him bread
and wine. Why he did this, is not mentioned. It was probably as an
expression of gratitude to Abraham for having freed the country from
oppressive and troublesome invaders, and in order to furnish refreshments
to the party which Abraham headed, who had become weary and exhausted with
the pursuit. There is not the slightest evidence that the bread and wine
which he brought forth was designed to typify the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper, as has been sometimes supposed. Comp. Bush on
Genesis 14:18. What did he know of this ordinance? And why should
we resort to such a supposition, when the whole case may be met
by a simple reference to the ancient rites of hospitality, and by
the fact that the deliverance of the country by Abraham from a
grievous invasion made some expression of gratitude on the part
of this pious king in the highest degree proper?
Returning from the slaughter of the kings. Amraphel, king of Shiner,
Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and "Tidal, king of
nations," who had invaded the valley where Sodom and Gomorrah
were, and had departed with a great amount of booty. Those kings Abraham
had pursued beyond Dan, and to the neighbourhood of Damascus, and had
smitten them, and recovered the spoil.
And blessed him. For the important service which he had rendered in
taking vengeance on these invaders; in freeing the land from the
apprehension of being invaded again; and in recovering the valuable booty
which they had taken away. From Hebrews 7:6,7, it appears that this act
of blessing was regarded as that of one who was superior to Abraham:
that is, he blessed him as a priest and a king. As such he was superior in
rank to Abraham, who never claimed the title of king, and who is not
spoken of as a priest.
{a} "king of Salem" Genesis 14:18
Verse 2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all. That is, a
tenth part of all the spoils which he had taken, Genesis 14:20; thus
acknowledging that, in dignity of office, Melchisedek was greatly
his superior, Hebrews 7:4,6,8. This does not appear to have been, on
the part of Abraham, so much designed as a present to Melchisedek
personally, as an act of pious thankfulness to God. He doubtless
recognised in Melchisedek one who was a minister of God, and to
him, as such, he devoted the tenth of all which he had taken, as a
proper acknowledgment of the goodness of God and of his claims.
From this it is evident that the propriety of devoting a tenth part of
what was possessed to God, was regarded as a duty before the
appointment of the Levitical law. Some expression of this kind is
obviously demanded, and piety seems early to have fixed on the
tenth part as being no more than a proper proportion to consecrate
to the service of religion, for the propriety of the use which the
apostle makes of this fact, See Barnes "Hebrews 7:4",
See Barnes "Hebrews 7:6"; See Barnes "Hebrews 7:8".
First being. The first idea in the interpretation of his name and
office, etc. First being mentioned as king of righteousness, and then as
king of peace.
King of righteousness. The literal translation of the name
Melchisedek. See Barnes "Hebrews 7:1". The argument implied in this by the
remarks of the apostle is, that he bore a name which made him a
proper emblem of the Messiah. There was a propriety that one in
whose "order" the Messiah was to be found should have such a
name. It would be exactly descriptive of him; and it was worthy of
observation, that he of whose "order" it was said the Messiah
would be should have had such a name. Paul does not say that
this name was given to him with any such reference, or that it
was designed to be symbolical of what the Messiah would be; but
that there was a remarkable coincidence; that it was a fact which
was worth at least a passing thought. This is a kind of remark
that might occur to any one to make, and where the slight use
which Paul makes of it would not be improper anywhere; but it
cannot be denied, that to one accustomed to the Jewish mode of
reasoning--accustomed to dwell much on hidden meanings, and
to trace out concealed analogies--it would be much more obvious
and striking than it is with us. We are to place ourselves in the
situation of those to whom Paul wrote--trained up with Jewish
feelings, and Jewish modes of thought--and to ask how this would
strike their minds. And this is no more unreasonable than it
would be in interpreting a Greek classic, or a work of a Hindoo
philosopher, that we should endeavour to place ourselves in the
situation of the writer, and of those for whom he wrote, and ascertain
what ideas would be conveyed to them by certain expressions.
It is not meant by these observations that there was really no
intrinsic force in what Paul here said respecting the import of the
name. There was force; and all the use which he makes of it is
proper. His meaning appears to be merely that it was a fact
worthy of remark, that the name had a meaning which corresponded so
entirely with the character of Him who was to be a high priest of the same
"order."
And after that. He is mentioned after that with another appellation
equally significant.
King of peace. A literal translation of the appellation "king
of Salem," Hebrews 7:1. The idea of Paul is, that it was worthy of
remark that the appellation which he bore was appropriate to one
whose ministry, it was said, the priesthood of the Messiah would
resemble.
Verse 3. Without father. The phrase without father \~apatwr\~
--means, literally, one who has no father; one who has lost his father;
one who is an orphan. Then it denotes one who is born after the
death of his father; then one whose father is unknown--spurious.
Passow. The word occurs often in these senses in the classic writers,
for numerous examples of which the reader may consult Wetstein,
in loc. It is morally certain, however, that the apostle did not use
the word here in either of these senses, for there is no evidence that
Melchizedek was fatherless in any of these respects. It was very
important, in the estimation of the Jews, that the line of their
priesthood should be carefully kept; that their genealogies should be
accurately marked and preserved; and that their direct descent
from Aaron should be susceptible of easy and certain proof. But
the apostle says that there was no such genealogical table in regard
to Melchizedek. There was no record made of the name either of
his father, his mother, or any of his posterity. He stood alone.
It is simply said that such a man came out to meet Abraham--and
that is the first and the last which we hear of him and of his family.
Now, says the apostle, it is distinctly said Psalms 110:4 that the
Messiah was to be a priest according to his order: and in this
respect there is a remarkable resemblance, so far as the point of his
being a priest--which was the point under discussion--was
concerned. The Messiah thus, as a priest, STOOD ALONE. His name
does not appear in the line of priests. He pertained to another tribe,
Hebrews 7:14. No one of his ancestors is mentioned as a priest; and: as a
priest he has no descendants and no followers. He has a lonely conspicuity
similar to that of Melchisedek; a standing unlike that of any other
priest. This should not, therefore, be construed as meaning that the
genealogy of Christ could not be traced out--which is not true, for
Matthew 1 and Luke 3 have carefully preserved it; but that he had no
genealogical record as a priest. As the reasoning of the apostle
pertains to this point only, it would be unfair to construe it as implying
that the Messiah was to stand unconnected with any ancestor, or that his
genealogy would be unknown. The meaning of the word rendered "without
father" here is, therefore, one the name of whose father is not
recorded in the Hebrew genealogies.
Without mother. The name of whose mother is unknown, or is not
recorded in the Hebrew genealogical tables. Philo calls Sarah--
\~amhtora\~--without mother, probably because her mother is not
mentioned in the sacred records. The Syriac has given the correct view of
the meaning of the apostle. In that version it is, "Of whom neither the
father nor mother are recorded in the genealogies." The meaning here is
not that Melchisedek was of low and obscure origin, as the terms "without
father and without mother" often signify in the classic writers, and in
Arabic, (comp. Wetstein ;) for there is no reason to doubt that
Melchisedek had an ancestry as honourable as other kings and priests of
his time. The simple thought is, that the name of his ancestry does not
appear in any record of those in the priestly office.
Without descent, Marg, pedigree. The Greek word \~agenealoghtov\~ --
means, without genealogy; whose descent is unknown. He is merely
mentioned himself, and nothing is said of his family or of
his posterity.
Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. This is a much more
difficult expression than any of the others respecting Melchizedek. The
obvious meaning of the phrase is, that, in the records of Moses,
neither the beginning nor the close of his life is mentioned. It is not
said when he was born, or when he died; nor is it said that he was born,
or that he died. The apostle adverts to this particularly, because it was
so unusual in the records of Moses, who is in general so careful to
mention the birth and death of the individuals whose lives he mentions.
Under the Mosaic dispensation everything respecting the duration of the
sacerdotal office was determined accurately by the law. In the
time of Moses, and by his arrangement, the Levites were required
to serve from the age of thirty to fifty, Numbers 4:3,23,36,43,47;
Numbers 8:24,26. After the age of fifty, they were released from the more
arduous and severe duties of their office. In later periods of the
Jewish history they commenced their duties at the age of twenty,
1 Chronicles 23:24,27. The priests also, and the high priest, entered
on their office at thirty years of age, though it is not supposed
that they retired from it at any particular period of life. The idea
of the apostle here is, that nothing of this kind occurs in regard to
Melchizedek. No period is mentioned when he entered on his office; none
when he retired from it. From anything that appears in the sacred record
it might be perpetual--though Paul evidently did not mean to be understood
as saying that it was so. It cannot be that he meant to say that
Melehizedek had no beginning of days literally, that is, that he was
from eternity; or that he had no end of life literally, that is, that
he would exist for ever--for this would be to make him equal with God. The
expression used must be interpreted according to the matter under
discussion, and that was the office of Melchizedek as a priest. Of
that no beginning is mentioned, and no end. That this is the meaning of
Paul there can be no doubt; but there is a much more difficult question
about the force and pertinency of this reasoning--about the use which he
means to make of this fact, and the strength of the argument which
he here designs to employ. This inquiry cannot easily be settled.
It may be admitted, undoubtedly, that it would strike a Jew with
much more force than it would any other person; and to see its
pertinency we ought to be able to place ourselves in their condition, and
to transfer to ourselves, as far as possible, their state of feeling. It
was mentioned in Psalms 110:4, that the Messiah was to be a "priest after
the order of Melchizedek." It was natural, then, to turn to the only
record which existed of him--the very brief narrative in Genesis 14. There
the account is simple and plain--that he was a pious Canaanitish king, who
officiated as a priest. In what point then, it would be asked, was the
Messiah to resemble him? In his personal character; his office; his rank;
or in what he did? It would be natural, then, to run out the parallel,
and seize upon the points in which Melchizedek differed from the
Jewish priests which would be suggested on reading that account for it
was undoubtedly in those points that the resemblance between Christ and
Melchizedek was to consist. Here the record was to be the only guide,
and the points in which he differed from the Jewish priesthood,
according to the record, were such as these.
(1.) That there is no account of his ancestry as a priest--neither father
nor mother being mentioned--as was indispensable in the records of
the Levitical priesthood.
(2.) There was no account of any descendants in his office, and no reason
to believe that he had any, and he thus stood alone.
(3.) There was no account of the commencement or close of his office as a
priest, but, so far as the record goes, it is just as it would have
been if his priesthood had neither beginning nor end. It was inevitable,
therefore, that those who read the Psalm, and compared it with the account
in Genesis 14, should come to the conclusion that the Messiah was to
resemble Melchizedek in some such points as these--for these are the
points in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood; and to run
out these points of comparison is all that the apostle has done
here. It is just what would be done by any Jew, or indeed by
any other man; and the reasoning grew directly out of the two
accounts in the Old Testament. It is not, then, quibble or quirk
--it is sound reasoning, based on these two points:
(1) that it was said in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a
priest after the order of Melchizedek; and
(2) that the only points, according to the record, in which there was
anything peculiar about the priesthood of Melchizedek, or in which he
differed from the Levitical priesthood, were such as those which Paul
specifies, he reasons from the record; and though there is, as was
natural, something of a Jewish cast about it, yet it was the only kind
of reasoning that was possible in the case.
But made like. The word here used means, to be made like, to be made
to resemble; and then to be like, to be compared with. Our translation
seems to imply that there was a Divine agency or intention by which
Melchizedek was made to resemble the Son of God; but this does not
seem to be the idea of the apostle. In the Psalm it is said that the
Messiah would resemble Melchizedek in his priestly office, and this is
doubtless the idea here. Paul is seeking to illustrate the nature
and perpetuity of the office of the Messiah by comparing it with
that of Melchizedek. Hence he pursues the idea of this resemblance; and
the true sense of the word used here is, "he was like, or he resembled the
Son of God." So Tindal and Coverdale render it, "is likened unto the Son
of God." The points of resemblance are those which have been already
suggested:
(1) in the name--king of righteousness, and king of peace;
(2) in the fact that he had no ancestors or successors in the priestly
office;
(3) that he was, according to the record, a perpetual priest--there being
no account of his death; and perhaps
(4) that he united in himself the office of king and priest. It may be
added, that the expression here, "was made like unto the Son of God,"
proves that he was not himself the Son of God, as many have supposed.
How could he be "made like" himself? How could a comparison be formally
made between Christ and himself?
Abideth a priest continually. That is, as far as the record in
Genesis goes--for it was according to this record that Paul was
reasoning. This clause is connected with Hebrews 7:1; and, the
intermediate statements are of the nature of a parenthesis, containing
important suggestions respecting the character of Melchizedek, which would
be useful in preparing the readers for the argument which the apostle
proposed to draw from his rank and character. The meaning is, that there
is no account of his death, or of his ceasing to exercise the priestly
office; and in this respect he may be compared with the Lord Jesus.
All other priests cease to exercise their office by death,
Hebrews 7:23; but of the death of Melchizedek there is no mention. It
must have been true that the priesthood of Melchizedek terminated at
his death; and it will be also true that that of Christ will cease
when his Church shall have been redeemed, and when he shall have given up
the mediatorial kingdom to the rather, 1 Corinthians 15:25-28. The expression,
"abideth a priest continually," therefore, is equivalent to saying
that he had a perpetual priesthood, in contradistinction from those whose
office terminated at a definite period, or whose office passed over into
the hands of others. See Barnes "Hebrews 7:24".
{1} "descent" "pedigree"
Verse 4 Now consider how great this man was. The object of the apostle
was to exalt the rank and dignity of Melchizedek. The Jews had a profound
veneration for Abraham; and if it could be shown that Melchizedek was
superior to Abraham, then it would be easy to demonstrate the superiority
of Christ, as a priest, to all who descended from Abraham. Accordingly he
argues, that he to whom even the patriarch Abraham showed so much respect,
must have had an exalted rank. Abraham, according to the views of the
East, the illustrious ancestor of the Jewish nation, was regarded as
superior to any of his posterity, and of course was to be considered as of
higher rank and dignity than the Levitical priests, who were descended
from him.
Even the patriarch Abraham. One so great as he is acknowledged to have
been. On the word patriarch, See Barnes "Acts 2:29". It occurs only
in Acts 2:29; 7:8,9, and in this place.
Gave the tenth of the spoils. See Barnes "Hebrews 7:2". The
argument here is, that Abraham acknowledged the superiority of
Melchizedek by thus devoting the usual part of the spoils of war, or of
what was possessed, to God by his hands, as the priest of the Most High.
Instead of making a direct consecration by himself, he brought them to him
as a minister of religion, and recognised in him one who had a higher
official standing in the matter of religion than himself. The Greek word
rendered spoils--\~akroyinion\~--means, literally, the top of the heap,
from \~akron\~, top, and \~yin\~, heap. The Greeks were
accustomed, after a battle, to collect the spoils together, and throw them
into a pile, and then, before they were distributed, to take off a portion
from the top, and devote it to the gods, Xen. Cyro. vii. 6, 36; Herod. i.
86, 90; viii. 121, 122; Dion. Hal. ii. In like manner it was customary to
place the harvest in a heap; and, as the first thing, to take off a
portion from the top to consecrate as a thank-offering to God.
The word then came to denote the first-fruits which were offered
to God, and then the best of the spoils of battle. It has that sense
here, and denotes the spoils or plunder which Abraham had taken
of the discomfited kings.
Verse 5. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi. The meaning of
this verse is, that the Levitical priests had a right to receive tithes
of their brethren, but still that they were inferior to Melchizedek.
The apostle admits that their superiority to the rest of the people
was shown by the fact that they had a right to require of them the
tenth part of the productions of the land for their maintenance, and
for the support of religion. But still he says that their inferiority
to Melchizedek, and consequently to Christ as a priest, was shown
by the fact that the illustrious ancestor of all the Jewish people,
including the priests as well as others, had confessed his inferiority
to Melchizedek by paying him tithes.
Who receive the office of the priesthood. Not all the descendants of
Levi were priests. The apostle, therefore, specifies particularly those
who "received this office," as being those whom he specially designed, and
as those whose inferiority to Christ as a priest it was his object to
show.
Have a commandment to take tithes. Have by the law a commission, or a
right to exact tithes of the people, Deuteronomy 14:22,27-29.
{a} "who receive" Numbers 18:21-26.
Verse 6. But he whose descent is not counted from them. Melchizedek.
The word descent is, in the margin, pedigree. The meaning is, that
he was not in the same genealogy--\~mh genealogoumenov\~--he was not of
the order of Levitical priests. That Melchizedek is meant there can be no
doubt; at the same time, also, the thought is presented with prominence, on
which Paul so much insists, that he was of a different order from the Levitical
priesthood.
And blessed him. Blessed him as a priest of God; blessed him in such a
manner as to imply acknowledged superiority. See Hebrews 7:1.
That had the promises. The promise that he should have a numerous
posterity; that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed. See
Hebrews 6:12-16.
{1} "descent" "pedigree"
{b} "tithes" Genesis 14:20
{c} "the promises" Romans 9:4
Verse 7. And without all contradiction. It is an admitted principle; a
point about which there can be no dispute.
The less is blessed of the better. The act of pronouncing a blessing
is understood to imply superiority of rank, age, or station. So when a
father lays his hand on his children and blesses them, it is understood to
be the act of one superior in age, venerableness, and authority; when
a prophet pronounced a blessing on the people, the same thing was
understood; and the same is true, also, when a minister of religion
pronounces a blessing on a congregation. It is the act of one who is
understood to sustain an office above the people on whom the blessing is
pronounced. This was understood of the Saviour when parents brought their
children to him to lay his hands on them and bless them, Matthew 19:13;
and the same was true of Jacob, when flying he blessed the sons of Joseph,
Hebrews 11:21; Genesis 48:5-20. The word less here means the one of
inferior rank; who is less in office, honour, or age. It does not
imply inferiority of moral or religious character, for this is not the
point under consideration. The word better means one who is of
superior office or rank, not one who has necessarily a purer or holier
character. That Melchizedek was thus superior to Abraham, Paul says, is
implied by the very declaration that he "blessed him." It is also seen to
be true by the whole comparison. Abraham was a petty prince; an
Emir--the head of a company of Nomades, or migratory shepherds,
having, it is true, a large number of dependents, but still not having the
rank here given to Melchizedek. Though called a prophet,
Genesis 20:7, yet he is nowhere called either a priest or a king.
In these respects, it was undoubted that he was inferior to Melchizedek.
Verse 8. And here men that die receive tithes. Another point showing
the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. They who thus received
tithes, though by the right to do this they asserted a superiority over
their brethren, were mortal. Like others, they would soon die; and in
regard to the most essential things they were on a level with their
brethren. They had no exemption from sickness, affliction, or bereavement,
and death came to them with just as much certainty as he approached other
men. The meaning of this is, that they are mortal like their brethren, and
the design is to show the inferiority of their office by this fact. Its
obvious and natural signification, in the apprehension of the great mass
of readers, would not be, as the meaning has been supposed to be, that it
refers "to the brief and mutable condition of the Levitical
priesthood." See Stuart, in loco. Such an interpretation would
not occur to any one if it were not to avoid the difficulty existing
in the correlative member of the verse, where it is said of Melchizedek
that "he liveth." But is the difficulty avoided then? Is it not as
difficult to understand what is meant by his having an immutable and
perpetual priesthood, as it is to know what is meant by his not dying
literally ? Is the one any more true than the other whatever difficulties,
therefore, there may be, we are bound to adhere to the obvious sense of
the expression here; a sense which furnishes also a just and forcible
ground of comparison. It seems to me, therefore, that the simple meaning
of this passage is, that under the Levitical economy those who received
tithes were mortal, and were thus placed in strong contrast with him of
whom it was said, "he liveth." Thus they were inferior to him--as a
mortal is inferior to one who does not die; and thus also they must he
inferior to him who was made a priest after the "order" of him
who thus "lived."
But there. In contrast with "here" in the same verse. The reference
here is to the account of Melchizedek: "Here" in the Levitical economy,
men received tithes who are mortal; "there," in the account of
Melchizedek, the case is different.
He receiveth them. Melchizedek -- for so the connexion evidently
demands.
Of whom it is witnessed. Of whom the record is. There is not, in
Genesis, indeed any direct record that he lives, but there is the
absence of a record that he died; and this seems to have been regarded
as, in fact, a record of permanency in the office, or as having an office
which did not pass over to successors by the death of the then incumbent.
That he liveth. This is an exceedingly difficult expression, and
one which has always greatly perplexed commentators. The fair and obvious
meaning is, that all the record we have of Melchizedek is, that he was
"alive;" or, as Grotius says, the record is merely that he lived.
We have no mention of his death, from anything that the record shows,
it might appear that he continued to live on, and did not die. Arguing
from the record, therefore, there is a strong contrast between him and the
Levitical priests, all of whom we know are mortal, Hebrews 7:23. The
apostle is desirous of making out a contrast between them and the
priesthood of Christ, on this point, among others; and in doing this
he appeals to the record in the Old Testament, and says that there was a
case which furnished an intimation that the priestly office of the Messiah
was not to pass over from him to others by death. That case was, that he
was expressly compared Psalms 110:4 with Melchizedek, and that in
the account of Melchizedek there was no record of his death. As to the
force of this argument, it must be admitted that it would strike a Jew
more impressively than it does most readers now; and it may not be
improbable that the apostle was reasoning from some interpretation of the
passages in Genesis 14 and Psalms 110, which was then prevalent, and
which would then be conceded on all hands to be correct. If this was the
admitted interpretation, and if there is no equivocation, or mere
trick in the reasoning--as there cannot be shown to be--why should we
not allow to the Jew a peculiarity of reasoning as we do to all other
people? There are modes of reasoning and illustration in all nations, in
all societies, and in all professions, which do not strike others as very
forcible. The ancient philosophers had methods of reasoning which now
seem weak to us; the lawyer often argues in a way which appears to be a
mere quirk or quibble, and so the lecturer in science sometimes reasons.
The cause of all this may not be always that there is real quibble or
quirk, in the mode of argumentation, but that he who reasons in this
manner has in his view certain points which he regards as undisputed which
do not appear so to us; or that he argues from what is admitted in the
profession, or in the school where he is taught, which are not understood
by those whom he addresses. To this should be added also the
consideration, that Paul had a constant reference to the Messiah, and that
it is possible that in his mind there was here a transition from the type
to the antitype, and that the language which he uses may be stronger
than if he had been speaking of the mere record of Melchizedek if he
had found it standing by itself. Still his reasoning turns mainly on the
fact, that in the case of Melchizedek there was no one who had preceded
him in that office, and that he had no successor, and, in regard to
the matter in hand, it was all one as if he had been a perpetual
priest, or had continued still alive.
{a} "of whom" Hebrews 5:6
Verse 9. And as I may so say. So to speak--\~wv epov eipein\~. For
numerous examples in the classic writers of this expression, see Wetstein,
in loc. It is used precisely as it is with us when we say, "so to
speak," or, "if I may be allowed the expression." It is employed when
what is said is not strictly and literally true, but when it amounts
to the same thing, or when about the same idea is conveyed. "It
is a softening down of an expression which a writer supposes his
readers may deem too strong, or which may have the appearance
of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology for employing an
unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase." Prof. Stuart. Here Paul
could not mean that Levi had actually paid tithes in Abraham--for he had
not then an existence; or that Abraham was his representative--for there
had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi; or that
the act of Abraham was imputed or reckoned to Abraham--for that was
not true, and would not have been pertinent to the case if it were so. But
it means, that in the circumstances of the case, the same thing occurred in
regard to the superiority of Melchizedek, and the inferiority of the
Levitical priesthood, as if Levi had been present with Abraham, and
had himself actually paid tithes on that occasion. This was so because
Abraham was the distinguished ancestor of Levi; and when an ancestor has
done an act implying inferiority of rank to another, we feel as if the
whole family, or all the descendants, by that act recognised the
inferiority, unless something occurs to change the relative rank of the
persons. Here nothing indicating any such change had occurred. Melchizedek
had no descendants of which mention is made, and the act of Abraham, as the
head of the Hebrew race, stood therefore as if it were the act of all who
descended from him.
Levi. The ancestor of the whole Levitical priesthood, and from whom
they received their name. He was the third son of Jacob and Leah, and was
born in Mesopotamia. On account of the conduct of Simeon and Levi towards
Shechem, for the manner in which he had treated their sister Dinah,
Genesis 34:25, and which Jacob characterized as "cruelty," Genesis 49:5,6,
Jacob said that they should be "scattered in Israel," Genesis 49:7.
Afterwards the whole tribe of Levi was chosen by God to execute the various
functions of the priesthood, and were "scattered" over the land,
having no inheritance of their own, but deriving their subsistence
from the offerings of the people. Numbers 3:6, seq. Levi is here
spoken of as the ancestor of the tribe, or collectively to denote the
entire Jewish priesthood.
Who receiveth tithes. That is, his descendants, the priests and
Levites, receive tithes.
Payed tithes in Abraham. It is the same as if he had payed tithes in or
by Abraham.
Verse 10. For he was yet in the loins of his father. Abraham is here
called the father of Levi, by a common use of the word, referring
to a more remote ancestor than the literal father. The meaning of
the apostle is that he was even then, in a certain sense, in the loins
of Abraham, when Melchizedek met him; or it was all the same
as if he were there, and had then an existence. The relation which
subsisted between him and Abraham, in the circumstances of the
case, implied the same thing as if he had then been born, and had
acted for himself by paying tithes. Instances of this occur constantly.
A father sells a farm, to which his son would be heir, and it is the
same as if the son had sold it. He has no more control over it than if
he had been present and disposed of it himself. A father acknowledges
fealty to a government for a certain title or property which
is to descend to his heirs, and it is all one as if the heir had himself
done it; and it is not improper to say that it is the same as if he had
been there and acted for himself. For some valuable remarks on the nature
of the reasoning here employed, see Stuart on the Hebrews, Eursus xiv. The
reasoning here is, indeed, especially such as would be fitted to impress a
Jewish mind, and perhaps more forcibly than it does ours. The Jews valued
themselves on the dignity and honour of the Levitical priesthood, and
it was important to show them on their own principles, and according to
their own sacred writings, that the great ancestor of all the Levitical
community had himself acknowledged his inferiority to one who was declared
also in their own writings Psalms 110 to be like the Messiah, or who was
of the same "order." At the same time, the reasoning concedes nothing
false, and conveys no wrong impression. It is not mere fancy or
accommodation, nor is it framed on allegory or cabalistic principles. It is
founded in truth, and such as might be used anywhere, where regard was
shown to pedigree, or respect was claimed on account of the illustrious
deeds of an ancestor. It would be regarded as sound reasoning in a
country like England, where titles and ranks are recognised, and
where various orders of nobility exist. The fact that a remote
ancestor had done homage or fealty to the ancestor of another class
of titled birth would be regarded as proof of acknowledged inferiority in
the family, and might be used with force and propriety in an argument. Paul
has done no more than this.
Verse 11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. As
the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect, It
was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it
was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this
could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent that a priest
was to arise of another order, and of a more permanent character; and this,
he says, was full proof that there was defect of some kind in the
previous order. What this defect was he does not here specify, but the
subsequent reasoning shows that it was in such points as these--that it was
not permanent; that it could not make the worshippers perfect; that the
blood which they offered in sacrifice could not take away sin, and could
not render those who offered it holy. Comp. Hebrews 7:19,23,24,
Hebrews 10:1-4.
For under it the people received the law. This assertion seems
necessary in order to establish the point maintained in Hebrews 7:12, that
if the priesthood is changed there must be also a change of the law. In
order to this it was necessary to admit that the law was received
under that economy, and that it was a part of it, so that the change
of one involved also the change of the other. It was not strictly
true that the whole law was given after the various orders of Levitical
priests were established--for the law on Sinai, and several other laws were
given before that distinct arrangement was made; but it was true
(1) that a considerable part of the laws of Moses were given under that
arrangement; and
(2) that the whole of the ceremonial observances was connected with
that. They were parts of one system, and mutually dependent on each other.
This is all that the argument demands.
What further need was there, etc. "If that system would lead to
perfection; if it was sufficient to make the conscience pure, and to remove
sin, then there was no necessity of any other. Yet the Scriptures have
declared that there would be another Of a different order, implying
that there was some defect in the former." This reasoning is founded on the
fact that there was an express prediction of the coming of a priest of a
different "order," Psalms 110:4, and that this fact implied that there was
some deficiency in the former arrangement. To this reasoning it is
impossible to conceive that there can be any objection.
{a} "If, therefore" Galatians 2:21; 5:18,19; Hebrews 8:7
Verse 12. For the priesthood being changed. According to the prediction
in Psalms 110 that it would be. When that occurs, the consequence
specified will also follow.
There is made of necessity a change also of the law. The law so far as
it grew out of that, or was dependent on it. The connexion requires us to
understand it only of the law so far as it was connected with the
Levitical priesthood. This could not apply to the ten commandments--for
they were given before the institution of the priesthood; nor could it
apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the
appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a
large number of laws--constituting a code of considerable extent and
importance--was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in
reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or
superintend, it followed that when their office was superseded by one
of a wholly different order, the law which had regulated them
vanished also, or ceased to be binding. This was a very important point in
the introduction of Christianity, and hence it is that it is so often
insisted on in the writings of Paul. The argument to show that there
had been a change or transfer of the priestly office, he proceeds to
establish in the sequel.
Verse 13. For he of whom these things are spoken. The Lord Jesus, the
Messiah, to whom they had reference. The things here spoken of pertain
to his office as priest; his being of the order of Melchizedek. The apostle
here assumes it as a point concerning which there could be no dispute,
that these things referred to the Lord Jesus. Those whom he addressed would
not be disposed to call this in question, and his argument had conducted
him to this conclusion.
Pertaineth to another tribe. To the tribe of Judah, Hebrews 7:14.
Of which no man gave attendance at the altar. The priestly office
pertained only to the tribe of Levi. No one of the tribe of Judah
had any part in the performance of the duties of that office. This
was settled by the Jewish law.
Verse 14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah. It is
well known; it cannot be a matter of dispute. About the fact that the
Lord Jesus was of the tribe of Judah there could be no doubt. Comp.
Matthew 1:3. But probably the apostle means here to refer to more than that
simple fact. It was a doctrine of the Old Testament, and was admitted by
the Jews, that the Messiah was to be of that tribe. See Genesis 49:10;
Isaiah 11:1; Micah 5:2; Matthew 11:6, This was an additional consideration to show
that there was to be a change of some kind in the office of the priesthood,
since it was declared Psalms 110 that the Messiah was to be a priest. The
fact that the Messiah is to be of the tribe of Judah is still admitted
by the Jews. As their distinction of tribes now, however, is broken up, and
as it is impossible for them to tell who belongs to the tribe of Judah, it
is held by them that when he comes this-will be made known by miracle.
Of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. That is, in the
Mosaic laws respecting the office of priest this tribe is not mentioned.
All the arrangements pertain to the tribe of Judah.
{b} "evident" Isaiah 11:1; Matthew 1:3; Revelation 5:5
Verse 15. And it is yet far more evident. Not that our Lord would
spring out of Judah, but the point which he was endeavouring to establish;
that there must be a change of the priesthood, was rendered still more
evident from another consideration. A strong proof of the necessity of such
a change of the priesthood was furnished from the fact that the Messiah was
to be of the tribe of Judah; but a much stronger because, as a priest, he
was to be of the order of Melchizedek--that is, he was of the same rank with
one who did not even belong to that tribe.
After the similitude, Resembling; that is, he was to be of the order of
Melchizedek.
Verse 16. Who is made. That is, the other priest is made--to wit, the
Messiah. He was made a priest by a peculiar law.
Not after the law of a carnal commandment. Not according to the law of a
commandment pertaining to the flesh. The word carnal means fleshly;
and the idea is, that the law under which the priests of the old
dispensation were made was external, rather than spiritual; it related more
to outward observances than to the keeping of the heart. That this was the
nature of the Mosaic ritual in the main, it was impossible to doubt, and the
apostle proceeds to argue from this undeniable truth.
But after the power of an endless life. By an authority of endless
duration, That is, it was not concerned mainly with outward observances, and
did not pass over from one to another by death, but was unchanging in its
character, and spiritual in its nature. It was enduring and perpetual as a
priesthood, and was thus far exalted above the service performed by the
priests under the former dispensation.
Verse 17. For he testifieth. "That this is the true account of it is
proved by the testimony of God himself, that he was to be a Priest
for ever. See Barnes "Hebrews 5:6".
{a} "Thou art a Priest" Psalms 110:4
Verse 18. For there is verily a disannulling. A setting aside. The
law which existed before in regard to the priesthood becomes now abrogated,
in consequence of the change which has been made in the priesthood.
See Barnes "Hebrews 7:12".
Of the commandment. Relating to the office of priest, or to the
ceremonial rites in general. This does not refer to the moral law, as if
that was abrogated, for
(1) the reasoning of the apostle does not pertain to that, and
(2) that law cannot be abrogated. It grows out of the nature of things, and
must be perpetual and universal.
Going before. Going before the Christian dispensation, and introducing
it.
For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. That is, it was not
adapted to save man; it had not power to accomplish what was necessary to
be done in human salvation. It answered the end for which it was
designed--that of introducing a more perfect plan, and then vanished as a
matter of course. It did not expiate guilt; it did not give peace to the
conscience; it did not produce perfection, (Hebrews 7:11,) and therefore it
gave place to a better system.
{b} "weakness" Acts 13:39
Verse 19. For the law made nothing perfect. The Levitical, ceremonial
law. It did not produce a perfect state; it did not do what
was desirable to be done for a sinner. See Barnes "Hebrews 8:11". That
law, as such, did not reconcile man to God; it did not make an
atonement; it did not put away guilt; in one word, it did not
restore things to the condition in which they were before the law
was broken and man became a sinner. If man were saved under that
system--as many undoubtedly were--it was not in virtue of any
intrinsic efficacy which it possessed, but in virtue of that great
Sacrifice which it typified.
But the bringing in of a better hope did. Marg. "But it was."
The correct rendering is, probably, "but there is the bringing in of a
better hope by which we have access to God." The law could not effect
this. It left the conscience guilty, and sin unexpiated. But there is
now the introduction of a better system by which we can approach a
reconciled God. The "better hope" here refers to the more sure and
certain expectation of heaven introduced by the gospel. There is a better
foundation for hope; a more certain way of obtaining the Divine
favour than the law could furnish.
By the which. By which better hope; that is, by means of the ground
of hope furnished by the gospel--to wit, that God is now reconciled,
and that we can approach him with the assurance that he is ready to
save us.
We draw nigh unto God. We have access to him.
See Barnes "Romans 5:1"; See Barnes "Romans 5:2".
{1} "the bringing" "but it was"
{d} "which we draw" Romans 3:20
Verse 20. And inasmuch as not without an oath. In addition to every
other consideration showing the superiority of Christ as a priest,
there was the solemnity of the oath by which he was set apart to
the office. The appointment of one to the office of priest by an
oath, such as occurred in the case of Jesus, was much more solemn
and important than where the office was received merely by descent.
Acts 13:39
Verse 21. For those priests were made without an oath. The Levitical
priests were set apart and consecrated without their office being
confirmed to them by an oath on the part of God. They received
it by regular descent, and when they arrived at a suitable age they
entered on it of course. Jesus received his office by special
appointment, and it was secured to him by an oath. The word
rendered "oath" is, in the margin, "swearing of an oath". This is the
proper meaning of the Greek word, but the sense is not materially
varied.
But this with an oath. This priest, the Lord Jesus, became
a priest in virtue of an oath.
The Lord sware. See Barnes "Hebrews 6:3".
The reference here is to Psalms 110:4 "The Lord hath sworn."
and will not repent. That is, will not regret, or will not alter his
mind through regret--for this is the meaning of the Greek word.
{2} "an oath" "swearing of an oath"
{e} "The Lord sware" Romans 5:2
Verse 22. \\By so much\\. Inasmuch as an oath is more solemn than a
mere appointment. The meaning is, that there is all the additional
security in the suretyship of Jesus which arises from the solemnity
of an oath. It is not implied that God would not be true to his
mere promise, but the argument here is derived from the custom
of speaking among men. An oath is regarded as much more sacred
and binding than a mere promise; and the fact that God has sworn
in a given case furnishes the highest security that what he has
promised will be performed.
Was Jesus made a surety. The word surety \~egguov\~-- occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint. It
properly means, a bondsman; one who pledges his name, property, or
influence, that a certain thing shall be done. When a contract is made,
a debt contracted, or a note given, a friend often becomes the
security in the case, and is himself responsible if the terms of the
contract are not complied with. In the case of the new covenant between
God and man, Jesus is the "security," or the bondsman. But of what, and
to whom, is he the surety? It cannot be that he is a bondsman
for God that he will maintain the covenant, and be true to the
promise which he makes, as Crellius supposes, for we need no suck
"security" of the Divine faithfulness and veracity. It cannot be
that he becomes responsible for the Divine conduct in any way---
for no such responsibility is needed or possible. But it must
mean, that he is the security or bondsman on the part of man; He
is the pledge that we shall be saved. He becomes responsible,
so to speak, to law and justice, that no injury shall be done by our
salvation, though we are sinners. He is not a security that we
shall be saved, at any rate, without holiness, repentance, faith, or
true religions for he never could enter into a suretyship of that
kind; but his suretyship extends to this point, that the law shall
be honoured; that all its demands shall be met; that we may be
saved though we have violated it, and that its terrific penalty shall
not fall upon us. The case is this:-- A sinner becomes a true penitent,
and enters heaven. It might be said that he does this over
a broken law; that God treats the good and bad alike, and that
no respect has been paid to the law or the penalty in his salvation.
Here the great Surety comes in, and says that it is not so. He has
become responsible for this; he the surety, the pledge, that all proper
honour shall be paid to justice, and that the same good effects shall
ensue as if the penalty of the law had been fully borne. He himself has
died to honour the law, and to open a way by which its penalty may be
fully remitted consistently with justice, and he becomes
the everlasting pledge or security to law, to justice, to the
universe, that no injury shall result from the pardon and
salvation of the sinner. According to this view, no man can rely
on the suretyship of Jesus but he who expects salvation on the
terms of the gospel. The suretyship is not at all that he shall be
saved in his sins, or that he shall enter heaven no matter what
life he leads; it is only that if he believes, repents, and is saved,
no injury shall be clone to the universe, no dishonour to the law.
For this the Lord Jesus is responsible.
Of a better testament. Rather, "of a better covenant." The former
covenant, was that which God made with his people under the Mosaic
dispensation: the new covenant is that made by means of Christ. This is
better, because
(1) the terms are more simple and easy;
(2) the observances and rites are much less onerous and hard;
(3) it relates to all men, not being confined to the Jewish people;
(4) it is now sure. The former was administered through the
instrumentality of the Levitical priesthood, this by the Son of God;
that was transitory and changing, this is permanent and eternal.
{f} "better testament" Hebrews 8:6
Verse 23. And they truly. Under the Jewish dispensation. The object
of this verse, and the following, is to state one more reason of the
excellence of the priesthood of Christ. It is that, owing to the
frailty of human nature and the shortness of life, the office of
priest there was continually changing. But here there was no
such change. Christ, being exalted to the heavens to live for ever
there, has now an unchangeable priesthood, and everything in
regard to his office is permanent.
Verse 24. But this man. Gr., "But he"--referring to Christ.
Because he continueth ever. Gr., "Because he remains for ever."
The idea is, because he does not die, but ever lives, he has an
unchanging priesthood. There is no necessity that he should yield
it to others, as was the ease with the Jewish priests, because they
were mortal. The reason, in their ease, why it passed to others,
was not that they did not perform the office well, but that they
were mortal, and could not continue to hold it. But this reason
could not operate in the ease of the Lord Jesus, and therefore his
priesthood would be permanent.
Hath an unchangeable priesthood. Marg., "or, which passeth not
from one to another." The margin expresses the sense of the passage.
The idea is not strictly that it was unchangeable, but that it did
not pass over into other hands. The Levitical priesthood passed from one
to another as successive generations came on the stage of action. This
reasoning is not designed to prove that the priesthood of Christ will
be literally eternal--for its necessity may cease when all the
redeemed are in heaven--but that it is permanent, and does not pass from
hand to hand.
{b} "unchangeable" "which passeth not from on to another"
{1} "priesthood" 1 Samuel 2:35
Verse 25. Wherefore he is able also. As he ever lives, and ever
intercedes, he has power to save. He does not begin the work of salvation,
and then relinquish it by reason of death, but he lives on as long as it
is necessary that anything should be done for the salvation of his people.
We need a Saviour who has power and Christ has shown that he has all
the power which is needful to rescue man from eternal death.
To the uttermost. This does not mean simply for ever--but that he
has power to save them so that their salvation shall be complete
\~eiv to pantelev\~. He does not abandon the work midway; he does not begin a work
which he is unable to finish. He can aid us as long as we need
anything done for our salvation; he can save all who will entrust their
salvation to his hands.
That come unto God by him. In his name; or depending on him. To come
to God, is to approach him for pardon and salvation.
Seeing he ever liveth. He does not die as the Jewish priests did.
To make intercession for them. See Barnes "Romans 8:34". He
constantly presents the merits of his death as a reason why we should be
saved. The precise mode, however, in which he makes intercession in
heaven for his people is not revealed. The general meaning is, that
he undertakes their cause, and assists them in overcoming their foes and
in their endeavours to live a holy life. Comp. 1 John 2:1. He does in
heaven whatever is necessary to obtain for us grace and strength;
secures the aid which we need against our foes; and is the pledge
or security for us that the law shall be honoured, and the justice
and truth of God maintained, though we are saved. It is reasonable to
presume that this is somehow by the presentation of the merits of his
great sacrifice, and that that is the ground on which all this grace
is obtained. As that is infinite, we need not fear that it will ever be
exhausted.
{b} "able" Jude 1:24
{2} "to the uttermost" "evermore"
Verse 26. For such an High Priest became us. Was fitted to our
condition. That is, there was that in our character and circumstances
which demanded that a high priest for us should be personally holy. It
was not requisite merely that he should have great power; or that he
should be of a rank superior to that of the Jewish priesthood; but there
was a special propriety that he should surpass all others in moral
purity. Other priests were mere mortal men, and it was necessary that
their office should pass to other hands: they were sinful men also,
and it was necessary that sacrifices should be made for themselves as
well as others. We need, however, a different priest. We need not only
one who ever lives, but one who is perfectly holy, and who has no need
to bring an offering for himself, and all the merit of whose sacrifice,
therefore, may be ours. Such an high priest we have in the person of the
Lord Jesus; and there is no truth more interesting, and no proposition
more susceptible of proof, than that. HE IS EXACTLY FITTED TO MAN. In his
moral character, and in the great work which he has accomplished, he is
just such a Saviour as is adapted to the wants of ignorant, fallen,
wretched, sinful man. He is benevolent, and pities our woes; wise, and
is able to enlighten our ignorance; compassionate, and ready to forgive
our faults. He has made such an sacrifice. It was necessary to put away
our guilt, and offers such intercession as we need to have offered for
us in order that we may be preserved from falling.
Who is holy. Not merely outwardly righteous, but pure in heart.
Harmless. Not injuring any one. To no one did he do wrong. Neither
to their name, person, or property, did he ever do injury; nor will he
ever. He is the only one who has lived on earth of whom it could be said
that he never, in any way, did wrong to another.
Undefiled. By sin; by any improper desire or passion. He was
unstained by crime; "unspotted from the world." Sin always defiles the
soul; but from every such pollution the Lord Jesus was free.
Separate from sinners. That is, he did not associate with them as
such. He did not partake of their feelings, plans, pleasures. Though he
mingled with them, yet it was merely to do them good; and in all his life
there was an entire separation from the feelings, principles, and views
of a sinful world.
And made higher than the heavens. Exalted above the visible heavens;
that is, at the right hand of God. See Barnes "Ephesians 1:21",
See Barnes "Philippians 2:9". We needed a high priest who is thus exalted,
that he may manage our cause before the throne of God.
{d} "harmless" Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22
Verse 27. Who needeth not daily, as those High priests. As the Jewish
priests. This is an additional circumstance introduced to show
the superior excellency of the High Priest of the Christian profession,
and to show also how he was fitted to our wants. The Jewish high priest
was a sinful man. He had the same fallen and corrupt nature as others.
He needed an expiatory sacrifice for his own sins as really as they did
for theirs. When he approached God to offer sacrifice, it was needful to
make an atonement for himself; and when all was done, it was still a
sacrifice offered by a sinful man. But it was not so in the case of
Jesus. He was so holy that he needed no sacrifice for himself, and all
that he did was in behalf of others. Besides, it was necessary that the
sacrifices in the Jewish service should be constantly repeated. They
were imperfect. They were mere types and shadows. They who offered them
were frail, sinful men. It became necessary, therefore, to repeat them
every day to keep up the proper sense of their transgressions, and to
furnish a suitable acknowledgment of the tendency to sin alike among the
people and the priests. Neither in the nature of the offering, nor in the
character of those who made it, was there any sufficient reason why it
should cease to be offered, and it was therefore repeated day by day.
But it was not so with the Lord Jesus. The offering which he made, though
presented but once, was so ample and perfect, that it had sufficient
merit for all the sins of the world, and needed never to be repeated.
It is not probable that the Jewish high priest himself personally
officiated at the offering of sacrifice every day; but the meaning
here is, that it was done daily, and that there was need of a
daily sacrifice in his behalf. As one of the Jewish people, the sacrifice
was offered on his account, as well as on the account of others--
for he partook of the common infirmities and sinfulness of the
nation.
For this he did once. That is, once for all \~efapax\~. He made such
an atonement that it was not needful that it should be repeated. Thus he
put an end to sacrifice; for when he made the great atonement it was
complete, and there was no need that any more blood should be shed for
human guilt.
{a} "his own sins" Leviticus 9:7
Verse 28. For the law. The ceremonial law.
Which have infirmity. Who are weak, frail, sinful, dying, Such were
all who were appointed to the office of priest under the Jewish law.
But the word of the oath. By which one was appointed after the order
of Melchizedek. See Barnes "Hebrews 7:21".
Maketh the Son. The Son of God. That appointment has resulted in his
being set apart to this work.
Who is consecrated for evermore. Marg., Perfected.
See Barnes "Hebrews 2:10". The idea is, that the appointment is
complete and permanent. It does not pass from one to the other.
It is perfect in all the arrangements, and will remain so for ever.
REMARKS.
The subject of this chapter is the exalted high-priesthood of the
Redeemer. This is a subject which pertains to all Christians, and
to all men. All religions imply the priestly office; all suppose
sacrifice of some kind. In regard to the priestly office of Christ:
as illustrated in this chapter, we may observe,
(1.) He stands alone. In that office he had no predecessor, and has no
one to succeed him. In this respect he was without father, mother, or
descent--and he stands in lonely majesty, as the only one who sustains
the office, Hebrews 7:3.
(2.) He is superior to Abraham. Abraham never laid claim to the office
of priest, but he recognised his inferiority to one whom the Messiah was
to resemble, Hebrews 7:2,4.
(3.) He is superior to all the Jewish priesthood--sustaining a rank,
and performing an office, above them all. The great ancestor of all the
Levitical priests recognised his inferiority to one of the rank or
"order" of which the Messiah was to be, and received from him a
blessing. In our contemplation of Christ, therefore, as priest, we have
the privilege of regarding him as superior to the Jewish high
priest--exalted as was his office, and important as were the functions
of his office; as more grand, more pure, more worthy of confidence and
love.
(4.) The great High Priest of the Christian profession is the only
perfect priest, Hebrews 7:11,19. The Jewish priests were all imperfect
and sinful men. The sacrifices which they offered were imperfect,
and could not give peace to the conscience. There was need of
some better system, and they all looked forward to it. But in the
Lord Jesus, and in his work, there is absolute perfection. What
he did was complete, and his office needs no change.
(5.) The office now is permanent. It does not change from hand to hand,
Hebrews 7:23,24. He who sustains this office does not die, and we may
ever apply to him, and cast our cares on him. Men die; one generation
succeeds another; but our High Priest is the same. We may trust in him
in whom our fathers found peace and salvation, and then we may teach
our children to confide in the same High-Priest --and so send the
invaluable lesson down to latest generations.
(6.) His work is firm and sure, Hebrews 7:20-22. His office is founded
on an oath, and he has become the security for, all who will commit their
cause to him. Can great interests, like those of the soul, be entrusted
to better hands? Are they not safer in his keeping than in our own
(7.) He is able to save to the uttermost, Hebrews 7:25. That power he
showed when he was on earth; that power he is constantly evincing. No
one has asked aid of him, and found him unable to render it; no one has
been suffered to sink down to hell because his arm was weak. What he has
done for a few, he can do for "all;" and they who will entrust themselves
to him will find him a sure Saviour. Why will not men then be persuaded
to commit themselves to him? Can they save themselves? Where is there one
who has shown that he was able to do it? Do they not need a Saviour? Let
the history of the world answer. Can man conduct his own cause before
God? How weak, ignorant, and blind is he! how little qualified for such
an office! Has any one suffered wrong by committing himself to the
Redeemer? If there is such an one, where is he? Who has ever made this
complaint that has tried it? Who ever will make it? In countless millions
of instances the trial has been made, whether Christ was "able to save."
Men have gone with a troubled spirit, with a guilty conscience, and with
awful apprehensions of the wrath to come, and have asked him to save them.
Not one of, those who have done this has found reason to doubt his
ability; not one has regretted that he has committed the deathless
interest of the soul into his hands.
(8.) Christ saves to the uttermost, Hebrews 7:25. He makes the
salvation complete. So the Bible assures us; and so we see it, in
fact, as far as we can trace the soul. When a Christian friend dies, we
stand at his bed-side, and accompany him as far as we can into the
valley of the shadow of death. We ask him whether he feels that
Christ is able to save? He replies," Yes." When he has lost the
power of speaking above a whisper, we ask him the same question,
and receive the same reply. When he gives us the parting hand,
and we, still anxious to know whether all is well, ask the same
question, a sign, a smile, a lighting up of the dying eye, declares
that all is well. As far as we can trace the departing soul, when
it goes into the dark valley, we receive the same assurance; and
why should we doubt that the same grace is bestowed further onward and
that he saves "to the uttermost? " But what else thus saves? Friends give
the parting hand at the gloomy entrance to that valley, and the gay and
the worldly coolly turn away. The delusions of infidelity there forsake
the soul, and minister no comfort then. Flatterers turn away from the
dying scene--for who flatters the dying with the praise of beauty or
accomplishments? Taste, skill, learning, talent, do not help then--for
how can they save a dying soul? None but Jesus saves to the
"uttermost;" no other friend but he goes with us entirely through
the valley of death. Is it not better to have such a friend than to go
alone through that dark, gloomy path? Any other gloomy and dangerous way
may be more safely trod without a friend than the vale of death.
(9.) The Christian religion is fitted to our condition, Hebrews 7:26,27.
It has just such a High Priest as we need--holy, harmless, undefiled.
Just such an atonement has been made as is necessary --ample, rich, full,
and not needing to be made again. It reveals just such truth as we want--
that respecting the immortality of the soul, and the glorious state of
the redeemed beyond the grave. It imparts just such consolation as is
fitted to our condition-- pure, rich, unfailing, elevating. It reconciles
us to God just as it should be done--in such a way that God can be
honoured, and the purity and dignity of his law maintained. It is the
religion adapted to dying, ignorant, sinful, wretched man. No other
system so much consults the true dignity of our nature, and the honour
of God; no one diffuses such consolations through the life that is, or
fills with such hopes in regard to the life to come.
(10.) Since, then, we have now such a great High Priest; since the
promises of the gospel are settled on so firm a foundation; and since
the gospel in its provisions of mercy is all that we can desire it to
be, let us yield our hearts entirely to the Saviour, and make this
salvation wholly ours. We have the privilege, if we will, of drawing
near to God with boldness. We may come near his throne. Though we are
poor and sinful, and deserve neither notice nor mercy, yet we may come
and ask for all that we need. We may go to God, and supplicate his
favour with the assurance that he is ready to hear. We may go feeling
that the great atonement has been made for our sins, and that no other
offering is now needed; that the last bloody offering which God
required has been presented, and that all that he now asks is the
sacrifice of a contrite and a grateful heart. All that was needful to
be done on the part of God to provide a way of salvation, has been
done; all that remains is for man to forsake his sins, and to come back
to a God who waits to be gracious.
{1} "consecrated" "perfected"
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP