Hebrews · Chapter 7
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
John Wesley
V. 2. Being first-According to the meaning of his own name. King of righteousness, then-According to the name of his city. King of peace-So in him, as in Christ, righteousness and peace were joined. And so they are in all that believe in him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 2. Gave a tenth part of all] It was an ancient custom, among all the nations of the earth, to consecrate a part or tenth of the spoils taken in war to the objects of their worship. Many examples of this kind occur. This however was not according to any provision in law, but merely ad libitum, and as a eucharistic offering to those to whom they imagined they owed the victory. But neither Abraham’s decimation, nor theirs, had any thing to do, either with tithes as prescribed under the Mosaic dispensation, or as claimed under the Christian.
Joseph Benson
Verses 2, 3. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth of all — Namely, of all the spoils of the vanquished kings, (verse 4,) but not a tenth also of the goods that had been taken from the king of Sodom and from Lot; for of these Abraham took nothing to himself. By paying tithes to Melchisedec, Abraham acknowledged him to be a priest of the true God. It seems, indeed, his being supernaturally appointed a priest by God, was known through all that country. Being first — According to the meaning of his own name; king of righteousness; and after that also — According to the name of his city; king of peace — So that in him, as in Christ, righteousness and peace were joined. And so they are in all that believe in him. “In ancient times, it was usual to give names to persons and places expressive of their qualities, or in commemoration of some remarkable events. Thus Abram’s name was changed into Abraham, to signify that he was made the father of many nations; and Sarai was named Sarah, because she was made the mother of nations; and Jacob obtained the name of Israel, because he had power with God. Viewed in the light of this ancient practice, the apostle’s argument, from these names, is conclusive, to show what an excellent person Melchisedec was, and how fit to be made a type of the Son of God. Without father, without mother — Without any mention of his parents; without descent — Or rather, without genealogy, or pedigree, recorded; for so the word here used, agenealoghtov, signifies; not a person who hath no descent or genealogy, but one whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered on record. This was the case with Melchisedec. He was assuredly born, and did no less certainly die than other men; but neither his birth nor his death are recorded. Or the apostle’s principal meaning may be, that there is no account of his being descended from any ancestors of the priestly order, and that therefore he did not derive his priesthood from his parents, but was a priest of the most high God by a particular appointment. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life — Mentioned by Moses. But whence was it that Moses should introduce so great and excellent a person as Melchisedec, without making any mention of his race or stock, of his parents or progenitors, of his rise or fall, contrary to his own custom in other cases, and contrary to all rules of useful history? The true cause of the omission of all these things was the same with that of the institution of his priesthood, and the introduction of his person in the story. And this was that he might be a more express and signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. But in all these respects, made like the Son of God — Who was really without father as to his human nature, without mother as to his divine; and in this also, without pedigree; and not descending, even in human nature, from any ancestors of the priestly order; abideth a priest continually — That is, no mention is made of the end of the priesthood of his order, nor of the termination of his own personal administration of his office by death; and so he stands in the story as a kind of immortal priest, without any successor being mentioned. And this is that which the apostle chiefly designed to confirm from hence, namely, that there was in the Scripture, before the institution of the Aaronical priesthood, a representation of an eternal, unchangeable one, namely, that of Christ, who, as he was without beginning of days, alone does really remain without death and without successor.
Daniel Whedon
2. Tenth part of all—That is, of all the spoils he had taken. The tithes were, no doubt, a confession by Abraham of the priestly character of Melchizedek, offered as by a layman. It is a marked proof of the authenticity of this narrative that the father of Hebraism is described as doing sacred homage to the Hamite. By interpretation—That is, interpretation of his name Melchizedek, which signifies, in Hebrew, king of righteousness. After that—For righteousness precedes peace, as, without it, there can be no real peace.
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
John Wesley
V. 3. Without father, without mother, without pedigree-Recorded, without any account of his descent from any ancestors of the priestly order. Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life-Mentioned by Moses. But being-In all these respects.
Made like the Son of God-Who is really without father, as to his human nature; without mother, as to his divine; and in this also, without pedigree-Neither descended from any ancestors of the priestly order. Remaineth a priest continually-Nothing is recorded of the death or successor of Melchisedec. But Christ alone does really remain without death, and without successor.
Adam Clarke
Verse 3. Without father, without mother] The object of the apostle, in thus producing the example of Melchisedec, was to show, 1. That Jesus was the person prophesied of in the 110th Psalm; which psalm the Jews uniformly understood as predicting the Messiah. 2. To answer the objections of the Jews against the legitimacy of the priesthood of Christ, taken from the stock from which he proceeded. The objection is this: If the Messiah is to be a true priest, he must come from a legitimate stock, as all the priests under the law have regularly done; otherwise we cannot acknowledge him to be a priest: but Jesus of Nazareth has not proceeded from such a stock; therefore we cannot acknowledge him for a priest, the antitype of Aaron. To this objection the apostle answers, that it was not necessary for the priest to come from a particular stock, for Melchisedec was a priest of the most high God, and yet was not of the stock, either of Abraham or Aaron, but a Canaanite. It is well known that the ancient Hebrews were exceedingly scrupulous in choosing their high priest; partly by Divine command, and partly from the tradition of their ancestors, who always considered this office to be of the highest dignity. 1. God had commanded. Leviticus 21:10, that the high priest should be chosen from among their brethren, i.e. from the family of Aaron; 2. that he should marry a virgin; 3. he must not marry a widow; 4. nor a divorced person; 5. nor a harlot; 6. nor one of another nation. He who was found to have acted contrary to these requisitions was, jure divino, excluded from the pontificate. On the contrary, it was necessary that he who desired this honour should be able to prove his descent from the family of Aaron; and if he could not, though even in the priesthood, he was cast out, as we find from Ezra 2:62, and Nehemiah 7:63.
To these Divine ordinances the Jews have added, 1. That no proselyte could be a priest; 2. nor a slave; 3. nor a bastard; 4. nor the son of a Nethinim; 5. nor one whose father exercised any base trade. And that they might be well assured of all this, they took the utmost care to preserve their genealogies, which were regularly kept in the archives of the temple. When any person aspired to the sacerdotal function, his genealogical table was carefully inspected; and, if any of the above blemishes were found in him, he was rejected.
He who could not support his pretensions by just genealogical evidences, was said by the Jews to be without father. Thus in Bereshith Rabba, sect. 18, fol. 18, on these words, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, it is said: If a proselyte to the Jewish religion have married his own sister, whether by the same father or by the same mother, they cast her out according to Rabbi Meir. But the wise men say if she be of the same mother, they cast her out; but if of the same father, they retain her, ywgl ba nyav shein ab legoi, “for a Gentile has no father;” i.e. his father is not reckoned in the Jewish genealogies. In this way both Christ and Melchisedec were without father and without mother; i.e. were not descended from the original Jewish sacerdotal stock. Yet Melchisedec, who was a Canaanite, was a priest of the most high God. This sense Suidas confirms under the word Melchisedec, where, after having stated that, having reigned in Salem 113 years, he died a righteous man and a bachelor, agenealoghtov eiriuai, para to mh uparcein ek tou spermatov abraam olwv, einai de cananaion to genov, kai ek thv eparatou sporav ormwmenon, oqen oude genealogiav hxiwto, he adds, “He is, therefore, said to be without descent or genealogy, because he was not of the seed of Abraham, but of Canaanitish origin, and sprung from an accursed seed; therefore he is without the honour of a genealogy.” And he farther adds, “That, because it would have been highly improper for him, who was the most righteous of men, to be joined in affinity to the most unrighteous of nations, he is said to be apatora kai amhtora, without father and without mother.” This sort of phraseology was not uncommon when the genealogy of a person was unknown or obscure; so Seneca, in his 108th epistle, speaking of some of the Roman kings, says: Deuteronomy Servii matre dubitatur; Anci pater nullus dicitur. “Of the mother of Servius Tullus there are doubts; and Ancus Marcus is said to have no father.” This only signifies that the parents were either unknown or obscure. Titus Livius, speaking of Servius, says he was born of a slave, named Cornicularia, da patre nullo, of no father, i.e. his father was unknown. Horace is to be understood in the same way:— Ante potestatem Tulli, atque ignobile regnum,
Multos sæpe viros, NULLIS MAJORIBUS ortos,
Et vixisse probos, amplis et honoribus auctos.
Serm. l. 1. Sat. vi., ver. 9.
Convinced that, long before the ignoble reign
And power of Tullius, from a servile strain
Full many rose, for virtue high renown’d,
By worth ennobled, and with honours crown’d.
FRANCIS.
The viri nullis majoribus orti, men sprung from no ancestors, means simply men who were born of obscure or undistinguished parents; i.e. persons, who had never been famous, nor of any public account. The old Syriac has given the true meaning by translating thus:— [Syriac]
Dela abuhi vela, emeh ethcathebu besharbotho.
Whose father and mother are not inscribed among the genealogies. The Arabic is nearly the same:—
[Arabic]
He had neither father nor mother; the genealogy not being reckoned. The Æthiopic: He had neither father nor mother upon earth, nor is his genealogy known.
As this passage has been obscure and troublesome to many, and I have thought it necessary to show the meaning of such phraseology by different examples, I shall, in order to give the reader fall information on the subject, add a few observations from Dr. Owen.
“It is said of Melchisedec in the first place that he was apatwr, amhtwr, without father and without mother, whereon part of the latter clause, namely, without beginning of days, doth depend. But bow could a mortal man come into the world without father or mother? ‘Man that is born of a woman’ is the description of every man; what, therefore, can be intended! The next word declares he was agenealoghtov. ‘without descent,’ say we. But genealogia is a generation, a descent, a pedigree, not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded. genealoghtov is he whose stock and descent is entered on record. And so, on the contrary, agenealoghtov is not he who has no descent, no genealogy; but he whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered, recorded, reckoned up. Thus the apostle himself plainly expresses this word, Hebrews 7:6: o mh genealogoumenov ex autwn, ‘whose descent is not counted;’ that is, reckoned up in record. Thus was Melchisedec without father or mother, in that the Spirit of God, who so strictly and exactly recorded the genealogies of other patriarchs and types of Christ, and that for no less an end than to manifest the truth and faithfulness of God in his promises, speaks nothing to this purpose concerning him. He is introduced as it were one falling from heaven, appearing on a sudden, reigning in Salem, and officiating in the office of priesthood to the high God. “2. On the same account is he said to be mhte archn hmerwn, mhte zwhv telov ecwn, ‘without beginning of days or end of life.’ For as he was a mortal man he had both. He was assuredly born, and did no less certainly die than other men. But neither of these is recorded concerning him. We have no more to do with him, to learn from him, nor are concerned in him, but only as he is described in the Scripture; and there is no mention therein of the beginning of his days, or the end of his life. Whatever therefore he might have in himself, he had none to us. Consider all the other patriarchs mentioned in the writings of Moses, and you shall find their descent recorded, who was their father, and so up to the first man; and not only so, but the time of their birth, the beginning of their days, and the end of their life, are exactly recorded. For it is constantly said of them, such a one lived so long, and begat such a son, which fixed the time of birth. Then of him so begotten it is said, he lived so many years, which determines the end of his days. These things are expressly recorded. But concerning Melchisedec none of these things are spoken. No mention is made of father or mother; no genealogy is recorded of what stock or progeny he was; nor is there any account of his birth or death. So that all these things are wanting to him in his historical narration, wherein our faith and knowledge are alone concerned.”
Made like unto the Son of God] Melchisedec was without father and mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. His genealogy is not recorded; when he was born and when he died, is unknown. His priesthood, therefore, may be considered as perpetual. In these respects he was like to Jesus Christ, who, as to his Godhead, had neither father nor mother, beginning of time nor end of days; and has an everlasting priesthood. The priesthood of Melchisedec is to abide continually on the same ground that he is said to be without father and mother; i.e. there is no record of the end of his priesthood or life, no more than there is any account of his ancestry.
Joseph Benson
Verses 2, 3. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth of all — Namely, of all the spoils of the vanquished kings, (verse 4,) but not a tenth also of the goods that had been taken from the king of Sodom and from Lot; for of these Abraham took nothing to himself. By paying tithes to Melchisedec, Abraham acknowledged him to be a priest of the true God. It seems, indeed, his being supernaturally appointed a priest by God, was known through all that country. Being first — According to the meaning of his own name; king of righteousness; and after that also — According to the name of his city; king of peace — So that in him, as in Christ, righteousness and peace were joined. And so they are in all that believe in him. “In ancient times, it was usual to give names to persons and places expressive of their qualities, or in commemoration of some remarkable events. Thus Abram’s name was changed into Abraham, to signify that he was made the father of many nations; and Sarai was named Sarah, because she was made the mother of nations; and Jacob obtained the name of Israel, because he had power with God. Viewed in the light of this ancient practice, the apostle’s argument, from these names, is conclusive, to show what an excellent person Melchisedec was, and how fit to be made a type of the Son of God. Without father, without mother — Without any mention of his parents; without descent — Or rather, without genealogy, or pedigree, recorded; for so the word here used, agenealoghtov, signifies; not a person who hath no descent or genealogy, but one whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered on record. This was the case with Melchisedec. He was assuredly born, and did no less certainly die than other men; but neither his birth nor his death are recorded. Or the apostle’s principal meaning may be, that there is no account of his being descended from any ancestors of the priestly order, and that therefore he did not derive his priesthood from his parents, but was a priest of the most high God by a particular appointment. Having neither beginning of days nor end of life — Mentioned by Moses. But whence was it that Moses should introduce so great and excellent a person as Melchisedec, without making any mention of his race or stock, of his parents or progenitors, of his rise or fall, contrary to his own custom in other cases, and contrary to all rules of useful history? The true cause of the omission of all these things was the same with that of the institution of his priesthood, and the introduction of his person in the story. And this was that he might be a more express and signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. But in all these respects, made like the Son of God — Who was really without father as to his human nature, without mother as to his divine; and in this also, without pedigree; and not descending, even in human nature, from any ancestors of the priestly order; abideth a priest continually — That is, no mention is made of the end of the priesthood of his order, nor of the termination of his own personal administration of his office by death; and so he stands in the story as a kind of immortal priest, without any successor being mentioned. And this is that which the apostle chiefly designed to confirm from hence, namely, that there was in the Scripture, before the institution of the Aaronical priesthood, a representation of an eternal, unchangeable one, namely, that of Christ, who, as he was without beginning of days, alone does really remain without death and without successor.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. As a man he must have had father and mother, and must have died, but his pedigree was unknown, and he had no descendants. As a priest he had no predecessor, and no successor; his priesthood, by the special appointment of heaven, was one and indivisible, out of the ordinary course of things, that in this he might be a more eminent type of the great Highpriest to come, whose supreme and original dignity the Aaronic priesthood did but inadequately represent. Hence the prophets, when speaking of Christ, declare him to have been without beginning of days or end of life, saying, From everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Psalms 90:2Psalm 90:2. Micah also uses the same word: whose goings forth were of old, from everlasting: Micah 5:2. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old. Proverbs 8:22.
Melchizedec was made like to the Son of God, a priest (cohen, ìeréa) continually. The learned Syrus reads, sed in similitudinem filii Dei permanet pontificatus ejus in æternum. But in the similitude of the Son of God he remaineth a priest for ever, as in ver. 25. The rabbins having written largely on Melchizedec, St. Paul turns here the whole artillery of the temple upon the infidelity of the jews.
Daniel Whedon
3. Without descent—Without place in any priestly genealogical table, and so without father, without mother, as a priest, showing his unlikeness to, and superiority over, the Aaronic priest, and his likeness to Christ. The want of priestly genealogy, which is his unlikeness to the Jewish priests, is his likeness to Christ; who, being of the tribe of Judah, was, as to the priestly record, without father, without mother. Personally and humanly, Jesus had a mother, the blessed Virgin. Neither beginning… nor end— Some one has said, that when an infant dies it remains to the parent an infant forever. It never grows old, but is ever the same image of infancy. And so the image of this king-priest, as seen in the divine tableau, is not born, and never dies. The Aaronic priests are successively dying. A genealogical successor pushes his predecessor out of office and out of life. This priest has no genealogical successor or predecessor. He is thus the image of perpetuity, the type of the permanent priesthood of our Christ. Made like unto—The group of traits are seen to frame an image and likeness in shadow of the Son of God. Abideth a priest continually— One thousand years after this king-priest lived, the inspired psalmist contemplated the tableau, and there beheld him still, a priest forever. One thousand years later our writer looked, and there was the same, a priest forever; shadowy and only conceptual, indeed, yet the definite shadow of our great High Priest. Alford objects, that language so strong as “neither beginning of days nor end of life,” is unsatisfactorily accounted for by the birth and life not being mentioned; he even styles this exposition “childish;” and he thinks there must be some mysterious literal fulfilment which he admits to be above explanation. But why are the name-types of verse 2 any less “childish?” We do not, wisely, require that the type should be a literal, but a shadowy, representation of its object. And, inevitably, any fulfilment, as demanded by Alford, would require two literal eternal high priests, which is entirely inadmissible. He further objects, that to make a transient appearance on the stage typical, would require us to make a type of Hobab, for instance. The reply is, that no such isolated trait could possess any typical significance. There must be a full assemblage of traits to form a definite typical image. The question may be raised, Whence did this grouping of shadowy traits into a significant image arise? Was it purposed by Providence in shaping the existence of the facts so as to form a type? Or did inspiration in Genesis purposely so narrate the facts? Or did the inspired imagination of the psalmist, seeing the facts as incidentally narrated, group them into form? These questions, interesting as they are, we leave a beautiful and sacred mystery. But we may note that in Genesis the passage of the tableau stands in a striking isolation. If a primitive pair of scissors had cut the passage out, we should not miss it, and should never imagine what a gem we had lost. We may easily concede, therefore, that it is placed and modelled there for this typical purpose.
THE PARALLEL SUPERIORITIES OF MELCHIZEDEK AND CHRIST OVER AARON MAY BE REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING TABULATION:—
Melchizedek.
A priest-king.
King of
righteousness—of
peace.
Universal.
Unlineal.
Without beginning
or end.
Without priestly
ancestry or descent.
Aaron.
Priest only.
———
Limited to
Hebraism.
Lineal.
Beginning and
ending.
With father and
mother.
Christ.
Priest-king.
King of
righteousness—of
peace.
Universal.
Unlineal.
Without beginning
or end.
Without priestly
parentage.
But this superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham is not literal. The former has no such real importance as the latter in human history. His superiority is solely within the tableau. As indicated by blessing and tithes, it is theocratic; and so forms basis for a typical superiority. That is, Melchizedek is superior to Abraham only as a type of Christ. It is, therefore, good only for our author’s argument.
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
John Wesley
V. 4. The greatness of Melchisedec is described in all the preceding and following particulars. But the most manifest proof of it was, that Abraham gave him tithes as to a priest of God and a superior; though he was himself a patriarch, greater than a king, and a progenitor of many kings.
Adam Clarke
Verse 4. Consider how great this man was] There is something exceedingly mysterious in the person and character of this king of Salem; and to find out the whole is impossible. He seems to have been a sort of universal priest, having none superior to him in all that region; and confessedly superior even to Abraham himself, the father of the faithful, and the source of the Jewish race. See Hebrews 7:7. The patriarch Abraham] oJ patriarchv. Either from pathr, a father, and arch, a chief or head; or from patriav arch, the head of a family.’ But the title is here applied, by way of eminence, to him who was the head or chief of all the fathers-or patriarch of the patriarchs, and father of the faithful. The Syriac translates it [Syriac] Rish Abahatha, “head of the fathers.” The character and conduct of Abraham place him, as a man, deservedly at the head of the human race.
Joseph Benson
Verses 4-7. Consider how great this man was — The greatness of Melchisedec is described in all the preceding and following particulars. But the most manifest proof of it was, that Abraham gave him tithes as a priest of God, and a superior; though he was himself a patriarch, greater than a king, and a progenitor of many kings. The sons of Levi take tithes of their brethren — Sprung from Abraham as well as themselves. The Levites, therefore, are greater than they; but the priests are greater than the Levites; the patriarch Abraham than the priests, and Melchisedec than him. But he whose descent is not counted from them — From that people who come out of the loins of Abraham, not only received tithes of Abraham, but blessed him — Another proof of Melchisedec’s superiority; even him that had the promises — With whom God made the covenant of grace, as with the Father of all the blessed seed. Thus Galatians 3:16: To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And without all contradiction — Without all question; the less is blessed authoritatively of the better — Or greater; that is, when a man does, in God’s name and stead, and by his authority, declare and pronounce another to be blessed, he that gives the blessing is, in that respect, greater than he who receives it.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levi’s house could boast. The priests of Aaron’s line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
4. Patriarch—Derived from patria, a tribe or lineal house or family, and arche, origin, founder. Abraham was the acknowledged founder of the Hebrew race. Hence great must Melchizedek be if greater than he. Tenth—Even among patriarchal peoples the custom of tithes, that is, of devoting one tenth of an income to religious purposes, had existence. Abraham performed sacrifices, and is called a prophet, but nowhere a priest. Spoils—The spolia opima, or chief and best spoils, selected for the leaders in the war.
According to our analysis, in 5-28 our writer makes six successive points showing how great the typical superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood was over the Aaronic, the consequent permanence of the former as antityped in Christ, and its transcendency over the latter.
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
John Wesley
V. 5. The sons of Levi take tithes of their brethren-Sprung from Abraham as well as themselves. The Levites therefore are greater than they; but the priests are greater than the Levites, the patriarch Abraham than the priests, and Melchisedec than him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 5. They that are of the sons of Levi] The priests who are of the posterity of the Levites, and receive the priesthood in virtue of their descent from Aaron, have authority from the law of God to receive tithes from the people.
According to the law] That is, the Levites received a tenth from the people. The priests received a tenth of this tenth from the Levites, who are here called their brethren, because they were of the same tribe, and employed in the same sacred work. The apostle is proceeding to show that Melchisedec was greater even than Abraham, the head of the fathers, for to him Abraham gave tithes; and as the Levites were the posterity of Abraham, they are represented here as paying tithes to Melchisedec through him. Yet Melchisedec was not of this family, and therefore must be considered as having a more honourable priesthood than even Aaron himself; for he took the tenth from Abraham, not for his maintenance, for he was a king, but in virtue of his office as universal high priest of all that region.
Joseph Benson
Verses 4-7. Consider how great this man was — The greatness of Melchisedec is described in all the preceding and following particulars. But the most manifest proof of it was, that Abraham gave him tithes as a priest of God, and a superior; though he was himself a patriarch, greater than a king, and a progenitor of many kings. The sons of Levi take tithes of their brethren — Sprung from Abraham as well as themselves. The Levites, therefore, are greater than they; but the priests are greater than the Levites; the patriarch Abraham than the priests, and Melchisedec than him. But he whose descent is not counted from them — From that people who come out of the loins of Abraham, not only received tithes of Abraham, but blessed him — Another proof of Melchisedec’s superiority; even him that had the promises — With whom God made the covenant of grace, as with the Father of all the blessed seed. Thus Galatians 3:16: To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And without all contradiction — Without all question; the less is blessed authoritatively of the better — Or greater; that is, when a man does, in God’s name and stead, and by his authority, declare and pronounce another to be blessed, he that gives the blessing is, in that respect, greater than he who receives it.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levi’s house could boast. The priests of Aaron’s line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
5. They… of the sons of Levi—Especially Aaron’s line, to whom, within the tribe of Levi, the priesthood was limited. Receive—By descent recorded in the genealogical table. A commandment—A special ordinance according to, and forming part of, the general law. Take tithes… of their brethren, of all Israelites. Though—Exalting the Levites as tithing sons of Abraham, in order to exalt Melchizedek still higher. The Levites, indeed, tithe the Israelites, though Abraham’s sons; but Melchizedek, far greater, tithed Abraham himself.
But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
John Wesley
V. 6. He who is not from them-The Levites.
Blessed-Another proof of his superiority.
Even him that had the promises-That was so highly favoured of God. When St. Paul speaks of Christ, he says, "the promise;" promises refer to other blessings also.
Adam Clarke
Verse 6. Blessed him that had the promises.] This is a continuation of the same argument, namely, to show the superiority of Melchisedec; and, in consequence, to prove the superiority of the priesthood of Christ beyond that of Aaron. As in the seed of Abraham all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, Abraham received a sacerdotal blessing from Melchisedec, who was the representative of the Messiah, the promised seed, to show that it was through him, as the high priest of the human race, that this blessing was to be derived on all mankind.
Joseph Benson
Verses 4-7. Consider how great this man was — The greatness of Melchisedec is described in all the preceding and following particulars. But the most manifest proof of it was, that Abraham gave him tithes as a priest of God, and a superior; though he was himself a patriarch, greater than a king, and a progenitor of many kings. The sons of Levi take tithes of their brethren — Sprung from Abraham as well as themselves. The Levites, therefore, are greater than they; but the priests are greater than the Levites; the patriarch Abraham than the priests, and Melchisedec than him. But he whose descent is not counted from them — From that people who come out of the loins of Abraham, not only received tithes of Abraham, but blessed him — Another proof of Melchisedec’s superiority; even him that had the promises — With whom God made the covenant of grace, as with the Father of all the blessed seed. Thus Galatians 3:16: To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And without all contradiction — Without all question; the less is blessed authoritatively of the better — Or greater; that is, when a man does, in God’s name and stead, and by his authority, declare and pronounce another to be blessed, he that gives the blessing is, in that respect, greater than he who receives it.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levi’s house could boast. The priests of Aaron’s line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
6. Descent is not counted—Unlineal Melchizedek, in contrast with lineal Levites. Received tithes—As being pontiff, treating Abraham himself as Levites treat ordinary sons of Abraham. Blessed him—As a pontiff blesses his spiritual subjects. Promises—Note on Hebrews 6:12. This type of the Messiah is therein superior to the progenitor of Messiah.
And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
John Wesley
V. 7. The less is blessed-Authoritatively, of the greater.
Adam Clarke
Verse 7. The less is blessed of the better.] That the superior blesses the inferior is a general proposition; but Abraham was blessed of Melchisedec, therefore Melchisedec was greater than Abraham. “The blessing here spoken of,” says Dr. Macknight, “is not the simple wishing of good to others, which may be done by inferiors to superiors; but it is the action of a person authorized to declare God’s intention to bestow good things on another. In this manner Isaac and Jacob blessed their children under a prophetic impulse; in this manner the priests under the law blessed the people; in this manner, likewise, Melchisedec, the priest of the most high God, blessed Abraham.”
Joseph Benson
Verses 4-7. Consider how great this man was — The greatness of Melchisedec is described in all the preceding and following particulars. But the most manifest proof of it was, that Abraham gave him tithes as a priest of God, and a superior; though he was himself a patriarch, greater than a king, and a progenitor of many kings. The sons of Levi take tithes of their brethren — Sprung from Abraham as well as themselves. The Levites, therefore, are greater than they; but the priests are greater than the Levites; the patriarch Abraham than the priests, and Melchisedec than him. But he whose descent is not counted from them — From that people who come out of the loins of Abraham, not only received tithes of Abraham, but blessed him — Another proof of Melchisedec’s superiority; even him that had the promises — With whom God made the covenant of grace, as with the Father of all the blessed seed. Thus Galatians 3:16: To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And without all contradiction — Without all question; the less is blessed authoritatively of the better — Or greater; that is, when a man does, in God’s name and stead, and by his authority, declare and pronounce another to be blessed, he that gives the blessing is, in that respect, greater than he who receives it.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levi’s house could boast. The priests of Aaron’s line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
7. Less… of the better—That is, in sacerdotal blessing, where the performer is assumed to stand as agent of God himself. Abraham, in accepting the blessing, therein acknowledged himself the inferior of Melchizedek.
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
John Wesley
V. 8. And here-In the Levitical priesthood.
But there-In the case of Melchisedec.
He of whom it is testified that he liveth-Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him; but is represented only as living, no mention being made either of his birth or death.
Adam Clarke
Verse 8. Here men that die receive tithes] The apostle is speaking of the ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, which was standing at the time this epistle was written. Under the Jewish dispensation, though the priests were successively removed by death, yet they were as duly replaced by others appointed from the same family, and the payment of tithes was never interrupted. But as there is no account of Melchisedec ceasing to be a priest, or of his dying, he is represented as still living, the better to point him out as a type of Christ, and to show his priesthood to be more excellent than that which was according to the law, as an unchanging priesthood must be more excellent than that which was continually changing.
But there he receiveth them] The wde, here, in the first clause of this verse refers to Mosaical institutions, as then existing: the ekei, there, in this clause refers to the place in Genesis (Genesis 14:20) where it is related that Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec, who is still considered as being alive or without a successor, because there is no account of his death, nor of any termination of his priesthood.
Joseph Benson
Verses 8-10. And here — In the Levitical priesthood; men that die, receive tithes, but there — In the case of Melchisedec; he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth — Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him, but is represented only as living, being mentioned in such a way as if he lived for ever. And even Levi, who received tithes — Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes in the person of Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father — “This might justly be said of Levi, who descended from Abraham in the ordinary course of generation. But it cannot be said of Christ, who was born in a miraculous manner, without any human father. While, therefore, the apostle’s argument, taken from Abraham’s paying tithes to Melchisedec, and his receiving the blessing from him, proves that both Abraham and the Levitical priests, his natural descendants, were inferior to Melchisedec, it does not apply to Christ at all.” — Macknight.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levi’s house could boast. The priests of Aaron’s line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
8. Point second. Here, under Mosaic law, the priests that tithe are only lifelong; there, under patriarchal law, there is a perpetual priest. Here—Under the law of Moses. Those who receive tithes are men that die; and so their priesthood is but life-long. The priest dies with the man, and a new priest succeeds. But there—In Genesis and in Psalm 110. Witnessed—By the testimony of the inspired psalmist. He liveth—This priest “never dies,” as truly as the king “never dies,” though for a different reason. The king, conceptually, never dies, because he lives in his successor; this priest, conceptually, never dies, because he stands forever without a successor. Alford objects that the die of the Levitical priest is personal, and, therefore, the never die of Melchizedek must be personal, and so he must be, mysteriously but literally, still living. But the die of the priest was not only personal but official; the priest died with the man. And it is the official death at the personal death that is here the point.
And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
John Wesley
V. 9. And even Levi, who received tithes-Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes-In the person of Abraham.
Adam Clarke
Verse 9. And as I may so say] kai wv epov eipein. And so to speak a word. This form of speech, which is very frequent among the purest Greek writers, is generally used to soften some harsh expression, or to limit the meaning when the proposition might otherwise appear to be too general. It answers fully to our so to speak-as one would say-I had almost said-in a certain sense. Many examples of its use by Aristotle, Philo, Lucian, Josephus, Demosthenes, Æschines, and Plutarch, may be seen in Raphelius and Kypke.
Payed tithes in Abraham.] The Levites, who were descendants of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchisedec dia through, Abraham, their progenitor and representative.
Joseph Benson
Verses 8-10. And here — In the Levitical priesthood; men that die, receive tithes, but there — In the case of Melchisedec; he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth — Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him, but is represented only as living, being mentioned in such a way as if he lived for ever. And even Levi, who received tithes — Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes in the person of Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father — “This might justly be said of Levi, who descended from Abraham in the ordinary course of generation. But it cannot be said of Christ, who was born in a miraculous manner, without any human father. While, therefore, the apostle’s argument, taken from Abraham’s paying tithes to Melchisedec, and his receiving the blessing from him, proves that both Abraham and the Levitical priests, his natural descendants, were inferior to Melchisedec, it does not apply to Christ at all.” — Macknight.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levi’s house could boast. The priests of Aaron’s line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
9. May so say—Indicating that he must be understood to speak, not literally nor physically, but conceptually. Levi had no literal existence with or in Abraham. He could not be, literally, responsible for Abraham’s act, nor chargeable with any crime of his. Notes on Romans 5:12, and Ephesians 2:3. Yet, by the natural law of descent, the founder of a race usually fixes the condition and rank of the race. Aaron and all his descendants acknowledged their inferiority to their great founder, Abraham. And hence, when Abraham performed this act, so typical of the future, he humbled all his race, save one, before this priest forever. That one was Christ, who had no Abrahamic father, and whose divine descent placed him above the Abrahamic line.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 10. For he was yet in the loins of his father] That is, Levi was seminally included in Abraham, his forefather.
Joseph Benson
Verses 8-10. And here — In the Levitical priesthood; men that die, receive tithes, but there — In the case of Melchisedec; he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth — Who is not spoken of as one that died for another to succeed him, but is represented only as living, being mentioned in such a way as if he lived for ever. And even Levi, who received tithes — Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes in the person of Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father — “This might justly be said of Levi, who descended from Abraham in the ordinary course of generation. But it cannot be said of Christ, who was born in a miraculous manner, without any human father. While, therefore, the apostle’s argument, taken from Abraham’s paying tithes to Melchisedec, and his receiving the blessing from him, proves that both Abraham and the Levitical priests, his natural descendants, were inferior to Melchisedec, it does not apply to Christ at all.” — Macknight.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 4-10. Now consider how great this man was, honoured by Abraham, as a prince and a priest. Though the father of the Hebrews, yet he received the blessing of this stranger; and in Abraham, Levi paid him tithes. By consequence, a greater priest was expected than Levi’s house could boast. The priests of Aaron’s line receive tithes indeed, but they all die in succession; but this priest was a figure of him who liveth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
9, 10. Point third. Levi himself, in the loins of Abraham, conceptually paid tithes to Melchizedek, and so Melchizedek is superior to the whole Aaronic line.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
John Wesley
V. 11. The apostle now demonstrates that the Levitical priesthood must yield to the priesthood of Christ, because Melchisedec, after whose order he is a priest,
1. Is opposed to Aaron, Hebrews 7:11-14.
2. Hath no end of life, Hebrews 7:15-19, but "remaineth a priest continually."
If now perfection were by the Levitical priesthood-If this perfectly answered all God's designs and man's wants.
For under it the people received the law-Whence some might infer, that perfection was by that priesthood.
What farther need was there, that another priest-Of a new order, should be set up? From this single consideration it is plain, that both the priesthood and the law, which were inseparably connected, were now to give way to a better priesthood and more excellent dispensation.
Adam Clarke
Verse 11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood] The word teleiwsiv, as we have before seen, signifies the completing or finishing of any thing, so as to leave nothing imperfect, and nothing wanting. Applied here to the Levitical priesthood, it signifies the accomplishment of that for which a priesthood is established, viz.: giving the Deity an acceptable service, enlightening and instructing the people, pardoning all offences, purging the conscience from guilt, purifying the soul and preparing it for heaven, and regulating the conduct of the people according to the precepts of the moral law. This perfection never came, and never could come, by the Levitical law; it was the shadow of good things to come, but was not the substance. It represented a perfect system, but was imperfect in itself. It showed that there was guilt, and that there was an absolute need for a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, and it typified that sacrifice; but every sacrificial act under that law most forcibly proved that it was impossible for the blood of BULLS and GOATS to take away sin.
For under it the people received the law] That is, as most interpret this place, under the priesthood, ierwsunh being understood; because, on the priesthood the whole Mosaical law and the Jewish economy depended: but it is much better to understand epauJth on account of it, instead of under it; for it is a positive fact that the law was given before any priesthood was established, for Aaron and his sons were not called nor separated to this office till Moses came down the second time from the mount with the tables renewed, after that he had broken them, Exodus 40:12-14. But it was in reference to the great sacrificial system that the law was given, and on that law the priesthood was established; for, why was a priesthood necessary, but because that law was broken and must be fulfilled? That another priest should rise] The law was given that the offence might abound, and sin appear exceeding sinful; and to show the absolute necessity of the sacrifice and mediation of the great Messiah, but it was neither perfect in itself, nor could it confer perfection, nor did it contain the original priesthood. Melchisedec had a priesthood more than four hundred years (422) before the law was given; and David prophesied, <19B004>Psalm 110:4, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, nearly five hundred years (476) after the law was given. The law, therefore, did not contain the original priesthood; this existed typically in Melchisedec, and really in Jesus Christ.
Joseph Benson
Verse 11. The apostle, having cleared his way from objections, now enters on his principal argument concerning the priesthood of Christ, and all the consequences of it with respect to righteousness, salvation, and the worship of God which depend thereon. If, therefore, or, now if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood — If it perfectly answered all God’s designs and man’s wants; what further need was there that another priest — A priest of a new order; should rise — Or be set up; and not one after the order of Aaron? — As if he had said, Since by what has been advanced it appears from Scripture that another priesthood was to arise after Aaron’s, of another order, it follows hence that perfection could not be attained by that of Aaron; for if it could, that certainly would not have been removed, and another substituted in its place. In other words, the prediction of the rising up of a priest of a different order from that of Aaron, is a declaration of the inefficacy of the Levitical priesthood, and of God’s intention to change it. Instead of the clause, for under it, (namely, the Levitical priesthood,) Macknight reads, on account of it, the people received the law — Observing that the law “was prior to the priesthood, being given for the purpose of forming and establishing the priesthood; and that the Jewish people themselves were separated from the rest of mankind, and made a people by the law, merely that they might, as a nation, worship the only true God according to the Levitical ritual, in settling which most of the precepts of the law were employed. This being the case, is it any wonder that such of the Jews as looked no farther than the outside of the priesthood and law, imagined that perfection, in respect of pardon and acceptance with God, was to be obtained by the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, and in that persuasion believed they never would be abolished? Nevertheless, if they had understood the true meaning of the law, they would have known that it was a typical oracle, in which, by its services, the priesthood and sacrifice of the Son of God were prefigured, and that by calling his Son a priest, not after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchisedec, God declared that his services as a High-Priest, and the sacrifice of himself which he was to offer, were entirely different, both in their nature and effects, from the Levitical services and sacrifices, and that they were to be substituted in the room of these services, for which there was no occasion after the priest and sacrifices which they prefigured, were come.”
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 11. If therefore perfection were by the Leviticum, as the jews with one voice contend, what further need that another priest should arise? A priest holy and undefiled, a priest whose sacrifice should be offered up once for all; once, and but once. A priest who should not be succeeded by another; a priest and prince who should live and reign for ever. The rabbins are silent here.
Daniel Whedon
11. If the Levitical priesthood was not defective, what need of another order, as predicted by the psalmist?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
John Wesley
V. 12. For-One of these cannot be changed without the other.
Adam Clarke
Verse 12. The priesthood being changed] That is, The order of Aaron being now abrogated, to make way for that which had preceded it, the order of Melchisedec.
There is made of necessity a change also of the law.] The very essence of the Levitical law consisting in its sacrificial offerings; and as these could not confer perfection, could not reconcile God to man, purify the unholy heart, nor open the kingdom of heaven to the souls of men, consequently it must be abolished, according to the order of God himself; for he said, Sacrifice and offering, and burnt-offering, and sacrifice for sin, he would not; see Psalms 40:6Psalm 40:6, 7, compared with Hebrews 10:5-10, and with <19B004>Psalm 110:4, where it is evident God designed to change both the law and the priesthood, and to introduce Jesus as the only Priest and Sacrifice, and to substitute the Gospel system for that of the Levitical institutions. The priesthood, therefore, being changed, Jesus coming in the place of Aaron, the law of ordinances and ceremonies, which served only to point out the Messiah, must of necessity be changed also.
Joseph Benson
Verses 12-14. For, or, wherefore, the priesthood — On account of which the law was given; being changed, of necessity there must be a change also of the law — As if he had said, Since there is such a near relation between the priesthood and the law, and since the whole administration of the law, as the rule of worship, depended absolutely on the Aaronical priesthood, therefore the one being changed, the other must be changed also. “Under the law the offices of the priesthood consisted in offering the sacrifices of beasts, and in performing various rites for purifying the bodies of the worshippers from ceremonial defilement, that they might be fit to join the congregation in the public worship of God. But when the priesthood was changed by raising up from another tribe a priest after the order of Melchisedec, whose services had for their object to purify the conscience of the worshippers, not by the sacrifice of beasts, but by the sacrifice of himself,” and to sanctify their souls by the influences of the Holy Spirit; “the whole law concerning the sacrifices of beasts, and the sanctifying of the flesh of the Israelites by washing, was of necessity entirely abolished.” For he of whom — Or, to whom; these things are spoken — That is, he to whom it was said, Thou art a priest for ever, &c., was of a different tribe, namely, that of Judah; of which no man gave attendance at the altar — Or, was suffered by the law to minister there, so that the priesthood is manifestly changed from one order to another, and from one tribe to another. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah — “That the Messiah was to spring up from Judah is plain from the prophecies concerning his descent: and it is likewise plain that this part of his character was verified in our Lord, whose genealogy Matthew and Luke have traced up to King David from the public tables. For that such tables of their descent were kept by the Jews Josephus testifies, (section 1. of his Life, at the end,) saying, ‘I give you these successions of our family as I find them written in the public tables.’ By these tables Paul knew himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin.”
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 12. The priesthood being changed, translated, or transferred, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. The transfer is not only to another tribe, but to a priest of an infinitely superior order; to a priest touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but at the same time of divine descent. He is the priest also, as was Melchizedec, according to the better covenant and richer promises of mercy. He was always a king, but on the assumption of our nature, and the oblation of his sacrifice, he became a priest for ever unto God. By consequence, the shadows of Aaron’s priesthood and his tabernacle have for ever ceased. It could not save, because it does not remain; and though the moral law remain as the brightness of the deity, yet, as Mr. Fletcher remarks in his last check, we may, under this better covenant, the priest himself being clothed with our infirmities, enjoy the Comforter in all his grace, and the Father and Son to make his abode with us, notwithstanding the weaknesses of our nature. Love is the end of the commandment, and the fulfilling of the law.
Daniel Whedon
12. A change of the priesthood so predicted necessitated a change also of the law of succession, limiting it no longer to the tribe of Levi.
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
John Wesley
V. 13. But the priesthood is manifestly changed from one order to another, and from one tribe to another.
For he of whom these things are spoken-Namely, Jesus. Pertaineth to another tribe-That of Judah: of which no man was suffered by the law to attend on, or minister at, the altar.
Adam Clarke
Verse 13. For he of whom these things are spoken] That is, Jesus the Messiah, spoken of in <19B004>Psalm 110:4, who came, not from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah, of which tribe no priest ever ministered at a Jewish altar, nor could minister according to the law.
Joseph Benson
Verses 12-14. For, or, wherefore, the priesthood — On account of which the law was given; being changed, of necessity there must be a change also of the law — As if he had said, Since there is such a near relation between the priesthood and the law, and since the whole administration of the law, as the rule of worship, depended absolutely on the Aaronical priesthood, therefore the one being changed, the other must be changed also. “Under the law the offices of the priesthood consisted in offering the sacrifices of beasts, and in performing various rites for purifying the bodies of the worshippers from ceremonial defilement, that they might be fit to join the congregation in the public worship of God. But when the priesthood was changed by raising up from another tribe a priest after the order of Melchisedec, whose services had for their object to purify the conscience of the worshippers, not by the sacrifice of beasts, but by the sacrifice of himself,” and to sanctify their souls by the influences of the Holy Spirit; “the whole law concerning the sacrifices of beasts, and the sanctifying of the flesh of the Israelites by washing, was of necessity entirely abolished.” For he of whom — Or, to whom; these things are spoken — That is, he to whom it was said, Thou art a priest for ever, &c., was of a different tribe, namely, that of Judah; of which no man gave attendance at the altar — Or, was suffered by the law to minister there, so that the priesthood is manifestly changed from one order to another, and from one tribe to another. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah — “That the Messiah was to spring up from Judah is plain from the prophecies concerning his descent: and it is likewise plain that this part of his character was verified in our Lord, whose genealogy Matthew and Luke have traced up to King David from the public tables. For that such tables of their descent were kept by the Jews Josephus testifies, (section 1. of his Life, at the end,) saying, ‘I give you these successions of our family as I find them written in the public tables.’ By these tables Paul knew himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin.”
Daniel Whedon
13. And this accords with fact. For he—Christ. These things—In the psalmist. Another tribe—Than Levi. No man… altar—Discharged priestly functions.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
John Wesley
V. 14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah-Whatever difficulties have arisen since, during so long a tract of time, it was then clear beyond dispute.
Adam Clarke
Verse 14. For it is evident] As the apostle speaks here with so much confidence, it follows that our Lord’s descent from the tribe of Judah was incontrovertible. The genealogical tables, both in Matthew and Luke, establish this point; and whatever difficulties we may find in them now, there were none apprehended in those days, else the enemies of the Gospel would have urged these as a chief and unanswerable argument against Christ and his Gospel.
Joseph Benson
Verses 12-14. For, or, wherefore, the priesthood — On account of which the law was given; being changed, of necessity there must be a change also of the law — As if he had said, Since there is such a near relation between the priesthood and the law, and since the whole administration of the law, as the rule of worship, depended absolutely on the Aaronical priesthood, therefore the one being changed, the other must be changed also. “Under the law the offices of the priesthood consisted in offering the sacrifices of beasts, and in performing various rites for purifying the bodies of the worshippers from ceremonial defilement, that they might be fit to join the congregation in the public worship of God. But when the priesthood was changed by raising up from another tribe a priest after the order of Melchisedec, whose services had for their object to purify the conscience of the worshippers, not by the sacrifice of beasts, but by the sacrifice of himself,” and to sanctify their souls by the influences of the Holy Spirit; “the whole law concerning the sacrifices of beasts, and the sanctifying of the flesh of the Israelites by washing, was of necessity entirely abolished.” For he of whom — Or, to whom; these things are spoken — That is, he to whom it was said, Thou art a priest for ever, &c., was of a different tribe, namely, that of Judah; of which no man gave attendance at the altar — Or, was suffered by the law to minister there, so that the priesthood is manifestly changed from one order to another, and from one tribe to another. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah — “That the Messiah was to spring up from Judah is plain from the prophecies concerning his descent: and it is likewise plain that this part of his character was verified in our Lord, whose genealogy Matthew and Luke have traced up to King David from the public tables. For that such tables of their descent were kept by the Jews Josephus testifies, (section 1. of his Life, at the end,) saying, ‘I give you these successions of our family as I find them written in the public tables.’ By these tables Paul knew himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin.”
Daniel Whedon
11-19. Point fourth. The declaration of the psalmist, affirming another order of priesthood than the Levitical: also a change of the law of descent, and showing that one order, the Levitical, is transient, and the other, Melchizedekian, is supreme and permanent.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
John Wesley
V. 15. And it is still far more evident, that-Both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, but of a quite different order.
Adam Clarke
Verse 15. And it is yet far more evident] kai perissoteron eti katadhlon estin. And besides, it is more abundantly strikingly manifest. It is very difficult to translate these words, but the apostle’s meaning is plain, viz., that God designed the Levitical priesthood to be changed, because of the oath in Psa. cx., where, addressing the Messiah, he says: Thou art a Priest for ever after the order, or omoiothta, similitude, of Melchisedec, who was not only a priest, but also a king. None of the Levitical priests sustained this double office; but they both, with that of prophet, appear and were exercised in the person of our Lord, who is the Priest to which the apostle alludes.
Joseph Benson
Verses 15-17. And it is yet far more evident — That both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, and of a quite different order, but is made a priest; not after the law of a carnal commandment — With such carnal rites and outward solemnities as the law prescribed for those priests, which reached no further than to the purifying of the flesh; but after the power of an endless life — Which he has in himself as the eternal Son of God. Being a sacrifice, as well as a priest, it was indeed necessary that he, as a man, should die; but as he continued only a short while in the state of the dead, and arose to die no more, he may justly be said to have an endless life, even as to his human nature. Besides, it should be considered that his life, as a priest, did not begin till after his ascension, when he passed through the heavens into the holiest of all, with the sacrifice of his crucified body. And having offered that body there, he sat down at the right hand of the throne of his Father’s majesty, where he remains the minister of that true tabernacle, making continual intercession for his people.
Daniel Whedon
15. And it—The transfer of the priesthood from Levi. For—The reason that, according to the psalmist, there is a new order.
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
John Wesley
V. 16. Who is made-A priest.
Not after the law of a carnal commandment-Not according to the Mosaic law, which consisted chiefly of commandments that were carnal, compared to the spirituality of the gospel.
But after the power of an endless life-Which he has in himself, as the eternal Son of God.
Adam Clarke
Verse 16. Who is made] Appointed to this high office by God himself, not succeeding one that was disabled or dead, according to that law or ordinance directed to weak and perishing men, who could not continue by reason of death.
This is probably all that the apostle intends by the words carnal commandment, entolhv sarkikhv, for carnal does not always mean sinful or corrupt, but feeble, frail, or what may be said of or concerning man in his present dying condition.
But after the power of an endless life.] Not dying, or ceasing through weakness to be a priest; but properly immortal himself, and having the power to confer life and immortality on others. HE ever lives, as Priest, to make intercession for men; and they who believe on him shall never perish, but have everlasting life.
Joseph Benson
Verses 15-17. And it is yet far more evident — That both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, and of a quite different order, but is made a priest; not after the law of a carnal commandment — With such carnal rites and outward solemnities as the law prescribed for those priests, which reached no further than to the purifying of the flesh; but after the power of an endless life — Which he has in himself as the eternal Son of God. Being a sacrifice, as well as a priest, it was indeed necessary that he, as a man, should die; but as he continued only a short while in the state of the dead, and arose to die no more, he may justly be said to have an endless life, even as to his human nature. Besides, it should be considered that his life, as a priest, did not begin till after his ascension, when he passed through the heavens into the holiest of all, with the sacrifice of his crucified body. And having offered that body there, he sat down at the right hand of the throne of his Father’s majesty, where he remains the minister of that true tabernacle, making continual intercession for his people.
Daniel Whedon
16. A carnal—Or fleshly; that is, feeble and transitory, as all flesh is: in antithesis with endless. The only vitality of the former priesthood was the force of a positive but transient enactment; but the vitality animating the new priesthood is the power of an endless, immortal, life. Immortal life is in the priest, in his priesthood, and in all who are redeemed by its power. Endless—Literally, indissoluble life, not to be dissolved or fused away into space or ether.
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Adam Clarke
Verse 17. For he testifieth] That is, either the Scripture, in the place so often quoted, or God by that Scripture.
Thou art a priest for ever] This is the proof that he was not appointed according to the carnal commandment, but according to the power of an endless life, because he is a priest for ever; i.e. one that never dies, and is never disabled from performing the important functions of his office; for if he be a priest for ever, he ever lives.
Joseph Benson
Verses 15-17. And it is yet far more evident — That both the priesthood and the law are changed, because the priest now raised up is not only of another tribe, and of a quite different order, but is made a priest; not after the law of a carnal commandment — With such carnal rites and outward solemnities as the law prescribed for those priests, which reached no further than to the purifying of the flesh; but after the power of an endless life — Which he has in himself as the eternal Son of God. Being a sacrifice, as well as a priest, it was indeed necessary that he, as a man, should die; but as he continued only a short while in the state of the dead, and arose to die no more, he may justly be said to have an endless life, even as to his human nature. Besides, it should be considered that his life, as a priest, did not begin till after his ascension, when he passed through the heavens into the holiest of all, with the sacrifice of his crucified body. And having offered that body there, he sat down at the right hand of the throne of his Father’s majesty, where he remains the minister of that true tabernacle, making continual intercession for his people.
Daniel Whedon
17. He—The psalmist, or the Spirit that inspired him. Testifieth—Upon the testimony of this psalm our author grounds himself by repeated quotations as impregnably sustaining all his positions. This testimony involves in itself all the particulars he evolves from it. It is the middle point between him and the Melchizedekian passage in Genesis.
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
John Wesley
V. 18. For there is implied in this new and everlasting priesthood, and in the new dispensation connected therewith,
a disannulling of the preceding commandment-An abrogation of the Mosaic law.
For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof-For its insufficiency either to justify or to sanctify.
Adam Clarke
Verse 18. For there is verily a disannulling] There is a total abrogation, proagoushv entolhv, of the former law, relative to the Levitical priesthood. See Hebrews 7:19.
For the weakness] It had no energy; it communicated none; it had no Spirit to minister; it required perfect obedience, but furnished no assistance to those who were under it.
And unprofitableness] No man was benefited by the mere observance of its precepts: it pardoned no sin, changed no heart, reformed no life; it found men dead in trespasses and sins, and it consigned them to eternal death. It was therefore weak in itself, and unprofitable to men. The Jews, who still cleave to it, are a proof that it is both weak and unprofitable; for there is not a more miserable, distressed, and profligate class of men on the face of the earth.
Joseph Benson
Verses 18, 19. For there is verily — Implied in this new and everlasting priesthood, and in the new dispensation connected therewith; a disannulling of the preceding commandment — An abrogation of the Mosaic law; for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof — In comparison of the new priesthood and dispensation. See on Romans 8:3. For the law — The dispensation of Moses, taken by itself, separate from the light and grace of the gospel: made nothing perfect — Either as to the state of God’s church, (which was then in its minority, Galatians 4:1-3,) or the religion of its members. The institutions of divine worship were imperfect, being mere shadowy representations of good things to come; the promises made to Abraham were but imperfectly fulfilled, and divine revelation was very incomplete, and in many respects obscure. Therefore that dispensation did not perfect the illumination of the people of God in things spiritual or divine, but they were still in comparative darkness as to divers particulars of great importance. See on Luke 1:76, 79. It did not perfect their justification and reconciliation with God, or remove their guilt before God, or a sense of it in their own consciences; it only did this typically and figuratively, Hebrews 9:9; 10:1-4. It did not perfect their sanctification and conformity to God, Romans 7:5, &c. For the truths, precepts, and promises which it revealed, were chiefly of a worldly and carnal nature, and not calculated to sanctify the minds and hearts of those that received them, or to render them heavenly and holy. And the sanctifying Spirit, and the salvation consequent thereon, were not so largely given as under the gospel, John 7:37, 38; 1 Peter 1:10-
12. But the bringing in of a better hope — The Christian dispensation, or the priesthood of Christ and the promises of the gospel, which afford more solid grounds for hope, did, or does; making full provision both for our justification and sanctification, and for our living in the practice of universal holiness and righteousness, and therefore furnishing us with a title to, and a meetness for, eternal life. “Promissa terrestria non operantur mortis contemptum, sed eum operantur spes melior vitæ eternæ, atque celestis. Inde tam crebra martyria.” Earthly promises do not produce a contempt of death, but the better hope of a heavenly and eternal life produces it. Hence so many martyrdoms, namely, in the first church. — Grotius. The word epeisagwgh, rendered the bringing in, literally means, the introduction of a thing after, or upon, another. The priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, and the dispensation thereupon, were brought in after the law, upon it, in the room of it, to effect what the law could not do. This, therefore, says Dr. Owen, is the sense of the words: “The introduction of the better hope after and upon the law, when a sufficient discovery had been made of its weakness and insufficiency as to this end, made all things perfect, or hath brought the church to that state of consummation which was designed for it. It is called better with respect to the law, and all it contained, or could effect.” By which we draw nigh unto God — Have free liberty to draw nigh in faith and prayer, through the sacrifice and intercession of our ever-living and glorious High-Priest and Mediator. It is an expression, says Grotius, “properly sacerdotal, denoting the approach of the priests to God and his worship.” Under the Levitical priesthood the priests, in their sacrifices and solemn services, drew nigh to God: the same liberty is now granted to all true believers, under the sacerdotal ministration of the Lord Jesus; through him they have access by one Spirit unto the Father, at all times, and particularly in their prayers and praises, and all acts of worship; and may draw so nigh as to become one spirit with him, which is true Christian perfection.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 18. There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before. It was proper that the shadows should go before the substance, to instruct the ancients by figures till the heir should be born. But Paul, in addition to the eleventh verse, here uses the epithet of “verily,” certainly, or indeed, to speak with assurance to the Hebrew christians, that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to those that believe. As the pharisees who had believed in Christ were all zealous of the law, it is requisite to speak in strong words. Aaron, in case of infirmity, had a sagon or second priest, but our Melchizedec has no sagon, being himself the only Mediator.
Daniel Whedon
18. The commandment—Which established the Aaronic priesthood. Weakness—Incapacity in itself to complete our pardon and salvation.
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
John Wesley
V. 19. For the law-Taken by itself, separate from the gospel. Made nothing perfect-Could not perfect its votaries, either in faith or love, in happiness or holiness.
But the bringing in of a better hope-Of the gospel dispensation, which gives us a better ground of confidence, does.
By which we draw nigh to God-Yea, so nigh as to be one spirit with him. And this is true perfection.
Adam Clarke
Verse 19. For the law made nothing perfect] It completed nothing; it was only the outline of a great plan, the shadow of a glorious substance; see on Hebrews 7:11. It neither pardoned sin, nor purified the heart, nor gave strength to obey the moral precepts. ouden, nothing, is put here for oudena, no person.
But the bringing in of a better hope] The original is very emphatic, epeisagwgh, the superintroduction, or the after introduction; and this seems to be put in opposition to the proagousa entolh, the preceding commandment, or former Levitical law, of Hebrews 7:18. This went before to prepare the way of the Lord; to show the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the strict justice of God. The better hope, which referred not to earthly but to spiritual good, not to temporal but eternal felicity, founded on the priesthood and atonement of Christ, was afterwards introduced for the purpose of doing what the law could not do, and giving privileges and advantages which the law would not afford. One of these privileges immediately follows:—
By the which we draw nigh unto God.] This is a sacerdotal phrase: the high priest alone could approach to the Divine presence in the holy of holies; but not without the blood of the sacrifice, and that only once in the year. But through Christ, as our high priest, all believers in him have an entrance to the holiest by his blood; and through him perform acceptable service to God. The better hope means, in this place, Jesus Christ, who is the author and object of the hope of eternal life, which all his genuine followers possess. He is called our hope, 1 Timothy 1:1; Colossians 1:27.
Joseph Benson
Verses 18, 19. For there is verily — Implied in this new and everlasting priesthood, and in the new dispensation connected therewith; a disannulling of the preceding commandment — An abrogation of the Mosaic law; for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof — In comparison of the new priesthood and dispensation. See on Romans 8:3. For the law — The dispensation of Moses, taken by itself, separate from the light and grace of the gospel: made nothing perfect — Either as to the state of God’s church, (which was then in its minority, Galatians 4:1-3,) or the religion of its members. The institutions of divine worship were imperfect, being mere shadowy representations of good things to come; the promises made to Abraham were but imperfectly fulfilled, and divine revelation was very incomplete, and in many respects obscure. Therefore that dispensation did not perfect the illumination of the people of God in things spiritual or divine, but they were still in comparative darkness as to divers particulars of great importance. See on Luke 1:76, 79. It did not perfect their justification and reconciliation with God, or remove their guilt before God, or a sense of it in their own consciences; it only did this typically and figuratively, Hebrews 9:9; 10:1-4. It did not perfect their sanctification and conformity to God, Romans 7:5, &c. For the truths, precepts, and promises which it revealed, were chiefly of a worldly and carnal nature, and not calculated to sanctify the minds and hearts of those that received them, or to render them heavenly and holy. And the sanctifying Spirit, and the salvation consequent thereon, were not so largely given as under the gospel, John 7:37, 38; 1 Peter 1:10-
12. But the bringing in of a better hope — The Christian dispensation, or the priesthood of Christ and the promises of the gospel, which afford more solid grounds for hope, did, or does; making full provision both for our justification and sanctification, and for our living in the practice of universal holiness and righteousness, and therefore furnishing us with a title to, and a meetness for, eternal life. “Promissa terrestria non operantur mortis contemptum, sed eum operantur spes melior vitæ eternæ, atque celestis. Inde tam crebra martyria.” Earthly promises do not produce a contempt of death, but the better hope of a heavenly and eternal life produces it. Hence so many martyrdoms, namely, in the first church. — Grotius. The word epeisagwgh, rendered the bringing in, literally means, the introduction of a thing after, or upon, another. The priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, and the dispensation thereupon, were brought in after the law, upon it, in the room of it, to effect what the law could not do. This, therefore, says Dr. Owen, is the sense of the words: “The introduction of the better hope after and upon the law, when a sufficient discovery had been made of its weakness and insufficiency as to this end, made all things perfect, or hath brought the church to that state of consummation which was designed for it. It is called better with respect to the law, and all it contained, or could effect.” By which we draw nigh unto God — Have free liberty to draw nigh in faith and prayer, through the sacrifice and intercession of our ever-living and glorious High-Priest and Mediator. It is an expression, says Grotius, “properly sacerdotal, denoting the approach of the priests to God and his worship.” Under the Levitical priesthood the priests, in their sacrifices and solemn services, drew nigh to God: the same liberty is now granted to all true believers, under the sacerdotal ministration of the Lord Jesus; through him they have access by one Spirit unto the Father, at all times, and particularly in their prayers and praises, and all acts of worship; and may draw so nigh as to become one spirit with him, which is true Christian perfection.
Daniel Whedon
19. Law made nothing perfect—Explaining the weakness of the previous verse. The law, without the efficacy of Christ’s atonement, only shadowed pardon and life, but could not effectuate them. A better hope—Based upon the expiation shadowed by the old ritual, but accomplished by the real sacrifice on the cross. We draw nigh—Through a real high priest and mediator.
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
John Wesley
V. 20. And-The greater solemnity wherewith he was made priest, farther proves the superior excellency of his priesthood.
Adam Clarke
Verse 20. Not without an oath] “The apostle’s reasoning here is founded on this, that God never interposed his oath, except to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he sware to Abraham, Genesis 22:16-18, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and to the rebellious Israelites, Deuteronomy 1:34, 35, that they should not enter into his rest; and to Moses, Deuteronomy 4:21, that he should not go into Canaan; and to David, Psalms 89:4Psalm 89:4, that his seed should endure for ever, and his throne unto all generations. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest, not without an oath that he should be a priest for ever, after the similitude of Melchisedec, that circumstance showed God’s immutable resolution never to change or abolish his priesthood, nor to change or abolish the covenant which was established on his priesthood; whereas the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses, being established without an oath, were thereby declared to be changeable at God’s pleasure.” This judicious note is from Dr. Macknight.
Joseph Benson
Verses 20-22. And inasmuch as, &c. — Here is another argument from the words of the psalmist, to prove the appointment of a new priesthood, the removal of the old, and the superior excellence of the new to the old; not without an oath — Which argues the weightiness of the matter, and the eternal continuance of Christ’s priesthood. “The apostle’s reasoning here is founded on this, that God never interposed his oath except to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he sware to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Genesis 22:16-18; and to the rebellious Israelites, that they should not enter into his rest, Deuteronomy 1:34, 35; and to Moses, that he should not go into Canaan, Deuteronomy 4:21; and to David, that his seed should endure for ever, and his throne unto all generations, Psalms 89:4Psalm 89:4. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest not without an oath, that he should be a priest for ever, &c., that circumstance showed God’s immutable resolution never to change or abolish his priesthood, or the covenant established thereon. Whereas the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses being established without an oath were thereby declared to be changeable at God’s pleasure.” — Macknight. The Lord sware and will not repent — Hence also it appears that his priesthood is unchangeable. God not only sware that he would make him a priest for ever, but sware also that he would never repent of doing it. By so much, &c. — By how much the priesthood of Christ was better than the former, by so much the testament, or rather covenant, of which he was to be surety, was better also. The word covenant frequently occurs in the remaining part of this epistle. The original word means either a covenant, or a last will and testament. St. Paul takes it sometimes in the former, sometimes in the latter sense; sometimes he includes both. The word surety or sponsor, may here mean one who has undertaken, on our behalf, to satisfy divine justice for our sins, making atonement for them; and to give to all that sincerely, earnestly, and perseveringly ask it, grace sufficient to enable them to perform the conditions of the covenant, and thereupon to receive its blessings. But it is proper to observe, that the Greek commentators explain the word egguov, here rendered a surety, by mesithv, a mediator, which is its etymological meaning. “For it comes from egguv, near, and signifies one who draws near, or who causes another to draw near. Now, as in this passage a comparison is stated between Jesus, as a High-Priest, and the Levitical high-priests; and as these were justly considered by the apostle as the mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices, and received from him, as their king, a political pardon, in consequence of the sacrifices offered by the high-priest on the day of atonement, it is evident that the apostle, in this passage, calls Jesus the High-Priest, or Mediator, of the better covenant, because through his mediation believers receive all the blessings of the better covenant. And, as the apostle had said, (verse 19,) that, by the introduction of a better hope, eggizomen, we draw near to God, he, in this verse, very properly called Jesus egguov, rather than mesithv, to denote the effect of his mediation. See verse 25. Our translators, indeed, following the Vulgate and Beza, have rendered the word surety, a sense which it hath, Ecclus. 29:16, and which naturally enough follows from its etymological meaning. For the person who becomes surety for the good behaviour of another, or for his performing something stipulated, brings that other near to the party to whom he gives the security; he reconciles the two. But in this sense, the word egguov, is not applicable to the Jewish high-priests. For to be a proper surety, one must either have power to compel the party to perform that for which he hath become his surety, or, in case of his not performing it, he must be able to perform it himself. As little is the appellation, surety of the new covenant, applicable to Jesus. For since the new covenant doth not require perfect obedience, but only the obedience of faith; if the obedience of faith is not given by men themselves, it cannot be given by another in their room, unless we suppose that men can be saved without personal faith; I therefore infer, that they who speak of Jesus as the surety of the new covenant, must hold that it requires perfect obedience, which not being in the power of believers to give, Jesus hath performed it for them. But is not this to make the covenant of grace a covenant of works, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture? For these reasons, I think the Greek commentators have given the true meaning of the word egguov in this passage, when they explain it by mesithv, Mediator.” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
20. Not without an oath—Christ’s high priesthood, as the highest and surest inauguration, the oath of God. Note on Hebrews 6:13.
(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord swear and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
John Wesley
V. 21. The Lord sware and will not repent-Hence also it appears, that his is an unchangeable priesthood.
Adam Clarke
Verse 21. Those priests] The Levitical, were made without an oath, to show that the whole system was changeable, and might be abolished. But this] The everlasting priesthood of Christ, with an oath, to show that the Gospel dispensation should never change, and never be abolished. By him] God the Father, that said unto him-the promised Messiah, <19B004>Psalm 110:4, The Lord sware, to show the immutability of his counsel, and will not repent-can never change his mind nor purpose, Thou art a priest for ever-as long as time shall run, and the generations of men be continued on earth. Till the necessity of the mediatorial kingdom be superseded by the fixed state of eternity, till this kingdom be delivered up unto the Father, and God shall be all in all, shall this priesthood of Christ endure.
Joseph Benson
Verses 20-22. And inasmuch as, &c. — Here is another argument from the words of the psalmist, to prove the appointment of a new priesthood, the removal of the old, and the superior excellence of the new to the old; not without an oath — Which argues the weightiness of the matter, and the eternal continuance of Christ’s priesthood. “The apostle’s reasoning here is founded on this, that God never interposed his oath except to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he sware to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Genesis 22:16-18; and to the rebellious Israelites, that they should not enter into his rest, Deuteronomy 1:34, 35; and to Moses, that he should not go into Canaan, Deuteronomy 4:21; and to David, that his seed should endure for ever, and his throne unto all generations, Psalms 89:4Psalm 89:4. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest not without an oath, that he should be a priest for ever, &c., that circumstance showed God’s immutable resolution never to change or abolish his priesthood, or the covenant established thereon. Whereas the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses being established without an oath were thereby declared to be changeable at God’s pleasure.” — Macknight. The Lord sware and will not repent — Hence also it appears that his priesthood is unchangeable. God not only sware that he would make him a priest for ever, but sware also that he would never repent of doing it. By so much, &c. — By how much the priesthood of Christ was better than the former, by so much the testament, or rather covenant, of which he was to be surety, was better also. The word covenant frequently occurs in the remaining part of this epistle. The original word means either a covenant, or a last will and testament. St. Paul takes it sometimes in the former, sometimes in the latter sense; sometimes he includes both. The word surety or sponsor, may here mean one who has undertaken, on our behalf, to satisfy divine justice for our sins, making atonement for them; and to give to all that sincerely, earnestly, and perseveringly ask it, grace sufficient to enable them to perform the conditions of the covenant, and thereupon to receive its blessings. But it is proper to observe, that the Greek commentators explain the word egguov, here rendered a surety, by mesithv, a mediator, which is its etymological meaning. “For it comes from egguv, near, and signifies one who draws near, or who causes another to draw near. Now, as in this passage a comparison is stated between Jesus, as a High-Priest, and the Levitical high-priests; and as these were justly considered by the apostle as the mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices, and received from him, as their king, a political pardon, in consequence of the sacrifices offered by the high-priest on the day of atonement, it is evident that the apostle, in this passage, calls Jesus the High-Priest, or Mediator, of the better covenant, because through his mediation believers receive all the blessings of the better covenant. And, as the apostle had said, (verse 19,) that, by the introduction of a better hope, eggizomen, we draw near to God, he, in this verse, very properly called Jesus egguov, rather than mesithv, to denote the effect of his mediation. See verse 25. Our translators, indeed, following the Vulgate and Beza, have rendered the word surety, a sense which it hath, Ecclus. 29:16, and which naturally enough follows from its etymological meaning. For the person who becomes surety for the good behaviour of another, or for his performing something stipulated, brings that other near to the party to whom he gives the security; he reconciles the two. But in this sense, the word egguov, is not applicable to the Jewish high-priests. For to be a proper surety, one must either have power to compel the party to perform that for which he hath become his surety, or, in case of his not performing it, he must be able to perform it himself. As little is the appellation, surety of the new covenant, applicable to Jesus. For since the new covenant doth not require perfect obedience, but only the obedience of faith; if the obedience of faith is not given by men themselves, it cannot be given by another in their room, unless we suppose that men can be saved without personal faith; I therefore infer, that they who speak of Jesus as the surety of the new covenant, must hold that it requires perfect obedience, which not being in the power of believers to give, Jesus hath performed it for them. But is not this to make the covenant of grace a covenant of works, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture? For these reasons, I think the Greek commentators have given the true meaning of the word egguov in this passage, when they explain it by mesithv, Mediator.” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
21. Without an oath—By Moses, through God’s direction, with no oath of permanence. The Lord sware—Our author, by inspired authority, reads into these words a perpetuity, an eternity, more fixed than any ritual.
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
John Wesley
V. 22. Of so much better a covenant-Unchangeable, eternal. Was Jesus made a surety-Or mediator. The word covenant frequently occurs in the remaining part of this epistle. The original word means either a covenant or a last will and testament. St. Paul takes it sometimes in the former, sometimes in the latter, sense; sometimes he includes both.
Adam Clarke
Verse 22. By so much] This solemn, unchangeable oath of God, was Jesus made a surety, egguov, a mediator, one who brings the two parties together, witnesses the contract, and offers the covenant sacrifice on the occasion. See at the end of the chapter.
A better testament.] kreittonov diathkhv. A better covenant; called, in the title to the sacred books which contain the whole Christian code, hJ kainh diaqhkh, THE NEW COVENANT, thus contradistinguished from the Mosaic, which was the old covenant; and this is called the new and better covenant, because God has in it promised other blessings, to other people, on other conditions, than the old covenant did. The new covenant is better than the old in the following particulars: 1. God promised to the Jewish nation certain secular blessings, peculiar to that nation, on condition of their keeping the law of Moses; but under the new covenant he promises pardon of sin, and final salvation to all mankind, on condition of believing on Jesus Christ, and walking in his testimonies. 2. The Jewish priests, fallible, dying men, were mediators of the old covenant, by means of their sacrifices, which could not take away sin, nor render the comers thereunto perfect. But Jesus Christ, who liveth for ever, who is infinite in wisdom and power, by the sacrifice of himself has established this new covenant, and by the shedding of his blood has opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Joseph Benson
Verses 20-22. And inasmuch as, &c. — Here is another argument from the words of the psalmist, to prove the appointment of a new priesthood, the removal of the old, and the superior excellence of the new to the old; not without an oath — Which argues the weightiness of the matter, and the eternal continuance of Christ’s priesthood. “The apostle’s reasoning here is founded on this, that God never interposed his oath except to show the certainty and immutability of the thing sworn. Thus he sware to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Genesis 22:16-18; and to the rebellious Israelites, that they should not enter into his rest, Deuteronomy 1:34, 35; and to Moses, that he should not go into Canaan, Deuteronomy 4:21; and to David, that his seed should endure for ever, and his throne unto all generations, Psalms 89:4Psalm 89:4. Wherefore, since Christ was made a priest not without an oath, that he should be a priest for ever, &c., that circumstance showed God’s immutable resolution never to change or abolish his priesthood, or the covenant established thereon. Whereas the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses being established without an oath were thereby declared to be changeable at God’s pleasure.” — Macknight. The Lord sware and will not repent — Hence also it appears that his priesthood is unchangeable. God not only sware that he would make him a priest for ever, but sware also that he would never repent of doing it. By so much, &c. — By how much the priesthood of Christ was better than the former, by so much the testament, or rather covenant, of which he was to be surety, was better also. The word covenant frequently occurs in the remaining part of this epistle. The original word means either a covenant, or a last will and testament. St. Paul takes it sometimes in the former, sometimes in the latter sense; sometimes he includes both. The word surety or sponsor, may here mean one who has undertaken, on our behalf, to satisfy divine justice for our sins, making atonement for them; and to give to all that sincerely, earnestly, and perseveringly ask it, grace sufficient to enable them to perform the conditions of the covenant, and thereupon to receive its blessings. But it is proper to observe, that the Greek commentators explain the word egguov, here rendered a surety, by mesithv, a mediator, which is its etymological meaning. “For it comes from egguv, near, and signifies one who draws near, or who causes another to draw near. Now, as in this passage a comparison is stated between Jesus, as a High-Priest, and the Levitical high-priests; and as these were justly considered by the apostle as the mediators of the Sinai covenant, because through their mediation the Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices, and received from him, as their king, a political pardon, in consequence of the sacrifices offered by the high-priest on the day of atonement, it is evident that the apostle, in this passage, calls Jesus the High-Priest, or Mediator, of the better covenant, because through his mediation believers receive all the blessings of the better covenant. And, as the apostle had said, (verse 19,) that, by the introduction of a better hope, eggizomen, we draw near to God, he, in this verse, very properly called Jesus egguov, rather than mesithv, to denote the effect of his mediation. See verse 25. Our translators, indeed, following the Vulgate and Beza, have rendered the word surety, a sense which it hath, Ecclus. 29:16, and which naturally enough follows from its etymological meaning. For the person who becomes surety for the good behaviour of another, or for his performing something stipulated, brings that other near to the party to whom he gives the security; he reconciles the two. But in this sense, the word egguov, is not applicable to the Jewish high-priests. For to be a proper surety, one must either have power to compel the party to perform that for which he hath become his surety, or, in case of his not performing it, he must be able to perform it himself. As little is the appellation, surety of the new covenant, applicable to Jesus. For since the new covenant doth not require perfect obedience, but only the obedience of faith; if the obedience of faith is not given by men themselves, it cannot be given by another in their room, unless we suppose that men can be saved without personal faith; I therefore infer, that they who speak of Jesus as the surety of the new covenant, must hold that it requires perfect obedience, which not being in the power of believers to give, Jesus hath performed it for them. But is not this to make the covenant of grace a covenant of works, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture? For these reasons, I think the Greek commentators have given the true meaning of the word egguov in this passage, when they explain it by mesithv, Mediator.” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
22. By so much—By the measure of the unmeasurable veracity of God. Better testament—Covenant or dispensation.
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
John Wesley
V. 23. They were many priests-One after another.
Adam Clarke
Verse 23. And they truly were many priests] Under the Mosaic law it was necessary there should be a succession of priests, because, being mortal, they were not suffered to continue always by reason of death.
Joseph Benson
Verses 23-25. And there were many priests — One after another, because they were hindered by death from continuing in the perpetual execution of their office. But this man, because he continueth ever — In life and in his office; hath an unchangeable priesthood — One that passes not from one to another. Wherefore — From whence it appears; that he is able to save to the uttermost — From sin and its consequences, into the favour and image of God, and to preserve to eternal life, all that by faith and prayer come to God through him — As their priest; seeing he ever liveth to make intercession — That is, he lives and intercedes, in every circumstance of their respective lives, through all successive ages and generations. He died once, he intercedes perpetually. “The nature of the apostle’s argument requires that by Christ’s always living we understand his always living in the body: for it is thus that he is a sympathizing High-Priest, who in his intercession pleads the merit of his death to procure the salvation of all who come unto God through him. Agreeably to this account of Christ’s intercession, the apostle (verse 27) mentions the sacrifice of himself, which Christ offered as the foundation of his intercession. Now, as he offered that sacrifice in heaven, (Hebrews 8:2, 3,) by presenting his crucified body there, and as he continually resides there in the body, some of the ancients were of opinion that his continual intercession consists in the continual presentation of his humanity before his Father, because it is a continual declaration of his earnest desire of the salvation of men, and of his having, in obedience to his Father’s will, made himself flesh, and suffered death to accomplish it. This opinion is confirmed by the manner in which the Jewish high-priest made intercession for the people on the day of atonement, and which was a type of Christ’s intercession in heaven. He made it not [merely or chiefly] by offering prayers for them in the most holy place, but by sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices on the mercy-seat, in token of their death. And as by that action he opened the earthly holy places to the prayers and worship of the Israelites during the ensuing year; so Jesus, by presenting his humanity continually before the presence of his Father, opens heaven to the prayers of his people in the present life, and to their persons after the resurrection.” See Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
23. Many priests… by… death—Poor mortals, alas! can send a line of life through centuries only by a succession of living and dying men.
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
John Wesley
V. 24. He continueth for ever-In life and in his priesthood. That passeth not away-To any successor.
Adam Clarke
Verse 24. But this] oJ de, But he, that is, Christ, because he continueth ever-is eternal, hath an unchangeable priesthood, aparabaton ierwsunhn, a priesthood that passeth not away from him; he lives for ever, and he lives a priest for ever.
Joseph Benson
Verses 23-25. And there were many priests — One after another, because they were hindered by death from continuing in the perpetual execution of their office. But this man, because he continueth ever — In life and in his office; hath an unchangeable priesthood — One that passes not from one to another. Wherefore — From whence it appears; that he is able to save to the uttermost — From sin and its consequences, into the favour and image of God, and to preserve to eternal life, all that by faith and prayer come to God through him — As their priest; seeing he ever liveth to make intercession — That is, he lives and intercedes, in every circumstance of their respective lives, through all successive ages and generations. He died once, he intercedes perpetually. “The nature of the apostle’s argument requires that by Christ’s always living we understand his always living in the body: for it is thus that he is a sympathizing High-Priest, who in his intercession pleads the merit of his death to procure the salvation of all who come unto God through him. Agreeably to this account of Christ’s intercession, the apostle (verse 27) mentions the sacrifice of himself, which Christ offered as the foundation of his intercession. Now, as he offered that sacrifice in heaven, (Hebrews 8:2, 3,) by presenting his crucified body there, and as he continually resides there in the body, some of the ancients were of opinion that his continual intercession consists in the continual presentation of his humanity before his Father, because it is a continual declaration of his earnest desire of the salvation of men, and of his having, in obedience to his Father’s will, made himself flesh, and suffered death to accomplish it. This opinion is confirmed by the manner in which the Jewish high-priest made intercession for the people on the day of atonement, and which was a type of Christ’s intercession in heaven. He made it not [merely or chiefly] by offering prayers for them in the most holy place, but by sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices on the mercy-seat, in token of their death. And as by that action he opened the earthly holy places to the prayers and worship of the Israelites during the ensuing year; so Jesus, by presenting his humanity continually before the presence of his Father, opens heaven to the prayers of his people in the present life, and to their persons after the resurrection.” See Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
24. This man—Extends his own line of unbroken individual life through ages, into and throughout eternity.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
John Wesley
V. 25. Wherefore he is able to save to the uttermost-From all the guilt, power, root, and consequence of sin.
Them who come-By faith.
To God through him-As their priest.
Seeing he ever liveth to make intercession-That is, he ever lives and intercedes. He died once; he intercedes perpetually.
Adam Clarke
Verse 25. Wherefore] Because he is an everlasting priest, and has offered the only available sacrifice, he is able to save, from the power, guilt, nature, and punishment of sin, to the uttermost, eiv to pantelev, to all intents, degrees, and purposes; and always, and in and through all times, places, and circumstances; for all this is implied in the original word: but in and through all times seems to be the particular meaning here, because of what follows, he ever liveth to make intercession for them; this depends on the perpetuity of his priesthood, and the continuance of his mediatorial office. As Jesus was the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, has an everlasting priesthood, and is a continual intercessor; it is in virtue of this that all who were saved from the foundation of the world were saved through him, and all that shall be saved to the end of the world will be saved through him. He ever was and ever will be the High Priest, Sacrifice, Intercessor, and Mediator of the human race. All successive generations of men are equally interested in him, and may claim the same privileges. But none can be saved by his grace that do not come unto God through him; i.e. imploring mercy through him as their sacrifice and atonement; confidently trusting that God can be just, and yet the justifier of them who thus come to him, believing on Christ Jesus.
The phrase entugcanein tini, to make intercession for a person, has a considerable latitude of meaning. It signifies, 1. To come to or meet a person on any cause whatever. 2. To intercede, pray for, or entreat in the behalf of, another. 3. To defend or vindicate a person. 4. To commend. 5. To furnish any kind of assistance or help. 6. And, with the preposition kata, against, to accuse, or act against another in a judicial way. “The nature of the apostle’s arguments,” says Dr. Macknight, “requires that, by Christ’s always living, we understand his always living in the body; for it is thus that he is an affectionate and sympathizing High Priest, who, in his intercession, pleads the merit of his death to procure the salvation of all who come unto God through him. Agreeably to this account of Christ’s intercession, the apostle, in Hebrews 7:27, mentions the sacrifice of himself, which Christ offered for the sins of the people as the foundation of his intercession. Now, as he offered that sacrifice in heaven, Hebrews 8:2, 3, by presenting his crucified body there, (See “Hebrews 8:5”,) and as he continually resides there in the body, some of the ancients were of opinion that his continual intercession consists in the continual presentation of his humanity before his Father, because it is a continual declaration of his earnest desire of the salvation of men, and of his having, in obedience to his Father’s will, made himself flesh, and suffered death to accomplish it. See “Romans 8:34”, note 3. This opinion is confirmed by the manner in which the Jewish high priest made intercession for the people on the day of atonement, and which was a type of Christ’s intercession in heaven. He made it, not by offering of prayers for them in the most holy place, but by sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices on the mercy-seat, in token of their death. And as, by that action, he opened the earthly holy places to the prayers and worship of the Israelites during the ensuing year; so Jesus, by presenting his humanity continually before the presence of his Father, opens heaven to the prayers of his people in the present life, and to their persons after the resurrection.”
Joseph Benson
Verses 23-25. And there were many priests — One after another, because they were hindered by death from continuing in the perpetual execution of their office. But this man, because he continueth ever — In life and in his office; hath an unchangeable priesthood — One that passes not from one to another. Wherefore — From whence it appears; that he is able to save to the uttermost — From sin and its consequences, into the favour and image of God, and to preserve to eternal life, all that by faith and prayer come to God through him — As their priest; seeing he ever liveth to make intercession — That is, he lives and intercedes, in every circumstance of their respective lives, through all successive ages and generations. He died once, he intercedes perpetually. “The nature of the apostle’s argument requires that by Christ’s always living we understand his always living in the body: for it is thus that he is a sympathizing High-Priest, who in his intercession pleads the merit of his death to procure the salvation of all who come unto God through him. Agreeably to this account of Christ’s intercession, the apostle (verse 27) mentions the sacrifice of himself, which Christ offered as the foundation of his intercession. Now, as he offered that sacrifice in heaven, (Hebrews 8:2, 3,) by presenting his crucified body there, and as he continually resides there in the body, some of the ancients were of opinion that his continual intercession consists in the continual presentation of his humanity before his Father, because it is a continual declaration of his earnest desire of the salvation of men, and of his having, in obedience to his Father’s will, made himself flesh, and suffered death to accomplish it. This opinion is confirmed by the manner in which the Jewish high-priest made intercession for the people on the day of atonement, and which was a type of Christ’s intercession in heaven. He made it not [merely or chiefly] by offering prayers for them in the most holy place, but by sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices on the mercy-seat, in token of their death. And as by that action he opened the earthly holy places to the prayers and worship of the Israelites during the ensuing year; so Jesus, by presenting his humanity continually before the presence of his Father, opens heaven to the prayers of his people in the present life, and to their persons after the resurrection.” See Macknight.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 25. Wherefore he is able also [even] to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him. This is the conclusive and luminous inference drawn from the glory of our regal Highpriest at the Father’s right hand. Aaron’s altar could save ceremonially only, and leave the road to glory open to those who died in the faith of him that was to come. But Christ being the minister of a more perfect tabernacle, is able to save to the uttermost, by opening the eyes of our understanding, by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and by a glorious resurrection from the dead. In other places Paul adds, that he is able to do far more abundantly above all that we can ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us. Like the serpent of brass in the wilderness, his virtue does not diminish by healing; he saves to the uttermost all that come to God by him. As the unclean and the guilty came to Aaron, so the foulest lepers, and the chief of sinners may come, and receive assurance of life and salvation.
Above all, he ever lives to make intercession for us. He lives, he never dies, he pleads the merits of his death, which have through all ages an infinitude of virtues. He prays not as sinners for mercy, but solicits our salvation as a right, not due to us, but in reward of his own obedience. His sacrificial prayers have the form of demands: Father, let that sinner live, for I have died. — These are the prayers which the rigours of justice cannot deny, for justice itself is fully satisfied.
Daniel Whedon
25. Wherefore—By his unchanging, undying priesthood. Able also to save—Through his ever-availing expiation. To the uttermost—To the fullest completion. Them… that come—The solemn condition of this salvation. The very uttermost does not reach those who refuse to come. Nay, the fuller the salvation the deeper the damnation. Ever liveth— Though he died he still lives. Intercession—By ever presenting the merits of his sacrifice. Note on Romans 8:24.
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
John Wesley
V. 26. For such an high priest suited us-Unholy, mischievous, defiled sinners: a blessed paradox!
Holy-With respect to God.
Harmless-With respect to men.
Undefiled-With any sin in himself.
Separated from sinners-As well as free from sin. And so he was when he left the world.
And made-Even in his human nature.
Higher than the heavens-And all their inhabitants.
Adam Clarke
Verse 26. Such a high priest became us] Such a high priest was in every respect suitable to us, every way qualified to accomplish the end for which he came into the world. There is probably here an allusion to the qualifications of the Jewish high priest:—
1. He was required to be holy, osiov, answering to the Hebrew dysj chasid, merciful. Holiness was his calling; and, as he was the representative of his brethren, he was required to be merciful and compassionate.
2. He was to be harmless, akakov, without evil-holy without, and holy within; injuring none, but rather living for the benefit of others.
3. He was undefiled, amiantov answering to the Hebrew מום lab baal mum, without blemish-having no bodily imperfection. Nothing low, mean, base, or unbecoming in his conduct.
4. He was separate from sinners, kecwrismenov apo twn amartwlwn. By his office he was separated from all men and worldly occupations, and entirely devoted to the service of God. And as to sinners, or heathens, he was never to be found in their society.
5. Higher than the heavens. There may be some reference here to the exceeding dignity of the high priesthood; it was the highest office that could be sustained by man, the high priest himself being the immediate representative of God.
But these things suit our Lord in a sense in which they cannot be applied to the high priest of the Jews.
1. He was holy, infinitely so; and merciful, witness his shedding his blood for the sins of mankind.
2. Harmless-perfectly without sin in his humanity, as well as his divinity.
3. Undefiled-contracted no sinful infirmity in consequence of his dwelling among men.
4. Separate from sinners-absolutely unblamable in the whole of his conduct, so that he could challenge the most inveterate of his enemies with, Which of you convicteth me of sin? Who of you can show in my conduct the slightest deviation from truth and righteousness!
5. Higher than the heavens-more exalted than all the angels of God, than all created beings, whether thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers, because all these were created by him and for him, and derive their continued subsistence from his infinite energy.
But how was a person of such infinite dignity suitable to us! His greatness is put in opposition to our meanness. HE was holy; WE, unholy. HE was harmless; WE, harmful, injuring both ourselves and others. HE was undefiled; WE, defiled, most sinfully spotted and impure. HE was separate from sinners; WE were joined to sinners, companions of the vile, the worthless, the profane, and the wicked. HE was higher than the heavens; WE, baser and lower than the earth, totally unworthy to be called the creatures of God. And had we not had such a Saviour, and had we not been redeemed at an infinite price, we should, to use the nervous language of Milton on another occasion, “after a shameful life and end in this world, have been thrown down eternally into the darkest and deepest gulf of hell, where, under the despiteful control, the trample and spurn, of all the other damned, and in the anguish of their torture should have no other ease than to exercise a raving and bestial tyranny over us as their slaves, we must have remained in that plight for ever, the basest, the lower-most, the most dejected, most under-foot and down-trodden vassals of perdition.” MILTON on Reformation, in fine.
Joseph Benson
Verses 26-28. Such a High-Priest became us — Or rather, was suited to us, who are unholy, mischievous, defiled sinners; who is holy — With respect to God; harmless — With respect to men; undefiled — In himself by any sin; separate from sinners — That is, from all defiling society of sinners, though mercifully conversant among them; and, to complete all, made higher — Even in his human nature, than the heavens, and than all their inhabitants; being far more superior to the noblest of them than Aaron was to the meanest Levite who ministered in the temple. Who needeth not daily — That is, on every yearly day of expiation; as those high-priests, to offer sacrifice, first for his own sins — For he had no sins of his own; and then for the people’s — Which last he did once for all, when he offered up himself — A spotless and acceptable sacrifice to God. “In this passage,” says Macknight, “the apostle notices three particulars, which distinguish the sacrifice offered by Christ from those offered by the Jewish high- priests: 1st, He offered no sacrifice for himself, but only for the people. 2d, He did not offer that sacrifice annually, but once for all. 3d, The sacrifice which he offered was not of calves and goats, but of himself.” For the law maketh men high-priests which have infirmity — Who are weak, sinful, and mortal; but the oath which was since the law — Namely, in the time of David; maketh the Son — A priest; who is consecrated — Or perfected, as teteleiwmenon properly signifies; see note on Hebrews 5:9; for evermore — Who, having finished his whole process, undertaken and accomplished to effect the work of our redemption, and being without blemish, and perfectly free from every natural and moral infirmity, and invested with all authority and power in heaven and on earth, remaineth a priest for ever.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 26. Such a Highpriest became us. One less in dignity and in sanctity could not appear in the presence of God for us.
Daniel Whedon
26. Such a high priest became us—Is he not, in the power of his sacrifice and the perpetuity of his intercession, just the high priest we human sinners need? Holy… sinners—A beautiful delineation of the sinlessness of Jesus, an ideal so perfectly maintained throughout the New Testament. It was an ideal above the powers of the writers or of the age to fabricate. It was impressed upon the mind of the Church, in the fulness of its beauty, by the living, divine Reality himself. Thus perfect it became him to be, as our ultimate model; but here, especially, it is commemorated as the condition of the perfectness of his expiation, as shown next verse. Higher than the heavens—Note on Ephesians 4:10. However perfect his human character, it would not avail could he not appear in heaven for us.
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
John Wesley
V. 27. Who needeth not to offer up sacrifices daily-That is, on every yearly day of expiation; for he offered once for all: not for his own sins, for he then offered up himself "without spot to God."
Adam Clarke
Verse 27. Who needeth not daily] Though the high priest offered the great atonement only once in the year, yet in the Jewish services there was a daily acknowledgment of sin, and a daily sacrifice offered by the priests, at whose head was the high priest, for their own sins and the sins of the people. The Jews held that a priest who neglected his own expiatory sacrifice would be smitten with death. (Sanhedr., fol. 83.) When they offered this victim, they prayed the following prayer: “O Lord, I have sinned, and done wickedly, and gone astray before thy face, I, and my house, and the sons of Aaron, the, people of thy holiness. I beseech thee, for thy name’s sake, blot out the sins, iniquities, and transgressions by which I have sinned, done wickedly, and gone astray before thy face, I, and my house, and the sons of Aaron, the people of thy holiness; as it is written in the law of Moses thy servant, (Leviticus 16:30:) On that day shall he make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord!” To which the Levites answered: “Blessed be the name of the glory of thy kingdom, for ever and ever!” This prayer states that the priest offered a sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, as the apostle asserts. For this he did once] For himself he offered no sacrifice; and the apostle gives the reason-he needed none, because he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners: and for the people he offered himself once for all, when he expired upon the cross.
It has been very properly remarked, that the sacrifice offered by Christ differed in four essential respects from those, offered by the Jewish priests:
1. He offered no sacrifice for himself, but only for the people. 2. He did not offer that sacrifice annually, but once for all. 3. The sacrifice which he offered was not of calves and goats, but of himself. 4. This sacrifice he offered, not for one people, but for the whole human race; for he tasted death for every man.
Joseph Benson
Verses 26-28. Such a High-Priest became us — Or rather, was suited to us, who are unholy, mischievous, defiled sinners; who is holy — With respect to God; harmless — With respect to men; undefiled — In himself by any sin; separate from sinners — That is, from all defiling society of sinners, though mercifully conversant among them; and, to complete all, made higher — Even in his human nature, than the heavens, and than all their inhabitants; being far more superior to the noblest of them than Aaron was to the meanest Levite who ministered in the temple. Who needeth not daily — That is, on every yearly day of expiation; as those high-priests, to offer sacrifice, first for his own sins — For he had no sins of his own; and then for the people’s — Which last he did once for all, when he offered up himself — A spotless and acceptable sacrifice to God. “In this passage,” says Macknight, “the apostle notices three particulars, which distinguish the sacrifice offered by Christ from those offered by the Jewish high- priests: 1st, He offered no sacrifice for himself, but only for the people. 2d, He did not offer that sacrifice annually, but once for all. 3d, The sacrifice which he offered was not of calves and goats, but of himself.” For the law maketh men high-priests which have infirmity — Who are weak, sinful, and mortal; but the oath which was since the law — Namely, in the time of David; maketh the Son — A priest; who is consecrated — Or perfected, as teteleiwmenon properly signifies; see note on Hebrews 5:9; for evermore — Who, having finished his whole process, undertaken and accomplished to effect the work of our redemption, and being without blemish, and perfectly free from every natural and moral infirmity, and invested with all authority and power in heaven and on earth, remaineth a priest for ever.
Daniel Whedon
27. First for his own sins—Sinlessness is the necessary condition of a perfect atonement. One sinner cannot efficiently die for another sinner; for he deserves that death for his own sin. Once—And not daily. The Romish pretence that the daily mass is a real sacrifice is here contradicted. The divine victim can never be offered but once.
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
John Wesley
V. 28. The law maketh men high priests that have infirmity-That are both weak, mortal, and sinful.
But the oath which was since the law-Namely, in the time of David. Maketh the son, who is consecrated for ever-Who being now free, both from sin and death, from natural and moral infirmity, remaineth a priest for ever.
Adam Clarke
Verse 28. For the law maketh men high priests] The Jewish priests have need of these repeated offerings and sacrifices, because they are fallible, sinful men: but the word of the oath (still referring to <19B004>Psalm 110:4) which was since the law; for David, who mentions this, lived nearly 500 years after the giving of the law, and consequently that oath, constituting another priesthood, abrogates the law; and by this the SON is consecrated, teteleiwmenon, is perfected, for evermore. Being a high priest without blemish, immaculately holy, every way perfect, immortal, and eternal, HE is a priest eiv ton aiwna, to ETERNITY.
I. THERE are several respects in which the apostle shows the priesthood of Christ to be more excellent than that of the Jews, which priesthood was typified by that of Melchisedec.
1. Being after the order of Melchisedec, there was no need of a rigorous examination of his genealogy to show his right.
2. He has an eternal priesthood; whereas theirs was but temporal.
3. The other priests, as a token of the dignity of their office, and their state of dependence on God, received tithes from the people. Melchisedec, a priest and king, after whose order Christ comes, tithed Abraham, dedekatwke ton abraam, the father of the patriarchs; Jesus, infinitely greater than all, having an absolute and independent life, needs none. He is no man’s debtor, but all receive out of his fulness.
4. He alone can bless the people, not by praying for their good merely, but by communicating the good which is necessary.
5. As another priesthood, different from that of Aaron, was promised, it necessarily implies that the Levitical priesthood was insufficient; the priesthood of Christ, being that promised, must be greater than that of Aaron.
6. That which God has appointed and consecrated with an oath, as to endure for ever, must be greater than that which he has appointed simply for a time: but the priesthood of Christ is thus appointed; therefore, &c.
7. All the Levitical priests were fallible and sinful men; but Christ was holy and undefiled.
8. The Levitical priests were only by their office distinguished from the rest of their brethren, being equally frail, mortal, and corruptible; but Jesus, our high priest, is higher than the heavens. The statements from which these differences are drawn are all laid down in this chapter.
II. As the word surety, egguov, in Hebrews 7:22, has been often abused, or used in an unscriptural and dangerous sense, it may not be amiss to inquire a little farther into its meaning. The Greek word egguov, from egguh, a pledge, is supposed to be so called from being lodged en guioiv, in the hands of the creditor. It is nearly of the same meaning with bail, and signifies an engagement made by C. with A. that B. shall fulfil certain conditions then and there specified, for which C. makes himself answerable; if, therefore, B. fails, C. becomes wholly responsible to A. In such suretiship it is never designed that C. shall pay any debt or fulfil any engagement that belongs to B.; but, if B. fail, then C. becomes responsible, because he had pledged himself for B. In this scheme A. is the person legally empowered to take the bail or pledge, B. the debtor, and C. the surety. The idea therefore of B. paying his own debt, is necessarily implied in taking the surety. Were it once to be supposed that the surety undertakes absolutely to pay the debt, his suretiship is at an end, and he becomes the debtor; and the real debtor is no longer bound. Thus the nature of the transaction becomes entirely changed, and we find nothing but debtor and creditor in the case. In this sense, therefore, the word egguov, which we translate surety, cannot be applied in the above case, for Christ never became surety that, if men did not fulfil the conditions of this better covenant, i.e. repent of sin, turn from it, believe on the Son of God, and having received grace walk as children of the light, and be faithful unto death, he would do all these things for them himself! This would be both absurd and impossible: and hence the gloss of some here is both absurd and dangerous, viz., “That Christ was the surety of the first covenant to pay the debt; of the second, to perform the duty.” That it cannot have this meaning in the passage in question is sufficiently proved by Dr. Macknight; and instead of extending my own reasoning on the subject, I shall transcribe his note.
“The Greek commentators explain this word egguov very properly by mesithv, a mediator, which is its etymological meaning; for it comes from egguv, near, and signifies one who draws near, or who causes another to draw near. Now, as in this passage a comparison is stated between Jesus as a high priest, and the Levitical high priests; and as these were justly considered by the apostle as the mediators of the Sinaitic covenant, because through their mediation the Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices, and received from him, as their king, a political pardon, in consequence of the sacrifices offered by the high priest on the day of atonement; it is evident that the apostle in this passage calls Jesus the High Priest, or Mediator of the better covenant, because through his mediation, that is, through the sacrifice of himself which he offered to God, believers receive all the blessings of the better covenant. And as the apostle has said, Hebrews 7:19, that by the introduction of a better hope, eggizomen, we draw near to God; he in this verse very properly calls Jesus egguov, rather than mesithv, to denote the effect of his mediation. See Hebrews 7:25. Our translators indeed, following the Vulgate and Beza, have rendered egguov by the word surety, a sense which it has, Ecclus. 29:16, and which naturally enough follows from its etymological meaning; for the person who becomes surety for the good behaviour of another, or for his performing something stipulated, brings that other near to the party to whom he gives the security; he reconciles the two. But in this sense the word egguov is not applicable to the Jewish high priests; for to be a proper surety, one must either have power to compel the party to perform that for which he has become his surety; or, in case of his not performing it, he must be able to perform it himself. This being the ease, will any one say that the Jewish high priests were sureties to God for the Israelites performing their part of the covenant of the law! Or to the people for God’s performing his part of the covenant! As little is the appellation, surety of the new covenant, applicable to Jesus. For since the new covenant does not require perfect obedience, but only the obedience of faith; if the obedience of faith be not given by men themselves, it cannot be given by another in their room; unless we suppose that men can be saved without personal faith. I must therefore infer, that those who speak of Jesus as the surety of the new covenant, must hold that it requires perfect obedience; which, not being in the power of believers to give, Jesus has performed for them. But is not this to make the covenant of grace a covenant of works, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture! For these reasons I think the Greek commentators have given the true meaning of the word eggnov, in this passage, when they explain it by mesithv, mediator.” The chief difference lies here. The old covenant required perfect obedience from the very commencement of life; this is impossible, because man comes into the world depraved. The new covenant declares God’s righteousness for the remission of sins that are past; and furnishes grace to enable all true believers to live up to all the requisitions of the moral law, as found in the gospels. But in this sense Christ cannot be called the surety, for the reasons given above; for he does not perform the obedience or faith in behalf of any man. It is the highest privilege of believers to love God with all their hearts, and to serve him with all their strength; and to remove their obligation to keep this moral law would be to deprive them of the highest happiness they can possibly have on this side heaven.
HEBREWS
Joseph Benson
Verses 26-28. Such a High-Priest became us — Or rather, was suited to us, who are unholy, mischievous, defiled sinners; who is holy — With respect to God; harmless — With respect to men; undefiled — In himself by any sin; separate from sinners — That is, from all defiling society of sinners, though mercifully conversant among them; and, to complete all, made higher — Even in his human nature, than the heavens, and than all their inhabitants; being far more superior to the noblest of them than Aaron was to the meanest Levite who ministered in the temple. Who needeth not daily — That is, on every yearly day of expiation; as those high-priests, to offer sacrifice, first for his own sins — For he had no sins of his own; and then for the people’s — Which last he did once for all, when he offered up himself — A spotless and acceptable sacrifice to God. “In this passage,” says Macknight, “the apostle notices three particulars, which distinguish the sacrifice offered by Christ from those offered by the Jewish high- priests: 1st, He offered no sacrifice for himself, but only for the people. 2d, He did not offer that sacrifice annually, but once for all. 3d, The sacrifice which he offered was not of calves and goats, but of himself.” For the law maketh men high-priests which have infirmity — Who are weak, sinful, and mortal; but the oath which was since the law — Namely, in the time of David; maketh the Son — A priest; who is consecrated — Or perfected, as teteleiwmenon properly signifies; see note on Hebrews 5:9; for evermore — Who, having finished his whole process, undertaken and accomplished to effect the work of our redemption, and being without blemish, and perfectly free from every natural and moral infirmity, and invested with all authority and power in heaven and on earth, remaineth a priest for ever.
Daniel Whedon
28. The Mosaic law—In antithesis with the psalmist’s word, or expression of the oath inaugurating the perpetual High Priest. Notes on verses 20 and
21. Since the law—For the psalm is later than the Pentateuch, and unfolds the later revelation of God’s purposes. The Son—Of Hebrews 1:1. It stands in antithesis with men… which have infirmity. The divine Son has no infirmity. He is unmarred by sin. Consecrated—Rather, perfected, absolutely completed, as the Model, Expiator, and Saviour.
John Wesley
V. 1. The sum of this chapter is, Christ, as appears from his type, Melchisedec, who was greater than Abraham himself, from whom Levi descended, has a priesthood altogether excellent, new, firm, perpetual. Genesis 14:18, &c.
Adam Clarke
Verse 1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem] See the whole of this history largely explained in the notes, See “Genesis 14:18”, &c., and the concluding observations at the end of that chapter.
The name Melchisedec, qdxyklm is thus expounded in Bereshith Rabba, sec. 43, fol. 42, wybvwy ta qydxm matsdie eth Yoshebaiv, “The Justifier of those who dwell in him;” and this is sufficiently true of Christ, but false of Jerusalem, to which the rabbins apply it, who state that it was originally called Tsedek, and that it justified its inhabitants.
Salem is generally understood to be Jerusalem; but some think that it was that city of Shechem mentioned Joshua 20:7. St. Jerome was of this opinion.
Joseph Benson
Verse 1. For, &c. — The apostle having promised to lead the believing Hebrews forward to the perfection of Christian knowledge, (Hebrews 6:1-4,) particularly with regard to the high-priesthood of Christ as typified by that of Melchisedec, which he had repeatedly mentioned, (namely, Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20,) as a figure of it he proceeds now to fulfil his promise; and, in order thereto, points out the deep meaning of the oath recorded <19B004>Psalm 110:4. And by accurately examining the particulars concerning Melchisedec, related in the Mosaic history, he shows that Melchisedec was a far more excellent priest than Aaron and all his sons, and consequently that Jesus, whom God had made a High-Priest for ever after the similitude of Melchisedec, exercised a priesthood both more acceptable to God, and more effectual for procuring the pardon of sin, than the priesthood which the sons of Aaron exercised under the law. For the design of the apostle in this chapter is not to declare the nature or the exercise of the priesthood of Christ, though occasionally mentioned; having spoken of the former, chap. 5., and intending to treat of the latter at large afterward, which he does chap. 9. But it is of its excellence and dignity that he discourses here, and yet not absolutely, but in comparison with the Levitical priesthood, which method was both necessary, and directly conducive to his end. For if the priesthood of Christ were not so excellent as that of Aaron, it was to no purpose to persuade them to embrace the former, and reject the latter. This, therefore, he designs to prove upon principles avowed among themselves, by arguments taken from what had been received and acknowledged in the Jewish Church from the first foundation of it. To this end he shows, that antecedently to the giving of the law, and the institution of the Levitical priesthood, God had, without any respect thereto, given a typical prefiguration of this priesthood of Christ, in one who was on all accounts superior to the future Levitical priests. This sacred truth, which had been hid for so many ages in the church, and which undeniably manifests the certain future introduction of another and better priesthood, is here brought to light by the apostle and improved. For this Melchisedec — Of whom Moses speaks, Genesis 14:18, &c., (the passage to which David refers,) was king of Salem — “According to Josephus, (Antiq. lib. 1. cap. 11,) Salem, the city of Melchisedec, was Jerusalem. But according to Jerome, who says he received his information from some learned Jews, it was the town which is mentioned Genesis 33:18, as a city of Shechem, and which is spoken of (John 3:23) as near to Enon, where John baptized. This city being in Abraham’s way, as he returned from Damascus to Sodom, after the slaughter of the kings, many are of Jerome’s opinion, that the northern Salem was Melchisedec’s city rather than Jerusalem, which was situated farther to the south.” Priest of the most high God — This title given him by Moses, and here taken notice of by the apostle, implies that he had been appointed to that office in a solemn and public manner; and, of consequence, “that there was a priest divinely appointed to officiate for the worshippers of the true God in Canaan, long before the days of Aaron, and before God formed to himself a visible church from any particular family or nation of mankind. The Hebrew word, indeed, translated a priest, sometimes signifies a prince, but the historian hath removed the ambiguity by adding the words, of the most high God.” Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings — Who had taken Lot prisoner, with the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the neighbouring cities of the plain; and blessed him — Pronounced on him a blessing in the name of God, to whom he ministered; and in his manner of blessing him showed himself to be a priest of the only true God, his words being, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Verse 1. This Melchizedec, to whose illustrious history he now returns, from Hebrews 5:11, was first by name or title king of righteousness, and afterwards king of Salem, that is, king of peace. But surely it is hard work for critics to write a commentary of this, the most remarkable of ancient characters, after St. Paul has given the finishing touch to the portrait. How would the rabbins read it, to find an illustration here which none of the doctors could see.
Priest of the most high God, which was the right of the firstborn. He blessed Abraham, who had delivered the country from the robbers and murderers that had invaded it; for those who have defeated the fleets and armies of the enemy, have the justest claims of eulogy and reward. How strange that jews and christian fathers should waste their time in researches, whether Melchizedec were a patriarch, or the Messiah sojourning with men, when Moses has described him as a patriarch, a priest, and prince, and the city where he reigned. Those three characteristics of this ancient man, being typical, demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.
Daniel Whedon
UNIVERSAL AND PERPETUAL, LIKE THE MELCHIZEDEKIAN, 1-28.
1. For—Connecting with Hebrews 5:10, after the intervening digression. See last note above. About this Melchizedek more puerile speculation has been written, extending from Hierax to Alford, than has been expended upon any human character in Scripture. Whenever we see an essay headed, “Who was Melchizedek?” we promptly direct our attention elsewhere. By successive speculators in different ages he has been conjectured to be the Holy Spirit; one of the dunameiv, or powers of God; the Logos; an angel; an ante-mundane man, created, not out of matter, but spirit; Enoch descended from heaven; Shem, Job, a great Unknown. Our opinion is, that Melchizedek was nobody but himself; himself as simply narrated in Genesis 14:18-20; in which narrative both David, in Psalm 110, and our author after him, find every point they specify in making him a king-priest, typical of the king-priesthood of Christ. Yet it is not in the person of Melchizedek alone, but in the grouping, also, of circumstances around and in his person, that the inspired imagination of the psalmist finds the shadowing points. Melchizedek, in Genesis, suddenly appears upon the historic stage, without antecedents or consequents. He is a king-priest not of Judaism, but of Gentilism universally. He appears an unlineal priest, without father, mother, or pedigree. He is preceded and succeeded by an everlasting silence, so as to present neither beginning nor end of life. And he is, as an historic picture, forever there divinely suspended, the very image of a perpetual king-priest. It is thus not in his actual unknown reality, but in the Scripture presentation, that the group of shadowings appears. It is by optical truth only, not by corporeal facts, that he becomes a picture, and with his surroundings a visible tableau, into which the psalmist first reads the conception of an adumbration of the eternal priesthood of the Messiah; and all our author does is to develop the particulars which are in mass presupposed by the psalmist. King of Salem—The celebrated Jewish traveller, Joseph Wolfe, “no mean authority on such a subject,” is quoted by Mr. Grove, in Smith’s Biblical Dictionary, as expressing the belief that Salem, signifying peace, is here not the name of a place but a part of Melchizedek’s title. Mr. Wolfe had as a friend a sheik in the kingdom of Khiva, whose name was Abder-Rahman, signifying “Slave of the merciful God.” He is also called Shahe-Adaalat, “King of Righteousness,” the same as the Hebrew Melchizedek. “And when he makes peace between the kings he bears the title, ‘Shahe-Soolkh,’ king of peace, in Hebrew, Melek-Salem.” But the best ancient Jewish authorities, the Targums and Josephus, agree that Salem here is an ancient name of Jerusalem. There are other Salems mentioned as competitors for this honour, but their claims are very slender. Wordsworth endeavours to identify Salem with Shechem, which was, indeed, a most memorable spot in patriarchal times, but he only shows a Salem near Shechem, yet not Shechem itself. Abraham was, at the time of meeting Melchizedek, returning from the region of Damascus to his home at Mamre, or Hebron, and would pass in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In Psalms 76:2Psalm 76:2, “In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion,” unquestionably gives the name of Salem to Jerusalem. This same Jerusalem, where dwelt the Hebrews to whom this epistle was addressed, was the dwelling-place of the type of our great High Priest, as afterward the chosen “dwelling-place” of Jehovah. Our Hebrews are on the spot, and can look back through the Antitype to his primeval type, the primitive “King of righteousness” and “peace.” Wordsworth, indeed, objects that Jerusalem, being the special locality of the Hebrew theocracy, was not the proper place for a universal representative priest; but that is forgetting that Jerusalem was then not Hebrew but Gentile. As king of Salem, Melchizedek was, doubtless, an Amorite prince, and a descendant of Ham. Abraham was a lonely Shemite, who had but lately come into the country; a brother, yet a foreigner; a brave sheik with a goodly band of followers, and a predicted progenitor of a great people; but as yet he was entirely inferior to a settled king in the land, like Melchizedek. Priest of the most high God—A dignitary of high rank; both king and priest, worshipping the true God with acceptable rites before the apostasy of Ham had, in this region, established idolatry. Blessed him—The Shemite immigrant rejoiced in the benediction of the Amorite pontiff. He had well earned the benediction by his heroic expulsion of the invaders out of Palestine. Priest… God—In a tribe not yet apostate. Most high—Says Philo, “The Logos, who is shadowed forth by Melchizedek, is ‘Priest of the Most High;’ not as though there were other gods not most high, for God is as the One in heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is none besides him.”