Chapter 7

2023 - It occurred to me yesterday, and is in the notes, that Hebrews might have been a chastising letter to the student of the writer of Hebrews.  Remember also that at the end of 6, that writer says "Enough review, let's move on."  And then we get Chapter 7 with the introduction of this teaching comparing Jesus with Melchizedek and contrasting him with the Levitical priesthood.  So I see this as new material for the students, which may build on what went before, but is in fact a new topic.  A new chapter, if you will, in the systematic theology text of the writer of Hebrews.

MSB says this chapter is the focal point of the whole epistle, comparing the priesthood of Melchizedek to that of Christ.  This becomes a very big deal, though Melchizedek is only mentioned twice in the OT, once in Gen. 14:18-20. and again in Psa 110:4.  This verse:

2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. [Heb 7:2 ESV]

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19 And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. [Gen 14:18-20 ESV]

I don't get what is meant by the phrase "He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness.  Are they talking about the meaning of the word Melchizedek?  Two meanings in the same word but always righteousness first, before peace?  MSB does not help at all with this.  Ignores the phrase entirely.  Here are some alternate translations, NLT seeming to be the most "informative":

2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. [Heb 7:2 ESV]  Or is this just about the word order?  In vs. 18, his name comes first, not his title.  Perhaps the word Melchizedek means "King of righteousness", but then the additional phrase "King of Salem" Salem meaning peace, comes second.  Why is that so important that the writer of Hebrews went to so much trouble to point it out?  It is such a "focused" look at just four words.

2 Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had captured in battle and gave it to Melchizedek. The name Melchizedek means "king of justice," and king of Salem means "king of peace." [Heb 7:2 NLT]  Ok, this pretty much says it is about the word order - name first, then title.  Just need to know now why that word order has meaning?

2022 - BLB Interlinear says the name means "my King is Sedek", but lower down, Strong's says it means "king of right", and still lower, Gesenius said it meant King of Righteousness.  So here's the thing.  For this to be profoundly important, we have to believe the name is no accident, but is given by God as revelation to us who come so long after.  That is, today, one can name their child "Leader of the Free World", but that does not make it so.  These verses in Hebrews are saying he was called Melchizedek because that is who he was going to be - the king of righteousness, perhaps the one and only priest of God on the planet at the time.  We are further to understand that Abraham recognized the significance of Melchizedek, else why in the world would he give him a tenth of everything?  He had to recognize who Melchizedek really was - a priest for the ages.  Once you accept these two things - his name was no accident, and Abram recognized his significance - then it opens the door to the rest.

2024 - Here's a thought on this verse:

2 ...He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. [Heb 7:2b ESV].  So in vs 1, we see that Abraham gave a 10th of everything to Mel, who was King of Salem and also priest of the Most High God.  He combined the two offices.  Why is this important?  Well think of the next few verses as the "teacher" of Hebrews, presenting this material to his students.  He is up in front of the class and begins this way:  "I'm going to tell you a few things about Mel.  FIRST, look at his name.  It means king of righteousness.  Second, he is the actual real life King of Salem.  Third, Salem means peace, so he is also king of peace.  So...king of righteousness and peace, and King of the city of Salem.  Fourth, we are given no information on his birth, death, parentage or history.  The Son of God also has no beginning or end, and so compares in this way to Mel.  So that is the end of the "set up" and now in vs 4, the writer "unpacks" what all these things mean.

2024 - I wonder why, in Gen 14.18-20, "He was priest of the Most High" is in parentheses.  I do not understand that.  We see it over and over and I do not know what it is that way.  Is it telling us something about the original text?  Does it mean it is inserted by the translator or scribe?  What does it mean???  Because Hebrews is now going to make a very big deal out of the priesthood of Melchizedek.  Hmmm...I looked at the other Bibles in BLB and only the ESV and the NET put parentheses around this phrase.  NASB does not.  So...ESV ought to explain why they have these parentheses.  I did not find any explanation in the introductory pages to my edition.  I checked the verse in Genesis.  I noticed that in vs 17, we find the phrase "that is, the King's Valley" inside parentheses.  It is in this case just an explanation/clarification/amplification of what "Valley of Shaveh" means.  Turns out that this phrase is also in parentheses in the NASB95.  It is certainly not a complete sentence, where the parenthesized text in 18 is a complete sentence.   We could say the information in parenthesis in vs 18 is also just an amp/clar/exp of what went just before.  In 18, the information in the parentheses is additional information about the subject - Melchizedek.  So my best guess at this point is that these two phrases don't really fit in grammatically with the text around them.  They are sort of an aside to the reader.  Many versions put "that is, the King's valley" in parentheses...because it is not a complete sentence.  But only two put the vs 18 phrase in parentheses.  BUT, ALL of the translations put the explanation in 18 in there.  So there is no dispute about whether it ought to be there or not, just perhaps some differences in the rule employed to decide what phrases ought to be in parentheses.  Everyone but ESV and NLT seem to have decided that "complete sentences need no parens" but ESV decided that if it is just a sort of inserted aside to the reader, whether complete or not, ought to be in parens.  Wow.  What a lot of time and energy spent on such a minor point.  However, I have gotten stumped time and again about these parens and why they are or are not there.  Perhaps now I won't have to stop and stress about it ever again!

Mel had no known genealogy.  We don't know who his parents were - that is we don't know what tribe he was from.  2022 - Therefore, his position is not based on his family.  We don't know when he was born, we are given no date for his death.  So...Melchizedek's priesthood has no beginning and no end.  It is infinite.  So is the priesthood of Jesus Christ.  This is a notable similarity between the two.  I expect the whole righteousness and peace thing also corresponds between to two...what reference is Hebrews alluding to with 7:2???  The name Jesus means "savior", because he will save his people from their sins.  Moving on....

2022 - This verse:

3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. [Heb 7:3 ESV]

Hebrews draws this parallel.  This is not something we later "interpreted", or "read into it".  Hebrews says that the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Jesus are more alike than the priesthoods of the Law and Jesus.  Apparently "older" is better. 

2024 - This verse 3 is not true of Christ.  We do know his mother, and his father, and we know fairly precisely when he was born a man.  Is Hebrews discounting these things about Jesus and making his eternity the surpassing thing about Jesus?  Or are we getting a hint here, this early in church history, of the "wholly man and wholly God" doctrine?

2024 - Vs 4 is the conclusion of the four "facts" about Mel that were just presented.  These things tell us that he was a very great man, and that is why Abraham gave him a tithe.  Then begins a comparison of the priesthood of Mel compared to the Levites - the tribe of Moses and Aaron.  Notice that Abraham "volunteered" the 10th part to Melchizedek.  The Levites receive tithes by Law.  Worshipers are required to give them tithes.  Both the Levites who receive the offerings and the ones who give the offerings are descended from Abraham.  Neither has any claim to be superior to the other, so no obligation for the non-Levites to give tithes to the Levites.  Only the Law makes this so.    The question begged then is why would Abraham the Patriarch, the father of us all, the greatest of our great, make an offering to this Melchizedek?

Hebrews then points out that it is always the lesser that gives a tithe to the superior.  Abraham gave a tenth to Melchizedek.  Therefore, Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.  The tribe of Levi was "in Abraham", in that Levi would be a descendant of Abraham.  Therefore, Levi himself, the father of the Levitical priesthood that was to come, paid a tithe to the priesthood of Melchizedek.  Remember that parallels were first drawn between Melchizedek and Christ, and now Hebrews is establishing that Melchizedek's priesthood was greater than the Levitical priesthood and SO...Christ's priesthood corresponding to Melchizedek's, is also greater than the Levitical priesthood.

2024 - So where are we going?  We are going to say that in the same way Mel was worthy to receive tithes from Abraham, Jesus is worthy to receive tithes under the New Covenant.  He is a priest of a different order, a better, higher order, who is owed tithes not because of some regulation or other in the Law, but because his is a higher priesthood than the Levitical.  The author is trying to sever the bond of obligation to the Law felt by these "nearly persuaded Jews".  They "dare not" turn their backs on the Law of Moses, because there is nothing of more esteem to a Jew than the Law of Moses.  So Hebrews is trying to "prove" that there is a HIGHER bond of obligation that ought to have priority.

2022 - Several points are made.  The Levites receive tithes not because of their superiority, but because they are priests under the Law, and the Law commands that they receive these.  No superiority of priest over person is therefore implied.  The priests and the people are equal.  Not so in the case of Melchizedek and Abraham.  There was no obligation for Abraham to tithe to him. but Abraham did, after Mel blessed him - therefore the greater blessed the lesser and the tithe acknowledged the positional relationship.

2023 - This verse:

7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. [Heb 7:7 ESV].  Should I make a big deal when I think an inferior is blessing me, and so trying to assert dominance over me in a very backwards attack.  He seems to be blessing me, yet doing so is just a statement of his own superiority?  Last night at church the speaker blessed us all at the end of his message.  Bobby Kelly often does that.  Paul does that at the end of his letters.  Is that ok?  Positionally, according to Hebrews, it is beyond dispute that the lesser is the one who should get blessed.

2024 - It is also true that it is considered a courteous greeting to meet someone and say "The Lord bless the and keep thee", and they might reply "And you also".  This is not about dominance...and yet...

2022 - This key verse:

8 In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. [Heb 7:8 ESV]

We saw parallels between Christ and Mel, now we see contrasts between the Levites and Mel.  The Levites are mortal men, receiving tithes because of who they are, their lineage, and the Law.  But Mel received it because Abraham recognized him as Priest of God forever, just as Christ was going to be.  MSB note says it means the Levitical priesthood "changes" as the priests, each in turn, die and are replaced.  But since the death if Mel is not recorded anywhere, his priesthood does not change in this way.

Another MSB note, on 7:9,10, points out that in the same way Levi paid homage to Mel in that he was "in the loins" of Abraham when he paid, so we all sinned against God in that we were all "in the loins" of Adam when he sinned.  The Levitical priesthood, being inferior, paid tithes to Mel because his priesthood was superior to theirs.  This seems to me to be going WAY out there.  And though I understand what they're saying, I'm having trouble understanding why it is such a big deal.

Next argument:  If the Levitical priesthood had been sufficient, why would Jesus have come - not as a Levite - but as Melchizedek?  But did he?  Jesus' genealogy back to Adam is in scripture.  Or...are we saying that since God is his father, he has no beginning, no genealogy?  The NT genealogies are those of Joseph on one hand and of Mary on the other.  But Jesus was the Son of God.  So in this sense, Jesus "pre-dated" genealogy.

2022 - Having established the parallel's of Mel and Christ, and stating outright that Jesus is priest on the order or Melchizedek, the question is, why was he even needed?  I ask why this question if we have just gone to so much trouble to establish that the priesthood of Mel was superior to that of the Levites.  We've already answered this question. And keep in mind that MSB says chapter 7 is THE chapter in Hebrews.

2024 - Vs 11 is the fork in the road, the question that arises based on the logic that has gone before:

11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? [Heb 7:11 ESV]. 

Another salvo at the superiority of the Law as the ultimate.  The Levitical priesthood, in Abraham, had paid homage to Mel, and so showed that Mel's version of priesthood was better - and a predecessor - than their own.  If we are to "stay with" the Levitical priesthood, it should be based on the ability of that priesthood to make us perfect before God.  But...We have already seen that there was previously a BETTER, and we know further that in Psa 110.4, the promised Messiah will be a priest - NOT like the Levites - but like the OLDER, BETTER order of Melchizedek.  If the Law and its priests could get there, why did the Messiah come as a priest of a different order!?!?!?  This is awesome!

2022 - I have a note in my Bible saying that some see Mel as the pre-incarnate Christ.  I have a really hard time with that view though...He could not have been flesh, yet to be King of Salem he would have had to live a life.  Doesn't that preempt, sort of, the incarnation in Bethlehem?

Requirements changed when the priesthood went from Mel to Levi.  Wouldn't it also change when it went from Levi to Jesus?  Further point is made that Jesus is descended from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never made Judah a source of any priesthood.  This is the point, not my point about pre-existing above.  Jesus was from a tribe external to any  priesthood the Law ever established.

2024 - How could even a devout Jew argue this?  The "requirements" change when the order of the priesthood changes.  This is NOT about getting a new high priest, it is about getting a NEW ORDER of priest.  The writer has shown we went from Mel to Levi...AND now he has show that we will go from Levi BACK to Mel!  The Law CAME with the Levitical priesthood, wouldn't the Law also GO when the Messiah - a priest of a different order, that of Melchizedek - arrived?  The Law should fall with the supercession of a BETTER high priest!

Then to drive the point home, Hebrews quotes Psa 110:4, which is a prophecy of the Messiah, and says he is after the Order of Melchizedek.  This is why all this is important, though only two references to Mel are in the OT.  One tells of his superiority over Abraham and Levi, and the other says the Messiah will be like THIS priest, NOT like the Levitical priesthood.  He is a "clean break" from the Law of Moses, abolishing that Law, and with it the Levitical priesthood entirely.  With the priests, so also went the sacrifices.  (So then how will the sacrifices come back in the Millennial????)

2022 - This verse:

16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." [Heb 7:16-17 ESV]

Jesus earned the title of priest after Mel by his sinless life.  And he is declared by God to have earned that same title.  And the point of that is that the Law was too weak to perfect anything at all - and had to be oft-repeated - but Christ, like Mel, is a once for all priest.

Another difference, from the same verse in Psalms, is that God swore the priesthood of the Messiah would last forever.  The Levites became priests by birthright, not by divine oath.  They were priests under the power of the law.  Jesus, as Messiah, was a priest because God swore he would be a priest forever. 

2024 - Oh my!  Vss 18-19!:

18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. [Heb 7:18-19 ESV].  The final blow to the Law.  The Law COULD NOT perfect, so wouldn't we set it aside upon the arrival of "a better hope"!!!

2022 - These verses:

21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'" 22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. [Heb 7:21-22 ESV]

Eternal priesthood was an expected characteristic of the Messiah because of this verse.  Hmm...There was a precedent for eternal priesthood.  Eternal priesthood is superior, as evidenced by the payment of tithes by Levi to Mel.  Since the priest is superior, the covenant which he represents is also superior.  Therefore, following the Messiah is a far better thing than continuing in the Law.  This is what the writer is trying to convey to his audience - to "get them over the hump" of leaving the Law behind for something far better than the  Law.

This is all now summarized in this short verse:

22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. [Heb 7:22 ESV]

Levitical priests died, and had to be replaced.  So that covenant had many priests (over time).  The Messiah is permanently the high priest, is never replaced, and "saves to the uttermost" since he always lives to make intercession for us.

This verse:

27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. [Heb 7:27 ESV]

Here is equivalence of the priest, as both the one who sacrifices, and the sacrifice.  The priest lives forever, the sacrifice is perfect.  This is what the OT Law of Moses symbolized - the coming of this perfection.

2022 - This verse:

28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. [Heb 7:28 ESV]

This puts one more argument forward.  The Law came, but AFTER that, in Psalms, God made it clear that a better priesthood was coming, when He swore that Messiah would be a priest forever.  Why would God say that unless the Levitical was so insufficient as to require replacement.  It means that Jesus had to become the High Priest and the better covenant.  The Law must be, should be, and was always going to be abrogated in favor of something better.  To Jews, this was justification for leaving the Law behind.  It also is a great argument for presentation at the Jerusalem council when they were deciding whether to make the Law binding on Gentiles.  Why should it be?  It is an inferior thing to Christ.  Perhaps Hebrews was written well after that council, and it should have been a death knell to the Judaizers for the next hundreds of years.  Yet they seem to have persisted.