A verse by verse commentary on Hebrews chapter 7.

1. HEBREWS 7 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
1.ROGER HAHN, “Hebrews 7 is the center of the book of Hebrews. Not only are there
six chapters both before and after chapter 7, but it also presents the central argument
of the book. The author was attempting to convince his Jewish Christian readers not to
abandon their faith in Christ. In a variety of ways he argued Christ's superiority to the
important persons and concepts of Judaism.
The central point in his argument was that Jesus was a better priest than any that could
be provided by Judaism. The key support to that argument was that Jesus was a priest
according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:1-25 had argued the superiority of
Melchizedek to the Jewish priests.
However, in Hebrews 7:26-28 the author introduces another aspect of Christ's
priesthood that is different from both the Aaronic priesthood of Judaism and from
Melchizedek. That unique aspect was the sinless character of Jesus.
The superiority of Jesus as high priest had several important implications in the mind
of the author. As a better high priest Jesus performed a better ministry, a concept
developed in Hebrews 8:1-5, and was the mediator of a better covenant, as Hebrews
8:6-13 argues. Both paragraphs are structured in a similar way. Hebrews 8:1-2
introduces Jesus' new ministry and verses 3-5 then contrast that new ministry with the
old ministry of the Jewish priests. Hebrews 8:6 introduces the new covenant and then
verses 7-13 contrast the new covenant with the old covenant. The author then argues
the superiority of the new covenant that is provided by Christ in Hebrews 9:1-10:18.
The superior new covenant is provided by the superior priest, Jesus, and provides
superior access to God in worship.
2. WILLIAM KELLY,
The apostle now resumes his great theme, Christ called a Priest of God for ever after the order of
Melchisedec. He alludes, in the beginning of our chapter, to the historical facts of Genesis. We must bear
in mind that Melchisedec was a man like any other. There, is no ground, in my judgment, for the thought
of anything mysterious in the facts as to his person. The manner in which scripture introduces him is such
as to furnish a very striking type of Christ. There is no necessity for considering anything else, but that the
Spirit of God, forecasting the future, was pleased to conceal the line of Melchisedec's parentage, or
descendants if any, of their birth or death. He is suddenly ushered upon the scene. He has not been of by
the reader before; he is never heard of again in history. Thus the only time when he comes into notice he
is acting in the double capacity here spoken of: King of righteousness as to his name, King of Salem as to
his place, blessing Abraham on his return from the victory over the kings of the Gentiles in the name of
the Most High God, and blessing the Most High God the possessor of heaven earth in the name of

2. Abraham.
The apostle does not dwell on the detailed application of His Melchisedec priesthood, as to the object and
character of its exercise. He does not draw attention here to the account, that there was only blessing
from man to God, and from God to man. He does not reason from the singular circumstance that there
was no incense, any more than sacrifice. He alludes to several facts, but leaves them. The point to which
he directs the reader is the evident and surpassing dignity of the case — the unity too of the Priest and
the priesthood; and this for an obvious reason.
The time for the proper exercise of the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ is not yet arrived. The millennial
day will see this. The battle which Abraham fought, the first recorded one in scripture, is the type of the
last battle of this age. It is the conflict which introduces the reign of peace founded on righteousness,
when God will manifest Himself as the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth. This is, as is well
known, the special characteristic of the millennium. Heaven and earth have not been united, nor have
they been in fact possessed for the blessing of man by the power of God, since sin severed between the
earth and that which is above it, and the prince of the power of the air perverted all, so that what should
have been, according to God's nature and counsels, the source of every blessing, became rather the
point from which the guilty conscience of man cannot but look for judgment. Heaven, therefore, by man's
own conviction, must be arrayed in justice against earth because of sin, But the day is coming when
Israel shall be no more rebellious, and the nations shall be no longer deceived, and Satan shall be
dethroned from his bad eminence, and all idols shall flee apace, and God shall be left the undisputed and
evidently Most High, the possessor of heaven and earth. In that day it will be the joy of Him who is the
true Melchisedec, to bring out not the mere signs, but the reality of all that can be the stay and comfort of
man, and all that sustains and cheers, the patent proof of the beneficent might of God, when "no good
thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly."
But meanwhile, confessedly, the Spirit of God directs attention, not to the exercise, but to the order of the
Melchisedec Priest. If we have to wait for the exercise at a future day, the order is as true and plain now
as it ever can be. Indeed, at no time will its order be more apparent than at present; for I think there can
be little doubt to any unbiassed Christian who enters with intelligence into the Old Testament prophecies,
that there is yet to be an earthly sanctuary, and, consequently, earthly priests and sacrifices for Israel in
their own land; that the sons of Zadok, as Ezekiel lets us know, will perpetuate the line at the time when
the Lord shall be owned to be there, in the person of the true David their King, blessing His people long
distressed but now joyful on earth. But this time is not yet come. There is nothing to divert the heart from
Christ, the great High Priest in the heavens. No doubt all will be good and right in its due season then.
Meanwhile Christianity gives the utmost force to every type and truth of God. The undivided place of
Christ is more fully witnessed now, when there are no others to occupy the thought or to distract the heart
from Him as seen by faith in glory on high.
Hence the apostle applies the type distinctly now, as far as the "order" of the priesthood goes. We hear
first of Melchisedec (King of righteousness), next of Salem or peace; without father, without mother,
without genealogy. Unlike others in Genesis, neither parents are recorded, nor is there any hint of
descent from him. In short, there is. no mention of family or ancestors, "having neither beginning of days,
nor end of life" — neither is recorded in scripture; — "but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest
continually."
The next point proved is the indisputable superiority of the Melchisedec priesthood to that of Aaron, of
which the Jews naturally boasted. After all, the telling fact was before them that, whoever wrote the
epistle to the Hebrews, it was not a Christian who wrote the book of Genesis, but Moses; and Moses
bears witness to the homage which Abram rendered to Melchisedec by the payment of tithes. On the
other hand, the priests, Aaron's family, among the sons of Levi, "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."
Thus Melchisedec, "whose descent is not of Aaron nor of Levi," like Jesus, "received tithes of Abraham,
and blessed him that had the promises!" "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better."
No argument could be more distinct or conclusive. The other descendants of Abraham honoured the
house of Aaron as Levitical priests; but Abraham himself, and so Levi himself, and of course Aaron, in his

3. loins honoured Melchisedec. Thus another and a higher priesthood was incontestably acknowledged by
the father of the faithful. "And, as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."
This leads to another point; for the change of the priesthood imports a change of the law. "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?" This change was clearly taught in the book of Psalms. It was not only that there had been at
the beginning such a priest, but that fact became the form of a glorious anticipation which the Holy Ghost
holds out for the latter day. Psalm 110, which, as all the Jews owned, spoke., throughout its greater part
at least, of the Messiah and His times, shows us Jehovah Himself — by an oath, which is afterwards
reasoned on — signifying that another priest should arise after a different order from that of Aaron. "The
priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these
things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is
evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And
it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest." Thus the
Pentateuch and the Psalms bore their double testimony to a Priest superior to the Aaronic.
Further, that this Priest was to be a living one, in some most singular manner to be an undying Priest,
was made evident beyond question, because in that Psalm it is said, "He testifieth, Thou art a priest for
ever after the order of Melchisedec." This was also a grand point of distinction. Where could they find
such a Priest? where one competent to take up that word "for ever"? Such was the Priest of whom God
spoke. "For," says he, "there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness
and unprofitableness thereof (for the law made nothing perfect)." He uses in the most skilful manner the
change of the priest, in order to bring along with it a change of the law, the whole Levitical system passing
away — "but [there is] the bringing in of a better hope." Such is the true sense of the passage. "For the
law made nothing perfect" is a parenthesis. By that hope, then, "we draw nigh unto God."
But again the solemn notice of Jehovah's oath is enlarged on. "Inasmuch as not without an oath he was
made priest: (for those priests were made without an oath" — no oath ushers in the sons of Aaron — "but
he with an oath by him that said as to him, The Lord sware and will — not repent, Thou art a priest for
ever after the order of Melchisedec:) by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant."
And, finally, he sums up the superiority of Christ in this, that "they truly were many priests, because they
were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but he, because of his continuing for ever, hath the
priesthood intransmissible." There was but one such Priest.
In every point of view, therefore, the superiority of the Melchisedec priest was demonstrated over the line
of Aaron. The fulfilment of the Melchisedec Order is found in Christ, and in Him alone. The Jews
themselves acknowledge that Psalm 110 must be fulfilled in Christ, in His quality of Messiah. Nothing but
stupid, obstinate, unbelieving prejudice, after the appearance of the Lord Jesus, could have suggested
any other application of the Psalm. Before Jesus came, there was no question of it among the Jews. So
little was it a question, that our Lord could appeal to its acknowledged meaning, and press the difficulty
His person created for unbelief. By their own confession the application of that Psalm was to the Messiah,
and the very point that Jesus urged upon the Jews of His day was this — how, if He were David's Son, as
they agreed, could He be his Lord, as the Psalmist David confesses? This shows that, beyond question,
among the Jews of that day, Psalm 110 was understood to refer to the Christ alone. But if so, He was the
Priest after the order of Melchisedec, as well as seated at Jehovah's right hand — a cardinal truth of
Christianity, the import of which the Jews did not receive in their conception of the Messiah. Hence
throughout this epistle the utmost stress is laid on His being exalted in heaven — Yet there was no
excuse for a difficulty on this score. Their own Psalm, in its grand prophetic sweep, and looking back on
the law, pointed to the place in which Christ is now seated above; and where it is of necessity He should
be, in order to give Christianity its heavenly character.
The doctrine follows: "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost." He does not mean by this
the worst of sinners, but saving believers to the uttermost, bringing through every difficulty those "that

4. come unto God by him." A priest is always in connection with the people of God, never as such with those
that are outside, but a positive known relation with God — "seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
made higher than the heavens." This statement is so much the more remarkable, because in the
beginning of this epistle he had pointed out what became God. It 'became Him that Christ should suffer. It
became us to have a Priest, "holy, harmless, undefiled, made higher than the heavens."
What infinite thoughts are those that God's word gives; as glorifying for Himself as elevating for our souls!
Yet who beforehand would have anticipated either? It became God that Christ should go down to the
uttermost; it became us that He should be exalted to the highest. And why? Because Christians are a
heavenly people, and none but a heavenly Priest would suit them. It became God to give Him to die; for
such was our estate by sin that nothing short of His atoning death could deliver us; but, having delivered
us, God would make us to be heavenly. None but a heavenly Priest would suffice for the counsels He has
in hand. "Who needeth not daily," therefore says He, "as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for
his own sins, and then for the people's." He always keeps up the evidence of the utter inferiority of the
Jewish priest, as well as of the accompanying state of things, to that of Christianity. "For this he did once,
when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath
which was since the law, a Son perfected (or consecrated) for ever." This was the very difficulty that the
Jew pleaded; but now, in point of fact, it was only what the Psalm of Messiah insisted on, the law itself
bearing witness of a priest superior to any under the law. Holy Scripture then demanded that a man
should sit down at the right hand of God. It was accomplished in Christ, exalted as the great Melchisedec
in heaven. If they were Abraham's children, and not his seed only, surely they would honour Him.
Melchizedek the Priest
1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of
God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the
defeat of the kings and blessed him,
1. BARNES, "For this Melchisedek; - compare the notes on Heb_5:6. The name
Melchizedek, from which the apostle derives a portion of his argument here, is Hebrew, ‫מלכי־צדק‬
Malkiy-Tsedeq, and is correctly explained as meaning “king of righteousness” - being
compounded of two words - “king and righteousness.” Why this name was given to this man is
unknown. Names, however, were frequently given on account of some quality or characteristic
of the man: see the notes on Isa_8:18. This name may have been given on account of his
eminent integrity. The apostle calls attention to it Heb_7:2 as a circumstance worthy of notice,
that his name, and the name of the city where he reigned, were so appropriate to one who, as a
priest, was the predecessor of the Messiah. The account of Melchizedek, which is very brief,
occurs in Gen_14:18-20. The name occurs in the Bible only in Gen. 14, Psa_110:4, and in this
Epistle. Nothing else is certainly known of him.
Grotius supposes that he is the same man who in the history of Sanchoniathon is called Συδύκ
Suduk. It has indeed been made a question by some whether such a person ever actually existed,

5. and consequently whether this be a proper name. But the account in Genesis is as simple a
historical record as any other in the Bible. In that account there is no difficulty whatever. It is
said simply that when Abraham was returning from a successful military expedition, this man,
who it seems was well known, and who was respected as a priest of God, came out to express his
approbation of what he had done, and to refresh him with bread and wine. As a tribute of
gratitude to him, and as a thank-offering to God, Abraham gave him a tenth part of the spoils
which he had taken. Such an occurrence was by no means improbable, nor would it have been
attended with any special difficulty if it had not been for the use which the apostle makes of it in
this Epistle. Yet on no subject has there been a greater variety of opinion than in regard to this
man.
The bare recital of the opinions which have been entertained of him would fill a volume. But
in a case which “seems” to be plain from the Scripture narrative, it is not necessary even to
enumerate these opinions. They only serve to show how easy it is for people to mystify a clear
statement of history, and how fond they are of finding what is mysterious and marvelous in the
plainest narrative of facts. That he was Shem, as the Jews suppose, or that he was the Son of God
himself, as many Christian expositors have maintained, there is not the slightest evidence. That
the latter opinion is false is perfectly clear - for if he were the Son of God, with what propriety
could the apostle say that he “was made like the Son of God” Heb_7:3; that is, like himself; or
that Christ was constituted a priest “after the order of Melchisedek;” that is, that he was a type of
himself? The most simple and probable opinion is that given by Josephus, that he was a pious
Canaanitish prince; a personage eminently endowed by God, and who acted as the priest of his
people.
That he combined in himself the offices of priest and king, furnished to the apostle a beautiful
illustration of the offices sustained by the Redeemer, and was in this respect, perhaps, the only
one whose history is recorded in the Old Testament, who would furnish such an illustration.
That his genealogy was not recorded, while that of every other priest mentioned was so carefully
traced and preserved, furnished another striking illustration. In this respect, like the Son of God,
he stood alone. He was not in a “line” of priests; he was preceded by no one in the sacerdotal
office, nor was he followed by any. That he was superior to Abraham. and consequently to all
who descended from Abraham; that a tribute was rendered to him by the great Ancestor of all
the fraternity of Jewish priests was just an illustration which suited the purpose of Paul. His
name, therefore, the place where he reigned, his solitariness, his lone conspicuity in all the past,
his dignity, and perhaps the air of mystery thrown over him in the brief history in Genesis,
furnished a beautiful and striking illustration of the solitary grandeur, and the inapproachable
eminence of the priesthood of the Son of God. There is no evidence that Melchizedek was
“designed” to be a type of the Messiah, or that Abraham so understood it, Nothing of this kind is
affirmed; and how shall “we” affirm it when the sacred oracles are silent?
(Doubtless great care and sobriety are requisite in the interpretation of types, and we admire
the caution that, in every instance, demands the authority of Scripture, expressed or distinctly
implied. From want of this caution, the greatest extravagancies have been committed, the most
fanciful analogies established, where none were intended, and every minute circumstance in the
Old Testament exalted into a type of something in the New. The very boards and nails of the
tabernacle of Moses have been thus exalted.
Yet in our just aversion to one extreme, it is possible we may run into another. Of the typical
character of Melchizedek, we had thought no doubt could be entertained. The canon of typical
interpretation, indeed, demands, that in order to constitute the relation between type and
antitype, there be, in addition to mere resemblance, “precious design,” and “pre-ordained
connection.” And the commentary affirms, that “there is no evidence, that Melchizedek was
designed to be a type of the Messiah, or that Abraham so understood it.” Let it be observed in
reply, that in the Psa_110:1 Psalm the typical character of Melchizedek “seems” expressly

6. acknowledged. It may be alleged, that the prophet simply states resemblance, without affirming
that such resemblance was designed or intended. But that a prophet should be commissioned to
declare, that Christ’s priesthood should be “after such an order,” and yet that in the institution of
that exalted order there should have been no designed reference to Christ, is improbable.
The prediction seems to involve the original design. And this order of priesthood, too, is far
superior to that of Aaron, the typical character of which is admitted. Moreover, the last clause of
verse third, in this chapter, according to our English translation as a designed connection.
Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God.” The translation is accurate. ᅒφοµοιωµενος
Aphomoiomenos, according to Parkhurst, is “made very like.” So also Scott: “The composition is
probably intended to add energy; made very like.” And Bloomfield adopts, “being made by the
divine decree a type of that great High Priest, who, &c,;” see the notes in Greek Testament.
Lastly, on any other principle than that of “designed” typical relation, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to give any just account of the remarkable omissions, the apparently studied silence,
in the history of Melchizedek, in regard to those things that are commonly related in notices of
lives, however brief.
He is introduced to us with an air of impenetrable mystery. He appears on the stage as Priest
of the most High God, and then disappears, leaving us in complete darkness concerning his
birth, parentage, and death. “In all these respects,” says Mr. Scott, “the silence of the Scripture is
intentional and refers to the great antitype.” Melchizedek, therefore, we may remark, seems not
only to have been designed as a type, but “special care” has been taken, that the record of him
should be in all things suited to that design. That the apostle lighted on a happy coincidence,
deserving of a passing thought, is not probable, whether this remark be meant to apply to the
name, or to other particulars in this remarkable story. Indeed, divest it of its designed typical
character, and the grandeur of the passage vanishes. A simple resemblance has been discovered
between Christ and a certain character in the old Testament. This is all the apostle means to
affirm! And for this too, he introduces Melchizedek, with such wondrous caution in Heb_5:11;
“Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, but ye are dull of hearing.” What
was hard to be uttered, or difficult to be comprehended about a mere “illustration,” or
“resemblance?”
The following remarks of Owen are pertinent and beautiful. “The true cause of all these
omissions was the same with that of the institution of his (Melchizedek’s) priesthood, and the
introduction of his person into the story. And this was, that he might he the more express and
signal representative of the Lord Christ in his priesthood. And we may herein consider the
sovereign wisdom of the Holy Spirit in bringing forth truth unto light, according as the state and
condition of the church doth require. And first he prophesieth only a naked story of a person
that was a type of Christ. Something the people of the age wherein he lived, might learn by his
ministrations, but not much. For what was principally instructive in him, for the use of the
church, was not of force until all his circumstances were forgotten. Yea, the contrivance of any
tradition concerning his parents, birth, and death, had been contrary to the mind of God, and
what instruction he intended the church by him.
Afterward, when, it may be, all thoughts of any use or design in this story were lost, and the
church was fully satisfied in a priesthood quite of another nature, the Holy Spirit in one word of
prophecy instructs her, not only that the things spoken concerning Melchizedek were not so
recorded for his own sake, or on his own account, but with respect to another priest, which was
afterward to arise, by him represented. This gave a new consideration to the whole story; but
moreover gave the church to know, that the priesthood, which it then had, was not always to
continue, but that one of another nature was to be introduced, as was signified long before the
institution of that priesthood which they enjoyed, Psa_110:4. Yet the church was left greatly in
the dark, and, at the coming of our Saviour, had utterly lost all knowledge of the mystery of the

7. type, and the promise renewed in the Psalm. Wherefore, our apostle entering on the unfolding of
this mystery, doth not only preface it with an assertion of its difficulty, but also by a long
previous discourse, variously prepareth their minds to a most diligent attention.”
The excellence of this quotation will, in the reader’s estimation, excuse the length of it. On the
whole, he who reflects how all things in the ancient economy were ordered of God, and how
great a part of that economy was meant to adumbrate the realities of the gospel, while he will be
cautious in admitting typical analogies of a doubtful kind, will be slow to believe that the
resemblance between Christ’s priesthood, and that of the “most” exalted order previously
instituted, is casual, or undesigned - slow to believe, that the apostle would make so large use of
such accidental analogy, and found on it an argument so great.)
King of Salem - Such is the record in Gen_14:18. The word “Salem” - ‫שׁלם‬ shalem - means
“peace;” and from this fact the apostle derives his illustration in Heb_7:2. He regards it as a fact
worth remarking on, that the “name” of the place over which he ruled expressed so strikingly the
nature of the kingdom over which the Messiah was placed. In regard to the “place” here denoted
by the name “Salem,” the almost uniform opinion has been that it was that afterward known as
Jerusalem. The reasons for this opinion are,
(1) That it is a part of the name Jerusalem itself - the name “Jerus,” altered from “Jebus,”
having been afterward added, because it was the residence of the “Jebusites.”
(2) The name “Salem” is itself given to Jerusalem; Psa_76:2, “In Salem also is his tabernacle,
and his dwelling place in Zion.”
(3) Jerusalem would be in the direction through which Abraham would naturally pass on his
return from the slaughter of the kings. He had pursued them unto Dan Gen_14:14, and he
was returning to Mamre, that is, Hebron; Gen_14:13, on his return, therefore, he would
pass in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
Rosenmuller, however, supposes that by the name here, Jerusalem is not intended, but the
whole region occupied by the Jebusites and Hittites, or the royal seat of this region, situated not
far from the cities of the plain - the vale of Siddim where Sodom and Gomorrah were situated.
But I see no reason for doubting that the common opinion that Jerusalem is intended, is correct.
That place was favorably situated for a capital of a nation or tribe; was easily fortified; and
would be likely to be early selected as a royal residence.
Priest of the most high God - This is the account which is given of him in Gen_14:18. The
leading office of “priest” was to offer sacrifice. This duty was probably first performed by the
father of the family (compare the notes on Job_1:5; see also Gen_8:20; Gen_22:2), and when he
was dead it devolved on the oldest son. It would seem also that in the early ages, among all
nations whose records have reached us, the office of priest and king were united in the same
person. It was long before it was found that the interests of religion would be promoted by
having the office of priest pertain to an order of men set apart for this special work. That
Melchizedek, who was a king, should also be a priest, was not, therefore, remarkable. The only
thing remarkable is, that be should have been a priest “of the true God.” In what way he became
acquainted with Him, is wholly unknown. It may have been by tradition preserved from the
times of Noah, as it is possible that the arrival of Abraham in that land may have been in some
way the means of acquainting him with the existence and character of Jehovah. The “fact” shows
at least that the knowledge of the true God was not extinct in the world.
Who met Abraham - He came out to meet him, and brought with him bread and wine.
“Why” he did this, is not mentioned. It was probably as an expression of gratitude to Abraham
for having freed the country from oppressive and troublesome invaders, and in order to furnish
refreshments to the party which Abraham headed who had become weary and exhausted with
the pursuit. There is not the slightest evidence that the bread and wine which he brought forth
was designed to typify the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as has been sometimes supposed;

8. compare Bush on Gen_14:18. What did he know of this ordinance? And why should we resort to
such a supposition, when the whole case may be met by a simple reference to the ancient rites of
hospitality, and by the fact that the deliverance of the country by Abraham from a grievous
invasion made some expression of gratitude on the part of this pious king in the highest degree
proper?
Returning from the slaughter of the kings - Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of
Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and “Tidal, king of nations,” who had invaded the valley
where Sodom and Gomorrah were, and had departed with a great amount of booty. Those kings
Abraham had pursued beyond Dan, and to the neighborhood of Damascus, and had smitten
them, and recovered the spoil.
And blessed him - For the important service which he had rendered in taking vengeance on
these invaders; in freeing the land from the apprehension of being invaded again; and in
recovering the valuable booty which they had taken away. From Heb_7:6-7, it appears that this
act of “blessing” was regarded as that of one who was superior to Abraham. That is, he blessed
him as a priest and a king. As such he was superior in rank to Abraham, who never claimed the
title of “king,” and who is not spoken of as a “priest.”
2. CLARKE, "For this Melchisedec, king of Salem - See the whole of this history
largely explained in the notes, See Gen_14:18 (note), etc., and the concluding observations at the
end of that chapter.
The name Melchisedec, ‫מלכי‬‫צדק‬ is thus expounded in Bereshith Rabba, sec. 43, fol. 42, ‫מצדיק‬
‫את‬‫יושביו‬ 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 Jos_20:7. St. Jerome was of this opinion.
3. GILL, "For this Melchisedec, king of Salem,.... Various have been the opinions of
writers concerning Melchizedek; some have thought him to be more than a man; some, that he
was an angel; others, that he was the Holy Ghost; and others, that he was a divine person
superior to Christ, which needs no refutation; others have supposed that he was the Son of God
himself: but he is expressly said to be like unto him, and Christ is said to be of his order; which
manifestly distinguish the one from the other; besides, there is nothing said of Melchizedek
which proves him to be more than a man: accordingly others take him to have been a mere man;
but these are divided; some say that he was Shem, the son of Noah, which is the constant
opinion of the Jewish writers (z): but it is not true of him, that he was without father, and
without mother, an account of his descent being given in Scripture; nor is it probable that he
should be a king of a single city in Ham's country, and Abraham be a stranger there: others say,
that he was a Canaanitish king, of the posterity of Ham; others affirm him to be a perfect sinless
man, and that all that is said of him in Genesis, and in this context, is literally true of him; but
that he should be immediately created by God, as Adam, and be without sin as he, are things
entirely without any foundation: others take him to be a mere man, but an extraordinary one,
eminently raised up by God to be a type of the Messiah; and think it most proper not to inquire
curiously who he was, since the Scripture is silent concerning his genealogy and descent; and
that as it should seem on purpose, that he might be a more full and fit type of Christ; and this
sense appears best and safest. Aben Ezra says, his name signifies what he was, the king of a

9. righteous place: Salem, of which he was king, was not Shalem, a city of Shechem, in the land of
Canaan, Gen_33:18 afterwards called Salim, near to which John was baptizing, Joh_3:23 where
is shown the palace of Melchizedek in its ruins, which cannot be, since that city was laid to the
ground, and sowed with salt by Abimelech, Jdg_9:45 but Jerusalem is the place; which is the
constant opinion of the Jews (a), and is called Salem in Psa_86:2. The interpretation of this
word is given in the next verse; some of the Jewish writers referred to say, that it was usual for
the kings of Jerusalem to be called Melchizedek and Adonizedek, as in Jos_10:3 just as the kings
of Egypt were called Pharaoh. This king was also
priest of the most high God, as he is said to be, Gen_14:18 for he was both king and priest,
in which he was an eminent type of Christ; and his being a king is no objection to his being a
priest, since it was usual for kings to be priests; and though the Hebrew word "Cohen"
sometimes signifies a prince, it cannot be so understood here, not only because the word is
rendered "priest" by the Septuagint, and by the apostle, but because he is called the priest of
God; and Christ is said to be of his order: and he is styled the priest of God, because he was
called and invested by him with this office, and was employed in his service; who is said to be
the most high God, from his dwelling on high, and from his superior power to all others, and to
distinguish him from idol gods; this is a character of great honour given to Melchizedek;
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings; the four kings, whose
names are mentioned in Gen_14:1 whom Abraham slew, and over whom he got an entire
victory, with only three hundred and eighteen men of his own house, after they had conquered
the kings of Sodom, Gomorrha, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela: which shows that war is lawful; that
enemies may be slain in war; that kings may fall as well as other men; and that those who have
conquered others, may be conquered themselves: and as he was returning with his spoils,
Melchizedek met him; not alone, which is not to be supposed of so great a person; nor empty,
for he brought with him bread and wine, not for sacrifice, as the Papists would have it; but as
Jarchi, a Jewish interpreter on the place observes, they used to do so to such as were fatigued in
war; for this is to be considered as a neighbourly action, done in point of interest and gratitude,
and was a truly Christian one, and very laudable and commendable; and doubtless had
something in it typical of Christ, who gives to hungry and weary saints the bread of life, and
refreshes them with the wine of divine love and grace:
and blessed him; Abraham, and the most high God also: the form of blessing both is recorded
in Gen_14:19. This was not a mere civil salutation, nor only a congratulation upon his success,
nor only a return of thanks for victory, though these things are included; nor did he do this as a
private person, but as the priest of the most high God, and blessed him in his name
authoritatively, as the high priest among the Jews afterwards did, Num_6:23 and in this he was
a type of Christ, who blesses his people with all spiritual blessings, with redemption,
justification, pardon, peace, and all grace, and with eternal glory.
(Gill changed his mind on the location of Salam when he later wrote the Old Testament portion
of the Expositor. See Gill on Gen_14:18. Ed.)
4. HENRY, "The foregoing chapter ended with a repetition of what had been cited once and
again before out of Psa_110:4, Jesus, a high priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. Now
this chapter is as a sermon upon that text; here the apostle sets before them some of the strong
meat he had spoken of before, hoping they would by greater diligence be better prepared to
digest it.
I. The great question that first offers itself is, Who was this Melchisedec? All the account we
have of him in the Old Testament is in Gen_14:18, etc., and in Psa_110:4. Indeed we are much in

10. the dark about him; God has thought fit to leave us so, that this Melchisedec might be a more
lively type of him whose generation none can declare. If men will not be satisfied with what is
revealed, they must rove about in the dark in endless conjectures, some fancying him to have
been an angel, others the Holy Ghost; but,
1. The opinions concerning him that are best worthy our consideration are these three: - (1.)
Therabbin, and most of the Jewish writers, think he was Shem the son of Noah who was king
and priest to their ancestors, after the manner of the other patriarchs; but it is not probable that
he should thus change his name. Besides, we have no account of his settling in the land of
Canaan. (2.) Many Christian writers have thought him to be Jesus Christ himself, appearing by a
special dispensation and privilege to Abraham in the flesh, and who was known to Abraham by
the name Melchisedec, which agrees very well to Christ, and to what is said, Joh_8:56, Abraham
saw his day and rejoiced. Much may be said for this opinion, and what is said in Heb_7:3 does
not seem to agree with any mere man; but then it seems strange to make Christ a type of
himself. (3.) The most general opinion is that he was a Canaanite king, who reigned in Salem,
and kept up religion and the worship of the true God; that he was raised to be a type of Christ,
and was honoured by Abraham as such.
2. But we shall leave these conjectures, and labour to understand, as far as we can, what is here
said of him by the apostle, and how Christ is represented thereby, Heb_7:1-3. (1.) Melchisedec
was a king, and so is the Lord Jesus - a king of God's anointing; the government is laid upon his
shoulders, and he rules over all for the good of his people. (2.) That he was king of
righteousness: his name signifies the righteous king. Jesus Christ is a rightful and a righteous
king - rightful in his title, righteous in his government. He is the Lord our righteousness; he has
fulfilled all righteousness, and brought in an everlasting righteousness, and he loves
righteousness and righteous persons, and hates iniquity. (3.) He was king of Salem, that is, king
of peace; first king of righteousness, and after that king of peace. So is our Lord Jesus; he by his
righteousness made peace, the fruit of righteousness is peace. Christ speaks peace, creates
peace, is our peace-maker. (4.) He was priest of the most high God, qualified and anointed in an
extraordinary manner to be his priest among the Gentiles. So is the Lord Jesus; he is the priest
of the most high God, and the Gentiles must come to God by him; it is only through his
priesthood that we can obtain reconciliation and remission of sin. (5.) He was without father,
without mother, without descent, having
5. JAMISON, "Heb_7:1-28. Christ’s High Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec
superior to Aaron’s.
this Melchisedec — (Heb_6:20; Psa_110:4). The verb does not come till Heb_7:3,
“abideth.”
king ... priest — Christ unites these offices in their highest sense, and so restores the
patriarchal union of these offices.
Salem — Jerusalem, that is, seeing peace; others make Salem distinct, and to be that
mentioned (Gen_33:18; Joh_3:23).
the most high God — called also “Possessor of heaven and earth” (Gen_14:19, Gen_14:22).
This title of God, “the Most High,” handed down by tradition from the primitive revelation,
appears in the Phoenician god “Elion,” that is, Most High. It is used to imply that the God whom
Melchisedec served is THE TRUE GOD, and not one of the gods of the nations around. So it is
used in the only other cases in which it is found in the New Testament, namely in the address of
the demoniac, and the divining damsel constrained to confess that her own gods were false, and
God the only true God.
who met Abraham — in company with the king of Sodom (Gen_14:17, Gen_14:18).

11. slaughter — perhaps defeat, as Alford translates. So Gen_14:17 (compare Gen_14:15) may be
translated. Arioch, king of Ellasar, lived and reigned after the disaster [Bengel]. However, if
Chedorlaomer and Amraphel and Tidal were slain, though Arioch survived, “slaughter of the
kings” would be correct.
blessed him — As priest he first blessed Abraham on God’s part; next he blessed God on
Abraham’s part: a reciprocal blessing. Not a mere wish, but an authoritative and efficacious
intercession as a priest. The Most High God’s prerogative as “Possessor of heaven and earth,” is
made over to Abraham; and Abraham’s glory, from his victory over the foe, is made over to God.
A blessed exchange for Abraham (Gen_14:19, Gen_14:20).
5B. Wayne Jackson, M.A., “The science of archaeology has been a multiple benefactor to the
Bible student. It has helped to clarify some passages that heretofore
may have been a bit obscure. Too, this discipline frequently has shown
that the biblical record bears the marks of genuine history.
After Abraham settled in Hebron, and Lot, his nephew, pitched his
tent in the vicinity of Sodom, a confederation of Mesopotamian kings
invaded the region of Sodom and Gomorrah and took numerous captives,
among whom was Lot. The Genesis record reveals that when Abraham
heard of the tragedy, he and 318 servants from his household pursued
the hostile eastward-bound armies. The patriarch attacked the pagan
forces and rescued his nephew, taking considerable booty in the
process (Genesis 14:1ff.). The accuracy of the biblical record has been
questioned in several particulars.
First, the historicity of the names of the opposing kings (Anuaphel,
Chedorlaomer, Arioch, and Tidal) has been disputed. However, it has
been demonstrated from Mesopotamian inscriptions that these names
were common to the Tigris/Euphrates region, and that they are not “fictional
forms” (Vos, 1963, p. 69). It even has been shown that the name
“Abraham” was not novel in that ancient environment (Finegan, 1946,
p. 61). The Bible is remarkably precise.
Second, some critics have contended that there was no eastward
line of march at the time of Abraham, and thus have alleged that the
Mosaic narrative is erroneous. At one point, the famous archaeologist
W.F. Albright admitted that he “formerly considered this extraordinary
line of march as being the best proof of the essentially legendary
character of the narrative” (1935, p. 142, emp. added). Albright’s discoveries
in this region, however, forced him to revise his opinion of
the Genesis text. Professor Stephen Caiger, who was not a strictly conservative
writer, nevertheless conceded that “there seems [to be] no
reason to question a factual basis of Genesis 14” (1944, p. 34).
As Abraham returned from his victory over the eastern kings, he
encountered the mysterious Melchizedek, “King of Salem” (Jerusalem),
who was designated as both a king and priest. Abraham paid “tithes” to
the monarch and, in turn, was blessed by him. TheNewTestament makes
Melchizedek a symbol of our king and priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews
7:15). But the writer of the book of Hebrews makes a curious statement
regarding Melchizedek. He says that the ancient ruler was “without
father, without mother, without genealogy” (7:3).
Numerous speculations have surrounded this allusion. Origen, an
ancient writer (A.D. 185-253) imagined that Melchizedek was an angel.
Hierakas, toward the end of the third century A.D., thought that he
was a temporary incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Some have even suggested
that he was the pre-incarnate Logos (Christ, as depicted in John
1:1,14)—a concept contradicted by Hebrews 7:3, which notes that the
king was merely “like unto” the Son of God.
Archaeology has shed light on the enigmatic expression “without

12. father, without mother, etc.” A.H. Sayce, who served as professor of
Assyriology at Oxford, called attention to an inscription from the famous
Tell el-Amarna tablets (discovered in 1887 in Egypt). These tablets
describe the conditions of Syria and Palestine about 1400-1360 B.C.
Several of the Tell el-Amarna tablets are letters written
to the Pharaoh by Ebed-tob...the king of Uru-Salim [Jerusalem],
who begs for help against his enemies. He tells
the Pharaoh that he was not like the other Egyptian governors
in Palestine, nor had he received a crown by inheritance
from his father or mother; it had been conferred
on him by “the Mighty King...” (Sayce, 1906, 3:335).
So, observing the similarity of language, we can conclude that Melchizedek’s
kingship/priesthood had not been derived genealogically;
He had received his commission directly from God Himself. Indeed,
as the Scriptures affirm, his was an appointment “of God Most High”
(Genesis 14:18). Accordingly, by way of analogy, we are forced to affirm
that the current reign/priesthood of our Lord is a direct and divinely
authored administration.Weare grateful to archaeology for this
bit of assistance in understanding what otherwise might be perceived
as an obscure reference.
5C. UNKNOWN, “Shem and Melchizedek
Shem lived five hundred years after fathering Arkpasad, and then died at the age of six hundred (Gen. 11:10, 11).
Therefore, his death took place thirteen years after the death of Sarah (1881 B.C.) and ten years after Rebecca and Isaac
married (1878 B.C.) In that light, it has been opined that it is possible that Shem might have been Melchizedek (which
does translate to King of Righteousness), the priest-king to whom Abraham paid tithes (Gen 14: 18-20). This interpretation
was supported by Jewish midrashim.
[edit] Gnostic Revelations
A collection of early Gnostic scripts found in 1945, known as the Nag Hammadi Library, contains a tractate pertaining to
Melchizedek. Here it is revealed that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ[8]. Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies
and is resurrected.
[edit] Confusion over Melchizedek's lineage
See also: List of people who have claimed to be immortal
Hebrews 7:3 creates some confusion between denominations regarding Melchizedek's nature and background. This is how
it stands in the KJV, describing Melchizedek as:
"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."
Different denominations interpret this in vastly different ways. Some say that Melchizedek is literally like the Son of God
(or even is the Son of God) in that he has no father or mother. Others say that he has been adopted into Christ's lineage
through the Lord's suffering, [9] still others claim that the verse has been mistranslated, and that the Priesthood
Melchizedek held is what is without lineage, not Melchizedek. [10] Others claim that the verse merely represents
Melchizedek's not being a priesthood holder because of lineage (i.e. "without descent" meaning not a descendent of Levi
as required by Mosaic Law.)[11]
The Book of the Bee, a Syriac text, also offers insights contrary to Melchizedek's purported immortal nature:

13. 5D. ROGER HAHN, “The Historical Melchizedek - Hebrews 7:1-10
The author's reflections on Melchizedek as a historical person are built on the story of the
encounter between Abraham and Melchizedek found in Genesis 14:17-20. The author identifies
the basic Biblical data about Melchizedek as a priest-king in Hebrews 7:1-3. He expounds the
greatness of Melchizedek when compared to Abraham and Abraham's descendant, Levi, in
verses 4-10.
Verse 1 is an edition paraphrase from Genesis 14:18 and 20. Genesis 14 describes the invasion
by four kings from the east of the Jordan River invading the Jordan Valley and the area around
the Dead Sea. They defeated several cities, including Sodom, and carried off considerable
plunder and a number of captives, including the nephew of Abraham, Lot. When a survivor
escaped and reported the matter of Abraham he quickly formed a militia from his own servants
and from his neighbors and set out in pursuit of the invading kings. Abraham caught the four
kings near Damascus and in a surprise attack defeated them and recovered all the plunder and the
captives. As he returned the king of Sodom met him offering to let him keep all the plunder if he
would just return the captives.
In the middle of that story Melchizedek appears on the scene, served bread and wine, and
pronounced a blessing on Abraham. At that point Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the
plunder he had re-captured. At that point Melchizedek disappeared from the scene and the
conversation with the king of Sodom was resumed.
Several goals are accomplished by verse 1 for the author of Hebrews. First, he quotes from
Genesis 14:17-20 so that it is clear that he is drawing from the historical material found in
Genesis. This is a shift from his earlier references to Melchizedek as mentioned in Psalm 110:4.
However, our author only makes selective use of the Genesis 14 material. Melchizedek is first
identified as king of Salem. The reference to Salem in Genesis 14:18 is usually identified as a
reference to Jerusalem though some modern scholars believe that Shechem was the more
probable location. The author of Hebrews showed no interest in identifying Salem with
Jerusalem but he probably assumed that to be the meaning.
It is Melchizedek's role as king that was of greater interest to the author of Hebrews. The kings
of Old Testament Israel had been strictly limited in the priestly functions that they could
perform. (1 Samuel 13:12-13 provides an interesting example.) That Melchizedek was both king
and priest would not have been unusual in the Ancient Middle East. Verse 2 shows further
interest in the kingship of Melchizedek when it is noted that the Hebrew roots of Melchizedek
mean "king of righteousness." Further, the word Salem resembles the Hebrew
word shalom which means "peace." Thus the author of Hebrews can also conclude that
Melchizedek, as king of Salem was "king of peace."
The comparison of Jesus to Melchizedek who was king of both righteousness and peace would
have great potential for theological application, but the author of Hebrews made no effort to
develop such ideas. The offering of bread and wine by the historical Melchizedek would provide
an obvious connection to the Lord's Supper begun by Jesus. However, the author of Hebrews
again showed no interest in developing that potential application and did not even mention the
bread and wine.

14. The priestly actions of Melchizedek in blessing Abraham and in receiving the tithe from
Abraham are mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. Both suggest the superiority of Melchizedek to
Abraham and will be used in the argument of that superiority in verses 4-10. Bruce notes that the
author of Hebrews was as interested in what was not said about Melchizedek as he was in what
was said in Genesis 14:17-20 (Bruce, pp. 157, 159-160). Verse 3 illustrates that fact. It is an
example of the Jewish method of typological interpretation.
The statement in verse 3 that Melchizedek had no father, mother, genealogy, beginning or ending
of days is not a statement of literal fact. The author of Hebrews did not regard Melchizedek as
some biological miracle or an angel. From the reference of Genesis 14:18 one would suppose
that Melchizedek would "have belonged to a dynasty of priest-kings in which he had both
predecessors and successors" (Bruce, p. 160). The author of Hebrews would have agreed with
such a statement, but it is beside his point. Since Genesis 14:17-20 makes no mention of
Melchizedek's lineage the author will deal with him as if he had no father, mother, or genealogy.
This kind of typological interpretation is mind-boggling to some modern thinkers, but it was
typical of one of the ways Jews interpreted Scripture in the time of the New Testament. Thus, to
his readers the author is making an impressive argument from Scripture. Of course, compared to
the extensive genealogies that the Old Testament gives for the tribe of Levi and especially the
family of Aaron, the lack of a genealogy for Melchizedek is very noticeable.
The point is clear: Melchizedek was a very unusual priest. He did not inherit his priesthood. It
was given to him by appointment from God. That appointment is one point of comparison with
Christ. Another is revealed in the words without beginning of days or ending of life. The
Genesis account made no mention of the beginning or end of the priesthood of Melchizedek. His
sudden appearance and disappearance gave an implication of eternality. The real point of the
uniqueness of Melchizedek's priesthood is that it continues on forever.
It is also important for us to realize that the point of verse 3 is that Melchizedek resembles Christ
in that he remains a priest forever. The writer of Hebrews did not think that Jesus had no real
earthly father, mother, or genealogy. That view of Christ was called Docetism and it was early
condemned as a heresy. What the author wants his readers to understand is that just as behind
Christ's earthly credentials there stood an eternal relationship with the Father that had no
beginning or ending, so also Melchizedek's lack of earthly credentials points to his eternal
priesthood.
If Christ and Melchizedek "resemble" each other in the character of their priesthood the author's
next step will be to argue for the superiority of Melchizedek over the priests of Judaism. If that
can proved and if Christ is like Melchizedek, then Christ is superior to the priests provided by
Judaism. The basis for the argument will be that Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek and was
blessed by Melchizedek. For us to appreciate the power of this argument we need to remember
the status that Abraham enjoyed within Judaism. He was the Father of the nation. He was a
prince of God in the mind of his neighbors. God himself called Abraham his friend. Yet
Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Melchizedek
possessed a status greater than that of Abraham.
However, the author is not most interested in the relationship of Abraham and Melchizedek. His
goal is to compare the priesthood of Christ with that of Judaism. Since he has already compared

15. Christ to Melchizedek and shown Melchizedek to be superior to Abraham, the next step is to
show that the priesthood of Judaism is comparable to Abraham (thus inferior to Melchizedek and
thus inferior to Christ). The priesthood of Judaism is defined here in terms of the descendants of
Levi. As priests they (like Melchizedek) receive tithes from the people, though the descendants
of Levi are, in fact, brothers (related) to the people who pay the tithe to them. Thus there is some
brotherly equality between the descendants of Levi (the Jewish priesthood) and all Jews because
all are descendants of Abraham. This much is stated in verse 5.
The argument is re-developed in the following verses by bringing the issue of blessing into the
picture, but the conclusion comes in verses 9-10. One could almost say that Levi (the one who
receives tithes) has paid tithes through Abraham. Jewish culture believed that a person
contained within himself all his descendants. In modern language, the genes and chromosomes
of Levi were already there in Abraham, just waiting the unfolding conceptions that eventually
lead to Levi's birth and then to the birth of his descendants (the Jewish priests).
Thus genetically Levi and his descendants the Jewish priests were all present in Genesis 14
inside Abraham paying tithe to Melchizedek. Thus Melchizedek has a greater priesthood than
that of the Jewish priests because in the final analysis they paid tithe to Melchizedek and he
blessed them. Since Christ was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek his superiority to
the Jewish priests is proved.
"NEITHER the fathers nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural
parents5, but that p. 34 they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of
Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed
of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shâlâh and Mâlâh, Shâlâh was
written down in the genealogies; but Mâlâh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down
in the genealogies. When p. 35 Noah died, he commanded Shem concerning the bones of Adam, for they were with them
in the ark, and were removed from the land of Eden to this earth. Then Shem entered the ark, and sealed it with his father's
seal, and said to his brethren, 'My father commanded me to go and see the sources of the rivers and the seas and the
structure of the earth, and to return.' And he said to Mâlâh the father of Melchizedek, and to Yôzâdâk his mother...."[12]
[edit] Representative of the priestly line
In some translations, Psalms names Melchizedek as representative of the priestly line through which a future king of Israel's
Davidic line was ordained. Alternatively, it may be more accurate to treat this term as an agglutinated improper noun, to
be translated as rightful king rather than left as Melchizedek; this interpretation is taken by some modern translations, such
as the New JPS Tanakh.
6. CALVIN, "For this Melchisedec, etc. He has hitherto been stimulating the Jews
by exhortations, that they might attentively consider the comparison
between Christ and Melchisedec. At the end of the last chapter, that he
might return from his digression to his subject, he quoted again the
passage from the Psalms; and now he enters fully into what he had
before slightly referred to; for he enumerates particularly the things
connected with Melchisedec, in which he resembled Christ. It is indeed
no wonder that he dwells so minutely on this subject. It was doubtless
no common thing that in a country abounding in the corruptions of so
many superstitions, a man was found who preserved the pure worship of

16. God; for on one side he was nigh to Sodom and Gomorrah, and on the
other to the Canaanites, so that he was on every side encompassed by
ungodly men. Besides, the whole world was so fallen into impiety, that
it is very probable that God was nowhere faithfully worshipped except
in the family of Abraham; for his father and his grandfather, who ought
to have retained true religion, had long before degenerated into
idolatry. It was therefore a memorable fact, that there was still a
king who not only retained true religion, but also performed himself
the office of a priest. And it was doubtless necessary that in him who
was to be a type of the Son of God all things excellent should be
found: and that Christ was shadowed forth by this type is evident from
the Psalm referred to; for David did not say without reason, "Thou art
a priest forever after the order Melchisedec;" no, but on the contrary,
by these words a sublime mystery was recommended to the Church.
Let us now consider each of those particulars in which the Apostle
makes Christ like Melchisedec. [110]
The first likeness is in the name; for it was not without a mystery
that he was called the King of righteousness. For though this honor is
ascribed to kings who rule with moderation and in equity, yet this
belongs really to Christ alone, who not only exercises authority justly
as others do, but also communicates to us the righteous of God, partly
when he makes us to be counted righteous by a gratuitous
reconciliation, and partly when he renews us by his Spirit, that we may
lead a godly and holy life. He is then called the King of
righteousness, because of what he effects in diffusing righteousness on
all his people. [111] It hence follows, that out of his kingdom nothing
but sin reigns among men. And therefore Zechariah, when he introduces
him, as by the solemn decree of God, into the possession of his
kingdom, thus extols him, --
"Rejoice, O daughter of Sion, Behold thy righteous King
cometh to thee," (Zechariah 2:10;)
intimating that the righteousness, which is otherwise wanting to us, is
brought to us by the coming of Christ.
The second likeness which the Apostle states is as to the kingdom of
peace. This peace indeed is the fruit of that righteousness which he
has mentioned. It hence follows that wherever Christ's kingdom extends,
there peace ought to be, as we find in Isaiah 2 and 9, and in other
places. But as peace among the Hebrews means also a prosperous and
happy state, it may be so taken here: yet I prefer to understand it
here of that inward peace which tranquilizes the conscience and renders
it confident before God. And the excellency of this blessing cannot be

17. sufficiently estimated, unless you consider on the other hand, how
miserable a thing it is to be tormented by constant inquietude; which
must necessarily be the case until we have our consciences pacified by
being reconciled to God through Christ.
6B. PINK, "Almost endless conjectures have been made as to the identity of Melchizedek.
Questions have been raised as to what order of beings he belonged to. Some have insisted
that he was a Divine person, others that he was an angel, still others that he was Christ
Himself in theophanic manifestation — as when He appeared to Joshua (Josh. 5:14), or in
Babylon’s furnace (Dan. 3:25), etc. Others, allowing that he was only a man, have
speculated as to his nationality, family connections, and so on. But as the Holy Spirit has
not seen fit to give us any information on these points, we deem it irreverence (Deut. 29:29)
to indulge in any surmises thereon.
Melchizedek was "king of Salem": in the light of Psalm 76:2 there can be no doubt but
what this was the earlier or original name for Jerusalem: "In Salem also is His tabernacle,
and His dwelling-place in Zion". Only Jerusalem can there be intended. Further,
Melchizedek was "priest of the most high God", and this in the days of Abraham! Thus,
Jerusalem had a king many centuries before David, and God had a priest which He owned
long ere Aaron was called! It has been rightly pointed out that, "The argument of the
apostle, deducing and illustrating the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the Aaronic,
from and by the relation of Melchizedek to the Levitical priesthood, is in some respects
analogous to the argument of the apostle with regard to the law, and its parenthetical and
inferior position, as compared with the Gospel.... the Jews were shocked when the apostle
Paul taught that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to observe the law; that for the new
covenant church the law of Moses was no longer the rule and form of life. And therefore
the apostle in his epistle to the Galatians, tells them that the law was given four hundred
years after the promise had been made unto Abraham, and that therefore there was no
injustice, and no inconsistency, in the bringing in of a new dispensation, which was in fact
only a return in a fuller and more perfect manner to that which was from the beginning in
the mind of God" (Adolph Saphir).
It is indeed striking to discover that God’s first priest was this king of Salem—which
signifies "peace", Jerusalem meaning "the foundation of peace". Jerusalem was to be the
place where the incarnate Son of God was to begin the exercise of His sacerdotal office;
moreover, it was to be the seat of His local church (Acts 1–15) until the significance of the
type had been effected. In the history of that unique city we see the sovereign pleasure of
God again exercised and exemplified, for He appoints various intervals of blessing unto
places. Jerusalem was first privileged with the presence of this priest of the most high God.
Afterwards, for a long season, it was given over to the idolatrous Jebusites: see Joshua
15:63, 2 Samuel 5:6, etc. Then, in process of time, it was again visited with Divine favor and
made the headquarters of the solemn worship of Jehovah. Now, as for centuries past, it is
"trodden down of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). But in the future it will again be the center of
Divine blessing on earth: Isaiah 2:1-4. In like manner God hath dealt with many another
place and city.
Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him" (verse 1).
The historical reference is to Genesis 14:18,19. "Whether any intercourse had previously
taken place between these two venerable men, or whether they afterwards continued to

18. have occasional intercourse, we cannot tell; though the probability seems to be, that
Melchizedek was not a stranger to Abraham when he came forth to meet him, and that, in
an age when the worshippers of the true God were comparatively few, two such men as
Abraham and Melchizedek did not live in the same district and country without forming a
close intimacy" (Dr. J. Brown).
"And blessed him". This was a part of the priestly office as we learn from Deuteronomy
21:5: "And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near for the Lord thy God hath chosen to
minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the Lord". The "blessing" Abraham
received, is recorded in Genesis 14:19: "Blessed be Abraham of the most high God,
Possessor of heaven and earth". Absolutely, only God can either bless or curse, for He only
has sovereign power over all good and evil. This power He exercises directly (Gen. 12:3):
yet by a gracious concession and by His institution, God also allows men to invoke blessings
on others. In the Old Testament we find parents blessing their children (Gen. 9:26, 27:27,
48:20. etc.), and the priests blessing the people (Num. 6:24-26).
In both instances it was Christ that was typically in view. "In the blessing of Abraham by
Melchizedek, all believers are virtually blessed by Jesus Christ, — Melchizedek was a type
of Christ, and represented Him in what He was and did, as our apostle declares. And
Abraham in all these things, bare the person of, or represented, all his posterity according
to the faith. Therefore doth our apostle in the foregoing chapter entitle all believers, unto
the promises made unto him, and the inheritance of them. There is, therefore, more than a
bare story in this matter. A blessing is in it conveyed unto all believers in the way of an
ordinance forever" (John Owen). It deserves to be noticed that the final act of Christ ere
leaving this earth was that "He led them out as far as to Bethany, and He lifted up His
hands, and blessed them" (Luke 24:50).
7. PREECEPTAUSTIN, “Chapter 7 is a critical section because it concerns the introduction of
a better priesthood. No sacrifices were possible without a priest (therefore no "forgiveness")
and therefore the priesthood was greatly revered by Jews.
Remember that in Hebrews 5:5-10 the writer began to speak of the Melchizedek but then began a
lengthy parenthetical section from Hebrews 5:11 throughHebrews 6:20. This parenthesis was to
prepare his "dull of hearing" readers so that they might better understand of this important
chapter. There is a point of application we in the modern church need to consider and it is
this -- the solid food and sound doctrine of Scripture is not revealed by the Spirit to those
who are spiritually lazy or apathetic. In Hebrews 7:4 we encounter the only command in
this entire chapter (see note) and it is to give careful consideration (as contrasted with a
superficial reading) to this teaching on Melchizedek because he is a type of Jesus Christ,
the One Whose beauty and glory we desire to see.
The background of course is Jewish readers who had professed belief in Christ and were being
tempted to abandon their faith in the Messiah and return to Judaism under threat of persecution
as described in chapter 10...
But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict
of sufferings, 33 partly, by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and
tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you
showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property,

19. knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one. (see
notes Hebrews 10:30; 31; 32)
And so the writer is writing to convince them to break with the familiar system and rituals that
their forefathers had followed for centuries. He is saying that the religious system of sacrifices,
rituals, and rules that had been practice for some 1,400 years had now been replaced by
a better way. And so he focuses on the supremacy of Christ Jesus the great High Priest, Who is
the fulfillment of all that was written by Moses and the prophets. And so he picks up his thoughts
on Melchizedek from Hebrews 5 because he wants to explain that Jesus is not a priest like the
familiar Levitical priests, but is of a different order of Melchizedek and because of that, He is a
better priest than any of the priests in the old system. Ironically the old system was never
intended to be the end but the means, a means which was always and in all ways intended to
point to the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ.
8. Ray Stedman points out that...
The unfolding of the meaning of the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus is the goal toward
which the author has been aiming ever since Hebrews 2:17 (note), where he first uses the
term high priest with reference to Jesus... These themes are little noted or understood in
the average church today but desperately needed if the church (or the individual
Christian) is to confront the world with power and grace. (Stedman, Ray: Hebrews IVP
New Testament Commentary Series or Logos) (Bolding added for emphasis)
9. Expositor's Greek Testament writes that...
The subject of Christ's priesthood is resumed; the interpolated admonition (Hebrews
5:11-6:20) having been skillfully brought round to a second mention (actually strictly
speaking the 4th mention) of Melchizedek. The chief reason for introducing the priesthood
of Melchizedek as the type of Christ's priesthood was that it was "for ever". The Aaronic
priesthood was successional, this single; and in this sense "for ever". There were, however,
other reasons. The first question with a Jew who was enjoined to trust Christ's priestly
mediation, would be "What are His orders?" He belonged to a tribe of which Moses had
spoken nothing concerning priesthood. He might or might not be the true heir to David's
throne; but if He was, did not this very circumstance exclude Him from the priestly office?
Was it credible that the nation had been encouraged rigorously to exclude from the
priesthood every interloper, only in order that at last this rigidly preserved order should be
entirely disregarded? This writer seizes upon the fact that there was a greater priest than
Aaron mentioned in Scripture -- a priest more worthy to be the type of the Messianic
priesthood, because He was Himself a King, and especially because He belonged to no
successional priestly order but was Himself the entire order. (!) This idea of a priesthood
superseding that of Levi's sons found its way into Scripture through the hymn (Psalm
110:4-note)... The chapter may be divided thus
I. Characteristics of Melchizedek, vv1-10

20. 1. In himself as depicted in Scripture, vv1-3
2. In his relation to Levi and his line, vv4-10
II. Inadequacy of Levitical priesthood in comparison with the Melchizedek
priesthood of Christ, vv11-25
1. Levi, being provisional, Melchizedek being permanent, vv11-14
2. Official and hereditary : personal and eternal, vv15-19
3. Without oath: with oath, therefore final, vv20-22
4. Plural and successional : singular and enduring, vv23-25
III. Summary of the merits of the new Melchizedek Priest, Jesus
(from Nicoll, W Robertson, Editor: Expositors Greek Testament: 5 Volumes. Out of
print. Search Google)
10. John Piper helps us understand why all of this focus on Melchizedek and the priesthood,
things which seem so foreign and even may seem unnecessary to us in the modern western
culture. The writer is saying we are in desperate need of a High Priest for as Piper explains...
the reason for all this talk about Christ’s relation to Melchizedek in verses 1–24 is
because the eternal, superior priesthood of Jesus is our only hope of eternal salvation.
God’s wrath never changes. There is only one hope for sinners like us. We must have a
faithful High Priest, Who will intercede for us forever. We need a King of
righteousness (He 7:2-note). We need a King of peace (He 7:2-note). We need
Someone without beginning and ending (He 7:3-note). Someone Who has an
indestructible life (verse 16) and will never die and need to be replaced (He
7:23,24-notes). We need Someone greater than Abraham and greater than
Levi—something like Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham, (He 7:6,7-notes) and who
received tithes from Abraham and, in a sense, from Levi in Abraham (He 7:5-note, He
7:6-note, He 7:8, 9, 10-notes). We need a new and greater Priest—so much greater that
verse 11 says there was no perfection through the Levitical priesthood. All the Old
Testament priesthood could do was point toward the One superior Priest (after the order
of Melchizedek, Psalm 110:4-note), Whose sacrifice of Himself and Whose eternal
intercession would guarantee eternal salvation for all God’s people.
So the first implication of He 7:25-note is that all this truth about priesthood is because
what we need saving from is the wrath of God. God’s way of solving that problem is
priesthood. This is not ours to figure out or solve. God has to do it for us. And He has
done it. He ordains a Priest, His Son.
And don’t make a mistake here. It’s not as though Jesus the Priest loves us and God the
Father doesn’t. God the Father ordains the priesthood for our salvation. It is His idea.
He sends the Priest. It is His own Son Whom He sends. And He loves Him infinitely.
All this is the love of God rescuing us from the wrath of God, in such a way that the
justice of God is vindicated and the glory of God is exalted.

21. 11. MELCHIZEDEK
Various Interpretations
of His Identity
John Calvin
And it was doubtless necessary that in him who was to be a type of the Son of God (see
discussion of Typology) all things excellent should be found: and that Christ was shadowed
forth by this type is evident from the Ps 110
Steven Cole (his sermons are highly recommended)
Melchizedek is a type of Christ in the dignity of his person. Everything we know about
Melchizedek comes from Genesis 14:18-20, Psalm 110:4-note, and Hebrews 7. The first
text is historical, the second is prophetic, and the third is theological. (open the Pdf of the
entire sermon Why You Need to Know About Melchizedek)
Alfred Edersheim
That Melchizedek was not Christ Himself is evident from the statement that he was “made
like unto the Son of God” (or “likened unto” Him, Heb. vii. 3); while it equally appears
from these words, and from the whole tenor of Scripture, that he was a type of Christ.
Matthew Henry
The most general opinion is that he was a Canaanite king, who reigned in Salem, and kept
up religion and the worship of the true God; that he was raised to be a type of Christ (see
discussion of Typology), and was honoured by Abraham as such.
Kent Hughes
In the writer’s opening statement he concisely states the significance of the historical
Melchizedek as a type of the ultimate priesthood of Christ: Melchizedek was “without father
or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, [and] like the Son of
God he remains a priest forever” (v. 3). Some have inferred from these words that
Melchizedek must have been an angel who took on human form for Abraham, or even a
pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Himself. But such interpretations are unnecessary,
because the writer is simply using a rabbinical method of interpretation from silence. His
point is that the Genesis account does not mention Melchizedek’s parents or genealogy or
when he was born or died, thereby providing a fitting type of what would be fleshed out in
the qualifications of Christ (see discussion of Typology). (Hughes, R. K. Hebrews: An
Anchor for the Soul. Volume 1. Crossway Books; Volume 2)
H A Ironside
There is no reason to think of Melchisedec as a mysterious person, possibly supernatural, or
even as some have supposed a preincarnate appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. If any ask,
"Who is Melchisedec?" the only proper answer is "Melchisedec." He was not Shem the son

22. of Noah, nor Job of the land of Uz, nor Cheops the builder of the great pyramid, as some
have endeavored to prove. He was, as is distinctly stated, Melchisedec, King of Salem.
KJV Commentary
What is true of Melchizedek (the type) only because of silence is intrinsically true of Christ
(the reality). Melchizedek is without parents only in that they are unknown. (Dobson, E G,
Charles Feinberg, E Hindson, Woodrow Kroll, H L. Wilmington: KJV Bible Commentary:
Nelson)
John MacArthur
But Melchizedek is described as made like the Son of God (7:3), not as being the Son of
God. I believe that Melchizedek was a historical human being, whose priestly ministry
typifies that of Christ (see discussion of Typology), a man whom God designed to use as a
picture of Jesus Christ. But we cannot be sure of the details of his identity. (MacArthur,
John: Hebrews. Moody Press )
William MacDonald
We should not conclude that Melchizedek had no parents, that he was never born, and that
he never died. That is not the point. The thought is that as far as his priesthood was
concerned, there is no record of these vital statistics because his ministry as priest was not
dependent on them. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible Commentary: Thomas
Nelson)
J Vernon McGee
Melchizedek is a type of Christ. (McGee, J V: Thru the Bible Commentary: Thomas
Nelson)
Henry Morris...
The usual interpretation ... is that he (Melchizedek) was made into a type of Christ since as a
"King of Righteousness" (meaning of Melchizedek) and "King of Peace" (meaning of
Salem), he appears and leaves the record suddenly, with no mention of either ancestry or
death. It seems better to take the words literally, in which case they could be applicable to
Christ Himself, appearing here to Abram in a theophany. This would also solve the problem
of how such a godly king and priest as Melchizedek could be ruling a city in such an
ungodly land as Canaan and, why, if he did, Abram would have had no other contact with
him. The fact that he was "like unto the Son of God" (Hebrews 7:3) accords with one of
Christ's pre-incarnate appearances; at His human birth, he became the incarnate Son of God
forever. Melchizedek was also said to be a man (Hebrews 7:4), but the same is true in the
case of other theophanies, one of which was likewise manifested to Abram (Genesis
18:2,22; 19:1-24). (Morris, Henry: Defenders Study Bible. World Publishing)
Dwight Pentecost
The question is often raised about whether what is recorded in Genesis 14 is a theophany;
that is, a preincarnate appearance of the eternal Son of God. While many say it is, the

23. context of Genesis 14 seems to argue against it. Every verifiable theophany in the Old
Testament fulfills the purpose of bringing a message from God to men. But that is not the
case here. Further, the details of the account—giving names and places—argue against it.
Melchizedek could hardly be called the “king of Salem” unless he exercised legal authority
there over an extended period of time. When the writer says he was “made like the Son of
God,” he seems to imply that only those things had been recorded that could be used later by
the writer of the Hebrews to reveal truth concerning Christ’s priestly office. Thus, in the
historical context, Melchizedek is an individual, universal, timeless, unique priest whose
ministry resulted in spiritual and material benefits; and he is never known outside of that
picture. In this, as the writer of the Hebrews will show, he represents a perpetual
foreshadowing of the priestly order Christ will fill. (Pentecost, J. D., & Durham, K. Faith
that Endures: A Practical Commentary on the Book of Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications)
Charles Ryrie
Melchizedek is clearly a type of Christ (see discussion of Typology). Everything known
about him from the OT is found in Ge14:17-20 and Ps. 110:4-note. He was a great
king-priest, and it is to his order of priesthood that Christ belongs. (The Ryrie Study Bible:
New American Standard Translation: 1995. Moody Publishers)
C I Scofield
Melchizedek, a type of Christ the King-Priest.
C H Spurgeon
WE will not enlarge upon the story of Melchisedec, nor discuss the question as to who he
was. It is near enough for us to believe that he was one who worshipped God after the
primitive fashion, a believer in God such as Job was in the land of Uz, one of the world’s
grey fathers who had kept faithful to the Most High God. He combined in his own person
the kingship and the priesthood; a conjunction by no means unusual in the first ages. Of this
man we know very little; and it is partly because we know so little of him that he is all the
better type of our Lord, of whom we may enquire, “Who shall declare his generation?” The
very mystery which hangs about Melchisedec serves to set forth the mystery of the person
of our divine Lord.
Ray Stedman
Though some commentators have viewed Melchizedek as a preincarnate appearance of
Christ, the phrase like the Son of God seems to militate against that. “Melchizedek thus was
the facsimile of which Christ is the reality” (Howley 1969:552). To a modern congregation,
this passage should be presented as a vivid picture of the help which is available for
believers today from our great high priest who can give us righteousness and peace from
within if we “come to the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace to help us in our
time of need.” (Stedman, Ray: Hebrews IVP New Testament Commentary Series or Logos)
Will Varner

24. A more popular interpretation is that Melchizedek was Christ Himself in some preincarnate
form. Thus, he would have been like the Old Testament “angel of the LORD” (e.g., Ge
16:7, 8, 9, 10, 11; Ex. 3:2; Jdg 13:3-21). Proponents of this view point to the language
of Hebrews 7:3: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning
of day nor end of life.” There are some serious problems, however, with this idea. Six times
the writer of Hebrews cited Psalm 110:4-note when stating that Jesus is a priest “after the
order of Melchizedek” (He 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, 21). If Jesus actually was Melchizedek,
He would not be said to be “after the order of Melchizedek.” Furthermore, language of
similarity, not identity, is used to describe the relationship between the two. Hebrews
7:3 states that Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God,” not that he actually was
the Son of God. Finally, Hebrews 7:15 states that Jesus is a priest “after the similitude
[likeness] of Melchizedek,” not that he actually was Melchizedek. These verses indicate that
Melchizedek was an individual who was a type of Christ, not that he actually was the
preincarnate Christ. (Israel My Glory : Volume 51 Issue 6. 1999)
John Walvoord
Although some have thought that Melchizedek was actually a theophany, that is, an
appearance of Christ in the form of Melchizedek to Abraham, the more probable view is that
Hebrews means only that Melchizedek, unlike Aaronic priests, had no recorded genealogy.
He was a priest independent of his father or his successor. In other words, he was not
dependent on his genealogy, in sharp contrast to the Aaronic priesthood which depended
upon it completely. The predecessors and successors of Melchizedek are not mentioned in
the Bible, and the validity of the Melchizedek priesthood does not rest upon this
background.
Warren Wiersbe
Melchizedek was a man (see Hebrews 7:4), so he had to have had a mother and a father. But
there is no record of his genealogy (“descent”) in the Old Testament; and this is significant
because most great persons in the Old Testament have their ancestry identified. (Wiersbe,
W: Bible Exposition Commentary. 1989. Victor)
Mormons (which I consider a non-Christian cult! [see critique of Mormonism] This note is only
for completeness)
Claim that their male members are priests of the order of Melchizedek and that their
prophet, Joseph Smith, held both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. But this is a
wholly gratuitous claim since it rests on no objective appointment by God but only on a
subjective assertion in which they take this honor upon themselves.
12. In "The Way into the Holiest" F B Meyer writes that...
History gives its unanimous judgment against the temporal and the spiritual power being
vested in the same man. In Israel the two offices were kept rigorously separate; and when,
on one occasion, a king passed the sacred barrier, and, snatching up a censer, strode into the
inner court, he was at once followed by the remonstrances of the priestly band, whilst the

25. white brand of leprosy wrote his doom upon his brow; "and he himself hastened to go out,
because the Lord had smitten him." But the simple monarch of whom we write, living
before gathering abuses forbade the union, combined in his person the royal scepter and the
sacerdotal censer. And herein he foreshadowed the Christ.
Jesus is King and Priest. He is King because He is a priest. He is highly exalted,
demanding homage from every knee, and confession from every lip, because He became
obedient to the death of the cross. He bases His royal claims, not on hereditary descent,
though the blood of David flowed in His veins; not on conquest or superior force; not on the
legislation that underpins the kingdom of heaven among men: but on this, that He redeemed
us to God by His blood. He is the King of glory, because He is the Lamb of God which
taketh away the sin of the world. The cross was the stepping-stone to His throne.
And He cannot fulfill his office as Priest unless he be first recognized as King. Many fail to
derive all the blessing offered to men through the Priesthood of Christ, because they are not
willing to admit His claims as King. They do not reverence and obey Him. They do not
open the whole of the inner realm to His scepter. They endeavor to serve two masters; and
to stand well with empires as different as light and darkness, heaven and hell, God and
Satan.
There must be consecration before there can be perfect faith; coronation before deliverance;
the King before the Priest.
The order is invariable first King of Righteousness, and after that also King of
Peace (Heb. 7:2).
"Peace, give us peace!" is the importunate demand of men; peace at any price; by all means
peace. But God, in the deep waters, lays the foundation of righteousness; "and the work of
righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance
forever." It is of no use to heal the wound slightly, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is
none. Infinitely better is it to probe to the bottom, and to build up from a sound and healthy
foundation to the surface of the flesh.
And the King of Peace will never enter your soul until you have first acknowledged him as
King of Righteousness, submitting yourself to his righteous claims, and renouncing the
righteousness which is of the law for that which is by faith. It is lamentable to find how few
Christians, comparatively, are realizing the full meaning or power of Christianity. Joyless,
fruitless, powerless, they are a stumbling block to the world, and a mockery to devils. And is
not the reason here? They are not right. They are harboring traitors and aliens in their souls.
They constantly condemn themselves in things that they allow. No doubt they excuse
themselves, and invent special reasons to palliate their faults, so that what would be
inadmissible with others is pardonable in them. What special pleading! What ingenious
arguments! What gymnastic feats are theirs! But all in vain. Let any such who read these
lines learn that it is peremptory to make Christ King, and King of Righteousness, before
ever they can appreciate the peace which accrues from his Priesthood on our behalf.
12B. COFFMAN, “MELCHIZEDEK AND JESUS

26. The following likenesses in type and antitype are plain: (1) The word
"Melchizedek" means "King of righteousness," thus the very name becomes
a title of the Lord Jesus Christ. (2) "King of Salem" means "King of peace,"
and thus the title of Melchizedek is another appropriate title of our Lord
(Isaiah 9:6ff; Psalms 72:7). (3) Melchizedek was both king and priest, a
double dignity not enjoyed by any illustrious Hebrew, not even Moses, and
startlingly typical of Jesus Christ who is both king and high priest. (4)
Melchizedek received tithes of Abraham, even as Christ receives gifts of
them that love and follow him. (5) Melchizedek brought forth bread and
wine; and, although not specifically mentioned here because it was not
germane to the argument, the fact itself is a strong suggestion of the Lord's
institution of the Lord's Supper. (6) He blessed Abraham; Christ blesses his
followers. (7) Melchizedek's priesthood encompassed service to Gentiles and
Jews alike, as witnessed by his reception of Abraham; and Christ likewise is
the High Priest of all mankind, having no racial or other limitation. (8) The
eighth likeness between Melchizedek and Christ is a little more difficult to
understand because it is not founded on anything that Melchizedek did or
said, and not even upon anything that is said about him in the Genesis
narrative, this eighth similarity being made to depend upon the manner and
form of the Genesis record, with special reference to what is not said. See
below.
The statement by the author of Hebrews that Melchizedek had no father, no
mother, no genealogy, no beginning of life, and no end of days, simply
means THAT HE HAD NONE OF THOSE THINGS IN THE SCRIPTURAL
RECORD, and does not mean that he was actually born in a manner different
from other men. Unlike the Levites who received their priestly offices
through meticulously kept and guarded genealogies, Melchizedek, in his
single glorious appearance in the sacred scriptures, flashes upon the holy
record absolutely dissociated from everything either preceding or following
that remarkable event. Ancestry? As far as the scriptures were concerned,
he had none. Descendants? Not a word about any of them. Beginning of life?
There was no record of his ever having been born, being an infant, or youth;
he appeared in history once only, in royal, priestly dignity, with not even a
hint of how any of this came to exist. End of days? As far as the scriptural
record goes, he could be alive yet. There is no record of his death as there
was of Moses, and of Aaron (Numbers 20:22ff); and for all the scriptures say
to the contrary, he still stands after all those centuries, in endless glory, a
priest of the Most High God, receiving tithes of Abraham, and blessing him.
The author of Hebrews, through inspiration, saw that it was by God's
purposeful design that the story of Melchizedek had been so deployed upon
the sacred page in isolated splendor, and that purpose was to make
Melchizedek's priesthood suggest the endless priesthood of Jesus. To be

27. sure, Melchizedek's priesthood only gives an impression of being endless
whereas that of Jesus is actually so.
Who was this mysterious Melchizedek? And which Salem had him for king?
Lenski noted some of the strange speculations on the identity of Melchizedek
as follows:
Rabbi Ismael, about 135 B.C., thought him to be Shem, Noah's son; this
opinion has been accepted by Luther and others. Philo ... did not regard
Melchizedek as a historical person. Origen thought him to be an angel being.
Hierakas, at the end of the third century, made him a temporary incarnation
of the Holy Spirit, others a similar incarnation of the Logos.F1
Of course, these speculations are unconvincing, because there is not a word
in the Genesis record to make Melchizedek any less historical than Abraham,
Amraphel, Arioch, Chederlaomer, or Tidal. Salem is equally historical, there
being at least two such ancient places, either of which could have been the
dominion of Melchizedek. Josephus identified it with Jerusalem, saying "They
afterward called Salem JERUSALEM." F2
Macknight identified it thus,
According to Jerome, who saith he received his information from some
learned Jews, it was the town which was mentioned (Genesis 33:18) as a
city of Shechem, and which is spoken of in 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 city was Melchizedek's city, rather than Jerusalem,
which was situated farther to the south. F3
The difficulty that makes people seek an unhistorical Melchizedek rises not in
the Old Testament, where he plainly is historical, but in the New Testament
where the reference to "no father, no mother, no genealogy, no beginning of
life or ending of days" is confusing until one sees the divine purpose in so
presenting him in the Bible. Lenski saw this as follows:
The sudden way in which the scriptures draw back and close the curtain on
Melchizedek is the divine way of making him a type of Jesus, the King-Priest,
who like Melchizedek, stands alone and unique in his priesthood and is
absolutely distinct from the long Aaronic succession of priests. F4
Priest of God Most High,
one of the titles of Melchizedek, is of the utmost significance to religious
thought. This means absolutely that the Jews did not develop, evolve,
discover, nor in any sense whatever originate monotheism; for this
Melchizedek, who was not a Jew, is in the scriptures positively identified with
the Most High God, the same Most High God who put the finger of heavenly
light upon him as a type of the Messiah in Psa. 110:4. Polytheism was never
able completely to crowd out the worship of the one true and only God; and

28. some residue of that original and true worship was centered in Salem while
Melchizedek was priest and king there. Westcott commented thus, "There
were traces of a primitive (monotheistic) worship of El in Phoenicia side by
side with that of Baal, the center of Phoenician polytheism." F5
The revelation
of God regarding Melchizedek devastates the common notion that the
Hebrews contributed monotheism to the world, in any sense that they
originated the concept of it.
The slaughter of the kings
can be softened a bit by making it read "the defeat of the kings"; but there
is no need for this. The Bible calls things by their right names; hence,
sinners are never referred to as the socially immature, nor the poor as the
economically disadvantaged!
And blessed him
are words that identify Melchizedek as superior in dignity to the great
patriarch of all the Hebrews, even Abraham; and later the author appeals to
the truism that the less is blessed of the greater. The greater dignity of
Melchizedek is further emphasized by the fact that Abraham recognized his
authority and paid tithes to him from all the spoils from his victory.
There are only three short verses in Genesis about Melchizedek, and added
to that, a single sentence concerning him in Psa. 110:4, written centuries
after Melchizedek lived; and yet there is before us an immense amount of
dissertation on this ancient type of Christ. The astonishing fact, seized upon
by the writer of Hebrews, is that so long after Abraham and Melchizedek
lived, GOD HIMSELF by means of his inspired writer in Psalm 110, should
WITH AN OATH make that ancient character a likeness of David's greater
Son, the Messiah, indicating very forcefully that, from the beginning, God
had purposed to provide what Westcott called "a higher order of divine
service than that which was established by the Mosaic Law." F6
The reason
for bringing all this up at the time our author wrote is plain, as Lenski said,
The readers, former Jews who were now thinking of returning to Judaism,
are here confronted with their great forefather Abraham and are shown how
he accepted the royal priest Melchizedek long before Levi and Aaron were
born and the Aaronic priesthood came into existence. The readers want to
be true sons of Abraham, yea, are thinking of returning to Judaism for that
very reason. Well, let them look at Abraham and at the one priest to whom
Abraham bowed. Let them consider what God said through David regarding
the royal priest and regarding the Messiah-Christ who is typified by
Melchizedek. F7