17. Wherein God. On account of which; or since an oath had this ef fect, God was willing to appeal to it in order to assure his people of sal vation. ^[ Willing more abundantly. In the most abundant manner, or to make the case as sure as possible. It does not mean more abundantly than in the case of Abraham but that he
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impos sible for God to a lie, we might
was willing to give the most ample assurance possible. Coverdale ren ders it correctly, "very abundantly." *[ The heirs of promise. The heirs to whom the promise of life pertained; that is, all who were interested in the promises made to Abraham — thus embracing the heirs of salvation now.
5 The immutability of his counsel is fixed purpose. He meant to show in the most solemn manner that his purpose would not change. The plans of God never change; and all the hope which we can have of heaven is founded on the fact that his pur pose is immutable. If he changed his plans; if he was controlled by caprice; if he willed one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow, who could confide to him, or who would have any hope of heaven? No one would know what to expect; and no one could put confidence in him. The farmer ploughs and sows because he believes that the laAvs of nature are settled and fixed; the mariner ven tures into unknown seas because the needle points in one direction; we plant an apple-tree because we be lieve it will produce apples, a peach because it will produce peaches, a pear because it will produce a pear. But suppose there were no settled laws, that all was governed by ca price; who would know what to plant? Who then would plant any thing? So in religion. If there were nothing fixed and settled, who would know what to do? If God should change his plans by caprice, and save one man by faith to-day and condemn another for the same faith to-morrow; or if he should pardon a man to-day and withdraw the pardon to-morrow, what security could we have of sal vation? How grateful, therefore, should we be that God has an immu table counsel, and that this is confirm ed by a solemn oath! No one could honour a God that had not such an
have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold b upon the hope set before us.
immutability of purpose; and all the hope which man can have of heaven is in the fact that He is unchanging. ^[ Confirmed it by an oath. Margv Interposed himself. Tindal and Coverdale, "added an oath." The Greek is, ' interposed with an oath' — (p.eo-iTfvo-fv opxto. The word here used — fjifo-irfvco — means to mediate or intercede for one; and then to in tervene or interpose. The meaning here is, that he interposed an oath be tween himself and the other party by way of a confirmation or pledge.
18. That by two immutable things. What the two 'immutable things' here referred to are, has been made a matter of question among commen tators. Most expositors, as Doddridge, Whitby, Rosenrnuller, Koppe, and Calvin, suppose that the reference is to the promise and the oath of God, each of which would be a firm ground of the assurance of salvation, and in each of which it would be impossible for God to lie. Prof. Stuart supposes that the reference is to two oaths — the oath made to Abraham, and that by which the Messiah was made High Priest according to the order of Melcliizedek. Ps. ex. 4; Heb. v. 6. 10. He supposes that thus the salvation of believers would be amply secured, by the promise that Abraham should have a Son, the Messiah, in whom all the families of the earth would be blessed, and in the oath that this Son should be High Priest for ever. But to this interpretation it may be object ed that the apostle seems to refer to two things distinct from each other in their nature, and not to two acts of the same kind. There are two kinds of security referred to, whereas the secu rity furnished according to this inter pretation would be the same — that arising from an oath. HoAvever nu merous the oaths might be, still it would be security of the same kindV
1 9 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and if one of them were broken no certainty could be derived from the other. On the supposition, however, that lie refers to the promise and the vath, there would be two kinds of as surance of different kinds. On the supposition that the promise was dis regarded — if such a supposition may be made — still there would be the se curity of the oath— and thus the as surance of salvation was two-fold. It seems to me, therefore, that the apos tle refers to the promise and to the oath of God, as constituting the two grounds of security for the salvation of his people. Those things were both unchangeable, and when his word and oath are once passed, what ne promises is secure. ^ In which it was impossible for God to lie. That is it would be contrary to his nature; it is not for a moment to be supposed. Comp. Tit. i. 2. " God— that cannot lie." The impossibility is a moral impossibility, and the use of the word here explains the sense in which the words impossible, cannot, &c., are often used in the Scriptui'es. The meaning here is, that such was the love of God for truth; such his holi ness of character, that he could not speak falsely. ^ We might have a strong consolation. The strongest of which the mind can conceive. The consolation of a Christian is not in liis own strength; his hope of hea ven is not in any reliance on his own powers. His comfort is, that God has promised eternal life to his peo ple, and that He cannot prove false to his word. Titus i. 2. ^f Who have fled for refuge. Referring to the fact that one charged with murder fled to the city of refuge, or laid hold on an altar for security. So we guilty and deserving of death have fled to the hopes of the gospel in the Redeemer. •f To lay hold upon. To seize and hold fast— as one does an altar when and steadfast, eth into that and which enterwithin a the veil;
he is pursued by the avenger of blood. •jf The hope set before vs. The hope j of eternal life offered in the gospel. This is set before us as our refuge, and to this we flee when we feel that we are in danger of death. On the nature of hope, see Notes on Eph.ii. 12. 19. Which hope we have as an an chor of the soul. Hope accomplishes for the soul the same thing which an anchor does for a ship. It makes it fast and secure. An anchor preserves a ship when the waves beat and the wind bloAvs, and as long as the anchor holds, so long the ship is safe, and the mariner apprehends no danger. So with the soul of the Christian. In the tempests and trials of life, his mind is calm as long as his hope of heaven is firm. If that gives way, he feels that all is lost. Among the heathen writers, hope is often cornpared with an anchor. So Socrates said, " To ground hope on a false sup position, is like trusting to a weak anchor." Again — " A ship ought not to trust to one anchor, nor life to one hope." ^[ Both sure and steadfast. Firm and secure. This refers to the an chor. That is fixed in the sand, and the vessel is secure, ^ And which cntereth into that within the veil. The allusion to the anchor here is dropped, and the apostle speaks simply of hope.
\ The ' veil' here refers to that which in the temple divided the holy from the most holy place. See Notes on Matt. xxi. 12. The place ' within the
! veil' — the most holy place — was re garded as God's peculiar abode — where he dwelt by the visible symbol of his presence. That holy place was emblematic of heaven; and the idea here is, that the hope of the Christian enters into heaven itself; it takes hold on the throne of God; it is made firm by being fastened there. It is not the hope of future riches, honours, or pleasures in this life— for such a hope
20 Whither a the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,
would not keep the soul steady; it is the hope of immortal blessedness and purity in the world beyond.
20. Whither. To which most holy place — heaven. ^ The forerunner, The word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. A fore runner — TTpodpofjios — is one who goes before others to prepare the way. The word is applied to light troops sent forward as scouts. Diod. Sic. 17. 17. Comp. ' Wisdom of Solomon' (apoc.) xii. 8. " Thou didst send wasps, forerunners of thy host, to de stroy them by little and little." The meaning here is, that Jesus went first into the heavenly sanctuary. He led the way. He has gone there on our account, to prepare a place for us. John xiv. 3. Having such a friend and advocate there, we should be firm in the hope of eternal life, and amidst the storms and tempests around us, we should be calm. ^[ Made an high priest for ever. See Notes, ch. v. 6. 10. To illustrate this fact, was tlie object for which this discussion was intro duced, and which had been interrupt ed by the remarks occurring in this chapter on the danger of apostacy. Having warned them of this danger, and exhorted them to go on to make the highest attainments possible in the divine life, the apostle resumes the discussion respecting Melchizedek, and makes the remarks which he intended to make respecting this remarkable man. See ch. v. 11.
1. We should aim at perfection in order that we may have evidence of piety. Ver. 1. No man can be a Christian who does not do this, or who does not desire to be perfect as God is perfect. No one can be a Christian who is satisfied or contented to remain in sin; or who would not prefer to be made at once as holy as an angel — as the Lord Jesus — as God.
made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.b
order to make great attainments. Ver. 1. No man makes any great advance in any thing, who does not set his standard high. Men usually accomplish about what they expect to accomplish. If a man expects to be a quack physician, he becomes such; if he is satisfied to be a fourth-rate, lawyer, he becomes such; if he is wil ling to be an indifferent mechanic, he. advances no higher; if he has no in tention or expectation of being a firstrate farmer, he will never becomeone. If he sincerely aims, however, to excel, he usually accomplishes his object. And it is so in religion. If a man does not intend to be an emi nent Christian, he may be certain he never will be. Eeligion is not pro duced by chance— any more than fine fruit is, or than a good harvest is. One of the principal reasons why Pre sident Edwards became so eminent a Christian, was, that in early life he adopted the following resolution, to which he appears always to have ad hered, that " on the supposition that there never was to be but one indivi dual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Chris tian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true lustre, and appearing ex cellent and lovely, from whatever part, and under whatever character viewed: Resolved, To act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time." Life, by S. E. Dwight, D. D., p. 72.
3. We should aim to acquire as nrnch knoivlec/gc of religious truth as we possibly can. Vs. 1, 2. True piety is principle. It is not fancy, or dreaming, or visions, or enthusiasm. It is based on knowledge, and does not go beyond that. No rnari has any more religion than he has knowledge of the way of salvation. He cannot force his religion to overstep the bounds of his knowledge; for iano~ ranee contributes nothing to devotion. There may be knowledge where there is no piety; but there can be no true religion where there is no knowledge. If, therefore, a Christian wishes to make advances, he must gain a knowledge of the truth. He must understand the great doctrines of his religion. And in like manner, if we •wish the next generation to be in telligent and solid Christians, we must train them up to understand the Bible,
4. The consequences of the judg ment will be eternal. Ver. 3. No truth is more solemn than this. It is this which makes the prospect of the judgment so awful. If the con sequences of the sentence were to continue for a few years, or ages, or centuries only, it would be of much less importance. But who can abide the thought of ' eternal judgment f Of an eternal sentence? Here the most fearful and solemn sentence is for a short period. The sentence will soon expire; or it is mitigated by the hope of a change. Pain here is brief. Disgrace, and sorrow, and heaviness of heart, and all the woes that man can inflict, soon come to an end. There is an outer limit of suffering, and no severity of a sentence, no in genuity of man, can prolong it far. The man disgraced, and whose life is a burden, will soon die. On the cheeks of the solitary prisoner, doomed to the dungeon for life, a ' mortal paleness' will soon settle down, and the com forts of an approaching release by death may soothe the anguish of his sad heart. The rack of torture cheats itself of its own purpose, and the ex hausted sufferer is released. " The excess [of grief,] makes it soon mor tal." But in the world of future woe the sentence will never expire; and death will never come to relieve the sufferer. I may ask, then, of my reader. Are you prepared for the ' eternal' sentence? Are you ready to hear a doom pronounced which can never be changed? Would you be willing to have God judge you just as you are, and pronounce such a sentence as ought to be pronounced now, and have the assurance that it would be eternal? You seek worldly honour. Would you be Avilling to be doomed always to seek that? You aspire after wealth. Would you be willing to be doomed to aspire after that always? You seek pleasure — in the gay and giddy world. Would you be willing to be doomed always to seek after that? You have no re ligion; perhaps desire to have none, Yet would you be willing to be doomed to be always without reli gion? You are a stranger to the God that made you. Would you be willing to be sentenced to be always a stranger to God? You indulge in passion, pride, envy, sensuality. Would you be willing to be sentenced always to the raging of these passions and lusts? How few are they who would be willing to have an eternal sentence passed on them, or to be doomed to pursue their present em ployments, or to cherish their present opinions for ever! How few who would dare to meet a sentence which should be in strict accordance with what was just, and which was never to change!
5. With the righteous it should be matter of rejoicing that the judgment is to be eternal. Ver. 3. They can desire no change of the sentence which will assign them to heaven; and it will be no small part of the joy of the heavenly world, that the results of the judgment will be ever lasting. There will be no further trial; no reversing of the sentence; no withdrawing of the crown of glory. The righteous are the only ones who have not reason to dread a 'just eter nal sentence;' and they will rejoice when the time shall come which will fix their doom for ever.
6. We should dread apostacy from the true religion. Ver. 4. We should habitually feel that if we should deny our Lord, and reject his religion, there would be no hope. The die would be cast; and we munt then perish for ever. By this solemn con sideration God intends to preserve his people, and it is a consideration which has been so effectual that there is not the least reason to suppose that any one who has ever had any true religion, has fallen away and perished. Many have been almost Christians, and have then turned back to perdi tion (Matt. vii. 22, 23; Acts xxvi. 28), but there is no reason to suppose that any Avho have been true Christians have thus apostatised and been lost. Yet Christians are not kept without watchfulness; they cannot be kept without the most sincere and constant endeavours to preserve themselves from falling.
7. If the sin of apostacy is so great, then every approach to it is danger ous; and then every sin should be avoided. He that habitually indulges in sin cannot be a Christian; and every sin which a sincere Christian commits should be measured by the guilt which would exist should it be come final, and should he wholly fall away. No man can indulge in sin and be safe; and no professed Chris tian who finds himself disposed to in dulge in sin, should cherish the ex pectation of reaching heaven. Vs. 4. —6.
8. It is a matter of devout gratitude that God lias kept all his true people from apostacy. Vs. 4—6. If it is true that no one who has been re generated has ever fallen away; if the means which God has used have been effectual in a world so full of tempta tions and when we have hearts so prone to evil; and if it is the intention of God to keep all to eternal salvation who are truly converted, then it should be to us a subject of devout thankfulness and of encouragement. In view of this, we should admire the wisdom of the plan which thus se cures salvation; we should look to him with the firm assurance that he will keep what we have committed to him to the final day.
9. We should improve the privi leges which we enjoy so as to receive a blessing from God. Vs. 7, 8. It is desirable that a farm should be well cultivated so as not to be overrun with briars and thorns; desirable that it should produce an abundant har vest, and not exhibit mere barren ness and desolation. Yet, alas, there are many professing Christians who resemble such a field of thorns, and such a scene of desolation. They produce no fruits of righteousness; they do nothing to extend the king dom of the Redeemer! What can such expect but the curse of God? What can the end of such be but to be 'burned?'
10. God will not fail to reward his faithful people. Ver. 10. What we have done in his service, and with a sincere desire to promote his glory, unworthy of his notice as it may seem to us to be, he will not fail to reward. It may be unobserved or forgotten by the world; nay, it may pass out of our own recollection, but it will never fail from the mind of God. Whether it be two ' mites' con tributed to his cause, or a ' cup of cold water given to a disciple,' or a life consecrated to his service, it will be alike remembered. What encourage ment there is, therefore, to labour in the promotion of his glory, and to do all we can for the advancement of his kingdom!
11. Let us follow those who haA'e inherited the promises. Ver. 12. They are worthy examples. When from their lofty seats in heaven they look back on the journey of life, though to them attended with many trials, they never regret the ' faith and pa tience' by which they were enabled to persevere. We have most illustrious examples to imitate. They are nu merous as the drops of dew, and bright as the star of the morning. It is an honour to tread in the footsteps of the holy men who have inherited the pro mises; an honour to feel that we are walking in the same path, and are reaching out the hand to the same croAvn.
12. It is the privilege of those Avho are truly the children of God to enjoy strong consolation. Vs. 13— IS.^Their hope is based on that which cannot fail. God cannot lie. And Avhen we have evidence that he has promised us eternal life, we may open our hearts to the full influence of Chris tian consolation. It may be asked, perhaps, how we may have that evi dence? Will God speak to us from heaven and assure us that we are his children? Will he reveal our names as written in his book? Will he come to us in the night-watches and ad dress us by name as his? I answer, No. None of these things are we to expect. But if we have evidence that we have true repentance, and sincere faith in the Kedeemcr; if we love ho liness find desire to lead a pure life; if we delight in the Bible and in the people of God, then we may regard him as addressing us in the promises and oath of his word, and assuring us of salvation. These promises be long to us, and we may apply them to ourselves. And if we have evidence that God promises us eternal life, why should we doubt? We may feel that we are unworthy; our consciences may reproach us for the errors and follies of our past lives; but on the unchanging word and oath of God we may rely, and there we may feel secure.
13. How invaluable is the Christian hope! Ver. 19. To us it is like the anchor to a vessel in a storm. We are sailing along the voyage of life. We are exposed to breakers, and tem pests. Our bark is liable to be tossed about, or to be shipwrecked. In the agitations and troubles of life, how much we need some anchor of the soul; something that shall make us calm and serene! Such an anchor is found in the hope of the gospel. While that hope is firm AVC need fear nothing. All is then safe, and we may look calmly on. assured that we shall ride out the storm, and come at last safely into the haven of peace. Happy they who have fled for refuge to the faith of the gospel; whose hope like a steady anchor has entered into hearen and binds the soul to the throne of God; whose confidence in the Bedeemer is unshaken in all the storms of life, and who have the assurance that when the tempest shall have beaten upon them a little longer they will be admitted to a haven of rest, where storms and tempests are for ever unknown. With such a hope we may well bear the trials of this life for the few days appointed to us on earth— for what are the longest trials here compared with that eter nal rest which remains for all who love God in a brighter world?
In eh. v. 10, 11, the apostle had introduced the name of Melchizedek, and said that Christ was made an high priest after the same order as he. He added, that he had much to say of him, but that they were not in a state of mind then to receive or un derstand it. He then (ch. v. 12—14) rebukes them for the little progress which they had made in Christian knowledge; exhorts them to go on and make higher attainments (ch. vi. 1—3); warns them against the dan ger of apostacy (ch. vi. 4 — 8); and encourages them to hold fast their faith and hope to the end, in view of the covenant faithfulness of God (ch. vi. 9 — 20); and now returns to the subject under discussion — the high priesthood of Christ. His object is to show that he was superior to the Jewish high priest, and for this pur pose he institutes the comparison be tween him and Melchizeitek. The argnmnit is the following: —
I. That which is drawn from the exalted rank of Melchizedek, and the fact that the ancestor of the whole Jewish priesthood and community — Abraham — acknowledged him as his superior, and rendered tribute to him. But Christ was of the order of Melchizedck, and the apostle, therefore, infers his superiority to the Jewish priesthood. Vs. 1 — 10. In the pro secution of this argument, the apostle dwells on the import of the name Mclchtzcdc/i (vs. 1,2); states the fact that he was without any known an cestry or descent, and that he stood aloue on the pages of the sacred re- cord, and was therefore worthy to be compared with the Son of God, who had a similar pre-eminence (ver. 3); urges the consideration that even Abraham, the ancestor of the whole Jewish community and priesthood, paid tithes to him, and thus confessed his inferiority (ver. 4); shows that he of whom a blessing was received must be superior to the one who receives it (vs. 6, 7); and that even Levi, the ancestor of the whole Levitical priest hood, might be said to have paid tithes in Abraham, and thus to have acknowledged his inferiority to Mel chizedek, and consequently to the Son of God, who was of his ' order.' Vs. 9, 10.
II. The apostle shows that 'perfec tion' could not arise out of the Leviti cal priesthood, and that a priesthood that introduced a perfect state must be superior. Vs. 11 — 19. In the pro secution of this argument, he states that perfection could not be arrived at under the Hebrew economy, and that there was need that a priesthood of another order should be formed (ver. 11); that a change of the priest hood involved of necessity a change in the law or administration (ver. 12); that the necessity of change of the law also followed from the fact that the great high priest was now of an other tribe than that of Levi (vs. 13, 14); that the Christian High Priest was constituted not after a command ment pertaining to the flesh and liable to change, but ' after the power of an endless life' — adapted to a life that was never to change or to end (vs. 15 — 17); that consequently there was a disannulling of the commandment going before, because it was weak and unprofitable (ver. 18); and that the old law made nothing perfect, but that by the new arrangement a sys tem of entire and eternal perfection was introduced. Ver. 19.
high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
riority of the priesthood of Christ tothai of the Jewish system from the fact that the great High Priest of the Christian system Avas constituted with the solemnity of an oath; the Jewish priesthood was not. Vs. 20—22. His priesthood, therefore, was as much: more important and solemn as an. oath is superior to a command; and his suretyship became as much more certain as an oath is superior to a simple promise. Ver. 22.
IV. The superiority of the priest hood of Christ is further shown from the fact that under the former dispen sation there were many priests; but here there was but one. There, they lived but a brief period, and then gave way to their successors; but here there was no removal by death, there was no succession, there was an un changeable priesthood. Vs. 23, 24. He infers, therefore (ver. 25), that the Christian High Priest was able to save to the uttermost all that came to the Father by him, since he ever lived to make intercession.
V. The last argument is, that un der the Levitical priesthood it was necessary for the priest to offer sacri fice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. No such neces sity, however, existed in regard to the High Priest of the Christian system. He was holy, harmless, and undefiled; he had no need to offer sacrifices for his own sins; and in this respect there was a vast superiority of the Christian priesthood over the Jewish. Vs. 96 — 28. The force of these se veral arguments we shall be able to estimate as we advance in the ex position.
1. For this Melchizedek. Comp. Notes, ch. v. G. The name Melchize dek, from which the apostle derives a portion of his argument here, is Bebrew,— p7.^ " ^3^?P, and is correct ly explained as meaning king of right- eousness— being compounded of two words— king and righteousness. Why tins name was given to this man is unknown. Names, however, were frequently given on account of some quality or characteristic of the man. Notes on Isa. viii. 18. This name may have been given on account of his eminent integrity. The apostle calls attention to it (ver. 2), as a cir cumstance 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 prede cessor of the Messiah. The account of Melchizedek, which is very brief, occurs in Gen. xiv. 18 — 20. The name occurs in the Bible only in Gen. xiv., Ps. ex. 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 Sanchuniatlion is called SvSuK — Sydyc. It has indeed been made a question by some whether such a person ever ac tually existed, and consequently whe ther this be a proper name. But the account in Genesis is as simple an his torical record as any other in the Bi ble. In that account there is no diffi culty 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 Avas respected as a priest of God, came out to express his appro bation 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 spe cial difficulty if it had not been for the use which the apostle makes of it in this epistle. Yet on no subject serve to show how easy it is for men to mystify a clear statement of his tory, and how fond they are of find ing what is mysterious and marvel lous in the plainest narrative of facts. That he was Shem, as the Jews sup pose, or that he was the Son of God himself, as many Christian expositors have maintained, there is not tho 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" (ver. 3); that is, like himself; or that Christ was constituted a priest " after the order of Melchizedek;" 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 per sonage eminently endowed by God. and who acted as the priest of his people. That he combined in him self the offices of priest and king, fur nished to the apostle a beaut if ufillust rat ion 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 men tioned was so carefully traced and preserved, furnished another striking illustration. In this respect, like the Son of God, he stood alone. lie was not in a line of priests; he was pre ceded by no one in the Sacerdotal office, nor was he followed by any. That he was superior to Abraham, and consequently to all who descend ed from Abraham; that a tribute was rendered to him by the great Ances tor of all the fraternity of Jewish priests, was just an illustration which suited the purpose of Paul. His name, has there been a greater variety of therefore, the place where he reigned, opinion than in regard to this man. his solitariness, his lone conspicuity fill a volume. But in in all the past, his dignity, and per haps the air of mystery thrown over illustration of the solitary grandeur, and the inapproachable eminence of the priesthood of the Son of God. Thert is no evidence that Melchizedek was designed to be a type of the Messiah, or that Abraham so under stood it. Nothing of this kind is affirmed; and how shall we affirm it when the sacred oracles are silent? ^[ King of Salem. Such is the record in Gen. xiv. 18. The word Salem — cbtJ?— means peace; and from this fact the apostle derives his illustration in ver. 2. He regards it as a fact worth remarking on, that the name of the place over which he ruled ex pressed 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 al most uniform opinion has been that it was that afterwards known as Je rusalem. The reasons for this opin ion are, (1.) that it is a part of the name Jerusalem itself— the name Je ms, altered from Jebus, having been afterward added, because it was the residence of the Jebusites. (2.) The name Salem is itself given to Jerusa lem. Ps. Ixxvi. 2. " In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwellingplace inZion." (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. xiv. 14), and he was returning to Mamre, that is, Hebron. Gen. xiv. 13. On his return, therefore, he would pass in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Kosenmiiller, however, supposes that by the name here, Jerusalem is not in tended, 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 Go morrah were situated. But I see no reason for doubting that the common opinion that Jerusalem is intended, is correct. That place was favourably situated for a capital of a nation or tribe; was easily fortified; and would be likely to be early selected as a royal residence. ^[ Priest of the most high God, This is the account which is given of him in Gen. xiv. 18. The leading office of priest was to offer sacrifice. This duty was probably first performed by the father of the family (comp. Notes on Job i. 5; see also Gen. viii. 20; xxii. 2), and when he was dead it devolved on the eldest son. It would seem also that in the early ages, among all nations whose records have reached us, the office of priest and king were united in the same person. It was long before it was found that the interests of reli gion 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, there fore, remarkable. The only thing remarkable is, that he should have been a priest of the true God. In what way he became acquainted with Him, is wholly unknown. It may have been by tradition preserved from the times of Noah, as it is possible that the arrival of Abraham in that land may have been in some way the means of acquainting him with the existence and character of JEHOVAH. TliQfact shows at least that the know ledge 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 grati tude to Abraham for having freed the country from oppressive and trouble some invaders, and in order to furnish which Abra- 3come weary and exhausted with the pursuit. There is not the slightest evidence that the bread and wine which he brought forth \vas designed to typify the Sa crament of the Lord's Supper, as has been sometimes supposed. Comp. Bush on Gen. xiv. 18. What did he know of this ordinance? And why should we resort to such a supposi tion, when the whole case may be met by a simple reference to the an cient rites of hospitality, and by the fact that the deliverance of the coun try by Abraham from a grievous inva-
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King
sion made some expression of grati tude on the part of this pious king in the highest degree proper? ^[ Return ing from the slaughter of the kings. Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and " Tidal, king of na tions," 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 neigh bourhood of Damascus, and had smit ten them, and recovered the spoil. ^[ And blessed him. Tor the import ant service which he had rendered in taking vengeance on these invaders; in freeing the land from the appre hension of being invaded again; and in recovering the valuable booty which they had taken away. From vs. 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. To ivhom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all. That is, a tenth part of all the spoils which he had taken (Gen. xiv. 20), thus acknow ledging that in dignity of office Melchizedek was greatly his superior. Vs. 4. 6. 8. This does not appear to have been on the part of Abraham so much designed as a present to Melchizedek personally, as an act of pious thankfulness to God. He doubtless recognised in Melchizedek one who was a minister of God, and to him as such he devoted the tenth of all which he had taken, as a proper acknow ledgment of the goodness of God and of his claims. From this it is evident that the propriety of devoting a tenth part of what was possessed to God, was regarded as a duty before the appointment of the Levitical law.
of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which isy King of peace;
Some expression of this kind is obvi ously demanded, and piety seems early to have fixed on the tenth part as being no more than a proper pro portion to consecrate to the service of religion. For the propriety of the use which the apostle makes of this fact, see Notes on vs. 4. 6. 8. ^f First being. The first idea in the inter pretation of his name and office, &c. First being mentioned as king of righteousness, and then as king of peace. ^[ King of righteousness. The literal translation of the name Mel chizedek. Notes ver. 1. The argu ment implied in this by the remarks of the apostle is, that he bore a name which made him a proper emblem of the Messiah. There was a propriety that one in whose ' order ' the Messiah was to be found, should have such a name. It would be exactly descrip tive of him, and it was worthy of ob servation that he of whose ' order ' it was said the Messiah would be, should have had such a name. Paul does not say that this name was given to him with any such reference; or that it was designed to be symbolical of what the Messiah would be, but that there was a remarkable coinci dence; that it was a fact which was worth at least a passing thought. This is a kind of remark that might occur to any one to make, and where the slight use which Paul makes of it would not be improper anywhere; but it cannot be denied that to one accustomed to the Jewish mode of rea soning — accustomed to dwell much on hidden meanings, and to trace out concealed analogies, it would be much more obvious and striking than it is with us. We are to place ourselves in the situation of those to whom Paul wrote — trained up with Jewish feelings, and Jewish modes of thought, and to ask how this would strike their minds. And this is no more unrea sonable than it would be in interpret-
3 Without father, without mother, without1 descent, having neither beginning of days nor
ing a Greek classic, or a work of a Hindoo philosopher, that we should endeavour to place ourselves in the situation of the writer and of those for whom he wrote, and ascertain what ideas would be conveyed to them by certain expressions. It is not meant by these observations that there was really no intrinsic force in what Paul here said respecting the import of the name. There was force; and all the use which he makes of it is proper. His meaning appears to be merely that it was a fact worthy of remark, that the name had a meaning which corresponded so entirely with the character of him who was to be a high priest of the same " order." ^And after that. lie is mentioned after that with another appellation equally sig nificant. ^[ King of peace. A literal translation of the appellation ' king of Salem.' Ver. 1. The idea of Paul is, that it was worthy of remark that the appellation which he bore was ap propriate to one whose ministry it was said the priesthood of the Mes siah would resemble.
3. Without father. The phrase with out father— aTraTvp— means literally one who has no father; one who has lost his father; one who is an orphan. Then it denotes one who is born after the death of his father; then one whose father is unknown — spurious — Passoiv. The word occurs often in these senses in the classic writers, for numerous examples of which the reader may consult Wet stein in loc. It is morally certain, however, that the apostle did not use the word here in either of these senses, for there is no evidence that Melchizedek was fatherless in any of these respects. It "was very important in the estimation of the Jews that the line of their priesthood should be carefully kept; that their genealogies should be ac curately marked and preserved; and
end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.
that their direct descent from Aaron should be susceptible of easy and cer tain proof. But the apostle says that there is no such genealogical table in regard to Melchizedek. There was no record made of the name either of his father, his mother, or any of his posterity. He stood alone. It is simply said that such a man came out to meet Abraham — and that is the first and the last which we hear of him and of his family. Now, says the apostle, it is distinctly said (Ps. ex. 4), that the Messiah was to be a priest accord ing to his order — and in this respect there is a remarkable resemblance, so far as the point of his being a priest — which was the point under discus sion — was concerned. The Messiah thus, as a priest, STOOD ALONE. His name does not appear in the line of priests. He pertained to another tribe. Ver. 14. No one of his ancestors is mentioned as a priest; and as a priest he has no descendants, and no fol lowers. He has a lowly conspicuity similar to that of Melchizedek; a standing unlike that of any other priest. This should not, therefore, be construed as meaning that the gene alogy of Christ could not be traced out — which is not true, for Matthew (ch. i.) and Luke (ch. iii.) have care fully preserved it; but that he had no genealogical record as a/ priest. As the reasoning of the apostle pertains to this point only, it would be unfair to construe it as implying that the Messiah was to stand unconnected with any ancestor, or that his gene alogy would be unknown. The mean ing of the word rendered ' without father' here is, therefore, one the name of whose father is not recorded in the Hebrew genealogies. ^[ Without mo ther. The name of whose mother is unknown, or is not recorded in the Hebrew genealogical tables. Philo calls Sarah — aroa— without mother, probably because her mother is not mentioned in the sacred records. The Syriac has given the correct view of the meaning of the apostle. In that version it is, ' Of whom neither the father nor mother are recorded in the genealogies.' The meaning here is not that Melchizedek was of low and obscure origin — as the terms * without father and without mother,' often signify in the classic writers, and in Arabic, (comp. Wetstein) — for there is no reason to doubt that Mel chizedek had an ancestry as honour able as other kings and priests of his time. The simple thought is, that the name of his ancestry does not appear in any record of those in the.priestly office. ^[ Without descent. Marg. pedigree. The Greek word aytvea- XoyijTos — means without genealogy; whose descent is unknown. He is merely mentioned himself, and no thing is said of his family or of his posterity, ^f Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. This is a much more difficult expression than any of the others respecting Melchi zedek. The obvious meaning of the phrase is, that in the records of Moses, neither the beginning nor the close of his life is mentioned. It is not said when he was born or when he died; nor is it said that he was born or that he died. The apostle adverts to this particularly, because it was so un usual in the records of Moses, who is in general so careful to mention the birth and death of the individuals whose lives he mentions. Under the Mosaic dispensation every thing re specting the duration of the sacerdo tal office was determined accurately by the laAV. In the time of Moses, and by his arrangement, the Levites were required to serve from the age of thirty to fifty. Num. iv. 3, 23. 35. 43. 47; viii. 24. 25. After the age of fifty they were released from the more arduous and severe duties of their office. In later periods of the Jewish history they commenced their duties at the age of twenty. I. Chron. xxiii. 24. 27. The priests, also, and the high priest entered on their office at thirty years of age, though it is not supposed that they retired from it at any particular period of life. The idea of the apostle here is, that nothing of this kind occurs in regard to Melchizedek. No period is men tioned when he entered on his office; none when he retired from it. From any thing that appears in the sacred record it might be perpetual — though Paul evidently did not mean to be understood as saying that it icas so. It cannot be that he meant to say that Melchizedek had no beginning of days literally, that is, that he was from eternity; or that he had no end of life literally; that is, that he would exist for ever — for this would be to make him equal with God. The expression used must be interpreted according to the matter under discussion, and that was the office of Melchizedek as a priest. Of that no beginning is mentioned, and no end. That this is the meaning of Paul there can be no doubt; but there is a much more dif ficult question about the force and pertinacy of this reasoning; about the use which he means to make of this fact, and the strength of the ar gument which he here designs to em ploy. This inquiry cannot be easily settled. It may be admitted undoubt edly, that it would strike a Jew with much more force than it would any other person, and to see its pertinency we ought to be able to place ourselves in their condition, and to transfer to ourselves as far as possible their state of feeling. It was mentioned in Ps. ex. 4, that the Messiah was to be a * priest after the order of Melchize dek.' It was natural then to turn to the only record which existed of him — the very brief narrative in Gen. xiv. There the account is simple and plain — that he was a pious Canaanitish king who officiated as a priest. In what point then, it would be asked, was the Messiah to resemble him? In his personal character; his office; his rank; or in what he did? It would be natural, then, to run out the parallel, and seize upon the points in which Melchizedek differed from the
Jewish priests which would be sug gested on reading that account, for it was undoubtedly in those points that the resemblance between Christ and Melchizeclek was to consist. Here the record was to be the only guide, and the points in which he differed from the Jewish priesthood according to the record, were such as these. (1.) That there is no account of his an cestry as a priest — neither father nor mother being mentioned, as was in dispensable in the records of the Levitical priesthood. (2.) There was no account of any descendants in his of fice, and no reason to believe that he had any, and he thus stood alone. (3.) There was no account of the commencement or close of his office as a priest, but so far as the record goes, it is just as it would have been if his priesthood had neither begin ning nor end. It was inevitable, there fore, that those who read the Psalm, and compared it with the account in Gen. xiv., should come to the conclu sion that the Messiah was to resemble Melchizeclek in some such points as these— for these are the points in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood — and to run out these points of comparison is all that the apostle has done here. It is just what would be done by any Jew, or indeed by any other man, and the reasoning grew directly out of the two accounts in the Old Testament. It is not, then, quibble or quirk — it is sound reason ing, based on these two points. (1.) That it was said in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and (2.) that the only points, according to the record, in which there was any thing peculiar about the priesthood of Melchizedek, or in which he dif fered from the Levitical priesthood, were such as those which Paul speci fies. He reasons from the record; and though there is, as was natural, something of a Jewish cast about it, yet it was the only kind of reasoning that was possible in the case. ^[ But made like. The word here used means to be made like, to be made to resem ble; and then to be like, to be com pared with. Our translation seems to imply that there was a divine agency or intention by which Mel chizedek was made to resemble the Son of God, but this does not seem to be the idea of the apostle. In the Psalm it is said that the Messiah would resemble Melchizedek in hi* priestly office, and this is doubtless the idea here. Paul is seeking to il lustrate the nature and perpetuity of the office of the Messiah, by compar ing it with that of Melchizedek. Hence he pursues the idea of this re semblance, and the true sense of the word used here is, * he was like, or he resembled the Son of God.' So Tindal and Coverdale render it, "is likened unto the Son of God." The points of resemblance are those which have been already suggested — (1.) in the name — king of righteousness, and king of peace-, (2.) in the fact that he had no ancestors or successors in the priestly office; (3.) that he was, ac cording to the record, a perpetual priest — there being no account of his death; and perhaps (4.) that he united in himself the office of king and priest. It may be added, that the expression here, ' was made like untc the Son of God, proves that he was not himself the Son of God, as many have supposed. How could he be ' made like' himself? How could a comparison be formally made between Christ and himself? «f Abideth a priest continually. That is, as far a* the record in Genesis goes — for it was according to this record that Paul was reasoning. This clause is connected with ver. 1; and the intermediate statements are of the nature of a pa renthesis, containing important sug gestions respecting the character of Melchizedek, which would be useful in preparing the readers for the argu ment which the apostle proposed to draw from his rank and character. The meaning is, that there is no ac count of his death, or of his ceasing to exercise the priestly office, and in this respect he may be compared with the Lord Jesus. All other priests
4 Now consider how great this man was unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are
cease to exercise their office oy death (ver. 23); but of the death of Melchizedek there is no mention. It must have been true that the priesthood of Melchizedek terminated at his death; and it will be also true that that of Christ will cease when his church.shall have been redeemed, and when he shall have given up the mediato rial kingdom to the Father. I. Cor. xv. 25 — 28. The expression, ' abideth a priest continually,' therefore, is equi valent to saying that he had a per petual priesthood in contradistinction from those -whose office terminated at a definite period, or whose office passed over into the hands of others, bee Notes on ver. 24.
4. Now consider how great this man was. The object of the apostle was to exalt the rank and dignity of Mel chizedek. The Jews had a profound veneration for Abraham, and if it could be shoAvn that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham, then it would be easy to demonstrate the superiority of Christ as a priest to all who de scended from Abraham. Accordingly he argues, that be to whom <?Aren the patriarch Abraham showed so much Tespect, must have had an exalted rank. Abraham, according to the views of the East, the illustrious an cestor of the Jewish nation, was re garded as superior to any of his posterity, and of course was to be considered as of higher rank and dig nity than the Levitical priests who were descended from him. ^[ Even Ihe patriarch Abraham. One so great as he is acknowledged to have been. On the word patriarch, See Notes on Acts ii. 29. It occurs only in Acts ri. 29, vii. 8, 9, and in this place. *$ Gave the tenth of the spoils. Notes, ver. 2. The argument here is, that Abraham acknowledged the siiperiority of Melchizedek by thus devoting
of the sons of Levi, who a re ceive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people accord-
the usual part of the spoils of war, or of what was possessed, to God by his hands, as the priest of the Most High. Instead of making a direct consecra tion by himself, he brought them to him as a minister of religion, and re cognised in him one who had a higher official standing in the matter of reli gion than himself. The Greek word here rendered spoils — aKpoOlviov — means literally, the top of tlie heap, from aKpov, top, and $«>, heap. The Greeks were accustomed, after a bat tle, to collect the spoils together, and throw them into a pile, and then; be fore they were distributed, to take off a portion from the top, and devote it to the gods. Xen. Gyro. 7. 5, 35; He - rod. i. 86. 90; viii. 121, 122; Dion. Hal. ii. In like manner it was cus tomary to place the harvest in a heap, and as the first thing to take off a portion from the top to consecrate as a thank-offering to God. The word then came to denote the first-fruits which were offered to God, and then the best of the spoils of battle. It has that sense here, and denotes the spoils or plunder which Abraham had taken of the discomfited kings.
5. And ver Hi/ they that are of the sons of Levi. The meaning of this verse is, that the Levitical priests had aright to receive tithes cf their breth ren, but still that they were inferior to Melchizedek. The apostle admits that their superiority to the rest of the people was shown by the fact that they had a right to require of them the tenth part of the productions of the land for their maintenance, and for the support of religion. But still he says, that their inferiority to Mel chizedek, and consequently to Christ as a priest, was shown by the fact that the illustrious ancestor of all the Jewish people, including the priests as well as others, had confessed his
ing to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he, whose1 descent is not counted from them, reteived a tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had b the pro-
7 And without all contradic tion the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die re ceive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom c it is wit nessed that he liveth.
inferiority to Melchizedek by paying him tithes. ^ Who receive the office of the priesthood. Not all the descen dants of Levi were priests. The apos tle, therefore, specifies particularly those who 'received this office/ as being those whom he specially de signed, and as those whose inferiority to Christ as a priest it was his object to show, ^f Have a commandment to take tithes. Have by the law a com mission, or a right to exact tithes of the people. Deut. xiv. 22. 27 — 29.
6. But he whose descent is not counted from them. Melchizedek. The word descent is in the margin pedi gree. The meaning is, that he was not in the same genealogy — n^ yevea\- oyovfj.€vos — ne was n°t of the order of Levitical priests. That Melchizedek is meant there can be no doubt; at the same time, also, the thought is presented with prominence on which Paul so much insists, that he was of > different order from the Levitical priesthood. ^[ And blessed him. Bless ed him as a priest of God; blessed him in such a manner as to imply acknowledged superiority. See ver. 1. | *[[ That had the promises. The pro mise that he should have a numerous posterity; that in him all the na tions of the earth should be blessed. See ch. vi. 12—16.
7. And without all contradiction. It is an admitted principle; a point about which there can be no dispute. ^ The less is blessed of the better. The act of pronouncing a blessing is understood to imply superiority of rank, age, or station. So when a father lays his hand on his children and blesses them, it is understood to be the act of one superior in age, venerableness, and authority; when a prophet pronounced a blessing on the people, the same thing was under stood, and the same is true also when, a minister of religion pronounces a blessing on a congregation. It is the act of one who is understood to sus tain an office above the people ou whom the blessing is pronounced, This was understood of the Saviour when parents brought their children to him to lay his hands on them and bless them (Matt. xix. 13); and th& same was true of Jacob when dying he blessed the sons of Joseph. Heb*. xi. 2 1; Gen. xlviii. 5—20. The word less here means the one of inferior rank, who is less in office, honour,, of age. It does not imply inferiority of moral or religious character, for this is not the point under considera tion. The word better means one who is of superior office or rank, not. one who has necessarily a purer or holier character. That Melchizedek was thus superior to Abraham, Paul says, is implied by the very declara tion that he ' blessed him.' It is also seen to be true by the whole compa rison. Abraham was a petty prince.%. an Emir — the head of a company o£ Nomades, or migratory shepherds,, having, it is true, a large number of dependants, but still not having the rank here given to Melchizedek^ Though called a prophet (Gen. xx. 7),, yet he is nowhere called either a priest or a king. In these respects it was. undoubted that he was inferior to> Melchizedek.
inferiority of the Levitical priesthood. They who thus received tithes, though by the right to do this they asserted a superiority over their brethren, were mortal. Like others, they would soon die; and in regard to the most essen tial things they were on a level with their brethren. They had no exemp tion from sickness, affliction, or be reavement, and death came to them with just as much certainty as he approached other men. The mean ing of this is, that they are mortal like their brethren, and the design is to show the inferiority of their office by this fact. Its obvious and natural signification, in the apprehension of the great mass of readers, would not be, as the meaning has been supposed to be, that it refers ' to the brief and mutable condition of the Levitical priesthood.' See Stewart in loco. Such an interpretation would not occur to any one if it were not to avoid the difficulty existing in the correlative member of the verse where it is said of Melchizedek that " he liveth." But is the difficulty avoided then? Is it not as difficult to understand what is meant by his having an immutable and perpetual priesthood, as it is to know what is meant by his not dying literally? Is the one any more true than the other? Whatever difficul ties, therefore, there may be, we are bound to adhere to the obvious sense of the expression here; a sense which furnishes also a just and forcible ground of comparison. It seems to me, therefore, that the simple mean ing of this passage is, that under the Levitical economy, those who received tithes were mortal, and were thus placed in strong contrast with him of whom it was said ' he liveth.' Thus they were inferior to him— as a mor tal is inferior to one who does not die; and thus also they must be infe rior to him who was made a priest after the ' order' of him who thus « lived' <§But there. In contrast with " here" in the same verse. The refer ence here is to the^ account of Mel chizedek, " Here,'' in the Levitical economy, men received tithes who are mortal; " there," in the account of Melchizedek, the case is different. ^f He receiveth them. Melehizedek —for so the connexion evidently de mands. ^[ Of whom it is witnessed. Of whom the record is. There is not in Genesis, indeed, any direct record that he lives, but there is the absence of a record that he died, and this seems to have been regarded as in fact a record of permanency in the office; or as having an office which did not pass over to successors by the death of the then incumbent. ^[ That he liveth. This is an exceedingly difficult expression, and one which has always greatly perplexed commentators. The fair and obvious meaning is, that all the record we have of Melchizedek is, that he was ' alive,1 or as Grotius says, the record is merely that he lived, We have no mention of his death. From any thing that the record shows, it might appear that he continued to live on, and did not die. Arguing from the record, therefore, there is a strong contrast between him and the Levitical priests, all of whom we know are mortal. Ver. 23. The apos tle is desirous of making out a con trast between them and the priest hood of Christ on this point among others, and in doing this, he appeals to the record in the Old Testament, and says that there was a case which furnished an intimation that the priest ly office of the Messiah was not to pass over from him to others by death. That case was, that he was expressly compared(Ps. ex. 4) with Melchizedek, and that in the account of Melchize dek there was no record of his death. As to the force of this argument, it must be admitted that it would strike a Jew more impressively than it does most readers now; and it may not be improbable that the apostle was rea soning from some interpretation of the passages in Gen. xiv. and Ps. ex., which was then prevalent, and which would then be conceded on all hands to be correct. If this was the admit ted interpretation, and if there is no equivocation, or mere trick in the rea soning — as there cannot be shown to
9 And as I may so say, Levi
be — -why should we not allow to the Jew a peculiarity of reasoning as we do to all other people? There are modes of reasoning and illustration in all nations, in all societies, and in all professions, which do not strike others as very forcible. The ancient philoso phers had methods of reasoning which now seem weak to us; the lawyer often argues in a way which appears to be a mere quirk or quibble, and so the lecturer in science sometimes rea sons. The cause of all this may not "be always that there is real quibble or quirk, in the mode of argumentation, but that he who reasons in this man ner has in his view certain points which he regards as undisputed which do not appear so to us; or that he argues from what is admitted in the profession, or in the school Avhere he is taught, which are not understood by those whom he addresses. To this should be added also the considera tion, that Paul had a constant refer ence to the Messiah, and that it is possible that in his mind there was ^iere a transition from the type to the antitype, and that the language which he uses may be stronger than if he liad been speaking of the mere record of Melchizedek if he had found it standing by itself. Still his reason -,ng turns mainly on the fact that in the case of Melchizedek there was no one who had preceded him in that office, and that he had no successor, and, in regard to the matter in hand, it was all one as if he had been a perpetual priest, or had continued still alive.
9. And as I may so say. So to speak — a)Sf7ros emeu*. For numerous examples in the classic writers of this expression, see Wetstein in loc. It is used precisely as it is with us when we say « so to speak,' or 'if I may be allowed the expression.' It is em ployed when what is said is not strictly and literally true, but when it amounts to the same thing, or when about the same idea is conveyed.
also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
" It is a softening down of an expres sion which a writer supposes his read ers may deem too strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology for employing an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase." — Prof. Stuart. Here Paul could not mean that Levi had actually paid tithes in Abraham— for he had not then an existence; or that Abraham was his representative — for there had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi; or that the act of Abraham Avas imputed or reckoned to Abraham, for that was not true, and would not have been per tinent to the case if it were so. But it means, that in the circumstances of the case, the same tiling occurred in regard to the superiority of Melchi zedek, and the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood, as if Levi had been present with Abraham, and had him self actually paid tithes on that occa sion. This was so because Abraham was the distinguished ancestor of Levi, and when an ancestor has done an act implying inferiority of rank to another, we feel as if the whole family or all the descendants, by that act re cognised the inferiority, unless sometiling occurs to change the relative rank of the persons. Here nothing indicating any such change had oc curred. Melchizedek had no descend ants of which mention is made, and the act of Abraham, as the head of the Hebrew race, stood therefore as if it were the act of all who descended from him. ^ Levi. The ancestor of the whole Levitical priesthood, and from whom they received their name. He was the third son of Jacob and Leah, and was born in Mesopotamia. On account of the conduct of Simeon and Levi towards Shechem, for the manner in which he had treated their sister Dinah (Gen. xxxiv. 25.), and which Jacob characterised as ' cru elty,' (Gen. xlix. 5, 6), Jacob said that they should be ' scattered in Israel.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.
Gen. xlix. 7. Afterwards the whole tribe of Levi was chosen by God to execute the various functions of the priesthood, and were ' scattered' over the land, having no inheritance of their own, but deriving their subsist ence from the offerings of the people. Num. iii. 6. seq. Levi is here spoken of as the ancestor of the tribe, or col lectively to denote the entire Jewish priesthood. ^[ Who receiveth tithes. That is, his descendants, the priests and Levites, receive tithes. ^[ Payed tithes in Abraham. It is the same as if he had payed tithes in or by Abra ham.
10. For he was yet in the loins of his father. Abraham is here called the father of Levi, by a common use of the word, referring to a more re mote ancestor than the literal father. The meaning of the apostle is, that he was, even then, in a certain sense, in the loins of Abraham, when Melchizedek met him; or it was all the same as if he were there, and had then an existence. The relation which subsisted between him and Abraham, in the circumstances of the case, im plied the same thing as {/he had then been born, and had acted for himself by paying tithes. Instances of this occur constantly. A father sells a farm, to which his son would be heir, and it is the same as if the son had sold it. He has no more control over it than if he had been present and disposed of it himself. A father ac knowledges fealty to a government | for a certain title or property which j is to descend to his heirs, and it is all one as if tho heir had himself done it; and it is not improper to say that it is; the same as if he had been there and j acted for himself. For some valuable! remarks on the nature of the reason-! ing here employed, see Stuart on the \
hood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the or der of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Hebrews. Excursus xiv. The rea soning here is, indeed, especially such as would be fitted to impress a Jewish mind, and perhaps more forcibly than it does ours. The Jews valued them selves on the dignity and honour of the Levitical priesthood, and it was important to show them on their own principles, and according to their own sacred writings, that the great ances tor of all the Levitical community had himself acknowledged his inferiority to one who was declared also in their own writings (Ps. ex.) to be like the Messiah, or who was of the same ' order.' At the same time, the rea soning concedes nothing false; and conveys no wrong impression. It is not mere fancy or accommodation, nor is it framed on allegory or caba listic principles. It is founded in truth, and such as might be used anywhere, where regard was shown to pedigree, or respect was claimed on account of the illustrious deeds of an ancestor. It would be regarded as sound reasoning in a country like England, where titles and ranks are recognised, and where various orders of nobility exist. The fact that a re mote ancestor had done homage or fealty to the ancestor of another class of titled birth, would be regarded as proof of acknowledged inferiority in the family, and might be used with force and propriety in an argument. Paul has done no more than this.
11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. As the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect. It was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of ne cessity a change also of the law.
that a priest was to rise of another order, and of a more permanent cha racter, and this he says was full proof that there was defect of some kind in the previous order. What this defect was, he does not here specify, but the subsequent reasoning shows that it was in such points as these — that it was not permanent; that it could not make the worshippers perfect; that the blood which they offered in sacri fice could not take away sin, and could not render those who offered it holy. Comp. vs. 19, 23, 24, ch. x. I — -4. ^[ For under it the people re ceived the law. This assertion seems necessary in order to establish the point maintained in ver. 12, that if the priesthood is changed there must be also a change of the law. In order to this, it was necessary to admit that the law was received under that economy, and that it was part of it, so that the change of one involved also the change of the other. It was not strictly true that the whole law was given after the various orders of Levitical priests were established — for the law on Sinai, and several other laws were given before that distinct arrangement was made; but it was true (1) that a considerable part of the laws of Moses were given under that arrangement; and (2), that the whole of the ceremonial observances was connected with that. They were parts of one system, and mutually de pendent on each other. This is all that the argument demands, ^f What further need was there, &c. 'If that system would lead to perfection; if it was sufficient to make the conscience pure, and to remove sin, then there "was no necessity of any other. Yet the Scriptures have declared that there would be another of a different order, implying that there was some defect in the former.' This reasoning is founded on the fact that there was an ]
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
express prediction of the coming of a priest of a different ' order' (Ps. ex. 4), and that this fact implied that there was some deficiency in the former arrangement. To this reasoning it is impossible to conceive that there can be any objection.
12. For the priesthood being chang ed. According to the prediction in Ps. ex., that it would be. When that occurs, the consequence specified will also follow. ^ There is made of ne cessity a change also of the law. The law so far as it grew out of that, or was dependent on it. The connexion requires us to understand it only of the law so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood. This could not apply to the ten commandments — for they were given before the in stitution of the priesthood; nor could it apply to any other part of the moral law, for that was not dependent on the appointment of the Levitical priests. But the meaning is, that since a large number of laws — con stituting a code of considerable extent and importance — was given for the regulation of the priesthood, and in reference to the rites of religion, which they were to observe or super intend, it followed that when their office was superseded by one of a wholly different order, the law which had regulated them vanished also, or ceas ed to be binding. This was a very important point in the introduction of Christianity, and hence it is that it is so often insisted on in the writings of Paul. The argument to show that there had been a change or transfer of the priestly office, he proceeds to establish in the sequel.
13. For he of whom these things are spoken. The Lord Jesus, the Mes siah, to whom they had reference. The things here spoken of pertain to his office as priest; his being of the order of Melchizedek. The apostle
14 For it is evident* that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evi dent: for that after the simili-
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal command ment, but after the power of an endless life.
here assumes it as a point concerning which there could be no dispute, that these things referred to the Lord Je sus. Those whom he addressed would not be disposed to call this in question, and his argument had conducted him to this conclusion. ^[ Pertaineth to another tribe. To the tribe of Judah. Ver. 14. ^[ Of which no man gave at tendance at the altar. The priestly office pertained only to the tribe of Levi. No one of the tribe of Judah had any part in the performance of the duties of that office. This was settled by the Jewish law.
14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah. It is well known; it cannot be a matter of dis pute. About the fact that the Lord Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, there could be no doubt. Comp. Matt. i. 3. But probably the apostle means here to refer to more than that simple fact. It was a doctrine of the Old Testa ment, and was admitted by the Jews, that the Messiah was to be of that tribe. See Gen. xlix. 10; Isa. xi. 1; Micah v. 2; Matt. ii. 6. This was an additional consideration to shoAV that there was to be a change of some kind in the office of the priesthood, since it was declared (Ps. ex.) that the Messiah was to be a priest. The fact that the Messiah is to be of the tribe of Judah is still admitted by the Jews. As their distinction of tribes now, however, is broken up, and as it is impossible for them to tell who be longs to the tribe of Judah, it is held by them that when he comes this will be made known by miracle. ^Of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. That is, in the Mosaic laws respecting the office of priest, this tribe is not mentioned. All the arrangements pertain to the tribe of Judah.
1 5. And it is yet far more evident. Not that our Lord would spring out of Judah, but the point which he was endeavouring to establish that there must be a change of the priesthood, was rendered still more evident from another consideration. A strong proof of the necessity of such a change of the priesthood was furnished from the fact that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah; but a much stronger because as a priest he was to be ot the order of Melchizedek — that is he was of the same rank with one who did not even belong to that tribe. ^[ After the similitude. Kesembling; that is, he was to be of the order of Melchizedek.
16. Who is made. That is, the other priest is made, to wit, the Mes siah. He was made a priest by a pe culiar law. \Notafterthe law of a carnal commandment. Not according to the law of a commandment per taining to the flesh. The word carnal means fleshly; and the idea is, that the law under which the priests of the old dispensation were made was ex ternal rather than spiritual; it related more to outward observances than to the keeping of the heart. That this was the nature of the Mosaic ritual in the main, it was impossible to doubt, and the apostle proceeds to ar gue from this undeniable truth. *$But after the power of an endless life. By an authority of endless duration. That is, it was not concerned mainly with outward observances, and did not pass over from one to another by death, but was unchanging in its character, and spiritual in its nature. It was enduring and perpetual as a priest-
17 For he testifieth a Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
18 For there is verily a dis annulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness b and unprofitableness thereof.
hood, and was thus far exalted above the service performed by the priests under the former dispensation.
17. For he testifieth. 'That this is the true account of it is proved by the testimony of God himself, that he was to be a priest for ever.' See Note on ch. v. 6.
18. For there is verily a disannul ling. A setting aside. The law which existed before in regard to the priest hood becomes now abrogated in con sequence of the change which has been made in the priesthood. Note ver. 12. ^[ Of the commandment. Re lating to the office of priest, or to the ceremonial rites in general. This iocs not refer to the moral law, as if that was abrogated, for (1.) the rea soning of the apostle does not pertain to that, and (2.) that law cannot be abrogated. It grows out of the nature of things, and must be perpetual and universal, ^f Going before. Going be fore the Christian dispensation and introducing it. ^[ For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. That is, it was not adapted to save man; it had not power to accomplish what •was necessary to be done in human salvation. It answered the end for which it was designed — that of intro ducing a more perfect plan, and then vanished as a matter of course. It did not expiate guilt, it did not give peace to the conscience; it did not produce perfection (ver. 11), and therefore it gave place to a better system.
19. For the law made nothing per fect. The Levitical, ceremonial law. It did not produce a perfect state; it did not do what was desirable to be done for a sinner. See Note on ver.
19 For the law c made
thing perfect, but l the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which3 we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest,
1 1. That law, as such, did not recon cile nian to God; it did not make an atonement; it did not put away guilt; in one word, it did not restore things to ilie condition in which they ivere be fore the law was broken and man be came a sinner. If man were saved under that system — as many un doubtedly were— it was not in virtue of any intrinsic efficacy which it pos sessed, but in virtue of that great sa crifice which it typified. ^ But the bringing in of a better hope did. Marg. ' But it was.' The correct rendering is, probably, ' but there is the bring ing in of a better hope by which we have access to God.' The law could not effect this. It left the conscience guilty, and sin unexpiated. But there is now the introduction of a better system by which we can approach a reconciled God. The 'better hope' here refers to the more sure and cer tain expectation of heaven introduced by the gospel. Thero is a better foun dation for hope; a more certain v\-?y of obtaining the divine favour ihiui the law could furnish. *f By the widen By which better hope; that is, by means of the ground of hope fur nished by the gospel, to wit, that God is now reconciled, and that we can approach him with the assurance that he is ready to save us. <§ We draw nigh unto God. We have access to him. Notes, Rom. v. 1, 2.
20. And inasmuch as not without an oath. In addition to every other consideration showing the superiority of Christ as a priest, there was the solemnity of the oath by which he was set apart to the office. The ap pointment of one to the office of priest by an oath, such as occurred in the
21 ( For those priests were made without l an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto himy a The Lord sware will not repent, Thou art a
i or, swearing of an oath.
priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better b tes tament.
case of Jesus, was much more solemn and important than where the office was received merely by descent.
21. For those priests were made witliout an oath. The Levitical priests were set apart and consecrated with out their office being confirmed to them by an oath bn the part of God. They received it by regular descent, and when they arrived at a suitable age they entered on it of course. Je sus received his office by special ap pointment, and it was secured to him by an oath. The word rendered ' oath ' is in the margin swearing of an oath. This is the proper meaning of the •Greek word, but the sense is not ma terially varied. *§ But this with an tath. This priest, the Lord Jesus, became a priest in virtue of an oath. '^T The Lord sware. Note, ch. vi. 13. The reference here is to Psalm ex. 4. *• The Lord hath sworn." ^[ And will •not repent. That is, will not regret, or will not alter his mind through re gret — for this is the meaning of the <jreek word.
22. By so much. Inasmuch as an oath is more solemn than a mere ap pointment. The meaning is, that there is all the additional security in the suretyship of Jesus which arises from the solemnity of an oath. It is not implied that God would not be true to his mere promise, but the ar gument here is derived from the cus tom of speaking among men. An oath is regarded as much more sa cred and binding than a mere pro mise, and the fact that God has sworn in a given case furnishes the highest security that what he has promised vill be performed. *[ Was Jesus made a surety. The word surety — eyyuo? — •occurs nowhere else in the New Tes tament, nor is it found in the Septuagint. It properly means, a bonds man; one who pledges his name, pro perty, or influence, that a certain thing shall be done. When a con tract is made, a debt contracted, or a note given, a friend often becomes the security in the case, and is himself responsible if the terms of the con tract are not complied with. In the case of the new covenant between God and man, Jesus is the ' security ' or the bondsman. But of what, and to whom, is he the surety? It cannot be that lie is a bondsman for God that he will maintain the covenant, and be true to the promise which he makes, as Crellius supposes, for we need no such * security ' of the divine faithfulness and veracity. It cannot be that he becomes responsible for the divine conduct in any way — for no such responsibility is needed or pos sible. But it must mean that he is the security or bondsman on the part of man. He is the pledge that we shall be saved. He becomes responsi ble, so to speak,to law and justice, that no injury shall be done by our salva tion, though we are sinners. He is not a security that we shall be saved at any rate, without holiness, repentance, faith, or true religion — for he never could enter into a suretyship of that kind: but his suretyship extends to this point, that the" law shall be ho noured; that all its demands shall be met; that we may be saved though we have violated it, and that its terri fic penalty shall not fall upon us. The case is this. A sinner becomes a true penitent and enters heaven. It might be said that he does this over a broken law; that God treats the good and bad alike, and that no respect has been paid to the law or the penalty in his salvation. Here the Great Surety comes in, and sayg that it is not so. He has become re-
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
'or. which passetli not from one to another.
sponsible for this; he the surety, the pledge, that all proper honour shall be paid to justice, and that the same good effects shall ensue as if the pe nalty of the law had been fully borne. He himself has died to honour the law, and to open a way by which its penalty may be fully remitted con sistently with justice, and he becomes the everlasting pledge or security to law, to justice, to the universe, that no injury shall result from the pardon and salvation of the sinner. Accord ing to this view, no man can rely on the suretyship of Jesus but lie who expects salvation on the terms of the gospel. The suretyship is not at all that he shall be saved in his sins, or that he shall enter heaven no matter what life he leads; it is only that if he believes, repents, and is saved, no injury shall be done to the universe; no dishonour to the law. For this the Lord Jesus is responsible, ^f Of a better testament. Rather, ' of a better covenant.' The former cove nant was that which God made with his people under the Mosaic dispen sation; the new covenant is that made by means of Christ. This is better because (1.) the terms are more simple and easy; (2.) the observances and rites are much less onerous and hard; (3.) it relates to all men, not being confined to the Jewish people; (4.) it is now sure. The former was admi nistered through the instrumentality of the Levitical priesthood, this by the Son of God; that was transitory and changing, this is permanent and eternal.
23. And they truly. Under the Jewish dispensation. The object of this verse and the following is, to state one more reason of the excel lence of the priesthood of Christ. It is, that owing to the frailty of human nature, and the shortness of life, the
24 But this man, because he coutinueth ever hath an1 un changeable a priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able b also
office of priest there was continually changing. But here there was no such change. Christ, being exalted to the heavens to live for ever there, has now-an unchangeable priesthood, and everything in regard to his office is permanent.
24. But this man. Gr. ' But he' — referring to Christ. ^f Because he continueth ever. Gr. ' Because he re mains for ever.' The idea is, because he does not die, but ever lives, he has an unchanging priesthood. There is no necessity that he should yield it to others, as was the case with the Jewish priests because they were mortal. The reason, in their case, why it passed to others, was not that they did not perform the office well, but that they were mortal, and could not continue to hold it. But this rea son could not operate in the case of the Lord Jesus, and therefore his priesthood would be permanent. *§Hath an unchangeable priesthood. Marg. ' or, which passeth not from one to an other.' The margin expresses the sense of the passage. The idea is not strictly that it was unchangeable, but that it did not pass over into other hands. The Levitical priesthood pass ed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of ac tion. This reasoning is not designed to prove that the priesthood of Christ will be literally eternal — for its ne cessity may cease when all the re deemed are in heaven — but that it is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand.
25. Wherefore he is able also. As ne ever lives, and ever intercedes, he has power to save. He does not be gin the work of salvation, and then relinquish it by reason of death, but he lives on as long as it is necessary that any thing should be done for the salvation of his people. We need a to save them l to the uttermost that come unto God by him; seeing he ever liveth to make intercession a for them.
Saviour who has poiver, and Christ has shown that he has all the power which is needful to rescue man from eternal death. *f To the uttermost. This does not mean simply for ever— but that he has power to save them so that their salvation shall be complete — fls TO TraiTeAes-. He does not abandon the work midway; he does not begin a work which he is unable to finish. He can aid us as long as we need any thing done for our salvation; he can save all who will intrust their salvation to his hands. ^[ That come unto God by him. In his name; or depending on him. To come to God, is to approach him for pardon and salvation. ^[ Seeing he ever liveth. He does not die as the JeAvish priests did. ^f To make intercession for them. See Note, Rom. viii. 34. He constant ly presents the merits of his death as a reason why we should be saved. The precise mode, however, in which he makes intercession in heaven for his people is not revealed. The general meaning is, that he undertakes their cause, and assists them in over coming their foes and in their endea vours to live a holy life. Comp. I. John ii. 1. He does in heaven what ever is necessary to obtain for us grace and strength; secures the aid which we need against our foes; and is the pledge or security for us that the law shall be honoured, and the justice and truth of God maintained, though we are saved. It is reasona ble to presume that this is somehow by the presentation of the merits of his great sacrifice, and that that is the ground on which all this grace is obtained. As that is infinite, we need not fear that it will ever be ex hausted.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, b harm less, undenled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
That is, there was that in our cha racter and circumstances which de manded that a high priest for us should be personally holy. It was not requisite merely that he should have great power; or that he should be of a rank superior to that of the Jewish priesthood; but there was a special propriety that he should sur pass all others in moral purity. Other priests were mere mortal men, and it was necessary that their office should pass to other hands: they were sinful men also, and it was necessary that sacrifices should be made for them selves as well as others. We need, however, a different priest. We need not only one who ever lives, but one who is perfectly holy, and who has no need to bring an offering for him self, and all the merits of whose sacri fice, therefore, may be ours. Such an high priest we have in the person of the Lord Jesus; and there is 110 truth more interesting, and no proposition more susceptible of proof, than that moral character, and in the great work which he has accomplished, he is just such a Saviour as is adapted to the wants of ignorant, fallen, wretch ed, sinful man. He is benevolent, and pities our woes; Avise, and is able to enlighten our ignorance; compas sionate, and ready to forgive our faults. He has made such a sacrifice as was necessary to put away our guilt, and offers such intercession as we need to have offered for us in order that we may be preserved from falling. ^[ Who is holy. Not merely outwardly right eous, but pure in heart, ^f Harm less. Not injuring any one. To no one did he do wrong. Neither to their name, person, or property, did he ever do injury; nor will he ever. He is the only one who has lived on earth of
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first a for his own sins, and then for the people's; for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
whom it could be said that lie never, in ar.y way, did wrong to another. ^f Undefiled. By sin; by any impro per desire or passion. He was un stained by crime; ' unspotted from the woi'ld.' Sin always defiles the soul; but from every such pollution the Lord Jesus was free. *[[ Separate from sinners. That is, he did not associate with them as such. He did not partake of their feelings, plans, pleasures. Though he mingled with them, yet it was merely to do them good, and in all his life there was an entire separation from the feelings, principles, and views of a sinful world. *§And made higher than the heavens. Exalted above the visible heavens; that is, at the right hand of God. See Notes on Eph. i.21; Phil. ii. 9. We needed a high priest who is thus ex alted that he may manage our cause before the throne of God.
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests. As the Jewish priests. This is an additional circumstance introduced to show the superior ex cellency of the high priest of the Christian profession, and to show also how he was fitted to our wants. The Jewish high priest was a sinful man. He had the same fallen and corrupt nature as others. He needed an ex piatory sacrifice for his own sins as really as they did for theirs. When he approached God to offer sacrifice, it was needful to make an atonement for himself, and when all was done it was still a sacrifice offered by a sin ful man. But it was not so in the case of Jesus. He was so holy that he needed no sacrifice for himself, and all that he did was in behalf of others. Besides, it was necessary that the sacrifices in the Jewish service should be constantly repeated. They were
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirm ity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is1 consecrated for
imperfect. They were mere types and shadows. They who offered them were frail, sinful men. It became necessary, therefore, to repeat them every day to keep up the proper sense of their transgressions, and to furnish a suitable acknowledgment of the ten dency to sin alike among the people and the priests. Neither in -the na ture of the offering, nor in the cha racter of those who made it, was there any sufficient reason why it should cease to be offered, and it was there fore repeated day by day. But it wasnot so with the Lord Jesus. The offering which he made, though pre sented but once, was so ample and per fect that it had sufficient merit for all the sins of the world, and needed ne ver to be repeated. — It is not proba ble that the Jewish high priest him self personally officiated at the offer ing of sacrifice every day; but the meaning here is, that it was done daily, and that there was need of a daily sacrifice in his behalf. As one of the Jewish people, the sacrifice was offered on his account as well as on the account of others — for he partook of the common infirmities and sinfulness of the nation. ^ For this he did once. That is, once for all — e'c/>a7ra£. He made such an atonement that it was not needful that it should be repeated. Thus he put an end to sacrifice, for when he made the great atonement it was complete, and there was no need that any more blood should be shed for human guilt.
28. For the law. The ceremonial law. ^[ Which have infirmity. Who are weak, frail, sinful, dying. Such were all who were appointed to the office of priest under the Jewish law. ^ But the word of the oath. By whi.:h one was appointed after the order of
Melchizedek. Note, ver. 21. f Maketh the Son. The Son of God. That ap pointment has resulted in his being set apart to this work. ^ Who is conse crated for evermore. Marg. Perfect ed. See -Note ch. ii. 10. The idea is, that the appointment is complete and permanent. It does not pass from one to the other. It is perfect in all the arrangements, and will re main so for ever.
The subject of this chapter is the exalted high-priesthood of the Re deemer. This is a subject which per tains to all Christians, and to all men. All religions imply the priestly office; all suppose sacrifice of some kind. In regard to the priestly office of Christ as illustrated in this chapter, we may observe,
(1.) He stands alone. In that office he had no predecessor, and has no one to succeed him. In this respect he was without father, mother, or de scent — and he stands in lonely ma jesty as the only one who sustains the office. Ver. 3.
(2.) He is superior to Abraham. Abraham never laid claim to the of fice of priest, but he recognised his inferiority to one whom the Messiah was to resemble. Vs. 2. 4.
(3.) He is superior to all the Jew ish priesthood — sustaining a rank, and performing an office above them all. The great ancestor of all the Levitical priests recognised his infe riority to one of the rank or ' order' of which the Messiah was to be, and received from him a blessing. In our contemplation of Christ, therefore, as priest, we have the privilege of regard ing him as superior to the Jewish high priest — exalted as was his office, and important as were the functions of his office; as more grand, more pure, more worthy of confidence and love.
(4.) The great High Priest of the Christian profession is the only per fect priest. Vs. 11. 19. The Jewish priests were all imperfect and sinful men. The sacrifices which they of fered were imperfect, and could not give peace to the conscience. There was need of some better system, and they all looked forward to it. But in the Lord Jesus, and in his work, there is absolute perfection. What he did was complete, and his office needs no change.
(5.) The office now is permanent. It does not change from hand to hand. Vs. 23, 24. He who sustains this office does not die, and we may ever apply to him, and cast our cares on him. Men die; one generation succeeds another; but our High Priest is the same. We may trust in him in whom our fathers found peace and salvation, and then we may teach our children to confide in the same High Priest — and so send the invaluable lesson down to latest generations.
(6.) His work is firm and sure. Vs. 20 — 22. His office is founded on an oath, and he has become the secu rity for all who will commit their cause to him. Can great interests like those of the soul be intrusted to better hands? Are they not safer in his keeping than in our own?
(7.) He is able to save to the utter most. Ver. 25. That power lie show ed when he was on earth j that power he is constantly evincing. No one has asked aid of him and found him unable to render it; no one has been suffered to sink down to hell because his arm was weak. What he has done for a few he can do for "all;" and they who will intrust themselves to him will find him a sure Saviour. Why will not men then be persuaded to commit themselves to him? Can they save themselves. Where is there one who has shown that he was able to do it? Do they not need a Saviour? Let the history of the world answer. Can man conduct his own cause be fore God? How weak, ignorant, and blind is he; how little qualified for such an office! Has any one suffered wrong by committing himself to the Eedeemer? If there is such an one, where is he? Who has ever made this complaint that has tried it? Who ever will make it? In countless millions of instances, the trial has been made whether Christ was ' able t< save.' Men have gone with a trou bled spirit; with a guilty conscience and with awful apprehensions of the wrath to come, and have asked him to save them. Not one of those who have done this has found reason to doubt his ability; not one has re gretted that he has committed the deathless interest of the soul into his hands.
(8.) Christ saves to the uttermost. Ver. 25. He makes the salvation complete. So the Bible assures us; and so we see it in fact as far we can trace the soul. When a Christian friend dies, we stand at his bed-side and accompany him as far as we can into the valley of the shadoAv of death. We ask him whether he feels that Christ is able to save? He replies, * yes.' When he has lost the power of speaking above a whisper, we ask him the same question, and receive the same reply. When he gives us the parting hand, and we, still anxious to know whether all is well, ask the same question, a sign, a smile, a light ing up of the dying eye, declares that all is well. As far as we can trace the departing soul when it goes into the dark valley, we receive the same assurance; and why should we doubt that the same grace is bestowed fur ther onward, and that he saves ' to the uttermost?' But what else thus saves? Friends give the parting hand at the gloomy entrance to that valley, and the gay and the worldly coolly turn away. The delusions of infidelity there forsake the soul, and minister no comfort then. Flatterers turn away from the dying scene — for who flatters the dying with the praise of beauty or accomplishments? Taste, skill, learning, talent, do not help then, for how can they save a dying soul? None but Jesus saves to the 'utter most;' no other friend but he goes with us entirely through the valley of death. Is it not better to have such a friend than to go alone through that dark, gloomy path? Any other gloomy and dangerous way may be more safely trod without a friend than the vale of death.
(9.) The Christian religion is fitted to our condition. Vs. 26, 27. It has just such a High Priest as we need — holy, harmless, undefiled. Just such an atonement has been made as is necessary— ample, rich, full, and not needing to be made again. It reveals just such truth as we want— that re specting the immortality of the soul, and the glorious state of the redeemed beyond the grave. It imparts just such consolation as is fitted to our condition— pure, rich, unfailing, ele vating. It reconciles; us to God, just as it should be done — in such a way that God can be honoured, and the purity and dignity of his law main tained. It is the religion adapted to dying, ignorant, sinful, wretched man. No other system so much consults the true dignity of our nature, and the honour of God; no one diffuses such consolations through the life that is, or fills with such hopes in regard to the life to come.