{"commentary":{"id":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","website":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamieson-Fausset-Brown_Bible_Commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"db3d4c8b3c1f32ef9d1430a57392e02bda3a17aac1f9bbe398461de021a3cb13","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":66,"totalNumberOfChapters":1187,"totalNumberOfVerses":17056,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"HEB","commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Hebrews","commonName":"Hebrews","introduction":"CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT OF ROME, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term \"Scripture,\" which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles \"apostle,\" as well as \"angel,\" as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of PantÃ&brvbrnus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the \"apostle\" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as \"more Grecian,\" but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the \"ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer\" (that is, probably \"transcriber\" of the apostle's thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas. IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, NOVATIAN OF ROME, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, and VICTORINUS, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF POITIERS (A.D. 368), LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI (A.D. 371), AMBROSE OF MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.\n\nAs to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, \"Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style.\" Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his HebrÃ&brvbro-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his HebrÃ&brvbro-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two (Heb 10:30; Heb 13:5), are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, Heb 9:15-17 would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek \"diathece,\" a \"covenant,\" or a \"testament,\" whereas the Hebrew \"berith\" means only \"covenant.\"\n\nInternal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare Co2 3:6-18; Gal 3:23-25; Gal 4:1-9, Gal 4:21-31, wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in Heb 1:3, &c., as in other Epistles of Paul (Phi 2:6; Col 1:15-20), as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare Heb 2:9, with Co2 8:9; Phi 2:7-8. Also His final exaltation, compare Heb 2:8; Heb 10:13; Heb 12:2, with Co1 15:25, Co1 15:27. The word \"Mediator\" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare Heb 8:6, with Gal 3:19-20. Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare Rom 3:22-26; Co1 5:7, with Heb. 7:1-10:39. The phrase, \"God of Peace,\" is peculiar to Paul, compare Heb 13:20; Rom 15:33; Th1 5:23. Also, compare Heb 2:4, Margin, Co1 12:4. Justification, or \"righteousness by faith.\" appears in Heb 11:7; Heb 10:38, as in Rom 1:17; Rom 4:22; Rom 5:1; Gal 3:11; Phi 3:9. The word of God is the \"sword of the Spirit,\" compare Heb 4:12, with Eph 6:17. Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare Heb 5:12-13; Heb 6:1, with Co1 3:1-2; Co1 14:20 Gal 4:9; Col 3:14. Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare Heb 10:19, with Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12. Afflictions are a fight, Heb 10:32; compare Phi 1:30; Col 2:1. The Christian life is a race, Heb 12:1; compare Co1 9:24; Phi 3:12-14. The Jewish ritual is a service, Rom 9:4; compare Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6. Compare \"subject to bondage,\" Heb 2:15, with Gal 5:1. Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity \"to go off at a word\" and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by \"and again,\" compare Heb 1:5; Heb 2:12-13, with Rom 15:9-12. Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare Heb 2:8, with Co1 15:27; Eph 1:22. Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition \"saith the Lord,\" not found in the Hebrew, in Heb 10:30; Rom 12:19.\n\nThe supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth \"to the Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews\" (Co1 9:20). This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed, there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it as such.\n\nThe personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled \"our brother,\" Heb 13:23; his being then in prison, Heb 13:19; his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to English Version reading, Heb 10:34; the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy, Heb 13:24. A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary address.\n\nDESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which, even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode, with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.\n\nHIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians, for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle, though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience and respect in relation to their rulers (Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17, Heb 13:24); a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them (Heb 13:22). So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction, Rom 12:9, literally, \"Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring . . . evil, cleaving to . . . good,\" which is found nowhere else save Heb 13:5, literally, \"Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being content with,\" &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute, suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would, \"God spoke to our fathers,\" not, \"it is written.\" So Heb 13:18, \"We trust we have a good conscience\" is an altogether Pauline sentiment (Act 23:1; Act 24:16; Co2 1:12; Co2 4:2; Ti2 1:3). Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation, \"Grace be with you all\"; this \"salutation with his own hand\" he declared (Th2 3:17-18) to be \"his token in every Epistle\": so Co1 16:21, Co1 16:23; Col 4:18. The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles, and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing (whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul by the Spirit's gift of interpreting tongues, Co1 12:10, transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his, and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem, their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the Novatian heresy (Heb 6:4-6), was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been written (Col 4:10), and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived), and thence to Alexandria. Moreover, Pe2 3:15-16, written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle written by him, \"the apostle of the circumcision,\" to the \"Hebrew\" Christians dispersed in the East, says, \"As our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you\" (Pe2 3:15), that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, \"As also in all his Epistles\" (Pe2 3:16), distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he further speaks of it as on a level with \"other Scriptures,\" thus asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love; Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:7-14), fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13); and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the Gentiles (Act 10:1, &c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.\n\nRome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church.\n\nIt plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before, compare Heb 13:10; and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge of Christendom. Moreover, \"the Epistle to the Alexandrians,\" mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly \"the people of God\" (Heb 2:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 13:12), \"the seed of Abraham,\" that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile believers are grafted, to which Rom 11:16-24 corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to \"the heavenly Jerusalem\" (Heb 12:18-23; Heb 13:13).\n\nThe use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare Pe2 3:15-16, explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively, addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and were settled in Asia Minor.\n\nThe notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify all earthly relations. \n\n\n\nNext: Hebrews Chapter 1\n\n","order":58,"numberOfChapters":13,"sha256":"e2432a664409bcc0cf92e670c2220bb5fc904394385d617eaafb6c9c5c24b6ca","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/HEB/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"HEB","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":13,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/HEB/13.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"HEB","chapter":13},"totalNumberOfVerses":288},"chapter":{"number":7,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["gave--Greek, \"apportioned\"; assigned as his portion. \n\ntenth . . . of all--namely, the booty taken. The tithes given are closely associated with the priesthood: the mediating priest received them as a pledge of the giver's whole property being God's; and as he conveyed God's gifts to man (Heb 7:1, \"blessed him\"), so also man's gifts to God. Melchisedec is a sample of how God preserves, amidst general apostasy, an elect remnant. The meeting of Melchisedec and Abraham is the connecting link between to two dispensations, the patriarchal, represented by Melchisedec, who seems to have been specially consecrated by God as a KING-PRIEST, the highest form of that primitive system in which each father of a household was priest in it, and the Levitical, represented by Abraham, in which the priesthood was to be limited to one family of one tribe and one nation. The Levitical was parenthetical, and severed the kingdom and priesthood; the patriarchal was the true forerunner of Christ's, which, like Melchisedec's, unites the kingship and priesthood, and is not derived from other man, or transmitted to other man; but derived from God, and is transmitted in God to a never-ending perpetuity. Melchisedec's priesthood continueth in Christ for ever. For other points of superiority, see Heb 7:16-21. Melchisedec must have had some special consecration above the other patriarchs, as Abraham, who also exercised the priesthood; else Abraham would not have paid tithe to him as to a superior. His peculiar function seems to have been, by God's special call, KING-priest whereas no other \"patriarch-priest\" was also a God-consecrated king. \n\nfirst being--Paul begins the mystical explanation of the historical fact (allegorical explanations being familiar to JEWS), by mentioning the significancy of the name. \n\nrighteousness--not merely righteous: so Christ. Hebrew \"Malchi\" means king: \"Tzedek,\" righteousness. \n\nKing of Salem--not only his own name, but that of the city which he ruled, had a typical significance, namely, peace. Christ is the true Prince of peace. The peace which He brings is the fruit of righteousness.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":3,"content":["Without father, &c.--explained by \"without genealogy\" (so the Greek is for \"without descent); compare Heb 7:6, that is, his genealogy is not known, whereas a Levitical priest could not dispense with the proof of his descent. \n\nhaving neither beginning of days nor end of life--namely, history not having recorded his beginning nor end, as it has the beginning and end of Aaron. The Greek idiom expressed by \"without father,\" &c., one whose parentage was humble or unknown. \"Days\" mean his time of discharging his function. So the eternity spoken of in Psa 110:4 is that of the priestly office chiefly. \n\nmade like--It is not said that he was asbsolutely \"like.\" Made like, namely, in the particulars here specified. Nothing is said in Genesis of the end of his priesthood, or of his having had in his priesthood either predecessor or successor, which, in a typical point of view, represents Christ's eternal priesthood, without beginning or end. Aaron's end is recorded; Melchisedec's not: typically significant. \"The Son of God\" is not said to be made like unto Melchisedec, but Melchisedec to be \"made like the Son of God.\" When ALFORD denies that Melchisedec was made like the Son of God in respect of his priesthood, on the ground that Melchisedec was prior in time to our Lord, he forgets that Christ's eternal priesthood was an archetypal reality in God's purpose from everlasting, to which Melchisedec's priesthood was \"made like\" in due time. The Son of God is the more ancient, and is the archetype: compare Heb 8:5, where the heavenly things are represented as the primary archetype of the Levitical ordinances. The epithets, \"without father,\" &c. \"beginning of days, \"nor end,\" \"abideth continually,\" belong to Melchisedec only in respect to his priesthood, and in so far as he is the type of the Son of God, and are strictly true of Him alone. Melchisedec was, in his priesthood, \"made like\" Christ, as far as the imperfect type could represent the lineaments of the perfect archetype. \"The portrait of a living man can be seen on the canvas, yet the man is very different from his picture.\" There is nothing in the account, Gen 14:18-20, to mark Melchisedec as a superhuman being: he is classed with the other kings in the chapter as a living historic personage: not as ORIGEN thought, an angel; nor as the Jews thought, Shem, son of Noah; nor as CALMET, Enoch; nor as the Melchisedekites, that he was the Holy Ghost; nor as others, the Divine Word. He was probably of Shemitic, not Canaanite origin: the last independent representative of the original Shemitic population, which had been vanquished by the Canaanites, Ham's descendants. The greatness of Abraham then lay in hopes; of Melchisedec, in present possession. Melchisedec was the highest and last representative of the Noahic covenant, as Christ was the highest and ever enduring representative of the Abrahamic. Melchisedec, like Christ, unites in himself the kingly and priestly offices, which Abraham does not. ALFORD thinks the epithets are, in some sense, strictly true of Melchisedec himself; not merely in the typical sense given above; but that he had not, as mortal men have, a beginning or end of life (?). A very improbable theory, and only to be resorted to in the last extremity, which has no place here. With Melchisedec, whose priesthood probably lasted a long period, the priesthood and worship of the true God in Canaan ceased. He was first and last king-priest there, till Christ, the antitype; and therefore his priesthood is said to last for ever, because it both lasts a long time, and lasts as long as the nature of the thing itself (namely, his life, and the continuance of God's worship in Canaan) admits. If Melchisedec were high priest for ever in a literal sense, then Christ and he would now still be high priests, and we should have two instead of one (!). THOLUCK remarks, \"Melchisedec remains in so far as the type remains in the antitype, in so far as his priesthood remains in Christ.\" The father and mother of Melchisedec, as also his children, are not descended from Levi, as the Levitical priests (Heb 7:6) were required to be, and are not even mentioned by Moses. The wife of Aaron, Elisheba, the mother from whom the Levitical priests spring, is mentioned: as also Sarah, the original mother of the Jewish nation itself. As man, Christ had no father; as God, no mother.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":4,"content":["consider--not merely see, but weigh with attentive contemplation, the fact. \n\neven--\"to whom (as his superior) Abraham even paid tithe (went so far as to pay tithe) of (consisting of, literally, 'from') the best of the spoils (literally, 'the top of the heap\"; whether of corn, the first-fruits of which, taken from the top, used to be consecrated to God; or of spoils, from the top of which the general used to take some portion for consecration to God, or for his own use).\" He paid \"tithes of ALL,\" and those tithes were taken out of the topmost and best portion of the whole spoils. \n\nthe patriarch--in the Greek emphatically standing at the end of the whole sentence: And this payer of tithe being no less a personage than \"the patriarch,\" the first forefather and head of our Jewish race and nation See on Heb 7:3, on Melchisedec's superiority as specially consecrated king-priest, above the other patriarch-priests.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["sons of Levi--namely, those alone who belonged to the family of Aaron, to whom the priesthood was restricted. Tithes originally paid to the whole tribe of Levi, became at length attached to the priesthood. \n\naccording to the law--sanctioned by Jehovah (Heb 9:19). \n\nof their brethren--with whom, in point of natural descent, they are on a level. \n\nthough, &c.--Though thus on a level by common descent from Abraham, they yet pay tithe to the Levites, whose brethren they are. Now the Levites are subordinate to the priests; and these again to Abraham, their common progenitor; and Abraham to Melchisedec. \"How great\" (Heb 7:4) then, must this Melchisedec be in respect to his priesthood, as compared with the Levitical, though the latter received tithes! and now unspeakably great must \"the Son of God\" be, to whom, as the sacerdotal archetype (in God's purpose), Melchisedec was made like! Thus compare the \"consider,\" Heb 7:4, in the case of Melchisedec, the type, with the \"consider\" (Greek, \"contemplate attentively,\" see on Heb 3:1, a stronger word than here) in the case of Christ, the archetype.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["he whose descent is not counted from them--not from \"the sons of Levi,\" as those \"who receive the priesthood.\" This verse explains \"without descent\" (Greek, \"genealogy\" in both verses, Heb 7:3). He who needs not, as the Levitical priests, to be able to trace his genealogy back to Levi. \n\nreceived--Greek, \"hath received tithes.\" \n\nblessed--Greek, \"hath blessed.\" The perfect tense implies that the significance of the fact endures to the present time. \n\nhim that had--\"the possessor of the promises,\" Abraham's peculiar distinction and designation. Paul exalts Abraham in order still more to exalt Melchisedec. When Christ is the subject, the singular \"promise\" is used. \"The promises\" in the plural, refer to God's promise of greatness to himself and his seed, and of the possession of Canaan, twice repeated before the blessing of Melchisedec. As the priests, though above the people (Heb 7:7) whom it was their duty to \"bless,\" were yet subordinate to Abraham; and as Abraham was subordinate to Melchisedec, who blessed him, Melchisedec must be much above the Levitical priests.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":7,"content":["The principle that the blesser is superior to him whom he blesses, holds good only in a blessing given with divine authority; not merely a prayerful wish, but one that is divinely efficient in working its purport, as that of the patriarchs on their children: so Christ's blessing, Luk 24:51; Act 3:26.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["Second point of superiority: Melchisedec's is an enduring, the Levitical a transitory, priesthood. As the law was a parenthesis between Abraham's dispensation of promise of grace, and its enduring fulfilment at Christ's coming (Rom 5:20, Greek, \"The law entered as something adscititious and by the way\"): so the Levitical priesthood was parenthetical and temporary, between Melchisedec's typically enduring priesthood, and its antitypical realization in our ever continuing High Priest, Christ. \n\nhere--in the Levitical priesthood. \n\nthere--in the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec. In order to bring out the typical parallel more strongly, Paul substitutes, \"He of whom it is witnessed that he liveth,\" for the more untypical, \"He who is made like to Him that liveth.\" Melchisedec \"liveth\" merely in his official capacity, his priesthood being continued in Christ. Christ, on the other hand, is, in His own person, \"ever living after the power of an endless life\" (Heb 7:16, Heb 7:25). Melchisedec's death not being recorded, is expressed by the positive term \"liveth,\" for the sake of bringing into prominence the antitype, Christ, of whom alone it is strictly and perfectly true, \"that He liveth.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":9,"content":["as I may so say--to preclude what he is about to say being taken in the mere literal sense; I may say that, virtually, Levi, in the person of his father Abraham, acknowledged Melchisedec's superiority, and paid tithes to him. \n\nwho receiveth tithes--(Compare Heb 7:5). \n\nin Abraham--Greek, \"by means of (by the hand of) Abraham\"; through Abraham. \"Paid tithes,\" literally, \"hath been tithed,\" that is, been taken tithes of.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["in the loins of his father--that is, forefather Abraham. Christ did not, in this sense, pay tithes in Abraham, for He never was in the loins of an earthly father [ALFORD]. Though, in respect to His mother, He was \"of the fruit of (David's, and so of) Abraham's loins,\" yet, being supernaturally, without human father, conceived, as He is above the natural law of birth, so is he above the law of tithes. Only those born in the natural way, and so in sin, being under the curse, needed to pay tithe to the priest, that he might make propitiation for their sin. Not so Christ, who derived only His flesh, not also the taint of the flesh, from Abraham. BENGEL remarks, The blessings which Abraham had before meeting Melchisedec were the general promises, and the special one of a natural seed, and so of Levi; but the promises under which Christ was comprehended, and the faith for which Abraham was so commended, followed after Abraham's meeting Melchisedec, and being blessed by him: to which fact. Gen 15:1, \"After these things,\" calls our attention. This explains why Christ, the supernatural seed, is not included as paying tithes through Abraham to Melchisedec.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["perfection--absolute: \"the bringing of man to his highest state, namely, that of salvation and sanctification.\" \n\nunder it--The reading in the oldest manuscripts is, \"Upon it (that is, on the ground of it as the basis, the priest having to administer the law, Mal 2:7 : it being presupposed) the people (Heb 9:19, 'all the people') have received the law (the Greek is perfect, not aorist tense; implying the people were still observing the law).\" \n\nwhat further need-- (Heb 8:7). For God does nothing needless. \n\nanother--rather as Greek, \"that a different priest (one of a different order) should arise (anew, Heb 7:15). \n\nnot be called--Greek, \"not be said (to be) after the order of Aaron,\" that is, that, when spoken of in the Psa 110:4, \"He is not said to be (as we should expect, if the Aaronic priesthood was perfect) after the order of Aaron.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["For--the reason why Paul presses the words \"after the order of Melchisedec\" in Psa 110:4, namely, because these presuppose a change or transference of the priesthood, and this carries with it a change also of the law (which is inseparably bound up with the priesthood, both stand and fall together, Heb 7:11). This is his answer to those who might object, What need was there of a new covenant?\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["Confirming the truth that a change is made of the law (Heb 7:12), by another fact showing the distinctness of the new priesthood from the Aaronic. \n\nthese things-- (Psa 110:4). \n\npertaineth--Greek, \"hath partaken of\" (the perfect tense implies the continuance still of His manhood). \n\nanother--\"a different tribe\" from that of Levi.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["evident--literally, \"manifest before the eyes\" as a thing indisputable; a proof that whatever difficulties may now appear, then Jesus Christ's genealogy labored under none. \n\nour Lord--the only place where this now common title occurs without \"Jesus,\" or \"Christ,\" except Pe2 3:15. \n\nsprang--as a plant, and a branch. \n\nJudah-- Gen 49:10; Luk 1:27, Luk 1:39 (Hebron of Judah, where LIGHTFOOT thinks Jesus was conceived) Luk 2:4-5; Rev 5:5. \n\nof which tribe . . . priesthood--\"in respect to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests\" (so the oldest manuscripts read, nothing to imply that priests were to be taken from it).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["Another proof that the law, or economy, is changed, namely, forasmuch as Christ is appointed Priest, \"not according to the law of a carnal (that is, a mere outward) commandment,\" but \"according to the power of an indissoluble (so the Greek) life.\" The hundred tenth Psalm appoints Him \"for ever\" (Heb 7:17). The Levitical law required a definite carnal descent. In contrast stands \"the power\"; Christ's spiritual, inward, living power of overcoming death. Not agreeably to a statute is Christ appointed, but according to an inward living power. \n\nit--the change of the law or economy, the statement (Heb 7:12, Heb 7:18). \n\nfar more--Greek, \"more abundantly.\" \n\nfor that--\"seeing that,\" literally, \"if\"; so Rom 5:10. \n\nafter the similitude of Melchisedec--answering to \"after the order of Melchisedec\" (Heb 5:10). The \"order\" cannot mean a series of priests, for Melchisedec neither received his priesthood from, nor transmitted it to, any other mere man; it must mean \"answering to the office of Melchisedec.\" Christ's priesthood is similar to Melchisedec's in that it is \"for ever\" (Heb 7:16-17). \n\nanother--rather as Greek, \"a different.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["carnal . . . endless--mutually contrasted. As \"form\" and \"power\" are opposed, Ti2 3:5; so here \"the law\" and \"power,\" compare Rom 8:3, \"The law was weak through the flesh\"; and Heb 7:18, \"weakness.\" \"The law\" is here not the law in general, but the statute as to the priesthood. \"Carnal,\" as being only outward and temporary, is contrasted with \"endless,\" or, as Greek, \"indissoluble.\" Commandments is contrasted with \"life.\" The law can give a commandment, but it cannot give life (Heb 7:19). But our High Priest's inherent \"power,\" now in heaven, has in Him \"life for ever\"; Heb 9:14, \"through the eternal Spirit\"; Heb 7:25, \"able . . . ever liveth\" (Joh 5:26). It is in the power of His resurrection life, not of His earthly life, that Christ officiates as a Priest.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["For--proving His life to be \"endless\" or indissoluble (Heb 7:16). The emphasis is on \"for ever.\" The oldest manuscripts read, \"He is testified of, that Thou art,\" &c.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["there is--Greek, \"there takes place,\" according to Psa 110:4. \n\ndisannuling--a repealing. \n\nof the commandment--ordaining the Levitical priesthood. And, as the Levitical priesthood and the law are inseparably joined, since the former is repealed, the latter is so also (see on Heb 7:11). \n\ngoing before--the legal ordinance introducing and giving place to the Christian, the antitypical and permanent end of the former. \n\nweakness and unprofitableness--The opposite of \"power\" (Heb 7:16).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["For, &c.--justifying his calling the law weak and unprofitable (Heb 7:18). The law could not bring men to: true justification or sanctification before God, which is the \"perfection\" that we all need in order to be accepted of Him, and which we have in Christ. \n\nnothing--not merely \"no one,\" but \"nothing.\" The law brought nothing to its perfected end; everything in it was introductory to its antitype in the Christian economy, which realizes the perfection contemplated; compare \"unprofitableness,\" Heb 7:18. \n\ndid--rather connect with Heb 7:18, thus, \"There takes place (by virtue of Psa 110:4) a repealing of the commandment (on the one hand), but (on the other) a bringing in afterwards (the Greek expresses that there is a bringing in of something over and above the law; a superinducing, or accession of something new, namely, something better than the good things which the pre-existing law promised [WAHL]) of a better hope,\" not one weak and unprofitable, but, as elsewhere the Christian dispensation is called, \"everlasting,\" \"true,\" \"the second,\" \"more excellent,\" \"different,\" \"living,\" \"new,\" \"to come,\" \"perfect.\" Compare Heb 8:6, bringing us near to God, now in spirit, hereafter both in spirit and in body. \n\nwe draw nigh unto God--the sure token of \"perfection.\" Weakness is the opposite of this filial confidence of access. The access through the legal sacrifices was only symbolical and through the medium of a priest; that through Christ is immediate, perfect, and spiritual.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["Another proof of the superiority of Christ's Melchisedec-like priesthood; the oath of God gave a solemn weight to it which was not in the law-priesthood, which was not so confirmed. \n\nhe was made priest--rather supply from Heb 7:22, which completes the sentence begun in this verse, Heb 7:21 being a parenthesis, \"inasmuch as not without an oath He was made surety of the testament (for, &c.), of so much better a testament hath Jesus been made the surety.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["Translate in the Greek order, \"For they indeed (the existing legal priests) without the (solemn) promise on oath (so the Greek [TITTMANN]) are made priests.\" \n\nby him--God. \n\nunto him--the Lord, the Son of God (Psa 110:1). \n\nnot repent--never change His purpose. \n\nafter the order of Melchisedec--omitted in some oldest manuscripts, contained in others.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["surety--ensuring in His own person the certainty of the covenant to us. This He did by becoming responsible for our guilt, by sealing the covenant with His blood, and by being openly acknowledged as our triumphant Saviour by the Father, who raised Him from the dead. Thus He is at once God's surety for man, and man's surety for God, and so Mediator between God and man (Heb 8:6). \n\nbetter-- Heb 8:6; Heb 13:20, \"everlasting.\" \n\ntestament--sometimes translated, \"covenant.\" The Greek term implies that it is appointed by God, and comprises the relations and bearings partly of a covenant, partly of a testament: (1) the appointment made without the concurrence of a second party, of somewhat concerning that second party; a last will or testament, so in Heb 9:16-17; (2) a mutual agreement in which both parties consent.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["Another proof of superiority; the Levitical priests were many, as death caused the need of continually new ones being appointed in succession. Christ dies not, and so hath a priesthood which passes not from one to another. \n\nwere--Greek, \"are made.\" \n\nmany--one after another; opposed to His \"unchangeable (that does not pass from one to another) priesthood\" (Heb 7:24). \n\nnot suffered to continue--Greek, \"hindered from permanently continuing,\" namely, in the priesthood.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["he--emphatic; Greek, \"Himself.\" So in Psa 110:4, \"THOU art a priest\"; singular, not priests, \"many.\" \n\ncontinueth--Greek, simple verb, not the compound as in Heb 7:23. \"Remaineth,\" namely, in life. \n\nunchangeable--Greek, \"hath His priesthood unchangeable\"; not passing from one to another, intransmissible. Therefore no earthly so-called apostolic succession of priests are His vicegerents. The Jewish priests had successors in office, because \"they could not continue by reason of death.\" But this Man, because He liveth ever, hath no successor in office, not even Peter (Pe1 5:1).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":25,"content":["Wherefore--Greek, \"Whence\"; inasmuch as \"He remaineth for ever.\" \n\nalso--as a natural consequence flowing from the last, at the same time a new and higher thing [ALFORD]. \n\nsave--His very name JESUS (Heb 7:22) meaning Saviour. \n\nto the uttermost--altogether, perfectly, so that nothing should be wanting afterwards for ever [TITTMANN]. It means \"in any wise,\" \"utterly,\" in Luk 13:11. \n\ncome unto God--by faith. \n\nby him--through Him as their mediating Priest, instead of through the Levitical priests. \n\nseeing he ever liveth--resuming \"He continueth ever,\" Heb 7:24; therefore \"He is able to the uttermost\"; He is not, like the Levitical priest, prevented by death, for \"He ever liveth\" (Heb 7:23). \n\nto make intercession--There was but the one offering on earth once for all. But the intercession for us in the heavens (Heb 7:26) is ever continuing, whence the result follows, that we can never be separated from the love of God in Christ. He intercedes only for those who come unto God through Him, not for the unbelieving world (Joh 17:9). As samples of His intercession, compare the prophetical descriptions in the Old Testament. \"By an humble omnipotency (for it was by His humiliation that He obtained all power), or omnipotent humility, appearing in the presence, and presenting His postulations at the throne of God\" [BISHOP PEARSON]. He was not only the offering, but the priest who offered it. Therefore, He has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor; His intercession being founded on His voluntary offering of Himself without spot to God. We are not only then in virtue of His sacrifice forgiven, but in virtue of the intercession admitted to favor and grace [ARCHBISHOP MAGEE].\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":26,"content":["such--as is above described. The oldest manuscripts read, \"also.\" \"For to US (as sinners; emphatical) there was also becoming (besides the other excellencies of our High Priest) such an High Priest.\" \n\nholy--\"pious\" (a distinct Greek word from that for holy, which latter implies consecration) towards God; perfectly answering God's will in reverent piety (Psa 16:10). \n\nharmless--literally, \"free from evil\" and guile, in relation to Himself. \n\nundefiled--not defiled by stain contracted from others, in relation to men. Temptation, to which He was exposed, left no trace of evil in Him. \n\nseparate--rather, \"separated from sinners,\" namely, in His heavenly state as our High Priest above, after He had been parted from the earth, as the Levitical high priest was separated from the people in the sanctuary (whence he was not to go out), Lev 21:12. Though justifying through faith the ungodly, He hath no contact with them as such. He is lifted above our sinful community, being \"made higher than the heavens,\" at the same time that He makes believers as such (not as sinners), \"to sit together (with Him) in heavenly places\" (Eph 2:6). Just as Moses on the mount was separated from and above the people, and alone with God. This proves Jesus is GOD. \"Though innumerable lies have been forged against the venerable Jesus, none dared to charge Him with any intemperance\" [ORIGEN]. \n\nmade--Jesus was higher before (Joh 17:5), and as the God-MAN was made so by the Father after His humiliation (compare Heb 1:4). \n\nhigher than the heavens--for \"He passed through [so the Greek] the heavens\" (Heb 4:14).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":27,"content":["daily--\"day by day.\" The priests daily offered sacrifices (Heb 9:6; Heb 10:11; Exo 29:38-42). The high priests took part in these daily-offered sacrifices only on festival days; but as they represented the whole priesthood, the daily offerings are here attributed to them; their exclusive function was to offer the atonement \"once every year\" (Heb 9:7), and \"year by year continually\" (Heb 10:1). The \"daily\" strictly belongs to Christ, not to the high priests, \"who needeth not daily, as those high priests (year by year, and their subordinate priests daily), to offer,\" &c. \n\noffer up--The Greek term is peculiarly used of sacrifices for sin. The high priest's double offering on the day of atonement, the bullock for himself, and the goat for the people's sins, had its counterpart in the TWO lambs offered daily by the ordinary priests. \n\nthis he did--not \"died first for His own sins and then the people's,\" but for the people's only. The negation is twofold: He needeth not to offer (1) daily; nor (2) to offer for His own sins also; for He offered Himself a spotless sacrifice (Heb 7:26; Heb 4:15). The sinless alone could offer for the sinful. \n\nonce--rather as Greek, \"once for all.\" The sufficiency of the one sacrifice to atone for all sins for ever, resulted from its absolute spotlessness.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":28,"content":["For--reason for the difference stated in Heb 7:27, between His one sacrifice and their oft repeated sacrifices, namely, because of His entire freedom from the sinful infirmity to which they are subject. He needed not, as they, to offer FOR HIS OWN SIN; and being now exempt from death and \"perfected for evermore,\" He needs not to REPEAT His sacrifice. \n\nthe word--\"the word\" confirmed by \"the oath.\" \n\nwhich--which oath was after the law, namely, in Psa 110:4, abrogating the preceding law-priesthood. \n\nthe Son--contrasted with \"men.\" \n\nconsecrated--Greek, \"made perfect\" once for all, as in Heb 2:10; Heb 5:9; see on Heb 2:10; Heb 5:9. Opposed to \"having infirmity.\" Consecrated as a perfected priest by His perfected sacrifice, and consequent anointing and exaltation to the right hand of the Father.\n\n\n\n\nNext: Hebrews Chapter 8\n\n"]}],"introduction":"CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC SUPERIOR TO AARON'S. (Heb. 7:1-28)\n\nthis Melchisedec-- (Heb 6:20; Psa 110:4). The verb does not come till Heb 7:3, \"abideth.\" \n\nking . . . priest--Christ unites these offices in their highest sense, and so restores the patriarchal union of these offices. \n\nSalem--Jerusalem, that is, seeing peace; others make Salem distinct, and to be that mentioned (Gen 33:18; Joh 3:23). \n\nthe most high God--called also \"Possessor of heaven and earth\" (Gen 14:19, Gen 14:22). This title of God, \"the Most High,\" handed down by tradition from the primitive revelation, appears in the PhÅ“nician god \"Elion,\" that is, Most High. It is used to imply that the God whom Melchisedec served is THE TRUE GOD, and not one of the gods of the nations around. So it is used in the only other cases in which it is found in the New Testament, namely in the address of the demoniac, and the divining damsel constrained to confess that her own gods were false, and God the only true God. \n\nwho met Abraham--in company with the king of Sodom (Gen 14:17-18). \n\nslaughter--perhaps defeat, as ALFORD translates. So Gen 14:17 (compare Gen 14:15) may be translated. Arioch, king of Ellasar, lived and reigned after the disaster [BENGEL]. However, if Chedorlaomer and Amraphel and Tidal were slain, though Arioch survived, \"slaughter of the kings\" would be correct. \n\nblessed him--As priest he first blessed Abraham on God's part; next he blessed God on Abraham's part: a reciprocal blessing. Not a mere wish, but an authoritative and efficacious intercession as a priest. The Most High God's prerogative as \"Possessor of heaven and earth,\" is made over to Abraham; and Abraham's glory, from his victory over the foe, is made over to God. A blessed exchange for Abraham (Gen 14:19-20).\n\n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/HEB/7.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"HEB","chapter":7},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/HEB/8.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"HEB","chapter":8},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/HEB/6.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"HEB","chapter":6},"numberOfVerses":27}