 |
Lenski:
The Fourth Main Part
Jesus, the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, chapter 7
Introductory: The Scriptural Data Regarding Melchizedek, v. 1–3.
1) This strange person, who appears suddenly in and disappears as suddenly from the Scripture record (Gen. 14:18–20), who is in a remarkable way unexpectedly referred to by David in a quotation from God himself (Ps. 110:4), has given rise to still stranger speculation as to his identity. Rabbi Ismael, about 135 b. c., thought him to be Shem, Noah’s son; this opinion has been accepted by Luther and by others. Philo saw in him a figure of the human soul, divine reason functioning in a priestly way as the upright word that controlled the passions, delighted the soul and honored God with exalted thought; he did not regard Melchizedek as a historical person. Origen thought him to be an angel being; others specified this angel as Michael. Hierakas, at the end of the third century, made him a temporary incarnation of the Holy Spirit, others a similar incarnation of the Logos. Theodot, 200 b. c., and the sect of the Melchizedekites made him greater than Christ, the original of whom Christ was only a copy, through whom all prayers must be brought to God. There have been still other opinions.
There are three short verses in Genesis, one in the Psalms, nothing more in the rest of the Bible, yet here in Hebrews we have an elaborate exposition concerning Melchizedek and Christ. It is the statement made in the psalm that sheds the divine light on Melchizedek and those three verses of Genesis. Yet already this fact arrests attention, namely that God himself should so long a time after Abraham refer to Melchizedek in Genesis when he was speaking of David’s son who was David’s Lord. It was reserved for our epistle to add the complete light.
There was a call for it now. The readers, former Jews who were now thinking of returning to Judaism, are here confronted with their great forefather Abraham and are shown how he accepted the royal priest Melchizedek long before Levi and Aaron were born and the Aaronitic high priesthood came into existence. The readers want to be true sons of Abraham, yea, are thinking of returning to Judaism for that very reason. Well, let them look at Abraham and at the one priest to whom Abraham bowed. Let them consider what God said through David regarding this royal priest and regarding the Messiah-Christ who is typified by Melchizedek.
The very objection which the readers may raise against Jesus, the fact that he was not a son of Levi but descended from the tribe of Judah, was not in the Aaronic succession and thus not a legitimate priest and high priest, is made the most overwhelming proof for the absolutely exceptional, for the eternal High Priesthood of Jesus, which is, indeed, not according to the order of Aaron but, as God himself had declared by David, “according to the order of Melchizedek.” Our High Priest must also be King eternal who has none to precede and none to succeed him, who is far beyond Aaron by being after the type of Melchizedek. All that God revealed about the significance of Melchizedek in David’s time is thus brought to bear upon the readers of our epistle who need it. Although it appeared to lie dormant in those four Old Testament verses, it is “living and powerful” (4:12) to save the readers from taking a fatal step.
The writer has used the most effective psychological method of approach. He has first prepared his readers. He has repeatedly presented Jesus as our High Priest, in fact, as our Great High Priest (4:14); he has twice quoted God’s own statement in the psalm that Jesus was to be Priest and High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:6, 10). He has delayed until now to reveal in detail what this means. He has injected the strongest warnings against sluggishness of mind and the deadliness of unbelief. The preparation is complete; he now proceeds, and his exposition leaves nothing to be desired. The first step presents the main historical facts about Melchizedek. These are the data embodied in Genesis. Γάρ = in order that you may fully understand what God means by saying that Jesus is a High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (6:20).
 |
Lenski:
“This Melchizedek” = the man whom I have (6:20) so significantly brought to your attention for the third time (5:6, 10). There follows a series of appositions and nominative modifiers until the verb μένει is reached (v. 3). “King of Salem” and “priest of God the Most High” are quoted from Gen. 14:18. These are the significant features because this man was both king and priest and was unlike any other Old Testament personage. It is in vain to ask from what line this kingpriest descended; he is “without genealogy” (v. 3), and speculation is useless.
But how could there be “a priest of God the Most High” in this idolatrous country of Canaan? The answer must be that the true religion of Noah had been fully conserved in Melchizedek. “The Most High” is not relative, not polytheistic: the highest of many gods as Zeus was called “the highest”; “Most High” is absolute, monotheistic: High beyond all other things. We now say “God Almighty” to express the same idea. “Most High” appears a number of times in the New Testament, being appropriated from the Old.
Lenski:
In 2:10 we heard what was becoming to God, namely to make the Author of our salvation complete by means of sufferings. We now hear the counterpart, that it was becoming to us to have such a High Priest, who has all the basic requisites and thus has also been made complete forever. We see at once that τελειῶσαι used in 2:10 and τετελειωμένον correspond, and that thus the τελείωσις that was lacking in what the Levitical priesthood was able to provide (v. 11) is provided to the uttermost in this High Priest of ours. We have the same imperfect “was becoming” that was used in 2:10, but it now has a personal and not, as in 2:10, an impersonal subject. One might say “such a High Priest was necessary for us,” which would also be true.
“Was becoming,” fitting, appropriate, meet, does not put the matter on a lower plane; it deals only with another side, that of providing us with the proper High Priest, one who is this in a way that is complete in every respect, is fully fitted for his task. We may say that stating it thus leaves room for the temporary and incomplete work of the Levitical priests (v. 11), which was also fitting and proper in a way because it was preparatory for Christ and with its incompleteness pointed to the completeness of Christ, with its incompleteness depended on Christ’s completeness and thus achieved its results through him.
The very fact that by means of the Levitical priesthood completeness was not attained (v. 11) together with all that is added in v. 11–25 show how it became us to have a High Priest of a different kind, one who is, indeed, absolutely complete as a High Priest. The imperfect tense is in place, for this propriety existed at all times from the very beginning of the priestly idea and the priestly expiation of our sins—completeness both in the personal qualification and in the work of the Priest who would, of course, be a high priest. If καί is retained, its force would be: was “precisely” becoming for us (R. 1181).
The matter is presented in an objective way: this objectivity is more convincing for the readers than if Jesus were actually named in this paragraph. Yet a little thought shows that all that is here said about the kind of High Priest that is proper for us is found in Jesus, in him alone. This form of presentation practically asks the readers to take these objective specifications and to find the High Priest in whom they appear. There is none other than Jesus despite the host of priests and of high priests the Jews have had. What a fatal mistake, then, for the readers to think of forsaking “such a High Priest” and turning back to Judaism, to the Levitical priests whose function had long been superseded as God himself declares in his sworn statement (v. 20–22, 28).
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.
