The Pulpit Commentary — Hebrews — Section 191

stow11l of blessing no lees th11n by receiving descendant Levi, was yet (l-r,) in the loins of tithe h11ving been thus noticed, the con- oi Abraham; on which point, "Proles e pn- trnet with the Lovitic11l priesthood is con- rentis potestate egressa. in suam venit tute- tinued in the following verses. la.m: eed quoa.d in parentis potestate, imo in Ver. 8,-And here (in the case of the lnmbie est, illius conditionem sequitur" Levitical priesthood) men that die (literally, (Bengel). dying men) reoeive tithea; but there (in the Vere. 11, 12.-If then perfeotion ( n11.,C- case of Melohizedek) one of whom it is ""'": cf. 006,v -yap t,,-,71.,(,,,rrev <I v&µo,) were witneaaed that he liveth. The difference through the Levitical prieathood (for under it here noted is between a succession of mortal (rather, upon it, on the ground of it) the priests and one perpetually living, who never people hath received the Law), what need loses his personal claim, which is inherent in WII.B there that another (rather, a different) himself. But how so of Melchizedek? For prieat ahould rise after the order of Mel- it is to him, and not to Christ the Antitype, chizedek, and not be called after the order that the words evidently apply. Is it at of Aaron l For the priesthood being length implied the.the was more than mortal changed, there is made of necessity a man? No, if only for this reason; thattbe change also of the Law. Here a. further witness appealed to (µap-rvpo6µ,vos) must be thought is introduced. So far the supe- that of Scripture, which nowhere bee.re such riority of the priesthood after the order of witness of the historical Melchizedek. The Melchizedek to the Aa.ronic bas been shown. words, µa.p-rvpo6µ,.-os /in (fi, o.rf', i.n fact, only The new thonght is that the very mention e. resumption of what was said in ver. 3: in the psalm of e. different order of priest- "having neither beginning of days nor end hood implies that the old order, and with of life; " and bear the same meaning ; viz. it 'the whole legal dispensation which de- (e.s above explained) that he passes before pended on it, was imperfect and to be super- our view in Genesis with no mention of seded. This is the genera.I drift of vers. 11, either de11th, birth, or ancestry, and thus 12, tllough the sequence of thought in their presented the idea.I of " a priest for ever" to several clauses is not easy to follow. Ideas the inspired psalmist. The witness referred in the writer's mind, not expressed, seem to is that of the record in Genesis, viewed in necessary to be understood. In the paren- the light of the idea of the psalm. thetical clause of ver. 11, br' a.in¾• and Vere. 9, 10.-And, ao to say, through vevoµo8fr71-ra.1 are decidedly to be preferred, Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, on the ground of authority, to br' a.o-ri, and bath paid tithes. For he was yet in the 11,voµo8fr71-ro of the 'l'extus Receptus. The loins of his father, when Melchizedek met meaning of the clause (whatever be the him. Or, in other words, "No.y, further, precise thought connecting it with tbe sen- Melchizedek may be said to have tithed tence in which it stands) is that the whole Levi himself and his priestly tribe." For, Law rested on the institution of the priest- inasmuch as the whole position of Levi and hood; not the priests only, but the whole his tribe, in the old dispensation, came by people ( <I 71.a.b,), received their Law as inheritance from the great patriarch who grounded on it. On the ea.me idea de- received the promises, the subordination of pends ver. 12, where it is said that a the patriarch to one above himseU involved change of the priesthood involves of neces- that of 11.ll who so inherited. It is not sity e. change of the Law. simply the physical descent of Levi from The verses next following serve to remove Abraham, but the peculiar position of the all doubt that there is 11 complete change of latter as "the patriarch," that justifies the assertion tho.t Levi pa.id tithes through him. the priesthood; the proofs being, not only And thus, while we remember how Abraham the po.tent fa.et that the Messiah is of the is elsewhere viewed in Scripture as the tribe, not of Levi, but of Judah (vers. 13, ropreeento.ti ve of the chosen people, and 14), but also, for more a.bund11nt evidence oC 11leo how the lives of individual patriarchs the Divine purpose, that siguificant utter- (notably so in the case of Jacob and Esau) nre so told and referred to as to prefigure ance, a.gaiu adduced, about his being after the positions o.nd fortunes of the races they the order, not of Aaron, but of Melehizedek represent, we may recognize in this asser- (vers. 15, 16, 17), tion no mere rabbinicnl fancy, but 11n in- Vers. 13, 14.-For he of whom these terpretation true to the spirit of the Old things are spoken pe:-taineth t~ (µn~cJX'IIK<v: Testament. Be it further observed that the litemlly, hath partciken of; cl. µ.enrrx•, eh. original significance of Abro.ha.rn's action 11s ii. 14 with reference, us there, to Christ•~ be11ring upon hie descendants is enhanced assm~ption of humanity) another tribe, of by the fa.et th11t, while it was after the re- which no man hath (ever) given attendance ceiving of the promise, it w11s befor6 the at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord birth of Isot1c, Ho, anrl co11Rcqnm1tly his bath sprung out of Judah ; as to which tribe  180 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. [ Cll, VII, 1-28,