Hebrews 1

The commentary treats this chapter together with chapter 7; the text below is that joint comment.

Chap. VII. Ver. 1—28. The priesthood of Christ, according to the order of Melchisedec.—The history of this Melchisedec so far as regards the Old Testament, will be found in (Genesis 14), latter part, of which we shall repeat as little as possible. His name is here interpreted as meaning “King of righteousness,” and his regal title as implying that he was “King of Peace.” He was, however, a real character, and possessed a real domain—he was King of Salem, including the site of that city which was afterwards the metropolis of Judea, namely Jerusalem, or the Holy Salem. In both these respects he strikingly typified him who was at once the Son of David and the King of Israel. But Melchisedec was also a priest of the most high God; and in that respect also typified Christ, as being, like him, of an order peculiar to himself, and not of the Levitical priesthood, nor of the house of Aaron.

It was in this respect that he was without parentage and without pedigree, though perhaps the expression may only mean, that his descent is un- recorded and unknown. After stating the pre-eminent character of Melchisedec, St. Paul calls upon the Hebrews to reflect how great this man must have been, to whom Abraham gave the tenth of his spoils, undoubtedly thereby acknowledging him as his superior, and, consequently, as superior to all the priests who descended from him. But who was this Melchisedec of whom the apostle speaks so highly, and that undoubtedly with a view to magnify that Jesus whom he typified? According to an ancient Jewish tradition, he was the patriarch Shem. This seems the most general opinion among expositors, and was defended with great ability by Mr.

Granville Sharpe, above referred to, though this opinion is by no means essential to the apostle’s argument. On comparing our great High Priest with the sons of Aaron, the apostle remarks, ‘That the sons of Aaron were made priests without an oath, and so their priesthood was liable to be changed or repealed; whereas Jesus was made a priest with a solemn and irrevocable oath, by him that said unto him, “The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever,” &c.—which was a declaration that his priesthood was to be unchangeable; and by so much was he made the surety of a better covenant than that of which the Aaronical priests were sureties. That the sons of Aaron were made priests “according to the law of a carnal commandment,” accommodated to weak mortal men, whereby that office went by descent and succession from father to son; [and] hence there were many priests [in succession], because they “were not suffered to continue by reason of death.” But Jesus being raised from the dead, was, by the oath, made a priest in his own person for ever, according to the power of an endless life; and because he continueth for ever, He hath an unsuccessive priesthood, and so is able to save for ever them that come to God through him, as he is always living to make intercession for them.

That, in respect of character and qualifications, he is such a High Priest as is perfectly suited to our exigencies, being holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and stationed not on earth, but made higher than the heavens. That he needed not, from time to time, like Aaronical high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first, for his own sins (for he “ha none) and then for the sins of the people; for this he did effectually at once, when he offered up himself. For the law constitutes men high priests who have sinful infirmity, and therefore need to offer for their own sins; but the word of the oath, which was since the law was given, constitutes the Son a High Priest who is consecrated for evermore.”

—M‘Lean. To these observations we add a general remark from Dr. John Owen:—“The design of the apostle, in this chapter, is not to declare the nature or the exercise of the priesthood of Christ. To the nature of it, he had spoken, (Hebrews 5); and of its use, he treats at large in (Hebrews 9)But it is of its excellency and dignity he here treats, and that not absolutely neither, but in comparison with the Levitical priesthood. This was conducive to his main end with the Hebrews; and this he proves upon principles received by themselves, the faith and principles of the ancient church of Israel.” Chap. VIII. Ver. 1-13. The Levitical priesthood superseded by that of Christ; and the Old Covenant by the New.—The apostle here pursues his comparison between Christ, who is our great High Priest, and the priests of the house of Aaron; in all things giving due pre-eminence to him, whom all the inspired writers “delight to honour.”

1. Speaking of Christ as our High Priest, we are told he “is set (down) on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven;” a very different situation from that of the Jewish high priest, who stood and bowed before the divine presence.—2. He is called “a minister of the sanctuary,” or of the Holies; that is, of the “Holy of holies,” or “holiest of all,” as it is called in (Hebrews 9:3); so Drs. Owen and Guise; and “of the true tabernacle,” meaning, as it is generally understood, heaven itself; a tabernacle “which the Lord pitched, and not man;” which in the next chapter (ver. 11) is called “a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands,” as was the Mosaic tabernacle; but “which the Lord hath pitched (or erected) and not man.”—3.

Since every high priest among men is ordained “to offer gifts and sacrifices,” it was necessary that our great High Priest should also have somewhat to offer; and what so precious as his own blood? What so acceptable as his transcendent merits? As, therefore, the Jewish high priest went once a year into the most holy place with the blood of sacrifices slain, so Christ, upon his ascension, once for all, presented the merits of his righteousness and atonement before God, and ever lives to intercede on the behalf of those for whom he died.—4. Another circumstance of pre-eminence enjoyed by our Lord, is, that “he is the Mediator of a better covenant” than that of Sinai, to which the Levitical priesthood was attached. This being a better covenant, argues defect in the former.

Although the Sinaic covenant (says Dr. Macknight) was well calculated to preserve the Jews from idolatry, and to give them the knowledge of their duty, it was faulty or imperfect in the following respects:—1. The rites of worship it enjoined, sanctified only, to “the purifying of the flesh;” but not the conscience of the worshippers.—2. These rites could be performed nowhere but in the tabernacle, or in the temple; consequently they could not be the religion of mankind. 3. This covenant had no real sacrifice for sin; therefore it could grant no pardon to any sinner.—4. Its promises were all of a temporal kind.—5. It required an unsinning obedience, which, in our present state, no one can give, and threatened death for every offence.” It has been doubted, whether the finding fault, mentioned in verse 8, refers to the covenant there spoken of, or to the people there addressed.

(See our note.) “Both, I think, (says Mr. M‘Lean,) are intended in the context. In the foregoing verse, the old covenant is not supposed to be faultless, but the contrary, because it left room for another, and this verse comes in as a proof of it. In the next verse, the people are also blamed because they continued not in God’s covenant: but then, it must be observed, that the people are so blamed, as to insinuate that the covenant itself was defective; for the Lord promises to set it aside, and make a new one, which should better suit their need.” To this New Covenant we have had repeated occasions to advert in the writings of the prophets, and the passage, verses 8 to 13, will be found literally copied from (Jeremiah 31:31-34), with only one remarkable variation, mentioned in our note on verses 8 and 9. In our exposition of the above passage, we have intimated our opinion (which we believe is a general one) of the promise having a reference to the future calling of the Jews to a more extensive reception of the gospel dispensation, which we consider as the new covenant here referred to: not that there is anything new with reference to God, for all his counsels are from everlasting; but he is continually making new discoveries of his grace and mercy to mankind. One other remark shall close what we have to offer on this chapter. When it is said, “They shall not teach every man his neighbour, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, (saith the Lord,) from the least to the greatest;” we must take it with some latitude, for while children are born into the world, they will need instruction, and, as sinners, the means of conversion: yet, possibly, the time may come, when missions and missionaries shall be no more needed; but when “the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, even as the waters do the sea.”

Chap. IX. Ver. 1—28. The superiority of Christ’s sacrifice.—God in heaven, or visit the churches of God on earth, desiring to look into the mysteries of human redemption. The entrance of the high priest into the most holy place only once a year, and that not without the sprinkling of blood, and other mystic ceremonies, we are here taught, (ver. 24,) prefigured our Lord Jesus Christ entering “into heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us.” In the meantime, that is, before the death of Christ, the continuance of the veil which separated the most holy from the outer part, signified that the way into the former “was not yet made manifest”—was not thrown open—“while as yet the first tabernacle, with all its rites and ceremonies, remained standing;” but when, at the death of Christ, that veil was rent in twain, it was thereby signified that, through him, the way was opened, and that sinners of all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, might now draw nigh to God.

“To show (says Mr. M‘Lean) that it was necessary that the new covenant should be ratified by the death of Christ, he [Paul] compares it in this respect to a testament, which is of no force or validity till ratified by the death of the testator, (ver. 16, 17.) Accordingly, God’s covenants with sinful men have ever since the fall, been made and ratified by the death and blood of sacrifices: and this, he particularly observes, was the case with the first or Sinaitic covenant, which was solemnly ratified and dedicated by slaying sacrifices, and sprinkling the blood on the book and people—the tabernacle and all the vessels of the sanctuary.” These things, indeed, as they referred to the types themselves, were necessary to be repeated; but not so the antitype, or Christ must have often suffered: but now once “in the end of the world,”

that is, in these last ages, the times of the Messiah, “hath he appeared, finally and effectually to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” But it may be asked, whence arises a necessity that the heavens themselves should be purified, where no sin can enter? To this we answer, with Mr. M‘Lean, “That though the typical representations of heavenly things had no moral impurity in themselves, and though neither person nor thing ceremonially unclean was permitted to enter into the outer, far less into the inner tabernacle, to defile it; yet we have seen that it was necessary that they should be purified with blood, on account of the uncleanness of the people, and that they might thus be opened and fitted for their admission to, and acceptance with God, in his worship.

Now, as to the heavenly things, it may be observed, that though Christ had no sin of his own, yet, as the substitute of sinners, he sanctified and devoted himself to be a sacrifice for their sins, ((John 17:19),) and was thus “made perfect,” or consecrated, through his sufferings. 2. By his entering into heaven by the blood of his own sacrifice, he hath dedicated and opened for all believers, a new and living way of access into the holiest, by which they may draw near…. to God. 3. He hath gone into heaven, to prepare a place there for the everlasting habitation of the saints, and will come again to receive them to himself.”

Notes on the verses

Ver. 7. For the earth, &c.—That is, that earth is blessed which, by drinking in the rain, becomes fruitful: but that sandy soil which, though it may [drink] the rain, produces no useful vegetation, is accursed. Compare Jer. [xii.] 6. Ver. 9. Things that accompany.—Macknight, “which are connected.” Ver. 10. God is not unrighteous.—Though we have no claim on the divine bounty, yet God having promised and covenanted to reward our unworthy services, his justice and fidelity bind him to his promise. Ver. 11. Full assurance of hope—That is, the most assured hope. Ver. 12. Followers.—Gr. “imitators.” Patience.—Gr. “long-suffering.” ——Inherit.—Gr. “are inheriting;” meaning the Patriarchs, &c. now in Ver.

16. Of all strife—Macknight, “contradiction.” Ver. 18. Fled for refuge.—The words “for refuge,” though not in italics, are merely supplementary, our translators supposing such to be the allusion; but others think it an allusion to the Grecian games, and to the prize exhibited to the racers. We see, suppose the reference is to the cities of refuge, of which there were three on each side of Jordan. They were easy of access, having smooth and good roads 58 feet wide, and bridges over streams. Where the roads crossed or diverged, guide boards were placed, with “Refuge” on them, so large and plain that a man might read whilst running. See (Numbers 35:11), &c. Ver. 20. Whither the forerunner.—Macknight says, “A forerunner, is one who goes before to do some service for another.”

Here (he thinks) the allusion is to one sent from a ship to fix its anchor in the place to which it is to be drawn.” But M‘Lean doubts if the word was ever so used; and so do we; we should rather refer to (John 14:3). Chap. VII. Ver. 1. This Melchisedec—Or Melchisedek, as it is spelled in Gen. xiv, 18, &c.—King of Salem.—So his capital, and probably his whole territory, was called in Abraham’s time; in the time of Joshua and the Judges it was also called by the name of Jebus. ((Joshua 18:28). (Judges 19:10).) Salem, it is well known, signifies peace; and Jerusalem, as the learned Granville Sharp has shown, signifies Holy (or sacred) Salem; or, by interpretation, “Holy Peace.” See Mr. Sharp’s two tracts, on Jerusalem and on Ver.

3. Without father.—[(That is, as the Syriac renders, “Whose father and mother are not inscribed among the genealogies; and therefore it was not known who he was.]—Bagster. “Elsner (as Doddridge remarks) hath some remarkable quotations, to prove that it was usual among the Greeks to call any one (apater, amater) without father, without mother, when his parents were unknown.”——Without descent.—Gr. Genealogy.—Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.—The time of service of the Aaronic priests was limited between the ages of 30 and 50, which were the terms of their official life; though some think those expressions mean only, that his birth and death are unrecorded.—But made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.—Macknight, who begins the latter clause as well as the former, to Melchisedec, renders it “all his life;”

and remarks, that the same phrase is applied to the perpetual dictatorship of Sylla. But Doddridge and M‘Lean suppose an ellipsis (as is not uncommon) of the pronoun who, and render the clause, “but [was] made like unto [or a type of] the Son of God, [who] abideth a priest continually.” is Ver. 5. Have a commandment to take tithes.—See (Numbers 18:21, 21, 26). Ver. 8. Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.—Doddridge, “Of whom it is [only] testified that he liveth;” that is, of whose death we have no account. Some render it, “that he lived;” Macknight, “That he lived a priest all his life.” Compare ver. 3. Ver. 9. As I may so say.—Doddridge and Macknight, “As one may say.” Ver. 11. Perfection.—Completion, or fulfilment, of the plan and purpose of God.—And not be called.—Doddridge, “not be reckoned.” Ver.

16. But after the power of an endless life—i.e. for ever. Ver. 18. Disannulling.—Doddridge, “Abolition.” Ver. 19. Made nothing perfect.—(Completed nothing; it was the introduction, but not the completion.)—Bagster.—But the bringing in, &c.—i.e. the hope of the gospel. Ver. 22. A Letter testament.—Rather “covenant.” So Doddridge, Macknight, &c. The Greek commentators explain the term surety, by that of Mediator.—Macknight. Ver. 24. This man—[That is, Christ, because “he continueth ever,” hath “a priesthood that passeth not away” from him.—Unchangeable.—a priesthood which passeth not from one to another.]