Christian Apologetics

Forwarded from Answering Islam

Hebrews 7:3  He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.


The words do not mean that he literally had no father or mother. In the LXX of Esth 2:7, Esther is described as having no father or mother. Scripture’s silence concerning Melchizedek’s origin “is stressed by the writer to amplify the concept of the uniqueness of his priesthood, and not as proof of that uniqueness.”

the author is not attempting to “establish a factual point but to exhibit the radical difference that existed between the priesthood of Melchizedek and the more familiar Levitical line of priests.” The silence of Scripture regarding Melchizedek’s parentage and genealogy is now extended by the author with a phrase that evokes the notion of eternity; an eternity that is only typified in Melchizedek but is realized in Christ. The use of the perfect passive participle in v. 3 could be literally translated “having been made to resemble [by God],” an example of the so-called “divine passive” where the author’s construction indicates God’s appointment of Melchizedek as a type of Jesus that subordinates Melchizedek to Christ. It is this phrase, “like the Son of God,” that the author uses to indicate two important truths: the greatness of Melchizedek; yet he only resembles someone greater. Several times the author refers to Jesus as “Son” but only three times is Jesus designated as “Son of God” (6:6; 7:3; 10:29). Mason correctly pointed out that the use of the phrase “is far from random in these passages, however, as in each case use of this term heightens the rhetoric of the author or subtly expresses Jesus’ superiority over an inferior entity.”

The final phrase of v. 3, “he remains a priest forever,” is the author’s paraphrase of Ps 110:4. The phrase is dependent upon the preceding participial clause and functions to relate the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek, typologically presented, to his resemblance to Jesus, the Son of God. The Greek phrase eis to diēnekes occurs four times in Hebrews (7:3; 10:1,12,14) and nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes that which continues uninterruptedly or perpetually. The phrase is not to be interpreted literally, but typologically. The relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus is best described in terms of typology.

By grounding Christ’s priesthood in the biblical source of Ps 110:4 and connecting it with the historical source of Gen 14:17–20, the author establishes the eternality of Christ’s priesthood. In the remainder of Hebrews 7, the author will demonstrate the implications of this fact with respect to the Levitical priesthood, and lay the groundwork for the next step in the theological argument to be taken in Hebrews 8. Mathews rightly reminds us, “Typologically, it is not necessary for Jesus and Melchizedek to share in all traits; thus the ancient interpretation that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ is not required.”

www.tgoop.com/ChristianApologetic/4234

573 viewsJan 3 at 14:04

Hebrews 7:3  He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.


The words do not mean that he literally had no father or mother. In the LXX of Esth 2:7, Esther is described as having no father or mother. Scripture’s silence concerning Melchizedek’s origin “is stressed by the writer to amplify the concept of the uniqueness of his priesthood, and not as proof of that uniqueness.”

the author is not attempting to “establish a factual point but to exhibit the radical difference that existed between the priesthood of Melchizedek and the more familiar Levitical line of priests.” The silence of Scripture regarding Melchizedek’s parentage and genealogy is now extended by the author with a phrase that evokes the notion of eternity; an eternity that is only typified in Melchizedek but is realized in Christ. The use of the perfect passive participle in v. 3 could be literally translated “having been made to resemble [by God],” an example of the so-called “divine passive” where the author’s construction indicates God’s appointment of Melchizedek as a type of Jesus that subordinates Melchizedek to Christ. It is this phrase, “like the Son of God,” that the author uses to indicate two important truths: the greatness of Melchizedek; yet he only resembles someone greater. Several times the author refers to Jesus as “Son” but only three times is Jesus designated as “Son of God” (6:6; 7:3; 10:29). Mason correctly pointed out that the use of the phrase “is far from random in these passages, however, as in each case use of this term heightens the rhetoric of the author or subtly expresses Jesus’ superiority over an inferior entity.”

The final phrase of v. 3, “he remains a priest forever,” is the author’s paraphrase of Ps 110:4. The phrase is dependent upon the preceding participial clause and functions to relate the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek, typologically presented, to his resemblance to Jesus, the Son of God. The Greek phrase eis to diēnekes occurs four times in Hebrews (7:3; 10:1,12,14) and nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes that which continues uninterruptedly or perpetually. The phrase is not to be interpreted literally, but typologically. The relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus is best described in terms of typology.

By grounding Christ’s priesthood in the biblical source of Ps 110:4 and connecting it with the historical source of Gen 14:17–20, the author establishes the eternality of Christ’s priesthood. In the remainder of Hebrews 7, the author will demonstrate the implications of this fact with respect to the Levitical priesthood, and lay the groundwork for the next step in the theological argument to be taken in Hebrews 8. Mathews rightly reminds us, “Typologically, it is not necessary for Jesus and Melchizedek to share in all traits; thus the ancient interpretation that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Christ is not required.”

BY Christian Apologetics