V.
The Danger of Apostasy (5:12–6:20)
E.
God's Promise Is Sure (6:13-20)
1.
(; ) Continued: Abraham's grandchildren were not born for another sixty years, only fifteen years before his death. The complete fulfillment of the promise, of course, could not take place within his lifetime (a nation cannot be born so quickly). But enough happened for the divine writer to say, "[Abraham] obtained the promise."
a.
We should possibly also bear in mind John 8:56: "Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." In that sense Abraham did see the fuller working out of the promise. But the important thing in the present context is that Abraham had to be patient if he was to see anything in the way of fulfillment. He was patient and he did see it. So, the readers are encouraged to be patient and await God's action. He does not go back on His promises; He is completely reliable. But He works in His own way and time, not ours.
2.
() The importance of the oath is now brought out. One swears an oath "by one greater than themselves." When one swears an oath, one makes a solemn affirmation of the truth of his or her words before a greater being, who presumably will punish any misuse of his name if a false statement is made. Thus, an oath "is an end of every dispute." It is an authoritative word guaranteed by the highest authority.
3.
() We now turn from human oaths to the oath God swore to Abraham. God had no need to swear an oath. Nevertheless, He did it to make absolutely clear to His servant that His promise would be fulfilled. The operation of God's will is stressed and is further brought out by the reference to the "unchangeableness of His purpose." God's will does not change. He has His purpose, and He works it out. That was what the oath said.
a.
The word rendered "interposed" has the idea of "stand as guarantor." God appears, so to speak, in two characters: the Giver of the promise and then its Guarantor. God is one of the parties of His promise. But with His oath, He puts Himself on neutral ground and pledges the fulfillment of that promise. We should not miss the reference to "the heirs." The promise was not confined to Abraham or even to him and his immediate family. () Since he was to have a mighty multitude of heirs, it was to all those who follow him, including not merely physical Israel but also his spiritual descendants. The readers of the letter must number themselves among those to whom the oath referred.
4.
() God's swearing the oath gave us "two unchangeable things," the promise and the oath. Once God had spoken, it was inconceivable that either should alter. It is impossible for God to lie. "So that" introduces the purpose God had in mind. This purpose can be understood as "so that . . . we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us" The writer does not specify what we have "taken refuge" from, but the context makes it clear that he is thinking of some aspect of life in a sinful world. So far from clinging to that, he and his readers "take hold of the hope set before us." Once again, we see the importance of hope, the very antithesis of the despair that might grip us if we saw no more than a sinful world. But we do see more. We look forward to the consummation of God's great work of salvation. The word translated "refuge" pictures hope lying before us, spread out like some inviting prospect; and we are encouraged to go into it.
5.
() While the metaphor of the anchor is widely used in antiquity, it occurs only here in the New Testament. A ship firmly anchored is safe from idle drifting. Its position and safety are sure. So, hope is a stabilizing force for the Christian. "Soul" is a general word that probably means the "life" of a human being. The author is not saying simply that hope secures the "spiritual" aspect of a person; he is affirming that hope forms an anchor for the whole of life. Those with a living hope have a steadying anchor in all they do, giving them a solid footing and security.
a.
And there is something more: hope "enters within the veil [the inner sanctuary]." The imagery takes us back to the tabernacle, with its "curtain" shutting off the Most Holy Place. That little room symbolized the very presence of God, but people were not allowed to enter it. But hope can, says the author. The Christian hope is not exhausted by what it sees of earthly possibilities. It reaches into the very presence of God.
6.
() We return to the imagery of the Day of Atonement, when the high priest entered the Most Holy Place on behalf of the people. Our forerunner, Jesus, has entered the holiest of all for us — something more than the Levitical high priest could do. Though the high priest entered the Most Holy Place to make atonement on behalf of the people, at the end he and they were still outside. But to call Jesus our "forerunner" implies that we will follow Him into the Most Holy Place in due course.
a.
"As a forerunner" indicates that Jesus did something for us. He not only showed the way but also atoned for all elect people (chosen in eternity past). Thus, we come to the thought that He has become "a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The thought had been introduced in , and the author will now proceed to develop it.
VI.
Melchizedek (7:1-28)
The writer has mentioned Melchizedek before and has spoken of Jesus as a priest of the Melchizedekian kind, but he has done no more than glance at the theme. Now he develops it. This is an understanding of Christ's work that is peculiar to this letter, and in the author's hands it is very effective. He uses it to show something of the uniqueness of Christ and of the greatness of the work He accomplished. Here are the major points made in this Scripture:
A.
God's Promise Is Sure (7:1-10)
1.
() The writer begins his explanation of the significance of Melchizedek by referring to . Melchizedek is "king of Salem," which may mean "king of Jerusalem" ("Salem" is another name for Jerusalem in ). But the writer indicated that Jerusalem was in fact where Melchizedek ministered, and he also mentions the fact that Jesus suffered outside the gate of the city [Jerusalem] (cf. ).
2.
() Abraham gave Melchizedek "a tenth of everything," (of the spoils from the battle [cf. vss. 4-6.]). So far, the author is simply identifying Melchizedek with his reference to the incident after the battle. Now he goes on to the significance of Melchizedek's name and title: "king of righteousness" and "king of Salem" respectively. The place name "Salem" comes from the same root as shalom (Hebrew for "peace"), and it may accordingly be translated in this way. This word means more than absence of war; it signifies the presence of positive blessing. () In the New Testament, "peace" means the result of Christ's atoning work for us. We are reminded of the promised Messiah as "Prince of Peace" (; cf. also "righteousness" in vs. 7, another distinctive aspect of Christ's saving work).
3.
() The terms "without father" and "without mother" were often used for waifs of unknown parentage, for illegitimate children, for people who came from unimportant families, and sometimes for deities who were supposed to take their origin from one sex only. Some scholars hold that Melchizedek is viewed in the last- mentioned way and is being pictured as an angelic being. But it seems more likely that the author is assuming that the silences of Scripture are as much due to inspiration as are its statements. When nothing is recorded of the parentage of this man, it need not be assumed that he had no parents but simply that the absence of the record is significant. Melchizedek is also "without genealogy." Taken together, the three aspects are striking, for in antiquity a priest's genealogy was considered all- important. After the Exile, certain priests whose genealogy could not be established "were excluded from the priesthood [as unclean]" (). Moreover, the priesthood of Melchizedek is without any end.
a.
What was true of Melchizedek simply as a matter of record was true of Christ historically, but they also have significant spiritual dimensions in a fuller sense. The writer is, of course, speaking of the Son's eternal nature, not of His appearance in the Incarnation. He uses the official title of Jesus — "Son of God" — as in ; ; (cf. ; ). Since the writer does not use this often, we may sense an emphasis on the high dignity of the Son of God. Moreover, it is the Son of God who is the standard, not the ancient priest-king. The writer says that Melchizedek is "made like" the Son of God, not that the Son of God is like Melchizedek. Thus, it is not that Melchizedek sets the pattern and Jesus follows it. Rather, the record about Melchizedek is so arranged that it brings out certain truths that apply far more fully to Jesus than they do to Melchizedek.
4.
() The author proceeds to bring out the greatness of Melchizedek with an argument that the modern mind may find rather curious, but which would have been compelling to his contemporaries. In the ancient world, it was generally recognized that there was an obligation to pay tithes to important religious functionaries. This implies a certain subjection on the part of those paying. So, it was significant that Abraham paid to Melchizedek "a tenth of the choicest spoils." From the spoils of victory, an offering would often be made to the gods as a thanksgiving. Abraham gave a tenth of the very best to Melchizedek, because he saw him as a representative of the LORD he served.
5.
(a) "Message" (Greek logos) means in the first place a word spoken (as opposed to a deed) Here the meaning of the payment of the tithe is spelled out. Not only was such a payment widely customary, but the law required it to be made. The writer speaks of "the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office" as needing to "collect a tenth from the people." () In the law it was provided that the people were to pay tithes to the Levites. () But the Levites similarly paid tithes to the priests, so it could well be said that the people paid tithes to the priests (and in the first century it seems that the priests themselves carried out the whole tithing operation.
a.
The writer is strongly interested in "the Law", which he mentions fourteen times. Here it means the law of Moses. The law required tithes to be taken from people of whom the priests were "brethren." There is a sense in which the priests had no inherent superiority, for they were related to those who gave tithes to them. They owed their ability to collect tithes to the provision made in the law and not to any natural superiority. But with Melchizedek, it was different. He "did not trace his descent from [Levi]." Melchizedek was not simply one among a host of brothers. He was a solitary figure of grandeur. And he exacted tithes not simply from his brothers but from Abraham. His greatness stands out.
6.
() Not only did Melchizedek exact tithes from Abraham, but he also blessed him. The giving of a blessing was a significant act in antiquity. As used here, it is an official pronouncement given by an authorized person. When that happens, there is no denying that it proceeds from a superior: "The lesser is blessed by the greater."
a.
In the Genesis account, Melchizedek makes no claims, nor does Abraham concede anything in words. But both Abraham's giving of tithes and his receiving a blessing from Melchizedek implicitly acknowledge the superior place of Melchizedek. The situation is clear to all parties. The author is simply drawing attention to what the narrative clearly suggests about the superior status of Melchizedek. Even when Abraham is seen as the one "who had the promises," Melchizedek is superior.
7.
() In the Levitical system, those who receive tithes eventually die. But in the Melchizedek episode, tithes are received by one who is "living." Melchizedek is in strong contrast to the Aaronic priests. The divine writer does not say that Melchizedek lives on but that the testimony about him does live on.