66 "sacerdos magnus, summus;" "pontifex," "pontifex summus." But the whole nature, right, and privilege of the office, belonged unto any one as a priest. Every high priest was a priest absolutely; but every priest was not a high priest also. Aaron and his sons were together separated unto the same office of the priesthood, Exod. xxviii. 1; but some duties in the execution of the office were peculiarly reserved unto him who was chief and singular. And because he who was singular had thus sundry pre-eminences above other priests, and also that the discharge of some duties, and offering of some sacrifices, as that of the great atonement, were committed unto him alone, which were peculiarly typical of the sacerdotal actions of Christ; as he is called ispsús, a "priest" absolutely, as being invested in the real office of the priesthood, so is he termed appEUS by our apostle, the "chief" or "high priest," not because there were any other in or of the same order with himself, but because all the pre-eminences of the priesthood were in him alone, and he really answered what was typed out by the singular actings of the Aaronical high priest. He was thus “ called an high priest κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ,” σεδέκ. "according to the order of Melchisedec." This is not a Κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχι Max limitation of his priesthood to a certain order, but a reference unto that priesthood whereby his was most eminently prefigured. And there are two things intended herein by the apostle. First, A concession that he was not a high priest according unto the constitution, law, and order of the Aaronical priesthood. And this he doth not only grant here, but elsewhere positively asserts, chap. viii. 4; yea, and proves at large that it was impossible he should be so, and that if he had been so, his priesthood would not have been of advantage unto the church, chap. vii. 11-14, etc. He was neither called as they were, nor came to his office as they did, nor was confirmed in it by the same means, nor had right unto it by the law, nor was his work the same with theirs. Secondly, That there was a priesthood antecedent unto and diverse from that of Aaron, appointed of God to represent the way and manner how he would call the Lord Christ unto his office, as also the nature of his person in the discharge thereof, in what is affirmed and what is concealed concerning him who singly and alone was vested with that office; that is, Melchisedec. Look in what manner and by what means he became a priest; by the same, with other peculiar excellencies and pre-eminencies added thereunto, was Christ also called, so as that he may be said, and is termed of God, a priest after his order or manner of appointment. For as he, without ceremony, without sacrifice, without visible consecration, without "the law of a carnal commandment," was constituted a high priest, so was Christ also, by the immediate word of the Father, saying unto him, "Thou art my Son, a priest for ever," or "after the power of an endless life." And in this sense is he called "a priest after the order of Melchisedec." I have elsewhere evinced the corruption of the Targum on Ps. cx. 4, whence these words are taken; also the malice of some of the late Jewish masters, who would have Melchisedec to be there called , a "priest" improperly, as David's sons were said to be ',that is, "princes." So the Targum, "Thou art a great prince." But the expression here used by the psalmist is taken directly from Gen. xiv. 18,,-"And he was a priest of" (or "unto") "the most high God." Here none of the Jews themselves are so profligate as to pretend that a prince is intended,-a prince to the most high God! It is nothing, therefore, but that obstinacy which is the effect of their unbelief, which casts them on the shift of this evasion. Some observations do ensue: Obs. I. God was pleased to put a signal honour upon the person and office of Melchisedec, that in them there should be an early and excellent representation made of the person and priesthood of Jesus Christ. I am not here to inquire who this Melchisedec was, nor wherein the nature of his priesthood did consist. I shall do it elsewhere. Here he is reflected on as an eminent type of Christ in his office. And in how many particulars the resemblance between them did consist, our apostle doth afterwards declare. In the meantime we may observe, in general, 1. That all the real honour which God did unto any persons under the old testament, it was in order unto the prefiguring of Christ, "that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." Other reason of the great exaltation of Melchisedec in the church, even above Abraham, the father of the faithful, there was none. 2. He was the only type of the person of Christ that ever was in the world. Others were types of the Lord Christ in the execution of his office, but none but he were ever types of his person. For being introduced "without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life," he was "made like unto the Son of God," and represented his person, which none other did. 3. He was the first personal type of Christ in the world. After him there were others; as Isaac and Aaron, Joshua, David, and Solomon; but he was the first, and therefore the most eminent. 4. He was a type of Christ in these two great offices of a king and a priest; which none but he ever was. 5. The circumstances of his name, and the place of his reign, whence he was a "king of righteousness and peace," do most gloriously represent the whole effect of the mediation of Christ; all which may be spoken to afterwards. Now the exaltation of any one in the like kind is a mere act of sovereign grace in God. He might so honour whom he pleased. Hence is Melchisedec introduced without the consideration of any circumstances of prerogative on his own part whatever, that all his dignity might be owned to be of God's sovereign pleasure. God, therefore, having referred all to Christ, it is our wisdom to do likewise. Obs. II. As the Lord Christ received all his honour, as mediator, from God the Father, so the ground and measure of our giving glory and honour unto him as such depend on the revelation and declaration of it unto us. He was termed, called, and declared of God "an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." He made him so, which was his honour; he declared him to be so: whence we ought to give all honour unto him. But this hath been spoken unto elsewhere. And from the respect that these words have unto the precedent verse, we may observe, that, Obs. III. It is an evidence and testimony that the Lord Christ was able to be, and is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," because he is "a priest after the order of Melchisedec;" that is, his priesthood is eternal. VERSE 11. In the 11th verse the apostle enters upon his designed digression. And first he expresseth the occasion and reason of it, taken from the subject or matter which in this place it was necessary for him to insist upon, and the condition, with the former carriage, or rather miscarriage, of them unto whom he spake. Hence he evidenceth the necessity of his digression, which consists in such awakening admonitions as they then and we now stand in need of, when we are to be excited unto a due attendance unto spiritual and mysterious truths. Ver. 11.—Περὶ οὗ πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος καὶ δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, ἐπεὶ νωθροί γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς. 66 Пɛpi où, “de quo," "of whom." The Syriac, by 17 by; “of whom, even of the same Melchisedec:" which no other translation followeth. Ilonùs huìv ó nóyos. Vulg., "grandis nobis sermo." Rhem., "of whom we have great speech;" improperly, and unintelligibly. Arias, "multus nobis sermo," we have much to say." Eras., "multa nobis forent dicenda," "many things should be spoken by us:" intimating as if they were pretermitted; namely, what might have been spoken. Beza, "multa nobis sunt dicenda," "we have many things to say." Syriac, "N", "multa forent verba facienda." Translat. Polyglot., "we might use many words." Tremel., "multus est nobis sermo quem eloquamur;" ;” “ we have much discourse that we may utter" or "speak:” properly, we have many words to be spoken." Kai dvospμývevтos Kéryew. Vulg. Lat., " et interpretabilis ad dicendum." Valla corrected this translation. Erasmus first suspected that it was originally in the translation, "ininterpretabilis;" which, although a barbarous word, yet evidently intends the sense of the original. Hence it is rendered by the Rhemists, " inexplicable to utter;" which expresseth neither the Latin nor the original. The expositors who follow that translation contend, (whilst the word doth signify negatively, "that cannot be interpreted;" or affirmatively, "that needs interpretation;") with wonderful vanity, as Erasmus 66 manifests, if the word have any signification, it is, "that which is easy to be interpreted," contrary to the original. Arias, "difficilis interpretatio dicere." Eras., "difficilia explicatu," "things hard to be explained." So Beza. Ours, "hard to be uttered; " difficult to be expounded in speaking. Syr., psy, "et labor ad exponendum;" or, as Tremel., " et occupatio ad exponendum illud;""and it is hard labour to expound it,”'-a laborious work. "Of whom we have many things to say, and those difficult to be expounded." 'Eεl vælρol yeyóvαTE. Vulg., "quoniam imbecilli facti estis;" "because ye are become weak," improperly. Arias, " segnes," ," "slothful." So Erasmus and Beza. "Dull." Syr, ,"infirm," "weak." Tais dxoais. Vulg. Lat., "ad audiendum," "weak to hear." Arias, "auribus." So Erasmus and Beza. But axon signifies the faculty of hearing and the act of hearing, as well as the instrument of it. "Dull of hearing." Ver. 11.-Concerning whom we have many things to speak, and difficult to be explained, seeing you are become slothful in hearing [or dull of hearing]. There are four things combined in this verse in the way of a summary of the discourse that is to ensue:-1. The subject whereof he would treat; "concerning whom." 2. The manner how he would treat concerning it; he had "many things to say." 3. The nature of those things, not so much absolutely in themselves as out of respect unto the Hebrews; they were "difficult to be explained" and understood. 4. The reason hereof, namely, because "they were become dull in hearing." "Concerning whom;"-that is, Melchisedec, not Christ; and so the "Syriac" translation expresseth it. But he intends not Περὶ οὗ. to treat of him absolutely, neither of his person nor his office. These were things now past, and to search curiously into them was not for the edification of the church. And the apostle had no design to trouble the minds of believers with things unnecessary or curious. And it had not been amiss if this had been well considered by them who have laden us with so many needless speculations about his person and office; and some of them directly opposite to the scope and design of the apostle. But the purpose of the apostle is, to treat of him so far and wherein he was a type of Christ, and as such is represented in the story concerning him. Hence some render περὶ οὗ, by de qua re," " ""of which matter;" that is, the similitude and conformity between Melchisedec and Christ, which was a great, necessary, and instructive truth. Пcλùs hμỡ ỏ λóyos, "we have much to say;" many things to speak or treat of. But not the multitude of the things only which he had to speak, but the weight and importance yes. also of them is intended in this expression. So the Πολὺς ἡμῖν 1 TRANSLATION.-Teyóv. implies a course of declension, which our author sufficiently brings out by his translation. Conybeare and Howson render it more emphatically, "since ye have grown dull in understanding."-ED. VOL. XXI. 35 "grandis sermo" of the Vulgar, intends not loftiness of speech, but the weight of the things spoken of. And when the apostle comes to insist particularly on the things here intended, they appear rather to be mysterious and important than many. However, I deny not but that the apostle intimates that there were sundry, yea many things of that importance to be declared and insisted on, on this occasion. Some translations, as we have seen, supply the words by "forent," some by "sunt." The former seems to have apprehended that the apostle intended wholly to forbear treating on this subject, and that because it was so deep and mysterious, that, considering their condition, it would not be profitable unto them, nor for their edification. Wherefore he lets them know, that although he could treat of many things concerning Melchisedec, and such as were necessary to be declared, yet, because of their incapacity to receive them, he would forbear. And sundry interpreters do so apprehend his mind. But this is no way consistent with his express undertaking to declare all those things unto them, chap. vii. Wherefore he only declares in general, that he hath many weighty mysteries to instruct them in, but would not immediately engage in that work, until he had spoken that unto them which was needful to prepare them unto a due attention. And his ensuing discourses, before he returns unto this subject again, are not reasons why he will totally intermit the handling of them, but a due admonition unto them for precedent negligences, whereby they might be excited to prepare themselves in a due manner for the receiving of what he had to declare. The nature of the things treated of, with respect unto the capacity of the Hebrews, is nextly declared: Aéyos dvospμνευτος λέγειν. Ηow variously these words are rendered we have seen before. It may be the things which Paul himself here calls duoepveura, are those which Peter intends in his epistle, calling them dvovónra, 2 Pet. iii. 16, "things hard to be understood;" which is the same with what our apostle here intends. The phrase, duoepμýveutos λéyev, is somewhat unusual, and the sense of it not easy to be expressed to the full in our language. Ay seems to be for iv r Xéy, "in dicendo," "in the speaking" or uttering of it: or, when it is spoken and uttered, it is "hard to be interpreted," that is, to be understood. For the interpretation intended is not that of the apostle in speaking, but that which is made in the understanding of them that hear it. For he that hears a thing uttered, and considers it, makes the interpretation of it unto himself, as Jerome observes, Epist. ad Evagr. The apostle doth not, therefore, intimate,-1. That it would be any hard or difficult matter unto him to declare all things concerning the conformity between Melchisedec and Christ, which were necessary to be known unto the Δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν. |