1. In interpreting these phrases some have imagined, that the apostle intended to deny that Melchisedec had any HUMAN DESCENT. The expressions απατως, without father; aunrwg, without mother; αγενεαλογητος, without descent; μητε αρχην ἡμερων, μητε ζωης Τελος εχων, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; have been supposed to import that Melchisedec had neither Father, nor Mother; nor birth, nor death: in plain terms, that he was not a human being; but, (the only remaining suppositions) an angel, the Holy Ghost, or the Son of God. These conjectures have been weighed in the balance: and Tekel is their indelible brand.

2. Some have thought that Paul simply denies to Melchisedec PRIESTLY SUCCESSION.-It is true, that Melchisedec had neither predecessor, nor successor, in his priesthood; whereas, the Jewish priesthood had a succession of priests: it is also true, that this circumstance did constitute him, in preference to any Jewish priest, a type of Messiah, ch. vii. 23, 24. But it is just as true, that the apostle makes no allusion in the third verse, to that fact. Try the idea, and see how far it will go. Melchisedec was without predecessor or successor. It is a most natural and common figure, to call predecessors in office our fathers: let it be then, that Melchisedec was

analog, without father, that is, without a predecessor in his priesthood. But what shall we do with anlwg, without mother? Was she intended for his successor, or for another predecessor, in the priesthood? If she could neither be his predecessor, nor his successor, why was her name introduced? This blows up the whole hypothesis. However, let us go to the other phrases: μŋls αρχην ήμερων, μητε ζωης Τελος εχων, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, must, according to the hypothesis, mean that his priesthood had neither beginning nor end. A strange human priesthood, a strange type! But the fact is, his priesthood had both a beginning and ́an end: and we must not so interpret the apostle as to make him assert a most unfeasible falsehood.

3. A third hypothesis is this, namely, a negation of HUMAN GENEALOGY. As this seems at first sight to have some features of verisimilitude, let us examine it a little. From its derivation, and use, yevɛahoya, genealogy, means a register of a man's descent: yeveaλoynlos, is of course a man whose name is entered in some genealogical register and ayeveaλoynros is a man whose name is αγενεαλογητος not entered in any such register. Now, say some, Melchisedec is αγενεαλογητος, without genealogy, because we do not find his name in the genealogical registers of the Bible: the scriptures are

silent as to his father's name, his mother's name, his birth and his death. And this silence of scripture constitutes him a type of Christ. Neither will this do. For:

1. It erects a mere negation, a blank, a nothing, into a type. This is so entirely a type that it is nothing else. All the other types have an individual essence, and answered important purposes in their respective ages, besides their typical reference. But here is a type, which is nothing but a type. In the whole range of types, is there such another?

2. But the grand objection is that admitting the hypothesis, the type and antitype clash and contradict each other in every point and particular: Melchisedec, the type, is without genealogy; his father and mother, his birth and his death, are all unknown. Jesus, the antitype has a genealogy, Matthew gives us his genealogy in one line of ancestry, Luke in another: a double genealogy. He is therefore not without genealogy. He is not arawg, without father, nor auntwg, without mother, on record. If you en-. quire of his race, he was of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David; God was his father in heaven, and Joseph bore a father's name, and discharged a father's duty, among men; and as to his mother, she is

known over all Christendom to have been Mary. Moreover, his "beginning of days” and “end of life," or his birth and death, are recorded with a circumstantial precision almost as extraordinary as their importance. Here is no type, no similitude whatever, but visible and tangible contrast all over.

But there is yet something more extraordinary still. Assuming, what never can be proved, that the silence of the scriptures respecting the parentage, birth and death of Melchisedec, that is that a mere blank, can constitute a type: the difficulty is to find the analogous particulars in Messiah. The argument of the foregoing paragraph seems to indicate that the task will not be an easy one. It has however been attempted. And an hypothesis, so out of the common track of thought, has been found out, that its very extravagance seems to astonish us into belief. It is this. That as Melchisedec is without father, mother, birth or death, recorded in scripture, so Jesus is really without father as man, and without mother, birth, or death, as God. It is perfectly understood that the shadow of disrespect to the great names, which have lent their sanction to this interpretation, would be highly indecorous, and equally fatal to the presumption which should offer it. And, verily no disrespect

is felt, or intended, towards men, whom genius, piety, and public services have consecrated to the admiration and love of the Christian commonwealth. But truth has prior claims: and it is no disrespect to any one to withhold assent where evidence is not furnished. We therefore must refuse credence to this singular hypothesis.

1. Because, as the human genealogy of our Lord is sufficiently recorded, the word ayevsaλoysTos, without genealogy, must relate to his divinity: and then the apostle's language amounts to, neither more nor less, than, that genealogical records are not kept in heaven. If this sentiment should appear improper to the reader, let him reflect that the impropriety lies wholly in the idea, and not in any misjudged and indecorous queerness of expression, which on so solemn a subject would be less indecent than criminal. On earth our Lord had a genealogy; if he was without genealogy, it must be above. I cannot believe this to be an inspired idea. And the next is like it. For:

2. The idea of God's being without a mother, is not like that weight of wisdom, which drops from inspired lips. It is a truth, but surely not one worth the telling; not so dark in the days of David and Paul, as to need being prefigured by types, or illuminated by dissertation.

« VorigeDoorgaan »