Hebrews 7:3

3. Without descent Without place in any priestly genealogical table, and so without father, without mother, as a priest, showing his unlikeness to, and superiority over, the Aaronic priest, and his likeness to Christ. The want of priestly genealogy, which is his unlikeness to the Jewish priests, is his likeness to Christ; who, being of the tribe of Judah, was, as to the priestly record, without father, without mother. Personally and humanly, Jesus had a mother, the blessed Virgin.

Neither beginning… nor end Some one has said, that when an infant dies it remains to the parent an infant forever. It never grows old, but is ever the same image of infancy. And so the image of this king-priest, as seen in the divine tableau, is not born, and never dies. The Aaronic priests are successively dying. A genealogical successor pushes his predecessor out of office and out of life. This priest has no genealogical successor or predecessor. He is thus the image of perpetuity, the type of the permanent priesthood of our Christ.

Made like unto The group of traits are seen to frame an image and likeness in shadow of the Son of God.

Abideth a priest continually One thousand years after this king-priest lived, the inspired psalmist contemplated the tableau, and there beheld him still, a priest forever. One thousand years later our writer looked, and there was the same, a priest forever; shadowy and only conceptual, indeed, yet the definite shadow of our great High Priest. Alford objects, that language so strong as “neither beginning of days nor end of life,” is unsatisfactorily accounted for by the birth and life not being mentioned; he even styles this exposition “childish;” and he thinks there must be some mysterious literal fulfilment which he admits to be above explanation. But why are the name-types of Hebrews 7:2 any less “childish?” We do not, wisely, require that the type should be a literal, but a shadowy, representation of its object. And, inevitably, any fulfilment, as demanded by Alford, would require two literal eternal high priests, which is entirely inadmissible. He further objects, that to make a transient appearance on the stage typical, would require us to make a type of Hobab, for instance. The reply is, that no such isolated trait could possess any typical significance. There must be a full assemblage of traits to form a definite typical image. The question may be raised, Whence did this grouping of shadowy traits into a significant image arise? Was it purposed by Providence in shaping the existence of the facts so as to form a type? Or did inspiration in Genesis purposely so narrate the facts? Or did the inspired imagination of the psalmist, seeing the facts as incidentally narrated, group them into form? These questions, interesting as they are, we leave a beautiful and sacred mystery. But we may note that in Genesis the passage of the tableau stands in a striking isolation. If a primitive pair of scissors had cut the passage out, we should not miss it, and should never imagine what a gem we had lost. We may easily concede, therefore, that it is placed and modelled there for this typical purpose.

THE PARALLEL SUPERIORITIES OF MELCHIZEDEK AND CHRIST OVER AARON MAY BE REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING TABULATION:

Melchizedek. Aaron. Christ. A priest-king. Priest only. Priest-king. King of righteousness of peace. King of righteousness of peace. Universal. Limited to Hebraism. Universal. Unlineal. Lineal. Unlineal. Without beginning or end. Beginning and ending. Without beginning or end. Without priestly ancestry or descent With father and mother. Without priestly parentage. But this superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham is not literal. The former has no such real importance as the latter in human history. His superiority is solely within the tableau. As indicated by blessing and tithes, it is theocratic; and so forms basis for a typical superiority. That is, Melchizedek is superior to Abraham only as a type of Christ. It is, therefore, good only for our author’s argument.