3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Melchizedek did not have a recorded lineage; he had a natural mother and father, and he was mortal.

Without mother and father: He was not restricted to a tribe. Without descent: No genealogy.

Beginning of days or end of life: The Levites began their ministry at age 30 and retired at age 50.

Since Melchizedek was not of the Aaronic or Levitical order, he had no beginning or ending date for his ministry. He was an order all by itself.

It was the Melchizedek type of priesthood that Jesus was a part of. The apostle Paul explains that, as with the Melchizedek priesthood, the priesthood of Christ is valid, being appointed by God. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and this was a foreign concept to the first-century Jews whose priests descended from Levi.

Sis Valerie Mello.

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

The Levites under the law paid tithes before they were born,‭ ‬upon the principle that they were in the loins of Abraham when he paid a tenth to Melchizedeck.

The Christadelphian, July 1873

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Jesus was not of Aaronic descent.‭ ‬Paul expressly settles this in‭ ‬Heb.‭ vii. ‬11‭-‬16.‭ [see also v14]

‭ ‬The fact that Elizabeth,‭ ‬the mother of John the Baptist‭ (‬of the daughters of Aaron‭) ‬is styled‭ "‬cousin‭" ‬to Mary,‭ ‬the mother of Jesus,‭ ‬does not prove an Aaronic connection for Mary.‭ "‬Cousin‭" (‬sungenees in the Greek‭) ‬has not the strict and limited meaning attached to it in English.‭ ‬It expresses the idea of kindred generally.‭

The tribes intermarried‭ (‬Numb.‭ xxxvi. ‬3‭)‬,‭ ‬and in this way relationships were created between persons belonging to different tribes.‭ ‬Mary was of the tribe of Juda,‭ ‬and had no blood connection with the house of Aaron,‭ ‬but may,‭ ‬by the intermarriage of her relations,‭ ‬have become related in law to Elizabeth.

TC 10/1887

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Here, then, are two orders of priesthood -- the Order of Melchisedec, and the Order of Aaron. Melchisedec's was contemporary with Abraham; Aaron's was not instituted until 430 years after the confirmation of the covenant.

Of Melchisedec the apostle could have said much more than he did say; but he has said enough to give us an idea of his order of priesthood. In this he was without predecessor, or successor, without sacerdotal genealogy, and without beginning of official days, or end of life: but, assimilated to the Son of God, abideth a priest continually; of whom also it is testified that he liveth (Heb. 7:3, 8).

The Aaronic priesthood was the reverse of all this. Its priests were descended from Aaron, their mothers were of the tribe of Levi, their fathers in office before them, upon which they entered at thirty years, and vacated it at fifty.

But the priesthood of Shiloh is not like this. His pedigree is royal, and not sacerdotal. He had no predecessor, nor will he ever vacate the office that another may take his place.

It is probable that Shem was the personage to whom Abraham paid tithes on his return from the slaughter of the kings. Abraham died thirty-five years before Shem reached his five hundred and second year after the flood. At this date, Isaac was one hundred and ten, and Jacob fifty; so that they were contemporary with Shem for these periods of their lives.

There is no account of Shem's death in the scripture; on the contrary, it is testified, as we have seen, that the person called Melchizedec still lives.

Now, Melchizedec is a word expressive of the character of the person who bore it. It signifies king of righteousness, or righteous king. He was the greatest king in Canaan, and reigned in Salem, which signifies peace, and afterwards called Jerusalem; so that this righteous king was King of Peace. Shem, king of righteousness, and king of peace, and priest of the Most High God, is the type, contemporary with the holder of the promises, of the Seed, or Christ, on the throne of the kingdom of God.

The word of the oath, saying,

"I have sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec,"

having changed the priesthood of the kingdom,

"there is made of necessity also a change of the law"

of the State. No revolution was more complete and radical than that necessitated by the substitution of the Melchizedec for the Aaronic priesthood of the commonwealth of Israel. Under the Mosaic code the regal and pontifical offices were divided, and held by two distinct orders of men. 

The regal was hereditary in the family of David, and the pontifical was hereditary in the family of Aaron; but when the new code shall be promulged, that, namely, which is to "go forth from Zion" when Christ shall give peace to the world, and judge among the nations, the kingly and priestly offices will be united, and their functions exercised by one person, even Jesus, "who is King of Righteousness and King of Peace, and Priest of the Most High God," as Melchizedec was.

Elpis Israel ii.5.

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

...the efficacy of a covenant depends on the virtue of the blood with which it is purged. This principle is fatal to the idea, of perfectibility by the law of Moses; for 

"it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." 

Hence it was weak and unprofitable, and made nothing perfect.

This defectiveness of the law which even faith in the unpurged Abrahamic covenant could not remedy, was referable to the nature of the sacrifices with whose blood it was dedicated; and to the weakness of the flesh (Rom 8: 3) which it could alone sanctify (Heb 9: 13) without reaching the inward man.

Calves and goats were as destitute of righteousness as they were devoid of sin, their blood therefore was a negative principle and could impart no virtue to a covenant by which those who were sanctified under it could obtain a title or justification to eternal redemption.

And furthermore let it be observed, that besides this defect their blood was unprofitable for everlasting results as being the blood of the dead, and not of the living. It was therefore ceremonially incommunicative of any kind of vitality.

The Mystery of the Covenant of the Holy Land Explained

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

The Mosaic Age was rapidly closing, and in AD70 would no longer exist, when the Jerusalem altar and temple were destroyed. Thus the believers lived between two remarkable dispensations - the Mosaic, and the Christian - which meant that it was a time of change and of transition

Hebrews expositor


24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

'...some going so far as to maintain that a single sin after baptism is fatal to a believer's prospects of eternal life.

‭ ‬If this doctrine were true,‭ ‬we should have to exclaim with the disciples,‭ "‬Who then can be saved‭?" ‬We have no hesitation in avowing our conviction that in such a case salvation would be confined to the Lord Jesus who,‭ ‬alone of mankind,‭ 

"‬through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God‭" (‬Heb. ix. 14.‭)

For what purpose,‭ ‬in such a case,‭ ‬is it testified that he

‭ "‬ever liveth to make intercession for us‭"? 

‬He is not priest for the world,‭ ‬but for his own house only.‭ "‬Whose house are we,‭" ‬who believe,‭ &‬c.‭ (‬Heb.‭ iii. ‬6.‭) ‬If he intercedes for his house,‭ ‬it is because of the fact inferentially testified by John,‭ ‬when he says that‭ 

"‬If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves,‭ ‬and the truth is not in us‭" (‬1‭ ‬Jno.‭ ‬i. 8.‭)

 ‬It is one of the petitions the Lord himself has put into our mouths:‭ 

"‬Forgive us our sins as we forgive them that trespass against us.‭"

‭The Christadelphian, Oct 1894. p391

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

If the wealthiest be impotent for the redemption of one soul, how precious must the blood of the Yahweh-Name be, seeing that it can ransom

 "a great multitude which no man can number!" (Apoc. vii. 9).

The blood of Jesus was the only blood of all the generations of Adam, that had not been generated by the lust of the flesh; and which had not energized a man to the commission of sin. Jesus was an unblemished man, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; for "he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." (Heb 7:26).


26 For such an high priest became us, who is [indeed-OJB] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

 The italics 'who is' (present tense) do not appear do not appear in other translations. That he is holy, harmless and undefiled Now, in every sense including physical nature, is self evident. But the inclusion of 'separate from sinners' informs us the context is the days of his sin's flesh.

Other Translations:

For such a chief priest did become us -- kind, harmless, undefiled, separate from the sinners, and become higher than the heavens [YLT]

For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens [RV].  

It was fitting for us to have such separated from sinners and exalted higher than the heavens [AMP]

The Revised Version and Amplified versions omit the italics. The OJB has 'indeed' instead of 'who is'.

In the days of his sin-flesh the Lord was undefiled in word, deed and thought - this is what the verse is telling us. The captain of our salvation was without fault.

Being also touched with our infirmities - a representative of Adam's race - he was subject to the weakness, emotion and affections of our sin-defiled nature - but he kept his body under - perfectly.  Yahweh was in (full of the brilliant radiance) his anointed  reconciling the world unto himself. 

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

First for his own sins

The simple and obvious meaning of this is that he offered once for his own sins and for the people's. The force of this is sometimes evaded by objecting to the expression "his own sins," inasmuch as Christ was free from personal transgression, but by an examination of the ordinance to which Paul refers, we find (Lev. 16) that the high priest offered (v. 16)-

"Because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel AND because of their transgressions."

So "sins" in this passage in Hebrews includes uncleanness as well as actual transgression; it includes the whole conception of the sin constitution. It is only by considering these two aspects of sin as inseparable parts of one whole that we can understand how Christ, by destroying the body of sin on the cross, could cover our transgressions.

Our sins are not something separate from our nature - they are a development of it. In us, sin is too strong for us and becomes manifest in our actions: in Christ sin was controlled and overcome and never became manifest in action. But in both cases it is the same battle with the same adversary.

Bro Growcott - By his own blood

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Jesus had no personal offences to offer for. Nevertheless, as antitype of the high priest, who

"offered first for his own sins, and then for the people's"

there must have been a sense in which he did so, even as Paul says,

"this he did once, when he offered up himself"

The sense in which he did so is obvious in the light of the foregoing answers, that the body offered on Calvary being the nature that transgressed and was condemned in Eden, was offered under a condemnation that affected both itself and those for whom the sacrifice was made.

The Christadelphian, July 1873

28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated [made perfect/ complete having finished/carried through to the end (the work he came into the world) to accomplish] for evermore.

The word teleloo <5048> is translated 'consecrated' (KJV) only once and does not convey adequately the spirit's meaning.

According to Strongs and Thayers teleloo speaks of something made perfect, complete, accomplished, to carry through to the end, finished.

All these ideas underline Messiah's proclamation - 'I have finished <teleloo> the work which thou gavest me to do (John 17:4).