Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Hebrews 7:3 – Without Father Without Mother
7:3 – “without father” (apatoor), “without mother” (ametoor)
- Used by the Greeks to describe an orphan, or unknown patronage, and to describe divine beings.
- The Jews referred to proselytes as having no father since they had no legitimate Jewish ancestry.
- Consider a parallel Statement: “Behold, as for me, not my father, and not my mother set me in this place….” (Abdi-Hiba, ruler of Urusalim)
- (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary p. 707) – “That the narrative of the king-priest Melchizedek is introduced so abruptly into Genesis becomes an argument for Melchizedek’s being “without father or mother or genealogy,” i.e., beginning or end (7:3), and so not only a predecessor but also a type of Christ as “a priest for ever” (cf. Ps. 110:4). The legitimacy of the Levitical priesthood depends on its descent from Levi; as it has a beginning, so it has an end in the understanding of the author of Hebrews
- The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) comments: “The argument of He. 7 is similar to the rabbinic argument from silence, which assumed that nothing exists unless Scripture mentions it. Since Genesis says nothing of Melchizedek’s parents, genealogy, birth, or death, he serves as a type representing the eternal Son of God (v. 3)” (“Melchizedek,” vol. 3, p. 313).
- Harper’s Bible Commentary says of this passage: “from the pregnant silence of Scripture is deduced Melchizedek’s status as ‘fatherless, motherless, without genealogy’ (v. 3)” (p. 1265).
- The Abingdon Bible Commentary says that in Hebrews 7:3, the author “makes a very remarkable use of the argument from silence. Nothing is said in Genesis about the parentage of Melchizedek. We are not told anything about his father or his mother. There is no reference to the beginning of his life or to its end – to his birth or to his death . . . In view of the writer the silences of Scripture are as significant as its statements . . .” (p. 1310).
- “The writer to the Hebrews is here doing what any skilled Jewish Rabbi might do and following the rabbinic method of interpretation. To understand that method we must understand two things.
- “(i) To the scholarly Jew any passage of scripture had four meanings to which he gave four different names. (a) First, there was Peshat, which is the literal and factual meaning. (b) Second, there was Remaz, which is the suggested meaning. (c) Third, there was Derush, which is the meaning arrived at after long and careful investigation. (d) Fourth, there was Sod, which is the allegorical or inner meaning. To the Jew the most important meaning by far was Sod, the inner meaning. He was not nearly so much interested in the factually meaning of a passage as in the allegorical and mystical meaning which could extracted from it, even although it might have no connection whatever with the literally meaning. It was quite permissible, and in fact the regular practice, to take things right out of their context and read into them meanings which we would consider fantastic and quite unjustified. That is what the writer to the Hebrews is doing here.”
- “(ii) Second, it is essential to note that the Jewish interpreters considered themselves completely justified in arguing not only from the utterances but also from the silences of scripture. An argument could be built, not only on what scriptures said but also on what it did not say. In fact the writer to the Hebrews bases his argument in this passage at least as much on what scripture did not say about Melchizedek as on what it did.” (Barclay, pp.67-68)
Summation: Most interpret that the concept presented by the author is not that Melchizedek lacked an actual physical father, mother, or family tree, but that there is no record of his parents and lineage, and that his priesthood was not passed down to him. The Greeks did use such language to describe orphaned, abandoned, estranged or illegitimate children. This would sometimes have the meaning, “father/mother unknown.” Rabbis commonly said of a newly proselytized Gentile, “He has no father,” since he had no legitimate Jewish ancestry. It was also used of divine beings (Arndt and Gingrich, p.82) (Much of the above information gained via ibid., Pickup, p.124) The Mosaic Law required that all priests be descendants of the tribe of Levi. Those who were not Levites could not be priests under the law.
Nehemiah 7:61-64 demonstrates that priests had to be able to trace their lineage when the priesthood was reestablished after the Babylonian captivity. Those who were unable to do so were disqualified from the priesthood.
I have severe problems with the above position. The Bible does not mention the birth and death of many people. Even Aaron’s birth is not recorded. I will comment more later on the silence argument.
Jesus did have a Father, who was divine, and a mother who was human. The scriptures do record His birth and death. Jesus did not have a human parent who passed their priesthood down to Him
- “Note Straight away that this is one of the arguments drawn from the silence of scripture which does not provide Melchizedek with any genealogy. This was unusual for two reasons. (a) It is the reverse of the habitual practice of Genesis. Genealogies are a feature of Genesis where long lists of a man’s ancestors constantly occur. But Melchizedek arrives on the scene, as it were, from nowhere. (b) Far more important – it is the reverse of the rules which governed the Aaronic priesthood which depended entirely on descent.” (Barclay, p.68)
Comments