For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time. (Hebrews 7:1-3)
What is the point being made here by Paul? Some believers in the Trinity doctrine see verse 3 as proof that the son of God has existed from eternity.
For example, my favorite New Testament commentary the NICNT states:
“The third term, “without genealogy,” appears to be the pastor’s creation by analogy with the first two. It serves his purpose well, for it facilitates his emphasis on the fact that both Melchizedek and the priest after his order lacked priestly, that is, Levitical/ Aaronic, genealogy. Nevertheless, the pastor is concerned with more than genealogy. When these three words are taken together and understood in conjunction with the following line, “having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” there can be no doubt that they describe eternal, uncreated Deity. Neyrey’s collection of parallel examples from contemporary sources demonstrates with certainty that the first two lines of Heb_7:3 describe deity that is eternal because it has neither beginning nor end.” (New International Commentary on the New Testament)
Matthew Henry’s Commentary states:
“Nothing is recorded as to the beginning or end of his life; thus he typically resembled the Son of God, whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting, who had no one that was before him, and will have no one come after him, in his priesthood.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary)
Is that the case? Is Paul declaring that the deity of the Son of God is eternal, having neither beginning nor end? Is his existence from everlasting to everlasting? What does a careful contextual examination of his reference to Melchizedek reveal?
What we know historically about Melchizedek occurs in Genesis chapter 14:
And Mel·chizʹe·dek king of Saʹlem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of the Most High God. 19 Then he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Aʹbram by the Most High God, Maker of heaven and earth; 20 And praised be the Most High God, Who has handed your oppressors over to you!” And Aʹbram gave him a tenth of everything. (Genesis 14:18-20)
Aside from that he is only spoken of in the Psalms as a type of the Messiah:
Jehovah has sworn an oath, and he will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever In the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek!” (Psalm 110:4)
Paul refers to him in chapters 6 and 7 of the letter to the Hebrews.
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain, 20 where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, who has become a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. (Hebrews 6:19, 20)
However it should be noted that the comparison is made, not between Melchizedek and the pre-human Word of God but, between Melchizedek and Jesus, who as the human Son of God was not literally fatherless. Actually, Melchizedek, being human himself, could not literally be fatherless and motherless. Nor could he be understood as having existed without a beginning or that he never died. Hence the comparison must be figurative on both sides. The point of the comparison must then be that there is no record of his parentage or his death. But since Jesus genealogy is clearly laid out in scripture it must be a particular parentage, that specifically in reference to serving as priest, which Paul goes on to explain:
For it is clear that our Lord has descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe. (Hebrews 7:14)
So, like Melchizedek, Jesus is fatherless and motherless in that he did not inherit his priesthood from his parents. When did Jesus become high priest? This too is made clear by Paul two verses later:
who has become such, not by the legal requirement that depends on fleshly descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. (Hebrews 7:16)
At his resurrection, Jesus was given an indestructible life. So his priesthood was not eternal. It had a beginning. Since he continues alive forever, there is no need for him to have priestly successors:
Furthermore, many had to become priests in succession because death prevented them from continuing as such, 24 but because he continues alive forever, his priesthood has no successors. 25 So he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them. (Hebrews 7:23-25)
Not all scholars agree with the aforementioned commentators. And on this subject I tend to agree with Albert Barnes:
Of that no beginning is mentioned, and no end. That this is the meaning of Paul there can be no doubt; but there is a much more difficult question about the force and pertinency of this reasoning; about the use which he means to make of this fact, and the strength of the argument which he here designs to employ. This inquiry cannot be easily settled. It may be admitted undoubtedly, that it would strike a Jew with much more force than it would any other person, and to see its pertinency we ought to be able to place ourselves in their condition, and to transfer to ourselves as far as possible their state of feeling. It was mentioned in Psalm 110:4, that the Messiah was to be a “priest after the order of Melchizedek.” It was natural then to turn to the only record which existed of him – the very brief narrative in Genesis 14. There the account is simple and plain – that he was a pious Canaanitish king, who officiated as a priest. In what point, then, it would be asked, was the Messiah to resemble him? In his personal character; his office; his rank; or in what he did? It would be natural, then, to run out the parallel and seize upon the points in which Melchizedek “differed from the Jewish priests” which would be suggested on reading that account, for it was undoubtedly in those points that the resemblance between Christ and Melchizedek was to consist. Here the record was to be the only guide, and the points in which he differed from the Jewish priesthood “according to the record,” were such as these.
(1) That there is no account of his ancestry as a priest – neither father nor mother being mentioned as was indispensable in the records of the Levitical priesthood.
(2) There was no account of any descendants in his office, and no reason to believe that he had any, and he thus stood alone.
(3) There was no account of the commencement or close of his office as a priest, but “so far as the record goes,” it is just “as it would have been” if his priesthood had neither beginning nor end.
It was inevitable, therefore, that those who read the Psalm, and compared it with the account in Genesis 14, should come to the conclusion that the Messiah was to resemble Melchizedek “in some such points as these” – for these are the points in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood – and to run out these points of comparison is all that the apostle has done here. It is just what would be done by any Jew, or indeed by any other man, and the reasoning grew directly out of the two accounts in the Old Testament. It is not, then, quibble or quirk – it is sound reasoning, based on these two points,
(1) that it was said in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and
(2) that the only points, “according to the record,” in which there was “anything special” about the priesthood of Melchizedek, or in which he differed from the Levitical priesthood, were such as those which Paul specifies.
He reasons “from the record;” and though there is, as was natural, something of a Jewish cast about it, yet it was the “only kind of reasoning that was possible in the case.” (Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament)
For more information on Melchizedek and how he pictures the Messiah I highly recommend watching the video “Melchizedek: A Biblical and Historical Profile” from 119 Ministries