Abraham, and thus higher than any of Abraham’s descendants by natural generation; for Abraham paid tithes to him, and received from him the priestly blessing (Gen. 14:19, 20); “And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.”  Heb. 7:7. (3.) His priesthood was without limitation, and had thus the attribute of universality.  It was not restricted in its exercise by nationality, for Abraham was not one of his people. (4.) He did not belong to a line of priests, who transmitted their office from father to son.  He was, so far as we know from the record, without predecessors, and had no successor in his priesthood.  The author of the epistle to the Hebrews describes him as one who is “without father, without mother, without pedigree” (marginal rendering), “having neither beginning of days nor end of life:  but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.”  Heb. 7:3.  In the interpretation of this difficult passage, we must begin with the axiomatic principle that Melchizedek was a human being.  He could not have been, as some have thought, the Son of God himself; for how could the Son of God be “made like unto the Son of God?” Nor could he have been an angel; for angels are not partakers of human nature, and cannot therefore typify him who came in human nature to deliver those who are “partakers of flesh and blood.”  Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15; 5:1, 2.  And if he was a proper man, then he was “without father, without mother, without pedigree,” not in an absolute sense, but with reference to his priesthood.  He was a priest whose genealogy is not mentioned, because his priesthood was not restricted, like that of the Levitical priests, to any particular line of descent.  He held his priesthood from God, without predecessors or successors.  The words that follow—­“having neither beginning of days nor end of life:  but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually”—­are more difficult.  It is certain, however, that they cannot be understood absolutely.  They are commonly interpreted upon the same principle as the preceding words; namely, that in omitting from the inspired record every limitation of Melchizedek’s life as well as descent, it was God’s purpose to shadow forth the unlimited nature of Christ’s priesthood; that, in truth, the apostle describes Melchizedek, the type, in terms which hold good in their full meaning only of Christ the great Antitype.  They who, admitting that Melchizedek was a human being, find the interpretation unsatisfactory, must leave the apostle’s words shrouded in mystery.

But whatever obscurity there is in the scriptural notices of Melchizedek, they abundantly affirm the typical nature of his priesthood as distinguished from that of the Levitical priests.  He was a type of Christ not simply as a priest, but also in the peculiar character of his priesthood.  He united with his priesthood the kingly office; was superior in dignity to Abraham himself, and thus to the Levitical priests; and his priesthood had the attribute of universality.  Here, then, we have an undoubted example of a historic type.