1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High
17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet Abram in the Valley of Shaveh (known as the King’s Valley). 18 Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the Most High God.) 19 He blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 Worthy of praise is the Most High God, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything. 21 Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and take the possessions for yourself.” 22 But Abram replied to the king of Sodom, “I raise my hand to the Lord, the Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth, and vow 23 that I will take nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal. That way you can never say, ‘It is I who made Abram rich.’ 24 I will take nothing except compensation for what the young men have eaten. As for the share of the men who went with me – Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre – let them take their share” (Genesis 14:17-24)
1 A psalm of David. Here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord:
“Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!”
2 The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies!
3 Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you.
4 The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: “You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.”
5 O sovereign Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes his anger.
6 He executes judgment against the nations; he fills the valleys with corpses;
he shatters their heads over the vast battlefield.
7 From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up his head (Psalm 110:1-7).
1. Why is the writer again returning to the subject of Melchizedek?
Let’s remember the purpose of the letter. The Hebrew Christians were coming under persecution and there was a temptation to go back to the Mosaic Law, the sacrificial system and the traditions which were acceptable to the religious leaders. The writer is laying out the case for the superiority of “The Way” over what was now obsolete.
The rest of the Epistle to the Hebrews deals with the subject of the living Christ who is at this moment at God’s right hand. It is a subject that is really neglected in the church today. We talk a great deal about the death and resurrection of Christ—and that is wonderful—but my friend, we need to go on to a living Christ who is at God’s right hand and who has a ministry there for us. Now the reality of that ministry to us is what is going to test our spiritual life. Here is a barometer or Geiger counter which you can put down on your life: How is the truth of this chapter of Hebrews going to affect your spiritual life? The writer to the Hebrews is going to make a comparison and contrast of the priesthood of Melchizedek and the priesthood of Aaron. JVM
The great resource of Christians when tempted to apostatize is our high priest, Jesus Christ. The writer therefore spent considerable time and space expounding His high priesthood to enable his readers to benefit from their resource. This section of the book continues to glorify Jesus Christ so the readers would appreciate Him sufficiently and not turn from Him. “Here begins the longest single expository passage in the epistle. Its very length suggests its importance. Its theme is the core theme of Hebrews. The real resource of the readership, in the midst of their pressures, is the high priesthood of Christ. They must realize the greatness of that priesthood, its superiority to the Levitical institutions, and the perfect access they have to it on the basis of Christ’s death.” “In Hebrews 7, the writer argued that Christ’s priesthood, like Melchizedek’s, is superior in its order. In Hebrews 8, the emphasis is on Christ’s better covenant; in Hebrews 9, it is His better sanctuary; and Hebrews 10 concludes the section by arguing for Christ’s better sacrifice.” “For the Jews of his day, it would have been axiomatic that there was no priesthood other than the Aaronic. We are now shown that the Law itself proves that there is a higher priesthood than that.” CN
So the writer of the book of Hebrews, in the seventh chapter, is going to point out that this priest, Melchisedec, was of a higher order of priesthood than was the Aaronic order of priesthood established under the law. And that even after the Aaronic order had been established, a thousand years later...in fact, there is a thousand years' time difference between the two mentions of Melchisedec in the Old Testament. Abraham lived about 2000 B.C. when he met Melchisedec, a thousand years later. You see, we read of it in the same Bible and it's only a few books back, but it is a thousand years back. Suddenly this comes forth, "God has sworn and will not repent, 'Thou art a priest forever, (talking of the Messiah), after the Order of Melchisedec,'" not after the order of Aaron, after the order of Melchisedec. So that gives you a little background.
One further note before we get into the text itself. One day as Jesus was disputing with the Pharisees, they were challenging Him concerning His claims as Messiah and the Son of God. They said, "We are the sons of Abraham." Jesus said, "If you were the sons of Abraham, you would have acknowledged me, because Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it." And they looked at him and they said, "What are You trying to tell us? Abraham saw You. You are not even fifty years old." And Jesus responded, "Before Abraham was, I am." And they took up stones to kill Him" (John 8:56-59).
Now this statement, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day and saw it." When did Abraham see Jesus? Many Bible scholars, and myself included, many Bible scholars believe that Melchisedec was, in reality, one of what they call the Christophanies of the Old Testament, the appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament to Abraham. And that He was actually Melchisedec who came out to meet Abraham who received tithes from him and who blessed him. It is interesting that Melchisedec gave to Abraham bread and wine, the symbols of communion, the body and blood of our Lord. CSTTB
2. What is the significance of the statement “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually”?
Some have suggested that Melchizedek was a preincarnate, temporary appearance of the eternal Son of God. As this passage indicates, however, Melchizedek was not in fact the Son of God but someone resembling the Son of God (lit., “having been made like the Son of God”); he was an ordinary human being who was “king of Salem” (v. 1). He is without father or mother or genealogy probably means simply that this information is not given anywhere in Scripture (in contrast to the Levitical priests, whose genealogies are recorded). The next phrase should probably be understood in the same way—that is, Melchizedek had neither beginning of days nor end of life recorded in Scripture; he suddenly appeared in Genesis 14 and then disappeared. As far as the OT narrative is concerned, it shows no end to his priesthood, so in that sense he continues a priest forever. Thus Hebrews seems to view Melchizedek as an ordinary man, who was a “type” or foreshadowing of Christ. In this way, Melchizedek is comparable to the eternal high priesthood of the righteous Son of God, who is truly the king of righteousness and who brings true peace. ESVN
1) ‘Without father, without mother, without genealogy.’ The Melchizedekian priesthood was not expressed as being dependent on descent. The exact opposite was the case for a levitical priest. When his name was put forward to be a priest he was asked, ‘Who is your father, who is your mother, what is your descent? Produce your genealogy.’ For Scripture stated that the father of a levitical priest must be proved to be of the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. His mother must be established as a true Israelite, and also pure (see Lev_21:7), and by the time of Jesus the priestly families were excessively rigid against unsatisfactory marriages by priests for this very reason. Prospective wives’ backgrounds had to be thoroughly examined.
In fact full genealogies had to be produced for every prospective priest. Their genealogy had to be traced and demonstrated, otherwise they could not be priests (Ezr_2:62-63; Neh_7:63-65). They were very much tied to earthly descent.
2) ‘Having neither beginning of days.’ Furthermore no time limits were placed on the Melchizedekian priesthood. In contrast every levitical priest had a ‘beginning of days’, a time when he commenced his priesthood. Probably Levitical priests, like the Levites, "began their days" as priests/Levites at the age of twenty-five, when they were permitted to wait on their brethren (Num_8:24 and compare 1Ch_23:27-28). Then at the age of thirty they began their regular priestly/levitical duties (Num_4:3; Num_4:23; Num_4:30; Num_4:35; Num_4:39; Num_4:43; Num_4:47).
3) ‘Nor end of life.’ No ending is predicated for the Melchizedekian priesthood. In contrast, assuming that the levitical priests were like the Levites, then at the age of fifty their priestly "life" ended. "From the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting on the service, and shall serve no more" (Num_8:25). As far as the priesthood was concerned their lives thus probably ended at fifty. So this priesthood was time-limited, and not a continual succession.
(This was also actually in contrast with the High Priesthood (often spoken of in terms of ‘the Priest’) which commenced on appointment and finished at death. Once a High Priest, always a High Priest. But even for him the beginning and ending of each High Priesthood was emphasised. His death was seen as the end of an era). Thus the wording of this verse has the levitical priesthood in mind as being in contrast to that of Melchizedek. As priest Melchizedek was in contrast to all this. He was a figure without an earthly identification priestwise. His descent was not important. He was simply there. He came on to the scene mysteriously and he went equally mysteriously. As spoken of in Scripture he had no known beginning and he had no known ending. He was not connected with any known genealogy, and thus not limited to any tribe. His priesthood went with his kingship. It was simply recognised. And yet in Scripture he was clearly greater than Abraham, God’s chosen one. It was the basis of a unique type of priesthood.
Had he not been spoken of in Scripture, Jews would have frowned on all this. To
Jews such genealogical information as is mentioned here was considered vital for a priest. It established his credentials. How else could a person be seen as being of a God-ordained priesthood? they would have argued. Thus this priesthood by their standards seemed to be lacking credentials. And yet they could not refute the fact that it was acknowledged by God and by Scripture, and therefore could not be denied. Thus the priesthood of anyone connected with it must also be recognised by God. And that is directly the writer’s point. Melchizedek was a true priest, yet not a levitical priest, and not limited like levitical priests were. He appeared as from God and as authorised by God, and as accepted by Abraham, no limits were put on his priesthood, and his priesthood continued on through the line of David until it reappeared in Psa_110:4. Here was an accepted and genuine priesthood, a royal priesthood, that was acknowledged by God apparently from the beginning and yet was not levitical, and had no known restrictions with regard to its beginning or ending. It was unique, being ever there in the background, and was passed on to David when he became King in Jerusalem. And it was later, in the Psalms, spoken of as continuing in existence in the house of David, to finally flower in the coming of the Messiah. So as we have seen the requirements for his priesthood are all in direct contrast with the levitical priests. In their case their father and mother had to be known and had to be strictly acceptable. Their case was rigidly scrutinised. If there was any doubt they could not be accepted. The father must be a priest of true descent, the mother an established Israelite. Their genealogy had to be traced, otherwise they could not be priests (Ezr_2:62-63; Neh_7:63-65). And they had both ‘a beginning of days’ and ‘an end of life’. None of this was true of him or expected of him. He stood above it all.
‘But made like to the Son of God, he abides a priest continually.’ And this is the final point. That as far as Scripture usage is concerned he was actually in Scripture ‘made like to the Son of God’, to Jesus Christ, in the way that his priesthood is presented and appears as unlimited, and as going on and on. He stands out, and was intended to stand out, as an example of eternal priesthood. His priesthood was pictured in the same way as that of the Son of God really is. No beginning or end is pointed to. It was seen as unceasing, not limited by time rules. It stretched from at least the time of Abraham to the time of the Psalmist, and then was to go onwards in the Davidic representative (not be it noted in Melchizedek himself), and on to the great day of God’s triumph, and therefore it was seen as being permanent and everlasting. Here then, he says, is the picture revealed in Scripture by Melchizedek, the picture of an unceasing, continuing, eternal priesthood, not connected with Aaron, and in fact superior to that of Aaron. And that is why, he explains, we cannot doubt his greatness. It is necessary here, however, to emphasise that it is Melchizedek who is said to have been ‘made like to’ the Son of God, and not vice versa. He illustrates what the Son of God is like with regard to priesthood. He was there as an illustration on earth, as ‘a type’, as preparatory to the eternal Son of God revealing Himself. He was, preparatory and secondary. For in Heb_1:1-3, where the essence of the Son of God is declared in all His eternal power and glory, Jesus also is depicted as being without beginning and without end in a much deeper sense. He is seen as appointed heir of all things and proceeds to create the world. He has no beginning. And then He proceeds to sitting at God’s right hand having accomplished His purposes. He has no ending.
So Melchizedek in his small way is portrayed precisely like this, as an illustration of this and as being ‘made’ for this very purpose. His sudden appearance in Scripture, says the writer, was not accidental. It was in order to illustrate the eternal High Priest, Who was already invisible in Heaven, and to demonstrate that there was such a priesthood, even before levitical priesthood was introduced. Indeed we should carefully note another fact and that is that as far as Scripture is concerned Melchizedek was not only a unique priest but was a priest who preceded all other earthly priesthood. In Genesis, where all things began, there is no other priesthood mentioned than that of Melchizedek. As far as Genesis was concerned he was ‘the priest’. He did not appear as another priest, he was the only mentioned priest of God, a figure of the eternal priesthood. He was thus the prime example of such priesthood long predating Moses. And, says the writer, his appearance in Scripture and his mention here is precisely because he was ‘made like to the Son of God’ as far as priesthood is concerned. That is why he is introduced and comes on the scene. For in the end this passage is not about Melchizedek but is demonstrating the unique Priesthood of the Son of God (Heb_7:11-28), which preceded, was superior to, and outlasted, the levitical priesthood.PPC
7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
3. Why is it important that Melchizedek be shown as superior to Abraham?
Melchizedek was great because Abraham gave him a tithe. In the Greek text the word patriarch is emphatic. The greatness of Abraham, the one who possessed the promises of God (v. 6), underscores the even greater rank of Melchizedek, the priest of righteousness. NSB
The superior person (Melchizedek) blessed the inferior(Abraham), thus the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to Abraham and all his descendants (implicitly including the Levitical priesthood).ESVN
The Jews looked to Abraham as the father of their nation, and religion.
Matthew 3:9 (KJV)
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
John 8:39-41 (HCSB)
39 “Our father is Abraham!” they replied. “If you were Abraham’s
children,” Jesus told them, “you would do what Abraham did. 40 But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! 41 You’re doing what your father does.” “We weren’t born of sexual immorality,” they said. “We have one Father—God.”
Acts 7:2 (KJV)
2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
4. How would the superiority to Abraham relate to the Levitical priesthood?
The sons of Levi, who received tithes from their brethren, died, but Melchizedek, who received tithes from Abraham, lived on. Melchizedek was immortal as far as the specific revelation of Scripture states. In contrast, Moses wrote that Abraham, Levi, and the Aaronic priests died.
In a sense even Levi himself paid tithes to Melchizedek since he was still in the loins of Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. In the ancient Near Eastern view of things, people regarded a descendant as in one sense participating in the actions of his ancestors (Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2-3; Rom. 9:11-13). This is true to reality in certain respects (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22), though we are responsible for our own actions too (Ezek. 18:20). Levi, the head of the priestly tribe in Israel, had not yet begun his independent existence, but he was involved in everything that Abraham did. CN
5. How was the Levitical priesthood insufficient to bring perfection to the Jew?
The writer will continue to develop this argument for the next few chapters.
In Hebrews, several reasons are presented for why the Mosaic law could not bring people to perfection (vv. 18–19; 9:9; 10:1; cf. the work of Jesus in 10:14; 11:40; 12:23). Here, the fact that there existed a priestly order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4) shows that the Levitical priesthood (and its high priesthood reserved for the Aaronic line; see Ex. 28:1; 29:1–46) was insufficient to the task.change in the law. The establishment of a better priesthood (Christ’s) shows Christians that there also has been a change from the Mosaic law, since that law required a succession of priests, all descended from Levi (Heb. 7:18–19). Thus, Jesus’ role as a non-Levitical high priest is strong evidence that the Mosaic covenant (the “old covenant”) is no longer in effect. ESVN
If the Levitical priesthood had been able to bring people to
perfection, then a superior priest from the order of Melchizedek would not have been needed (Ps. 110:4). If the priests under the Law of Moses could offer permanent reconciliation between God and His people, there would be no need for a coming Messiah, One who would restore the Israelites to their relationship with God.
If the Melchizedek priesthood removed the Levitical priesthood, then the Mosaic Law is also removed. In short, the believer is not under the Law but instead relies on the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 3:24, 25). Any system of religion that tries to be under the law cannot have Christ because Christ does not minister the law. It’s either Christ or the law but not both. NSB
Throughout Hebrews, the term refers to complete reconciliation with God and unhindered access to God—salvation. The Levitical system and its priesthood could not save anyone from their sins. MSBN
14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him, "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." 18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
6. How does the tribe of Judah figure into this and how can anything not under the law be a good thing?
In the book of Hebrews, he has brought out that we have a great high priest, even Jesus Christ, the righteous. The Jew would immediately challenge, "How could Jesus be a great high priest when He comes from the tribe of Judah?" Nothing is said in the law concerning the priesthood from the tribe of Judah. So here he pulls out this 110th Psalm, "For God has sworn and will not repent, 'Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.'" And so he answers the argument of the Jew, who would declare there is no way Jesus could be a high priest coming from the tribe of Judah. He answers that argument quite thoroughly with his prophetic Psalm 110.
It is far more evident because the prophecy in Psalm 110, that there has to arise another priest after the order of Melchisedec.
"Thou art a priest forever." So the law could make nothing perfect. It could only bear witness of a better covenant, established on better promises.
The law has been disannulled, commandments disannulled, because of the priesthood being changed.
The Bible says, "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God" (Romans 3:20). The Bible teaches us that the law was never intended to make a man righteous. The purpose of the law was to reveal man's sin and his utter sinfulness. It is by the law that I have a knowledge of sin, for God has declared His righteous standard and I realize that I have fallen short of God's righteous standard.
So, the law revealing my failure, points the finger of guilt at me and the law then condemns me to death and to the curse. "For it is written, 'Cursed is every one who continues not in the whole law that is to do the things that are written therein'" (Galatians 3:10). The law makes no one righteous, but it does put us all under the curse, for it reveals to us our sins and it makes us much more guilty, or at least conscious of our guilt. Now, this is the problem in the time of Jesus, was their interpretating of the law. And I think that that is probably a problem that exists all through the history of man, the interpreting of the law.
Now in Jesus' day, they were interpreting the law as a physical, material thing rather than seeing it as a spiritual thing, and interpreting it in a literal, physical way. They were becoming very smug and self-righteous because they followed the law to the letter. For instance, Jesus said, "You strain at a gnat and you swallow a camel."
Now, over in that land there are lots of gnats, pesky little things flying around your eyes all the time, and just bugging you. And as you were out doing your morning jogging, sometimes these little gnats would fly in your mouth. Now, according to the law you can't eat any meat unless it has been killed in a kosher fashion, thoroughly bled. So you'd see these Pharisees out there with their fingers down their throat straining to get rid of that gnat, because they didn't want to do anything that would violate the law. So they strained at a gnat.
The law said, "Thou shalt not bear a burden on the Sabbath day." What constitutes bearing a burden? So they had to go down the list of the various burdens that a man might bear on the Sabbath day. You have a glass eye? That is carrying something on the Sabbath day, and you've got to take it out on the Sabbath day. Go around with one eye. Have false teeth? Sabbath day, you're carrying a burden. Get rid of the false teeth. Wooden leg? Not on the Sabbath, man.
So they sought to interpret the law, making it a heavy, physical yoke that no man can bear. But in reality, becoming very self-righteous because I keep the law, whereas, in reality, they were violating the spirit of the law every day. God intended the law as spiritual. Their carnal interpretation was wrong. CSTTB
20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, "THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'"); 22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. 23 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.
7. A better covenant?
The new, better covenant based on Jesus’ eternal high priesthood comes with God’s oath and with Jesus as the guarantor, and thus it is superior to the Mosaic covenant ESVN
Because God promised on oath to install Messiah permanently as our priest, the writer could say that Jesus is the guarantee of a better covenant. Since the old priesthood was the heart of the Old Covenant, and God terminated both of them, a new priesthood must accompany the New Covenant that is superior to the Old Covenant. Since the new Priest has come, so must the New Covenant have come (cf. Luke 22:20).
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
This is the first mention in the epistle of the word “covenant” that will play a major role in the writer’s argument to follow.
“Hebrews develops the theme of the new covenant more fully than any other NT writer, the epistle accounting for just over half the occurrences of diatheke [“covenant] in the NT.”
The writer used this word (Gr. diatheke) 17 times, far more than it occurs in any other New Testament book. He preferred this word to the more common syntheke (“covenant”) evidently because syntheke suggests an agreement made on relatively equal terms. Diatheke has the idea of a more absolute will, such as a last will and testament. CN
8. How is the personhood of Jesus superior to the Levitical priesthood.
Christ’s divine and holy character is yet another proof of the superiority of His priesthood. In His relationship to God, Christ is “holy” (piety without any pollution; Mt 3:17; 17:5; Mk 1:24; Lk 4:24; Ac 2:27; 13:35). In His relationship to man, He is “innocent” (without evil or malice; Jn 8:46). In relationship to Himself, He is “undefiled” (free from contamination; 1Pe 1:19) and “separated from sinners” (He had no sin nature which would be the source of any act of sin; cf. “without sin” in 4:15).. exalted above the heavens.
first for his own sins. Christ’s priesthood is superior because he has no personal sins for which sacrifice had to be made (see Lev 9:8 and note ). once for all. A key phrase in Hebrews (see 9:12 , 26 and note on 9:12 ; 10:2 , 10 ). offered himself. Levitical priests offered up only animals; our high priest offered himself, the perfect substitute for us. NIVSN
ESVN……………..….ESV Study Bible Notes
MSBN……………….MacArthur NASB Study Notes
NIVSN……………….NIV Study Notes.
JVM ………………….J Vernon McGee’s Commentary
BN ……………………Barnes Notes
WBC………….…….Wycliffe Bible Commentary
CN ……….…………..Constables Notes
IC……………….…….Ironside Commentary
NET…………….…….Net Bible Study Notes.
JFB……………………Jamieson Fausset Brown Commentary
VWS………………….Vincent Word Studies
CMM………………..Commentary on Matthew and Mark
BDB……………..….Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Darby……………….John Darby’s Synopsis of the OT and NT
Johnson……………Johnson’s Notes on the New Testament
NTCMM…………..The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark.
EHS………………….Expositions of the Holy Scriptures
CPP…………………The Complete Pulpit Commentary
SBC…………………..Sermon Bible Commentary
K&D…………………Keil and Deilitzsch Commentary on the OT
EBC……………….…Expositors Bible Commentary
CBSC……………….Cambridge Bible for Schools and College
GC……………………Guzik Commentary
RD…………………..Robert Deffinbaugh
NSB …………………The Nelson Study Bible
MHC…………………Matthew Henry Commentary
CSTTB………Chuck Smith Through The Bible
LESB…………….Life Essentials Study Bible.
PPC………………..Peter Pett’s Commentarty
“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to make civil comment. Divergent views encouraged,