Matt Slick, in an attempt to offer biblical support for sola scriptura, wrote the following:
It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,
"Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. 7But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 And 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."
The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendants of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship. It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. ("Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?”)
As with his rather pathetic, eisegesis-driven use of 1 Cor 4:6 to support the formal doctrine of Protestantism, this is, exegetically speaking, pathetic.
Firstly, as Slick himself admits, Heb 7:4-10 is not speaking about “scripture”; he is also guilty of further question-begging by assuming “scripture” (even if implied implicitly in this pericope) is exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon; considering that Hebrews was probably written in the A.D. 60s before many New Testament texts, this would prove too much, for there must be tota scriptura for sola scriptura to be operational in the Church according to Protestantism.
Secondly, Protestant commentators on Hebrews disagree with Slick that this passage has sola scriptura in view. For instance, one commentator, writing on Heb 7:4-10, offers this overview of the pericope:
7:4-10: Melchizedek explained
From the citation of Gn. 14:17-20, and the possible use of a hymn in praise of Melchizedek, the author moves on in vv.4-10 to his own midrash. Its point, briefly stated in v. 4 and developed in the rest of the paragraph, is that Abraham, and in him his Levitical descendants, acknowledged that Melchizedek was greater than himself by paying him a tithe . . . The further conclusion, that the levitical priesthood is thus inferior to Christ’s, is not drawn until vv.11-18, and only then with great care, Jesus not being named until v. 22. In the present paragraph, the receipt of the tithe is emphasized as the most important mark of Melchizedek’s superiority (vv.4-6a, 9f.). The author also introduces, almost in passing, two other marks of Melchizedek’s greatness which in the wider context, as applied to Christ, will prove more important than the tithe, which has no christological counterpart. First, Melchizedek as the greater blesses Abraham, the less (vv.6b-7). On ευλογεω →6:14; the specific language of blessing is not prominent in Hebrews, but it is related to the whole complex of promise, inheritance, and covenant. Second, v. 8 contrasts Melchizedek’s eternal life and priesthood with the mortal nature of the Levitical priests; this theme, implicit in the phrase ιερευς εις τον αιωνα, is developed in vv. 23-25. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 309-10)
Commenting on Heb 7:7, Ellingworth notes:
7:7. The superior always blesses the inferior
The significance of v. 6b is brought out by appeal to a general principle (gnomic present ευλογισθαι), as in 6:16: blessing is something done by a superior to an inferior, or example, by a father to a son, as in 11:20, 21 (→6:14; Louw-Nida, 33.470). No stress is laid on the cultic nature of the principle, as in 2:11; 9:22. Both in the Greek Bible and in pagan literature, ευλογεω is also used of an action by an inferior, especially of a human being blessing or praising God (e.g., Ps. 66[LXX 65]:8, ευλογειτε εθην τον θεον ημων; Lk. 1:64; 2:28; 24:53 [v.l. αινουντες]; Jas. 3:9); not in Hebrews (Louw-Nida 33.356). The author assumes that the context will make it clear to his readers that he is using ευλογεω of one human being blessing another.
In meaning, though not in grammar, vv. 6b-7 form a deviation from the main theme of the tithe; there is no need with Moffatt to bracket v. 7 alone, since v. 8 does not pick up on the argument from v. 6b, but from v. 6a. Δε indicates a new point (Moffatt “And”), not a contrast. The statement is emphatic. Hebrews’ typical χωρις (→ 4:15), “apart from,” is stronger than ανευ αντιλογιας, common in the papyri (M and Bauer s.v.), indicating no more than absence or non-use. Here, as in 6:16, πας denotes individual members of a group, giving the meaning “beyond any contradiction.” ‘Αντιλογια here, as in 6:16, has its primary meaning of (verbal) contradiction, not physical hostility or rebellion, as in 12:3; Jude 11.
Το ελαττον υπο χρειττονος (→ 1:4): . . . What is in focus here is a contrast of status, not of size, moral worth, age, or priestly versus lay condition. Κρειτιων is used quite generally here, but elsewhere (→ 8:6) of the superiority of the new covenant (Ibid., 366-67)
As usual, Matt is way out in left field when it comes to providing meaningful exegesis of the Bible.
For those wanting to see how weak the biblical and historical case for sola scriptura truly is, click here to access my pages discussing the topic.
