In Hebrews 7, the author has already noted, verse 3, that Melchisedec is mentioned in Genesis with no 'beginning of days' and is αφωμοιωμενον, 'likened to' the Son of God (Psalm 2 and Psalm 110).
Thus, in the eyes of the author, the Son of God has no beginning of days, which cannot refer to his human existence for we could know to the exact date (had we sufficient historic record) the day when the angelic host announced the birth of the babe in Bethlehem, to the shepherds in the fields.
'No beginning of days' must refer to his Divine existence, irrespective of incarnation.
Then the author refers again, in verse 14, to 'our Lord' who is 'sprang out of Judah' that he is arisen, verse 15, 'after the similitude', όμοιοτηϛ, of Melchisedec, 'not after the law of a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life', verse 16.
Again, the author draws attention to the 'likeness' of Melchisedec and to the reality of the Son of God, his life being 'endless'.
The word here is ακαταλυτοσ which Liddell & Scott say means 'indissoluble' or 'indestructible'; Thayer completely agreeing; and BDAG giving 'indestructible'. But the sources I have accessed have very little to say, other than assigning a bare meaning.
This reference is clearly, both from the first mention of 'beginning of days' (being not a matter of the 'days of his flesh') and from the second mention of the 'similitude' of Melchisedec, not to the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth for Jesus most certainly died, giving up his life voluntarily, no man taking it from him, John 10:18.
Therefore, since Jesus' human life was so given up, it being not 'indestructible' or 'indissoluble', this 'endless' life must refer to the Divine Life of the Son of God.
The word ακαταλυτοσ appears to me to have three components.
- α : the Greek negative
- κατα : a downward force
- λυτοσ : a component which I assume to be derived from λυο
Some repeatedly give 'loose' for λυο which may be true in some contexts but which cannot be true of the wide spectrum of the word which appears in circumstances when :
- someone takes someone else's shoes off
- someone dismisses a multitude or a synagogue gathering
- someone takes the colt of an ass belonging to someone else
- someone breaks the sabbath.
My understanding of the broad spectrum of meaning is 'dispossess'. Yes, sometimes that involves a loosing but it is not the foundational concept.
One 'dispossesses' the person of his shoes, 'dispossesses' oneself of the attentive hearers, 'dispossesses' the owner of their property, or behaves as though the commandment does not possess oneself.
This distinction of meaning becomes important in the context of the redemption of Israel, lutrosis, and the redemption of the sons of God, apolutrosis, through the means of redemption, lutron, the necessity of the lawful dispossession of owned property being so crucial to the accomplishment of righteous redemption.
Therefore my understanding of ακαταλυτοσ is that it is 'not the downward force of dispossession', that is to say it is the negating of the power of that which is above to dispossess.
Thus, said of 'life' it conveys, to me, the idea that nothing from above can dispossess one of that life.
Or, if one accepts the oft-asserted term 'loose' then one will see that the word is the negating of a downward loosing.
My question is, am I correct to so judge of the word or is there any other information available, from authoritative sources, which could cast more light on the meaning of this word ακαταλυτοσ (which is used but once in scripture) about which the most available of authorities have but little to say ?