Hebrews 7:0 - Exposition

The exposition of Christ's heavenly priesthood is now at length taken up and carried out. It extends to Hebrews 10:19 , forming the central part of the whole Epistle; and in the course of it is set forth also how the whole Jewish economy did in fact only prefigure and prepare for this one availing priesthood of the true High Priest of mankind. The peculiar thesis of Hebrews 7:1-28 . is "after the order of Melchizedek," the question being—What is signified by this designation of the Messiah in the hundred and tenth psalm? The remarkable import of that psalm, in that it assigns priesthood as well as royalty to the Son, was noted under Hebrews 5:6 . His being Priest at all implies a different order of royalty from that of the theocratic kings. But what further is meant by his priesthood being after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek? Is it that Melchizedek, being King of Salem as well as priest of the most high God, is therefore selected as the most suitable type of the great Priest-King to come? Yes; but there is more in it than this, as the writer goes on to show. To get at the full import of the expression in the psalm, he analyzes what we are told about Melchizedek in Genesis 14:1-24 . (the only other passage from which anything is known of him), and considers what could be meant in the psalm by "a priest after his order," and that "for ever." Both the actual history and the ideal of the psalm are in his view together; and from the two combined he deduces the intended idea of "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

Bearing this in mind, we shall have no need to understand anything implied as to Melchizedek himself beyond what we learn from Genesis. Some commentators, on the strength of what is here said of him, have supposed him to have been some superhuman being; and many theories have been propounded as to who and what he was. All such views have arisen from a misconception of our writer's drift; from regarding the representation of the ideal which Melchizedek typified as part of the account of what he actually was, the actual and the ideal being, in fact, somewhat blended in the exposition. That no more is implied about the man himself than what is recorded in Genesis may be concluded, not only from the purport (rightly understood) of the passage before us, but also from the analogy of the rest of the Epistle, throughout which the arguments are based on the contents of the Old Testament itself, as it was read and received by the Hebrew Christians. For example, neither David, nor Solomon, nor Isaiah are adduced as having been other than what the sacred record represents them to have been, though it is shown that what is said of them in the spirit of prophecy points to an ideal beyond them.