Melchisedech

Justin Martyr, Father and apologist of the second century, in the Dialogue with Trypho, argues from the Psalm that God declared an everlasting priest after the order of Melchisedech. It bears on the literal sense by noting that the priest of the Most High was uncircumcised and received the tithes of Abraham.

Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest. Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares.

Tertullian, in An Answer to the Jews, reasons from the chronology of the Law. It bears on the literal sense by showing that Melchisedech was priest of the Most High before the Levitical priesthood existed.

Whence was Melchizedek named “priest of the most high God,” if, before the priesthood of the Levitical law, there were not levites who were wont to offer sacrifices to God? For thus, after the above-mentioned patriarchs, was the Law given to Moses, at that (well-known) time after their exode from Egypt, after the interval and spaces of four hundred years. In fact, it was after Abraham’s “four hundred and thirty years” that the Law was given.

Tertullian, in Against Marcion, notes that Melchisedech blessed Abraham after receiving his tithes. It bears on the literal sense by observing that he was uncircumcised, and on the fitness of the phrase “the order of Melchisedech” for Christ as High Priest.

Now what had Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, and him uncircumcised too, who blessed the circumcised Abraham, after receiving from him the offering of tithes? To Christ, however, “the order of Melchizedek” will be very suitable; for Christ is the proper and legitimate High Priest of God.

John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church, preaches on the Epistle to the Hebrews and follows the argument of the apostle. It bears on the literal sense by distinguishing the tithe, the mark of a priest, from the blessing, the mark of the superior.

Hast thou seen the superiority? Hast thou seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchisedec, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest: the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior.

Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church, in The City of God, takes up the blessing of Abraham by Melchisedech. It bears on the literal sense by relating that blessing to the Epistle to the Hebrews and to the Psalm that speaks of a priest for ever.

He was then openly blessed by Melchizedek, who was priest of God Most High, about whom many and great things are written in the epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews, which most say is by the Apostle Paul, though some deny this. For then first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole wide world, and that is fulfilled which long after the event was said by the prophet to Christ, who was yet to come in the flesh, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,”—that is to say, not after the order of Aaron, for that order was to be taken away when the things shone forth which were intimated beforehand by these shadows.

Theodoret of Cyrus, bishop and Father, in his dialogue Eranistes, answers the question how the qualities of Melchisedech are to be understood. It bears on the literal sense by treating him as an image and type, which does not have all the properties of the archetype.

Orth.—As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Saviour these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchisedec.

Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa Theologiae on tithes, replies to an objection from the practice before the Law. It bears on the literal sense by citing Abraham’s tithes to Melchisedech and Jacob’s vow as examples of that practice.

Thus Abraham by a kind of prophetic instinct gave tithes to Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, according to Gn. 14:20, and again Jacob made a vow to give tithes [*Gn. 28:20], although he appears to have vowed to do so, not by paying them to ministers, but for the purpose of the divine worship, for instance for the fulfilling of sacrifices, hence he said significantly: "I will offer tithes to Thee."

Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae on the priesthood of Christ, explains the phrase “without father, without mother.” It bears on the literal sense by teaching that Scripture is silent on these details, and that by this silence he is likened to the Son of God.

Melchisedech is described as "without father, without mother, without genealogy," and as "having neither beginning of days nor ending of life," not as though he had not these things, but because these details in his regard are not supplied by Holy Scripture. And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the same passage, he is "likened unto the Son of God," Who had no earthly father, no heavenly mother, and no genealogy, according to Is. 53:8: "Who shall declare His generation?" and Who in His Godhead has neither beginning nor end of days.

Cornelius a Lapide, Jesuit commentator, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, gathers opinions on the place Salem. He cites Jerome’s Book of Hebrew Places. It bears on the literal sense by identifying Salem and relating the king of that city to the type of Christ.

Sichem was appointed one of the cities of refuge (Josh, xx.) Here the ten tribes revolted from Judea through the folly of Rehoboam. The bones of Joseph were buried at Sichem, as is related at the end of the Book of Joshua. S. Jerome (tract, de loc. Hebr.) says that Salem and Sichem were the same; Hence it follows that Melchisedec, the type of Christ, was also king of this city.

Challoner’s annotation on the Epistle to the Hebrews is given in the Douay-Rheims text. It bears on the literal sense by explaining the phrase “without father” as a silence of the sacred page on his father, pedigree, birth and death.

Ver. 3. Without father, &c. Not that he had no father, &c. but that neither his father, nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in Scripture. (Challoner)

Haydock’s annotation on the narrative in Genesis describes the battle with the four kings. It bears on the literal sense by setting the scene of Abram’s return from the slaughter, at which Melchisedech meets him.

Hence we may form some judgment of the power and dignity of Abram, who was considered as a great prince in that country, chap. xxiii. 6. He was assisted by Mambre, Escol, and Aner, with all the forces they could raise on such a short warning; and coming upon the four kings unawares, in four divisions, easily discomfits them, while they were busy plundering the cities, and pursues them to Dan; which is either the city that went by that name afterwards, or more probably one of the sources of the Jordan, (Haydock) which the people of the country call Medan.

Haydock’s annotation on Genesis identifies who Melchisedech was and was not. It bears on the literal sense by excluding other identifications, and by naming the bread and wine as a figure of the sacrifice of the Mass, as the Fathers constantly teach.

Melchisedech was not Sem: for his genealogy is given in Scripture. (Hebrews vii. 6.); nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Ghost, as some have asserted, but a virtuous Gentile who adored the true God, and was king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and Priest of an order different from that of Aaron, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm.

Haydock’s annotation on Genesis comments on the blessing given by Melchisedech. It bears on the literal sense by reading the blessing as that of a superior and by noting the antiquity of tithes for the support of God’s priests.

Ver. 19. Blessed him, as his inferior, and received tithes of him, Hebrews iv. 7.[vii. 4.?] This shews the antiquity of the practice of supporting God's priests by tithes.

Haydock’s annotation on the answer of Abram to the king of Sodom closes the narrative that follows the blessing. It bears on the literal sense by distinguishing what Abram refused for himself from the shares due to his allies.

Ver. 23. Woof-thread. The first word is added by way of explanation. Abram declares he will not receive the smallest present for himself.

Ver. 24. Their shares, due to them on account of the danger to which they had exposed themselves. The king of Sodom could not but accept these conditions with gratitude. In a just war, whatever is taken by the enemy, cannot be reclaimed by the original proprietor, if it be retaken. (Grotius, iii. 6. de Jure.)

Haydock’s annotation on the Epistle to the Hebrews comments on the dignity of Melchisedech. It bears on the literal sense by recording the Fathers’ condemnation of the view that he was an angel or the Holy Ghost, since a type of the Saviour must be a man, a king and a priest.

The excellency of this personage was so transcendent, that some of the ancients took him to be an Angel, and some the Holy Ghost. This the Fathers condemn; for had he not been a man, a king, and a priest, he would not have been so worthy a type of our Saviour.

Haydock’s annotation on the Epistle to the Hebrews gives the signification of the names Melchisedech and Salem. It bears on the literal sense by relating the account in Genesis to the titles king of justice and king of peace.

King of justice, according to the signification of the word Melchisedech, and of peace, signified by the place Salem, of which he was king. By Salem is commonly expounded Jerusalem, though St. Jerome thinks it was a town in Samaria afterwards called Sichem. This king was also a priest of the Most High; i.e. of the true God. He blessed Abraham, after he had defeated Chodorlahomor and the other kings; (Genesis xiv.) and Abraham gave him the tithes of all things which he had taken from his enemies.

Haydock’s annotation on the Epistle to the Hebrews follows the apostle’s argument that Melchisedech is greater than Abraham. It bears on the literal sense by explaining the payment of tithes as an acknowledgment of the priest’s superiority.

Consider how great this man (Melchisedech) was, and greater than our great patriarch, Abraham: 1. Because Abraham, of his own accord, paid tithes to this priest of all the chief things he had: which was to own himself inferior to him: as the rest of the Jewish people are inferior to the sons of Levi, the descendants of Aaron, who being raised to the dignity of the priesthood by the command of God, have a right to take tithes or tenths of the people; and so are honoured above the rest.