Genesis 14

Genesis 14:1

Bede: Now it came to pass in those days that Amraphel, king of Shinar, Ariok, king of Pontus, Chodorlahomor, king of the Elamites, and Thadat, king of the nations, made war against Bera, king of Sodom, and against Birsha, king of Gomorrah, and the rest. It is recounted how Chodorlachomor, king of the Elamites, that is, the Persians, waging war against the Pentapolis with allied kings, won a victory, and how many nations were slain by him on his march to that contest. It is not to be supposed that the sacred author of Scripture recorded these only for the sake of historical study but rather to commend to us the grace of heaven. For it teaches us through the victory of Abraham, who overcame so many kings with a few men, what the power of faith is, with which he himself was armed, and how great the grace of divine blessing was, with which he was endowed. Because in the same way, the saints, later to be born, would, through this faith, overcome kingdoms, perform righteousness, and obtain promises. But there is also another very important and by no means negligible reason why the battle of the kings, the initial flight of the Sodomites, and their subsequent capture is written, for it is established that they, too, were subsequently utterly overthrown by heavenly wrath. Seeing their wickedness, God first chastised them with hostile slaughter and captivity. But then, through his faithful servant, he delivered them from that captivity with all the things that were taken, and this was for the sake of the blessed Lot, who served God faithfully among them, so that aided by such a gift of divine protection and delivered from their miseries, they might learn, leaving their errors, to serve God and follow his example in good works, by whom and through whom they were saved by God’s grace. But because they neither wished to be corrected by divine chastisements nor by gifts to abandon their iniquity, but rather daily added new crimes to their old wickedness, it remained that they be damned by heavenly wrath permanently. This kind of correction and punishment continues to this day, indeed until the end of the age, against the impious and sinners, for those who care neither for heavenly benefits nor chastisements are subsequently condemned by heavenly vengeance. In this way, the world itself will finally meet its end, when men throughout the whole earth, ungrateful for heavenly gifts and insensitive to chastisements, will suddenly be swept to eternal destruction by the whirlwind of the last judgment. And indeed, it is mentioned that all these came together in the wooded valley which is now the Salt Sea, anticipating where the battle took place. For it is explained later what the cause of the duel was and by what route the hostile army, after causing massive destruction, came there: so that the greater the power of the adversaries is shown, the mightier the faith of Abraham appears, by which he easily broke all their strength. The wooded valley is the region where at that time Pentapolis, that is, the province of Sodom and neighboring cities, was located. Now, however, after being overflowed following the fire with waters from the Jordan, it is called the Salt Sea or the Dead Sea in sacred Scripture, but by Greek historians it is called the Asphaltite Lake, that is, the lake of bitumen, and it is located between Jericho and Zoar. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Genesis 14:3

Jerome: (Chapter 14, Verse 3) And the king of Bale, which is Segor. All these agreed in the valley of Salsam, which is the Dead Sea. Bale in the Hebrew language is called κατάποσις, which means swallowing. Therefore, the Hebrews report that in another place in the Scriptures it is called Salisa, and again it is said to be μόσχον τριετίζουσαν, which means a three-year-old calf, because it was indeed swallowed up by the third movement of the earth (1 Samuel 9:4; Isaiah 15:5). And from that time, since Sodom and Gomorrah, Adama and Seboim were destroyed by divine fire, it is called that little one. Indeed, Segor is transferred to a small place called Zoara in the Syriac language. The Valley of Salt, as it is written in this same book, in which there were previously pits of bitumen, after the wrath of God and the rain of sulfur, was turned into the Dead Sea, which is called by the Greeks λίμνη Ἀσφαλτῖτις, that is, the lake of bitumen. — Hebrew Questions on Genesis

Genesis 14:5

Bede: And they struck the Rephaim in Ashtaroth-karnaim, and the Zuzim with them, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim, Rephaim in Hebrew, in Greek are called Giants: in the singular number, however, a Rephaim is called a Giant. Now their land, which was called Ashtaroth-karnaim, was at the edge of Sodom. Moreover, until today a village across the streams of the Jordan called Carnea is shown. Ashtaroth-karnaim is interpreted as “Flocks of Horns,” because indeed they were the dwellings of strong men. But Shaveh is a city of the Emim situated above the region of Sodom, which is still called by that name today. What is added as Cariathaim is interpreted as “Their City”; and the meaning is, they also struck the Emim in Shaveh their city, just as the Seventy Translators have translated. Emim undoubtedly, as well as Zuzim, were proven to be a very strong people even by their name itself. For Zuzim are called “The Terrible Ones,” Emim are called “The Horrifying Ones.” — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Jerome: (Verse 5.) And the giants settled in Astaroth Carnaim, and strong nations along with them: and Ominaeos in the city of Save, before they came to Sodom. Four kings who came from Babylon killed the giants, that is, the strong ones of Arabia, and the Zozim in Hom, and the Emim in the city of Save, which is still called by that name today. But the Zuzim and the Emim are interpreted as terrifying and horrifying: for this reason, the Seventy [translators], conveying the sense rather than word for word, translated them as the strongest nations. Furthermore, Baem, for which they said, ‘with them’, they thought it was written with He (), guided by the similarity of the elements, while it is written with Heth. Baem () is written with three letters: if it has the middle He, it is interpreted as ‘in them’; but if it has Heth, as in the present case, it signifies a place, that is, ‘in Hom ()’. — Hebrew Questions on Genesis

Genesis 14:6

Bede: And the Horites in the mountains of Seir. Indeed, these mountains, along with the neighboring regions, were possessed by the sons of Esau, who was also called Seir, because he was hairy, after the Horites were expelled. However, it seems likely that it was not he (i.e., Esau) himself, but another Seir from whom the mountains of Seir took their name: namely, the patriarch of the Horites, from whose lineage Esau took a wife. The Scripture says in the following: “Esau took wives from the daughters of Canaan, Ada the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the son of Zibeon the Hivite” (Genesis 36:2). What this lineage was or from where it originated is revealed shortly after, when, enumerating the lineage of Esau, it concludes thus: “These are the chiefs of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, wife of Esau, these are the sons of Esau, and these are their chiefs. He is Edom”; and immediately a new title is attached, which says: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, inhabitants of the land, Lotan, Shobal, and Zibeon.” And soon after: “And these are the sons of Zibeon, Aiah and Anah. This is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness while he was pasturing the donkeys of Zibeon, his father, and he had a son Dishan and a daughter Oholibamah.” Therefore, when Esau had a wife from the lineage of the Horites, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the son of Zibeon the son of Seir, it is established that the mountains of Seir, where the Horites were struck down, did not take their name from Esau who began to possess those places long after he was born, but from Seir the patriarch of those same Horites. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Genesis 14:7

Bede: And they returned and came to the fountain of Mesphat. This is Kadesh. Mesphat is interpreted as Judgment, hence the ancient translation more plainly says, “they came to the fountain of judgment.” However, this is also said by anticipation, since the place received that name much later because the Lord judged the people who had come out of Egypt there. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Bede: And they struck the whole region of the Amalekites. This must be linked with the previous verse, so it is understood that the people of Amalek were struck down near Kadesh Barnea, where Miriam died, and Moses, striking the rock, brought forth water from the rock for the thirsty people. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Bede: But what follows: And the Amorite who lived in Hazezzon-tamar, belongs to another place, that is, the town which is now called Engedi, fertile in balsam and palms: hence Hazezzon-tamar is interpreted as the City of Palms. For Thamar indeed is called Palm. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Jerome: (Verse 7) And they returned and came to the well of judgment, which is Kadesh. It is said by anticipation that it was afterwards so called. But it signifies the place at Petra, which is called the well of judgment because there God judged the people. And they struck all the region of the Amalekites and the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazon-tamar. This town is what is now called Engedi, fertile with balsam and palm trees. Moreover, Hazazon-tamar, in our language, means the city of palm trees. Thamar, indeed, is said to mean ‘palm’. However, it is worth noting that shortly after it says: ‘And they set their battle line against them in the valley of Salt, which is called in Hebrew, the valley of Seddim (), which Aquila interprets as ‘of the plains’, and Theodotion as ‘of the groves’, signifying pleasant woods.’ — Hebrew Questions on Genesis

Genesis 14:8

Ambrose of Milan: We have seen now the prog-ress of the noble mind, which, finding itself in perilous deviation from the path of virtue, immediately arose to search for the reward of wisdom, the inheritance of justice. The readings that follow will show how harmful are the vices connected with frivolity. For those four kings who defeated the five kings and took captive the whole cavalry of the Sodomites captured Lot the son of Abraham’s brother as well and went on their way. The five kings are our five bodily senses: sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing. The four kings are the seductions of the body and of the world, because human flesh and the world are composed of four elements. Rightly are they called kings, because sin has a sovereignty of its own, has its own great kingdom. For this reason, the apostle says, “Let not sin reign in your mortal body.” Our senses, then, easily yield to the pleasures of the body and of the world and become as it were subject to their dominion. Indeed, the pleasures of the body and the seductions of the world are conquered only by a mind that is spiritual, that clings to God and separates itself totally from earthly things—for every perversion is subjection to these allurements. Hence John says, “Woe to the inhabitants of the world!” He was certainly not referring to every human being living on earth at that time—for there are those who live on earth but whose citizenship is in heaven—but rather to those who had been overcome by attachment to this earthly citizenship and the seduction of the world. We are not then inhabitants of this world but pilgrims. Pilgrims live in hope of finding a temporary lodging, but inhabitants seem to place every hope and every use of their goods where they believe they are living by right. Thus one who is a pilgrim on earth is an inhabitant of heaven, but the inhabitant of earth is an owner of death. — On Abraham

Bede: And they drew up in battle array against them in the wooded valley. Instead of the wooded valley, in Hebrew it has in the Valley of Siddim, which signifies pleasant and wooded places. For such indeed was the Pentapolis which, because of the wickedness of its inhabitants, deserved not only to be consumed by fires, but also to be hidden in the abyss of waters from the sight of all living beings forever. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

John Chrysostom: Let us not idly pass these words by, dearly beloved, or consider the account to be of no value. It was of set purpose that sacred Scripture recounted everything to us with precision so that we should learn the might of these barbarians and the degree of valor they displayed and with how much ferocity they involved themselves in war so as to clash even with the giants—that is, men powerful in bodily stature—and put to flight all the peoples dwelling there. You see, just as a swollen torrent sweeps away everything in its path and destroys it, in the same way the barbarians fell on these peoples and destroyed them completely with the result that they put to flight the rulers of the Amalekites and all the others. But perhaps someone may say, “What good is it for me to know about the might of the barbarians?” It was not idly or to no purpose that Scripture mixed these matters in with its account. Nor is it without point that we are now bringing it to your attention and directing you in turn to recall their valor. Rather, our purpose is that from the ensuing instruction you may learn the extraordinary degree of God’s power and also the patriarch’s virtue. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.9

Genesis 14:11

Jerome: (Verse 11.) And they took all the cavalry of Sodom and Gomorrah. For cavalry in Hebrew has Rachus (), which means substance. — Hebrew Questions on Genesis

Genesis 14:12

John Chrysostom: Notice that what I said yesterday has come to be true, that Lot, far from being better off for his choice of the better parts, rather had learned from experience not to set his heart on the better parts. You see, not only did no benefit come to him from it, but indeed he was even led away into captivity. He learned the lesson through experience that it was much better for him to enjoy the just man’s company than to be parted from him and undergo these great trials even if living independently. I mean, he parted from the patriarch and thought he enjoyed greater independence, had the good fortune to enjoy the better parts and experience great prosperity—and all of a sudden he becomes a captive, dispossessed, without hearth or home. The purpose was for you to learn what a great evil division is and what a great good harmony is, and that we ought not hanker after pride of place but love to take second place instead. “Now, they seized Lot and his accoutrements,” the text says, remember. How much better was it to be in the company of the patriarch and accept everything for the sake of not sundering the mutual harmony than be separated and while choosing the better parts be immediately beset with such awful perils and fall into the clutches of barbarians? — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.11

Genesis 14:13

Bede: And behold, one who had escaped came and reported to Abraham the Hebrew. It is evident from this passage that they err greatly who think that the people called Hebrews are named so from Abraham as if Ebrea, since Abraham himself is called a Hebrew; evidently from Heber, son of Joktan, in whose times the division of languages happened. However, “Hebrew” is interpreted as “passer” or “one who crosses over,” which clearly matches the faith and merits of Abraham. For he indeed transcended temporal desires and hastened to pass from the present world to future joys. The holy man, after all, is not a resident of the earth, but a traveler and stranger, saying to his Creator, “for I am a sojourner with you, a stranger like all my ancestors.” It is not in vain that, although both brothers, Abraham and Lot, descended from the line of Heber, not both are called Hebrews, but only Abraham; and he also left this name to the people of God born from him; but because he surpassed the world more perfectly, his crossing or passing was, as it were, an inheritable right that he passed on to his descendants, it is indicated by the surname what more he had received in grace than his brother. And aptly, Abraham is here first called a Hebrew, that is, a passer or crosser, as he was about to rescue his brother from the enemies, so that the Scripture might silently intimate that it is proper for those to save others from the perils of temptations by their teaching or intercession who themselves do not succumb weakly to the temptations of vices but know how to transcend them with a lively spirit. Moreover, Abraham freed his brother Lot, a man devoted to God, from the enemies, and also freed the Sodomites, people much odious to God, so that it might mystically prefigure that through his merits and intercessions often both the elect in the people of Israel and the reprobate are to be liberated from temporal evils: since only the elect can be saved from eternal destruction. It should also be noted that while the province of Sodom remained and was not yet punished, Lot the righteous was afflicted with temporal losses because of the reprobates, and the reprobates were delivered from temporal hardships by God’s mercy because of Lot the righteous. But when the judgment of ultimate strictness fell upon the reprobate citizens, then the just was in no way touched by the punishments of the wicked, nor could anyone of the wicked participate in his miraculous salvation, but then only the good were saved, only the wicked were lost: in which clearly the state and the end of the whole world is expressed, for doubtlessly in this life, sometimes the good are temporally afflicted because of the nearness of the wicked, and because of the nearness of the good the wicked are temporarily delivered from adversities. But at the moment of final judgment, only the wicked will be eternally lost, only the just will be eternally freed. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Jerome: (Verse 13) And he who had fled, reported to Abram the passerby. And he himself was sitting by the oak of Mamre, the Amorite, the brother of Eschol, and the brother of Aner, who were allies of Abram. Concerning this, which we have set forth to the passerby, it is written in Hebrew as Ibri (), for this indeed signifies a passerby. But what he says: by the oak of Mamre, the Amorite, we read better in Hebrew as by the oak of Mamre, the Amorite, the brother of Eschol, and not the brother of Aner, as the Septuagint translated, but of Aner, so as to show that Mamre and Eschol, and Aner, were Amorites and brothers, allies of Abram. — Hebrew Questions on Genesis

John Chrysostom: How was it that the patriarch had no knowledge that such forces of war were on the rampage? Perhaps he chanced to be at a great distance from the conflict and for that reason knew nothing of it. “Now, someone came and told Abraham the traveler,” the text says, to remind us that he got the news on his return from Chaldea. You see, because he had his camp across the Euphrates, consequently he was described also as traveler. Right from the outset his parents gave him this name, suggesting to him ahead of time his movement from there. In other words, he was also called Abram because he would one day cross the Euphrates and enter Palestine. Notice how his parents, all unaware, and unbelievers to boot, gave the child the name under the influence of God’s inventive wisdom, as was also the case when Lamech gave Noah his name. This, after all, is a characteristic of God’s loving kindness, oftentimes to foretell—even through unbelievers—of events due to happen a long time later. So, the text says, someone came and told the traveler what had happened, the capture of his nephew, the great power of those kings, the sack of Sodom and the shameful flight. “Now, he was camped near the oak of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eschol and Aunan, who were confederates of Abram.” Perhaps at this point, however, someone might wonder, why was it that the just man Lot, alone of the fugitives from Sodom, was taken into captivity? Far from occurring idly or to no purpose, this was for Lot to learn through the events themselves the patriarch’s virtue, and that others might also be saved, and that he might learn not to hanker after pride of place but yield to his elders. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.12

Augustine of Hippo: WHY WAS THE NICKNAME “ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER" GIVEN TO ABRAHAM? — He announced to Abram on the other side of the river. It is a nickname that the Greek copies indicate quite clearly; but for what motive? The reason he was called this seems to have been the fact that he came from Mesopotamia, crossing the Euphrates River, and set up his residence in Canaan. It was called “the one on the other side of the river” in the region from which it came. That’s why Joshua the son of Nun says to the Israelites: What? Will you serve the gods of your fathers that are across the river? (Joshua 24:15) [ — QUESTIONS ON GENESIS, Q. 28 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Genesis 14:14

Ambrose of Milan: “When Abraham learned of this, he counted his servants born in the house” and with 318 men won a victory and liberated his nephew. This shows that the separation had taken place in friendship, since Abraham’s love for his nephew was so great that he was willing to confront even the dangers of war on his behalf. What does it mean “he counted”? It means he “chose.” So too what Jesus said in the Gospel refers not only to the knowledge of God but also to the grace of the just: “Even the hairs on your head are all counted.” Indeed, “the Lord knows those who are his,” but those who are not his he does not deign to know. Abraham, then, counted 318 men. You should understand that it is not numerical quantity that is here expressed but the value of their election. He chose, in fact, those whom he judged worthy to belong to the number of the faithful who were to believe in the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, the letter T in Greek means “three hundred,” and the sum IH—ten plus eight—expresses the name of Jesus. So Abraham conquered in virtue of faith, not through the strength of a numerous army. And so it was that with no more than a few house servants he triumphed over those who had defeated the armies of five kings. — On Abraham

Bede: When Abram heard that his brother Lot had been captured, he numbered his trained servants, three hundred and eighteen, and so on. Indeed, it is a very great miracle of divine power that Abraham, with such a small troop, inflicted such a great slaughter on the enemies, but it contains the deeper sacrament of faith in which we must overcome the spiritual battle. There were three hundred and eighteen, a number that clearly designates the victorious sign of the cross and the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, through whom this has been consecrated for the fortification of our salvation. For among the Greeks, three hundred is marked by the letter T, which is shaped like a cross. For if it had received an apex in the middle, not the figure of the cross but the very sign of the cross would be clearly seen. However, ten and eight are marked among them by Ι and Η, which are the first letters in the name of Jesus: and therefore when three hundred and eighteen are noted in Greek, it is not far from being read as the cross of Jesus. So, fittingly, Abraham overcame the enemies and freed his brother with three hundred and eighteen comrades, to mystically prefigure that the one who would recall the world from death through the passion of the cross would be born from his seed; and he himself would also, by the name of the Savior, that is, Jesus, stand out and be honored throughout the whole world: but also, that all who would pertain to salvation would achieve salvation only through this venerable sign and through his terrible name. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Jerome: (Verse 14) And he pursued them as far as Dan, to the city of the Phoenicians, which is now called Paneas. But Dan is one of the sources of the Jordan. For the other is also called Jor, which means ‘stream’. Therefore, the Jordan is the name given to the two springs that, not far from each other, join to form a single stream. — Hebrew Questions on Genesis

John Chrysostom: Consider in this case, I ask you, dearly beloved, the greatness of heart exemplified in the just man’s virtue. Trusting in the power of God, he was not cowed by the force of the enemy when he learned of the rout they had caused, first by falling upon all the tribes and prevailing against the Amalekites and all the others, and then by engaging the Sodomites, putting them to flight and seizing all their property. The reason, you see, why sacred Scripture described all this to us ahead of time, as well as all they achieved through their bravery, was that you might learn that the patriarch prevailed against them not by physical strength but through faith in God. [He] achieved all this under the protection of help from on high, not by wielding weapons and arrows and spears or by drawing bows or raising shields but with a few retainers of his own household. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.1

Genesis 14:15

Ambrose of Milan: “Abraham counted servants, born in his house … as far as Hobah, which is to the right of Damascus.” Even the number is of vital importance. For in that number there is life, if we believe in the passion in the name of the Lord Jesus. In fact, this is the interpretation of the abovementioned name, Hobah, that is, “life.” Appropriately too it is said that Hobah is located to the right of Damascus. For the sheep stand on the right, while the goats are on the left. The trained mind knows how many soldiers to choose to finish the battle, with what arms to supply them, with what banners to lead them. It does not lead its forces with images of eagles or dragons, but it marches into battle with the cross of Christ and in the name of Jesus, deriving courage from this sign, loyal to this banner. Rightly then is that mind called trained which has received the true wisdom of the just man. And justice is quick to correct, and by admonishing it calls back sinners, it stems the assaults of the passions. . — On Abraham

Ambrose of Milan: “Abraham counted 318 servants, born in his house … as far as Hobah, which is to the right of Damascus.” Even the number is of vital importance. For in that number there is life, if we believe in the passion in the name of the Lord Jesus. In fact, this is the interpretation of the above-mentioned name, Hobah, that is, “life.” Appropriately too it is said that Hobah is located to the right of Damascus. For the sheep stand on the right, while the goats are on the left. The trained mind knows how many soldiers to choose to finish the battle, with what arms to supply them, with what banners to lead them. It does not lead its forces with images of eagles or dragons, but it marches into battle with the cross of Christ and in the name of Jesus, deriving courage from this sign, loyal to this banner. Rightly then is that mind called trained which has received the true wisdom of the just man. And justice is quick to correct, and by admonishing it calls back sinners, it stems the assaults of the passions. — On Abraham

Bede: And he pursued them as far as Dan, and having divided his companions, he fell upon them at night and struck them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus. The entire series of sacred scripture is full of mystic figures, and not only in what is said and done, but even in the very places and times where these things take place, it agrees with that apostolic saying, “For all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition” (1 Cor. 10:11). Dan is interpreted as Judgment, Hobah as Condemnation, Damascus as the Cup of Blood. Therefore, Abraham, pursuing his enemies, found them in Dan and struck them by night when they were unsuspecting and secure, those who were rejoicing as if with captured prey, boasting that they had raged up to that point; for all sinners and those exalting themselves in the riches of this life and in the oppression of the innocent are permitted to boast up to the brink of divine judgment about their works; but with imprudent blindness, as if set in the midst of the night, when they say peace and safety, then sudden destruction will come upon them: hence it is well said that he struck them and pursued them to Hobah, that is, Condemnation, which is understood to mean no other condemnation than sudden and eternal destruction. It is said, he says, ’to the left of Damascus.’ Damascus, as we have said, is interpreted as the Cup of Blood; by which name the delight of vices is rightly signified. For what is the delight of sin but a cup of blood, when one strives to fulfill the desires of the flesh and blood without any hesitation? And Hobah is where Abraham struck his adversaries, to the left of Damascus, because the condemnation that is going to punish the impious will thrust them into eternal punishment with the devil and his angels, which is usually designated by the left. However, Damascus is a noble city of Phoenicia and formerly the metropolis of all Syria. Dan was also a town of Phoenicia, the boundary of the province of Judea towards the north where today is Paneas, which was formerly called Caesarea Philippi; from where also the Jordan derived its name, which flows from Lebanon. For Dan is one of its sources; the other is called Jor, which is interpreted as Stream. Therefore, with the two sources not far from each other united into one stream, it is thenceforth called the Jordan. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Genesis 14:16

Ambrose of Milan: “Abraham also recovered the goods.” … This certainly does not refer to patrimony but to the vital goods of the soul, where the truly valuable riches—not straw, not hay—are to be found, where there is a reliable splendor of eloquence that contains the substance of our hope. These are indeed our true goods, that is, wisdom that abounds in riches; these are the goods that do not perish. Bodily enjoyment and the use of external goods, on the other hand, are of short, not of long, duration. This is why some people rightly regard it as improper to speak of inherited substance. In fact, inheritance is not the basis of our subsistence, since even people who lack money do not, however, lack the substance of life. — On Abraham

John Chrysostom: Why was it, someone may ask, that he called up retainers of his own household to the number of 318? For you to learn that he did not simply take everyone but only retainers of his own household, men raised by Lot, so that they might wreak their vengeance with much relish, like men entering this conflict for their own lord. “He fell upon them by night,” the text says, “himself and his retainers, and continued to strike and pursue them.” It was, you see, a hand from on high that joined in the attack and assisted in directing the battle. Hence they had no need of weapons or fighting machines. Instead, he had only to heave into sight with his retainers to smite some and cause others to take to flight, doing both in complete security without harassment from anyone. And he recovered the cavalry of the king of Sodom, his nephew Lot, all his accoutrements and the women. Do you see why it was permitted that while the others fled Lot alone should be taken captive? For two reasons: so that the patriarch’s virtue should become manifest and that on his account many others also might find deliverance. Then he returns bearing a great prize of distinction, Lot, and parading as well as him the cavalry, women and accoutrements. [He] announces in a clear voice and proclaims more loudly than any trumpet that it was not by human power nor by force of numbers that he had won the prize and achieved victory but had done everything with aid from on high. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.15

Genesis 14:17

John Chrysostom: Do you see here in every event the just man being conspicuous and demonstrating to everyone on every occasion God’s providence in his regard? Now you see him also zealous to prove a teacher of reverence for God to the Sodomites. “The king of Sodom,” Scripture says, remember, “came out to meet him on his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings with him.” Notice the extent of his virtue and his enjoyment of assistance from God. The king comes out to meet this stranger, advanced in years, and shows high regard for him. He had learned, you see, that the advantage of kingship is as nothing to the person who lacks assistance from on high and that nothing could be more efficacious than God’s hand raised to assist. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.15

Genesis 14:18

Ambrose of Milan: But one who is victorious should not claim the victory for himself; rather, he should attribute it to God. This is the teaching of Abraham, who became more humble, not more proud, in victory. Indeed, he offered a sacrifice and gave tithes; for this reason too, he received the blessing of Melchizedek, which means in translation “king of justice, king of peace.” He was indeed the priest of the most high God. Who is the king of justice, the priest of God, but he to whom it is said, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,” that is, Son of God, priest of the Father, the one who through the sacrifice of his body propitiated the Father for our transgressions? — On Abraham

Augustine of Hippo: Having received this oracle of promise, Abraham migrated and remained in another place of the same land, that is, beside the oak of Mamre, which was Hebron. Then, on the invasion of Sodom, when five kings carried on war against four and Lot was taken captive with the conquered Sodomites, Abraham delivered him from the enemy, leading with him to battle 318 of his homeborn servants. [He] won the victory for the kings of Sodom but would take nothing of the spoils when offered by the king for whom he had won them. 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 that 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. Long after the event this sacrifice was said by the prophet to be fulfilled in Christ, who was yet to come in the flesh: “Thou art a priest forever 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 that were intimated beforehand by these shadows. — City of God 16.22

Bede: But Melchizedek, king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine (for he was priest of the most high God), blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, creator of heaven and earth, and blessed be the most high God, by whose protection your enemies are in your hands, and he gave him tithes of all. Notable first in this reading is that the patriarchs foreshadowed what the apostles proclaimed: And if one member suffers, says Paul, all the members suffer together; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice together (1 Cor. 12:25). For when Lot suffered adversities, Abraham empathized; when they rejoiced over their deliverance and victory, Melchizedek also rejoiced and, blessing the victorious one who had exposed himself to danger for the sake of his brethren’s troubles, with heavenly benediction. He magnificently praised not only the human victor but also the Lord who granted the victory, according to that evangelical saying: Let your good works be seen, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16). Next, it should be noted that after the struggle and victory, Abraham was blessed; and this was done by the king and priest of the most high God: because we all, too, who belong to the promise of the heavenly homeland, await the blessing of the eternal kingdom after the labors of good works, which is prepared for us from the foundation of the world by the great king and priest, namely the Mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ; about whose kingdom, which he has coequal and coeternal with the Father, it is said in the psalm: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet (Psalms 110:1), etc.: concerning whose priesthood, in which he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father for us, it is added in the same psalm saying: The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Ibid. 4). Regarding the explanation of the verse and the priesthood and kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was prefigured in Melchizedek, it is appropriate for our humble self to speak and treat briefly in this place, since the Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews discussed and explained these topics most sublimely and comprehensively, following his lead we have considered it appropriate to insert a few points from the many he made here. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Bede: Therefore, Melchisedech signifies the Lord Savior: first indeed, as the Apostle says, who is interpreted as king of righteousness, and then king of Salem, which is king of peace (Hebrews 7:2): with these words, the blessed apostle demonstrates how the figure of Melchisedech should be understood, teaching us very clearly that in the letters of the Old Testament we should seek not only the significations of things but also of names. Just as Melchisedech by his name and person figuratively announces Christ the King of righteousness, he also by the name of his city denotes figuratively the Church of the saints, that is, the city of the great King; about which it is written: “And His place was made in Salem, that is, in peace” (Psalms 76:3). However, Salem is the same that was later called Jerusalem by King David, becoming the metropolis of the entire province of Judea, because he bought the place of the temple there, and left the expenses of the construction to his son Solomon, all of which and many others that are read about this city pertain to the Church as is clear to all readers. Also with the nature of his sacrifice, of which he made Abraham a participant while blessing him, he prefigured the offering of the New Testament, which our Lord Himself first offered in the sacrament of His body and blood, and which He left to the Church to always be offered for the remission of sins: in whose unique participation He taught that all the children of the promise would be blessed: to such an extent that no one can be a part of eternal life without participation in this: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you: whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54). Thus, in the great significance of the sacrament, Melchisedech the priest blessed Abraham, offering him part of the sacrifice which he had offered to the Lord in bread and wine: clearly insinuating that not only we who came in the flesh after the Lord’s passion but also Abraham himself who had received the promises, and all his chosen seed were to be granted eternal blessing through the offering of the Lord’s passion. And indeed, Abraham had heard from the Lord: “And I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you shall be blessed.” He had heard: “And in you, all the families of the earth shall be blessed;” but before any son who would be the co-heir of this blessing was born to him; before he offered any sacrifice to God to give thanks for the granted blessing, Melchisedech king of Salem met him bringing bread and wine which he had offered to God, and blessed him, so that he might clearly understand that the blessing promised to him was to be received through the King of righteousness and the author of supreme peace, through the excellent high priest, through the mystical sacrifice of bread and wine, with all his seed. Therefore, let not the Jews boast of the Levitical priesthood against the Christians, since they offer the sacrifices of flesh, and we offer bread and wine to the Lord. For our sacrifice excels in both time and dignity: in time, indeed, because Melchisedech offered this first, before that Abraham or the priests from the stock of Levi came: and in dignity, because it was said to the Lord Christ by the Father concerning this and not that: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech” (Psalms 110:4). Which is also completed by the work itself, and now made manifest throughout the world, only a fool and an impious person denies. Thus it is clear that Melchisedech was greater than Abraham the patriarch. For without any contradiction, as the Apostle says, the lesser is blessed by the better (Hebrews 7:7). The sacrifice of Melchisedech is greater than the sacrifices which Abraham is read to have offered subsequently: because this the Lord Christ, that Aaron: this the priests of the New Testament, that of the Old were to offer. Wherefore it is well added: “And he gave him tithes of all.” Which the Apostle understood and explained very sublimely; so that Abraham gave tithes to him not only for himself but also for all those who were to be born from him, among whom were the priests themselves who were to accept tithes from the people: “Through Abraham, even Levi, who accepts tithes, was tithed: for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchisedech met him” (Hebrews 7:9). Just as the Levitical tribe excelled, that is, the priestly people, from whom they received tithes; so Melchisedech excelled even those priests and Levites when he received from them in their father Abraham: for they were still in his loins. Abraham indeed in this place designates the people of Israel with their priesthood, while Melchisedech singularly expresses the Mediator between God and men with the priesthood which He left to the heirs of the New Testament: “And Abraham is blessed and tithed by Melchisedech,” because even those who were most outstanding in the law and Levitical priesthood could only be blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and all that they could have of virtues had to be referred to Him, and they could only be saved by confessing that these were of His grace: hence Peter, when the grace of the Gospel was becoming clear, as if to the priesthood which was to come according to the order of Melchisedech, said to the zealots of legal observance: “Why do you test God by putting a yoke of servitude on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we believe to be saved in the same manner as they” (Acts 15:10). Therefore, Abraham gave tithes of all to Melchisedech the priest, from whom he had received the blessing: because indeed he understood that the type and image of the better priesthood were prefigured in him; this is, that he bore the figure of the legal priesthood, Melchisedech of the evangelical priesthood. For he was going to generate temporal priesthood from himself, which was to be maintained through the successions of priests; Melchisedech is read to have neither beginning of priesthood nor end nor predecessor nor successor: wherefore he fittingly bears the image of Him to whom it is said: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech.” Let these few things be said about Melchisedech as they seemed sufficient for our work. Moreover, whoever desires to know fully about him and the mysteries he prefigured, let him diligently read the entire Epistle to the Hebrews. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Cyprian: Likewise, in the priest Melchizedek, we see the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord prefigured according to what the divine Scripture testifies and says: “And Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest of the most high God, and he blessed Abraham.” But that Melchizedek portrayed a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying in the person of the Father to the Son: “Before the day star … I have begotten you.… You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” The order proceeds first from the sacrifice and then descends to Melchizedek, a priest of the most high God, because he offered bread, because he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the Father and offered the very same thing that Melchizedek had offered, bread and wine, that is, actually, his body and blood? — Epistle LXII.4

Desert Fathers: Daniel told a story of another hermit who used to live in the lower parts of Egypt, and who said in his simplicity that Melchizedek was the Son of God. Now when the blessed man Theophilus, the archbishop of Alexandria, heard of it, he sent a message asking the monks to bring the hermit to him. When he saw him, he realized that he was a man of vision and that every thing that he had asked for God had given him, and that he had only said this out of simplicity. The archbishop dealt with him wisely in the following manner, saying, ‘Abba, pray to God for me, because I have begun to think that Melchizedek was the Son of God,’ and he added, ‘It cannot be true, for the high priest of God was a man. But because I had doubts in my mind about this, I sent for you to pray to God for me that He may reveal the truth of the matter to you.’ Then, because the hermit had confidence in the power of prayer, he said to him firmly, ‘Wait three days, and I will ask God about this and then I shall be able to tell you who Melchizedek was.’ So the hermit went away, and returned after three days, and said to the blessed Archbishop Theophilus, ‘Melchizedek was a man.’ The Archbishop said unto him, ‘How do you know that, abba?’ The hermit said, ‘God showed me all the Patriarchs, one by one, and they passed before me one after the other, from Adam to Melchizedek, and an angel said to me, “This is Melchizedek.” That is indeed how the truth of this matter appeared tome.’ The hermit went away, and he himself proclaimed that Melchizedek was a man, and the blessed Theophilus rejoiced greatly. — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Ephrem the Syrian: This Melchizedek is Shem, who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, “he was a priest.” He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession. Shem lived not only to the time of Abraham, as Scripture says, but even to [the time of] Jacob and Esau, the grandsons of Abraham. It was to him that Rebekah went to ask and was told, “Two nations are in your womb, and the older shall be a servant to the younger.” Rebekah would not have bypassed her husband, who had been delivered at the high place, or her father-in-law, to whom revelations of the divinity came continually, and gone straight to ask Melchizedek unless she had learned of his greatness from Abraham or Abraham’s son. — COMMENTARY ON Genesis 11:2

Jerome: You sent me the volume anonymous and authorless… When I read it, I realized that the most famous question about High Priest Melchizedek had been discussed there with many arguments, in an attempt to teach that he who blessed the great Patriarch was of a more divine nature and should not be considered among men… When I read the letter and found myself adjured with remarkable entreaties in the last little page not to spurn the petitioner, I searched through the books of the Ancients to see what each one said, and I answered you, as it were, with the counsel of many. And immediately on the first page of Genesis I found an exegesis by Origen concerning Melchizedek, in which he discusses the matter in many words and comes to the conclusion that he was an angel. With almost the same arguments your author has employed on the Holy Spirit, he speaks on the heavenly powers. I went on to his follower Didymus, and came to a like result. I turned to Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Emisenus, Apollinaris also, and our Eustathius, who first sang the war trumpet against Arius as the Bishop of Antioch’s Church: and I found that all of their opinions, with different arguments and byways, had arrived at one intersection, to say that Melchizedek was a Canaanite man, the king of the city of Jerusalem, which was first called Salem, then Jebus, and finally Jerusalem… I will also give the opinion of the Hebrews… they say that this was Shem, the first son of Noah, and at the time when Abram was born, he was 390 years old, reckoning them thus. After the flood, in the second year, Shem, having lived for 100 years, begot Arphaxad; And after Arphaxad was born, he lived for 500 years, that is, a total of 600 years. And when Arphaxad was thirty-five years old, he begot Salah, who also thirty years old, begot Eber, and we read that Eber begot Peleg at the age of 34. Again, Phaleg, having completed thirty years, begot Rehu: who himself, after his thirty-second year from his birth, begot Serug: of whom, when he had arrived at his thirtieth year, was born Nachor: who, when he was twenty-nine years old, begot Thare: whom we read, at the age of seventy, to have begotten Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. Calculate the number of years through each age, and you will find from the birth of Shem to the generation of Abram, three hundred and ninety years. Now Abraham died in the hundred and seventy-fifth year of his age. By calculation, it is found that Shem, his tenth-degree grandson, survived Abraham by thirty-five years. — Letter 73

Jerome: (Verse 18.) And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him. Because our work, either the Hebrew Questions or the Collection of Traditions, is once for all, therefore let us infer what the Hebrews think of this. They say that he is the son of Shem, Noah’s son; and by calculating the years of his life, they show that he lived until Isaac, and that all the firstborn of Noah, until Aaron assumed the priesthood, were priests. Furthermore, Jerusalem is called the king of Salem, which was previously called Salem. However, blessed Apostle to the Hebrews (VII, 3), mentioning one without a father or mother, refers to Christ, and through Christ to the Church of the Gentiles. For all the glory of the head is referred to the members, because he, having a foreskin, blessed the circumcised Abraham, and in Abraham the Levites, and through the Levites Aaron: from whom later the priesthood. From this he wants to gather that the priesthood of the Church, having a foreskin, blessed the synagogue with the circumcised priesthood. But as he says: You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. CIX, 4): our mystery is signified in the word of the order: not by offering irrational victims through Aaron, but by offering bread and wine: that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. — Hebrew Questions on Genesis

John Chrysostom: What is conveyed to us by this comment, “the king of Salem and priest of God the most high”? He was, for one thing, king of Salem, the text says. Blessed Paul, after all, said the same in drawing attention to him when writing to the believers among the Hebrews, calling to mind his name and his city of origin. At the same time he plumbed the significance of his name and employed some degree of etymology in saying, “Melchizedek, king of righteousness.” You see, in the Hebrew language the word Melchi means “kingdom” and Sedek “righteousness.” Then, moving on to the name of the city, he says, “king of peace,” Salem after all meaning “peace.” On the other hand, he was a priest, possibly self-appointed, this being the way with the priests of the time, you see. So in fact his peers had either accorded him the honor on account of his preeminence in age, or he had made it his business to act as a priest, like Noah, like Abel, like Abraham when they used to offer sacrifices. In a particular manner he was to prove a type of Christ. Hence Paul too understands him in this role in the words “With no father, with no mother, with no family history, lacking beginning of days and end of life, he yet resembles the Son of God and remains a priest forever.” How, you ask, is it possible for a person to have no father or mother and to lack beginning of days and end of life? You heard that he was a type; well, neither marvel at this nor expect everything to be found in the type. You see, he would not be a type if he were likely to contain every feature that occurs in reality. So what does the saying mean? It means this: Just as Melchizedek is said to have no father or mother on account of there being no mention of his parents and to have no family history on account of there being no history for him, so too Christ, on account of his having no mother in heaven or father on earth, is said to have no family history and in fact has none. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.16

Ambrosiaster: ON MELCHIZEDEK. — Here is what we read of Melchizedek in the book of Genesis and also in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews: Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared at the meeting with Abraham when he returned from the defeat of the kings, offered him bread and wine and blessed him, saying, “Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God who created heaven and earth and put your enemies into your hands (Gen. 13:18).” And to make us better understand the one who was represented by Melchizedek, the Apostle adds: “No doubt the one who receives the blessing is inferior to him who gives it (Heb. 7:3)”; words which the Apostle does not apply to the tradition of ecclesiastical ministry. Who, indeed, would dare to say that the rule instituted by the Lord to bless the faithful is superior to those which it blesses? It is therefore the mysterious presence of the Lord that is felt in these words of which he is the object and which recall him to our memory. The sacred author has wished to show us here his personal dignity and his power. What then is the greatness of this man in comparison with whom Abraham has only the second rank, in spite of the superiority which his generosity and faith give him among the faithful? Let us understand here that this Melchizedek does not bless Abraham, like the priests, by pronouncing a solemn formula of blessing, but by a blessing peculiar to him, and which he received not by an oral tradition but by nature and substantially. The priests to whom we give the name of pontiffs have solemn formulas of blessing which have been transmitted to them, and which they recite on the men whom they bless, not always on those whom they desire, but upon those which they do not wish to bless, because the author of this rule knows in what soul he ought to shed his holy blessing. He, on the contrary, who possesses this blessing substantially in virtue of his nature, and whom Moses calls the priest of the Most High God, gives this blessing as he does. The words of blessing and his nature always agree with his will. He never errs in wanting to give it where it should not be, or refusing it when he should give it, the words of the blessing he utters always have their efficiency. Our priests, on the contrary, invoke the name of the Lord every day, and pronounce formulas of blessing, but very few of them receive the effect. The priests also bless those who are superior to them. Whatever saint we may be, we bow to receive the blessing, because it is not an invention of the priest, but a divine institution. The high priest Heli blessed Anna, and this blessing has not the merit of the grandmaster, but the faith of this pious woman, whose pure heart God knew. (I Kings 1:17) If Melchizedek is declared superior to Abraham, it is not only because of priestly dignity, but by his nature, and the sacred writer wants to teach us that he is more that a man. It is impossible, indeed, to see only one man in one who is placed above such a great friend of God, of a man so full of faith that for love and fear of God he hesitated not to sacrifice his son, who was so dear to him. By what justice, by what works could he have acquired more merit than Abraham? What more could he do that Abraham did? In the first place, when he did not know God, and without yet seeing any decisive sign, God said to him, “Come out of your land and your kinsfolk and your father’s house (Gen. 12:1)”, And he immediately obeyed without delay, thus accomplishing the will, not only of God who spoke to him at that time, but of the Lord was to manifest himself to mankind. Does not the Savior say, “Whoever loves his house, his father, or his mother, or his brothers, or his parents, more than me, is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:37)?” What then is the virtue and perfection of Abraham who fulfills the commandments of the Savior before they are proclaimed to the world? The Apostle recommends above all the practice of hospitality, Abraham so faithfully exercised it that it is his example which seems to have determined St. Paul to make this recommendation. He then thought that his posterity would multiply like the stars of heaven, which seems a madness to the eyes of the sages of the century (Heb. 13:2; Gen. 18:3), who are thus condemned by his example even before God had threatened to lose their wisdom, for it is afterwards that he says by his prophets: “I will lose the wisdom of the wise (Is. 29:14).” Abraham still obeys the command of God, who commands him to circumcise himself, which he could not do without pain, and he submits to it to give his descendants the example of patience (Gen. 17:24). God promises him that he will have a son of Sarah his wife despite his advanced age, and he does not doubt for a moment. He thus taught to future centuries that faith in the authority of God must be so complete, that it does not allow the slightest doubt about the commandments or the promises he can make even though they appear contrary to reason. We must consider here the person rather than the words, for it is the person who confirms and makes possible what the words appear to be weak. It is God who promises, and we must believe that he can do what seems impossible to men. In what way would man be reprehensible by attributing to God a power which he does not recognize in himself? Thus Abraham on the command of God does not hesitate for a single moment to put to death the son that God has given him (Gen. 22:3), he is not surprised at the will of God who demands death of a child whom he had given him as a testimony of his goodness and power; he is too convinced that it is not for man to discuss the will of God, and that his orders and his actions are inspired by a sovereign reason. Now, in order to execute this order with the most eagerness, he leaves his wife unaware; he knew the weakness of mothers for their sons, and that the tears of tenderness might have hindered the act of religion which he could have accomplished; he teaches his son only at the hour of sacrifice, that his obedience may be full and entire at the command of God, in the execution of which he does not see a parricide, but a holocaust demanded by the just judge. What more heroic actions could have made Melchizedek to surpass Abraham, whose obedience we have seen. was never surprised at fault? Moses, who conversed with God face to face, was sent to his people and his brothers and refused to go. The Prophet Jonah disobeys the order given him to go and preach to the Ninevites, and to another country where he was not from (Jon. 1:11). Job, this admirable man in all things, was, however, shaken by the death of his children; he tore his clothes, and cut his hair (Job 1:20), but we do not read that Abraham was grieved at the death of a son that was so dear to him, and we do not see that this son whom God commanded him to sacrifice trembled before this order that was given. We conclude from this that Melchizedek was more than a man, for he could not prevail over Abraham unless he was of a superior nature. Impassive nature possesses bliss by virtue of its substance, human nature obtains it by its actions. It does not have the perfection of divinity, it is therefore by exercise and by struggle that it becomes better from day to day, when its victories are more numerous than its defeats. If it were always impeccable in its actions, which is impossible, it would be better than God (far from us this thought), because if a nature that can commit like avoiding sin was always victorious from sin, it should be put above nature, which does not sin because it is impassive. There would not seem to be great merit in not sinning, because it cannot be; heroism would seem to have the faculty of ease and of not sinning. There is, therefore, this difference between the nature of God and the nature of man, that the nature of God is always happy in the security of his invincible eternity, while the nature of man only reaches happiness by work. Now it is necessary that the impassive beatitude should be diluted with that which is the fruit of the tribulations which thus bring joy. Impassive bliss has in it an inexhaustible source of happiness; for nature, on the contrary, it is only after great trials that it rejoices at having escaped death. Sadness is for it the means of animating happiness, and it’s passability is irreconcilable with uninterrupted happiness. He, on the contrary, who is impassive by nature, is always happy, because he does not know sadness, and cannot even suspect that he can attain it. As to the human nature, although it succeeds in felicity through labor, it will not be exempt from trials, and scars will not fail. And how, in the midst of so many battles in which naature is sometimes defeated, could it not receive wounds? Impassible nature, on the contrary, remains inaccessible to any attack, any wound, to any defeat. Scripture, therefore, would not say of Abraham that he is inferior to Melchizedek, if Melchizedek was not of a superior nature to that of Abraham? What we have just said may seem more ingenious than dense. But if we examine the divine Scriptures, we will be able to raise still more and more of the more excellent titles of glory. “This Melchizedek,” says St. Paul, “king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God, who, when Abraham returned from the defeat of kings, appeared to meet him and blessed him, and who first signified the king of justice, was king of Salem, that is to say, king of peace; without father, mother, genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, is thus the image of the Son of God, and remains a priest forever.” And to bring out these prerogatives in his place, he adds: “Consider therefore how great was he to whom Abraham gave the tithe of his richest spoils (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1).” To show the full extent of the merit and power of Melchizedek, he praises Abraham by saying that he is the chief and prince of the patriarchs, that is, he is superior to all the others, but inferior to Melchizedek, is it not evident that Melchizedek is not a man, but that he is of a superior nature? But what do these two titles mean, king of peace and king of righteousness? Look closer and see: the sun seen from far away seems like a flaming beam, and at a distance you take money from a man and be called king of peace, and justice, peace is preached to men, as well as justice, but he is called king of peace and justice, to make you understand that it is from him that justice and peace derive their origin, for it is impossible to put above it what is subject to its direction, it is to the institute of justice and peace that men do what is pleasing to God. Now these two virtues, which are the mistresses of man, have Melchizedek as king. What then is the superiority of Melchizedek over man, since the virtues which govern mankind are subject to him, is it not being the king of kings? When St. Paul tells us that he is a king of justice and peace, he wants to teach us that he is the principle of both, and that just as our Lord Jesus Christ is the king, the author of life, Melchizedek is the author of justice and peace, because those who receive life through Jesus Christ are ruled by righteousness and peace. For in the hearts of the servants of God he sends righteousness and peace to serve as an ornament to the doctrine of the Lord. We read in Psalm: “Let righteousness and peace be embraced, and let the truth rise from the earth (Ps. 85:11).” And to be well aware of what justice he meant to speak, the Psalmist adds: “Righteousness has looked from heaven.” Scripture predicts what was to happen in the days of the Savior, when the righteousness of God was given to the world through Jesus Christ, in the knowledge of the mystery of one God whom he had promised previously by the prophets. It was true, indeed, that the creature knew the truth of its Creator, and this righteousness having been manifested to the earth, put an end to the divisions which the injustice of ignorance of God had engendered, and reign peace and harmony among the most divided minds, establishing them in the unity of the same faith. It was thus that one saw kissing justice, the peace and the truth exited from the same source. It was from the earth that the righteousness which was to teach men was raised, for the incarnation of Jesus Christ taught them the truth which they ought to know concerning the nature of God. Such is the righteousness of God. Peace also comes from him, to the apostle’s testimony: “May the God of peace crush Satan under your feet.” I do not see how these two things can be distinguished here, since the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, for he says: “I give you my peace (Jn. 14:27).” Why do you say that Melchizedek is the king of justice and peace? I do not understand how that distinction can be made. I therefore think that there is no difference here between the king of peace and the God of peace. As no one on earth should be called God, be reserved exclusively to the principle of all things, God establishes kings who would be like his image, and who, with the exception of the name of God, would have all his power; but as they are of earthly origin, they are the kings of men, but not the kings of peace and justice: for they themselves have believed above them righteousness that they are not permitted to despise. Justice for them is God himself, justice is God’s own good, and he who transgresses it becomes guilty to the judgment of God. But for Melchizedek, Scripture does not represent him as an ordinary king among men, because he has under his authority justice which is above all kings. No one, in fact, can have justice under his rule unless he is impeccable by nature. Now it is under its rule, because it is he who has established it as a law destined to be a part of the world, to direct those who are subject to sin. The king of justice is therefore the one who rules the laws of which he is the author and who teach men what to believe and practice to arrive at happiness. We have already stretched ourselves long over the person of Melchizedek, and yet we say nothing worthy of him, unless we return to the Scriptures, which has long pressed us, and which shouts to us to draw us from the deep sleep which overwhelms us and call us to the intelligence not of the night, but of the day. Scripture tells us that Melchizedek is without father, mother, genealogy, and to prevent any interpretation would be less worthy of this personage, it adds that he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, Melchizedek, who was not subjected to birth or death, can testify so clearly to all the subtleties of human reasoning, and what a mind so clever and skillful that he would dare to resist and to pretend to impose its interpretation on the sacred text, instead of accepting the meaning which it naturally presents violence is inflicted on the divine Scriptures, and they meet here as enemies the very people who seem to submit to it. There are some who maintain that we ought not to believe in the person of Melchizedek what the Scripture brings us, and who wish to turn the Scriptures to their thoughts. The authority of the Scriptures to use ploys against them, by declaring war to them under the appearance of peace, and by hiding hostile intentions under the guise of friendship. They pretend, therefore, that it is not to show the greatness of Melchizedek, but rather to show the obscurity of his condition that the Scripture tells us that he was fatherless and without a mother. It wished to show us that Melchizedek was of an unknown race, and was not of the tribe from which Abraham came, since there was no trace of his family in the law. That is why it says again, “and without genealogy,” to make us understand that there is no mention of his origin in the law, that he is not born of any parents, and that it is to him that he owes the great qualities that distinguish him. Now Scripture has so great authority here that it exposes in a perfect order all the elements necessary for the cause. At first it said that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother.” Let us see what was the mother of Nachor, the grandmother of Abraham, and the mother of Thare; nor do we see what Abraham’s mother was, not to mention the others. Shall we say that they did not have mothers? If the Scripture had said only “without a father,” there would be a specious reason, for it has us preserved the names of the fathers of all of whom it speaks. Scripture adds: “And without genealogy.” If it expresses itself in this way to show that his birth is not mentioned in the law, it was enough to say: “Without a father,” because no one knows his father. But it puts us still more clearly on the path of truth by adding: “Having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Tell me, whoever you may be, who wish to do violence to the text, how do you explain these words? What does it mean to have neither the beginning of days nor the end of life? It is certainly sufficient to say that the genealogy of Melchizedek was not inscribed in the law, and that, by the same token, it must have been believed that he was of foreign origin. But one can say that he was taken away from this world like Enoch, and that is why he does not have end of life. Who then does not see a beginning of days? Will you say: It is because there is no mention of the day of his birth. But is the birth of others mentioned? and for you, however, the one whose day of birth is not mentioned, must be regarded as having no beginning of days? But then the same conclusion can be applied to others. Supposing now that he was taken from this world, he was not for that reason without life, for everything that lives in the expectation of death has a purpose. Stop these vain contestations, which seem to please you. It is better to be vanquished by truth than to triumph over truth by falsehood. It is a loss rather than a victory, for though the truth seems to have loss in the eyes of man, it remains victorious in the eyes of God because its reason is invincible. Our mind must therefore be conquered by the law, in order to receive the meaning which it offers it, and not impose upon it an interpretation at will, by violently substituting its authority for that of the law. Listen to what Zorobabel says: “Truth triumphs over everything (III Esdras 3:12).” Now Melchizedek reveals to us the future mystery of the Incarnation and the Passion of the Savior, first restoring to Abraham, as to the father of the faithful, the Eucharist of the body and of the soul, blood of the Lord, to make the Father the truth that was to be fulfilled in the children. If we want him to have been a priest like Aaron, or the present priests, to be told, to be shown the place where he lived, the temple or the synagogue in which he gathered the people, and offered sacrifices to him, or the people who gathered round him. For if he exerts his priesthood on earth, no doubt there existed, and before Abraham, a people whose priest he was, and this people now worshiped the true God. How then did Abraham become the leader of the believers, and it was through him that God was known to his people? In the same way, if Melchizedek taught men on earth the fear of one God, why choose Abraham to give his name to the people of God, since the servants of the true God could be found among those who gathered around of Melchizedek? What more do we read in the hymn which is found in Deuteronomy? When the Most High divided the people, when he separated the children of Adam, he marked the limits of the people, according to the number of angels of God. And he chose the people of Jacob to be especially his (Deut. 32:8). If there were no other people of God in the world other than the children of Israel, why should there be found another people who followed the doctrine of Melchizedek against the contrary testimony of the prophet? Since he names all the peoples of the world, and gives only to the children of Abraham the name of the people of God, the logical consequence is that he denies that with the exception of the children of the God of Abraham, the others had the knowledge of God, because God is known in the alleged. Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared as a symbol of the holy mysteries which the future was to reveal. The blessing was to be given later to the people of God by a minister of God to whom we give the name of priest. Melchizedek therefore appears as the precursor of the sacred person of the Son of God, and precedes him to do him honor, though inferior to him in dignity. Let us then leave what we have said of Melchizedek, Scripture says a thousand times more for the confusion of the opponents. Indeed, after these admirable testimonies to Melchizedek, Scripture confuses spiteful spirits by adding: “He is thus the image of God and he remains forever.” Consider then who is the object of your unchallenged discussions and if he inspires no reserve, at least fear Jesus Christ, to whom it is like, according to the authority of Scripture. The Apostle comes insensibly and by order to the excellence of his nature, and if the prerogatives which precede have impressed upon the spirits, that is, that Melchizedek was king of justice and peace, has appeared in a visible body without having either father or mother, that is to say without being born, having neither beginning nor end, the last trait adds to all that he has just said a new degree of credibility. Who would dare to say, unless renouncing reason, that these glorious prerogatives are not suited to him whom the Scriptures declares like the Son of God, and who remains a priest forever? But he cannot be like the Son of God unless he has the same nature. And what is so incredible that Melchizedek appeared in a humorous form, as soon as we understand that he was the third person of the Trinity? For if the Christ who is the second person has frequently appeared in the form of a man, what doubt can we raise on what we have said? Do not we read in a psalm: “You are a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4)?” These words of the confession of all relate to the person of Jesus Christ, because Christ is a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek. But Christ is the sovereign priest, and Melchizedek occupies the second rank. Now, if Melchizedek is only a man, would it be proper that Jesus Christ should be a priest for eternity according to his order? We see them both alike, both clothed in one ministry, because they have one and the same nature. But since the authority of one God must be preserved in every way, the third person appears here subordinate to the name of the Father. As for Christ, he holds the place of the Father, he is like his minister, and that is why he is given the name (the priest). Similarly, the Holy Spirit, as minister, is also called the priest of the Most High God, but not the sovereign priest, as our brethren presume in the oblation: for although Christ and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial, it is nevertheless necessary to preserve to each one the rank given him The priests are given the name of envoys because they are the representatives of the one who sends them, and they are like his image, and this is the reason why Christ and the Spirit which is the natural image of the Father, are called his priests: God manifests Himself in their person, as our Lord has said: “He that sees me sees my Father (Jn. 14:9).” Now, if the Lord has revealed Himself in the divine actions which He has effected, and if these actions are the works of the Holy Spirit as he declares: “It is in the Spirit of God that I cast out demons”, God manifested Himself in the Holy Spirit. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, — QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, Q. 44 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Genesis 14:19

John Chrysostom: He not only blessed him but also praised God. In the words “blessed be Abraham by God the most high, who created heaven and earth,” he also highlighted to us God’s power as distinguished from his creatures. If he in fact is God, Creator of heaven and earth, those worshiped by human beings would not be gods; Scripture says, remember, “Let those gods perish who did not make heaven and earth.” The text reads, “Blessed be God, who delivered your enemies into your hands.” Notice, I ask you, how he not only celebrates the just man but also acknowledges God’s assistance. After all, without grace from above he could not have prevailed over the might of those besetting him. “Who delivered your enemies,” the text says, namely, he it is who caused everything, he it is who rendered the strong powerless, he it is who brought down the armed hordes through those unarmed. From that source is the grace coming forth that provides you with such power. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.17

Genesis 14:21

Bede: But the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.” But he replied to him, “I raise my hand to the Lord, God most high, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything that is yours, lest you should say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’” It should be noted carefully and drawn as an example of moral life, that Abraham, who, truly compassionate towards his neighbors in need, had exposed himself to danger to free Lot, and as a devout man to God gave tithes to the priest by whom he was blessed; he, as a despiser of money, refused to accept anything from the spoils he had taken, even when offered by the king he had defeated. As a lover of justice, he did not neglect to distribute their share to the soldiers who had fought with him. Rightly, such a conscience, in order to reach the peak of virtues more swiftly, is always elevated by new benefits of divine grace. Hence, after these things had rightfully passed, he immediately became a recipient of the gift of a heavenly oracle and divine blessing, which should be better considered and examined by the reading of the following book. — Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)

Genesis 14:23

Ambrose of Milan: It is characteristic of the perfect mind not to take for itself any earthly thing, anything prone to bodily seduction. This is why Abraham says, “I will take nothing of what is yours.” He avoids intemperance like the plague. He flees from sensual bodily temptations as from filth. He rejects worldly pleasures to seek those that are above the world. This is what it means to raise one’s hands to the Lord. The hand that does good is the virtue of the soul. He puts forth his hand not to the fruit of the earthly tree but to the Lord, “who,” Scripture says, “made heaven and earth,” that is to say, both intelligible and visible substance. In fact, the invisible ousia, or substance, is heaven, while the earth is the visible and sensible substance. The passage then means that Abraham raises the virtue of his mind to heavenly things. From that intelligible substance he might reach the heights of the contemplative life, looking not to the things that are seen but to those that are not seen; not to earthly things, not to bodily things; not to things present but to things that are immaterial, eternal, heavenly. But from that other substance, the visible, he extracts the benefit of a discipline related to the practical order and to civil life. — On Abraham

John Chrysostom: The patriarch’s contempt for material wealth was intense. Why is it with an oath that he rejects the offer in the words “I will raise my hand to swear before God the most high, who created heaven and earth”? He wants to give the king of Sodom two lessons. First, he is above the gifts offered by him; and this gives evidence of great wisdom. He is ready to prove an instructor for him in reverence, as if to teach him in so many words: I am calling to witness the Creator of all that I will take nothing of yours, so that you may come to know the God over all and not regard as gods the things shaped by human hands. This One in fact is the maker of heaven and earth, who indeed determined the course of this war and was the cause of victory. So don’t expect me to be ready to take anything you’ve offered me. It was not, you see, for a reward that I wreaked vengeance. Instead, in the first instance it was out of love for my nephew, and then from the very nature of a good man that I should wrest from the clutches of barbarians people wrongfully abducted. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.18

John Chrysostom: He would not take even a chance item, even something worthless or anything thought beneath contempt, even the shoelace at the tip of the shoe, where it comes to a point. Then he states the reason for his refusal. It is “in case you were to say, ‘I gave Abram his wealth.’ I have on my side the supplier of countless goods; I enjoy much favor from on high. I have no need of wealth from you. I don’t want human resources. I am content with the regard God pays me. I know the generosity of his gifts toward me. Having yielded to Lot worthless scraps, I have been granted great promises beyond telling. Now by not accepting wealth from you I earn for myself greater wealth and enjoy further grace from him.” This in my opinion … was the reason why he took the oath in the words “I will raise my hand to swear before God the most high”; namely, that the king should not think that he was simply putting up a pretense about what was likely to happen but should rather be quite clear about his not taking the least trinket from him. He was honoring that command given by Christ to the disciples: “Freely you have received, freely give.” In other words, he is saying, Surely I have contributed nothing to the course of the war other than consent and encouragement, whereas the victory and the spoils and everything else has been God’s work in his invisible might. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.19

Genesis 14:24

Ambrose of Milan: How remarkable it is, then, that Abraham did not wish to touch any of the spoil gained by his victory or to take even what was offered him? The fact is that to receive recompense diminishes the joy of a victory and blunts the gratuitous character of a favor. For it makes a great difference whether one has fought for money or for fame. In one case, a person will be regarded as a mercenary. In the other case he will be deemed worthy of fame as a deliverer. The holy patriarch rightly refuses to appropriate any of the spoil, even if it was offered to him, lest the one who gave it say, “I made him rich.” He testifies that he is content to receive what had been needed for the upkeep of the young warriors. But someone will say, since he had won the battle, why does he say to the king of the Sodomites, “I will take nothing from you”? Surely the booty belonged to the victor! Abraham is giving instruction for military protocol. Everything should be left to the king. Naturally he affirms that any who might have been enlisted to help in his military engagement should be given a part of the profit in recompense for their effort. — On Abraham

John Chrysostom: These I will allow to take a portion, he says, since they have given evidence of deep friendship. “These,” you see, the text says, “were Abram’s confederates,” that is, they were joined in friendship, willing to share the perils with him. Hence, with the intention of rewarding them, he is even prepared to take some portion, and in this once again he fulfills the apostolic law in the words “the worker deserves his fare.” I mean, he lets them take no more than their due: “except what my young men consumed and the portion for the men who accompanied me, Eschol, Aner and Mamre—they will take a portion.” Do you see the precision of the patriarch’s virtue? He gives evidence as well of good sense in the matter of his disregard and scorn for wealth. And at the same time [he does] everything so as not to appear to have acted from pretense or contempt and thus to have entertained grandiose notions about winning the victory. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 35.20