Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
The Babylonians defeat the Pentapolitans in war; among them Lot also is captured, whom Abram liberates in verse 14 by slaying the Babylonians. Therefore Abram, joyful over his victory, in verse 18 gives tithes to Melchizedek and is blessed by him.
Vulgate Text: Genesis 14:1-24
1. Now it came to pass at that time that Amraphel, king of Shinar, and Arioch, king of Pontus, and Chedorlaomer, king of the Elamites, and Tidal, king of Nations, 2. waged war against Bera, king of Sodom, and against Birsha, king of Gomorrah, and against Shinab, king of Admah, and against Shemeber, king of Zeboiim, and against the king of Bela, which is Segor. 3. All these assembled in the Woodland Valley, which is now the Salt Sea. 4. For twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they revolted from him. 5. Therefore in the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer came, and the kings who were with him, and they struck the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, and the Zuzim with them, and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6. and the Horites in the mountains of Seir, as far as the Plains of Paran, which is in the wilderness. 7. And they turned back and came to the Spring of Mishpat, which is Kadesh, and they struck the entire region of the Amalekites, and the Amorite who dwelt in Hazazon-tamar. 8. And the king of Sodom went out, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and also the king of Bela, which is Segor; and they drew up their battle line against them in the Woodland Valley: 9. namely against Chedorlaomer, king of the Elamites, and Tidal, king of Nations, and Amraphel, king of Shinar, and Arioch, king of Pontus: four kings against five. 10. Now the Woodland Valley had many bitumen pits. And so the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah turned and fled, and fell there; and those who remained fled to the mountain. 11. And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all that pertained to food, and went away; 12. and also Lot and his goods, the son of Abram's brother, who was living in Sodom. 13. And behold, one who had escaped reported to Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling in the valley of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; for these had made a covenant with Abram. 14. When Abram heard this, namely that his kinsman Lot had been captured, he mustered his trained servants, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and pursued as far as Dan. 15. And dividing his forces, he attacked them by night, and struck them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus. 16. And he brought back all the goods, and Lot his kinsman with his goods, and also the women and the people. 17. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him, after he returned from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and of the kings who were with him, in the Valley of Shaveh, which is the King's Valley. 18. But Melchizedek, king of Salem, bringing out bread and wine -- for he was a priest of God Most High -- 19. blessed him and said: 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, who created heaven and earth; 20. and blessed be God Most High, by whose protection your enemies are in your hands.' And he gave him tithes of all things. 21. And the king of Sodom said to Abram: 'Give me the people, and take the rest for yourself.' 22. And he answered him: 'I raise my hand to the Lord God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, 23. that from a thread of the weft to a sandal strap, I will not take anything that is yours, lest you say: I made Abram rich. 24. Except for what the young men have eaten, and the shares of the men who came with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre -- let them take their shares.'
Verse 1: Amraphel, King of Shinar
'Amraphel, king of Shinar' -- king of Babylon, as I said in chapter 11, verse 2. This Amraphel therefore seems to have been the third or fourth from Nimrod, the first king and tyrant of Babylon. Furthermore, this Amraphel was the first and chief leader of this war.
You will ask: How then does Josephus call this the war and army of the Assyrians? I answer: By Assyrians he means Babylonians, for by then the Assyrian and Babylonian monarchies were one and the same; for all these kings were subject to the king of the Assyrians, namely to Ninus the monarch.
It seems therefore that Ninus, having transferred the monarchy from Babylon to Nineveh, appointed another king or viceroy in Babylon, of whom this Amraphel was the successor.
Note: This war seems to have taken place about five years after Abraham's departure from Haran for Canaan, which occurred in the 75th year of Abraham, Genesis 12:4. For the deeds of Abraham, from chapter 12 to this point, easily require five years; and likewise five years are required for what is narrated from this chapter up to chapter 16, namely up to the birth of Ishmael, which occurred in the tenth year from the calling of Abraham, as is clear from chapter 16, verse 3.
This war therefore took place around Abraham's 80th year, which was the 30th year of Ninus the Younger. For Abram was born in the 43rd year of Ninus the Elder, who reigned 52 years in all. Abram was therefore nine years old when Ninus the Elder died. Ninus was succeeded by his wife Semiramis, who reigned 42 years. She was then succeeded by her son Ninus the Younger, who reigned 38 years. Abraham's 80th year therefore falls in the 29th or 30th year of Ninus the Younger.
'And Arioch, king of Pontus.' The Hebrews, the Chaldean, and the Septuagint have 'king of Ellasar.' Perhaps this is the city of Coelesyria which Stephanus calls Ellas, also named Pontus, as our translator renders it here. Otherwise Tostatus and Pererius understand Pontus here as the Hellespont, so that this Arioch was king of the Hellespont and from there came to the aid of the other kings named here. But these scholars summon this Arioch from too remote a place to the Pentapolis.
'Chedorlaomer, king of Elam' -- king of the Persians, who, descended from Elam the son of Shem, were called Elamites and Elymaeans. So Diodorus. This Chedorlaomer seems to have been the torch of the war: for he stirred up the other kings against the Pentapolitans, so that he might again bring under his yoke those whom he had formerly subjugated and who were now rebelling.
'And Tidal, king of Nations' -- king of upper Galilee, which was called 'of the Nations' because it was inhabited by neighboring peoples, Arabs and Egyptians, as Strabo attests (Book XVI), on account of its fertility and the commercial opportunities provided by its remarkable ports. And so afterwards, when the Jews gave that region the name Galilee, it was called 'Galilee of the Nations.' So Andreas Masius on Joshua chapter 12, verse 9.
Otherwise, Lyra and Tostatus understand 'nations' here as wanderers and refugees from various peoples, to whom this Tidal had given asylum in his kingdom.
Verse 2: Bela, Which Is Segor
'Bela, which is Segor.' What was formerly called Bela was afterwards called Segor, that is, 'small' -- after Lot obtained pardon from God for it as being small, so that he might take refuge there and it would not be consumed in the common conflagration of the Pentapolis, as is clear from chapter 19, verse 22.
Symbolically, St. Ambrose, Book II On Abraham, chapter 7: 'The five kings, he says, are the five senses of our body: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. The four kings are the bodily and worldly allurements; for the flesh of man, like the world, consists of four elements. They are rightly called kings, because sin has its own dominion and a great kingdom. Our senses therefore easily give themselves over to worldly pleasures and are captured by a certain power of these pleasures. For the bodily delights and allurements of this world are not overcome except by a mind that is spiritual, clinging to God and separating itself entirely from earthly things. Every turning aside (for this is what Lot means in Hebrew) is captured by these.'
Verse 3: The Woodland Valley and the Salt Sea
'In the Woodland Valley, which is now the Salt Sea' -- in a beautiful valley, planted with trees like a forest, which after the conflagration of Sodom was turned into the Lake of Asphalt, and therefore was called the Salt Sea. For the Pentapolis, after the conflagration, was overwhelmed by God with those salt waters, so that no animal could live there, whence this sea is also called the Dead Sea.
Verse 4: They Revolted
'They revolted.' In Hebrew maradu, 'they rebelled, they threw off the yoke.'
Verse 5: The Rephaim and Other Peoples
'And they struck the Rephaim.' Moses here mentions in passing that Chedorlaomer and his allies, before making war on his rebellious Pentapolitans, first laid waste four neighboring peoples, so that they could not bring aid to the rebels -- namely the Zuzim, Emim, Horites, and Rephaim. The Rephaim seem to have been giants, descendants of the giant Rapha, and to have dwelt in the land of Bashan, which was therefore called the land of the giants (Deuteronomy 3:13).
The Rabbis think 'Rephaim' is derived from Orpah, the daughter-in-law of Naomi (Ruth chapter 1), for they say that the giant Goliath, whom David killed, was born from Orpah. Prudentius held the same view in his Hamartigenia, when speaking of Orpah he says she, having spurned Naomi, preferred 'to nurture the stock of the half-wild Goliath.' But this is a fable, for Orpah is written with an ayin, while Rapha is written without an ayin, and the ayin never falls out of a root.
Secondly, Forerius on Isaiah 26:14 thinks 'Rephaim' is derived from rapha, that is, 'to heal, to cure'; for the giants were men who were healthy, strong, and muscular.
Thirdly, others derive 'Rephaim' from rapha, meaning 'to dissolve,' because the giants by their vast and terrible appearance alone dissolved the strength and sinews of men.
Fourthly, Pineda on Job 26:5 and Sanchez on Isaiah 26:14 think 'Rephaim' is derived from Rapha, the father of Goliath, who fathered four giant sons (2 Samuel 21); and from him all giants were called 'Rephaim.' Similarly, the Anakim were called giants from their first ancestor Anak. But the objection is that Moses, writing in Hebrew, calls them 'Rephaim'; therefore long before David and Goliath, giants were called 'Rephaim' in the time of Moses and Joshua, for 'Rephaim' is mentioned frequently in the book of Joshua. The Rephaim therefore seem to have been named after and descended from their ancestor Rapha, who was more ancient than Moses.
One could respond that Moses did not call them 'Rephaim' but 'Nephilim' or 'Anakim,' and that the compiler of the Pentateuch called them by the name then in use, 'Rephaim,' just as in Genesis 14:14 the city Dan, which in Moses' time was called Leshem, was later called Dan after being captured by the Danites. But again the objection is that the compiler of the Pentateuch was Joshua or another contemporary of his, who long preceded the times of David and Goliath. Moreover, the Anakim existed in Moses' time, as is clear from Deuteronomy 1:28. And it is certain that they were then so called from their ancestor Anak, who preceded Moses; therefore the same must be said about the 'Rephaim.'
'In Ashteroth-karnaim.' In Hebrew it is Ashtaroth Karnaim, that is, 'Ashtaroth of the two horns,' or 'the two-horned.' This was the royal city of Og, king of Bashan (Joshua 12), and a city across the Jordan, so named from the two-horned idol of Astarte that was worshipped there. Now Astarte was the goddess -- or god -- of the Sidonians, as Scripture attests (1 Kings 11:5). Astarte is the same as the Moon; and the moon is two-horned when it is waxing or waning. So Pererius.
Verse 6: The Horites
'And the Horites.' The word Horites means troglodytes, that is, those who dwell underground in caves and caverns. But here it is the proper name of a people dwelling on Mount Seir, that is, in Idumaea, whom Esau later expelled.
Verse 7: The Spring of Mishpat and Kadesh
'The Spring of Mishpat, which is Kadesh.' That is, 'the spring of judgment'; so called either because there God judged and punished the Pentapolitans, or because there God judged Moses and Aaron (Numbers 27:14), for there Moses with Aaron struck the rock and waters burst forth. Kadesh is on the border of Idumaea and the wilderness of Zin.
'The entire region of the Amalekites.' You will object: Amalek was not yet born, since he was the grandson of Esau (Genesis 36:12). I answer: Moses by anticipation calls this the region 'of the Amalekites,' because it was later possessed by the Amalekites -- just as Kadesh here, which was not then so called, is called by that name by anticipation.
'Hazazon-tamar.' This is En-gedi, as is clear from 2 Chronicles 20:2, so called from hazazon, that is, 'cutting,' and tamar, that is, 'palm'; because there were palm groves there in which the Amorites were occupied in cutting and pruning.
Adrichemius, following St. Jerome, Eucherius, and the Chaldean, describes it as the 'City of palms.' This was a city of the Amorites, afterwards called En-gedi.
The remaining proper names are those of places. See here the manner of God, who is accustomed to punish the wicked through the wicked: for the wicked are the rod and scourge of God. Thus He punished the Jews through the Chaldeans, the Chaldeans through the Persians, the Persians through the Greeks, the Greeks through the Romans, the Romans through the Goths.
Astaroth or Astarte was the goddess of the Syrians and Palestinians, whom the Greeks and Latins called Diana and Juno. Hence St. Augustine here, Question 16, asserts that in the Punic language, which descends from Hebrew, Juno is called Astarte. Now this Diana is the moon, and is called Astaroth Carnaim, that is, 'two-horned.' This city therefore seems to have been called Astarothcarnaim from the idol of Diana that was worshipped in it. For that Diana, inasmuch as she was the same as the moon, was customarily painted and fashioned with a two-horned crescent on her forehead, is shown by ancient statues and coins. So says Delrio.
Rabbi Nehemannus takes a different view: for he thinks this Astarte is called Carnaim, that is, 'two-horned,' because this city with its idol of Astarte was situated on a two-horned, or twin-peaked, mountain.
Secondly and more certainly, Pererius holds that Misphat and Meribah are the same: for the fountain of Misphat is the same as the waters of Meribah, that is, 'of contradiction,' Numbers 20:13. This fountain is therefore called Misphat, that is, 'of judgment,' or Meribah, that is, 'of strife, quarrel, murmuring, and contradiction,' because there the Jews, on account of the lack of water, murmured against the Lord, and, as it were, argued with Him in a suit and judgment. But because God conquered and settled this dispute by a miracle, when He miraculously gave waters from the rock, and thus was sanctified among them: hence this fountain and place was afterwards called Kadesh, that is, 'holy,' as is clear from Numbers 20:13. This fountain is situated opposite Petra of Arabia. See Adrichemius.
Verse 10: The Bitumen Pits
But the Woodland Valley had many pits of bitumen. Moses adds this to indicate that the king of Sodom and his men chose this place for battle with the plan and stratagem that the Babylonian enemies, being ignorant of these places as foreigners, would fall into these pits while fighting. But by God's judgment the opposite happened, namely that the Sodomites themselves, defeated and struck with panic, fell into their own pits.
And they fell there. Not the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah themselves (for these fled and escaped, as is clear from verse 17), but their soldiers partly fell by the sword, and partly, out of panic and headlong flight, tumbled into the bitumen pits. So says Abulensis.
God permitted the Pentapolitans to be overcome here, so that by this blow and chastisement He might bring them back to their senses and to amendment of life; but in vain: and therefore shortly afterward He overthrew them with heavenly fire.
Verse 12: Lot Captured
And also Lot. God permitted Lot to be captured in Sodom, to chastise his hasty and sensual choice, by which, enticed by the fertility of the place, he had preferred to dwell among the most impious Sodomites. Yet Lot's captivity was unjust, and therefore Abram freed him by just war. For even if Chedorlaomer had invaded the rebellious Pentapolitans by just war, he nevertheless could not have touched Lot, who was a foreigner and stranger. Furthermore, Chedorlaomer seems to have subjugated the Pentapolitans more by ambition and lust for domination than by any just title: therefore his entire war appears to have been unjust, and consequently Abram justly pursued and defeated him.
Verse 13: Abram the Hebrew
Abram the Hebrew. Here the surname 'Hebrew' is found for the first time. You may ask: whence were the Hebrews so called? I answer firstly, from Heber, who was the great-great-grandfather of Abram. The Hebrews therefore were so called as descendants of Heber -- not all of them, but only those who, descending through Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, when the languages were divided at Babel, drew from their ancestor Heber and preserved the original Hebrew language together with the true faith, religion, and piety of the one God: for these are called sons of Heber, that is, Hebrews, chapter 10, verse 21. So say St. Jerome, Acacius, Josephus, Eusebius, Cajetan, Tostatus, Eugubinus, and St. Augustine, Retractations book II, chapter 14, where he retracts what he had said in book I of De Consensu Evangelistarum, chapter 14, namely that the Hebrews were called from Abram, as if 'Abraei': for that this is not true is clear from this passage, where Abram himself is called a Hebrew; and again from the fact that Abram is written with aleph, but Hebraeus with ayin.
Secondly, 'Hebrew' is derived from the root abar, that is, 'he crossed over,' as if to say, one who crosses, a trans-river dweller, a trans-Euphratean -- just as we call people transmarines, transalpines, trans-Mosans -- because Abram and the Hebrews, originating from Chaldea, crossed the Euphrates to dwell in Palestine. Hence Abram here, after crossing the Euphrates and dwelling in Canaan, is first called a Hebrew. Thus also the Septuagint and Aquila translate 'Hebrew' here as perates, that is, 'one who crosses over,' or, as St. Augustine translates it here in Question 29, 'trans-fluvial.' So say Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, Origen, Diodorus, Rupert, Burgensis here, and Ribera on Jonah 1.
Theodoret adds that 'Hebrew' is derived from the Euphrates, namely from having crossed it: 'For Hebra,' he says, 'in the Syrian language, means the same as Euphrates.' Hence in both words nearly the same letters occur, so that 'Hebrew' means the same as 'Euphratean': perhaps the Mesopotamians, on account of the frequent crossing, called their river Euphrates 'Hebra,' that is, 'a crossing' -- just as the Jews called the Jordan at its fording place Beth-Abara, that is, 'the house or place of crossing,' John 1:28.
Those therefore who were first called Hebrews from Heber, were afterwards likewise called Hebrews from the crossing of the Euphrates, that is, 'crossers-over,' trans-river people; for both derivations apply to the Hebrews.
Note that in this battle Abram is first called a Hebrew, to signify that Abram -- not a Sodomite, not a Palestinian, not a Syrian, but a Hebrew -- was by this victory giving a prelude to the Hebrews, who under Joshua would in like manner be victorious and glorious in the same Canaan, and would subdue it entirely by war, as it had been promised to them by God. Thus Abram here, as it were, begins the possession of Canaan, and is the first to set his victorious and triumphant foot in it.
Verse 14: The 318 Trained Men
He numbered his trained men. In Hebrew it is iarek chanichav, that is, 'he mustered his trained ones,' or 'his instructed men,' whom he had already taught to handle iron and weapons, so that while dwelling abroad among the wicked and infidels, he could defend himself against their injuries by just war. For he possessed the right of war, having been established by God as an independent prince of his numerous family, separated from other peoples.
His home-born servants, that is, slaves born in his own household. So the Hebrew has it.
As far as Dan. This city in the time of Abraham and Moses was called Laish or Leshem; and so Moses wrote it. But the one who compiled these writings of Moses substituted the name Dan, by which it was called after Moses, Joshua 19:47. Others think that Moses called it Dan by a prophetic spirit, because he foresaw that it would be so called; but the former view is more correct.
Three hundred and eighteen. 'So that you may know' (says St. Ambrose, On Abraham, chapter 3) 'that it was not the quantity of the number, but the merit of the choice that was expressed: for Abram enlisted those whom he judged worthy to be numbered among the faithful, who would believe in the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. For T, which signifies 300 in Greek, is the sign of the cross; I and H, which signify 10 and 8, are the beginning and abbreviation of the Greek name of Jesus, if you write IHT in this way; for only the letter S is lacking for the full name Jesus.' Therefore Abram conquered more by the merit of faith than by a numerous army. So say St. Ambrose, Eucherius, and Rupert, book V, chapter 15.
Here note this: This victory of Abraham took place near Dan, as is clear from verse 14, which was afterwards called Caesarea Philippi by Philip the Tetrarch, in honor of the Emperor Tiberius -- where Peter clearly expressed this obscure and symbolic confession of Abraham's faith, saying: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' Matthew 16.
Likewise the same St. Ambrose, in book I of On the Faith addressed to Gratian, and Pope Liberius in his letter to the Orientals, and Rupert here, think that by these 318 soldiers of Abraham, the father of believers, were prefigured the 318 Fathers, champions of the faith, who at victorious Nicaea conquered and condemned the faithless Arius. But all these interpretations are to be understood symbolically and allegorically. For Moses wrote these things in Hebrew, not in Greek: but the Holy Spirit could have so arranged matters that even in the Greek language and Church (which was destined to be most flourishing, and into which these Hebrew writings were accordingly to be translated) they would contain their own mysteries.
Verse 15: The Night Attack
And having divided his companions, he rushed upon them by night. It is likely that Abram led one band himself: his three allies, namely Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, he divided into three bands, as it seems, so as to block all routes of escape for the enemy, and by attacking them from four sides, to strike them with terror, making them think they were surrounded on all sides by a great army, and thus to overwhelm them all while buried in sleep and wine.
Note here Abraham's military fortitude, prudence, vigilance, faith, justice, and again his charity, friendship, and generosity both toward Lot and toward his allies and friends. So Leonidas, king of the Lacedaemonians, bursting with three hundred men into the camp of Xerxes, which was most numerous, did not cease slaying until, exhausted, he fell; he who had said to his men: 'Eat lunch, comrades, as if you will dine in the underworld.' See here how easily God casts down all the power of the world, and how He can save through few just as well as through many.
Verse 17: The King of Sodom Goes Out to Meet Abram
The king of Sodom went out, either from the mountains, or from the city of Sodom, into which, although it had already been plundered by the enemy, he had escaped by flight.
To meet him, to congratulate Abraham on his victory, to give him thanks, and to reclaim from him his citizens who had been freed from the enemy.
In the Valley of Shaveh, which is the King's Valley. Because this valley was afterwards called the valley of King Melchizedek, as the Septuagint has it, perhaps because near this valley Melchizedek met the victorious Abraham, and blessed him, and offered sacrifice to God. Or certainly this valley was called 'the king's,' that is, spacious and royal; hence Josephus calls it the royal plain. It is therefore called the Valley of Shaveh, that is, 'level': it is also called the 'illustrious valley' on account of its pleasantness, because it is situated near the Jordan and extends as far as the Dead Sea. So says Borchardus.
Verse 18: Melchizedek -- Bread and Wine
But Melchizedek. It seems that Abram, returning home from Dan and the Valley of Shaveh to Hebron or to the valley of Mamre, turned aside somewhat toward Salem to visit Melchizedek, as a king so pious and so celebrated, and that through him he might give thanks and offer sacrifice to God for the victory he had obtained. Melchizedek, learning that Abram was approaching, went out to meet him.
You may ask: who was this Melchizedek? First, the Melchizedekian heretics taught that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit: for He is Melchizedek, that is, 'king of righteousness'; but this is a heresy.
Secondly, Origen and Didymus supposed that Melchizedek was an angel.
Thirdly, the Jews, as St. Jerome attests here in his Questions, hold that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah: for Shem lived up to the times of Abraham and Melchizedek.
I say first, it is a matter of faith that Melchizedek was a true and mere man. For he was king of Salem and a priest, who met and blessed Abraham, as is stated here. So say Epiphanius, Heresies 56; Cyril, and others generally.
I say secondly, it is more probable that Melchizedek was not Shem, but one of the petty kings of the Canaanites, who lived piously and holily among the impious Canaanites. So say Theodoret, Eusebius, and the ancients generally, because Shem's genealogy is recorded in Genesis, whereas Melchizedek is without genealogy, as the Apostle says, Hebrews 7. Secondly, because Shem with his descendants occupied the East; but Ham with his people occupied the land of Canaan, in which Salem was situated, and of which Melchizedek was king: therefore he was a Hamite and a Canaanite, not Shem or a Semite. See the commentary on Hebrews 7:7.
I say thirdly, Melchizedek means 'king of righteousness'; from his righteousness and holiness, therefore, this name Melchizedek was given and appropriated to this king. This name was therefore not a title common to all kings of Jerusalem, as Cajetan would have it, in the same way that the name Pharaoh was common to the kings of Egypt, and afterwards Ptolemy; and as the name Abimelech was the common title of the kings of Palestine in the time of Abraham. Rather, this name Melchizedek was the personal name of this particular king; for he himself was a type of Christ, the just one and Holy of Holies. Hence St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, and Suidas, report that Melchizedek remained a king, a high priest, and a virgin his entire life.
I say fourthly, Melchizedek was a type of Christ: first, in his name and its etymology, for both were kings of righteousness; secondly, in his office and state, for both were kings of Salem, that is, of peace; thirdly, in his generation, for both were without father and mother, Hebrews 7:2; fourthly, in age and duration, for both are presented in Scripture as, so to speak, eternal; fifthly, in the pontificate; sixthly, in the Eucharistic priesthood. See the commentary on Hebrews 7:16 and following.
King of Salem. St. Jerome, in epistle 126 to Evagrius, judges that this Salem is not Jerusalem, but another city situated near Scythopolis, where John was baptizing, John 3:23 -- in which, says Jerome, the palace of Melchizedek is still shown, but by popular error, as it seems. Perhaps Jeroboam and his successors, to make their palace famous, said it had been the palace of Melchizedek. For the Fathers commonly teach that Melchizedek was king of Salem, that is, Jerusalem: so say Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea and of Emesa, Apollinarius, Josephus, the Chaldean Targum, Procopius, Abulensis, Andreas Masius, Isidore, and from these Ribera on Hebrews 7; and this is the tradition of the Jews. For Jerusalem was formerly called Jebus and Salem, as is clear from Psalm 75:3, in the Hebrew. Indeed, Josephus, Jewish War book VII, chapter 18, and after him Hegesippus and Isidore, report that Jerusalem was founded by Melchizedek.
Bringing forth bread and wine. Bringing forth (in Hebrew hotsi, that is, 'he brought forth') bread and wine -- not for the refreshment of the soldiers, or for a victory feast, as Calvin and Chemnitz would have it: for the soldiers were already sated from the spoils, as is clear from verse 24; but for a peace offering, to be offered in thanksgiving for the victory granted to Abraham by God. This is clear, first, from what is added: 'For he was a priest,' as if to say: He brought forth bread and wine for sacrifice, because he was a priest, whose proper function is to offer sacrifice. Secondly, because in Psalm 110, Hebrews 7, and elsewhere, the priesthood and consequently the sacrifice of Melchizedek is celebrated. Now nowhere else is the sacrifice of Melchizedek, and its rite and manner, described except here; therefore he brought forth bread and wine here for this purpose: to offer them to God as was his custom in sacrifice. Melchizedek was therefore accustomed to offer bread and wine to God. Thirdly, because the ancient Rabbis, whom Galatinus cites and follows, in book X of De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, and Genebrardus in his Chronology under Melchizedek, translate it as 'he offered bread and wine.' For the Jews use the verb hotsi in the context of sacrifices, as is clear from Judges 6:18. Fourthly, because the Apostle, in Hebrews chapter 7, contrasts the sacrifice of Melchizedek with the Aaronic sacrifice, and says that Christ is a priest according to the order not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek. Now the Aaronic priests offered animals of every kind: therefore Melchizedek offered not these, nor a bloody victim, but an unbloody one, namely bread and wine. Fifthly, this is the common opinion of the Fathers: Irenaeus, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret, Eusebius, Ambrose, and others, whom Bellarmine cites in book I of De Missa, chapter 6.
Hence it is clear that the Mass is a sacrifice, and that Christ sacrificed not only on the cross, but also at the Last Supper, and therefore that the Eucharist is not merely a Sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For both David and the Apostle say that Christ is a priest according to the order not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek. But He was not such on the cross, because on the cross He offered a bloody sacrifice, which was therefore rather according to the order of Aaron than of Melchizedek. Therefore He was such at the Last Supper, when He offered the Eucharist to God under the species of bread and wine, after the manner of Melchizedek. So all the Fathers commonly teach, whom Bellarmine cites at the passage already mentioned.
Note: Melchizedek first offered bread and wine to God in sacrifice, namely by burning part of the bread and pouring out part of the wine as a libation, that is, by pouring it out to God in thanksgiving for the victory of Abraham. Then he distributed the remaining portion of bread and wine to Abraham's soldiers to share, that is, to partake of and eat: for this was the custom in a peace offering. In like manner, Christ at the Last Supper offered bread and wine, consecrating them and transubstantiating them into the Eucharistic sacrifice, and then distributed them to the Apostles to partake of, and commanded them to likewise offer and share them.
For he was a priest. In Hebrew vehu cohen, 'and he himself was a priest,' that is, because he himself was a priest: for this gives the reason why he brought forth bread and wine, namely, because from these he was preparing a sacrifice. That these words pertain to what precedes in this verse, and not to the following verse 19, as the Innovators would have it, is clear from the Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean, and Latin texts, which all join these words in the same verse with what precedes, namely verse 18, and not with what follows in verse 19. The Innovators therefore err who think that Melchizedek is here called a priest solely because he blessed Abraham, as follows.
Thus often the Hebrew vav, meaning 'and,' is taken as the causal conjunction ki, meaning 'because, for, indeed'; as in Psalm 94:5: 'The sea is His, and (that is, because, as St. Jerome translates it) He made it.' Isaiah 64:5: 'You were angry, and (because) we sinned.' Luke 1:42: 'Blessed are you among women, and (because) blessed is the fruit of your womb,' and often elsewhere.
Priest. The Innovators translate it as 'prince'; for the Hebrew cohen is so taken in 2 Kings 8:18, where the sons of David are called 'priests,' that is, princes. But properly cohen signifies nothing but a priest, and only improperly and rarely does it signify a prince. That it here signifies a priest is clear: first, both from what precedes and from what follows, for it belongs not to a prince but to a priest both to sacrifice and to bless; secondly, because the Septuagint, the Chaldean, Philo, Josephus, and the Rabbis so translate it; thirdly, because it says 'of God Most High' -- he was therefore a priest, for one is not properly called 'Prince of God Most High,' but one is properly called 'Priest of God Most High'; fourthly, because St. Paul so translates it in Hebrews 7:1, when he says: 'For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, Priest of God Most High.'
St. Dionysius notes, in chapter 8 of the Celestial Hierarchy, that Melchizedek is called priest of God Most High, not only because he himself served God, but also because he converted and encouraged others to faith in and worship of Him.
Verse 19: He Blessed Him
He blessed him. That is, Melchizedek blessed Abram, as a superior blesses an inferior. For Melchizedek was a type of Christ, the eternal priest, since Abram transmitted to his Levite descendants only a temporary priesthood. He blessed him, saying: 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High,' that is, by God, or in the sight of God Most High, as if to say: May Abram be blessed and heaped with good things by God Most High, just as He Himself began to bless him by conferring upon him this most illustrious victory. So says Lipomanus, who here notes three priestly actions of Melchizedek: the first is that he offered bread and wine; the second, that he blessed the victorious Abram; the third, that he received tithes from him.
'Who created.' In Hebrew it is kone, that is, 'possessor,' 'who possessed,' or 'who acquired': but God is the possessor of heaven and earth because He is their creator, and by the title of creation He acquired them and made them His own. Thus in verse 22, God is called the possessor (that is, the creator, and therefore the possessor) of heaven and earth. Similarly, Psalm 139:13 says, 'You possessed (that is, You formed, and by forming, You possessed) my inmost parts.'
Verse 20: He Gave Him Tithes
He gave him tithes. That is, Abram gave tithes to Melchizedek, as is clear from Hebrews 7:4. So say Josephus and others generally. Therefore certain Jews are mistaken who, on the contrary, hold that Melchizedek gave tithes to Abram. Their reasoning is this: He gave tithes who preceded and who blessed Abram; but this is Melchizedek; therefore Melchizedek gave tithes. But the major premise is false. For among the Hebrews there is frequent interchange of persons: they often pass from one person to another without naming them, and leave it to be understood from the dialogue or other circumstances.
Tropologically, St. Ambrose says here: 'He who conquers ought not to claim the victory for himself, but to attribute it to God. Abraham teaches this, who was made more humble, not more proud, by his triumph: for he offered sacrifice and gave tithes.'
Tithes. One out of ten, says the Chaldean. See here how faith and natural reason incline us to give tithes to God, even though they do not absolutely command them; and in this sense tithes can be said to be of natural law, although strictly speaking they are of positive law -- namely, divine law in the old law, and human law in the new law. Jacob followed the example of his grandfather Abraham in this, chapter 28, verse 22.
Likewise even the Gentiles, by a certain impulse of religion, often vowed and paid tithes from the spoils of war. This was done by Posthumius after obtaining victory in the Latin War, and also by other Roman commanders, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus relates in book VI, as well as Livy and others. Xenophon also, in his Cyropaedia, book V: 'Here also,' he says, 'they divided the money collected from the captives, and the Praetors received what they had vowed as a tithe either to Apollo or to Ephesian Diana, to be consecrated.' The same author in his Agesilaus: 'He so enjoyed the enemy's territory,' he says, 'that in two years he dedicated more than a hundred talents as a tithe to the god at Delphi.'
Chrysostom notes, in oration 4 Against the Jews, that Melchizedek prefigured the priests of the new law; and Abram, who gave him tithes, foreshadowed the laity.
From all the spoils which he had taken from the Babylonians in war.
Verse 21: Give Me the Souls
'Give me the souls,' that is, the people: so the Septuagint. As if to say: Return to me my citizens and my captive subjects, whom you wrested from the enemy along with Lot; keep the rest of the spoils for yourself.
Note what the virtue and favor of one man avails before God: namely, for the sake of one just man, Lot, God freed so many impious Pentapolitans, in order to glorify His servant Abram.
Verse 22: I Raise My Hand
'I raise my hand.' As if to say: Raising my hand to heaven, as toward God, whom I call as witness and avenger, I swear: for by this ceremony the ancients used to take oaths, namely by raising their hand toward heaven.
'The possessor of heaven and earth.' Hence Philo, in his book On the Cherubim, teaches that God alone has dominion over all things, while men have only the use and enjoyment of them.
Verse 23: From a Thread to a Sandal Strap
'From a thread of the woof to a sandal strap,' that is, I will not take even the cheapest or smallest thing. It is a proverb. The word 'woof' is not in the Hebrew, but was added by our Translator for the sake of explanation. The woof is the thread that is woven under the warp, or that is interwoven with the warp: for in weaving, warp and woof correspond to each other as correlatives. Moreover, the caliga is a type of military footwear, from which soldiers were called caligati, and the Emperor Caius was called Caligula. Similarly, in Acts 12:8, it says: 'Put on your sandals,' as if to say, 'your shoes.'
'I will not take from all that is yours' -- that is, what belongs to the Pentapolitans, which I recovered from the enemy: for Abram does not deny that he will take his share from the goods of the enemy.
Note here the self-restraint of Abraham, which made him truly rich, so that he could say that saying of Seneca: 'The riches are mine, you belong to your riches: for riches are in the service of the wise man, but the fool is in the power of riches.' He therefore refused to accept anything: first, so that all would see that he had not fought for gain, but out of charity, to free captives. How few today will you find who wage war in this manner? Secondly, because those goods had been taken from the poor: he therefore preferred that they be returned to them, rather than that he himself be enriched by them. Thirdly, because he did not wish to be indebted to the king who was offering them. Fourthly, so that he might attribute the glory of victory not to himself, but to God. Fifthly, so that he might show the wicked a noble spirit that despised all earthly things, and that he possessed something greater than wealth, in which unbelievers place all their hope, as if to say: I have God, who can do more than all the goods of the world.
Hence St. Ambrose, in book II of On Abraham, chapter 8: 'It belongs to a perfect mind,' he says, 'to take nothing from earthly things, nothing from the enticements of the body. Therefore Abraham says: I will take nothing from all that is yours. As if avoiding the contagion of intemperance, as if fleeing the stain of bodily senses, he rejects the delights of the world, seeking the things that are above the world: this is to stretch out one's hands to the Lord. The hand is the operative virtue of the soul. Let narrow minds be invited by promises, and raised up by the rewards of hope.'
Pererius takes it differently: 'What is yours,' he says, that is, what was yours, but is now mine; for things captured in a just war, whosever they were, become the property of the victor, not by natural law, but by the positive law of many nations, which Abulensis and Covarruvias teach is observed in Spain; some say the same law obtains in Belgium, namely that spoils driven off by the enemy and then wrested back from the enemy fall to the one who recovered them, provided they were in the hands of the enemy for a space of 24 hours. But these rules, as I said, are of positive law, not of natural law, which Abram follows here.