Why did Abram tithe to Melchizadech?

[BayCityRickL]

I am puzzled by Abram’s gift. Melchizadech was a priest, although it is not clear to me what sort of priesthood existed at that point in the Genesis account.

Abram had gone to battle to recover some land and possessions, and it seems that he was just perhaps returning to Mechizadech what had been stolen from him.

And, one commentary I read said that the bread and wine presented by Melchizadech was just a sign of hospitality.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Here’s my :twocents:…

Abram wanted to make an offering to God in thanksgiving for his victory over his enemies and he found an opportunity to do this by giving a tenth of his spoils to God’s priest Melchizedek.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Todd Easton:

Here’s my :twocents:…

Abram wanted to make an offering to God in thanksgiving for his victory over his enemies and he found an opportunity to do this by giving a tenth of his spoils to God’s priest Melchizedek.

I think this is the general interpretation, but how is that supported in the text of Genesis? I don’t think what Abram took back were spoils. He simply recovered the lands and possessions that several kings had stolen from Melchizadech, among others.

To take this interpretation, one has to invent on the spot a lot of ideas, like the mathematical concept of one-tenth, spoils, monetary giving of one-tenth offerings to a priest as a gift to God (which does not appear previously in Genesis), and, as I said originally, the idea that there was a recognizable priesthood in existence.

To start off with (and maybe I’m wrong here) it seems that Abram was a sort of righteous avenger, who fought back and restored the lands and possessions that belonged to Melchizadech in the first place. Rather than being a gift to Melchizadech, Abram’s action was one of returning to M. what was rightfully his.

Perhaps the incident, if it really is historical, is a morality play of sorts. Giving away a tenth of one’s wealth doesn’t make much sense in and of itself, but the backdrop makes it more plausible that Abram, a wealthy man, would have done such a thing, to begin with.

In other words, I just don’t see the words that unzip this interpretation in the text.

 

[Fidelis]

BayCityRickL:

And, one commentary I read said that the bread and wine presented by Melchizadech was just a sign of hospitality.

Here is the passage in question from Genesis 14: 18

5 Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words:
6 Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth;
7 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

While it is difficult to pin an authoritative interpretation on the identity and role of the shadowy figure Melchizidek, there has been a lot of speculation. The book of Hebrews, chapter 7, says this about him:

1 This “Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High,” “met Abraham as he returned from his defeat of the kings” and “blessed him.”
2
And Abraham apportioned to him “a tenth of everything.” His name first means righteous king, and he was also “king of Salem,” that is, king of peace.
3
Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
5 See how great he is to whom the patriarch “Abraham (indeed) gave a tenth” of his spoils.

The Scriptures do not mention that Melchizedek was a priest without reason. Though priests may give blessings (v 20), the primary role of a priest is to offer sacrifice. So, while the sacrificial significance of the bread and wine are not explicit, the implication is very apparent.

This short article may be helpful:

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0357.html

.

 

[davethecatholic]

BayCityRickL:

I am puzzled by Abram’s gift. Melchizadech was a priest, although it is not clear to me what sort of priesthood existed at that point in the Genesis account.

Abram had gone to battle to recover some land and possessions, and it seems that he was just perhaps returning to Mechizadech what had been stolen from him.

And, one commentary I read said that the bread and wine presented by Melchizadech was just a sign of hospitality.

This is a controversial passage between protestants and Catholics
Sounds like a Protestant account to me (or similar to what Josephus wrote). Josephus was himself a priest to whom the priesthood of Melchizadech would not be pleasing to him (it having a higher significance than that of the descendants of Aaron) as evidenced by Abram offering tithes to Melchizadech rather than the other way around. As well, Melchizadech offers a blessing to Abram rather than the opposite. Paul goes on and discusses Melchizadech’s priesthood extensively in Hebrews 7 with Christ’s reign putting an end to the priesthood of Melchizadech (Paul distinguishes the priesthood of Melchizadech as superior to that of the line of priests descended from the Aaron). He also examines Melchizadech as Christ pre-figured in that his priesthood is eternal “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever.” Hebrews 7:3. Melchizadech is apparently the king of Salem (Jerusalem or possibly ).

Melchizadech is found in the writings of the Early Fathers as well. Augustine’s reference below is probably most related to your question on bread and wine as “hospitality” vs. alluding to Christ’s great sacrifice embodied in the Eucharist.

**Theophilus (170 A.D.) **

Melchisedek recognized as a priest

And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchisedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all priests614 of the Most High God; and from him the above-named city Hierosolyma was called Jerusalem.615 And from his time priests were found in all the earth.

Origen (230 A.D.)

Melchisedek line of priesthood distinguished from the line of Aaron
with respect to Christ.

But those who devote themselves to the divine word and have no other employment but the service of God may not unnaturally, allowing for the difference of occupation in the two cases, be called our levites and priests. And those who fulfil a more distinguished office than their kinsmen will perhaps be high-priests, according to the order of Aaron, not that of Melchisedek. Here some one may object that it is somewhat too bold to apply the name of high-priests to men, when Jesus Himself is spoken of in many a prophetic passage as the one great priest, as “We have a great high-priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.” But to this we reply that the Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to have said about the Christ, “Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek,” and not according to the order of Aaron. We say accordingly that men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God.

Ephraim Syrus (370 A.D)

Expectation of Christ

Melchizedek expected Him; as His vicegerent, looked that he might see the Priesthood’s Lord whose hyssop366 purifies the world.

Continued on next thread…

 

[davethecatholic]

**Continued from earlier thread…

St. Ambrose (379 A.D.)**
You see what it is in respect whereof the writer calls Him created: “In so far as He took upon Him the seed of Abraham;” plainly asserting the begetting of a body. How, indeed, but in His body did He expiate the sins of the people? In what did He suffer, save in His body—even as we said above: “Christ having suffered in the flesh”? In what is He a priest, save in that which He took to Himself from the priestly nation?2256 **It is a priest’s duty to offer something, and, according to the Law, to enter into the holy places by means of blood; seeing, then, that God had rejected the blood of bulls and goats, this High Priest was indeed bound to make passage and entry into the holy of holies in heaven through His own blood, in order that He might be the everlasting propitiation for our sins. Priest and victim, then, are one; the priesthood and sacrifice are, however, exercised under the conditions of humanity, for He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek.2257 ** Let no man, therefore, when he beholds an order of human establishment, contend that in it resides the claim of Divinity;2258 **for even that Melchizedek, by whose office Abraham offered sacrifice, the Church doth certainly not hold to be an angel (as some Jewish triflers do), but a holy man and priest of God, who, prefiguring our Lord,**2259 is described as “without father or mother, without history of his descent, without beginning and without end,”2260 in order to show beforehand the coming into this world of the eternal Son of God, Who likewise was incarnate and then brought forth without any father, begotten as God without mother, and was without history of descent, for it is written: “His generation who shall declare?”2261This Melchizedek, then, have we received as a priest of God made upon the model of Christ, but the one we regard as the type, the other as the original. Now a type is a shadow of the truth, and we have accepted the royalty of the one in the name of a single city, but that of the other as shown in the reconciliation of the whole world; for it is written: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself;”2262 that is to say, [in Christ was] eternal Godhead: or, if the Father is in the Son, even as the Son is in the Father, then Their unity in both nature2263 and operation is plainly not denied.

Augustine (413-426 A.D.)

Christ and Eucharistic sacrifice pre-figured in the story of Abraham and Melchizedek

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 three hundred and eighteen of his home-born servants, and 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 which is inscribed to the Hebrews, which most say is by the Apostle Paul, though some deny this. For then first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole wide world, and that is fulfilled which long after the event was said by the prophet to Christ, who was yet to come in the fresh, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,” – that is to say, not after the order of Aaron, for that order was to be taken away when the things shone forth which were intimated beforehand by these shadows.

Augustine (417 A.D.)

Christ as our mediator

Of this flesh and blood Melchizedek also, when he blessed Abram himself, gave the testimony which is very well known to Christian believers, so that long afterwards it was said to Christ in the Psalms: “Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.” This was not then an accomplished fact, but was still future; yet that faith of the fathers, which is the self-same faith as our own, used to chant it. Now, to all who find death in Adam, Christ is of this avail, that He is the Mediator for life. He is, however, not a Mediator, because He is equal with the Father; for in this respect He is Himself as far distant from us as the Father; and how can there be any medium where the distance is the very same? Therefore the apostle does not say, “There is one Mediator between God and men, even Jesus Christ;” but his words are, “The Man Christ Jesus.”He is the Mediator, then, in that He is man,—inferior to the Father, by so much as He is nearer to ourselves, and superior to us, by so much as He is nearer to the Father. This is more openly expressed thus: “He is inferior to the Father, because in the form of a servant;” superior to us, because without spot of sin.

 

[Fidelis]

The *Navarre Bible Commentary on the Letter To The Hebrews * says the following:

1-3. Melchizedek has special characteristics which make him a “figure”
or “type” of Christ. The connections between Christ and Melchizedek are
expounded in accordance with the rules of rabbinical bible commentary,
this is particularly obvious in the use of the phrase “without father
or mother or genealogy” to refer to the eternity of Melchizedek. It is
not surprising that the waiter brings in the figure of Melchizedek, for
the mysterious mention of this personage in Genesis 14:18-20 and in
Psalm 110:4 had for some time intrigued Jewish commentators. For
example, Philo of Alexandria sees Melchizedek as a symbol for human
reason enlightened by divine wisdom (cf. “De Legum Allegoria”, 3,
79-82). Also, apocryphal literature identified Melchizedek with other
biblical figures–for example, with Shem, Noah’s first-born son, or
with the son of Nir, Noah’s brother. Certainly the epistle is in line
with Jewish tradition on one important point: Melchizedek belongs to a
priesthood established by God in pre-Mosaic times.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100) refers to
Melchizedek as a “prince of Canaan”, who founded and was high priest of
Jerusalem. The name Melchizedek, meaning “my king is righteous” or
“King of Righteousness”, was a Canaanite name (cf. Josh 10:13). “Salem”
is probably an abbreviation of Jerusalem (cf. Ps 76:2); and Elioh, that
is, God Most High, may also have been the name of one of the divinities
worshipped by the inhabitants of Palestine before the Jewish conquest.
Genesis tells us that, in spite of living in a Canaanite and
polytheistic environment, Melchizedek was a priest of the true God.
Despite not being a member of the chosen people, he had knowledge of
the Supreme God. Psalm 110 adds a further revelation to that contained
in Genesis: the promised Messiah, a descendant of David, will not only
be a king (which they already knew) but also a priest; and he will not
be a priest of Aaron: by a new disposition of God he will be a priest
according to the order, or as the Hebrew text says, “after the manner
of Melchizedek”.

The Epistle to the Hebrews views the Genesis episode through the prism
of Psalm 110: Melchizedek is above all a representative of a new
priesthood instituted by God independently of the Mosaic Law. That is
why it gives so much importance to the words of Genesis: Melchizedek is
“king of righteousness”, according to one popular etymology, and he is
also “king of Salem”, that is, “king of peace” according to another
which changes the second vowel of the Hebrew word shalom, which means
“peace”. Thus, in Melchizedek the two foremost characteristics of the
messianic kingdom meet–righteousness and peace (cf. Ps 85:10; 89:14;
97:2; Is 9:5-7; 2:4; 45:8; Lk 2:14). Moreover, since Genesis says
nothing about Melchizedek’s background (he did not belong to the chosen
people), the sacred writer, following a common rabbinical rule of
interpretation (what is not in Scripture–in the Torah–has no
existence in the real world"), sees Scripture’s silence on this point
as symbolic: Melchizedek, since his genealogy is unknown, is a figure
or “type” of Christ, who is eternal.

continued on next post…

 

[Fidelis]

…continued from previous post:

“Resembling the Son of God”: it is not Christ who resembles Melchizedek
but Melchizedek who is like Christ indeed, who has been made to
resemble Christ. Christ is the perfection of priesthood. Melchizedek
was created and made like Christ so that we by reflecting on him might
learn something about the Son of God.

Theoderet of Cyrus develops on this idea: “Christ the Lord possesses
all these qualifications really and by nature. He is ‘without mother’,
for God as Father alone begot him. He is ‘without father’, for he was
conceived by mother alone, that is, the Virgin. He is ‘without
genealogy’, as God, for he who was begotten by the unbegotten Father
has no need of genealogy. ‘He has not beginning of days’, for his is
an eternal generation. ‘He has no end of life’, for he possesses an
immortal nature. For all those reasons Christ himself is not compared
to Melchizedek but Melchizedek to Christ” (“Interpretatio Ep. Ad
Haebreos, ad loc.”). St Ephraem put this very nicely: “Thus,
Melchizedek’s priesthood continues for ever–not in Melchizedek himself
but in the Lord of Melchizedek” (“Com. in Epist. Ad Haebreos,
ad loc.”).

1. A priest of the true God, of the Most High God, yet not a member of
   the chosen people, Melchizedek is an example of how God sows the seeds
   of saving truth beyond limitations of geography, epoch or nation. “The
   priesthood of Christ, of which priests have been really made sharers,
   is necessarily directed to all people and all times, and is not
   confined by any bounds of blood, race, or age, as was already typified
   in a mysterious way by the figure of Melchizedek. Priests, therefore,
   should recall that the solicitude of all the churches ought to be their
   intimate concern” (Vatican II, “Presbyterorum Ordinis”, 10).

At the same time the sacred text, by saying that Melchizedek was
“without father or mother”, gives grounds for thinking that also in the
case of the consecration of Christ’s priests they, in order to fulfill
their mission, should be ready to leave their family behind–which is
what often in fact happens. “The character and life of the man called
to be a minister in the worship of the one true God bear the marks of a
halo and a destiny to be ‘set apart’. This puts him in some way outside
and above the common history of other men–“sine patre, sine matre,
sine genealogia”, as St Paul says of the mysterious prophetic
Melchizedek” (A. del Portillo, “On Priesthood”, p. 44).

Addressing Christians, particularly those consecrated to the service of
God, St John of Avila writes: “Forget your people (Ps 45:10) and be
like another Melchizedek, whom we are told had no father or mother or
genealogy. In this way …] example is given to the servants of God
who must be so forgetful of their family and relations that they are
like Melchizedek in this world, as far as their heart is
concerned–having nothing that ties their heart and slows them up on
their way to God” (“Audi, Filia”, 98).

 

[tjmiller]

Many among the Jews in the time of Christ considered Melchisedech to be none other than the Archangel Michael…
This explains the association of the Genesis high priest with the angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[davethecatholic]

BayCityRickL:

I am puzzled by Abram’s gift. Melchizadech was a priest, although it is not clear to me what sort of priesthood existed at that point in the Genesis account.

Abram had gone to battle to recover some land and possessions, and it seems that he was just perhaps returning to Mechizadech what had been stolen from him.

And, one commentary I read said that the bread and wine presented by Melchizadech was just a sign of hospitality.

Here’s what Philo has to say on Melchizadeck…He has a different position than that of Josephus who simply mentions Melchizadeck’s offering up bread and wine as “supplying Abram’s army in a hospitable manner”. As I mentioned in my earlier post, this may be where your commentary originated. Notice in Philo, the bread and wine are tied together with Deutoronomy 23: 4-5 where Philo allegorically uses the story (you will find this in “allegorical interpretation” book 3) of the Ammonites and Moabites not being worthy of being admitted to the “assembly of the Lord” because they did not bring God’s people bread and water after the exodus. He ties this, allegorically, together with the bread and wine of Melchizadeck. Interesting, isn’t it, that an Alexandrian Jew born before Christ (approx 20 BC) is using “bread and wine” allegorically to explain why others are not admitted to the “assembly of the Lord”. It’s no wonder that protestants like the Josephus version…

XXV. (79) Moreover, God made Melchisedek, the king of peace, that is of Salem, for that is the interpretation of this name, “his own high Priest,”{36}{#ge 14:18.} without having previously mentioned any particular action of his, but merely because he had made him a king, and a lover of peace, and especially worthy of his priesthood. For he is called a just king, and a king is the opposite of a tyrant, because the one is the interpreter of law, and the other of lawlessness. (80) Therefore the tyrannical mind imposes violent and mischievous commands on both soul and body, and such as have a tendency to cause violent suffering, being commands to act according to vice, and to indulge the passions with enjoyment. But the other, the kingly mind, in the first place, does not command, but rather persuades, since it gives recommendations of such a character, that if guided by them, life, like a vessel, will enjoy a fair voyage through life, being directed in its course by a good governor and pilot; and this good pilot is right reason. (81) We may therefore call the tyrannical mind the ruler of war, and the kingly mind the guide to peace, that is Salem. And this kingly mind shall bring forth food full of cheerfulness and joy; for “he brought forth bread and wine,” which the Ammonites and Moabites were not willing to give to the beholder, that is Israel; by reason of such unwillingness they are shut out from the companionship and assembly of God. For the Ammonites being they who are sprung from the outward sense of the mother, and the Moabites, who originate in the mind of the father, are two different dispositions, which look upon the mind and the outward sense as the efficient causes of all existing things, but take no notice of God. Therefore “they shall not come,” says Moses, “into the assembly of the Lord, because they did not come to meet you with bread and water when you came out of Egypt,”{37}{#de 23:4.} that is, out of the passions.

XXVI. (82) **But Melchisedek shall bring forward wine instead of water, and shall give your souls to drink, and shall cheer them with unmixed wine, in order that they may be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself. For reason is a priest, having, as its inheritance the true God, and entertaining lofty and sublime and magnificent ideas about him, “for he is the priest of the most high God.”{**38}{#ge 14:18.} Not that there is any other God who is not the most high; for God being one, is in the heaven above, and in the earth beneath, and there is no other besides Him."{39}{#de 4:39.} But he sets in motion the notion of the Most High, from his conceiving of God not in a low and grovelling spirit, but in one of exceeding greatness, and exceeding sublimity, apart from any conceptions of matter.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have seen it claimed [sorry don’t have a reference] that many Jews, including the New Testament writers, thought Melchizadech to be Shem. The original priesthood was the first-born of the family. Shem held this as the first-born of Noah.