Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
About the year 2000 B.C. an invading army of Eastern kings defeated
the petty monarchs of Sodom and Gomorrah, and retreated, booty-laden,
northwards out of Palestine. Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was in the
train of captives, with all his family, slaves and goods. The news of
this misfortune reached his uncle; so Abraham organized his
retainers, pursued the retiring armies, and by a night attack rescued
his kinsman, Lot. An incident which occurred on the return of the
victor is related in Genesis, xiv, 18-20: "But Melchisedech, the king
of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was a priest of the
most High God, blessed him [Abraham] and said: 'Blessed be Abram by
the most High God, who created heaven and earth."' This story is
mentioned hundreds of times in Catholic Tradition, and in the first
seven chapters of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews a lengthy
discussion centers about Melchisedech. The purpose of the present
inquiry is to discuss how Christ is a "priest according to the order
of Melchisedech," and in particular, the meaning of this phrase in
the Letter to the Hebrews.
Abraham consisted of the twelve sons of Jacob, from whom all the
nation is derived. But while this race progressed and increased from
century to century, it had no Divinely appointed priesthood until
more than 500 years after Abraham, its progenitor. It was at Mt.
Sinai, in the middle of the fifteenth century,[1] that God appointed
the one tribe of Levi to care for the nation's worship. From one
family of that tribe, that of Aaron, all priests of Israel were to
come. In fact, by the very title of blood and birth, every male
Levite was a servant of the sanctuary, and every male son of Aaron
was blessed with the higher dignity of the priesthood. Now, during
the 500 years before the institution of this priesthood of Aaron,
there is not one word that any other priesthood is held in honor in
the nation. On the contrary, the Books of Exodus and Leviticus devote
long sections to the laws, rights and effects of the Aaronitic
priesthood.
Melchisedech." (Psalm cix, 4.) Now the topic of this Psalm is the
Messias, the Anointed One or the Christ, who was promised to the
nation in a hundred prophecies.
In the ten centuries between David and St. Paul, several prophecies,
notably that of Malachi, iii, 10, convey further revelations
concerning the person or the sacrifice or the effects of the priest,
Christ. But while Revelation thus expands and progresses, the priest
Melchisedech is not mentioned, nor his relation to Christ further
explained. Even when the institution of the Blessed Sacrament is
described in the Gospels, when Christ took bread and wine and
pronounced the words which made them His Body and Blood, there is not
a word of the priest-king of the then dim and distant past. Thus so
far, in Revelation, we know of three priesthoods: Melchisedech's,
Aaron's and Christ's. Each has its essential constituents, its
conditions, its properties, qualities and effects. In a word, each is
an order of priesthood. But, except for the suggestion of the Psalm,
the interrelations of these orders are not explained.
II
III
Thus the manna, God-given for forty years in the desert, is a type of
the Holy Eucharist, obviously congruous according to human reckoning.
So, too, the Paschal Lamb is a type of Christ's salvific death. On
the other hand, some types are more subtle, and perceptible only
after consideration. In either case, our standards of congruity are
not the norm by which to judge whether a typical sense is expressed
or not. This depends on the Divine intention, and we know the
intention only when it is revealed to us.
1. For this Melchisedech was king of Salem, priest of the most high
God, who met Abraham[5] returning from the slaughter of the kings, and
blessed him:
2. To whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all; who, first indeed,
by interpretation, is King of Justice: and then, also, King of Salem,
that is, King of Peace:
The second verse considers two minor features of the type. The
meaning of the name Melchisedech is King of Justice. Christ is the
true King of Justice. In the present instance, St. Paul does not
dwell on this feature. For the Apostle's theology on the matter of
justification (for the word translated justice here is the same which
is translated justification elsewhere), we must turn to the Epistle
to the Romans. Again, the name of the city of the priest-king means
Peace. St. Paul writes at length concerning the Peace of Christ in
the Letter to the Ephesians. Since this peace is touched upon briefly
in the Letter to the Hebrews, though not in this section, we explain
it summarily. Fundamentally, the peace of Christ is twofold: it
includes the reconciliation of sinners with God; secondly, it
restores the equality of all men before God, destroying the "middle
wall of partition" (Eph. ii, 14), between a privileged Israel and the
unprivileged Gentile nations. There is no longer any race exclusively
elect, as was Israel before the coming of Christ. This new peace of
Christ is the absolute harmony and the impartial equality of
privilege which all men share, through union in the Mystic Body of
Christ.
The third verse explains the second principal feature of the type,
Melchisedech, and introduces the theme of the seventh chapter. The
verse emphasizes by repetition two points. First, Melchisedech is
without father or mother or tablets of descent. Secondly, no date of
his birth is given, nor mention of his death. In these respects, St.
Paul says, he is likened to the Son of God, and continues as a priest
forever. These apparently strange assertions need some explanation.
The very few exegetes who thought that the text meant that
Melchisedech actually had no parents, found no followers. He had
father and mother, and doubtless, since he was both priest and king,
he could have exhibited very honorable tablets of lineage. But, as a
matter of fact, father, mother and genealogy are not mentioned in the
sacred text. <As he is described>, he is without them. Now reflection
shows that there is something remarkable in this omission. For the
genealogical tablets of eminent men are usual in the sacred
histories; and this priest is of such dignity that, in God's designs,
he blesses the very father and patriarch of the Chosen People.
Abraham kneels before Melchisedech, and pays him tithes of all he has
conquered. Moreover, priesthood in the ancient East commonly came by
blood-descent. Here is a priest of the Most High, about whose lineage
and title to succession there is not one word. But while the omission
is remarkable, absolutely nothing is to be made of it, unless it be
the Divine intention that the omission signify something. The
inspiration of the Letter to the Hebrews, and the use of the type
there, are the absolute security that God did intend to signify
something through the omission of the narrative.
Now the Aaronitic priesthood proved its whole right to its sacred
office by the specific title of lineage. On the contrary, the
priesthood of Christ is in fact that which Melchisedech's is in
This same point is very delicately expressed in the last words of our
text, "likened to the Son of God, he continueth a priest for ever."
We might expect some epithet here which would directly denote the
human nature of Christ; for Christ is priest because He is Man.
Instead, St. Paul uses the epithet, "Son of God." And, while it is
obvious that the one Person who is both God and Man may be named by
epithets denoting one or the other nature, the author uses the name
which denotes the Divine Nature. Why, in this context? Precisely,
because he has in mind the eternity of the priesthood. Christ is
priest because He is Man; but Christ is eternal priest only because
he is Son of God and God.
First, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was known at the time and
in the Church of the addressees. I take it as certain historically
that St. Paul is the author of the Letter; hence it was written
before 67 A. D. The best date is probably 64. This statement offends
in two ways the pet theories of certain adverse critics. In their
view, the Letter is not St. Paul's composition; and it belongs to
the last two decades of the first century. But neither of these
opinions is historically sustainable.
Now, by the year 64 two of the Synoptic Gospels, i.e., those of Sts.
Matthew and Mark (and very probably also, that of St. Luke), had been
written. These Gospels relate the institution of the Holy Eucharist
on Holy Thursday night. They all contain the command: "Do this in
commemoration of Me." Ten years before this date, St. Paul himself
wrote of the Blessed Sacrament to the Corinthians. H. is letter sums
up the entire history of the institution of the Eucharist, and
supplies numerous details about the supper called the Agape. The
reception of Holy Communion by the Faithful is distinctly mentioned
in the passage.[7] It is obvious, therefore, that ignorance of, or
hostility to, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist cannot be the cause
of the silence of the writer.
suggests the reason for the silence concerning the bread and wine. We
may say, though this is a matter of opinion, that in the particular
context of the seventh chapter this feature of the type,
Melchisedech, could not be used in the argument of the writer. To
make this clear, we must follow the thread of the argumentation. We
have spoken above of the beauty and profundity of the Letter; we
shall find that no less praise must be given to its close and subtle
argumentation.
The "Hebrews" to whom St. Paul addresses the Epistle are the members
of a Judaeo- Christian church. This church is already
long-established compared to the new communities at Ephesus or
Philippi or Corinth. In that day, "long established" meant, at most,
thirty years. These Christians have suffered many minor persecutions
for the Faith, such as ridicule and scorn, and even imprisonment and
the confiscation of their goods. But now they are in danger of losing
their faith, even of apostatizing from it, through their own
negligence and want of fortitude. To meet this crisis, St. Paul holds
to two purposes: to warn his readers of the danger of temptations
against faith and of the utter hopelessness of the apostate who
rejects Christ; and to encourage and revivify a persevering faith
which will sustain them unto the end.
VI
ENDNOTES
1. The date here assigned merely signifies that the author prefers
the opinion which places the Exodus from Egypt about 1450, and not
almost two centuries later.
3 The Fathers did not restrict "lifted up" to the Crucifixion, but
saw in the phrase a twofold elevation: a physical one on Calvary, a
moral one in the triumphant mysteries. Cf. Commentaries on Jo. iii,
14-15: xii, 32.
8 Heb. v, 10-11.
-------------------------------------------------------------------