The Bread and the Wine

Last Sunday, we learned that Abram has what it takes to be a hero. When war between villains skirted around the edges of the land, when an invasion caught up his hapless nephew, Abram held nothing back. He called on his covenanted allies, he emptied out the soldiers he'd been training for an emergency, and he rode hard for weeks to catch up to the withdrawing winners; he lent all his craft to an attack by night from all sides, and he set the powers of the world to flight – all so he could be a savior to those who needed one. Against the most impossible odds, Abram prevailed, snatching the captives from their captor and the plunder from its plunderer.

What now? “After his return,” Abram and his returning army, laden with treasures and leading the redeemed in procession, reached a point called “the Valley of Shaveh, which is the Valley of the King” – and that was where “the king of Sodom,” who had survived the tar pit and escaped the battle, “went out to meet him” (Genesis 14:17). Bera is back on stage. But what are his motives here? 'Meet' is an ambiguous verb. It could mean Bera is en route to greet Abram and his men, a gesture of grateful welcome with open arms. But the same verb could mean Bera is coming to intercept Abram and his men, to challenge and confront Abram; that would be a much more hostile move. So what does Bera have in mind: hostility or hospitality?¹ Only the next action will tell. But before it can, an intruder appears on stage, interrupting everything, distracting us from the question.

This chapter has been packed with kings. We've met nine of them: Chedorlaomer of Elam, Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, Tidal of the nations, Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the unnamed king of Bela. Count 'em up, that's nine. And now we're standing in the Valley of the King. But which king? None of the nine can call it theirs. Out of seemingly nowhere, another king – a king who wasn't in the war, hasn't been an invader or a defender; a king whose presence isn't mandated by the story, and so is acting in perfect freedom – bursts in and rounds out their number. He's the tenth king this chapter.²

His name is longer than any but the Elamite's; his name is Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18). It's not such a weird name to have in these parts; a few centuries from now, we'll meet a coalition of local kings led by Adonizedek (Joshua 10:3-5). This could even be a title. More than one king in the Middle East back then used a similar-sounding phrase to designate themselves 'rightful king.'³ But it just as likely could be a personal name, meaning “my king is righteous.”⁴ In time, it became common, as early Jews read this text, to focus on this name as a significant fact about his character and role: “For he is entitled 'the righteous king,'”⁵ “called in the native tongue 'righteous king,' for such indeed he was.”⁶ The New Testament agrees: “He is first, by translation of his name, 'king of righteousness'” (Hebrews 7:2). That's what Melchizedek could mean: 'king of righteousness.'

But that raises another question. Up to now, the Bible's been pretty sparse on king-talk. The first use of the word was for Nimrod's 'kingdom' (Genesis 10:10); Abram has a rough time with Pharaoh (Genesis 12:15-20), who will be called a 'king' later on (Genesis 41:46); and in this chapter, we have local kings of wicked cities pitted against invading tyrants who smash and steal everything and everyone in view (Genesis 14:1-11). So at this point, it seems that 'king' is a dirty word. And doesn't that fit a lot of our suspicions these days – that political power always means corruption, due to the special temptations it brings for moral compromise to grab and keep coveted position? I mean, ask yourself: who was the last American political leader widely recognized as honest and fair-minded toward supports and opponents alike, as both wise and a virtuous person, as an uncompromised steward of power and public trust? Who among the politicians doesn't reveal an inner darkness once in office or else seem to corrode their character through the grimy realities of navigating the system? And then the obvious question is: Could there be such a thing as a righteous political leader, one who stands up for justice?

And by his very name, Melchizedek steps into this morass to stake a claim that, despite everything we've read in the Bible so far and despite everything we see and hear in the news each day, there can and has been such a thing as a king who governs justly, a king whose rule unveils virtue, a righteous king. For Melchizedek, as the Bible presents him, is “a figure of outstanding personal character,” all while wielding political power.⁷

So where's he do it? Well, the Bible introduces him as “Melchizedek, king of Salem” (Genesis 14:18). Where is that? Well, this valley we're in now shows up once later, just outside Jerusalem (2 Samuel 8:18).⁸ Those names sound pretty similar, although even back in these early days, surviving records call the city Rushalimum or Urushalim.⁹ Jerusalem is also where the similar-named king Adonizedek ruled (Joshua 10:1). And later psalm parallels Salem with Zion as the place on earth where God lives (Psalm 76:2). Add it all up, and most scholars today agree Jerusalem is in view.¹⁰ Ancient readers thought so, too, that this was “Salem, which is Jerusalem.”¹¹ So Melchizedek is reigning from Jerusalem; this is our first biblical glimpse of that vital place.

But Salem is a name, Shalem, that's also a Hebrew word on its own: shalom, 'peace.' So, as the New Testament reads it, Melchizedek “is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace” (Hebrews 7:2), an understanding shared by other Jews of the time.¹² Can this be a city called Peace? If kings have gotten a bad rap up to now, cities fare worse still, from their invention by Cain (Genesis 4:17) to their prominence in Nimrod's kingdom (Genesis 10:10-12) and the building of the city of Babel (Genesis 11:3). No city we've met so far has been a wholesome place, and though Lot dares to move toward cities, Abram sticks to the open country (Genesis 13:12). Enoch, Babel, Ur, Harran, Sodom and Gomorrah – “the city full of injustice” (Ezekiel 9:9), “the bloody city all full of lies” (Nahum 3:1). It's seemed cities can be no good – until now, when we hear of a city called Peace?¹³

The next thing we learn is that Melchizedek worships El 'Elyon, “God Most High” (Genesis 14:18).¹⁴ The Canaanites worshipped many gods, but their neglected figurehead was “Kind El the Compassionate,”¹⁵ “the Gentle and Holy One,”¹⁶ “Father of Years,”¹⁷ “Creator of Creatures,”¹⁸ “Father of Man.”¹⁹ Archaeologists aren't sure there were temples to this El, though Canaanites seem to have worshipped all the gods together under the collective name Ilu.²⁰ As far as 'elyon, that was a nickname other gods might bear,²¹ though some Canaanites believed in a pair of original gods, El and Elyon.²² But when Melchizedek uses the phrase El Elyon, he's likely referring generically, not to one or both of those particular pagan gods, but to “the deity most high.”²³ His god is godhood itself, abstracted from silly myths, exalted above the heaven and the earth he created and owns.²⁴

The Canaanites told many awful and scurrilous myths about their gods, but Melchizedek doesn't come across in our Bibles as the same kind of Canaanite pagan we'll meet everywhere else, whose gods weren't even to be mentioned by name by Israelites (Joshua 23:7).²⁵ In just a few verses, Abram will make his own reference to “the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:22). And I don't want you to miss what just happened. Abram is saying that his God, Yahweh, 'the LORD,' the one who called him out of pagan Ur, is the same Godhead that Melchizedek has known and loved as El Elyon!²⁶ Abram “recognizes Melchizedek as one who shares his faith in the same God,”²⁷ that “all his thoughts of God are high and sublime.”²⁸ Melchizedek has the true religion, just in Canaanite clothes. What's more, Abram immediately takes up Melchizedek's way of titling the Creator and adds it to his own way, enriching his own language of the soul.²⁹ From here on out, the poets of Abram's people would “sing praise to the name of the LORD, the Most High” (Psalm 7:17). They'd confess what Abram and Melchizedek taught them: that “the LORD, the Most High, is... a great king over all the earth” (Psalm 47:2); and in days of crisis, “God was their rock, the Most High God their redeemer” (Psalm 78:35).

But Melchizedek doesn't just believe in this El Elyon, this God Most High. He's the “priest of God Most High” (Genesis 14:19). This is, believe it or not, the first time in the Bible we run into the word 'priest.'³⁰ Jewish writers in the first century credited Melchizedek as “the first to officiate as priest of God,”³¹ or even “the head of priests reigning over a royal people who serve you, O LORD.”³² Jews praised the God “who appointed Melchizedek a high priest in your service.”³³ Among the Jewish people, priests and kings were kept separate, they were different positions with incompatible requirements, and the priesthood was older than the monarchy.³⁴ Canaanite kings seem to have had leading roles in many sacrifices and rituals,³⁵ but what's happening here goes even beyond that: “this Melchizedek was at the same time both priest and king.”³⁶ How unusual!

So “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and he was priest of God Most High” (Genesis 14:18). What does it mean? Many ancient readers took this as ordinary food and drink: Melchizedek just “brought out food and drink for Abram and for all the men who were with him.”³⁷ “Melchizedek hospitably entertained Abraham's army, providing abundantly for all their needs” as they were battle-weary.³⁸ On that reading, this is merely “a festive meal,”³⁹ “a full dinner, a royal banquet,”⁴⁰ but can that really be all?

See, that might be a good first reading. But then it had to go and clarify that Melchizedek's a priest. And as a priest, “Melchizedek's bringing bread and wine” carries “a religious import.”⁴¹ “Every high priest,” after all, “is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer” (Hebrews 8:3). So this is “more than a display of hospitality,” it's “a religious ritual.”⁴² Melchizedek “offered sacrifices of thanksgiving for the victory” Abram had won.⁴³ But he doesn't haul out a lamb or goat or a fatted calf. The only gift mentioned in connection with Melchizedek's priesthood is this bread and this wine.⁴⁴ Rabbis linked Melchizedek's bread and wine to “the laws of the priesthood,”⁴⁵ while early Christians labeled it “a simple and pure sacrifice” to God Most High,⁴⁶ suggesting Melchizedek then shared with Abram and his men “part of the sacrifice which he had offered to the Lord in bread and wine.”⁴⁷ And of course he did, because the inevitable end to an ancient war was a religious celebration of victory,⁴⁸ and a major theme in Canaanite religion was that gods invite humans to feast together on sacrificial food in the open country, in places just like this valley.⁴⁹ For if “Melchizedek offered bread and wine in sacrifice,”⁵⁰ then they here become holy gifts, “symbols of the priesthood,”⁵¹ “those things which Abraham venerated and received.”⁵²

And so “Melchizedek... brought out bread and wine, and he was priest of God Most High, and he blessed him” (Genesis 14:18-19). This offering of bread and wine “cannot be separated from the blessing by Melchizedek that follows.”⁵³ First, “Melchizedek blessed him in a great mystery,”⁵⁴ with the words, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth!” (Genesis 14:19). Melchizedek “pours a heavenly blessing on the conqueror who had put himself in danger for the sake of his brother's hardships.”⁵⁵ Melchizedek recognizes his God Most High as active in this foreigner Abram's life. Melchizedek is asking the Creator of Creatures to keep being so kind and compassionate, to enrich all of Abram's relationships, to enhance Abram's well-being, to lift Abram up higher in life.⁵⁶ Melchizedek leads the way for others to bless Abram (Genesis 12:3).

Then, Melchizedek adds a further praise: “And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand” (Genesis 14:20). Melchizedek is already priest of El Elyon, but now he calls attention to El Elyon's praiseworthiness for protecting Abram on a great errand of mercy. Melchizedek “praises the Divine Majesty as the only and supreme God, who has everything in his hand and controls it with power and dispatch,” as Luther put it.⁵⁷ By these praises, Melchizedek is teaching Abram's men, reminding him and them that “without grace from above, he could not have prevailed over such might.”⁵⁸ That's the essence of Melchizedek's sermon here.

And that's just about the last we hear of Melchizedek. He's been a bolt out of the blue. The Bible is concerned with where kings and priests come from, but Melchizedek appears abruptly without a precedent and vanishes suddenly without a trace. Melchizedek doesn't do explanations; he moves in mysterious ways. He comes across as if “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Hebrews 7:3), “on account of there being no mention” of these in the text of Genesis⁵⁹ – which is extra weird, since Genesis is literally built on genealogies.⁶⁰ Yet in the stark absence of these customary credentials, Melchizedek shows up and exercises spiritual authority over Abram, one of the Bible's main characters! How can somebody who flies across the stage be so important and yet so seldom mentioned?

From that question began ages of confused people wrestling with this odd character. Already by the fourth century, one bishop lamented “how many other fancies” people “have about this Melchizedek.”⁶¹ Many Jewish readers filled in the blanks by saying we'd really met Melchizedek before – that “he is Shem the Great,” Noah's son, a distant ancestor of Abram.⁶² Others dreamt up a story where Melchizedek was a local prince who reasoned his way to belief in the true God, escaped his dad's attempt to make him a human sacrifice, and saw his society destroyed in judgment.⁶³ Others, maybe trying to rebut the argument in Hebrews, came up with a still more fanciful legend where Melchizedek was Noah's nephew, born miraculously and then ordained a priest as a child before the Flood but hidden away by an angel in the Garden of Eden.⁶⁴ Some Jewish readers got even more adventurous with their guesses, treating Melchizedek as a heavenly figure who'll come someday to “carry out the vengeance of God's judgments,” defeat the forces of darkness, and set captives free “from the debt of all their iniquities.”⁶⁵ In the early church, “some did not know whether he was a man or an angel.”⁶⁶ There were a few who speculated about Melchizedek as a heavenly “power above all,”⁶⁷ or even that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit walking around in human form!⁶⁸

Of course, none of these speculations hold any water. One old bishop complained that “certain people rave wildly in their different opinions” of Melchizedek, but he judged that they've “foolishly fallen into meaningless nonsense.”⁶⁹ The Christian consensus over centuries, as another observed back then, was that “Melchizedek was a Canaanite man,” a “human” who “reigned in an earthly city.”⁷⁰ At least, that's true for the Melchizedek of history. But what about the literary Melchizedek of mystery; where does he point, where is he leading us?

Although the shadow of Melchizedek falls heavily over people like Jethro, who played a similar role in the life of his son-in-law Moses,⁷¹ the only other mention of Melchizedek in the Old Testament is in a psalm of David where the LORD, the God of all things, invites the singer's lord to be enthroned at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1), but more than that royal hope, “the LORD has sworn, and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4). On the surface level, the psalm works to make Melchizedek “a prototype of the ideal king of Israel,”⁷² and makes each king in David's line sort of a “successor to Melchizedek.”⁷³ But while David dancing in an ephod before the ark, offering sacrifices, and blessing the people (2 Samuel 6:14-18) gives us a glimpse of what priestly kingship could be, and the Bible even hints that “David's sons were priests” (2 Samuel 8:18),⁷⁴ they later learned the hard way that they couldn't fully cross over (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). Nor could any of them have been “a priest forever” (Psalm 110:4). This royal-priestly order of Melchizedek had to be something more, pointing to something new in the last days.⁷⁵

So it's no wonder that, as the early Christians read Genesis, they marveled at “Melchizedek as a similitude and pattern of Christ.”⁷⁶ Wasn't it hinted from the start of the New Testament? What did the angel Gabriel say to the Virgin Mary? “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son..., called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:31-33). During his ministry, even foul spirits acknowledged Jesus as “the Son of the Most High God,” of El Elyon (Mark 5:7). Of him did the prophets promise that “a king will reign in righteousness” (Isaiah 32:1), for “righteous and having salvation is he” (Zechariah 9:9).

Jesus himself says that the psalm we mentioned is David's address to the Messiah (Mark 12:35-36); and when the council of elders asked whether Jesus was that “Messiah, Son of the Blessed,” he answered them: “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62). Peter points out that David never inherited what the psalm promised, as “David did not ascend into the heavens” to be “exalted at the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33-34), but Paul says Jesus is the one – God “raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 1:20). There, Jesus is revealed as the true “King of Salem.”⁷⁷

But if the first royal verse of the psalm is for Jesus, then so is the fourth priestly verse. And that's why the New Testament confesses that Jesus was “designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:10). All the other priests we'd meet in the Old Testament are Levitical priests, descended from Aaron the brother of Moses. But if that priesthood were good enough, why later on would the psalm look forward to a different kind of priest arriving (Hebrews 7:11)?⁷⁸ Those usual priests got their priesthood purely “on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent” (Hebrews 7:16), as was written of “Aaron and his sons” that “the priesthood shall be theirs by a statute” (Exodus 29:9). But Melchizedek was “marked not by a chrism prepared by human art, nor the hereditary succession that characterized the Hebrew priesthood.”⁷⁹ And Jesus “arises in the likeness of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:15). That's why Genesis shrouds the historical Melchizedek in such mystery: to lay down a precedent for Jesus, “without a mother according to divinity..., without a father according to the incarnation..., having neither beginning nor end, for he himself is the beginning and end of all things.”⁸⁰ Where these special things were said of Melchizedek for prophetic purpose, early Christians urge us, “Do not require [Melchizedek] to provide the reality in fact; instead, grasp the reality in the case of Christ.”⁸¹

Christ, fulfilling the psalm, “was made a priest with an oath” by God himself (Hebrews 7:21), a “direct divine appointment,”⁸² and “has become a priest... by the power of an indestructible life” (Hebrews 7:16). Where the Law of Moses “appoints men in their weakness as priests” who come and go, “the word of the oath, which came later than the Law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever” (Hebrews 7:28). “The priesthood of Christ endures forever in heaven.”⁸³ That's how he “lives to make intercession” for “those who draw near to God through him” (Hebrews 7:25). As a great bishop said of old, “we're not blessed in any other way except through Christ, the great and true priest.”⁸⁴

But we know that “it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer” in sacrifice (Hebrews 8:3). To that end, he offered sacrifice “once for all when he offered up himself” on the cross (Hebrews 7:27). Jesus “offered himself as a sacrificial victim to his Father for us.”⁸⁵ Then, “when he had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins,” a “unique sacrifice of which all the sacrifices of the Law and the Prophets were shadows,”⁸⁶ then “he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet,” according to the promise (Hebrews 10:12-13). But this is the point where Christ seems least like Melchizedek, who offered a bloodless sacrifice in bread and wine.⁸⁷

Until we remember the Last Supper. There, “as they were eating, he took bread and, after blessing it, broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many'” (Mark 14:22-24). What foods did Jesus use to give them his body and blood? Bread and wine. Later Christians looked back on the Last Supper, then, as a “mystical sacrifice of bread and wine” by “the King of Justice and the Begetter of Supreme Peace.”⁸⁸

And as early as the second century, Christians were linking this to the story of Melchizedek, saying that the king of earthly Salem was “furnishing consecrated food as a type for the Eucharist” Jesus had offered.⁸⁹ “In the priest Melchizedek,” they said, “we see the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord prefigured. … Melchizedek was priest of God Most High because he offered bread and wine” as a foreshadowing, of Jesus who “offered the very sacrifice that Melchizedek offered – namely, bread and wine, that is to say, his body and blood.”⁹⁰ In some way, they wondered if Melchizedek had actually “offered the sacrament of the Lord's table” in advance.⁹¹ But Melchizedek's offering was what Christ “completed and fulfilled” at the Last Supper.⁹² Where Melchizedek “offered bread and wine in prefiguration of him,” Jesus “would present it in the truth of his own body and blood,”⁹³ so that we “recognize in the bread what hung on the cross and in the cup what flowed from his side.”⁹⁴

And now, “the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ; the bread that we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). The early Christians weren't just content to say that what Jesus did at the Last Supper fulfilled the priesthood of Melchiziedek; they called Jesus “our Melchizedek who gave us the divine sacrifice that we have,”⁹⁵ “the sacrifice of the Christians.”⁹⁶ To them, Jesus was still offering himself through the ministry of his members. “Our Savior... even now performs through his ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's.”⁹⁷ And so “what Melchizedek offered God, we may see is now offered throughout the world in the Church of Christ.”⁹⁸

If Jesus is “the head of the priests of the future,”⁹⁹ then now “the priest who truly acts in place of Christ... imitates that which Christ did, and offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father,”¹⁰⁰ “a sacrifice of praise... according to the order of Melchizedek.”¹⁰¹ For “our Lord and Savior himself first, and then all his priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church and, with wine and bread, darkly express the mysteries of his body and saving blood. This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw, and used the figures of what was to come,”¹⁰² so that Melchizedek “even then consecrated the mystery which Christians consecrate in the body and blood of our Savior.”¹⁰³

So the early church offered to God “daily on her altar, according to the order of Melchizedek,”¹⁰⁴ “a reasonable sacrifice, an unbloody victim, this holy bread and chalice of eternal life,”¹⁰⁵ praying for Christ to “sanctify this offering of ours after the prefiguration of Melchizedek.”¹⁰⁶ For the first Melchizedek had “foretold the holy communion of the new covenant by the unique nature of his sacrifice.”¹⁰⁷ This act of worship bears its fruit, they said, when “we receive the mysteries as the provisions of life,”¹⁰⁸ “the perfect refreshment.”¹⁰⁹

And along with that refreshment, in Christian worship we hear the truth of what God has done for us, we bless God for it, and we go forth with his blessing. Before Moses ever came along to give the Law and its ordinances of flesh, Melchizedek has already shown us the entire pattern of Christian worship, which is therefore older and greater!¹¹⁰ And this bread and wine we offer, this body and blood we receive, this blessing “celebrated in the Church throughout the world”¹¹¹ – they transform everything else in our lives, fitting them to be offered through Jesus. “Through him, then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God,” we read, and “don't neglect to do good and share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Hebrews 13:15-16).

After having met Melchizedek, Abram now understood that there could be a righteous king and a peaceful city – a “city of righteousness, the faithful city” (Isaiah 1:26). And that's what he found he wanted. But where ancient Jews prayed for “the time for the year of grace of Melchizedek,”¹¹² a historical king in Canaan couldn't sustain their hopes. And this little Canaanite Salem, whose urban population was maybe no larger than Abram's household had become,¹¹³ could never accommodate Abram, nor support his band. Hence “he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:10). Abram and his trained men, Sarai and the rest of the household, they “all died in faith,” never finding their City of Peace on earth. But God Most High, the LORD, “is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city” (Hebrews 11:16), “the city of God which God will establish forever” (Psalm 48:8). Like them, “here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14), “the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2).

And in the Church's worship, Christians hear that they're already visiting. “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant” (Hebrews 12:22-24), our great and true Melchizedek above, Son of the Most High God, Righteous King, Priest of the Feast. Thanks be to God! Amen.

1  Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 108-109.

2  Joshua G. Mathews, Melchizedek's Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18-20 and Its Echoes Throughout the Tanak (Eisenbrauns, 2013), 70.

3  Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 380.

4  James McKeown, Genesis (Eerdmans, 2008), 87; Alex Varughese and Christina Bohn, Genesis 12-50: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Beacon Hill Press, 2019), 59.

5  Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation 3.25 §79, in Loeb Classical Library 226:353.

6  Josephus, Jewish War 6.438, in Loeb Classical Library 210:501.

7  Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 148.

8  David W. Baker, “The Migrations and Wanderings of the Patriarchs,” in Barry L. Beitzel, Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Pentateuch (Lexham Press, 2023), 113-114.

9  Jodi Magness, Jerusalem Through the Ages: From Its Beginnings to the Crusades (Oxford University Press, 2024), 43.

10  Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 109; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (Eerdmans, 1990), 408; Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 148.

11  1QapGen 22.13, in Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation (Brill, 2009), 82; see also Targum Onqelos Genesis 14:18, in Aramaic Bible 6:68.

12  Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation 3.25 §79, in Loeb Classical Library 226:353.

13  Jonathan Grossman, Abraham: The Story of a Journey (Maggid Books, 2023), 66; John C. Lennox, Friend of God: The Inspiration of Abraham in an Age of Doubt (SPCK, 2024), 94.

14  Michael B. Hundley, Yahweh among the Gods: The Divine in Genesis, Exodus, and the Ancient Near East (Cambridge University Press, 2022), 209.

15  KTU 1.16 v.23; 1.18 i.15, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:38, 63.

16  KTU 1.16 i.11, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:31.

17  KTU 1.1 iv.24, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:92.

18  KTU 1.17 i.23, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:52.

19  KTU 1.14 i.37, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:13.

20  David Toshio Tsumura, Was There a Cult of El in Ancient Canaan? Essays on Ugaritic Religion and Language (Mohr Siebeck, 2024), 235-236.

21  KTU 1.1 iii.22; 1.10 ii.13; 1.16 iii.6, in Writings from the Ancient World 9:35, 89, 183.

22  Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 381.

23  David Toshio Tsumura, Was There a Cult of El in Ancient Canaan? Essays on Ugaritic Religion and Language (Mohr Siebeck, 2024), 81.

24  John Goldingay, Genesis (Baker Academic, 2020), 237.

25  Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2001), 234.

26  Michael B. Hundley, Yahweh among the Gods: The Divine in Genesis, Exodus, and the Ancient Near East (Cambridge University Press, 2022), 210.

27  Tremper Longman III, Genesis (Zondervan Academic, 2016), 187.

28  Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation 3.26 §82, in Loeb Classical Library 226:355.

29  Zvi Grumet, Genesis: From Creation to Covenant (Maggid Books, 2017), 155-156.

30  Brian Neil Peterson, Genesis: A Pentecostal Commentary (Brill, 2022), 139; Stephen K. Ray, Genesis: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary (Ignatius Press, 2023), 141.

31  Josephus, Jewish War 6.438, in Loeb Classical Library 210:503.

32  2 Enoch 71:37, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1:211.

33  Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers 12.63, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2:693.

34  Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 110.

35  RS 24.260, in Writings from the Ancient World 10:66; Matthew Susnow, The Practice of Canaanite Cult: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Zaphon, 2021), 205-207; David Toshio Tsumura, Was There a Cult of El in Ancient Canaan? Essays on Ugaritic Religion and Language (Mohr Siebeck, 2024), 22.

36  John Chrysostom, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians 7.4.5, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 68:193.

37  1QapGen 22.14-15, in Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation (Brill, 2009), 82.

38  Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.181, in Loeb Classical Library 242:89.

39  Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis 14:18, in Luther's Works 2:385.

40  Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2001), 233.

41Terence E. Fretheim, Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith (Fortress Press, 2024; reprint of University of South Carolina, 2007), 72.

42  Alex Varughese and Christina Bohn, Genesis 12-50: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (Beacon Hill Press, 2019), 59.

43  Philo of Alexandria, On Abraham 40 §235, in Loeb Classical Library 289:115.

44  Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God's Saving Promises (Yale University Press, 2009), 131.

45  Genesis Rabbah 43.6, in Harry Freedman, Midrash Rabbah (Soncino Press, 1983), 1:356.

46  Jerome of Stridon, Epistle 73.3, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 147:310.

47  Bede, On Genesis 14:18-20, in Translated Texts for Historians 48:268.

48  Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003), 322.

49  Matthew Susnow, The Practice of Canaanite Cult: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Zaphon, 2021), 195.

50  Bernard Blankenhorn, Bread from Heaven: An Introduction to the Theology of the Eucharist (Catholic University of America Press, 2021), 67.

51  Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch 2.4.9, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 137:126.

52  Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries 8 §45, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 44:22.

53  Terence E. Fretheim, Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith (Fortress Press, 2024; reprint of University of South Carolina Press, 2007), 72.

54  Augustine of Hippo, Questions on the Heptateuch 7.37, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century I/14:399.

55  Bede, On Genesis 14:18-20, in Translated Texts for Historians 48:267.

56  Tremper Longman III, Genesis (Zondervan Academic, 2016), 187.

57  Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis 14:19, in Luther's Works 2:392.

58  John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 35.17, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 82:316.

59  John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 35.16, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 82:316.

60  Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 149.

61  Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 55.6.1, in Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Brill, 2009), 2:82.

62  Targum Neofiti Genesis 14:18, in Aramaic Bible 1A:92; cf. Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis 11.2.2, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 91:151; Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis 14:18, in Luther's Works 2:382; Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God's Saving Promises (Yale University Press, 2009), 132.

63  Story of Melchizedek 1.1–8.5, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures 1:77-79; cf. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 55.2.1, in Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Brill, 2009), 2:79.

64  2 Enoch 71:1-33, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1:204-209; see discussion of its possible relation to Hebrews in Harold W. Attridge, “Melchizedek in Some Early Christian Texts and 2 Enoch,” in Andrei A. Orlov and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Brill, 2012), 400-404.

65  11Q13 ii.6, 13, in Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Brill, 2004). 2:25.

66  Augustine of Hippo, Questions on the Heptateuch 1.71, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century I/14:42.

67  Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10.24.1, in Writings from the Greco-Roman World 40:735.

68  Hieracas, mentioned by Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 55.5.1-5, in Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Brill, 2009), 2:82; also an anonymous author critiqued by Jerome of Stridon, Epistle 73.10, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 147:316.

69  Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch 2.4.3, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 137:107.

70  Jerome of Stridon, Epistle 73.2, 9, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 147:309, 315.

71  Joshua G. Mathews, Melchizedek's Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18-20 and Its Echoes Throughout the Tanak (Eisenbrauns, 2013), 109-112.

72  Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 150.

73  John Goldingay, Genesis (Baker Academic, 2020), 232.

74  Stephen K. Ray, Genesis: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary (Ignatius Press, 2023), 142.

75  Joshua G. Mathews, Melchizedek's Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18-20 and Its Echoes Throughout the Tanak (Eisenbrauns, 2013), 72-78.

76  Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch 2.4.9, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 137:125.

77  Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 113.5, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 6:323.

78  John Chrysostom, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians 7.5.9, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 68:198.

79  Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 1.3.17, in Jeremy M. Schott, Eusebius of Caesarea: The History of the Church: A New Translation (University of California Press, 2019), 52.

80  Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries 8 §46, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 44:22.

81  John Chrysostom, Commentary on Psalm 110:4, in Robert Charles Hill, John Chrysostom: Commentary on the Psalms (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007), 2:28.

82  R. R. Reno, Genesis (Brazos Press, 2010), 154.

83  Augustine of Hippo, Answer to the Jews 9 §14, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century I/14:770.

84  Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch 2.4.9, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 137:126.

85  Bede, On Genesis 14:18-20, in Translated Texts for Historians 48:267.

86  Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion 10 §33, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation of the 21st Century I/8:294.

87  Erick Ybarra, Melchizedek and the Last Supper: Biblical and Patristic Evidence for the Sacrifice of the Mass (independently published, 2022), 2-3, 92.

88  Bede, On Genesis 14:18-20, in Translated Texts for Historians 48:269.

89  Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.25, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:439.

90  Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 63.4.1, in Popular Patristics Series 33:174-175.

91  Augustine of Hippo, Letter 177.12, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century II/3:147.

92  Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 63.4.3, in Popular Patristics Series 33:176.  See also, along these lines, Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion (Emmaus Academic, 2018), 45.

93  Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on Matthew 26:26, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 117:297.

94  Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 228B.2, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century III/6:262.

95  Jerome of Stridon, Homily 36, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 48:275.

96  Augustine of Hippo, The City of God 17.5, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century I/7:252.

97  Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstration of the Gospel 5.3, in W. J. Ferrar, The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea (SPCK, 1920), 1:241.

98  Augustine of Hippo, Responses to Miscellaneous Questions 61.2, in The Works of Saint Augustine I/12:86.

99  2 Enoch 71:29, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1:208.

100  Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 63.14.4, in Popular Patristics Series 33:183-184.

101  Augustine of Hippo, Answer to an Enemy of the Law and the Prophets 1.39, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century I/18:383.

102  Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstration of the Gospel 5.3, in W. J. Ferrar, The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea (SPCK, 1920), 1:242.

103  Jerome of Stridon, Epistle 46.2, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II/6:61.

104  Braulio of Saragossa, Letter 42, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 63:94.

105  Ambrose of Milan, On the Sacraments 4.6 §27, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 44:306.

106  Gothic Missal §365, in Corpus Christianorum in Translation 27:257.

107  Bede, On Genesis 14:18-20, in Translated Texts for Historians 48:268.

108  Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra on the Pentateuch 2.4.9, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 137:127.

109  William Durand, Rationale divinorum officiorum 4.41.5, in Corpus Christianorum in Translation 14:332.

110  Tertullian of Carthage, Against the Jews 2.7, in Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian (Routledge, 2004), 49; Ambrose of Milan, On the Sacraments 4.3 §10, in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 44:300.

111  Augustine of Hippo, Expositions of the Psalms 106.13, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century III/19:234.

112  11Q13 ii.9, in Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Brill, 2004), 2:25.

113  Jodi Magness, Jerusalem Through the Ages: From Its Beginnings to the Crusades (Oxford University Press, 2024), 43-44.