John Calvin Commentary Genesis 14:18

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was priest of God Most High." — Genesis 14:18 (ASV)

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth. This is the last of the three principal points of this history: that Melchizedek, the chief father of the Church, having entertained Abram at a feast, blessed him by virtue of his priesthood, and received tithes from him. There is no doubt that by the coming of this king to meet him, God also designed to make Abram's victory famous and memorable to posterity.

But a more exalted and excellent mystery was, at the same time, foreshadowed. For since the holy patriarch, whom God had raised to the highest rank of honor, submitted himself to Melchizedek, it cannot be doubted that God had appointed him as the unique head of the whole Church. For, undeniably, the solemn act of blessing, which Melchizedek performed, was a symbol of preeminent dignity.

If anyone replies that he did this as a priest, I ask: Was not Abram also a priest? Therefore, God here highlights for us something peculiar in Melchizedek, in preferring him over the father of all the faithful. But it will be more satisfactory to examine the passage word by word, in regular order, so that we may better understand the meaning of the whole from it.

That he received Abram and his companions as guests belonged to his royalty; but the blessing pertained especially to his priestly office. Therefore, the words of Moses should be connected in this way: Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and since he was the priest of God, he blessed Abram. Thus, what belongs to each role is distinctly attributed to it.

He refreshed a weary and starving army with royal liberality; but because he was a priest, he blessed—by the rite of solemn prayer—the firstborn son of God and the father of the Church. Moreover, although I do not deny that it was a very ancient custom for kings to also fulfill the office of the priesthood, this appears to have been extraordinary for Melchizedek, even in that age.

And indeed, he is honored with significant praise when the Spirit confirms his priesthood. We know how religion was corrupted everywhere at that time, as Abram himself, who was descended from the sacred race of Shem and Eber, had been plunged into the profound vortex of superstitions with his father and grandfather.

Therefore, many imagine that Melchizedek was Shem, an opinion to which, for many reasons, I cannot subscribe. For the Lord would not have designated a man worthy of eternal memory by such a new and obscure name that he would have to remain unknown. Secondly, it is not probable that Shem had migrated from the east into Judea, and nothing of the kind can be inferred from Moses.

Thirdly, if Shem had lived in the land of Canaan, Abram would not have wandered by such circuitous routes, as Moses has previously related, before he went to greet his ancestor. But the Apostle's declaration carries the greatest weight: that this Melchizedek, whoever he was, is presented to us without any origin, as if he had dropped from the clouds, and that his name is buried without any mention of his death (Hebrews 7:3).

But the admirable grace of God shines more clearly in an unknown person because, amid the corruptions of the world, he alone, in that land, was an upright and sincere upholder and guardian of religion. I omit the absurdities that Jerome, in his Epistle to Evagrius, heaps together, lest, without any benefit, I should become troublesome and even offensive to the reader.

I am inclined to believe that Salem should be understood as Jerusalem, and this is the generally received interpretation. If, however, anyone prefers to adopt a contrary opinion, given that the town was situated in a plain, I do not oppose it. On this point, Jerome thinks differently; nevertheless, what he elsewhere relates—that in his own times some vestiges of Melchizedek's palace were still present in the ancient ruins—appears to me improbable.

It now remains to be seen how Melchizedek bore the image of Christ and became, as it were, his representative—an ἀντίτυπος (antitypos). These are the words of David:

The Lord swore, and will not repent, You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4).

First, He had placed him on a royal throne, and now He gives him the honor of the priesthood. But under the Law, these two offices were so distinct that it was unlawful for kings to usurp the office of the priesthood. If, therefore, we accept as true what Plato declares, and what occasionally occurs in the poets—that it was formerly accepted by the common custom of nations that the same person should be both king and priest—this was by no means the case with David and his posterity, whom the Law strictly forbade to intrude upon the priestly office.

It was therefore right that what was divinely appointed under the Old Law should be abrogated in the person of this priest. And the Apostle argues with good reason that a more excellent priesthood than that old and shadowy one was indicated here, a priesthood confirmed by an oath.

Moreover, we never find that king and priest, who is to be preeminent over all, until we come to Christ. And as no one has arisen except Christ who equaled Melchizedek in dignity, much less one who excelled him, from this we infer that the image of Christ was presented to the fathers in his person.

David, indeed, does not propose a comparison of his own making but declares the reason for which the kingdom of Christ was divinely ordained and even confirmed with an oath. It cannot be doubted that the same truth had previously been handed down by tradition from the fathers. The essence of it all is that Christ would thus be the king subordinate only to God, and also that He should be anointed priest, and that forever. It is very useful for us to know this, so that we may learn that the royal power of Christ is combined with the office of priest.

The same Person, therefore, who was appointed the only and eternal Priest, so that He might reconcile us to God, and who, having made expiation, could intercede for us, is also a King of infinite power to secure our salvation and to protect us by His guardian care. It follows, therefore, that relying on His advocacy, we may stand boldly in the presence of God, who, we are assured, will be favorable to us; and that trusting in His invincible arm, we may securely triumph over enemies of every kind.

But those who separate one office from the other tear Christ apart and subvert their own faith, which is deprived of half its support. It should also be noted that Christ is called an eternal King, like Melchizedek. For since Scripture, by assigning no end to His life, leaves Him as if He were to survive through all ages, it certainly represents or foreshadows to us, in His person, a figure not of a temporal but of an eternal kingdom.

But since Christ, by His death, has fulfilled the office of Priest, it follows that God was, by that one sacrifice, once appeased in such a way that reconciliation is now to be sought in Christ alone. Therefore, those who either institute other sacrifices for the expiation of sins or make other priests do Him grievous wrong and wrest from Him by abominable sacrilege the honor divinely conferred upon Him by an oath. And I wish the ancient writers of the Church had prudently weighed this.

For then they would not have so coolly, and even so ignorantly, transferred the likeness between Christ and Melchizedek—which lies in very different things—to the bread and wine. They have assumed that Melchizedek is the image of Christ because he offered bread and wine. For they add that Christ offered His body, which is life-giving bread, and His blood, which is spiritual drink.

But the Apostle, while in his Epistle to the Hebrews he most accurately gathers and specifically examines every point of similarity between Christ and Melchizedek, does not say a word concerning the bread and wine. If the subtleties of Tertullian, and of others like him, were true, it would have been blameworthy negligence not to devote a single syllable to the main point while discussing the separate parts, which were of comparatively trivial importance.

And since the Apostle disputes at such great length, and with such detail, concerning the priesthood, how gross an instance of forgetfulness would it have been not to touch upon that memorable sacrifice in which the whole force of the priesthood was contained? He proves the honor of Melchizedek from the blessing given and tithes received. How much better would it have suited this argument to have said that he offered not lambs or calves, but the life of the world (that is, the body and blood of Christ), in a figure?

By these arguments, the fictions of the ancients are abundantly refuted. Nevertheless, from the very words of Moses, a sufficiently clear refutation can be drawn. For we do not read there that anything was offered to God; but in one continuous discourse it is stated, He offered bread and wine; and since he was priest of the Most High God, he blessed him. Who does not see that the same relative pronoun is common to both verbs, and therefore that Abram was both refreshed with the wine and honored with the blessing?

Truly, the Papists are utterly ridiculous, who distort the offering of bread and wine into the sacrifice of their mass. For in order to bring Melchizedek into agreement with themselves, it will be necessary for them to concede that bread and wine are offered in the mass. Where, then, is transubstantiation, which leaves nothing except the bare species of the elements?

Then, with what audacity do they declare that the body of Christ is immolated in their sacrifices? Under what pretext, since the Son of God is called the only successor of Melchizedek, do they substitute innumerable successors for Him? We see, then, how foolishly they not only corrupt this passage but also babble without any semblance of reason.