Melchizedek and the Eucharist? Rediscovering Eucharistic interpretations of the bread and wine in Genesis 14

The first inclination of many Baptists, when contemplating the Eucharist, is to think of the narrative of the Last Supper in Matt 26:17–30 and Luke 22:7–38 or to ponder Paul’s writing to the church in 1 Corinthians 11. They have given little attention, however, to the strange pericope in Gen 14:18–20, in which Melchizedek, the priest of the Most-High God, gives bread and wine to Abram. This lack of attention is likely because, at first glance, the story contains few elements that remind one of the Eucharist. Nevertheless, in the Christian tradition, this passage plays a role in the Eucharist that is integral, yet often neglected by Christian disciples and scholars. As such, I seek to illuminate the ways in which Gen 14:18–20 functions as a reminder of the Eucharist in Christian tradition.

Genesis 14 is a difficult chapter in the opening book of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the appearance of the enigmatic figure of Melchizedek in Gen14:18 adds another layer of intrigue. Yet, the figure of Melchizedek, the mystery of his appearance, and the deliverance of sustenance to Abram after battle has intrigued some early Christian writers. Moreover, the ambiguity of the bread and wine presented by the ambiguous Melchizedek piqued the interest of the earliest Christian interpreters. Thus, two questions emerge for this work. First, do the relatively few Eucharistic interpretations of Gen 14:18–20 suggest that a Eucharistic understanding of the passage was more widespread? Second, what, if anything, does the history of Christian tradition mean for Baptists today? To answer these questions, I briefly discuss the historical-critical understanding of Gen 14:18–20, placing the passage in its historical context within Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. I then turn to patristic writers, specifically Clement, Augustine, and Ambrose, and discuss their understanding of these passages. Finally, I look at the catechism of the Catholic Church as a modern example, which I argue Baptists should embrace.

As noted above, Genesis 14 is a difficult chapter in the Hebrew Bible. The chapter does not fit any of the sources of the Documentary Hypothesis, which makes dating the passage notoriously problematic. Moreover, the mysterious priest Melchizedek appears suddenly in Gen 14:18–20. After Abram’s military victory, Melchizedek brings him both bread and wine, as well as a blessing, before he disappears as quickly as he appeared. Several sources retell the narrative of Gen 14:18–20, with some differences. In 1QapGen 22.14–15, the narrative reflects only minor changes, including changing bread and wine to generic food and drink. Josephus retells the narrative eliminating the bread and wine but making Melchizedek the first priest of God, the one who establishes the city of Jerusalem and the one who builds the First Temple. ¹ In the Samaritan Pentateuch retelling, the entire story takes place on Mount Gerizim, and Melchizedek offers the tithe to Abram rather than Abram to Melchizedek. Melchizedek comes up in rabbinical literature as well. In the Targums, Melchizedek is said to be Shem, son of Noah. ² Other sources discuss Melchizedek as the first high priest, likened to the logos of God. ³ Although certainly not exhaustive, this brief discussion represents some of the history of interpretation in early Judaism of the Gen 14:18–20 narrative. ⁴

Early Christian tradition also provides a rich understanding of Gen 14:18–20. Certainly, the most recognized example is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author of Hebrews uses Melchizedek as an analogue to Jesus. As Melchizedek is without lineage in the Hebrew Bible, so Jesus, though lacking lineage, can be a high priest in heaven by the order of Melchizedek. By invoking both Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, the author of Hebrews weaves together a picture of a great high priest who serves as a precursor and model of Jesus, the greatest high priest. Melchizedek does not make a return only in the Epistle to the Hebrews, however. Many early Christian writers use Melchizedek in polemics against Judaism, arguing against circumcision. The argument, generally, is that Melchizedek was a chosen high priest of God who was not circumcised. Moreover, this uncircumcised priest blessed Abram who was circumcised, which means, these writers suggest, that circumcision is just for the Jews not for Christians. ⁵

Other early Christians use Melchizedek as well. In the documents from the Nag Hammadi, Melchizedek appears several times. In one tractate, called the Melchizedek Tractate, Melchizedek is a human who is baptized and follows Jesus. ⁶ While quite fragmentary in places, scholars suggest that the missing pieces likely contain narratives of Melchizedek and Jesus fighting evil together. ⁷ In the 2nd Book of Jeu, Melchizedek is an angelic figure who leads souls to the Treasury of Light. ⁸ These interpretations of Melchizedek lead to another set of early Christian polemics against heresy. Several early Christian writers list the so-called Melchizedekians, a term coined by Epiphanius, as heretics. These authors generally elaborate on the group’s misinterpretations of Hebrews, though this could be a misinterpretation of the Genesis 14 text as well. These early Christian writers likely knew of the Nag Hammadi texts or were at least generally aware of the types of interpretations of Melchizedek in these texts.

Although certainly not exhaustive of the literature regarding Melchizedek in early Judaism and Christianity, this brief discussion provides a basic foundation for how more recent scholars have interpreted Gen 14:18–20. ⁹ Many scholars suggest that Melchizedek fits into one of four taxonomies: priest, angel, messiah, or God. ¹⁰ A lengthy discussion of these taxonomies is outside the scope of this article; in summary, most scholars neglect any understanding of Melchizedek as a prototype for bringing the Eucharist. I suggest this lack is because scholars have neglected the Eucharistic interpretations of patristic writers such as Clement, Augustine, and Ambrose. I further suggest that a return to these authors’ Eucharistic interpretations of Gen 14:18–20 can illuminate the importance of the passage in the Eucharistic tradition.

Three important figures in patristics, Clement, Augustine, and Ambrose, provide a basis for the Eucharistic interpretation of Gen 14:18–20. Clement writes of Melchizedek in Stromata 2.5 and 4.161. In Stromata 2.5, Clement begins with a description of the Greeks having heard of Moses conversing with a friend, who is God. Clement then proceeds to a comparison of Moses and Jesus in which Clement notes that Jesus “surpasses all human nature.” ¹¹ Furthermore, Jesus is “the true light” and the “only High Priest, who alone possesses the knowledge of the worship of God.” ¹² Then, in a stunning exegetical move, Clement suggests that the High-Priestly Jesus is Melchizedek:

King of Peace, the most fit of all to head the race of men too, inasmuch as He gave the law by the mouth of the prophets, enjoining and teaching most distinctly what things are to be done, and what not. Who of nobler lineage than He whose only Father is God? ¹³

In a few short lines Clement moves from a comparison of Moses and Jesus to stating unequivocally that Christ is Melchizedek. Clement returns to Melchizedek and Jesus in 4.161, writing,

For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Savior is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. ¹⁴

Clement’s exegetical suggestion that the bread and wine in Gen 14:18 is, in fact, a type of the Eucharist is without explanation. Clement seemingly either assumes most readers would understand this interpretation without explanation, or this interpretation is a leading one of the time.

Augustine’s use of Genesis 14, in City of God 16, arises in the discussion of Abraham’s deliverance of Lot from his enemy captors. In 16.22, Augustine writes,

[Abraham] was then openly blessed by Melchizedek, who was a 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 flesh, “Thou art a priest forever 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. ¹⁵

As abruptly as Augustine mentions Melchizedek, the figure disappears from the remainder of Book 16. Nevertheless, the comparison of the Eucharist with the bread and wine Melchizedek brings to Abraham after his victory over the enemies of Sodom is remarkable. Moreover, as quickly as Melchizedek disappears from the work, so too the Eucharist disappears. Similarly to Clement, Augustine offers no explanation how or why the bread and wine Melchizedek gives Abram is the first appearance of the Eucharist. Augustine’s lack of explanation, again like Clement, seems to assume either that the belief that the bread and wine in Gen 14:18 is Eucharistic is a leading interpretation or that his readers are familiar with the line of interpretation. Either way, Augustine offers no explanation, stating it simply before moving on to write more about Abraham.

Ambrose also offers a commentary on the Genesis 14 pericope. In On the Mysteries 8.44–46, Ambrose ruminates on the lessons of Genesis he has mentioned earlier in the text. He notes that the laws of Abraham predate those of Moses. Moreover, Ambrose suggests that after conquering the enemy and recovering Lot,

[Abraham] was met by Melchizedek, who brought forth those things which Abraham reverently received. It was not Abraham who brought them forth, but Melchizedek, who is introduced without father, without mother . . . but like the Son of God . . . He it is who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for he was born of a Virgin . . . The sacrament, then, which you received is the gift not of man but of God, brought forth by him who blessed Abraham the father of the faith. ¹⁶

In The Sacraments 4.3.10–12, Ambrose again makes the connection of the Eucharist to Gen 14:18. After noting that Melchizedek was the priest who met Abraham and brought the bread and wine, Ambrose writes,

Who had the bread and wine? Abraham had not. But who had? Melchizedek. He, then, is the author of the sacraments. Who is Melchizedek? He who is indicated as king of righteousness, king of peace . . . who then is the king of righteousness, but the righteousness of God. ¹⁷

Ambrose goes on to suggest that the lack of lineage for Melchizedek means that Melchizedek is Jesus, the Son of God. In the same vein as Augustine and Clement, Ambrose does not elaborate on how the bread and wine Melchizedek presented is a type and symbol of the Eucharist, only that it is such a type and symbol. Ambrose, however, does provide a more thorough exegetical logic in his suggestion that Melchizedek and Jesus are one and the same. By focusing on Melchizedek’s lack of lineage, Ambrose is able to argue logically that since Jesus also lacks appropriate lineage and is chosen by the order of Melchizedek, then Melchizedek and Jesus could be one and the same. From a historical-critical perspective, this argument is certainly a stretch. Nevertheless, Ambrose does provide some information regarding his thought process and exegetical movement in claiming Melchizedek and Jesus are the same.

Looking at these three patristic writings separately, one may miss the exegetical connections between them. As each of the three interpretations lack explanation, the suggestion that a leading interpretation of the Gen 14:18–20 narrative was Eucharistic seems likely. The assertion by these three church fathers that Melchizedek was the first to bring the Eucharist to humanity, presenting it as fact rather than making a reasoned case, suggests that people would likely have been familiar with this interpretation. Moreover, given the propensity of other patristic writers to argue against heresies, some of which included improper interpretation of the figure of Melchizedek, and, because these three figures are not censured for their interpretation of Melchizedek, a reasonable suggestion is that a Eucharistic interpretation of Gen 14:18–20 was not only circulating in the patristic period but was well accepted. What does this line of thought suggest for Baptists? It suggests that Baptists might do well to rediscover the wisdom of the patristic writers who saw a foreshadowing of Jesus and the Eucharist in the bread and wine Melchizedek gives to Abram.

In turning to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one finds another exegesis of Gen 14:18–20 which likens Jesus and Melchizedek to one another. In a discussion of the covenant of Noah, Melchizedek is one of several venerated figures mentioned: “The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchizedek—a figure of Christ—and the upright Noah, Daniel, and Job.” ¹⁸ Important to the discussion of a Eucharistic interpretation of Gen 14:18–20 is the connection of the bread and wine to the Eucharist. In the discussion of the Eucharist in the economy of salvation, the Catechism again mentions Melchizedek. After noting that bread and wine are “the heart of the Eucharistic celebration,” the Catechism states, “The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who ‘brought out bread and wine’, a prefiguring of her own offering.” ¹⁹ In other words, just as the Church offers bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus, so too the bread and wine Melchizedek offered to Abram is a symbolic precursor and type of Eucharist. The patristic interpretations certainly give credence to the melding of Gen 14:18 into the bread and wine as Eucharist. Moreover, in a discussion of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, the Catechism makes a further connotation of Melchizedek as Christ, insofar as Melchizedek was the prefiguration of Jesus and “the redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church.” ²⁰

The combination of these sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is interesting. Moreover, Eucharistic Prayer I.93 reads,

Be pleased to look upon these offerings with a serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as once you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim. ²¹

The inclusion of Melchizedek in the Catechism, as well as the Eucharistic Prayers, suggests that the Eucharistic interpretation of Gen 14:18–20 is a well-established reading. Likewise, disciples and scholars alike should acknowledge that the figure of Melchizedek and the mention of bread and wine in the strange pericope of Genesis 14 is and has been interpreted from early in the Christian movement as prototypical of the Eucharist.

Baptists also should take note of these interpretations. As bread and wine sustained Abraham after a long battle, so too should Baptists feel the sustenance of the bread and wine when partaking of the Eucharist. Perhaps Baptists would benefit in remembering how God, the true king of righteousness, brings life even in unexpected places. They should revive and revisit the unexpected Eucharistic interpretations of Clement, Augustine, and Ambrose. The Eucharist is the most recognizable element of Christianity. As such, it should be examined in the fullness of Christian tradition. To be sure, the author of Genesis 14 had no intentions of portraying a prototype of either Jesus or the Eucharist. Nevertheless, the church fathers saw in the bread and wine a symbol of the future salvific experience. Baptists partaking of the Eucharist are doing so not simply in the manner or mode in which Jesus partook at the Last Supper. Rather, those partaking are joining in the fellowship of the saints and churches who came before them. In remembering the past, Baptists must take seriously the interpretive wisdom of the early church, which saw a foreshadowing of Jesus in Genesis 14.