CHAPTER 14

14:1-5 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; 2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. 3 All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea. 4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

ALCUIN OF YORK. WHAT DO “RAPHAIM” AND “ZUZIM” MEAN? — “Raphaim” translates to “giants” and “Zuzim” to “frightful”; they mean all the strong in Arabia. [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 159]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. (Verse 1) Factum est autem in regno Amarphal regis Sennaar (It happened under the reign of Amarphal king of Sennaar). Following the genius of our language, we would have said simply: In regno autem Amarphal (under the reign of Amarphal king of Sennaar). When therefore Scripture begins a sentence with the words: Factum est, it uses a form of its own.

(Verse 5) In this sentence: Quartodecimo autem anno Chodollogomor et reges qui cum eo (The fourteenth year Chodollogomor and the kings who were with him), it is necessary to notice errant (were); and even some Latin interpreters have been careful to express it. [Locutions]

JEROME OF STRIDON. 14:2-3 AND THE KING OF BALE, THIS IS SEGOR. All these conspired together at the Salt Valley: this is the Sea of Salt. In the Hebrew language Bale means kataposis, that is, 'swallowing down'. Therefore the Hebrews hand on a tradition that this same place is named Salisa in another passage of the Scriptures, and the second time is called moschon trietizousan, that is, 'a three-year-old heifer', no doubt because it was swallowed up in the third earthquake; and from the time when Sodom and Gomorra, Adama and Seboim were overthrown by the divine fire, it was called 'The Little One', since in fact Segor is translated as 'the little one' and is pronounced Zoara in the Syrian language. And the Vale of Salt Pits (as it is written in this same book), where formerly there were pits of bitumen, was turned into the Dead Sea after God's wrath and the raining down of the brimstone. It is called by the Greeks limnē asphaltitis, that is, the pool of bitumen.

14:5 AND THEY CUT IN PIECES THE GIANTS IN ASTAROTH CARNAIM, AND AT THE SAME TIME THE MIGHTY NATIONS WITH THEM, AND THE OMINAEI IN THE CITY OF SAVE, JOINED TOGETHER BEFORE THEY REACHED SODOM. The four kings set out from Babylon and killed the giants, that is, the Raphaim: all the strong men of Arabia, and the Zozim in Hom, and the Emim in the city of Save, which is so named up to the present day. Now Zuzim and Emim can be understood as meaning 'dreadful' and 'awesome', in place of which the Septuagint have put 'the mighty nations', conveying the general signification rather than the literal meaning. Finally, they have regarded bahem, in place of which they have said hama autois (that is, 'with them'), as written with the letter he, though in fact it is written with the letter heth. They have been led to this conclusion by the resemblance of the elements of the two letters. For bahem is written with three letters. If it has he as the middle one it translates as 'in them', but if it has heth (as in the present instance) it indicates a place, that is, 'in Hom'. [Hebrew Questions on Genesis]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. But it's time for me to talk to you about today's reading; it hardly needs explanation, for it suffices to show the excellence of the virtue of the righteous: It came to pass, during the reign of Amarphath, king of Sennaar, that Arioch, king of Elasar, and Chodologomor King of Elam and Tartar king of the nations fought against Balak king of Sodom, Barsac king of Gomorrah, Sennaar king of Adama, and Simobor king of Seboin, and king Balac, or Segor. All gathered in the Salt Valley, where is the Salt Sea. (Gen. 14:1-3) See the accuracy of Scripture, as it records all these names of kings and peoples! it is not without reason, it is to show, by these very names, all that they had of barbarians. All these, she said, made war against the king of Sodom and others. Then she tells us the cause and the origin of this war: They had been enslaved twelve years to Chodologomor, king of Elam, and the thirteenth year they had revolted. In the fourteenth year, Chodologomor came with the kings who accompanied him, and they killed the giants at Astaroth and Carnaim, and powerful nations with them, the Ommeans in the city of Save, and the Choreans who were in the mountains of Seir to the pine tree of Pharan, which is in the desert. And when they returned, they came to the fountain of Judgment, which is Kadesh, and killed all the princes of Amalec, the Amorites, and the inhabitants of Asasonthamar. (Gen. 14:4-7) Let us not pass slightly on these words, my beloved ones, and do not think that this narration is useless. Sacred Scripture has judged it useful to tell everything exactly to make known to us the strength and courage of these barbarians, and their bellicose fury, since they had conquered giants, that is to say men of a great strength of body, and that they had put to flight all the tribes of the country: Like an impetuous torrent, which carries away and destroys. all these barbarians had invaded everything, all slaughtered, for example the leaders of the Amalekites, and dispersed all the others. But it may be said: What is the point of knowing the power of these barbarians? It is not by chance, or without reason, that Scripture mixes this narration with history, and it is not in vain that we have reminded you of their courage; it is to give you reason to understand all the power of God and the virtue of the patriarch. [Homilies on Genesis]

14:6-13 And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilderness. 7 And they returned, and came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar. 8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim; 9 With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five. 10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain. 11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. 12 And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eschol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. (Verse 13) WHY WAS THE NICKNAME “ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER” GIVEN TO ABRAHAM? — He announced to Abram on the other side of the river. It is a nickname that the Greek copies indicate quite clearly; but for what motive? The reason he was called this seems to have been the fact that he came from Mesopotamia, crossing the Euphrates River, and set up his residence in Canaan. It was called “the one on the other side of the river” in the region from which it came. That’s why Joshua the son of Nun says to the Israelites: What? Will you serve the gods of your fathers that are across the river? (Jos 24:15) [Questions on Genesis, 29]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. (Verse 6) It is also necessary to understand erant (were) in this phrase: Et Chorroeos qui in montibus Seir (And the Choreans who lived in the mountains of Séir).

(Verse 13) Adveniens autem eorum qui evaserunt quidam, nuntiavit Abram transfluviali, ipse autem habitabat ad quercum Mambre, Amorrhis fratris Eschol, et fratris Aunan ; qui erant conjurati Abram  (Coming from those who escaped, a certain man told Abraham from beyond the river, but he ws living at the Oak of Mamre of an Amorite, of the brother of Eschol and of the brother of Aner, who were sworn allies of Abraham). There is a very obscure transposition of words here; the natural order is this: Adveniens eorum qui evaserunt quidam Amorrhis fratris Escholet fratris Aunan, qui erant conjurati, nuntiavit Abram trans fluviali ; ipse autem habitabat ad quercum. (Coming from those who escaped, a certain Amorite, of the brother of Escaol and of the brother of Aner, who were sworn allies, told Abraham from beyond the river, but he was living at the Oak of Mamre.) This transposition of words is rendered even more obscure by an ellipse, because saying: quidam Amorrhis fratris Aunan, (a certain man of the brother of Aner) we do not express what this man is for the brother of Aunan, but it is suggested that he is his son. It is therefore the same phrase as in this passage of the Gospel: James of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3), where it is impossible not to imply filius (son), although it is not expressed. Phrasess are often found in the Scriptures, where the word filius is implied. [Locutions]

JEROME OF STRIDON. 14:7 AND THEY RETURNED AND CAME TO THE FOUNTAIN OF JUDGEMENT, THAT IS, TO CADES. Because Cades was so named later on, it is specified by way of anticipation; and it refers to a place near Petra, which is called 'The Fountain of Judgement', because God judged the people there.

AND THEY SMOTE THE WHOLE TERRITORY OF THE AMALEKITES AND THE AMORITES WHO DWELT IN ASASONTHAMAR. This is the town which is now called Engaddi, abundant in balsam and palms. Besides, in our language Asasonthamar means 'the city of palms', Because Tbamar means palm tree. And it should be known that instead of what follows a little later, and they set in order against them a battle formation in the Vale of Salt Pits, in the Hebrew is contained in the Vale of Seddim, which Aquila translates as tōn peripedinōn and Theodotion as tōn alsōn, meaning 'pleasant groves'.

14:11 AND THEY TOOK ALL THE CAVALRY OF SODOM AND GOMORRA. Instead of 'cavalry', in the Hebrew it has rachus, that is, property.

14:13 AND THE ONE WHO HAD FLED TOLD THE NEWS TO ABRAM THE PASSER- BY. Now he himself was sitting at the oak of Mambre the Amorite the brother of Eschol and brother of Aunan, who were joined to Abram by oath. In place of what we have put as the passer-by is written in the Hebrew text ibri: for this word means 'passer-by'. And as regards what Scripture says: at the oak of Mambre the Amorite, we read more appropriately in the Hebrew text at the oak of Mambre the Amorite the brother of Escbol and brother (not of Aunan, as the Septuagint translated, but) of Aner, to show that Mambre, Eschol, and Aner were Amorites and true allies of Abraham. [Hebrew Questions on Genesis]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. To fight these terrible men, who had defeated so many nations, advanced the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, those of Adama, of Seboiim, and of Balak, which is Segor, and they set their army in the Salt Valley (240 ) against Chodologomor, Thartac, Amarphath and. Arioch, four kings to five; in the Salt Valley; there were bitumen wells. (Gen. 14:8-10) We see how much they were struck by the strength and power of their enemies, for they were put to flight. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell into these wells; the others fled to the mountains. You see what was the warlike value of the barbarians, how terrifying their enemies by their mere appearance and how they put them to flight. Then see how they came back after having looted all the fugitives. And they went into the mountains, and took all the horses of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and departed. And they took Lot, the nephew of Abram, and all his baggage, and departed. He lived in the land of Sodom. (Gen. 14:11-12) You see what I told you yesterday: it was of no use to Lot to have chosen what was best; the event teaches him not to desire to choose. For, not only does he not derive any benefit from it, but he is taken captive and, by the very fact, he learns that it would have been better to continue living with the righteous than to separate and to buy his independence by so many calamities. On leaving the patriarch he thought he was freer, better off, and rich; on the contrary, he is a prisoner, without dwelling, without fortune, and without a home. This teaches us all the inconveniences of the discussions and all the advantages of concord; it is also a lesson not to always look for the most profitable, but to be content with what seems the least. They removed Lot and his luggage. How much better it would have been to live with the patriarch, and to endure everything so as not to break the union, than to choose a country to live separately, and to fall suddenly in such dangers under the power of the barbarians! One of those who had escaped came to tell Abram, the stranger, who lived near the oak of Mamreh, in the land of Omori, brother of Eschol, and brother of Aunan, who had made a covenant with Abram. (Gen. 14:13) How could the patriarch have been ignorant of the fact that such a terrible war had taken place? Maybe because of the distance. All this was told to Abram, the stranger. This word reminds us that he who received this news had come from Chaldea; as he had lived beyond the Euphrates, he was called a stranger. From then on, his parents had given him this name, which predicted that he had to travel. He was called Abram because he had to leave the other side of the Euphrates and come to Palestine. Thus, though his parents were unfaithful, the wisdom of God had directed them in the choice of their son's name, as Lamech for Noah. It is, indeed, an example of the divine goodness to predict the distant future, even by means of the infidels. The traveler learned all that had happened, the captivity of his nephew, the power of these kings, the devastation of Sodom and the shameful flight of its inhabitants. He lived near the oak of Mamre, in the land of Omori, brother of Eschol, brother of Aunan, who had made a covenant with Abram. Here we may ask: why, among the inhabitants of Sodom, was Lot, who was a righteous man, the only one taken captive? This is not without reason and unnecessarily; it was to make known to Lot all the virtue of the patriarch and at the same time to save the other inhabitants; but it was also to teach him not to seek the first place, but to yield to those who were better than him. Let us now listen to what will follow to appreciate the virtue of the righteous and the incomparable assistance of God. But listen attentively and collect your spirits. We will be able to derive a great profit from it and conclude from what has happened to Lot that we must never take offense at seeing the righteous suffer the hardships to which the wicked escape, that we must never seek the first places, nor prefer anything to the attendance of virtuous people, finally that independence is not worth submission to a man of good. Let us also appreciate the clemency of the just; his extreme affection for Lot, his contempt for riches, and the unheard-of strength which the help of God gave him. [Homilies on Genesis]

14:14 And Abram having heard that Lot his nephew had been taken captive, numbered his own home-born servants three hundred and eighteen, and pursued after them to Dan.

ALCUIN OF YORK. WHO ARE THE EXPEDITI  (CALLED “WELL APPOINTED” IN THE ENGLISH) ABOUT WHOM IT WAS SAID, “HE NUMBERED OF THE SERVANTS BORN IN HIS HOUSE, THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN WELL APPOINTED (EXPEDITI)”? — Answer. He called expediti [young] men ready for war and not married, about whom he says in the following, “except such things as the young men have eaten” (verse 24). [Question 162]

 “AND PURSUED THEM TO DAN.” WHAT PLACE IS DAN? — Answer. Dan is a town in Phoenicia, which is now called Banias, where one of the sources of the Jordan River rises. This spring is called Dan, and the other Jor. The two springs, which are not far distant from each other, unite into one stream, which is then called Jordan: just as one river is made out of the two springs, so is one name made out of their names. [Questions and Answers on Genesis, 163]

JEROME OF STRIDON.14:14 AND HE PURSUED THEM AS FAR AS DAN. Until the city of Phenicia now called Paneas. Dan is one of the sources of the Jordan. The rest, Jor, translates as ρειθρον, that is, stream. Two springs springing at a little distance from each other, having joined their waters, afterwards take the name of Jordan. [Hebrew Questions on Genesis]

14:15-24 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. 15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. 16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. 17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale. 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. 21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, 23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: 24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

ALCUIN OF YORK. WHO IS THAT MELCHISEDECH KING OF SALEM, WHO THE APOSTLE SAYS IS WITHOUT FATHER AND WITHOUT MOTHER? — Answer. The reason why the apostle said Melchisedech was without father and without mother is that the holy Scripture does not tell his genealogy. The Hebrews say that this Melchisedech is Sem, Noah’s son, under a different name, and, reckoning the days of his life, they show that he lived until the time of Isaac. They also say that all firstborns used to be priests and immolate sacrifices to God until the time of Aaron and the rites of the law, and that this was the birthright that Esau sold his brother Jacob. It was also right, they say, for Melchisedech to receive tithes from the triumphs of his descendant. Moreover, they affirm that Salem is the same city that was later called Jerusalem. This city, according to them, was even first called Jebus, then Salem, then Jerusalem. This Melchisedech, according to the apostle, symbolically represents Christ, because Christ is without mother in heaven and without father on earth, offering to God, for us, on earth, the bread of his body and the wine of his blood; to whom it is said, “Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech” (Heb. 5:6; Ps. 109:4). [Questions and Answers on Genesis 164]

AMBROSIASTER. ON MELCHIZEDEK. — Here is what we read of Melchizedek in the book of Genesis and also in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews: Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared at the meeting with Abraham when he returned from the defeat of the kings, offered him bread and wine and blessed him, saying, “Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God who created heaven and earth and put your enemies into your hands (Gen. 13:18).” And to make us better understand the one who was represented by Melchizedek, the Apostle adds: “No doubt the one who receives the blessing is inferior to him who gives it (Heb. 7:3)”; words which the Apostle does not apply to the tradition of ecclesiastical ministry. Who, indeed, would dare to say that the rule instituted by the Lord to bless the faithful is superior to those which it blesses? It is therefore the mysterious presence of the Lord that is felt in these words of which he is the object and which recall him to our memory. The sacred author has wished to show us here his personal dignity and his power. What then is the greatness of this man in comparison with whom Abraham has only the second rank, in spite of the superiority which his generosity and faith give him among the faithful? Let us understand here that this Melchizedek does not bless Abraham, like the priests, by pronouncing a solemn formula of blessing, but by a blessing peculiar to him, and which he received not by an oral tradition but by nature and substantially. The priests to whom we give the name of pontiffs have solemn formulas of blessing which have been transmitted to them, and which they recite on the men whom they bless, not always on those whom they desire, but upon those which they do not wish to bless, because the author of this rule knows in what soul he ought to shed his holy blessing. He, on the contrary, who possesses this blessing substantially in virtue of his nature, and whom Moses calls the priest of the Most High God, gives this blessing as he does. The words of blessing and his nature always agree with his will. He never errs in wanting to give it where it should not be, or refusing it when he should give it, the words of the blessing he utters always have their efficiency. Our priests, on the contrary, invoke the name of the Lord every day, and pronounce formulas of blessing, but very few of them receive the effect. The priests also bless those who are superior to them. Whatever saint we may be, we bow to receive the blessing, because it is not an invention of the priest, but a divine institution. The high priest Heli blessed Anna, and this blessing has not the merit of the grandmaster, but the faith of this pious woman, whose pure heart God knew. (I Kings 1:17) If Melchizedek is declared superior to Abraham, it is not only because of priestly dignity, but by his nature, and the sacred writer wants to teach us that he is more that a man. It is impossible, indeed, to see only one man in one who is placed above such a great friend of God, of a man so full of faith that for love and fear of God he hesitated not to sacrifice his son, who was so dear to him. By what justice, by what works could he have acquired more merit than Abraham? What more could he do that Abraham did? In the first place, when he did not know God, and without yet seeing any decisive sign, God said to him, “Come out of your land and your kinsfolk and your father’s house (Gen. 12:1)”, And he immediately obeyed without delay, thus accomplishing the will, not only of God who spoke to him at that time, but of the Lord was to manifest himself to mankind. Does not the Savior say, “Whoever loves his house, his father, or his mother, or his brothers, or his parents, more than me, is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:37)?” What then is the virtue and perfection of Abraham who fulfills the commandments of the Savior before they are proclaimed to the world? The Apostle recommends above all the practice of hospitality, Abraham so faithfully exercised it that it is his example which seems to have determined St. Paul to make this recommendation. He then thought that his posterity would multiply like the stars of heaven, which seems a madness to the eyes of the sages of the century (Heb. 13:2; Gen. 18:3), who are thus condemned by his example even before God had threatened to lose their wisdom, for it is afterwards that he says by his prophets: “I will lose the wisdom of the wise (Is. 29:14).” Abraham still obeys the command of God, who commands him to circumcise himself, which he could not do without pain, and he submits to it to give his descendants the example of patience. (Gen. 17:24). God promises him that he will have a son of Sarah his wife despite his advanced age, and he does not doubt for a moment. He thus taught to future centuries that faith in the authority of God must be so complete, that it does not allow the slightest doubt about the commandments or the promises he can make even though they appear contrary to reason. We must consider here the person rather than the words, for it is the person who confirms and makes possible what the words appear to be weak. It is God who promises, and we must believe that he can do what seems impossible to men. In what way would man be reprehensible by attributing to God a power which he does not recognize in himself? Thus Abraham on the command of God does not hesitate for a single moment to put to death the son that God has given him (Gen. 22:3), he is not surprised at the will of God who demands death of a child whom he had given him as a testimony of his goodness and power; he is too convinced that it is not for man to discuss the will of God, and that his orders and his actions are inspired by a sovereign reason. Now, in order to execute this order with the most eagerness, he leaves his wife unaware; he knew the weakness of mothers for their sons, and that the tears of tenderness might have hindered the act of religion which he could have accomplished; he teaches his son only at the hour of sacrifice, that his obedience may be full and entire at the command of God, in the execution of which he does not see a parricide, but a holocaust demanded by the just judge. What more heroic actions could have made Melchizedek to surpass Abraham, whose obedience we have seen. was never surprised at fault? Moses, who conversed with God face to face, was sent to his people and his brothers and refused to go. The Prophet Jonah disobeys the order given him to go and preach to the Ninevites, and to another country where he was not from (Jon. 1:11). Job, this admirable man in all things, was, however, shaken by the death of his children; he tore his clothes, and cut his hair (Job 1:20), but we do not read that Abraham was grieved at the death of a son that was so dear to him, and we do not see that this son whom God commanded him to sacrifice trembled before this order that was given. We conclude from this that Melchizedek was more than a man, for he could not prevail over Abraham unless he was of a superior nature. Impassive nature possesses bliss by virtue of its substance, human nature obtains it by its actions. It does not have the perfection of divinity, it is therefore by exercise and by struggle that it becomes better from day to day, when its victories are more numerous than its defeats. If it were always impeccable in its actions, which is impossible, it would be better than God (far from us this thought), because if a nature that can commit like avoiding sin was always victorious from sin, it should be put above nature, which does not sin because it is impassive. There would not seem to be great merit in not sinning, because it cannot be; heroism would seem to have the faculty of ease and of not sinning. There is, therefore, this difference between the nature of God and the nature of man, that the nature of God is always happy in the security of his invincible eternity, while the nature of man only reaches happiness by work. Now it is necessary that the impassive beatitude should be diluted with that which is the fruit of the tribulations which thus bring joy. Impassive bliss has in it an inexhaustible source of happiness; for nature, on the contrary, it is only after great trials that it rejoices at having escaped death. Sadness is for it the means of animating happiness, and it’s passability is irreconcilable with uninterrupted happiness. He, on the contrary, who is impassive by nature, is always happy, because he does not know sadness, and cannot even suspect that it can attain it. As to the human nature, although it succeeds in felicity through labor, it will not be exempt from trials, and scars will not fail. And how, in the midst of so many battles in which naature is sometimes defeated, could it not receive wounds? Impassible nature, on the contrary, remains inaccessible to any attack, any wound, to any defeat. Scripture, therefore, would not say of Abraham that he is inferior to Melchizedek, if Melchizedek was not of a superior nature to that of Abraham? What we have just said may seem more ingenious than dense. But if we examine the divine Scriptures, we will be able to raise still more and more of the more excellent titles of glory. “This Melchizedek,” says St. Paul, king of Salem, “a priest of the Most High God, who, when Abraham returned from the defeat of kings, appeared to meet him and blessed him, and who first signified the king of justice, was king of Salem, that is to say, king of peace; without father, mother, genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, is thus the image of the Son of God, and remains a priest forever And to bring out these prerogatives in his place, he adds: “Consider therefore how great was he to whom Abraham gave the tithe of his richest spoils (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1).” To show the full extent of the merit and power of Melchizedek, he praises Abraham by saying that he is the chief and prince of the patriarchs, that is, he is superior to all the others, but inferior to Melchizedek, is it not evident that Melchizedek is not a man, but that he is of a superior nature? But what do these two titles mean, king of peace and king of righteousness? Look closer and see: the sun seen from far away seems like a flaming beam, and at a distance you take money from a man and be called king peace, and justice, peace is preached to men, as well as justice, but he is called king of peace and justice, to make you understand that it is from him that justice and peace derive their origin, for it is impossible to put above it what is subject to its direction, it is to the institute of justice and peace that men do what is pleasing to God. Now these two virtues, which are the mistresses of man, have Melchizedek as king. What then is the superiority of Melchizedek over man, since the virtues which govern mankind are subject to him, is it not being the king of kings? When St. Paul tells us that he is a king of justice and peace, he wants to teach us that he is the principle of both, and that just as our Lord Jesus Christ is the king, the author of life, Melchizedek is the author of justice and peace, because those who receive life through Jesus Christ are ruled by righteousness and peace. For in the hearts of the servants of God he sends righteousness and peace to serve as an ornament to the doctrine of the Lord. We read in Psalm: “Let righteousness and peace be embraced, and let the truth rise from the earth (Ps. 85:11).” And to be well aware of what justice he meant to speak, the Psalmist adds: “Righteousness has looked from heaven.” Scripture predicts what was to happen in the days of the Savior, when the righteousness of God was given to the world through Jesus Christ, in the knowledge of the mystery of one God whom he had promised previously by the prophets. It was true, indeed, that the creature knew the truth of its Creator, and this righteousness having been manifested to the earth, put an end to the divisions which the injustice of ignorance of God had engendered, and reign peace and harmony among the most divided minds, establishing them in the unity of the same faith. It was thus that one saw kissing justice, the peace and the truth exited from the same source. It was from the earth that the righteousness which was to teach men was raised, for the incarnation of Jesus Christ taught them the truth which they ought to know concerning the nature of God. Such is the righteousness of God. Peace also comes from him, to the apostle’s testimony: “May the God of peace crush Satan under your feet. I do not see how these two things can be distinguished here, since the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, for he says: “I give you my peace (Jn. 14:27).” Why do you say that Melchizedek is the king of justice and peace? I do not understand how that distinction can be made. I therefore think that there is no difference here between the king of peace and the God of peace. As no one on earth should be called God, be reserved exclusively to the principle of all things, God establishes kings who would be like his image, and who, with the exception of the name of God, would have all his power; but as they are of earthly origin, they are the kings of men, but not the kings of peace and justice: for they themselves have believed above them righteousness that they are not permitted to despise. Justice for them is God himself, justice is God’s own good, and he who transgresses it becomes guilty to the judgment of God. But for Melchizedek, Scripture does not represent him as an ordinary king among men, because he has under his authority justice which is above all kings. No one, in fact, can have justice under his rule unless he is impeccable by nature. Now it is under its rule, because it is he who has established it as a law destined to be a part of the world, to direct those who are subject to sin. The king of justice is therefore the one who rules the laws of which he is the author and who teach men what to believe and practice to arrive at happiness. We have already stretched ourselves long over the person of Melchizedek, and yet we say nothing worthy of him, unless we return to the Scriptures, which has long pressed us, and which shouts to us to draw us from the deep sleep which overwhelms us and call us to the intelligence not of the night, but of the day. Scripture tells us that Melchizedek is without father, mother, genealogy, and to prevent any interpretation would be less worthy of this personage, it adds that he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, Melchizedek, who was not subjected to birth or death, can testify so clearly to all the subtleties of human reasoning, and what a mind so clever and skillful that he would dare to resist and to pretend to impose its interpretation on the sacred text, instead of accepting the meaning which it naturally presents violence is inflicted on the divine Scriptures, and they meet here as enemies the very people who seem to submit to it. There are some who maintain that we ought not to believe in the person of Melchizedek what the Scripture brings us, and who wish to turn the Scriptures to their thoughts. The authority of the Scriptures to use ploys against them, by declaring war to them under the appearance of peace, and by hiding hostile intentions under the guise of friendship. They pretend, therefore, that it is not to show the greatness of Melchizedek, but rather to show the obscurity of his condition that the Scripture tells us that he was fatherless and without a mother. It wished to show us that Melchizedek was of an unknown race, and was not of the tribe from which Abraham came, since there was no trace of his family in the law. That is why it says again, “and without genealogy,” to make us understand that there is no mention of his origin in the law, that he is not born of any parents, and that it is to him that he owes the great qualities that distinguish him. Now Scripture has so great authority here that it exposes in a perfect order all the elements necessary for the cause. At first it said that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother.” Let us see what was the mother of Nachor, the grandmother of Abraham, and the mother of Thare; nor do we see what Abraham’s mother was, not to mention the others. Shall we say that they did not have mothers? If the Scripture had said only “without a father,” there would be a specious reason, for it has us preserved the names of the fathers of all of whom it speaks. Scripture adds: “And without genealogy.” If it expresses itself in this way to show that his birth is not mentioned in the law, it was enough to say: “Without a father,” because no one knows his father. But it puts us still more clearly on the path of truth by adding: “Having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Tell me, whoever you may be, who wish to do violence to the text, how do you explain these words? What does it mean to have neither the beginning of days nor the end of life? It is certainly sufficient to say that the genealogy of Melchizedek was not inscribed in the law, and that, by the same token, it must have been believed that he was of foreign origin. But one can say that he was taken away from this world like Enoch, and that is why he does not have end of life. Who then does not see a beginning of days? Will you say: It is because there is no mention of the day of his birth. But is the birth of others mentioned? and for you, however, the one whose day of birth is not mentioned, must be regarded as having no beginning of days? But then the same conclusion can be applied to others. Supposing now that he was taken from this world, he was not for that reason without life, for everything that lives in the expectation of death has a purpose. Stop these vain contestations, which seem to please you. It is better to be vanquished by truth than to triumph over truth by falsehood. It is a loss rather than a victory, for though the truth seems to have loss in the eyes of man, it remains victorious in the eyes of God because its reason is invincible. Our mind must therefore be conquered by the law, in order to receive the meaning which it offers it, and not impose upon it an interpretation at will, by violently substituting its authority for that of the law. Listen to what Zorobabel says: “Truth triumphs over everything (III Esdras 3:12).” Now Melchizedek reveals to us the future mystery of the Incarnation and the Passion of the Savior, first restoring to Abraham, as to the father of the faithful, the Eucharist of the body and of the soul, blood of the Lord, to make the Father the truth that was to be fulfilled in the children. If we want him to have been a priest like Aaron, or the present priests, to be told, to be shown the place where he lived, the temple or the synagogue in which he gathered the people, and offered sacrifices to him, or the people who gathered round him. For if he exerts his priesthood on earth, no doubt there existed, and before Abraham, a people whose priest he was, and this people now worshiped the true God. How then did Abraham become the leader of the believers, and it was through him that God was known to his people? In the same way, if Melchizedek taught men on earth the fear of one God, why choose Abraham to give his name to the people of God, since the servants of the true God could be found among those who gathered around of Melchizedek? What more do we read in the hymn which is found in Deuteronomy? When the Most High divided the people, when he separated the children of Adam, he marked the limits of the people, according to the number of angels of God. And he chose the people of Jacob to be especially his (Deut. 32:8).  If there were no other people of God in the world other than the children of Israel, why should there be found another people who followed the doctrine of Melchizedek against the contrary testimony of the prophet? Since he names all the peoples of the world, and gives only to the children of Abraham the name of the people of God, the logical consequence is that he denies that with the exception of the children of the God of Abraham, the others had the knowledge of God, because God is known in the alleged. Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared as a symbol of the holy mysteries which the future was to reveal. The blessing was to be given later to the people of God by a minister of God to whom we give the name of priest. Melchizedek therefore appears as the precursor of the sacred person of the Son of God, and precedes him to do him honor, though inferior to him in dignity. Let us then leave what we have said of Melchizedek, Scripture says a thousand times more for the confusion of the opponents. Indeed, after these admirable testimonies to Melchizedek, Scripture confuses spiteful spirits by adding: “He is thus the image of God and he remains forever.” Consider then who is the object of your unchallenged discussions and if he inspires no reserve, at least fear Jesus Christ, to whom it is like, according to the authority of Scripture. The Apostle comes insensibly and by order to the excellence of his nature, and if the prerogatives which precede have impressed upon the spirits, that is, that Melchizedek was king of justice and peace, has appeared in a visible body without having either father or mother, that is to say without being born, having neither beginning nor end, the last trait adds to all that he has just said a new degree of credibility. Who would dare to say, unless renouncing reason, that these glorious prerogatives are not suited to him whom the Scriptures declares like the Son of God, and who remains a priest forever? But he cannot be like the Son of God unless he has the same nature. And what is so incredible that Melchizedek appeared in a humorous form, as soon as we understand that he was the third person of the Trinity? For if the Christ who is the second person has frequently appeared in the form of a man, what doubt can we raise on what we have said? Do not we read in a psalm: “You are a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4)?” These words of the confession of all relate to the person of Jesus Christ, because Christ is a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek. But Christ is the sovereign priest, and Melchizedek occupies the second rank. Now, if Melchizedek is only a man, would it be proper that Jesus Christ should be a priest for eternity according to his order? We see them both alike, both clothed in one ministry, because they have one and the same nature. But since the authority of one God must be preserved in every way, the third person appears here subordinate to the name of the Father. As for Christ, he holds the place of the Father, he is like his minister, and that is why he is given the name (the priest). Similarly, the Holy Spirit, as minister, is also called the priest of the Most High God, but not the sovereign priest, as our brethren presume in the oblation: for although Christ and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial, it is nevertheless necessary to preserve to each one the rank given him The priests are given the name of envoys because they are the representatives of the one who sends them, and they are like his image, and this is the reason why Christ and the Spirit which is the natural image of the Father, are called his priests: God manifests Himself in their person, as our Lord has said: “He that sees me sees my Father (Jn. 14:9).” Now, if the Lord has revealed Himself in the divine actions which He has effected, and if these actions are the works of the Holy Spirit as he declares: “It is in the Spirit of God that I cast out demons”, God manifested Himself in the Holy Spirit. [Questions on the Old And New Testaments, 109]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. (Gen. 14:22-23) We read in some Latin manuscripts Et dixit Abram ad regem Sodomorum : Extendo manum meam ad Deum altissimum, qui creavit caelum et terram, si a sparto usque ad corrigiam calceamenti (And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I lift up my hand, and swear by the Most High God, who created the heavens and the earth, that I will not accept anything that belongs to you from the least thread to a shoe string). We see that the translator did not understand the meaning of the Greek word σπαρτιου, which means “thread.” The locution of the sacred text is this: Extendo manum meam ad Deum altissimum, qui creavit caelum et terram, si accipiam de omnibus tuis. (I lift up my had to the Most High God, who created heaven and earth, if I take from the spartum up to the clasp of the shoe) Now, if we admit that these words: Extendo manum meam ad Deum altissimum, have the sense of “I swear”, the phrase will not be able to pass into the Latin language; it will be necessary to turn the sentence this way: Extendo manum meam ad Deum altissimum, me non accipere de omnibus tuis (I lift up my hand to the Most High God, that I am not taking from all that is yours). [Locutions]

JEROME OF STRIDON. I immediately found something written about Melchisedek in the first of Origen’s homilies, where, in a complex discourse, he descended so low as to say that he was an angel; and he talked about the celestial powers with almost the same arguments as your author (pseudo-augustini quaestiones) talked about the Holy Spirit. I moved on to his follower Didymus, and I saw that he supported his master’s view. I turned to Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Emesa, as well as Apollinaris and our Eustathius, the first bishop of the Antiochian church to have blown the signal for attack against Arius with his illustrious trumpet; and I found that the views of all of these men, following different arguments and bypaths, reached the same crossroads: they all said that Melchisedek was a Canaanite man, king of the city of Jerusalem, which was first called Salem, then Jebus, and finally Jerusalem. [Ep. 73 to Evangelus Migne PL 22.677.2]

JEROME OF STRIDON. 14:24 AND MELCHIZEDEK KING OF SALEM BROUGHT BREAD AND WINE, AND BEING HIMSELF A PRIEST OF THE MOST HIGH GOD, HE BLESSED HIM. — This booklet is a collection of Hebrew questions and traditions. Let us therefore relate what the Hebrews think about this passage. They say that Melchizedek is none other than Shem, the son of Noah. calculating the years of his life, they show that he lived until the time of Isaac, adding that all the first-born of Noah were priests until the day when Aaron took the priesthood. King of Salem or king of Jerusalem, this city having first been called Salem. The Blessed Apostle, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, 7:3, recalling that Melchizedek has neither father nor mother, sees in it the figure of Jesus Christ, and by Jesus Christ that of the universal Church. All the glory of the head is referred to the members, in that being uncircumcised, he has blessed. Abraham circumcised and in Abraham Levi, and by Levi Aaron, from where the priesthood came out. Saint Paul wants to prove by the fact that the synagogue of the uncircumcised Church has blessed the circumcised priesthood of the synagogue. As for these words, “you are priests for eternity, according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4),” they sign our mystery in the word is foreshown. Unjust victims must no longer be sacrificed in vain according to the rite of Aaron; we must offer bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. [Hebrew Questions on Genesis]

JOHN OF DAMASCUS. With bread and wine Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God, received Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the Gentiles. That table pre-imaged the mystical table (Lev. 14), just as that priest was a type and image of Christ, the true high-priest. For thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek (Ps. 110:4). [Orth. Faith 4.13 NPNF s.2 v.9]

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. When Abram heard that his nephew Loth was a prisoner, he gathered: three hundred and eighteen servants born at home, and followed the footsteps of the captors to Dan; he fell on them with his servants during the night and drove them to Chobal, who is on the left of Damascus. And he brought back all the horses of the Sodomites; and he brought back Lot and all that belonged to him, men and women who depended on him.  (Gen. 14:14-16) Think here, beloved streets, to the courage and grandeur of the righteous, trusting in the power of God, he was not surprised at the strength of the enemies by (241) learning all their victories, when they were thrown upon so many nations, that they had defeated the Amalekites and all other peoples, that in the end they had attacked the Sodomites, put them to flight, and pillaged all that belonged to them. This is why the Scripture has told us all of this above, pointing out their courage to teach us that the patriarch did not know him vanquished by bodily strength, but by his trust in God, whose heavenly help had done everything. He did not need weapons, arrows, spears, bows, shields, he only needed his servants.

But, it will be said, why take three hundred and eighteen servants? To show that he did not take all his servants indiscriminately, but those who were born in the house, had been fed with Lot, so that they would be more likely to avenge him, while fighting for their master. See, I pray you, as the infinite power of God gives them a quick victory. He fell on them, at night, with his servants, he beat them and drove them away. The hand from above acted and fought with them. So he did not need any weapons or machinery: scarcely himself. Was it shown with his people that he beat some, drove out the others, without fear or hindrance, bringing back the horses of the king of Sodom, and his nephew Lot with all that belonged to him and the women who depended on him? You see why God allowed Lot to be taken prisoner while the others fled. It was to explode the virtue of the patriarch and also to save, by him, many people. He returned, winning a glorious trophy, bringing back Lot, the horses, the women, all the riches, saying in a loud voice and in a manner to be heard better than a trumpet that it was not a human power nor a bodily strength who had defeated the enemy and had given him the victory, but that the arm from above had done everything. You see that all events serve to illustrate the just, and that all circumstances show the Providence of which he is honored. See how his piety teaches the people of Sodom. The king of Sodom came to meet him when he returned from beating Chodologomor and the kings who accompanied him. (Gen. 14:17) See how important the virtue and the help of God are! The king comes to meet this old man, this stranger, and pays him all sorts of honors. Indeed, he had already learned that the throne was useless without the heavenly help, and that nothing resists the one who is supported by God. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought him bread and wine: he was a priest of the Most High God.

What does this union of words mean: The king of Salem and priest of the most High God? He was the king of Salem. Saint Paul speaks of it in his letter to the converted Hebrews; By studying his name and that of his city, he explains them by means of a etymology, saying: Melchizedek, king of righteousness. (Heb. VII, 2.) For in Hebrew, Aziliah means kingdom, and Sédec justice. About the name of the city, he said: King of Peace; Because Salem means peace. As for his priesthood, he had probably consecrated himself, as did the priests. This honour could have been granted to him because of his age, or he himself had thought of fulfilling these duties; Thus Abel, Noah and Abraham had offered sacrifices; From the rest, he was to be the figure of Christ, this is how Paul considers him when he says: Melchizedek... without a father, without a mother, without genealogy, having neither the beginning of his days, nor the end of his life, is thus the image of the Son of God, and remains a priest forever.  (Heb. VII, 3.) And how, you will say, can a man be without a father or mother, and have no beginning of his days, nor end of his life? You have seen that this man was a figure: so do not be astonished, and do not demand that everything be in the figure, for it would no longer be a figure, if it indeed possessed all that it represents. So what is the meaning of these words? Just as Melchizedek is said without a father, without a mother, without genealogy, because Scripture does not mention his father, nor his mother, nor his genealogy; Thus, as Christ has no mother in heaven, nor father on Earth, it is said that he has no genealogy, and that is the truth. See how the honors made to the Patriarch prepare us for a mystery. Melchizedek presents him with bread and wine. (Gen. 14:18) When you see the symbol, think of reality, and admire how holy Scripture makes us foresee the future from the beginning. He blessed Abram and said: May Abram be blessed by the most High God who created heaven and earth. And the most high is blessed because he delivered your enemies in your hands. (Gen. 14:19-20) Not only does he bless him but he glorifies God; For in saying: Abram is béai of the most high who created the Heaven and the (242) Earth, he shows the power of God by that of his creatures. Since it is this God who created the, Heaven and earth, the ones worshipped by other men are not gods. Those gods who did not make heaven and earth, let them be destroyed. (Jer. X, 11.) Blessed be God! said Melchizedek, who delivered your enemies into your hands. Observe how not only it celebrates the righteous, but recognizes and confesses the help of God. Without such relief, he would never have been able to triumph over such terrible powers. He delivered your enemies; It was he who did everything, it was he who made the strong powerless, it was he who defeated the men armed by arms without arms, it was his support that made all your strength. He delivered your enemies in your hands. As this word proves the affection that united him to lot, as he shows that the patriarch watched the enemies of lot as his own enemies! He gave him the tithe of everything. Paul says on this subject: see what was the importance of Melchizedek, since the Patriarch Abraham gave him the tithe of the beginnings. That is to say that with all the remains he had brought back, he remunerated Melchizedek and gave him the tithe of all that he had earned: thus showing to everyone that it is appropriate to show his gratitude to God by offering him the beginnings of the goods He grants. Then amazed at the greatness of the Patriarch's soul, the king of Sodom said to him: Give me the men, but take the horses for you. (Gen. 14:21) This is a great recognition on the part of the king; But see the moderation of the just: I extend the, hand to the most high that made heaven and earth, and I attest that I will not take anything from you, from a thread to a string of shoe, that you cannot say I enriched Abram. (Gen. 14:22-23) What a contempt for riches in the patriarch! But why is he saying with oath: I extend my hand to the most high who created heaven and earth?

When Melchizedek, king of Salem, offered him bread and wine, (it was, says the Scripture, a priest of the Most High) (Gen. 14:18) the patriarch accepted this offer, in recognition of his blessing, gave him the tithe booty; indeed, Melchizedek had said to him, Abram is blessed by the Most High who has delivered your enemies into your hands. (Gen. 14:19-20) See how the righteous everywhere show his piety, of the king of Sodom he would not receive anything, from a cord to a strap; but he accepts the offering of Melchizedek, and gives him in exchange what he can dispose of, which shows us that one must have discernment and not receive with all hands. The gifts of the king proved his gratitude, but, moreover, it was an infidel who needed to be taught virtue; so the righteous refused his presents, but by his refusal and his speeches he sought to inspire him with piety. He rightly accepts the offering of Melchizedek, whose Holy Scripture makes virtue known to us by saying: He was a priest of the Most High. Moreover, this was a figure of Christ, and these offerings foreshadowed the mystery: so the patriarch, far from refusing them, welcomed them and replied in his turn in a manner which proved all his virtue: he gave her the tithe, which made one see his pious intentions. Maybe I'm stretching on that, but it's not without reason. We quickly summarized what had been said from the beginning of these instructions to that of today on the courage of the just, his magnanimity, his perfect faith, the wisdom of his thoughts, the excess of his humility and his contempt for riches, and finally the benevolence and constant providence of God in his regard; you have seen how, on every occasion, this divine assistance made him more famous and illustrious. Now, if you agree and if you are not tired, let's come to the reading we just made: we will develop something for you to finish this speech, and you will see how he is rewarded for having refused the gifts of the king of Sodom. What does the Scripture say? After these words, the voice of the Lord was addressed to Abram. Why start this way? after these words. What words are these, tell me? Is it not clear that it is a question of those he said to the king of Sodom? After his contempt for riches, after he had refused his offers, after this teaching, which he joined with his refusal to bring the king to recognize and worship the Creator of all things, after these words, after he offered tithing to Melchizedek, finally, when he had done all that depended on him, then after these words, the voice of the Lord was addressed to Abram during a vision in the night, saying: Do not fear, Abram, I protect you; your reward will be very great.

But admire here all the providence of God. Wanting to deliver Lot and illustrate the patriarch, he excites him to help his nephew. Knowing what was happening, the righteous, with his servants, founded on kings, easily defeated them, and brought back Lot and the women, as well as the king's cavalry. Trophies so bright showed everyone that God was protecting him, for he had not been able to win such a victory with his own strength, but relied on help from above. Moreover, the patriarch still sought to make the true religion known to the people of Sodom, as is evident from the words he says to their king. The king comes to meet him to give him thanks and to offer him the horses by being satisfied with the men: see with what greatness of soul the righteous proves to him his wisdom, I show him that he is above all these presents and let him know the true religion. He does not simply say to him: I do not consent to receive anything from you; I do not need such a payment; but he said: I stretch out my hand toward the Most High, (Gen. 14:22) which is to say: it is not gods that you worship, but stones and wood: it is only a God, master of the universe. He created the sky and the earth: I take it to witness that I will not take anything from you from a cord to a shoe strap, (Gen. 14:23) so that you can not believe due that's why I pulled this revenge, nor to say that you have enriched me. For whoever has given me victory and has triumphed with me, it is he who gives me abundant riches.

You see that if the king had wanted, he would have profited by the words of the patriarch. He had learned not to trust his strength, but to know the Author of all things, to laugh at the gods made by the hand of men and to adore only the God of the universe, the Creator of all things, the source of all good. The example of the patriarch revealed to him all the virtues. The latter, not to let him believe that he refused all these offers by pride and arrogance, said to the king, "I will take nothing, for I need nothing; I do not want others to increase my wealth. I will let only those who have shared my dangers take their part, so that they may have some reward for their troubles. This is what the righteous answered the king of Sodom.

He wants to make two things known to the king of Sodom: on the one hand, that he is above all the goods that can be offered to him; on the other, by his great moderation, he seeks to teach him piety, as if he said to him: "The one I take to witness to accept nothing of what is yours is the Creator of all things. that you may know the God of the universe, and that you no longer believe in those gods made by the hand of men. He is the Creator of heaven and earth, it is he who has given us victory and triumph in this war. Do not expect me to accept any of your gifts. It was not for the profit that I made this enterprise, it is first of all because of the paternal affection which I bring to my nephew; then, it is for the very love of justice, in order to remove from the hands of the barbarians those whom they had unjustly removed. I will not take anything from you, from a thread, to a shoe spherotère, that is to say, I will not accept even the least object, without any value. Because we call spherotere, a piece of shoe ended in a point as the Barbarians wear. As a reason that forbids him to accept, he says: So that you do not say: I have enriched Abram. I have a God who fills me with infinite goods, I rely on his heavenly strength, I do not need your riches, I do not claim the abundance that comes from men, I'm content with divine protection I know that his gifts are inexhaustible. I yielded to Lot with regard to small and despicable interests, and I received immense and inexpressible promises. Now I am getting more wealth, and I conciliate a new benevolence by refusing your presents. This is why, I think, he has pronounced this oath, saying, I stretch out my hand toward the Most High, that the king may not take it for a feint, as it may be, but that he may know that that the patriarch was determined to take nothing for himself. So he accomplished. know in advance the order given by Christ to his disciples: You have received gratuitously, give freely. (Matt X, 8.) Did I contribute to the success of the war, he said, except by my zeal and good will? As for the victory and the trophies, it is God who has procured all this by its invisible force. Then, so that the king could not believe that he refused his offers by pride or contempt, he shows after his gentleness and wisdom. I will receive nothing except what my young men ate, and the portion of the men who came with me: Eschol, Aunan, and Mambre; (Gen. 14:24) those will take their part. I will let them, he says, take their part, because they have given me a great proof of friendship. These were associated with Abram, that is to say friendships, because we see that they shared the dangers of this war. Also, wishing to reward them, he has them reserved a part, thus fulfilling the apostolic law: The worker deserves his food. (Matt X, 10, Luke, X, 7.) For the rest, he lets only take what is necessary: ​​Except what my young people have eaten, and the part of those who came with me, Eschol, Aunan and Mambré; they will receive their share. See all the probity and delicacy of the righteous, how he proves his wisdom by his contempt for wealth and his moderation, and how he does everything so that his conduct can not be attributed to arrogant or contempt, nor to pride of victory. [Homilies on Genesis]