Wednesday
2nd Week of Ordinary Time
(I) 1st Reading: Hebrews 7:1-3, 15-17
Jesus Christ Is a Priest After the Order of Melchizedek
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abra-
ham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; [2] and to him
Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his
name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of
peace. [3] He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning
of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for
ever.
[15] This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness
of Melchizedek, [16] who has become a priest, not according to a legal require-
ment concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. [17] For
it is witnessed of him, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek."
*********************************************************************************************
Commentary:
1-3. Melchizedek has special characteristics which make him a "figure" or "type"
of Christ. The connections between Christ and Melchizedek are expounded in
accordance with the rules of rabbinical bible commentary, this is particularly ob-
vious in the use of the phrase "without father or mother or genealogy" to refer to
the eternity of Melchizedek. It is not surprising that the writer brings in the figure
of Melchizedek, for the mysterious mention of this personage in Genesis 14:18-
20 and in Psalm 110:4 had for some time intrigued Jewish commentators. For
example, Philo of Alexandria sees Melchizedek as a symbol for human reason
enlightened by divine wisdom (cf. "De Legum Allegoria", 3, 79-82). Also, apocry-
phal literature identified Melchizedek with other biblical figures--for example, with
Shem, Noah's first-born son, or with the son of Nir, Noah's brother. Certainly the
epistle is in line with Jewish tradition on one important point: Melchizedek be-
longs to a priesthood established by God in pre-Mosaic times.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100) refers to Melchizedek as a
"prince of Canaan", who founded and was high priest of Jerusalem. The name
Melchizedek, meaning "my king is righteous" or "King of Righteousness", was
a Canaanite name (cf. Josh 10:13). "Salem" is probably an abbreviation of Jeru-
salem (cf. Ps 76:2); and Elioh, that is, God Most High, may also have been the
name of one of the divinities worshipped by the inhabitants of Palestine before
the Jewish conquest. Genesis tells us that, in spite of living in a Canaanite and
polytheistic environment, Melchizedek was a priest of the true God. Despite not
being a member of the chosen people, he had knowledge of the Supreme God.
Psalm 110 adds a further revelation to that contained in Genesis: the promised
Messiah, a descendant of David, will not only be a king (which they already
knew) but also a priest; and he will not be a priest of Aaron: by a new disposi-
tion of God he will be a priest according to the order, or as the Hebrew text
says, "after the manner of Melchizedek".
The Epistle to the Hebrews views the Genesis episode through the prism of
Psalm 110: Melchizedek is above all a representative of a new priesthood ins-
tituted by God independently of the Mosaic Law. That is why it gives so much
importance to the words of Genesis: Melchizedek is "king of righteousness",
according to one popular etymology, and he is also "king of Salem", that is,
"king of peace" according to another which changes the second vowel of the
Hebrew word shalom, which means "peace". Thus, in Melchizedek the two fore-
most characteristics of the messianic kingdom meet--righteousness and peace
(cf. Ps 85:10; 89:14; 97:2; Is 9:5-7; 2:4; 45:8; Lk 2:14). Moreover, since Genesis
says nothing about Melchizedek's background (he did not belong to the chosen
people), the sacred writer, following a common rabbinical rule of interpretation
(what is not in Scripture--in the Torah--has no existence in the real world"), sees
Scripture's silence on this point as symbolic: Melchizedek, since his genealogy
is unknown, is a figure or "type" of Christ, who is eternal.
"Resembling the Son of God": it is not Christ who resembles Melchizedek but
Melchizedek who is like Christ indeed, who has been made to resemble Christ.
Christ is the perfection of priesthood. Melchizedek was created and made like
Christ so that we by reflecting on him might learn something about the Son of
God.
Theoderet of Cyrus develops on this idea: "Christ the Lord possesses all these
qualifications really and by nature. He is 'without mother', for God as Father a-
lone begot him. He is 'without father', for he was conceived by mother alone, that
is, the Virgin. He is 'without genealogy', as God, for he who was begotten by the
unbegotten Father has no need of genealogy. 'He has not beginning of days', for
his is an eternal generation. 'He has no end of life', for he possesses an immortal
nature. For all those reasons Christ himself is not compared to Melchizedek but
Melchizedek to Christ" ("Interpretatio Ep. Ad Haebreos, ad loc."). St Ephraem
put this very nicely: "Thus, Melchizedek's priesthood continues for ever --not in
Melchizedek himself but in the Lord of Melchizedek" ("Com. in Epist. Ad Hae-
breos, ad loc.").
3. A priest of the true God, of the Most High God, yet not a member of the cho-
sen people, Melchizedek is an example of how God sows the seeds of saving
truth beyond limitations of geography, epoch or nation. "The priesthood of Christ,
of which priests have been really made sharers, is necessarily directed to all peo-
ple and all times, and is not confined by any bounds of blood, race, or age, as
was already typified in a mysterious way by the figure of Melchizedek. Priests,
therefore, should recall that the solicitude of all the churches ought to be their
intimate concern" (Vatican II, "Presbyterorum Ordinis", 10).
At the same time the sacred text, by saying that Melchizedek was "without father
or mother", gives grounds for thinking that also in the case of the consecration of
Christ's priests they, in order to fulfill their mission, should be ready to leave their
family behind--which is what often in fact happens. "The character and life of the
man called to be a minister in the worship of the one true God bear the marks of
a halo and a destiny to be 'set apart'. This puts him in some way outside and
above the common history of other men--"sine patre, sine matre, sine genealogia",
as St Paul says of the mysterious prophetic Melchizedek" (A. del Portillo, "On
Priesthood", p. 44).
Addressing Christians, particularly those consecrated to the service of God, St
John of Avila writes: "Forget your people (Ps 45:10) and be like another Melchi-
zedek, whom we are told had no father or mother or genealogy. In this way [...]
example is given to the servants of God who must be so forgetful of their family
and relations that they are like Melchizedek in this world, as far as their heart is
concerned--having nothing that ties their heart and slows them up on their way
to God" ("Audi, Filia", 98).
15-19. The superiority of Christ's priesthood is now demonstrated by reference to
the inferiority of the Old Law, in line with the inferiority of its priesthood. The Law
is defined as "a legal requirement concerning bodily descent" as opposed to
something spiritual (cf. 1 Cor 2:13-15; Gal 6:1; Eph 1:3; Col 1:8; 2 Cor 3:6-8); it
is "weak" as opposed to effective; "useless" as opposed to being able to do what
it is designed for. From this two things follow: the Law made nothing perfect (cf.
note on 7:11); and its function was that of "introducing" us to a better law--that of
Christ, a law that is full of hope, and hope enables us to draw near to God (cf.
Rom 3:21; Gal 3:24; 1 Tim 1:8).
The epistle's verdict on the Law of Moses may seem somewhat harsh, but it fits
in exactly with the gratuitous nature of glorification: "The Law", Theodoret com-
ments, "has come to an end, as the Apostle says, and its place is taken by
hope of better things. The Law has ended, however, not because it was bad,
as some heretics foolishly say, but because it was weak and was not perfectly
useful. But we must understand that it is the [now] superfluous parts of the Law
that are described as weak or useless--circumcision, the sabbath precept, and
similar things. For, the New Testament insistently commands observance of the
'Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery' and the other command-
ments. In place of the old precepts we have now received hope of future good
things, a hope that makes us God's own household" ("Interpretatio Ep. Ad Hae-
breos, ad loc."). St Thomas Aquinas points out that the commandments were
and are useful. The Old Testament was not in itself bad, but it is unsuited to the
new times; there is no reason why the new priesthood should continue the ways
of the old (cf. Ps 40:6f). That was why the Old Law was abrogated--because it
was weak and served no purpose: "We say something is weak when it fails to
produce its [designed] effect; and the effect proper to the Law and the priest-
hood is justification [...]. This the Law was unable to do, because it did not bring
man to beatitude, which is his end. However, in its time it was useful, in that it
prepared men for faith" ("Commentary On Heb.", 7, 3).
(II) 1st Reading: 1 Samuel 17:32-33, 37, 40-51
David and Goliath (Continuation)
-----------------------------------------------
[32] And David to Saul, "Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will
go and fight with this Philistine." [33] And Saul said to David, "You are not able
to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth, and he has
been a man of war from his youth." [37] And David said, "The LORD who deli-
vered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will deliver me
from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "Go, and the LORD be
with you!" [40] Then he took his staff in his hand, and chose five smooth stones
from the brook, and put them in his shepherd's bag or wallet; his sling was in his
hand, and he drew near to the Philistine.
[41] And the Philistine came on and drew near to David, with his shield-bearer
in front of him. [42] And when the Philistine looked, and saw David, he disdained
him; for he was but a youth, ruddy and comely in appearance. [43] And the
Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?" And the
Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine said to David, "Come to me,
and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field." [45]
Then David said to the Philistine, "You come to me with a sword and with a spear
and with a javelin; but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God
of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. [46] This day the LORD will deliver
you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give
the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and
to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in
Israel, [47] and that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with
sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD'S and he will give you into our hand."
[48] When the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, David ran
quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in his
bag and took out a stone, and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead;
the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground.
[50] So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck
the Philistine, and killed him; there was no sword in the hand of David. [51] Then
David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its
sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that
their champion was dead, they fled.
*********************************************************************************************
Commentary:
17:32-37. The conversation between Saul and David about Goliath's challenge
shows Saul's dispiritedness and David's courage. David has not got some mad
juvenile idea; he is consciously committing himself to a difficult enterprise, con-
vinced that the Lord will protect him just as he has so often done in his work as
a shepherd (vv. 34-37). The Fathers apply David's experience to Jesus Christ:
"David, that is, Christ, strangled the lion and the bear when he descended into
hell and freed everyone from the jaws of death [...]. Since the strength of the bear
is his paws, and the lion's, his mouth, these fierce creatures prefigure the devil.
Moreover, all this is said of Christ who would have to free the one, true Church
from the clutches of evil, that is, from the power of the devil" (St Caesarius of
Aries, "Sermons", 121, 4).
Gospel Reading: Mark 3:1-6
The Curing of the Man with a Withered Hand
----------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Again He (Jesus) entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a
withered hand. [2] And they watched Him, to see whether He would heal him
on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. [3] And He said to the man who
had the withered hand, "Come here." [4] And He said to them, "Is it lawful on the
Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.
[5] And He looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart,
and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand
was restored. [6] The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with
the Herodians against Him, how to destroy Him.
*********************************************************************************************
Commentary:
5. The evangelists refer a number of times to the way Jesus looks at people
(e.g. at the young man: Mark 10:21; at St. Peter: Luke 22:61,etc). This is the
only time we are told He showed indignation--provoked by the hypocrisy shown
in verse 2.
6. The Pharisees were the spiritual leaders of Judaism; the Herodians were those
who supported the regime of Herod, benefiting politically and financially thereby.
The two were completely opposed to one another and avoided each other's com-
pany, yet they combined forces against Jesus. The Pharisees wanted to see the
last of Him because they considered Him a dangerous innovator. The most recent
occasion may have been when He pardoned sins (Mark 2:1ff) and interpreted with
full authority the law of the Sabbath (Mark 3:2); they also want to get rid of Him
because they consider that He lowered their own prestige in the eyes of the people
by the way He cured the man with the withered hand. The Herodians, for their part,
despised the supernatural and eschatological tone of Christ's message, since they
looked forward to a purely political and temporal Messiah.
*********************************************************************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text from the
Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries by members of
the Faculty of Theology, University of Navarre, Spain.
Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland, and
by Scepter Publishers in the United States. We encourage readers to purchase
The Navarre Bible for personal study. See Scepter Publishers for details.
[참고: 이 파일은 저서명 "가톨릭 교회의 말씀 전례에 따른 성경공부 해설서"(엮은이: 소순태, 출판사: 가톨릭출판사)의 각주의 연장으로 마련되었습니다].