Epiphanius of Salamis — Commentary on Scripture

Hebrews 7:1

These people honor Melchizedek, the one mentioned in the Scriptures, and regard him as some great power. They consider him to be [in the heavens] above, in places that cannot be named, and in their error they claim as truth not only that he is not just a power, but also that he is greater than Christ. Also, supposedly based on a literal reading of the saying “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” they believe that Christ merely came and was deemed worthy of the order [of Melchizedek]. Therefore, they say, Christ is inferior to Melchizedek. For if his status were not somehow secondary, he would not need the order of [Melchizedek].As for Melchizedek himself, they say that he came into being “without mother, without father, without genealogy,” as they would like to show from St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. They also fabricate spurious books for their own use, and so deceive themselves. Yet, their refutation comes from the very writings themselves. After all, at the same time David prophesies that the Lord will be established a priest after the order of Melchizedek…

These people honor Melchizedek, the one mentioned in the Scriptures, and regard him as some great power. They consider him to be [in the heavens] above, in places that cannot be named, and in their error they claim as truth not only that he is not just a power, but also that he is greater than Christ. Also, supposedly based on a literal reading of the saying “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” they believe that Christ merely came and was deemed worthy of the order [of Melchizedek]. Therefore, they say, Christ is inferior to Melchizedek. For if his status were not somehow secondary, he would not need the order of [Melchizedek].As for Melchizedek himself, they say that he came into being “without mother, without father, without genealogy,” as they would like to show from St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. They also fabricate spurious books for their own use, and so deceive themselves.
Yet, their refutation comes from the very writings themselves. After all, at the same time David prophesies that the Lord will be established a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the sacred Scripture is also saying that Christ will be a priest. What we find is that [speaking of Melchizedek, St. Paul] adds immediately, “resembling the Son of God he remains a priest for ever.” If he resembles the Son of God, he is not equal to the Son of God. For how can the servant be equal to the master? You see, Melchizedek was a man, and the designation “without father, without mother,” is not said because he did not have a father or a mother, but because they were not explicitly named in the sacred Scripture.…
Remember that, even though some give an account of Melchizedek’s father and mother, there is no basis for this in the canonical and established Scriptures.… And of how many others is the genealogy not clearly given [in the Scriptures]? Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah the Tishbite—neither their fathers nor their mothers are mentioned anywhere in the canonical Scriptures.…
What are we, then, to say? Will the examples of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego force our imagination to consider what we ought not and marvel with excessive owe, beyond all measure, at each of their cases, considering them to be without father and without mother? Let it not be so! After all, the traditions of the apostles and the holy Scriptures and the successions of teachers have been set as our boundaries and foundations for the building up of our faith; and the truth of God is has been protected from every side, so that no one would be deceived by empty myths.

PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 1.1-3.8

Hebrews 7:1

And how many things about this Melchizedek others also imagine! The Samaritans, for example, consider him to be Shem, the son of Noah; but they, too, will be found to be absurd. For the sacred Scripture, which safeguards everything with good order, has fortified the truth from all sides, and it has not set the order of the times and the years of the lives of each of the patriarchs and enumerated their successions in vain. After all, when Abraham was eighty-eight or, more or less, ninety years old, Melchizedek met him and offered him loaves of bread and wine, prefiguring the mysteries through the types; types, that is, of the Lord’s body—since the Lord himself says, “I am the living bread”—and types of his blood, which flowed from his side for the cleansing of those who have been defiled and the sprinkling and salvation of our souls.…Shem, however, of whom we spoke before, and whom the Samaritans imagine to be Melchizedek, fathered Arpachshad in the one hundred second year of his life, and altogether there were 1, years until the time of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek on his return…

And how many things about this Melchizedek others also imagine! The Samaritans, for example, consider him to be Shem, the son of Noah; but they, too, will be found to be absurd. For the sacred Scripture, which safeguards everything with good order, has fortified the truth from all sides, and it has not set the order of the times and the years of the lives of each of the patriarchs and enumerated their successions in vain. After all, when Abraham was eighty-eight or, more or less, ninety years old, Melchizedek met him and offered him loaves of bread and wine, prefiguring the mysteries through the types; types, that is, of the Lord’s body—since the Lord himself says, “I am the living bread”—and types of his blood, which flowed from his side for the cleansing of those who have been defiled and the sprinkling and salvation of our souls.…Shem, however, of whom we spoke before, and whom the Samaritans imagine to be Melchizedek, fathered Arpachshad in the one hundred second year of his life, and altogether there were 1, years until the time of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek on his return from the slaughter of the kings, Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, and Tidal.
And Shem did not live as many years as their silly imagination thinks, but he was 102 years old when he fathered Arpachshad, in the second year after the flood. “And after these events, he lived,” as the sacred Scripture says, “for five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters, and he died.” Now then, since he lived for 602 years and then died, how is it possible for him to reach the span of 1, years, so that Shem, the son of Noah, who preceded Abraham by ten generations, may be called Melchizedek by them, after ten generations, after 1, years? O, the great deceit of men! And according to the evidence of other manuscripts, from the age of Shem—from the time in which Shem lived—until the time at which Abraham met Melchizedek, as was stated before, which was during [Abraham’s] eighty-eight or ninetieth year of life, 628 years passed, more or less. All of this evidence, therefore, means that it is impossible for Shem to have reached the period of Abraham, so as to be identified with Melchizedek. Thus, the nonsense of the Samaritans is destroyed in every way.

PANARION 4, AGAINST MELCHIZEDEKIANS 6.1-11

Jeremiah 9:21-22

The prophet says, “Death is come up through the windows.” Surely he does not mean actual windows—otherwise we could shut our windows and never die. But the bodily senses—sight, hearing, and so on—are windows to us and death enters us through them if we sin with them.

PANARION 1:9.4:10

Jeremiah 12:9-13

Dearly beloved, it is fitting that we should not abuse our rank as clergy, so as to make it an occasion of pride, but diligently keep and observe God’s commandments, to be in reality what in name we profess to be. For if the Holy Scriptures say, “Their lots shall not profit them,” what pride in our clerical position will be able to help us who sin not only in thought and feeling but also in speech?

LETTER 51:1

Jeremiah 17:9

How can they declare the Savior a mere man, conceived of a man’s seed? How will he “not be known,” as Jeremiah says of him, “he is man, but who shall know him?” For the prophet, describing him, said, “Who shall know him?” But if he meant a mere man, surely his father would know him, and his mother, his relatives and neighbors, those who lived with him and his fellow townspeople. But that which came to birth is born of Mary, while the divine Word came from above. He was truly begotten not in time and without a beginning, not of a man’s seed but of the Father on high. But in the last days he consented to enter a virgin’s womb and fashion his flesh from her, patterned after himself. This is why Jeremiah says, “And he is man, but who shall know him?” He came from above as God, the only-begotten, divine Word.

PANARION 30:20.5-7

Luke 2:21

Now the followers of Ebionand Cerinthus say, “It is enough for a disciple if he be as his Master. But Christ circumcised Himself. Be you therefore circumcised.” But herein do they deceive themselves, destroying their own principles; for if Ebion should confess that Christ as God descended from heaven and was circumcised on the eighth day, it might then afford the ground of an argument for circumcision; but since he affirms Him to be mere man, surely as a boy he cannot be the cause of Himself being circumcised, as neither are infants the authors of their own circumcision. But we confess that it is God Himself who has descended from heaven, and that enclosed in a virgin's womb, He abode there the whole time necessary for her delivery, until He should perfectly form to Himself of the virgin's womb a human body; and that in this body He was not in appearance but truly circumcised on the eighth day, in order that the figures having come to this spiritual fulfillment, both by Himself and His disciples, might now be spread abroad no longer the figures but the reality. Christ was…

Now the followers of Ebionand Cerinthus say, “It is enough for a disciple if he be as his Master. But Christ circumcised Himself. Be you therefore circumcised.” But herein do they deceive themselves, destroying their own principles; for if Ebion should confess that Christ as God descended from heaven and was circumcised on the eighth day, it might then afford the ground of an argument for circumcision; but since he affirms Him to be mere man, surely as a boy he cannot be the cause of Himself being circumcised, as neither are infants the authors of their own circumcision. But we confess that it is God Himself who has descended from heaven, and that enclosed in a virgin's womb, He abode there the whole time necessary for her delivery, until He should perfectly form to Himself of the virgin's womb a human body; and that in this body He was not in appearance but truly circumcised on the eighth day, in order that the figures having come to this spiritual fulfillment, both by Himself and His disciples, might now be spread abroad no longer the figures but the reality.
Christ was circumcised for several reasons. First indeed to show the reality of His flesh, in opposition to Manichaus and those who say that He came forth in appearance only. Secondly, that He might prove that His body was not of the same substance with the Deity, according to Apollinaris, and that it descended not from heaven, asValentinian said. Thirdly, to add a confirmation to circumcision which He had of old instituted to wait His coming. Lastly, to leave no excuse to the Jews. For had He not been circumcised, they might have objected that they could not receive Christ uncircumcised.

Luke 2:21

(lib. i. Hær. 30.) Now the followers of Ebion and Cerinthus say e, "It is enough for a disciple if he be as his Master. But Christ circumcised Himself. Be thou therefore circumcised." But herein do they deceive themselves, destroying their own principles; for if Ebion should confess that Christ as God descended from heaven and was circumcised on the eighth day, it might then afford the ground of an argument for circumcision; but since he affirms Him to be mere man, surely as a boy he cannot be the cause of Himself being circumcised, as neither are infants the authors of their own circumcision. But we confess that it is God Himself who has descended from heaven, and that inclosed in a virgin's womb, He abode there the whole time necessary for her delivery, until He should perfectly form to Himself of the virgin's womb a human body; and that in this body He was not in appearance but truly circumcised on the eighth day, in order that the figures having come to this spiritual fulfilment, both by Himself and His disciples, might now be spread abroad no longer the figures but the reality…

(lib. i. Hær. 30.) Now the followers of Ebion and Cerinthus say e, "It is enough for a disciple if he be as his Master. But Christ circumcised Himself. Be thou therefore circumcised." But herein do they deceive themselves, destroying their own principles; for if Ebion should confess that Christ as God descended from heaven and was circumcised on the eighth day, it might then afford the ground of an argument for circumcision; but since he affirms Him to be mere man, surely as a boy he cannot be the cause of Himself being circumcised, as neither are infants the authors of their own circumcision. But we confess that it is God Himself who has descended from heaven, and that inclosed in a virgin's womb, He abode there the whole time necessary for her delivery, until He should perfectly form to Himself of the virgin's womb a human body; and that in this body He was not in appearance but truly circumcised on the eighth day, in order that the figures having come to this spiritual fulfilment, both by Himself and His disciples, might now be spread abroad no longer the figures but the reality.

(ubi sup.) Christ was circumcised for several reasons. First indeed to show the reality of His flesh, in opposition to Manichæus f and those who say that He came forth in appearance only. Secondly, that He might prove that His body was not of the same substance with the Deity, according to Apollinaris, and that it descended not from heaven, as Valentinian said. Thirdly, to add a confirmation to circumcision which He had of old instituted to wait His coming. Lastly, to leave no excuse to the Jews. For had He not been circumcised, they might have objected that they could not receive Christ uncircumcised.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Luke 2:42-50

(cont. Hær. l. ii. hær. 31.) Let Ebion know that at twelve years old, not thirty, Christ is found the astonishment of all men, wonderful and mighty in the words of grace. We can not therefore say, that after that the Spirit came to Him in Baptism He was made the Christ, that is, anointed with divinity, but from His very childhood He acknowledged both the temple and His Father.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Luke 6:1-5

(cont. Hær. l. i. Hær. xxx. 32.) On the sabbath day then they were seen passing through the corn fields, and eating the corn, showing that the bonds of the sabbath were loosened, when the great Sabbath was come in Christ, Who made us to rest from the working of our iniquities.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Luke 10:21

But a Gospel composed by Marcion has, “I give thanks to You, O Lord,” being silent as to the words of heaven and earth, and the word Father, lest it should be supposed that He calls the Father the Creator of the heaven and the earth.

Luke 10:21-22

(adv. Hær. 42.) But a Gospel composed by Marcion has, "I give thanks to Thee, O Lord," being silent as to the words of heaven and earth, and the word Father, lest it should be supposed that He calls the Father the Creator of the heaven and the earth.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Luke 22:14-18

(adv. Hær. 30. 22.) Hereby we may refute the folly of the Ebionites concerning the eating of flesh, seeing that our Lord eats the Passover of the Jews. Therefore He pointedly said, "This Passover," that no one might transfer it to mean another.

(as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Mark 6:3

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: De fide. Books II and III, page 620, 7.1

Matthew 1:25

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: De fide. Books II and III, page 620, 7.1

Matthew 13:55

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: De fide. Books II and III, page 620, 7.1

Philippians 2:6-9

You see that he reveals Christ to be a man but not merely so, since he is the mediator of God and humanity.… He is trueborn God by nature with respect to his Father, but with respect to humanity he is Mary’s trueborn son by nature, begotten without the seed of a man.

ANCORATUS 44

Philippians 2:6

Suppose that when he became a slave he ceased being truly Lord. How then could it be said that in his coming the one who was “in the form of God took the form of a slave”?

ANCORATUS 28

Philippians 2:8

The Word tasted death once on our behalf, the death of the cross. He went to his death so that by death he might put death to death. The Word, becoming human flesh, did not suffer in his divinity but suffered with humanity.

ANCORATUS 92

Psalms 116:10-11

And if we must also comment on the statement, “I said in my ecstasy, Everyone is a liar,” its meaning again is different. It is not at all like that of a person who is out of his senses and mentally deranged (God forbid), but of one who is greatly astonished and who thinks with the powers of reason customary to those who see and act in the proper way. For since the prophet was astonished, he also speaks here because of his astonishment. Now the prophets have experienced ecstasy, but not an ecstasy of their powers of reasoning. Peter, for example, experienced ecstasy, not that he did not understand rationally but that he saw phenomena different from the everyday order among people. “For he saw a large piece of cloth being lowered, bound at its four corners, and in it all the four-footed beasts and creeping things and birds of heaven.” And notice that the holy Peter understands and was not out of his wits. For when he hears, “Rise, kill, and eat,” he did not obey as one not having a sound mind, but he says in the Lord, “By no means, Lord; for never has anything common or unclean entere…

And if we must also comment on the statement, “I said in my ecstasy, Everyone is a liar,” its meaning again is different. It is not at all like that of a person who is out of his senses and mentally deranged (God forbid), but of one who is greatly astonished and who thinks with the powers of reason customary to those who see and act in the proper way. For since the prophet was astonished, he also speaks here because of his astonishment. Now the prophets have experienced ecstasy, but not an ecstasy of their powers of reasoning. Peter, for example, experienced ecstasy, not that he did not understand rationally but that he saw phenomena different from the everyday order among people. “For he saw a large piece of cloth being lowered, bound at its four corners, and in it all the four-footed beasts and creeping things and birds of heaven.” And notice that the holy Peter understands and was not out of his wits. For when he hears, “Rise, kill, and eat,” he did not obey as one not having a sound mind, but he says in the Lord, “By no means, Lord; for never has anything common or unclean entered my mouth.”And the holy David, too, said, “[I said] Everyone is a liar.” But when he said, “I said,” he spoke on his own, and he said of people that they lie. He himself, therefore, did not lie, but being amazed and astounded at God’s love for humanity and the things that had been announced to him by the Lord, he marveled exceedingly, and when he saw every person in need of God’s mercy and recognized that every person is subject to punishment, he ascribed truthfulness to the Lord alone, to make known the true Spirit who spoke in the prophets and revealed to them the depths of the accurate knowledge of God.

PANARION 48:7.1-7

Revelation 12:14

When the Savior was on the cross, the Lord turned, as the Gospel according to John tells us, “and saw the disciple whom he loved, and said to him of Mary, ‘Behold thy mother.’ And to her he said, ‘Behold thy son.’ ” If Mary had children and her husband was alive, why did he entrust Mary to John and John to Mary? Why not rather entrust her to Peter? Why not to Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew? But it is plain that he entrusted her to John because of virginity. For he says, “Behold thy mother,” even though physically she was not John’s mother; he says this to show that as the originator of virginity she was his mother, since the life began with her.… For if she had not truly been the mother who bore him, he would not have taken care to entrust the Ever-virgin to John—his mother because of the incarnation, but in his honor undefiled and the wondrous vessel. But the Gospel says, “And from that day he took her unto his own home.” But if she had a husband, a home, children, she would return to her own home and not to someone else’s.… Indeed, when this had been done and John had taken her to…

When the Savior was on the cross, the Lord turned, as the Gospel according to John tells us, “and saw the disciple whom he loved, and said to him of Mary, ‘Behold thy mother.’ And to her he said, ‘Behold thy son.’ ” If Mary had children and her husband was alive, why did he entrust Mary to John and John to Mary? Why not rather entrust her to Peter? Why not to Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew? But it is plain that he entrusted her to John because of virginity. For he says, “Behold thy mother,” even though physically she was not John’s mother; he says this to show that as the originator of virginity she was his mother, since the life began with her.… For if she had not truly been the mother who bore him, he would not have taken care to entrust the Ever-virgin to John—his mother because of the incarnation, but in his honor undefiled and the wondrous vessel. But the Gospel says, “And from that day he took her unto his own home.” But if she had a husband, a home, children, she would return to her own home and not to someone else’s.… Indeed, when this had been done and John had taken her to himself, she did not yet live with him. If any think I am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the Scriptures and neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried—even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw people’s minds into consternation. For I dare not say—though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin. In one passage Simeon says of her, “And a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” And elsewhere the Revelation of John says, “And the dragon hastened after the woman who had born the man child, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her.” Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for certain, and [I] am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For Scripture went beyond human understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don’t know; and even if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought!

PANARION 7.78.10.9-11.5