Epiphanius of Salamis

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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!