About Melchizedek

Polemical treatise of St. Mark of the Ascetic “On Melchizedek” (11 chapters) is directed against the Melchizedekites, adherents of the semi-Gnostic heresy, who saw in the Old Testament high priest Melchizedek one of the incarnations of the Word of God and belittled the importance of Christ. The main idea of ​​the essay is that the Lord gave the apostles the fullness of truth, and the teachings that appeared subsequently are false: “Jesus Christ, born of Mary, is the Son of the living God, and He lacks nothing, so that we should seek the fullness in another” (chapter 11). The reason for the wrongness of those who consider Melchizedek to be God's Word is that they interpret individual sayings of Scripture out of context: “I think these troubles happen to them because they do not pay full attention to the chapters of the Divine Scripture, and arbitrarily, for their own benefit, interpret certain sayings” (ch. 1). Rev. Mark, refuting the views of the Melchizedekians, shows the similarity of Melchizedek to Christ. The work also contains a polemic with Nestorianism: “After all, Scripture did not say that a simple man was born, as you say, or God the Word, but Christ, who is both God and Man, the indivisible and indivisible Son of God” (chapter 5). The terminology of the treatise retains some archaic features characteristic of Christological writings of the late 4th century, in particular, about the Incarnation of St. Mark speaks of the unity of God the Word and the body; The First Ecumenical Council is mentioned but not quoted. *The title of the work in Greek is Εἰς τὸν Μελχισεδέκ. *The title of the works in Latin is De Melchisedech. Translation of the essay by Rev. Mark of the Ascetic “About Melchizedek” I. The Lord, comparing the world to a field, and the preaching of truth to sowing, says that first the wheat is sown, and then the “tares” [appear] (Matthew 13:24–25). From this we can know that after the apostolic tradition, fictitious teachings are unnecessary and are the devil’s sowing. Despite the fact that the holy disciples [of the Lord] did not miss anything, [preaching] the truth, and the holy Apostle Paul, who sowed the whole world with the word as if with wheat, had nothing “deficient against the highest apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5), some dissenters, having risen like tares above the loaves, are trying to teach a teaching that, in their opinion, is more mysterious than apostolic. For the apostles did not preach that Melchizedek was by nature God, just as they preach. Thus, they allow nothing more than thoughts that lead to contempt for the economy of the Lord perfected for us. After all, if they deify an ordinary person for the reason that Scripture is silent [about parents] called “without father” and “without mother” (Heb. 7:3), then they thereby despise Christ, Who has a Father in heaven and for our sake a mother on earth. After all, if Melchizedek is considered great because of the lack of a genealogy, then Christ, who has a genealogy, should be considered lesser. It seems that such a move leads to the renunciation [of Christ] of the most insane of them, thereby subjecting the one who introduces such thoughts to greater condemnation. I think these troubles happen to them because they do not pay full attention to the chapters of the Divine Scripture, and arbitrarily, for their own benefit, interpret some sayings. Therefore, what relates to Christ they ascribed to man, and they call that man [Melchizedek] who is likened to the Lord by the order of the priesthood the Son of God by nature. They say: “If Melchizedek had not been the Son of God, how could he be called “king of peace” and “king of righteousness”?” Know, if you want: the Apostle says “king of the world” not by nature, but by meaning [of the name]. For he said: “first, according to the sign [name], the king of righteousness, and then the king of Salem, that is, the king of peace” (Heb. 7:2). They missed the word “by sign,” and therefore they think that the name that is given by sign is [a name] acquired by nature. II. They say: “If he is not God, why then without a father and without a mother?” In this case, from their words, it turns out that Melchizedek is the Father, not the Son. They object: “We do not call him the Father, but the Word of God, who existed before the incarnation and the birth of Mary.” O superstitious ones, how [can there be] God the Word without the Father!? Understand that what Blessed Paul said refers to the incarnate Christ. After all, he says: “He of whom this is spoken belonged to another tribe... For it is known that our Lord rose up from the tribe of Judah” (Heb. 7:13-14). “But tell me,” they ask, “how did Christ arise from the tribe of Judah, without father and without mother, according to the order of Melchizedek?” They don't know what they're saying. After all, Paul said “according to order” in relation to the priesthood, and not in relation to the expression “fatherless.” Therefore, he does not say: “You are without father and without mother, according to the order of Melchizedek,” but: “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6). What does “by rank” mean? This means by similarity, and not by Law. After all, according to the Law, the tribe of the Levites was supposed to be a priest, but Melchizedek priests not according to the Law, but according to the order of the prophets, thereby prefiguring Christ. Therefore he says: “You are a priest forever,” not after the order of the Levites, not after the order of Aaron, who is from the same tribe, but “after the order of Melchizedek,” who held the priesthood apart from the Law. III. But what are they asking us again? – If Melchizedek is a man, then how does he “remain a priest forever” (Heb. 7:3)? They reason about it from the passage, omitting other things from this chapter. After all, it is said: “being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” (Heb. 7:3). Likeness and reality are not the same thing, since one is an image and the other is truth. For example, just as the prophet Jonah, due to his three-day burial (Matthew 12:39–40), is likened to Christ, remaining a prophet, just as Moses is likened to Him, since he was the leader of the people, remaining forever a leader, in the same way Melchizedek is likened to Christ, since he was a priest for the pagans, and “remains forever a priest.” Therefore [Scripture] says: “Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6). They, in turn, ask again: “Suppose Melchizedek is a man who is like Christ. Show how Melchizedek is like the Lord Jesus Christ in that he is without father and without mother, having neither the beginning of days nor the end of life. After all, it is said: “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, being likened to the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3). Show the likeness in this, so that we can see that Melchizedek is a man, and not Christ Himself.” Thus, they are not opposing us, but they are going to be at enmity with the Divine Scripture. It would have been enough for them to believe the Apostle, who called him like the Son of God, and not the Son of God. For when they say, “Show us the likeness, that we may believe,” they do not seem to believe what Paul said. As if, if we had not been able to show this, they would have departed from the faith as much as they already have. Is it really because true Scripture contains many expressions, the meaning of which is inaccessible to some, that the Church will deviate from the tradition of faith and believe their own inventions? It won't happen! And for this purpose, let us not foolishly remain silent, but let us, with strength, point out the similarities that are contained in the speech of [the Apostle]. IV. The Apostle says about Melchizedek that he is “without a father” and “without a mother”, since “without a genealogy”, neither father nor mother are included in his genealogy, it does not say when he was born or when he died. Therefore [Melchizedek] has neither a beginning of days nor an end of life. It is impossible to trace his genealogy, since he comes from nations about which nothing is said, and Scripture only mentions where he is from. In this he is likened to the Son of God, since the Lord Jesus Christ had no father on earth and no mother in heaven. Since we said that in the Divine Scripture on the economy it is not entered, neither when Melchizedek was born, nor when he died, which is why it is said that he had neither the beginning of days nor the end of life, they also look for similarity [with Christ] in this, asking: “If this is said about Melchizedek, tell us why it is said about Christ that He has neither the beginning of days nor the end of life, so that we may know in this too similarity For we know that He was born of Mary and had a beginning, and died and rose again according to the Scriptures.” We answer this: “Do you believe the Gospel that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), not changing into man, but taking man into Himself?” They say: “Yes, we believe in it.” Then, if you believe this, know that Christ is not a simple man and is not known as a simple man, since He was never separate [from the Godhead], being united [with Him] afterward, but He was immediately conceived and begotten one. On the other hand, it is obvious that the Divine Word acted before, according to what is written: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You; therefore the Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). From this we see that Christ has neither a beginning of days nor an end of life. After all, if the Beginningless Word received a beginning in the incarnation, then it is true that Christ is also without beginning through the unity [of Divinity and humanity] from the [womb] of the Mother. Thus, Melchizedek is likened to Him in this too, since according to the economy nothing is said about his birth and death in order to show the sacrament of Christ. V. They ask again: “Has the Lord taken our body or not?” Yes, ours. However, He did not perceive it separately, it did not precede the union [of Divinity and humanity], but, as we said before, it was born from the mother in their inseparable unity. They immediately ask: “Why then are you counting His years?” The years are not counted of a separate nature, but [the years] from the moment of the birth of the One who became Man. After all, Scripture did not say that a simple man was born, as you say, or God the Word, but Christ, who is both God and Man, the indivisible and inseparable Son of God. He had the beginning of an economic birth, but did not have a natural beginning, because of the unity [of Divinity and humanity] from the womb of the Mother. After all, tell me: whose beginning are you talking about? Only one body? But according to the voice of the gospel addressed to Joseph: “Do not be afraid to receive Mary your wife, for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20), the body of the Lord never existed separately. Are you going to talk about the beginning of the born Christ? However, the Word Himself became incarnate, as proclaimed in the Gospels. So, as we have already shown, it is impossible to attribute to Christ either division or beginning. “Suppose,” he says, “that Christ has no beginning because of unity, but does not unity have a beginning?” It both has and does not have, since the Beginningless One Himself became the beginning of unity. And that’s why I said: both he has and he does not have. It is more pious to say that it does not, since that which is essentially united, although it is known from two, nevertheless, insofar as it is united with the nature of the stronger, is known and called as the stronger. Likewise, a river that is filled with rain and flows into the sea is no longer called a river, but a sea, in which it receives its beginning and ends here. After all, if a corporeal force acted as a superior force in the Word, as a result of which unity arose, then the beginning would have to be thought according to the corporeal nature. If, as the Gospel says, God the Word acted in a godly manner, then it is clear that in accordance with His nature the holy flesh was ennobled, because in it He deigned to dwell with all the “fullness of the Divinity bodily” (Col. 1:19, 2:9). If all fullness, then it is clear that there is nothing Divine left that the holy body of Christ did not have: beginninglessness, and Divinity, and immortality, and omnipotent power, and authority, and enduring wisdom - it had everything, because [God] was pleased to dwell in it with all the “fullness of the Divinity bodily” (Col. 1:19, 2:9). Therefore Paul said: “From now on we know no one according to the flesh; But even if we knew Christ according to the flesh, now we know it no more” (2 Cor. 5:16). For we have learned that [God] was pleased to dwell [in Christ] with all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him we will be complete (Col. 1:19, 2:9-10). He did not say “in them,” but “in Him,” who is “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Therefore Christ is contemplated as having neither beginning of days nor end of life. VI. Again they ask: “If Melchizedek is a man, how does he “remain a priest forever” (Heb. 7:3)?” This should be understood in two ways: not only in relation to Melchizedek, but also in relation to all the saints. First, they are "forever" included in Scripture, and second, they are "forever" before God. The prophet Isaiah always remains a prophet, and all prophets always remain prophets both [on the pages of] Scripture and before God. Likewise, the apostles always remain apostles, and if not so, then what did they hope for when they died daily for Christ? And all those who minister to Christ always remain priests. Thus, Saint Melchizedek, serving God, “remains a priest forever,” according to the word of the Lord, who said that “with Him all live” (Luke 20:38). While theologizing, [the heretics] also cite those words about Melchizedek, with which, as they think, only God can be honored: “See how great is he, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave tithes” (Heb. 7:4). But what is this compared to Divine dignity? Do you want to see more humility from Abraham? When he acquired a cave for Sarah's burial, he bowed to the one who gave it (Gen. 23:7-12). Now it is necessary to deify him too, because the patriarch bowed to him? It won't happen! That's how crazy they are that they limit the greatness of God's Word so much. [The apostle] did not say: “You see how great [Melchizedek] is, who created the heavens, the earth, and the sea; who created the mind of people, capable of free movement; giving to everyone what they need, not suddenly, but in due time, distributing it appropriately.” He did not say that he [Melchizedek] proportioned the rains and snow, the winter cold and the summer heat, so that the world would not perish. He did not say that he delivers from justice with mercy and can, without partiality, have mercy on sinners, exists everywhere indivisibly and abides unfused in the Father, the creator of good, omniscient and judge, who in weakness gives strength and in madness the wisdom of the serpent, plundering things (cf. Matt. 12:29), raising from death to life and making secret things obvious. The apostle did not say anything like that about Melchizedek, but only: “See how great is he, to whom Abraham the patriarch gave tithes of his best spoils” (Heb. 7:4). Surely, if he were God, Paul would define his incomprehensible power in such a way that there was nothing amazing in him except the tithe received from Abraham, which the priests also receive according to the Law? So, when, while reading, you find what is written about Melchizedek, remember what the apostle said: “of whom this is said, he belonged to another tribe” (Heb. 7:13), and you will not be deceived. “For it is known that the Lord Jesus Christ has risen from the tribe of Judah” (Heb. 7:14). Follow the faith of Paul and do not attribute to the prophets what they prophetically proclaim, and do not attribute to the images what they point to. To what tribe did Melchizedek belong, what is said about him do you consider representative or fulfilled? Thus, being mistaken, you will certainly recognize the figuratively slain lamb as God, saying: “If he were not God, how would he drive away the destroying angel with his blood? (cf. Ex. 12:5–6, etc.).” It is possible that you will make the copper serpent a god for yourself, thinking and saying: “If he were not God, how would he heal those bitten by snakes (Num. 21:9)?” We will say with the apostle: “of whom this is spoken, he belonged to another tribe” (Heb. 7:13). After all, they all acted not by their own strength, but by Christ, Whom they represented. Likewise, Melchizedek is called “the king of righteousness,” not by nature, because as Scripture explains: “of whom this is spoken, he belonged to another tribe.” VII. I also wanted to find out from the seducers: “Why didn’t the prophets and apostles proclaim Melchizedek God?” If out of envy or fear, then without envy and without fear the One born of Mary would not have been revealed. If out of ignorance, then they are babies compared to you, but you are more perfect than them, since what was hidden from them was revealed to you. But what do these dangerous people (οἱ Λοιμοί) 1 say? “It is not surprising that the apostles did not know this secret, if it was revealed to Paul with difficulty, as he himself says: “We should talk a lot about this; but it is difficult to interpret" (Heb. 5:11)." O arrogant ones, who consider themselves wiser than the apostles, who understand “neither what they say nor what they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7). If they really believe that Melchizedek is much to be said and difficult to interpret, let them then say which proposition is more difficult to interpret? Ours or theirs? For us who say that Melchizedek typifies our Lord Jesus Christ, what is said is extensive and difficult to interpret, just as the apostle says. They also claim that Melchizedek is God by nature. If he is God by nature, what is difficult to explain? They believe in God, but they interpret images. Let us therefore see what Saint Paul testifies to when he says: “We ought to speak a lot about this; but it is difficult to interpret” (Heb. 5:11). If it is in their favor, if Melchizedek is spoken of as God, let them interpret their god as they think he is God by nature. If they cannot, then, with the help of the Lord, we will figuratively interpret, as far as possible, what is said about Melchizedek, following St. Paul; and may they stop blaspheming! Jerusalem was previously called Jebus, so we know that Melchizedek was one of the Jebusites, one of the seven exiled nations (cf. Deut. 7:1). After the expulsion of the nations and the settlement of the Israelites (λαός), God chose this city from all the places in Judea so that the priests would offer sacrifices there (Deut. 12:5–18). After the end of the wars, the city was renamed Salim, which means “peace.” Jerusalem means “vision of the world.” Therefore, Melchizedek is called by Paul and in Scripture, by the meaning of his name, “king of the world” (Heb. 7:2), because he reigned there. This is the same as if someone mentioned King Selge 2. Selge is translated as “purity” (ἁγνεία). Therefore, with sufficient justification, Lord Selge can be called “Lord of Purity” by the name of the city. Of course, not by nature “master of purity”, but by name. However, Christ is by nature “Lord of integrity.” Do they really not notice that Melchizedek is also said to be “king of the world” by the meaning of his name? If the Jerusalem where he reigned was heavenly, then its ruler would be by nature the “king of the world.” But if he is an image of Jerusalem on high, then it is obvious that Melchizedek is figuratively called “king of the world” after the name of the city. Also, “king of righteousness” is a translation of the name “Melchizedek” from the Canaanite language, as we learned from knowledgeable people. Also, for example, Ambrose is translated as “immortal.” What of this? Since many are called Ambroses, are they now immortal by nature because of the name? Of course not. How many are called Eugene 3 while being slaves; how many - Athanasius 4, being mortals, how many - Polychronies 5 and lived a short time, how many - Democrats 6, without ruling a single person. This way we make sure that the names do not correspond to the objects. VIII. So, after we have interpreted the names according to power, let us return again to [the interpretation of] deeds. Just as Abraham, with three hundred and eighteen armed slaves born in his house, put the foreigners to flight (cf. Gen. 14:14-15), so Christ: born of Him, three hundred and eighteen fathers (πατριάρχης) in the city of Nicaea, taking the apostolic weapons, put to flight heresies. Look at the appropriate interpretation. Melchizedek once brought out bread and wine (cf. Gen. 14:18) to strengthen those returning from the war. Likewise, Christ, the Great Bishop, gives consecrated bread and wine to those who turn to Him from mental warfare, saying: “Take, eat all of it” (cf. Matt. 26:26–27). And just as Abraham gives a tithe of his best spoils to the priest of God (cf. Heb. 7:4), so those who are zealous for the faith of Abraham bring the best to Christ. Indeed, the five senses are offered to Him in two ways (namely, spiritually and directly), which are tithes of our nature, once captivated from foreigners, in accordance with the story told. Do you not understand from what has been said how “it is possible to say much, but it is difficult to interpret” [Heb. 5:11], as St. Paul said? So, don't say that images are the truth. Having heard “without father” and “without mother” (because “without genealogy”), do not consider Melchizedek to be the Son of God by nature. Have you not read how much the Divine Scripture tells about images in history [about Melchizedek]: about Abraham’s brother Lot, about the kings of that time, calling people by the names of places and making Melchizedek and the city of Salem known? None of them were interpreted on their own before the Incarnation of the Lord. For if names are by nature, then not by interpretation; if by interpretation, then they are no longer by nature. How to “talk a lot; but difficult to interpret” (Heb. 5:11)? Read what is written that “this happened to them like images; but it is described for our instruction, who have reached the last ages” (1 Cor. 10:11). IX. It is also necessary to find out from them the following: - How did God the Word, having no flesh, perform divine services? And for whom? If you say for peace, then where is the victim? “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). Who are the priesthood preachers and witnesses? If they say that he is the image of the future, then how can an incorporeal person show the image of the One who will be Incarnate? Did He really appear in His own image? Where He Himself dwells, there is no longer an image, but the truth. If it is true, then what can we say about the Incarnation? How does Scripture say that the mystery “was not made known to the former generations of the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 3:5)? At that time neither the prophets nor the apostles announced this. But what are they saying? “If he were not God, how was he a priest before the Law?” We [answer] them: – The priesthood is spoken of because man in the flesh offered sacrifices to God; without the flesh one is not called a priest. Just as Abel offered sacrifices before the Law and therefore appeared as a priest, as Noah offered sacrifices and appeared as a priest, as Jacob offered sacrifices and appeared as a priest, as they all offered sacrifices before the Law, so Melchizedek was a priest before the Law. But they object: “The Scripture did not say that they were priests.” Divine Scripture does not say much about what you are trying to find. If you are looking for a difference in everything, then keep in mind that Melchizedek did not make a sacrifice, but only received the name of a priest. After all, the priests were more those who made sacrifices than the one who was only called that, since the priest is primarily the one who makes the sacrifices, and not the one who is only called by that name. We say this in connection with their absurd speeches. We ourselves in the Lord consider both of them in the same way to be priests of God. X. I am surprised that they did not hear blessed Peter, who clearly proclaims them and says that “there will be false teachers who will introduce destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). He correctly said “they will introduce” - after all, they really look out for the right moment and, depending on the circumstances, compose an answer. They either say openly that Melchizedek is God, or they insidiously agree when we, like the Divine Scriptures, call him “priest of God” (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1). If they believe the Divine Scripture, let them say everything according to the Scripture. First of all, since Scripture does not call Melchizedek God, let them not call him either. Let him be confessed according to the Scriptures as “made like the Son of God” (cf. Heb. 7:3), for he is not a Son not by nature. [Let them confess] that he is “by mark [name] the king of righteousness” (Heb. 7:2), and not by nature. Let them also confess that “He of whom this is spoken belonged to another tribe” (Heb. 7:13). Let them not tear out sayings [of the Scriptures] in order to convince the crowd by deception and to ensnare the most foolish. We, having received from the Lord such an order and commandment, are obliged to convince those who are mistaken through ignorance. [The heretics], seeing that those deceived by them want to repent, capture the most gullible of them by constantly saying: “If Melchizedek is not God by nature, we will not sin by making man a god, for it is written: “I said: you are gods, and you are all the sons of the Most High” (Ps. 81:6).” They do not know that such ambiguity makes clear the fragility of their faith in Christ. They, therefore, honor the Lord as equal to all people, and not for Who He is: Savior, God and Master; and they introduce the service of the creature instead of the Creator. Thus, wriggling like a snake, they wrap themselves around those who want to escape from them. And we, who have the commandment: “Be wise as serpents” (Matthew 10:16), need to imitate their cunning and destroy the embrace [of heretics] with unexpected conclusions. Let us say like [them]: even if Melchizedek had been God, we would not have sinned by calling and considering him only a man. After all, it is written that “there is no other name under heaven...by which we must be saved” except the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12), the fullness of “who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Let them listen to the apostle, who calls not to accept those who proclaim a different gospel: “For if someone came and began to preach another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if you received another Spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you did not receive, you would be very lenient towards it” (2 Cor. 11:4). After all, if this puts a seal on the Gospel, what remains for those who introduce heresies and those who believe them? But what are they saying? “Do churches everywhere teach as you do here today?” Let them know that all who teach confirm the perfect teaching of the apostles, and do not invent anything new that is not preached, as they do. If ever someone was convicted of an involuntary error, he would certainly either turn [to the true teaching], or, preferring a lie, would be counted among the outsiders, like them. Their madness is manifested in the fact that they have surpassed all heresy in craftiness. After all, being excommunicated and anathematized by the holy bishops, they secretly receive communion and gather in places where they are not known, and in this way they, as we said before, despise the sacrament of Christ and His economy. In addition, if, with the help of feigned reverence, they gain confidence in bishops or periodeuts, 7 then they immediately slander the truly faithful and Orthodox as malicious, arranging so that they become hated or persecuted. But He who knows the thoughts of people turns their deceit [against themselves] and, as it is written, by denouncing them, allows them to fall “into a pit that has been prepared” (Ps. 7:16) 8. XI. However, leaving their secret malice aside, let us go further to finally refute their evil faith. After all, the prophets did not proclaim the name of Melchizedek, the apostles did not teach him, the martyrs did not confess him, none of the patriarchs declared him God, none of the holy fathers wrote anything like that. Therefore, come to your senses, man, and realize that the devil instilled this strange thought in you, so that by his will you would become ill with pride and fall into his downfall. After all, how could [this have happened] without [his] will? “Having such a cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1) to support true faith, you chose and confessed what none of them confessed. After all, if they were saved without this knowledge and confession, save yourself, imitating them, and say in the words of St. Paul that “I determined to be... not knowing anything except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). If you think that without such a confession it is impossible to be saved, it is clear that you consider all the saints unsaved, with the exception of yourself. Even if you do not say such things to people with your lips, then the consequences [of your teaching] shout louder than your voice. You see to what blasphemy and troubles you have reached because of this malice of yours, or better yet, because of your complete lack of faith. Look at the fact that Melchizedek did not perform signs, did not establish commandments, did not appoint promises, did not die for us, did not give communion to the Holy Spirit. Besides, I don’t know who would vouch for your faith [in Melchizedek]. If you claim that the Incarnate One instructed us to teach all this, you make yourself even more guilty of evil. After all, what the Lord revealed to us about Himself through words and deeds is what He commanded us to believe. After all, the Scripture said that [God] appeared to Abraham (but only in a voice), offering him a commandment, predicting the future and promising good deeds in the land of the Chaldeans and at the oak of Mamre, as well as in many other words and deeds (cf. Genesis further). Scripture did not reveal anything unknown either from Melchizedek or through Melchizedek. Therefore, your faith is unfounded, your thought is unreliable, and such knowledge of God is vain. Therefore, when the Orthodox faith has appeared through many witnesses, all those who turn to others, both wisely and unreasonably calling Melchizedek God or the Son of God by nature, are obviously Judaizing, since Jesus Christ, born of Mary, is the Son of the living God, and He lacks nothing, so that we should seek completeness in another. λοιμο ί - plague, pestilence, infection, pestilence. [The author provides a translation of the unity form. numbers (λοιμός). The plural form is used here. – Editorial office of the ABC of Faith.] Here it is used in a figurative sense: a dangerous and harmful person. Selge is a Greek city in Asia Minor (Pisidia). Eugene (Greek) – good kind. Athanasius (Greek) – immortal. Polychronium (Greek) – durable. Democrat (Greek) – here: ruling the people. Periodeuti (Greek: circumventing, overseeing) - officials of the ancient Church in the rank of presbyters, who had the duty of inspecting the parish churches of a given diocese. Synod. translation of Ps.7:16: “he dug a ditch, and dug it out, and fell into the pit that he had prepared.”