For Philo the history is a philosophic allegory and not a typical foreshadowing of a true human life. Melchizedek represents the power of rational persuasion which offers to the soul food of gladness and joy, and so in some sense answers to the priestly Logos: Leg. Alleg. iii. §§ 25 f. (i. p. 103 M.): kaleivsqw ou\n oJ me;n tuvranno" a[rcwn polevmou oJ de; basileu;" hJgemw;n eijrhvnh", Salhvm. kai; prosferevtw th'/ yuch'/ trofa;" eujfrosuvnh" kai; cara'" plhvrei" : a[rtou" ga;r kai; oi\non prosfevrei ... Thus he recognises his position as a natural priest, but his priesthood is a symbol of the action of right reason, which brings to man righteousness and joy through thoughts of absolute truth. Compare de congr. erud. grat. § 18 (i. p. 533 M.) oJ th;n aujtomaqh' kai; aujtodivdakton lacw;n iJerwsuvnhn ; de Abrahamo § 40 (2:34 M.) oJ mevga" ajrciereu;" tou' megivstou qeou' .
Clement of Alexandria dwells on the combination of righteousness and peace in Melchizedek and Christ, and sees in the offerings of bread and wine a figure of the Eucharist ( eij" tuvpon eujcaristiva" Strom. 4.25 § 163, p. 637 P.; comp. Strom. 2.5 § 21, p. 439 P.).
Jerome gives in one of his letters ( Ep. lxxiii. ad Evangelum; comp. Vallarsius ad loc. ) a summary of early opinions as to the person of Melchizedek in answer to a correspondent who had sent him an essay written with a view to shew that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
Origen and Didymus, he says, regarded him as an Angel (compare Nagel Stud. u. Krit. 1849, ss. 332 ff.). Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Apollinaris, and Eustathius of Antioch, as a man, a Canaanite prince, who exercised priestly functions, like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job.
The Jews, he adds (and so Primasius: tradunt Hebraei), identified him with Shem, an opinion which finds expression in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem: Melchizedek king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the son of Noah
[ Jerus. the High-priest ( abr $ hk ) of the Most High].
This last opinion has found much favour; but it is supported by no direct evidence (comp. Heidegger Hist. Patriarch. ii. Diss. 2). Epiphanius attributes it to the Samaritans ( Haer. 55.6; p. 471).
Two other strange opinions may be noticed. Some orthodox Christians supposed that Melchizedek was an Incarnation of the Son of God or perhaps simply a Christophany. How then, Epiphanius asks, could he be said to be made like to himself? (
Haer.
55.7; p. 474). Hierax (c. 280) in order to avoid this difficulty held, according to the view noticed by Jerome, that he was an Incarnation, or more probably an appearance, of the Holy Spirit (Epiph.
Haer.
67.7; p. 715). This opinion finds a very bold expression in the anonymous
Quaest. ex V. et N. Testamento
appended to the works of Augustine (Vol. iii. Ed. Bened.): Similis Dei filio non potest esse nisi sit ejusdem naturae. Et quid incredibile si Melchisedech ut homo apparuit cum intelligatur tertia esse persona? Si enim Christus qui secunda persona est frequenter visus est in habitu hominis, quid ambigitur de iis quae dicta sunt? Summus sacerdos Christus est, Melchisedech secundus...Christus vicarius Patris est et antistes, ac per hoc dicitur et sacerdos. Similiter et Spiritus sanctus, quasi antistes, sacerdos appellatus est excelsi Dei, non summus, sicut nostri in oblatione praesumunt... (Aug. iii. App. § cix. Migne
P. L.
35, p. 2329; comp. Hier.
Ep.
lxxiii.
ad Evang.
§ 1).