Long Ago God Spoke
Part 24: As One Unknown
Hebrews 7: Melchizedek, Priest of God
7 1-3 Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of the Highest God. He met Abraham, who was returning from “the royal massacre,” and gave him his blessing. Abraham in turn gave him a tenth of the spoils. “Melchizedek” means “King of Righteousness.” “Salem” means “Peace.” So, he is also “King of Peace.” Melchizedek towers out of the past—without record of family ties, no account of beginning or end. In this way he is like the Son of God, one huge priestly presence dominating the landscape always.
4-7 You realize just how great Melchizedek is when you see that Father Abraham gave him a tenth of the captured treasure. Priests descended from Levi are commanded by law to collect tithes from the people, even though they are all more or less equals, priests and people, having a common father in Abraham. But this man, a complete outsider, collected tithes from Abraham and blessed him, the one to whom the promises had been given. In acts of blessing, the lesser is blessed by the greater.
A close friend of Elvis Presley revealed that the wealthy musician gave away 21 new Cadillacs in his lifetime. As far as anyone knows, none of the recipients had a clue who had gifted them.(Jon Johnston, Signed, Anonymous (Beacon Hill Press, 2009), 22-3. The exercise questions in the lesson are adapted from this book.)
Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my thoughts.
See if there is any wicked way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-4).
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning ofdays nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he [Melchizedek] remains a priest forever (Hebrews 7:3).
Introduction:
This morning marks, on my part, the third lesson with the mysterious figure of Melchizedek in the discussion, albeit a brief one on this occasion. This relatively obscure person in the Old Testament is taken up by the Hebrews writer and presented as a “priest forever.” Here is an audacious claim. This largely unknown figure stands outside the tribe of Levi “without father, without mother, without genealogy.” We know almost nothing of his reign, of his accomplishments and/or defeats. And yet, this mysterious king is not nameless. He is a king of righteousness and of peace. Thinking of how little we know of him this past week brought to mind the notion of anonymity, a theme being used today to wrap up for now the focus on Melchizedek.
Nameless
Anonymity is an interesting philosophical issue. One could even say with equal justification that it can also be an issue for biblical, theological, psychological and historical interests. These various ways of approaching the topic raise a host of questions as to the place, reason and meaning involved in each case where silence afterwards seems to be an integral part of the activity. Anonymity is derived from the Greek word anonymia, meaning "without a name" or "nameless.” What is the value of giving but not allowing “your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matt 6:3), of publishing a book but ‘hiding’ behind a pseudonym as “an essential basis in the production itself,”(Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to ‘Philosophical Fragments’, Kierkegaard’s Writings, XII,1 (Princeton University press, 1992), 625. Emphasis is SK’s.) of writing a manuscript and using a another person’s name as author that a reader may respect (e.g., Book of Enoch). Evidently, ‘as one unknown’ carries weight for some folk. Anonymity may carry its own reward-- at least to the person who does something namelessly. Exercise:
1. In your opinion, why do people—apart from religious reasons--engage in anonymous acts of generosity or compassion?
2. Have you ever heard about or encountered someone whose secret generosity was accidently discovered? What outcomes took place?
A person would be hard pressed to know how nameless deeds are valued when examining the shelves of today’s book stores. There are books’ galore on self-help, on how to improve one’s skill, reduce or manage one’s weight, become a millionaire, train an animal, lay tile, prepare exotic meals, and a zillion other things but little if anything on anonymity. It makes one wonder: why is that? Anonymity does not appear to be in demand Perhaps a factor regarding the loss or at least the devaluing of anonymity today may be due to the importance given to the individual qua individual. Modern thought stresses the place and importance of the individual. In fact it is frequently cited as one of the distinguishing characteristics since the 18th century European Enlightenment. Focusing on the individual creates an appreciation for what one is able to produce and in turn what one should be given credit for in producing it. Plagiarism, for example, is a serious modern phenomenon. It is looked upon with such disdain because it takes the work of someone else for one’s own. This is especially evident in the West. A person, for example, will go to court to make sure that one is giving credit for one’s discovery. A big deal is made with regard to whoever discovers, reports or applies something first or exceedingly well. Who knows? A discovery or application could become the basis for a Nobel Prize in the Sciences, a Templeton Prize in Religion, an Oscar for a Film, or a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism.
Some ancient and medieval authors apparently did not feel the need to stress their own individuality but published works in the names of others. The delight of anonymity was found in using the names of the well-known, of affirming what someone else said or wrote or implied. There is an entire body of literature known under the name of pseudepigrapha.(The term ‘pseudepigrapha’ is a combination of two Greek words, literally meaning “false writings.” The term is controversial and misleading since it is not that certain documents are “false” but that the authors associated with the documents are not the historical figures in Israel’s past.) These are works ascribed to someone other than the person cited as the author, sort of a reverse form of plagiarism.(Scholars debate whether the practice is found in the Old Testament and New Testament but the method is clearly present in the ancient world) In this case the works are from Jewish authors some two centuries before and a
century or two after the rise of Christianity. The intent is to give the person named as the author an enhanced standing. See for example the Book of Enoch, The Assumption of Moses, The Psalms of Solomon, etc. By writing in (say) Enoch’s name it allows the author of the Book of Enoch to expand on topics deemed important at a later period than was there in Enoch’s time and even gain a following. In the course of doing so the act or practice honors and pays respect to Enoch. Apparently, in these cases the benefit resides in being a faithful follower of the person named. In other words, the disciple is not above one’s teacher (Mt 10:24).
In a different vein, consider literature coming from the monastic tradition. In one case a small book was seen in a catalogue where the writer of the work was cited, if memory serves me accurately, as “A Monk of Mount Athos.” (Mount Athos is on a peninsula of Greece. Athos, the holy mountain, has been the principal center of monasticism in the Eastern Orthodox Church since the tenth century.) Here the value was placed not in the author but in what has been written, the content. Humility on the part of the author is stressed by not saying so but by leaving off one’s name on the document. This is interpreted as being faithful to scripture since pride in one’s self or in one’s possessions is considered sinful. This is clear in the monastic tradition at large and especially in the stories of the Desert Fathers. Consider this short account:(See e.g., The Desert Fathers, trans. with an Introduction by Benedicta Ward (Penguin Books, 2003). )
Abba Anthony said, “I saw all the snares that the enemy spreads out over the world, and I said, groaning, ‘What can get me through such snares?’ Then I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Humility.’(Quoted from Roberta Bondi, To Love as God Loves: Conversations with the Early Church (Fortress Press, 1987), 42. With slight translation differences this quotation is also in The Desert Fathers volume (on p. 148).)
In a variation of humility consider what some persons do by way of action when they join a religious order, say the Order of St. Benedict. They assume a new name usually associated with some person in the past. This occurs when a pope is elected. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is now no longer Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio he is Pope Francis. Bergoglio’s persona as an individual is no more. Or, consider even more so the earlier Pope John Paul II. He took on the identity and basic interests of three previous popes, of Pope John XXIII, of Pope Paul VI, and of Pope John Paul I. In these instances the Pope identifies with the qualities and even the agenda of the person or persons’ name he takes on and finds inspiration in doing so. Thus unless the change of name is later mentioned it is possible that a young person or a person of another faith on hearing the Pope speak or read what he writes may have no knowledge of the Pope’s original identity. It has fallen into the recesses of anonymity. Or, take a name we have often heard in this class, Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). SK published numerous works under pseudonyms so that he could argue, criticize, act out various personalities depicted in the names he chose without having to identify personally with any of the “authors” in their works. For SK anonymity became an art form. This was successful for sometime before the readers of Denmark realized that SK was the author. He even wrote reviews against some of his pseudonymous works to hide his authorship! He may well get the prize for attempting to preserve his anonymity. Hilarious Bookbinder, Johannes Climacus, Anti-Climacus, even “A” as the editor of Part I of Either Or and “B” as the editor of Part II of the same book, show up as authors or editors of texts. It was SK’s way of attempting to get the people of Denmark to wake up, to realize that they were not living an authentic Christian life but that of Christendom. For SK the form was there in Denmark but not the heart and certainly not the commitment found in New Testament
faith.
In each of the above cases the desire to enjoy the fruits of one’s anonymity stand out with different reasons for doing so. It is for the sake of humility, for the sake of invoking the authority of someone, for the sake of waking up Christendom to its destructive course, for passing on teachings and/or practices believed to be valuable, and the like. Obviously, the temptation is to disregard
some of these folk and the documents mentioned irrespective of the intent behind their work. We just do not do some of those things. It seems a bit dishonest. If one writes a book, put one’s name on it! However this raises an interesting question: Just why are people resistant to live this kind of life, that of anonymity? Perhaps it is due in small part to the fact that people value their identity as individuals, with each person eager (or not) to make their own mark in the world. If even close or at least within the ballpark we are right back to where we started in the first place. The focus is on the individual.
Exercise:
1. In what way or ways do you feel pushed by cultural influences, or pulled by your own inner nature, to engage in self-promotion? Is self-promotion necessarily a bad thing?
2. What’s your take on pumping up kids with a self-image prior to any fulfillment?
Beyond Self Interest
Why is doing something for its own sake apparently not a good thing unless it brings attention to the giver? The idealist would say that generosity is its own reward. The realist would respond with “This is not an ideal world,” and she would be right. However, to give in to what people only expect without a higher purpose in mind reeks of defeatism. Perhaps that is why the biblical account calls us to something higher, that of anonymity. Matthew 6 is a good case in point. Jesus says: “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them” (6:1). Following thereafter are instances of anonymity:
- “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you....”
- “Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the
synagogues and at the street corners....”
- “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words....”
- “And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting....”
Life is more than a list of ‘what not to do’ so what is recommended?
- “When you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing....”
- “Whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in heaven ....”
- “When you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen...by your Father who is in secret....”
Why does God value anonymity in these cases? For one thing, it goes beyond one’s self-interest. The person who said: “Wherever I go, I go, and that is the problem” expressed a good insight into the human condition. Evidence is legion on that; just check the newspaper or TV newscast on the local and national scenes. The remedy is to shake things up and that is what the Gospel does, it turns things around. The first will be last, he who saves his life loses it but he who gives up his life saves it, and the like. Anonymity fits well in gospel discourse. Anonymity is doing the unexpected, holding to one’s self whatever knowledge of generous acts, or practicing acts of piety with the intention of not making them known. Can one live in peace with that spirit and attitude?
Proper Fanfare
Let’s close with a final thought regarding Melchizedek.
This “King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him”; 2and to him Abraham apportioned “one-tenth of everything.” His name, in the first place, means “king of righteousness”; next he is also king of Salem, that is, “king of peace.” 3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. 4See how great he is! (Heb. 7:1-4a).
There is fanfare in Melchizedek! “See how great he is!” Returning from victory on the battle field, Melchizedek meets an individual, Abram, and blesses him (Gen. 14:17-20). As a priest he does what any number of priests may say and do on a given day: “Bless you my child.” There is nothing special here. What is extraordinary is what the Hebrews writer does with the account from Genesis. The Genesis writer names the recipient of the blessing ‘Abram.’ The Hebrews writer names the recipient ‘Abraham.’ The latter views Abraham as a man of faith, in fact so much so that a later capsule of Abraham’s life must be told, including the offering up of Isaac (Heb. 11:8-19). And yet, what the Hebrews writer says of Abraham is not the main point that he wants to make. It is what the mysterious and obscure Melchizedek portends that is truly significant. It is from the order of Melchizedek that another priest will arise through “the power of an indestructible life” (7:16). Here is the guarantee of a better covenant and of a better hope. In the words of the Hebrews writer,
Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up (Heb.8:1-2).
On this high priest we can rely, says the preacher. One unknown becomes known in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Good news!____________________________
First Church of the Nazarene
3901 Lomaland Drive
San Diego, California 92106, United Stah
No comments:
Post a Comment