Genesis 14: 17-24
Blessed be the name of the Lord!
This is a strange or rather odd
passage in the body of the patriarchal narratives. Strange in the sense that in
no other places in the whole patriarchal narratives, Abram the great father of
Israel’s faith in YHWH is presented as a warrior. Abram in the Patriarchal
narrative is generally a figure that understands the contexts of life and
avoids the development of a polemical relationship with the neighbors. The
historicity of the persons and places in this narration is difficult to
precisely fix. Four eastern kings go to war against pentapolis, ie, the five
cities or five kings. These cities were said to been under the subjugation of
Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam. Therefore it can be assumed that this war was a
revolt to declare the freedom from political oppression. It also reflects the
ancient west Asian history of frequent imperial aggressions, subjugations and spiraling
violence. The mention of the five kings including the King of Sodom where Lot,
Abram’s nephew, resided is to highlight the ruthlessness of the power of the
four kings who defeat them in the war. But then they in turn are defeated by
Abram with the help of only 318 odd men again highlighting the greatness of the
deliverance act led by the Patriarch. This passage can be read in many ways, and
mostly it has been read to highlight the nature of priestly vocation that
Melchizedek represents. Since this passage is also seen as a precursor to the
Holy Communion I would like to read it in that line. Abram and the accompanying
men chased the kings and defeated them through strategic interventions. They
could redeem all the goods and riches captured by the enemy Kings. Their
arrival to the valley of Shaveh or the King’s valley was indeed a victory
procession with all its probable pomp and pride. Now the team of victors is
encountered by two people in the narrative; The King of Sodom and the king of
Salem. Genesis 14: 17-24 deals with these meeting of kings with Abram. The nature and outcome of these two meetings
had been extremely contradictory. I would like to focus on the intricacies of
these meetings to develop a few points for our reflection.
Holy Communion
is the celebration of Reciprocal Circulation of God’s Blessing
Melchizedek as the etymology of the
term denotes, combines two important offices in the ancient west Asian
communities; the office of the priest and the office of the King. Melchizedek
has mention at least in three places in the Bible including this passage. The
other instances are Psalm 110; 4 and Hebrews chapters 5-7. Melchizedek cannot be dismissed as a distant
shadowy figure from the past. But it was an ideal type that was kept and
celebrated throughout the history of the Israelites to counter the aberrations
in the Levite cultic priesthood historically practiced in Israel and even in
its political leadership. The etymology of King of Shalom can also be derived
as the King of uprightness/righteousness and peace. This aspect is reflected in
the prayer in our thaksa when he is
characterized as “vedippulla purohitanaya
melchizedek.”In the Canaanite traditions Kingship is understood as a
sacral/political office. Melchizedek is viewed as the precursor of leadership
in both royal and priestly lines. T. K. Thomas in BTF writes “by saying that
the first priest ever mentioned in the Bible is neither a Jew nor a Christian;
means God establishes God’s priesthood in a distinct order that will never be
allowed to be captivated by any human made categories.”[1] Bible places
priesthood in a more broad and general plane of the whole created order. The
origin of Melchizedek’s line of priesthood pre-exists that of any
Judaeo-Christian origins of priesthood. Melchizedek greets Abraham in the name
of El Elyon- God Most High. The bringing of a meal to battle-drained Abraham by
Melchizedek was followed by a blessing. That blessing was in fact a blessing on
Abraham by the creator God. In verse 19 we see this blessing uttered as
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth.” It is
interesting to note here the fact that Abram’s pride of a victor of the war was
humbled by the presentation of a meal. The refreshing meal to the battle-exhausted
Abram and his men points them towards God’s gracious providences that nourish
life. Eventually it places the victory against the kings in God’s gracious
providence and life sustaining power. Therefore the whole community is enabled
to see the deliverance as a blessing of God. That means God is blessed by the
worshippers for God’s mighty acts of deliverance. The power that worked the
deliverance has really come from God. Abram reciprocates the blessing with the
offering of the tithe. It is in fact an acknowledgement of God’s blessing in
the life of his family and in the life’s of Amorite brothers and other
neighboring communities who accompanied him in the battle. Here the blessing is
seen to be circulating between God, Melchizedek, Abram and the people and
environment associated with them. Therefore the meal in which Abram and his men
participate becomes a precursor of the Holy Meal in which the circulation of
the divine blessings in the life of the people is celebrated. The liturgy of the Holy Qurbana, very well
describes life as an experience of mutual blessing. When the priest utters the
blessings of the triune God, the congregation reciprocates the blessing. The
mission of the church at its core has been the extension of this communion to
peoples and communities. Here the direction of the blessing does not privilege
any one over the other, but a constant interflow of the blessing between God,
the worshipper and the neighbor makes it a continuum. It can further be seen as
a reflection of the perichoretic movement within the trinity.
Holy
Communion is the Celebration of the power of God to provide always and in all
ways
The first one to meet Abram and his
men according to the narrative of the text is the king of Sodom. But the meeting
of the King Melchizedek takes precedence over this meeting. The details of the
former’s meeting are described later towards the end of this narrative only. It
may not be an accident but a deliberate crafting by the writer to highlight the
importance of the second encounter over the former. The king of Sodom in this
text represents the imperial motive to capture, possess and subjugate than be
open to share the blessings. According to Terence E Fretheim, the King of Sodom
is concerned simply about the power of the men who won the battle and the
disposition of the booty of the war. His offer of the whole booty to Abraham in
exchange of his men may appear as his magnanimity to share the riches with
Abraham. But Fretheim says that it is not the case. By putting claim on the men,
the king of Sodom in fact is putting his claim on the power that brought the
victory and booty. The possession of the men will be followed by the possession
of the booty as a major share of it belongs to them. The empire desires that
there should not be any power over its absolute power of dominion. The king’s
attempt is nothing but to tame this new exposition of power to be manipulated
lately to achieve his purposes. Here the power is conceived as self originating
in the empire and not as something entrusted from God for common good, as is
expressed through the words of Melchizedek. But Abram resists this attempt to
tame the expression of divine power by refusing to accept the offer of the
booty from the king. He spells clearly that the king cannot have the claim on
the deliverance that he and the whole community has experienced but it is an
outcome of the manifestation of power of God.
The carefully crafted ascent to power
of Narendra Modi was analyzed effectively by a report came in Pachkuthira. Written
by Kamalram Sajeev and titled Maadhyamangalude Bimba Nirmithi. It speaks about
the way people, media and capital have been manipulated to create an image of
absolute and self originating power centre in the person of Modi to effect an
electoral victory. The most dangerous and disturbing truth about this new
politics is that the power of the ruler in a democratic political order is no
more emerging from the constitutional framework or public morality, but from a
combination of personal moral authority and the corporate and a majoritarian
communal endorsement of that imposing morality.
Holy Meal is an occasion of
encountering God Most High, one who nourishes life over the whole face of
Earth. Melchizedek greets Abram in the name of God Most High. Here Holy
Communion provides the faith community with an alternate vision of power that
originates from God and extends to all creation. Holy Communion comes also as a
pledge to God as Abraham points it out to the King of Sodom that “I have sworn
to the Most High that I would not take a thread or sandal-thong”. It is a
pledge to ever remain as the agent God’s justice and peace for the whole world.
The occasion was not taken up as an opportunity to establish hegemony or to
make one extremely rich. But Abraham takes it as an issue of justice as he
talks about the just sharing of the resources to restore and refresh the broken
lives of the people who had to bear the brunt of the excesses of the war.
If the communion is not bringing a
vision of just sharing of resources, we become people who hold back the
blessings. Who take pride in the deliverance but fail to replicate it in our
surroundings. Let us take the vow to carry the energy of Holy Communion to the
world to bless the world in the name of God Most High and also to be blessed by
its goodness.
[1]
T.K. Thomas, “Melchizedek, King and Priest: an Ecumenical Paradigm?”, Bangalore
No comments:
Post a Comment