The Omnibus Homo Sacer
Page 102
א The technical meaning of leitourgia and leitourgeō to indicate the priestly cult is standard in Alexandrian Judaism. Thus, in the Letter of Aristeas (second century bce), tōn hiereōn hē leitourgia refers to the cultic functions of the priest, meticulously laid out, from the choice of victim to the care of the oil and the spice (Aristeas 92). A little after Eleazar en tēi leitourgiai designates the high priest in the act of officiating, whose holy vestments and paraments are described with care (96ff.). The same can be said for Flavius Josephus
and Philo (who also use the term in a metaphorical sense, for example with respect to
the intellect: “when the mind is ministering to God [ leitourgei theoi] in purity, it is not human, but divine”; Philo 84).
3. All the more significant is the lack of importance of this lexical group in
the New Testament (with the notable exception of the Letter to the Hebrews).
Beyond the Pauline corpus (where one also reads the term leitourgos five times),
leitourgein and leitourgia figure only twice, the first time quite generically in reference to Zechariah’s priestly functions in the Temple (Luke 1:23) and the second in
reference to five “prophets and teachers” of the ecclēsia of Antioch (Acts 13:1–2).
656
HOMO SACER II, 5
The passage from Acts ( leitourgountōn de autōn tōi kyriōi; 13:2) does not mean,
as some have wanted to suggest with an obvious anachronism, “while they were
celebrating the divine service in honor of the Lord.” As the Vulgate had already
understood in translating it simply as ministrantibus autem illis Domino, leitourgein is here the equivalent of “while they were carrying out their function in the community for the Lord” (which was precisely, as the text had just specified, that
of prophets and teachers— prophētai kai didaskaloi; Acts 13:1—and not of priests,
nor is it clear what other leitourgia could be in question at this point; as to prayer, Luke generally refers to it with the term orare).
Even in the Pauline letters the term often has the secular meaning of “ser-
vice for the community,” as in the passage in which the collection made for
the community is presented as a leitourgēsai (Romans 15:27) or as diakonia tēs leitourgias (2 Corinthians 9:12). It is also said of the action of Epaphroditus,
who has put his life at risk, that he has carried it out in order to make up for
the “liturgy” that the Philippians have not been able to perform (Philippians
2:30). But even in the passages where leitourgia is deliberately connected to a
properly priestly terminology, it is necessary to take care not to incautiously
mix up the respective meanings, thus allowing the specificity and audacity of
Paul’s linguistic choice, which intentionally juxtaposes heterogeneous terms,
to pass unnoticed. The exemplary case is Romans 15:16: “to be a leitourgos of
Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, carrying out the holy action of the good news
of God [ hierourgounta to euangelion tou theou].” Here commentators project
onto leitourgos the cultic meaning of hierourgeo, writing: “What follows shows that [Paul] is using leitourgos cultically almost in the sense of priest. For he
construes it in terms of hierourgein to euanglion. He discharges a priestly min-
istry in relation to the Gospel” (Strathmann, 230). The hapax hierourgein to
euanglion, in which the good news becomes, with an extraordinary forcing, the
impossible object of a sacrum facere (just as, with an analogous tour de force, latreia, the sacrificial cult, is linked in Romans 12:1 to the adjective logikē, “linguistic”), is all the more effective if leitourgos conserves its proper meaning as
“one entrusted with a community function” ( minister, as the Vulgate correctly
translates it). The connection of the cultic terminology of the Temple to some-
thing—the announcement made to the pagans and, as is said immediately
after, the “offering of the Gentiles,” prosphora tōn ethnōn—which can in no
way take place in the Temple, has an obvious polemical meaning and does not
intend to confer a sacrificial aura to Paul’s preaching.
Analogous considerations can be made for Philippians 2:17: “But even if I
am being poured out as a libation [ spendomai] over the sacrifice and the offering
OPUS DEI
657
of your faith [ epi tēi thysiai kai leitourgiai tēs pisteōs], I am glad and rejoice with all of you.” Whatever the connection between spendomai and the words that
follow, the affirmation gains its pregnancy only if, leaving aside the anachronism
that sees in leitourgia a priestly service (the Pauline community obviously could
not have been familiar with priests), one perceives the contrast and almost the
tension that Paul skillfully introduces between cultic terminology and “liturgi-
cal” terminology in the proper sense.
א It has been known for some time (see Dunin-Borkowski) that in the earliest
Christian literature the terms hiereus and archiereus (priest and high priest) are reserved solely for Christ, while for the members or heads of the communities, a properly priestly
vocabulary is never used (leaders are defined simply as episkopoi [superintendents], presbyteroi [elders], or diakonoi [servants]). A priestly vocabulary appears only with Tertullian ( On Baptism 17.1; Against the Jews 6.1.14), Cyprian ( Epistle 59.14, 66.8), and Origen ( Homiliae in Numeros 10.1). In the Pauline letters, which mention episkopoi and diakonoi (in Colossians 1:25, Paul calls himself a diakonos), particular attention is dedicated to the various functions carried out in the community, none of which is defined in priestly
terms. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28–31: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles
[ apostolous], second prophets [ profētas], third teachers [ didaskalous]; then deeds of power
[ dynameis], then gifts of healing [ charismata iamatōn], forms of assistance [ antilēpseis], of leadership [ kybernēseis], various kinds of tongues [ genē glōssōn]”; Romans 12:6–8: “We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: prophecy, in proportion to faith; ministry, in ministering [ diakonian en tēi diakoniai], the teacher, in teaching [ didaskōn en tēi didaskaliai], the comforter, in comforting [ parakalōn en tēi paraklēsei ].”) 4. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews elaborates a theology of the
messianic priesthood of Christ, in the context of which the lexical group that
interests us occurs four times. Developing the Pauline argumentation about
the two covenants (2 Corinthians 3:1–14), the theological nucleus of the letter
plays on the opposition between the Levitical priesthood ( levitikē hierōsynē,
7:11), corresponding to the old Mosaic covenant and encompassing the de-
scendants of Aaron, and the new covenant, in which the one who assumes the
“liturgy” of the high priest ( archiereus, this time encompassing the descendants
of Melchizedek) is Christ himself. Of the four appearances from the lexical
family, two refer to the Levitical cult: in 9:21 Moses sprinkles with blood “the
tent and all the vessels used in the liturgy” ( panta ta skeuē tēs leitourgias); in 10:11 the author evokes the priest of the old covenant, who “stands day after day
for his liturgical functions [ leitourgōn], offering again and again the same sac-
rifices.” The remaining two occurrences refer in turn to Christ, the high priest
of the new covenant. In the first (8:2) he is defined as “liturgue of the holy
658
HOMO SACER II, 5
things and of the true tent” ( tōn hagiōn leitourgos kai tēs skēnēs tēs alēthinēs; cf.
Numbers 16:9); in the second (8:6) it is said that he “has obtained a different
and better liturgy ( diaphorōteras tetychen leitourgias), to the degree to which
the covenant of which he is mediator is better.” While in fact the sacrifices
of the Levites are only an example and shadow ( hypodeigma kai skia, 8:5) of
heavenly things and cannot therefore complete or render perfect ( teleiōsai, 9:9,
10:1) those who offer them, the sacrifice of the new covenant, in which Christ
sacrifices himself, annuls sin ( athetēsin hamartias, 9:26) and purifies ( kathariei, 9:14) and sanctifies the faithful once and for all ( teteleiōken eis to diēnekes tous
hagiazomenous, 10:14).
Let us reflect on the identity that the text presupposes between the action
of Christ and liturgy. His salvific action is not only presented as a “liturgy,” but
as the high priest of a sacrifice in which the officiator sacrifices himself ( heauton
prosēnenken, 9:14), Christ accomplishes a liturgical action that is, so to speak,
absolute and perfect and that for this reason can be carried out only once ( hapax
prosenechtheis, 9:28; mian . . . prosenenkas thysian, 10:12). In this sense Christ coincides without remainder with his liturgy—he is essentially liturgy—and pre-
cisely this coincidence confers on his liturgy its incomparable efficacy.
The intention of the author in decisively opposing the two figures of the
priest is doubtless to present the messiah in the hieratic vestments of a cele-
brant, and so one must not forget that the messianic priesthood that is here
in question presents some entirely peculiar characteristics that distinguish it
point by point from the Levitical priesthood and that the sense of the letter
lies precisely in this counterposition. It is decisive that while the Levitical sac-
rifices must be ceaselessly repeated and each year renew the memory of sins
( anamnēsis hamartiōn, 10:3), the sacrifice of the new covenant happens, as the
author never stops repeating, only once and cannot be repeated in any way.
In the affirmation of this unrepeatability of the sacrifice, whose unique priest,
“having obtained an eternal redemption, enters once for all [ ephapax] into the
sanctuary” (9:12), the author of Hebrews remains faithful to a genuine mes-
sianic inspiration, on the basis of which (with all due respect to subsequent
ecclesiastical practice) it is not possible to found any cultic liturgy. In the same
instant in which he defines him as leitourgos and evokes for him a “different
and better liturgy,” the author of Hebrews knows that the high priest of the
new covenant has irrevocably closed the door of the temple behind him. The
diaphorōtera leitourgia is not, in this sense, a celebration, that is, something
essentially repeatable (this is the etymological meaning of celeber). The par-
adox of the Christian liturgy is that by taking as the model of its priesthood
OPUS DEI
659
the liturgical action of the archiereus Christ and founding its celebrations on
the Letter to the Hebrews, it devotes itself to repeating an unrepeatable act, to
celebrating what cannot be celebrated.
5. Rudolf Sohm defined the primitive church as a charismatic community,
within which no properly juridical organization was possible. “As soon as it is
certain that no human Word but only God’s Word shall rule in the Church, so
is it also certain that there can be no power or official appointment in Chris-
tendom which should have legal authority over the congregation. One appre-
hends the Word of God not in some form or other but in its inner power.
Christianity has only to follow that Word which by the power of an inner, free
assent it recognizes as the Word of God. . . . There can be no legal power to rule
[recht liche Regierungsgewalt] in the Church” (Sohm, 22–23/13–14). The organi-
zation of the primitive community can consequently have only a charismatic
character: “Christendom is organized through the distribution of the gifts of
grace ( Charismen), which both qualify and call the individual Christian to different activities in Christendom. The charisma is from God. Thus the service
( diakonia) to which the charisma calls is a service imposed by God” (Sohm,
26/15). Hence the radical thesis, according to which “canon law stands in con-
tradiction with the nature of the church. The true church, the church of Christ
knows no canon law” (Sohm, 459).
According to Sohm the situation changes when—in a moment to which the
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians testifies—the way was paved for the idea
that the presbyters and bishops have a right to exercise their “liturgy” and that
the community cannot remove them from their position, which thus comes to
acquire a “legal meaning” (Sohm, 159). “The immediate consequence of the let-
ter of Clement,” writes Sohm, “was a change in the constitution of the Roman
community” (165), whose ultimate demand is the transformation of the prim-
itive church into the Catholic Church, of the original charismatic community
into the juridical organization that is familiar to us.
Here is not the place to enter into the merits of the discussion provoked by
Sohm’s thesis among church historians and students of canon law. What interests
us rather, in the economy of our archaeological inquiry, are the meaning and spe-
cial relevance that the term leitourgia and its derivatives have in Clement’s letter.
6. The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians is the first text in which a
pastoral preoccupation assumes the form of a theorization of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy understood as a “liturgy.” The context of the problem is well known:
Clement, who represents “the church of God, which sojourns in exile [ paroi-
660
HOMO SACER II, 5
kousa] at Rome” (preamble; translation altered), writes to the church in exile at
Corinth, in which a conflict (indeed, a true and proper stasis, a civil war, 1.1) is dividing the faithful from the heads of the community, who have been dismissed
from their function. In the struggle that opposes “those of no repute against the
highly reputed, the foolish against the wise, the young against the elders” (3.3),
Clement resolutely takes the side of the latter. What is decisive in his strategy
is not the recourse to military metaphors, which will have considerable success
in the history of the church (as in an army, “each in his own rank executes the
orders given by the emperor and the commanders,” 37.3), so much as the idea of
founding the function of the presbyters and bishops in the Levitical priesthood.
Clement knows the priestly Christology of the Letter to the Hebrews and once
defines Christ as “the High Priest of our offerings” ( archierea tōn prosphorōn
hēmōn, 36.1). But what interests him are not the special characteristics and effectiveness of this priesthood but rather the fact that Christ constitutes the founda-
tion of the apostolic succession: “So then Christ is from God, and the apostles
are from Christ” (42.2). Contradicting what is said in the Letter to the Hebrews
(which had substituted the priesthood of Christ for the Levitical priesthood) and
with a curious anachronism (the priestly functions in the Temple of Jerusalem,
/> destroyed in ad 70 by the Romans, had been halted for some time), Clement
institutes a paradigmatic relation between the hereditary order of the Levites and
that of the apostolic succession in the Church. In the construction of this anal-
ogy the concept of leitourgia takes on a central role. Just as in the Temple of Jerusalem “the offerings and liturgical functions [ prosphoras kai leitourgias]” are “not to be done carelessly or in disorder, but at designated times and seasons . . . for
to the high priest the proper liturgies [ idiai leitourgiai] have been given, and
to the priests the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites the
proper ministries [ diakoniai] have been imposed,” so also in the Church each
must act and please God in the rank that is proper to him, “not overstepping
the designated rule of his liturgy [ ton hōrismenon tēs leitourgias autou kanona]”
(40.2–41.1). The apostles, in fact, foreseeing that there would be a sort of dispute
over the episcopal function ( peri tou onomatos tēs episkopēs), “have established
as a rule that, after the death of those they had appointed, other approved men
should succeed to their liturgy [ diadexontai tēn leitourgian autōn]” (44.2). For
this reason Clement can now forcefully claim that “these men we consider to be
unjustly removed from their liturgy [ apoballesthai tēs leitourgias] . . . who have carried out their liturgical function blamelessly [ leitourgēsantas amemptōs] before the flock of Christ” (44.3). And he can conclude with an encomium to those
“presbyters [ presbyteroi] who have gone on ahead, who took their departure at
OPUS DEI
661
a mature and fruitful age” (44.5) and with a reproach of the faithful in Corinth
who have deprived them “of the liturgy that they had exercised honorably and
blamelessly” (44.6).
It is obvious that in the letter the term leitourgia, while also maintaining the
originary meaning of a service for the community, acquires the characteristics
of a stable and lifelong office, an object of a canon ( kanōn) and rule ( epinomē, which the old Latin version of the letter renders as lex). All of Clement’s vocabulary tends in this direction: kathistēmi (establish, nominate), diadechomai (a technical term for succession in an office), hypotassō (to submit oneself to an authority; conversely, those who are disobeying are responsible for a stasis [civil war, insurrection]). The paradigmatic reference to the Levitical cult, moreover,