| Related
Articles
Leviticus 17-26: Traditions of Holiness Other |
Holiness and
Danger Bob Hodgson
In many traditional readings of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and Levite come out looking quite hardhearted and mean spirited. Such readings caricature these Jewish leaders. They seem to be so bent on their own business that it never occurs to them to stop and tend to an injured traveler. The behavior of the priest and Levite looks very different, however, if we measure their behavior by first-century and not twentieth-century standards. To Jesus and to Luke’s audiences, holiness was a core value. Jesus' audiences knew full well that holy people had to behave in a way that corresponded to their special status as servants of God.
In many traditional readings of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and Levite come out looking quite hardhearted and mean-spirited. Such readings caricature these Jewish leaders. They seem so bent on their own business that it never occurs to them to stop and tend an injured traveler. Experts point out that the priest and Levite chose to remain holy and fit for worshiping God - a condition they would lose by touching a dead person. What is more, they may have feared contamination because of the costly and time-consuming rituals required to regain their purity. As true as such reasons may be, they still strike many modern readers as trivial. Modern readers often do not understand the larger context of such motives. The holiness of priests and Levites required them to guard their holiness against all dangers. Other modern attitudes fail to understand the ancient religious and social taboos and values that count in the story. One attitude says that humanitarian duty outweighs religious duty. Another understands holiness to be a moral and ethical quality. Holiness to the modern person may be seen as the effect of right living and sometimes as its cause. On the strength of such sentiments, the priest and Levite do not look very good. They are simply assumed to be deficient, morally and spiritually. New doors are opening for understanding the ancient Mediterranean world. Scientists studying ancient and modern tribal societies have discovered that holiness and purity make up a core of central values. These values determine, for example, a tribe’s identity, its power, and its ability to cope with dangers. Holiness was a key concept in first-century A.D. Judaism. It stood first for a quality of God (Lev 19.2). Priests and Levites were, so to speak, born to holiness. They were not holy because of moral choices or ethical living, but because of whom they were: people set aside for the service of God. The wing of first-century Judaism that became called Christianity shared this vision of holiness as a status granted by God to those who stood in God’s service (1 Pet 2.9). In the biblical world, holiness represented a status and a new way of being. Also, however, this status carried with it a heavy responsibility. One who acted in a way that violated holiness could literally unleash powers of danger and destruction. The status of the priest and Levite as holy people is a basic assumption of the story, an assumption so self-evident that it did not require mentioning. To Jesus and to Luke’s audiences, holiness was a core value that helped define the figures of the priest and Levite in this story. Moreover, these audiences knew full well that holy people had to behave in a way that matched their special status as servants of God.
Traditional Views In many traditional readings of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and Levite come out looking pretty hardhearted and meanspirited. Such readings caricature these Jewish leaders as officials so bent on their own business that it never occurred to them to stop and tend to an injured traveler. Reasons In an effort to account for the behavior of the priest and Levite, experts sometimes probe the possible motives of these two figures in the story. They point out that religious faith and scruples could explain their seemingly callous behavior. It is said, for instance, that the priest and Levite chose to remain holy and fit for worshiping God—a condition they would lose by touching a dead person. What’s more, they may have feared contamination because of the costly and time-consuming rituals required to regain their purity. Modern Readers As true as such reasons may be, they still strike many modern readers as trivial, partly because modern readers do not understand the larger context of such motives, namely, the holiness of priests and Levites and the personal and social responsibility of such officials to guard their holiness against all dangers. Because modern readers lack this context or lens for studying priestly and Levitical behavior, they are inclined to dismiss such attempts to explain the officials’ action. These readers easily fall back on modern sentiments as keys for understanding and ultimately judging the priest and Levite in the story. Granted, it is said, that the priest and Levite were holy people. Does that not even add to their culpability? After all, would not holy people like Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King have stopped and helped? Modern Sentiments Other modern sentiments that caricature the priest and Levite also fail to understand the ancient religious and social taboos and values that count in the story. One says that humanitarian duty outweighs religious duty. Another understands holiness to be a moral and ethical quality, which is sometimes taken as an effect of right living and sometimes as its cause. Yet another sentiment assumes that holiness cannot be a quality of the broad masses of people but rather a badge reserved for a few spiritual giants. The Roman Catholic veneration of the saints is one expression of this narrower view of holiness. A final assumption is that holiness is an option, a kind of mantle that people—our above-mentioned spiritual giants, for instance—freely put on, put off, lose, and even wear out. The ancient rites for transforming an oft blood-stained electoral prince into a "Holy Roman Emperor" is a case in point. On the strength of such sentiments, the priest and Levite cannot emerge from the story looking very good. They are simply assumed to be deficient, morally and spiritually. The Power of Imagination The behavior of the priest and Levite looks very different, however, if we use the power of our imagination to enter into the ancient Mediterranean world and measure their behavior by first-century and not twentieth-century standards. Modern anthropology opens a door for entering imaginatively into this world, especially the world of holiness. Anthropologists studying ancient and modern tribal societies have discovered that holiness and purity make up a core of central values that determine, for example, a tribe’s identity, its power, and its ability to cope with dangers to the tribe. In such societies, holiness is something far greater than just a personal moral or ethical quality. Holiness defines who you are and where you are going, and it empowers you, your family, and your tribe to meet a world full of dangers to you, your family, and your tribe. So important is holiness to the life of tribal societies that they celebrate countless rituals for the purpose of ridding a person, a family, or a village of whatever kind of contamination threatens its holiness. First-Century A.D. Judaism From modern tribal societies to the biblical world may seem like a big leap, but in fact there is much to be compared, particularly in the area of religious behavior and belief. Holiness was a key concept in first-century A.D. Judaism. It stood first and foremost for a quality of God ( Lev 19.2) and other lesser divine beings ( Zech 14.5). It was also a quality of people, places, times, and objects that had been set aside for the service of God. Priests ( Lev 21.7–8) and Levites ( 2 Chr 23.6) belonged to the categories of people such as first-born children ( Num 3.13) who had been set aside for the service of God. In the case of priests and Levites, holiness came as a birthright rather than as a choice in later life. Priests and Levites were, so to speak, born to holiness. They were not holy because of moral choices or ethical living, but because of who they were: people set aside for the service of God. Early Christianity The wing of first-century Judaism that came to be called Christianity shared this vision of holiness as a status granted by God to those who stood in God’s service (1 Pet 2.9). The apostle Paul consistently refers to the followers of Jesus as the "holy ones" ( Rom 1.7, 1 Cor 1.2). Jesus is an example of a holy person (1 Cor 1.30). In the Gospel presentation of the teaching of Jesus, God ( Matt 6.9) and the angels ( Mark 8.38) are holy, as is the Jerusalem temple ( Matt 24.15). Gospel writers know that people are holy, for instance, John the Baptist ( Mark 6.20) and Jesus ( Mark 1.24). Holiness and Danger In the biblical world, holiness represented a status and a new way of being that set someone or something aside for service to God. At the same time, however, this status carried with it a heavy responsibility. To act in a way that violated holiness could unleash powers of danger and destruction. The traditional tale about Nadab and Abihu, two sons of Aaron, illustrates the danger of not being respectful of holiness, whether your own or something else’s. Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire pan, put live coals in it, added incense, and presented it to the LORD. But this fire was not holy, because the LORD had not commanded them to present it. Suddenly the LORD sent fire, and it burned them to death there in the presence of the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD was speaking about when he said, ‘All who serve me must respect my holiness; I will reveal my glory to my people.’" But Aaron remained silent. ( Lev 10.1–3 TEV) The Holy Priest and Holy Levite The status of the priest and Levite as holy people is one of the basic assumptions of the story, an assumption so self-evident that it did not require mentioning. To Jesus and to Luke’s audiences, holiness was a core value that helped define the figures of the priest and Levite in this story. Moreover, these audiences knew full well that holy people had to behave in a way that corresponded to their special status as servants of God. A New Understanding? What if we enter imaginatively into the story world of the priest and Levite, asking for instance, "Can we easily conceive of a life organized around the idea of holiness and the need to preserve that holiness from danger? How would such a holy person act in the context of the first century A.D.?" Would we easily conclude that the priest and Levite in Luke’s story were callous and heartless and legalistic? Or would we possibly come to a new understanding of these two leaders and thus to a new understanding of the story itself? |