I. Chapter 21: Suitability for Sanctuary Service
Again, it's easy to see that this chapter isn't supposed to be a complete guidebook - there's a lot that is taken for granted that we already ought to know about the priesthood, and therefore much that is left out. Chapter 21 deals with only two issues, with various applications: the appropriate contact or avoidance of death, and what kinds of marriage relationships are acceptable. In verses 1-9 we read how "normal" priests are to form their families and mourn their dead. Verses 10-15 mirror these guidelines with even more restrictive rules for the High Priest. And then in verses 16-24 we read that not everyone from priestly families is suitable for service in the sanctuary - those who are born with or develop certain physical defects may not serve, yet they must still be included among those whose livelihood is derived from sanctuary service.
What do we think about that? Is it offensive to you that physical defects can inhibit a person from certain types of service before the Lord? I think that before we start jumping to any over-hyped equal rights conclusions we would do well to make note of a few things. First, notice that the text doesn't say that physical defects mean a person is no longer a priest - Israelite priests were priests by virtue of birth and lineage, not - dare I say - ordination or ambition. Once a priest, always a priest. I don't know if there were other types of duties they may have been able to perform, but what is mentioned here is only that they could not approach the altar to offer the burnt offerings.
Second, remember what happened to Nadav and Avihu in chapter 10? Remember the danger that is inherent in approaching the altar - that physical, tangible presence of YHWH that is like electricity? What if these exemptions are more about protection than discrimination - protecting those with afflictions that might make it somehow unsafe for a person to get too close? What if we thought of "defects" more as "handicaps"? Perhaps this is too charitable a reading, but it makes me think of how children are sometimes angry when they find one of those outlet covers interfering with their plan to stick their fingers in the outlet. Maybe, like people in diapers with tiny fingers who don't know about electricity, we don't know enough to argue with God about these things. And I think there is good support in the text for this idea that exemption equals protection, since it is clear that these priests are still to be included in eating the portions that were allotted to the priests for their food. Doesn't sound half bad to me.
Third, I do think part of why this may be offensive to us is that we still have trouble distinguishing between moral and ritual suitability for approaching God's presence - why should physical and not spiritual things be considered defects? This, again, is a reminder of the Levitical notion that impurity is almost like a physical substance, underscoring the lack of distinction between physical and spiritual in the ancient world.
Fourth and finally, remember that the priesthood was supposed to represent God's holiness to the people - and holiness is equated with wholeness or perfection. The office of the priest was symbolic as much as it was practical, and if the priest is a symbol of God he must be an image of that perfection as we hear in the refrain, "For I am YHWH, the one-who-hallows-you" (vv8, 15, 23). This interpretation is less convincing to me by virtue of the fact that the rules are only restrictive of service and not state of being (they're still considered priests, even if flawed), but I think it is something we have to consider.
In short, chapter 21 reminds us that as we approach the presence of YHWH the boundary between life and death matters. The priests are, by nature of their office, in closer proximity to God and must guard this boundary with greater care - how they mourn their dead, how they cultivate life within their families. Hold that thought.
II. Chapter 22 - Priests and Animals
I'll be brief here: this chapter describes who is and is not allowed to eat of the "sacred donations" (the portion of the offerings that were to be given to the priests to provide their livelihood) and how to do so appropriately, and offers a reminder that animals brought for sacrifice must be without defect. Do you see any parallels with chapter 21 here - who may serve and how/who may eat and how, who may not serve/who may not be sacrificed? I think it's fairly obvious that both chapters serve as reminders of Leviticus' general scheme of a perfect God requiring perfect worship, but there's also something else going on here. Why is the body of the sacrificial animal cast in correspondence with the body of the priest? Is it to say that they are somehow alike - that they are both offered to God in some way, and that what is offered and how it is offered somehow demonstrates God's holiness? There should be no doubt that this correspondence affirms that both the Israelite and the sacrificial animal are included in what is set apart for covenant with YHWH, similar to the correspondence between chapters 1-7 and 11-15.
III. Conclusion
I have two further observations in conclusion:
1) First, we are told three times that these rules are in order that the priests not profane YHWH's holy name (21.6, 22.2, 22.32). But what does that mean? We're not dealing here with verbal slander or cursing, we're reading of the way that priests marry and mourn and eat - what do those things have to do with God's name? Fox's translation of Exodus 20.7, what most of us learned as "you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain," casts this question in a whole different light - You are not to take up the name of YHWH your God for emptiness, for YHWH will not clear him that takes up his name for emptiness. Vanity. Emptiness. "Don't make my name empty," meaningless, ephemeral, forgettable. All of these things that the priests are to do or not to do, as representatives of YHWH, have the potential to either glorify God in the eyes of the people or diminish him. What they do - what we do - matters.
2) Second, we've already established that these guidelines apply specifically to priests. In that sense, they set the priesthood apart as carrying greater responsibility in their approach to YHWH. Yet we cannot overlook that these guidelines were specifically to enable them to perform their duties in the sanctuary - the priesthood was not accorded any special status or privilege, elevated above the common Israelite. Priests didn't choose their lot. They couldn't be "unpriested." They were not different because they were special, they were different because they had a different job in different proximity to the divine - just as Israel was different not because they were special but because they had a responsibility to love God and to be a blessing to others. Listen:
I will make your seed many, yes, many, like the stars of the heavens and like the sand that is on the shore of the sea; your seed shall inherit the gate of their enemies, all the nations of the earth shall enjoy blessing through your seed, in consequence of your hearkening to my voice (to Abraham, Gen. 22.17)
I will make your seed many, like the stars of the heavens, and to your seed I will give all these lands; all the nations of the earth shall enjoy blessing through your seed (to Isaac, Gen. 26.4)
Not because of your righteous-merit, or because of the uprightness of your heart, are you entering to possess their land ... you are to know that not because of your righteous-merit is YHWH your God giving you this good land to possess, for a people hard of neck are you! What does YHWH your God ask of you, except to hold YHWH your God in awe, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your being? (Moses to all Israel, Deut. 8, 10)Israel itself was to be a kingdom of priests, remember? (Ex. 19.3-6) Priests are born, not made, and with that birth comes certain responsibilities.
So I wonder what we are to make of this. Preacher or teacher, mother or missionary, pastor or plumber - I think it's safe to say that we're all included in this "priesthood" inasmuch as we understand ourselves to be in covenant with YHWH. I think it's safe to say that even within this expanded definition of priesthood, some are given different tasks than others and therefore different responsibilities. And above all else, I think we can be certain that these responsibilities and how we conduct them have a direct effect on how we either help or inhibit what others think of God. I wonder if we are representatives or distortions. I wonder if we use our positions of responsibility to exclude and discriminate against others, or to provide for and protect them. I wonder if we are careful about what we offer to God and the way in which we offer it, or if we just go through the motions so we can feel how we want to feel about ourselves. I wonder if we respectfully and gratefully receive what God has provided for us in ways that recognize his provision and generosity, or if we act like we deserve it because, after all, "we earned it."
I wonder if it has anything to do with us that people sometimes think of God as an idea, a name that is a hollow, empty shell, instead of electric and alive and overflowing.
I wonder.
No comments:
Post a Comment