Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Contagious Holiness in the OT (Leviticus?)

Leviticus 6.24-30 contains some interesting wording when it comes to the holiness of sacrifices. According to the TNIV, verse 27 reads "Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy . . . ." This certainly sounds like contagious holiness, but the rest of the passage does not reflect this idea at all: the second half of the verse requires that any garment that touched the meat be washed, and verse 28 continues with the more frequent injunction to destroy or clean any pot in which the meat was cooked. These warnings are standard within these sections of Leviticus describing the various sacrifices, and nowhere do these descriptions suggest any sort of holiness that "passes on" from the sacrifice to any other object.

The NET probably has it right: "Anyone who touches its meat must be holy . . . ." Again, the holiness of an item, even of a sacrifice, continues its status subject to the holiness/cleanliness of what it contacts. So this passage, which I originally read in the TNIV, does not actually support any idea of "contagious holiness." So why bring it up at all? Simply because it demonstrates a principle core to the idea of contagious holiness: true holiness that trumps sin and uncleanness must come straight from the source--that is, God--and not from something else, even if it is associated with or given by him. This may not seem like a big deal, but its practical implications are pretty important. I'll take a look at those very briefly, and in just a minute. But first to look at holiness within the OT sacrificial system.

God set up the sacrificial system with its limitations so that it would be clear to Israel that holiness only came from personal interaction with himself via the avenues he specified (and thus demonstrating one's submission to his rule). Opening up another way to holiness via impersonal objects would bring "magic" back into Israel's experience of God (magic and divination were very significant parts of Egyptian and Canaanite religious rites). The key to magic is that man has control over the outcome. A priest trained for years in the "right" way to pray, to sacrifice, and to perform the rites so that he could guarantee the deity's response to the petitioner. In other words, praying the right prayer and giving the right gift guaranteed that you'd get what you wanted. It was a contract whose outcome you could control, and thus you had a measure of control over the divine.

The core of God's interaction with Israel, though, was their trust in his goodness and their consequent submission to his response to their petitions. This was completely the opposite of the religious atmosphere they left in Egypt, where one's status with the gods could be bought with proper rites. Israel's status with God depended instead on his grace, on their obedience, and on a covenant of trust and obedience instead of a contract of rituals and proper wording.

Ezekiel 47 takes this emphasis on the heart instead of on right ritual to a whole new level. Sacrifice and ritual--even as expressions of submission, obedience, and trust--are bypassed in favor of a new way in which God pours himself out on Israel, and Israel responds in heartfelt submission that transcends rite to be a personal interaction with God himself. This is where contagious holiness comes in, then: at the level of interaction with the person and power of God, and not with any other thing, no matter how closely linked to God's holiness it may be.

So what does that mean practically? It means that we can't expect God's holiness and his cleansing to "rub off" on us if we're not actually in contact with him. Too often we can get sidetracked by things that are "supposed" to grow us spiritually, whether they by people, practices, or events. But if we're not deliberately interacting with God at that heart level as a matter of lifestyle, we can't expect, much less demand, the outpouring of God's presence and power in our lives that we so very much desire. And with that, it's time to look at Jesus and how he viewed purity and holiness.

No comments:

Post a Comment