Yes, I'm behind. No, I'm not catching up today. Yes, I'm over it.
The final chapters of Leviticus, by and large, fall into the same category of the rest of the book - rules and laws, particularly concerning the spiritual/religious matters for the new and burgeoning nation of Israel. So far, the book has been, not to put too fine a point on it, dry.
There were two things that leapt off the page at me, however, in these final passages. The first is the fact that Moses is even part of this book at all, and the second is the concept of the Jubilee.
As the name of the book suggests, many of the laws and statutes passed down in its pages are the business of the Levites, the priest caste in ancient Hebrew society. Starting with Aaron as the proto-priest and then down the line, they are clearly set apart from the rest of Israelite society, with an extra-special role to play in the relationship between God and His chosen people.
Proto-priest, not robo-priest...
For centuries, priests were (and still are, in many traditions) the ones who occupied a sort of translational spot in the religious hierarchy, acting as intermediaries and intercessors between God and people and vice-versa. And it's not hard to see why. As I said, the text clearly has them set up in such a position, by God Himself, no less.
So why, then is Moses still around? All of these commands and laws are being given by God, but they're not being given to the priests - at least, not directly. They're all being passed along to them by Moses - a prophet.
A quick lexicon check shows the subtle difference, and maybe points to a way that things have become somewhat muddled. "Priest" (and, more specifically, the Hebrew root from which it comes) seems to specifically involve the rituals, rite and ceremonies of religious practice. "Prophet" on the other hand seems to carry with it a broader (more fundamental?) connotation of involvement in affairs divine.
This seemed striking to me because, in a way, God is not actually the one using or benefiting from the priests' role in all this. It seems like the trappings of the religious structure here are more for the benefit of the people involved rather than God Himself. This goes beyond the obvious part about God not really needing anything at all, because He's God, and also (I think) beyond the fact that I'm inescapably reading this stuff from a non-ancient-or-any-other-kind-of-Hebrew lens, but speaks to a fundamental element of people in general.
We need structure. People don't tend to thrive without it, and it's arguably just basically necessary to the point where if it's lacking, we'll implement it. It'll show up in various forms, mind you, and won't necessarily look the same across time or space, but it'll always be there.
This is why I find it so weird when people rail really hard against a structure that they don't like (political or religious, it doesn't much matter) and claim that they're instead in favour of a total lack of structure, which is essentially meaningless. When it comes down to brass tacks, a structure would be there. It's hard (impossible?) to imagine, let alone actually describe, what life would be like in a true state of anarchy and chaos. I'm convinced it's actually impossible.
Part of why I'm so convinced that this priest/prophet dichotomy isn't falling on one side or another of the debate between "organized religion" and whatever people seem to think is its opposite is the fact that they're both represented here, and they both have their roles to play. God implemented the priestly order, so He must have some reason for it - it must have at least some value, but he likewise maintains His tradition of choosing a prophetic mouthpiece to communicate when He needs to. Neither appear to be all, and neither appear to be dispensable or useless.
Are you paying attention, Maker of Terrible Viral Videos?
---
It's not really surprising that the only one of the three main Sabbath-related statutes to survive through the centuries is the "rest on the seventh day" one, but it is a little disappointing. Not to say that farmers don't avoid planting in fields every seventh year, because for all I know (very little, for the record) they do...
What seems like more of an excellent idea is this whole "jubilee" thing. Can you imagine how different the world economy and international society in general would be if every 50 years all debts were cancelled, all sold/leased/rented/borrowed property was returned to original owners, and all slaves (or for the nitpicky/globally ignorant, indentured labourers/serfs of all stripes) were set free?
I literally can't imagine it, and there are a lot of ways that it would be catastrophic (although that's not to say prohibitively negative) to suddenly institute it now, but what a concept. This, among other points and notions, is why anyone who says that the Old Testament is universally conservative rather than progressive just isn't paying close enough attention...
No comments:
Post a Comment