One of the goals with this blog is to spark conversation and dialogue. Every once in a while some questions come through. Thank you to the one who posted them. My responses are below.
Since both the Priest and the man who was attacked were both going away from Jerusalem (according to St. Luke), I am assuming that the Priest had completed his annual week or two of work in the Temple and was on his way back home. Would it have been permissible, then, for the Priest to have attended to the wounded man and incurred ritual impurity and could take the steps to restore purity once he arrived home?
First of all, I think a good point to remember is that these are fictional characters. The major contrast and emphasis of the parable is between the ones who did not help, religious leaders, and the one who did, the Samaritan. So when we get into the motivations and whatnot of the characters involved we are merely speculating and have moved beyond the intent of the parable. But it is fun to talk about it, so let's speculate. You could go in one of two directions with the priest. One would be sympathetic, and the other would not be. If you are going to be sympathetic you could argue that the road he was traveling was quite dangerous. There was no way of knowing how genuine the need of the man really was. He could have been a robber pretending to be hurt and then when the priest would go to help, the others would jump the priest. If you have ever driven through a bad neighborhood in the city at night, you know what this feeling is like. If that is the case, you can hardly argue with the priest. The other way is to say that he should have put the needs of his fellow brother ahead of his own ritual purity. After all true religion is caring for the orphan, widow and those in need. But again, this is all speculation.
I would also appreciate your insight on the relationship and differences in Priests and Levites since both are prominent players (more like non-players) in the parable. I am of the opinion that all Priests are Levites (except Melchizedek and Christ), but not all Levites are Priests. Is this correct?
The priests would have been descendants of the Aaron the brother of Moses. Aaron and his sons were chosen to be priests and to offer the sacrifices of the people to God. Then within the priesthood there was always the power struggles and whatnot that come when sinful human beings are together. So the priests in the city were seen as more important than the ones who lived in the villages and surrounding areas. The Levites were descendants of Levi, but not necessarily a descendant of Aaron. So your assumption is correct. But realize that the history of the priesthood is not as simply as what this answer makes out. There is a long history and lots of politics and debates over who has the right to claim the priesthood and all that kind of good stuff. But again, to get too deep into that is to miss the point of the parable.
Did non-Priest Levites participate in the business of the Temple in roles other than their traditional ones as musicians and cleaners?
I am sure they did, but my understanding of Temple roles is a bit rusty at the moment, so I would have to look into that. The bottom line is that both the priest and the Levite not only should have helped the man in need, but they would have been expected to. If we were to tell the parable in modern day terms it would be as if Superman and Batman both passed the guy up and Lex Luthor came by and helped him out. Being a neighbor has less to do with the status that we have and more to do with showing mercy and compassion.
Thanks for the questions. I hope my responses help. Blessings to all of you this week.
Sincerely,
Pastor CJ
0 comments:
Post a Comment