VJTR 74 (2010) 377-389 Holiness and Priesthood...VJTR 74 (2010) 377-389 Holiness and Priesthood Joseph XAVIER S.J. Fr Joseph Xavier, S.J. at Gregorian University,

V JTR 74 (2010) 377-389

Holiness and PriesthoodJoseph XAVIER S.J.

Fr Joseph Xavier, S.J. at Gregorian University, Rome, discusses in this article the idea o f holiness as it has developed in the biblical tradition and points out the paradigm shift o f holiness demonstrated by Jesus. Against the yardstick the author highlights the challenges for priests today.

Holiness is a key topic in the biblical tradition. In fact, it is a recurring theme in the Bible, both in the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). For example, in the Bible we see God constantly calling and encouraging people to be holy: “Be holy, because I am holy” (Lev 11, 45). It also tells the fact that, in the biblical tradition, holiness is never an independent possession of an individual or a community. It is always a “derived” holiness. It comes from God. God is the source of all holiness. People are holy only insofar as they are in relation to God. In other words, only God is holy in the absolute sense. Human beings are holy insofar as they are in relation to the Holy One.1

Again, in the biblical tradition, there is a symbiotic relationship between holiness and priesthood. Biblical writers often present the priestly vocation in relation to the holiness of God. The origin of the priestly vocation in the OT, as we shall see, is to preserve the holiness of God. The priesthood was the direct result of the “dangerous” nature of divine holiness (Ex33,20). Priests, in the OT, acted as mediators between God and humans precisely on dealing with the question of God’s holiness. Therefore, in this article, first of all, we will explore the idea of holiness and how it is developed in the Bible. Next, we will consider how it is related to the priesthood. And finally, we will discuss the nature and demands of holiness in the Christian priesthood, especially in today’s world.

The Old Testament and Holiness

We begin with two pointed questions: what is holiness in the Bible? Is there a progressive understanding of holiness in the Bible? To answer these questions, first of all, we must understand the origin of the term “holiness” and how it is presented in the Bible.

The root meaning of “holiness” (qds/qadash) in the Bible is “to

^ e n t E. Brower and Andy Johnson (eds.), Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (Cambridge: William B. Berdtnans Publishing Company, 2007), xix.

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, Vol.74/5 May 2010 P■ 57

mailto:[email protected]

378 JOSEPH XAVIER, S.J.

separate.”2 For example, the word “holy” when appears for the first time in the creation story it is to separate the Sabbath as a distinct day from other days: “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified (qadash) it” (Gen 2,3). Though the verb is translated as “sanctified,” its etymological meaning—separated—makes a clear distinction between the profane days and the sacred Sabbath. It differentiates between the sacred realm of God and the profane human world. The focus in the first six days of creation is on the profane human world. It is important to note that no act of creation takes place on the seventh day. Here, the focus is on God rather than on creation. God is described as resting in the divine realm. It is a day of sacred activity (worship) in the human world. The holiness of the seventh day introduces separation between God and the created world. It announces that God is totally separate from the world of human beings. He is the transcendent, “the wholly other.”3

There is another level of separation between God and the human beings in the OT, it also connected with the notion of holiness. This separation comes about in the context of sin entering into the human world (Gen 3). As a result of sin, human beings are separated from the Holy One, God: “God sent him out from the Garden of Eden” (Gen 3,23). The separation from original holiness is once again highlighted in the shedding of blood in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4). Instead of being a life force, blood becomes a pollutant, a source of impurity as soon as the blood of Abel penetrates the ground. This creates a new situation. Now, human beings are not only profane, belonging to this world, they are also “impure” as a consequence of their sin. Here the separation is extended beyond the sacred and the profane to another realm—the pure and the impure. The separation between purity and impurity widens the distance between God and humans.4

As mentioned above, Scripture, especially the OT, considers God as the source of all holiness in the world. Holiness is not something inherent in creation; rather it comes from God. For example, it is God who

2J. Muilenburg, “Holiness,” in George Arthur Buttricfc (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary o f the Bible, vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962-1986), 617. See also D. P. Wright, “Holiness,“ in David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Biblical Dictionary, vol. 3 (London: Doubleday, 1992), 237-249; H.P. Muller, “Santo,” in Gian Luigi Prato (ed.), Dizionario Teologico dell’Antico Testamento, vol. 2 (Casale M onferrato: M arietti, 1982), 530-550.

3Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Priestly Vocation,” Interpretations 59/2 (April 2005), 119.

“Ibid., 120.

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, Vol. 74/5 May 2010 P- 58

HOLINESS AND PRIESTHOOD 379

makes the people of Israel and its priests holy: “And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest’s office” (Ex 29,44). A particular incident in the OT explains remarkably well the derived nature of holiness in Israel. In the book of Exodus, Moses observes a mysterious phenomenon taking place on Mount Horeb. He says to himself: “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not bum up” (Ex 3,2-3). Though a natural human response to a strange phenomenon, God cautions Moses against rashness and irreverence in his approach. The message is clean Moses needs to keep his distance. God draws him near, but not too near; so near as to hear, but not so near as to pry. Moses may not approach the bush and he is toid that the land where he stands is holy ground. Clearly, it is the presence of God that makes the land holy.

In the same way, later in Exodus (Ex 19) we see that when the Lord is about to descend on Sinai, the whole mountain is placed out of bounds to the people. Anyone who touched it would die (Ex 19,12-13). The story highlights the separation of holiness by locating God at the summit of the mountain (Ex 19,3), with the Israelites encamped below (Ex 19,2). In fact, the people could go only to the foot of the mountain and they could not proceed further (Ex 19,17-18). The holy God speaks to the people out of the midst o f fire. For Israel, the theophany at Sinai is the paradigm of God’s holiness. During this particular encounter with God they receive the Decalogue from God. It contains the covenant requirements and guidelines for their future relationship with God. In other words, the Decalogue expresses God’s holiness and his invitation to the people of Israel to be holy. By conforming to the will of God contained in the Decalogue they become a holy people. . Israel becomes a holy nation because the people obey the will of the holy God. God’s entrance into a holy pact with the people at Sinai is therefor&the source of their holiness. However, the people of Israel are conscious of the radical cleavage between the human and the divine. Human beings are forbidden to appropriate what belongs to God.5 On the other hand, the people are asked to emulate God’s holiness by keeping the commandments (Lev 11, 44). To a certain extent, this explains the reason behind the association between the holiness of God and his people. However, even when God is the source of their holiness, the high holiness of God makes it difficult for the people to approach or worship him without mediation: “Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?” (1 Sam 6,20) For the people of Israel, the Holy One is far beyond their reach. In short, the holy God of the OT remains

5J. Muilenburg, “Holiness,“ 618.

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, Vol.74/5 May 2010 P■ 59

380 JOSEPH XAVIER, S J.

incomprehensible and unapproachable to ordinaiy human experience.

The Old Testament Priesthood and Holiness

We know from the OT that the holiness of God remained a mysterium tremendum, a term which suggests dread, terror, reverence and fear. “Let them praise your great and awesome name: Holy is God!” (Ps 99,3) His holiness was such that any direct contact between the divine and human spheres was rather difficult, if not dangerous (2 Sam 6,6-11). In other words, the sacred and the profane were not to be mixed.6 It was a paradoxical situation: humans, in fact, needed God for life and health, but they could not approach him easily. The problem was how' to make contact with the holy God? How could God overcome the separation inherent in holiness, take up residency on earth, and renew the world, without annihilating humans? In this situation, the priest through the ritual worship provided the much needed and necessary bridge between God and humans. The priest, who became holy through sacramental ritual and worked safely in the presence of God, became the mediator between God and the people. The solution to the separation between God and humans was the construction of a sanctuary and the creation of priesthood. In order to accomplish sacred ceremonies, the priest had to abandon profane activities and quarantine himself from the corrupt world by entering into the sanctuary; it was clearly a privileged position. To a certain extent, the holiness of the priest in the OT tradition depended on this separation.7 However, here, it must be affirmed that the OT institution of priesthood was for God: “Your brother, Aaron, and his sons will be set apart from the common people. They will be my priests and will minister to me” (Ex 28, 1). In the OT tradition, the priest was separated from the people in order to perform rituals and offer sacrifices. His separation was to preserve the holiness o f God. The region of heaven where God lived was qualitatively different from that of the created world.

In the OT, especially after the Sinai experience, the priesthood had a representative character, embodying the duty, the honour and privileges o f the whole nation as the covenant people o f God. According to the covenant, the whole nation was a holy people (Ex 19,6). They realized that if Israel was to continue as the people o f God it needed to be like God in character and purpose. However, they were

6Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Priestly Vocation,” 118.

7Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message o f the Epistle to the Hebrews (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Bíblico, 1989), 10; see also Raymond E. Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (New York: Paulist Press, 1970), 8-9.

Vidycqyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection,Vol.74/5 May 2010 P- 60


also veiy much aware of the fact that this likeness was lacking in the people as a whole: the “holy nation” possessed only a very im-perfect holiness. Therefore, the corporate responsibility had to be dele-gated to representative persons, who were to discharge it on behalf of the whole community. Therefore, to maintain the covenant relationship with God it was necessary to have the priesthood on behalf of the nation. Hence in public and national worship the priests acted as the represent-atives of the people. The sanctity required of the people for the service of God was symbolized in the priesthood, which therefore became the mediator of the covenant.8

In the priestly tradition of the OT, especially in the postexilic writings, we could see a clear picture o f the organization of the priesthood in the OT. There was a threefold hierarchy o f cultic officials—the high priests, priests and Levites. Each order was separate and distinct, with clearly defined duties and privileges. At the head o f the hierarchy was the high priest, who occupied a position o f increasing splendour and power. Being the spiritual head of Israel, a greater degree of ceremonial purity was required of the high priest than o f ordinary priests. The ordinary priests belonged to the secondary order of priesthood. They were the cultic specialists. They came from the house of Aaron (Ex 28, 41). The chief functions of priests were the sacrificial duties of the altar: only the priest may sacrifice (Num 18,7). The third order of the hierarchy was that of the Levites. They traced their origin to Levi, the third son of Jacob by Leah. They were subordinate cultic officials and their function was to assist the priests and serve the congregation (Num 1, 50). The Levites, like priests, had to make expiation for any violation of their sanctity (Num 18,23). The essential function of the OT priesthood as a whole was to assure, maintain, and constantly re-establish the holiness of the people of God. It was through the priesthood that a purified and sanctified Israel was able to serve God and received his blessing in the postexilic period.9

Holiness as Imitatio DeiIsrael after the return from exile in Babylon founded its life on

two fundamental institutions—the Torah and the Temple. These became the centre of the corporate existence of Israel. The general

®R. Abba, “Priests and Levites,” in George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The interpreter s Dictionary o f the Bible, vol.3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962-1986), 876.

9Ibid., 878-80.

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, Vol.74/5 May 2010 P- 61


impression was that, without fidelity to them, the unity and solidarity of the society would disintegrate under the influence of foreign cultures, especially the Hellenistic and Roman cultures. However, though the Torah and the Temple were central institutions, they did not determine the historic characteristics of the community. In fact, what determined its historical characteristics was the dominant motif in the light of which the community interpreted the Torah and the function of the Temple: holiness.10 The quest to embody holiness in national life was expressed in the priestly code: “Speak to the whole Israelite community and tell them: Be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev 19,2). Therefore, the main concern of the Jewish tradition was to structure the life of the community as an imitatio Dei, the imitation of God. Israel had to show in its community life the character and activity which it attributed to God, i.e. holiness. In other words, the content of the imitatio Dei was holiness. Here, holiness was understood primarily as separation from everything that was impure. The holiness of God was understood to be his separation from ail that was impure. In the same way, for Israel, holiness as imitatio Dei meant separation.11

The quest for holiness became a major concern of the Jewish community towards the end of the OT period. Two renewal movements active during the ministry of Jesus—the Essenes and the Pharisees— were very important in this regard. Both of them represented new forms of religious associations which intensified the quest for holiness. The Essenes were convinced that a life of holiness within society in the prevailing situation was impossible. So, they withdrew from the mainstream of society to the wilderness. They led a highly-disciplined monastic style of life, referring to themselves as “the men of holiness.” They considered all those who lived outside their community as apostates, and certainly they avoided any contact with the impurity of the Gentiles.12

The Pharisees, on the other hand, intensified the quest for holiness which required a separation within society. For the Pharisees, Israel was to be a “Kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19, 6), which required a rigorous observance of the same laws of purity that

“Marcus J. Borg, Conflict. Holiness & Politics in the Teaching o f Jesus (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellan Press, 1984). 52.

"Ibid.

I2Ibid., 57.

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection,Vol.74/5 May 2010 P- 62


were normally applied only to priests in the Temple. In other words, the Pharisees wanted to extend the meticulous observance of the Torah to the entire nation as a requirement of holiness. Rather than withdrawing themselves from society like the Essenes, the Pharisee remained within society to be a “leaven” for the cause of holiness. Moreover, they introduced structural reforms to further the realization of holiness in the nation. They became the representatives and bearers of the quest for holiness in public life. Their purity laws required separation from all that was unclean, including Gen-tiles and their practices. “Socially, the emphasis upon purity was intended to insulate and isolate Israel from the practices of the heathen, to protect her against assimilation and corruption; religiously, the emphasis flowed out of devotion to Yahweh as the holy one.”13 Thus, the main religious dynamics of the first century Judaism was the quest for holiness; even their resistance to foreign powers was grounded in the quest for holiness.14 In other words, the Jewish ghetto mentality of that time had a theological reason, holiness, and to be like God in separation. The motive behind their quest for holiness was imitatio Dei, to imitate God.

Jesus and Holiness

In this set o f circumstances Jesus comes onto the scene and he proposes a new paradigm of holiness for Israel. His idea of holiness is quite different from the Temple priests, the Essenes and the Pharisees. Jesus’ understanding o f holiness is not separation but engagement and openness to others, especially to the so-called s inners.13 Indeed, his conduct destab ilizes the prevailing understanding that Israel is a holy community where sinners and outcasts have no place. Jesus’ table fellowship with outcasts is an indirect indictment of the Pharisaic understanding of holiness. It contravenes the understanding of Israel as holy, separated community and it calls into question the Pharisaic program of internal reform by extending the meticulous observance of the Torah to the whole nation. In addition, Jesus’ actions, especially his ministry of healing and table fellowship, challenge the existing notion of God upon which the

'■’Ibid., 59.

HIbid.. 61-68.

,5It is true that the ministry o f Jesus was not directed to the Gentiles but to the house o f Israel from where his disciples could later expand it to the “end o f the world” (Mt 28).

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, Vol.74/5 May 2010 p. 63

384 JOSEPH XAVIER, S J.

holiness o f Israel was based.

In the new scenario of Jesus’ ministry, the locale of holiness changes dramatically. In Jesus the very idea of holiness gets redefined. In the old system, holiness was defined in terms of purity and separation: holiness had to be expressed in external actions that would reflect the character of the holy God. This God was indeed holy but exacting. The holy God could dwell in the Sanctuary only under conditions of holiness of purity. In other words, holiness was dependent upon separation from impurity through “boundary maintenance.” In the new system, Jesus crosses boundaries. For example, Jesus eats with sinners: they become insiders while the ritually righteous put themselves outside the Sanctuary—the will of God.16

In Jesus there is a transforming character of holiness as well. The holiness of Jesus affects both persons and society. The “contagion” of Jesus’ holiness brings healing to the impure. In Jesus’ compassionate action, people are brought into the community of faith, especially the sick and the sinners. Holiness as separation from impurity, is changed to holiness as community with Jesus. Again, in Jesus we have'a new understanding of God as merciful and just, forgiving and accepting, open and inclusive. The people are holy because God is with them— Emmanuel.17 In him there is no fear of contamination. For the opponents of Jesus, no legitimate Jewish holy man can behave as he does. In fact, they expect him to behave according to normal Jewish practices. Here is the newness of Jesus: he breaks with the past norms of holiness. For Jesus, holiness is not a matter of separation. When challenged, Jesus justifies his behaviour by appealing to the example of a doctor (Mk 2, 15-17). For him, a religious teacher, like a doctor, must have contact with those whom he wants to help. A doctor needs to have intimate contact with the sick if he wants to heal him. Therefore, Jesus insists that in order to treat the patients one must come into contact with them. His life and teaching demand a different paradigm of holiness.18

The story of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10,29-37) is another example

l6Kent E. Brower, “The Holy One and the Disciples: Holiness and Ecclesiology in Mark,” in Kent E Brower and Andy Johnson (eds.), Holiness and Ecclesiology in the Mew Testament (Cambridge: William B. Berdmans Publishing Company, 2007), 71.

17Ibid., 71-73.

ISMarcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness & Politics in the Teaching o f Jesus, 88.

Vidyafyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, VoL74/5 May 2010 P■ 64

HOLINESS AND PRIESTHOOD

with which Jesus draws our attention to the dangers of an obsessive quest for holiness. It is important to note that the parable contains an explicit reference to the priest and the Levite who in their quest for holiness fail to offer assistance to the wounded man. Here, their holiness obstructs the exercise of mercy. Jesus through the parable conveys the message that, though they are consistent with the Pharisaic dynamic of holiness, these men fail to act as a neighbour to the wounded man. Over against such behaviour in accordance with the demands o f holiness is placed the behaviour of the “heretical” Samaritan whose action is summed up not by the term “holiness,” but by compassion and mercy. It is not just a story about compassionate neighbourliness, but a stark criticism of the pharisaic understanding of Yahweh and his demands of holiness.19 In short, Jesus’ life and teaching challenge the understanding of Israel as a holy, separated community.

In contrast to the Pharisaical quest for holiness based on separation what we see in Jesus is his priority to the triad—mercy, faithfulness, and justice: “For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and; mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Mt 23,23). On another occasion, Jesus tells his opponents: “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners” (Mt 9, 13). Indeed, Jesus’ understanding o f holiness is based on imitatio Dei, but with a difference: his emphasis is on compassion, not on separation and exclusion. Jesus succinctly summarizes his understanding of imitatio Dei: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Lk 6 ,36). In other words, mercy is the key to understand holiness as imitatio Dei in the order of Jesus. This is what Jesus would prefer from his disciples, especially the priests who follow him closely. In the order of Jesus Christ the link between the imitatio Dei of the OT and the imitatio Christi of the New Covenant is compassio—to suffer with those who suffer. That is the real meaning of the Incarnation.

St Paul explains the meaning of the Incarnation with the idea of kenosis. The notion of the kenosis o f Christ appears in Phil 2, 7 where Paul pronounces Christ as the one who “emptied himself.” The term kenosis is an expression which conveys the message that Christ gives

I9Ibid., 105.

20Teresa Kuo -Yu Tsui, “Seeing Christian Kenosis in the Light o f Buddhist Sunyata: An Attempt at inter-faith Hermeneutics,” Asia Journal o f Theology, 21/ 2 (2007) 359-363.

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, Vol.74/5 May 2010 - P- 65

386 JOSEPH XAVIER, S.j.

himself totally to God and to his people. In the process he becomes one of us. It is a self-giving love without reservation. In other words, kenosis in Philippians is a metaphorical way of expressing the Incarnation. It means a divine renunciation that represents a life of total self-giving commitment of love for the sake of others.20 In the Incarnation, the transcendent God becomes the God of immanence. Holiness expressed in separation becomes a sanctification brought out by God’s nearness. In the Incarnation, the holy God pitches his tent among us (Jn 1,14). He does not live in isolation or in an inaccessible sanctuary. On the contrary, he becomes one of us—-Emmanuel.

Again, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus tell us that in the New Covenant there is a new order of holiness. In the old order, according to the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 9), a veil separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple. Only the high priest was allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies to make sin offering for himself and for the people (Lev 16,1 -25). In the New Covenant, Christ enters once for all into the sanctuary. St Paul further clarifies that God has moved out of the sanctuary made by human hands (Acts 17, 24). The new sanctuary is located not in the temple but at Calvary, the end of Jesus ’ earthly journey. Here, we need to remember that the Cross of Jesus is raised not in the scmctissimum of religious sphere and devotion, but outside the protected religious enclosure. “It is erected beyond these protected and separated precincts, “outside,” as the theology of the Epistle to Hebrews tells us.”21 In Jesus’ death the veil o f the sanctuary, which separated the Holy of Holies from the people, is tom in two from top to bottom (Mk 15,38; Mt 27,51). The locus of God’s dwelling is no more in the Hoiy of Holies of the temple, but the world with all its complexities. In the Christ-event, we are told, that the holy God, who remained inaccessible in the Old Covenant, is with us in the world. “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3, 16). We need to be aware of his presence in the world, not of his absence. God’s presence in the world is something that the eyes of faith can recognize through the working of the Holy Spirit. And, thus, our faith encourages us to find God in all things.22

In the biblical understanding, the holiness of people o f God is bound up with their relationship to the holy God. They become holy as they come closer to God. For Christians, it depends on their association

2lJ. B. Metz, Theology o f the World (New York: Seabury Press, 1969), 113.

^Ignatius o f Loyola, The Spiritual Exercises o f St Ignatius, trans. George E. Ganss, S.J. (St Louis: The Institute o f Jesuits Source, 1992), 94-95.



to the Holy One of God, Jesus. Their holiness is determined by their closeness to Christ. “Holiness, then, is neither a thing nor a performance target. Those who do the will of God are those who follow Jesus and his way. He radiates holiness and thereby transforms the community through his ongoing presence and continued leadership.”23

Christian Priesthood as Imitatio Christi

As seen above, in the OT tradition, the priest was separated from the people in order to perform rituals and offer sacrifices. He abstained from profane activities in order to accomplish: sacred ceremonies. His holiness depended on this separation. As a corollary to it, in the OT tradition, even the holiness of the people of God was understood in terms of boundary maintenance, i.e., as separation from impurity. This led to a purity-based social system whose purpose was to safeguard the conditions under which God’s people could experience God’s “dangerous” holy presence. God’s holy presence could not be contaminated by impurity.24 Pharisaic exclusiveness led to a caste-bound society where contact between members of the exclusive sect and the rest of the population was avoided. They were to be a kingdom of priests that offers worship to the holy God, a service that required perfection: the priesthood Was an office that could not tolerate impurity and imperfection.

On the contrary, in Jesus we see a very different picture. Whereas the Pharisaic tradition requires ritual purity before inclusion within the holy community, Jesus eats with sinners so that they might repent. Here Jesus redefines holiness by crossing purity boundaries to bring the compassion/purifying love of God to the lives o f those who have been excluded. Jesus, “the Holy One of God,” is not contaminated by impurity. On the contrary, as the bearer of the compassionate love of God, he carries a holiness that is “contagious” and transformative, as it confronts the impure and the sinful. In the life of Jesus we see an active holiness that brings outcasts, the impure and the unholy into the sphere of his holiness and thereby transforms them whom he touches.25 In other words, holiness has been “dislocated” and “relocated” in the heart of the compassionate God. The God of Jesus Christ is no more “the wholly other” but as “the Holy Other” who confronts us as purifying and

23Kent E. Brower, “The Holy One and the Disciples: Holiness and Ecclesiology in M ark,”73-74.

24Kent E. Brower and Andy Johnson (eds.), Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, xviii.

25Ibid., xix.



compassionate love.26

Today, priests as disciples of Christ are called upon to cany on the purifying and compassionate love of Christ in the world. The ministerial priesthood exists in Christ, with Christ and for Christ. Of course, it requires personal integrity and holiness, especially in a world ravaged by clergy scandals. However, priests need to remind themselves that their holiness is always a “derived” holiness that comes from their intimate relationship with the Holy One. In place of holiness obtained through separating oneself from others,, we see in Christ a sanctification obtained through accepting others and being with them in their situation. The high point of this acceptance, as seen above, is the Incarnation. Here, his obedience to the Father is not for his personal sanctification but for the service of humankind: it is an obedience in compassionate solidarity with his brothers and sisters for their good. That is why the author of the Letter to the Hebrews says: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect,, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him. And God designated him to be a high priest in the order ofMelchizedek” (Heb 5,8-10). After being made himself perfect in solidarity with us, God proclaimed him the high priest. So, the priests of today have a model to follow. In that regard, the priesthood is an imitatio Christi.

If priests are followers of Christ, they need to reinterpret the idea o f holiness according to the way of Christ. The Letter to the Hebrews is an attempt to redefine holiness in this way. “It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expiate the sins of the people” (Heb 2,17). In keeping with the OT tradition, Hebrews tells us that Christ, the high priest, is the mediator between God and man. However, in this text one may notice a step forward in interpreting the priesthood of Christ The author highlights two important qualities of Christ as the high priest— trustworthy /worthy of faith (pistos) and compassionate /merciful (eleemon). These adjectives define the two fundamental conditions of the priesthood in the order of Jesus Christ.27

Today, if priestly holiness is to be really “Christian,” it has to be in the pattern of Christ Priests should not be concerned about ritual purity

26Ibid., xx.

27Albert Vanhoye. “La novità del sacerdozio di Cristo,” Civiltà Cattolica 149/ 1 (3 Jan 1998), 27.

Vidyajyoti Journal o f Theological Reflection, Vol. 74/5 May 2010 P- 68


like the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan but rather about the purity of heart that comes from following Christ It is in compassionate solidarity with victims and the marginalized that one becomes a minister of Christ. Here, Christ shows us the way. Though being Son of God, through his kenosis he becomes one of us. If priestly holiness is a derived holiness from imitatio Christi, its source cannot be but the heart of Jesus—his compassionate solidarity. The kenotic Christ, the God incarnate, is the ultimate example of self-giving love to which priests should conform. They are to become like Christ. That is why John Paul II reminds modem priests that the priesthood is a special call to the perfection of charity or self-giving.28 In this way, by their example, they may lead the people committed to their care to the “common” vocation to holiness.

In short, priests as ordained ministers of Christ share the redemptive mission of Jesus in a special way because they have responded to his personal call to share his mission of bringing people closer to God. They help Christ in removing the boundary markers between God and his people. At the same time, they also struggle to remove separating boundaries between peoples. In their lives they reflect the mercy and compassion of the Holy One of God who reaches out to the outcasts, touches the unclean, and shares fellowship with sinners. They are not to be afraid of being contaminated by having contact with sinners. In their vocation, they, like Jesus, are agents of transformation, wholeness and holiness. Their life should not be guided by a compulsive obsession that concentrates upon separation and purily as ends in themselves. “Any brand of holiness that forgets its identity with the poor and dispossessed and becomes obsessed with maintaining its own purity, refusing to touch the suppurating wounds of humanity, has turned into a supercilious morality divorced from the heart of God.”29 Without the presence of Christ through his Spirit, no matter how much one tries, holiness remains an elusive dream. Finally, Priest, as ministers of Christ, need to remind themselves that they become holy because they do the will of Christ, especially in reconciling the world to God. Their holiness is dependent upon this mission.

2?John Paul II, Pastures Dabo Vobis, n. 20.

^Kent E. Brower, “The Holy One and the Disciples: Holiness and Ecclesiology in Mark,” 74.


Documents

VJTR 74 (2010) 377-389 Holiness and Priesthood...VJTR 74 (2010) 377-389 Holiness and Priesthood Joseph XAVIER S.J. Fr Joseph Xavier, S.J. at Gregorian University,