Israel, Be Holy! A Command for Religious Conformity

“Holiness” in the Bible constitutes YHWH’s quintessential attribute and is the fundamental difference between human beings and YHWH.^[1] To become holy, things or persons must have their normal, common status removed and enter a sphere that has direct contact with the deity.^[2]

The laws in Leviticus 1–16 treat holiness as communicable through contact. Thus, for example, not only is the חַטָּאת (chatat), purification offering, קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים, “most holy” (6:18), but anything that subsequently comes into contact with it also becomes holy:

^{ויקרא ו:כ} כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יִקְדָּשׁ...

^{Lev 6:20a} Whatever touches its flesh will become holy.^[3]

Holiness is also strictly guarded—treated as dangerous^[4] and permitted only for the sanctuary and its associated personnel and paraphernalia. Thus, precautions are taken to prevent laypersons and their possessions from contracting holiness. The purification offering, for example, must be eaten only by the priests, and only in a holy place:

^{ויקרא ו:יט} הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ יֹאכֲלֶנָּה בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ תֵּאָכֵל בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

^{Lev 6:19} The priest who offers it as a purification offering shall eat of it; it shall be eaten in the sacred precinct, in the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting.^[5]

Care is also taken with anything that comes into contact with its blood:

^{ויקרא ו:כ} ...וַאֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה מִדָּמָהּ עַל הַבֶּגֶד אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ.

^{Lev 6:20b} If any of its blood is spattered upon a garment, you shall wash the bespattered part in the sacred precinct.

Even the vessel in which the חַטָּאת is boiled must either be broken, if made of earthenware, or scoured and rinsed, if made of bronze, lest it communicate holiness beyond the sacred precinct (v. 21).

Holiness Commanded for All Israelites

Considering these restrictions on holiness, it is surprising that the remaining laws in Leviticus (chs. 17–26) not only encourage but explicitly command the Israelites to become holy. YHWH instructs Moses:

^{ויקרא יט:ב} דַּבֵּר אֶל כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

^{Lev 19:2} Speak to all the congregation of Israelites and say to them: “You shall be holy for I YHWH your God am holy!”

The Israelites are then commanded to follow YHWH’s law in a host of situations pertaining to social, economic, and agricultural matters^[6] by which the Israelites will be sanctified.^[7] The connection between sanctification and obedience is explicitly affirmed elsewhere as well:

^{ויקרא כ:ז} וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם^[8] וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים כִּי אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. ^כ:ח וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם אֲנִי יְ־הוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם.

^{Lev 20:7} You shall <sanctify yourselves and> be holy, for I am YHWH your God. ^20:8 You shall keep all my statutes, and you shall practice them: I am YHWH who sanctifies you!^[9]

Two Compositional Layers: P and H

The very different views of holiness in Leviticus 1–16 and Leviticus 17–26 have long been considered a central part of the evidence that these sections of the book were written at different times and form part of different compositional layers within the Priestly traditions of the Pentateuch. Leviticus 1–16 (or at least the majority of it), from the Priestly (P) layer, were likely written first.^[10] It was attached to a pre-existing narrative of Israel’s origins that began with creation, in Genesis 1, and which culminated with the creation of the wilderness sanctuary, in Exodus 40.^[11]

Leviticus 17–26 seems to form part of a later supplement to P that seeks to widen its rather restrictive view of holiness to make it accessible to—indeed mandatory for—the Israelite community as a whole.^[12] This focus on holiness explains why scholars call this material the Holiness legislation (H), a term introduced in 1877 by German theologian August Klostermann.^[13] Why might the priests responsible for H have been concerned to update the earlier P materials to include this new idea of collective sanctification?

“Democratizing” Holiness?

Some scholars think that H’s interest in collective sanctification reveals a democratic tendency and concern to direct attention away from the central shrine.^[14] Such an interpretation, however, misses the careful hierarchy of holiness that H constructs that places YHWH’s sanctuary and priesthood squarely at the top and the Israelites at the bottom.

A Holy Class of Priests

While the holiness of the people is conditioned on their observance of the law, H insists that the holiness of the priests is permanently bestowed by virtue of their ritual consecration. This grants the priests greater access to YHWH’s sanctuary. H also requires the Israelites to set apart (literally sanctify) the priests as a holy class, worthy of deference and special privileges.

^{ויקרא כא:ח} וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ כִּי אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא מַקְרִיב קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְ־הוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם.

^{Lev 21:8} You [the Israelite] shall sanctify him [the priest], for he offers the food of your God; he will be holy to you, for holy am I, YHWH, who sanctifies you!

Thus, following YHWH’s speech commanding the sanctification of the people (ch. 19), the focus shifts to linking the Israelites’ sanctification to the holiness of the priests and the sanctuary that they serve (chs. 21–22).

The Centrality of the Sanctuary

H’s notion of collective holiness therefore binds the Israelites more closely to the sanctuary.^[15] The obligation to be sanctified via law observance is given a powerful rationale:

^{ויקרא כב:לא} וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם מִצְוֹתַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם אֲנִי יְ־הוָה^[16]. ^כב:לב וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְ־הוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם. ^כב:לג הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים אֲנִי יְ־הוָה.

^{Lev 22:31} Thus you shall keep my commandments and practice them: I am YHWH! ^22:32 You shall not profane my holy name, that I may be sanctified among the Israelites.^[17] I am YHWH who sanctifies you, ^22:33 the one who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am YHWH!

The “reciprocal sanctification”^[18] of YHWH and the Israelites emphasizes the interconnection between the sanctification of the people through faithful observance of the law and their responsibility to maintain the central sanctuary that safeguards YHWH from contact with impurity and other defiling forces.^[19]

Conformity in the Cult in P

Collective sanctification, which emphasizes the importance of standardized conduct for safeguarding YHWH and all his possessions, is already central to the earlier P materials—where we find an idealized image of Israel constructing and maintaining a single, exclusive sanctuary in the middle of the community. Thus, the Israelites should not worship YHWH in diverse shrines according to various local traditions, but rather should worship YHWH in a common shrine with only one group of priests overseeing the rituals.^[20]

Such standardization not only reduces individual discretion in favor of conformity, it also focuses individual and communal attention on the authorities that set and control the standards, and thereby normalizes their claim to legitimacy, privilege, and power.^[21] In the case of P, we can assume that these authorities were the elites who were responsible for composing or assembling P’s ritual laws—most likely priestly groups associated with the temple in Jerusalem.^[22]

H’s Extends Conformity to Everyday Life

In H, this form of standardization receives an expansive makeover, moving beyond cultic practice to cover mundane activities and behaviors that have little connection with ritual matters. By calling on all the Israelites to enter into an ongoing process of collective sanctification via daily law observance, H effectively extends the pervasiveness of Priestly law (and priestly authority) into virtually all aspects of the Israelites’ lives.^[23]

This more expansive form of standardized conduct might be appropriately understood as a form of “conventionalism,” to use the term of German social theorist Theodor Adorno (1903–1969).^[24] Conventionalism refers to a form of groupthink that promotes obedience to central authorities and the associated rejection of behaviors that characterize outsiders. In the case of H, holiness is a form of conventionalism because it promotes obedience to a central legal standard, mandating separation from “Others” (notably the Egyptians but also the Canaanites) while demanding collective loyalty and standardized everyday practices.

H’s focus on law obedience also resonates with Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s (1891–1937) concept of “hegemony”—namely, the idea that, in order to consolidate power, elites set the standards of judgment and cultural norms by which everyday life is evaluated; the consent of those under their control is seemingly voluntary because compliance appears to be common sense and beneficial way in which everyday existence should be organized.^[25]

A Strategy of Weakness

Such an expansive claim to hegemonic power might make us think that Leviticus 17–26 was written a time when the Jerusalem priesthood had substantial authority to enforce its call for collective obedience to the law and unfettered loyalty to the shrine and priesthood. Yet H’s idea of collective sanctification may have been a strategy of relative weakness instead.

Leviticus 17–26 was probably finalized sometime during the 6^th or 5^th centuries B.C.E., either during the Babylonian exile or the time of the Achaemenid Persian empire.^[26] This would explain, for instance, why the text knows and responds to the core legal materials of the book of Deuteronomy (composed no earlier than the late 7^th century) and concludes with a reference not only to the threat of exile but also to the guaranteed return to the land (Lev 26:27–45).^[27]

During this period, the Jerusalem priesthood faced significant hardships. Not only was the temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E., but the attempts to rebuild it were impeded by the general poverty and depopulation that afflicted the province of Yehud (the Aramaic name given to Judah in the Persian period), as well as the lack of a local royal leader who could guarantee its supplies.

While the Jerusalem high priest was clearly an important community figure in the early restoration period, no historical evidence suggests that he enjoyed any significant influence or official power or authority in the government of the province of Yehud in the Persian period.^[28] Nehemiah paints a poignant picture of the struggles facing the Second Temple, lamenting that the shrine was so impoverished that it struggled to raise enough revenue to pay its Levitical attendants, owing to a general reluctance in Yehud to direct tithes to the shrine:

^{נחמיה יג:י} וָאֵדְעָה כִּי מְנָיוֹת הַלְוִיִּם לֹא נִתָּנָה וַיִּבְרְחוּ אִישׁ לְשָׂדֵהוּ הַלְוִיִּם וְהַמְשֹׁרְרִים עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה.

^{Neh 13:10} I then discovered that the portions of the Levites had not been contributed, and that the Levites and the singers who performed the [temple] service had made off, each to his fields.

The Priestly Ideal of Israelite Society

In the face of competing demands, instead of mirroring social realities or the actual power relationships that prevailed at the time of writing, H scribes promoted an idealized view of Israelite society to bolster their claim to authority, privileges, and resources within the community. The concept of everyday holiness was likely intended to convince the people to voluntarily defer to the sanctuary in all aspects of their lives, diligently avoiding divisions or local factions, consenting to centralized sociocultic hierarchies, and remaining constantly devoted to the cause of protecting the centralized cult.

Meanwhile, the image of the sanctified Israelites as YHWH’s slaves, living on his land and in permanent servitude to his central shrine, offered powerful reinforcement to this centralizing ideal:

^{ויקרא כה:נה} כִּי־לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

^{Lev 25:55} For to me the Israelites are slaves. They are my slaves whom I brought out from the land of Egypt: I am YHWH your God! ^[29]

Because all agricultural activities are predicated on the Israelites’ being the possession of YHWH, the Israelites should view all that they produce from the land as ultimately belonging to YHWH. It is therefore common sense that they should provide a portion of their produce, in the form of regular offerings and donations, to YHWH in his temple.

A Vision Eventually Realized

The paucity of evidence documenting actual collective conformity with Leviticus 17–26 in everyday life makes it difficult to trace the possible effect of H’s standardizing discourse at the time it was written. Yet, even if we cannot know how exactly H was initially received, we do know that the idea that of expanding priestly power beyond the sanctuary to include civil matters eventually gained widespread acceptance, with a theocratic form of government emerging in Hellenistic Judea by the 2^nd century B.C.E. at the latest.^[30]

Tying such a development directly back to H may go beyond the evidence. It is clear, however, that such a development is compatible with the discursive drive of Leviticus 17–26 and its distinctive focus on collective sanctification as a means of standardizing Israelite behavior and establishing the norms, power structures, and collective behaviors that would elevate the priesthood’s privileged position across a range of social, cultic, and economic domains.