When Jesus encounters a leper, in
Matthew 8:1-4, the scene challenges the prevailing cultural norms. To be a
leper in Jesus Christ’s time was to experience the ultimate in dehumanization. You
belonged to the class of the untouchables. Imagine if you were denied any human
contact. You could not greet anyone or return a greeting. You had to present
yourself as if you were in mourning daily. You were a non-person in everyone's
sight and there was no empathy or compassion for your condition. This
narrative presents Jesus acting in direct conflict with the conventional wisdom
and norms of his culture. The ensuing conflict is a direct result of Jesus
being approached by a leper seeking healing. The narrative depicts Jesus
performing the practice of one of the most humanizing behaviors we engage in, touch.
Harrington explains about this encounter elaborating on the issue of touch,
“According to Lev 5:3 Jesus himself might contract ritual uncleanness by
touching the sources of uncleanness. But the New Testament account makes
nothing of that idea. Instead Jesus’ touch is presented as the means by which
the cure of the leper is brought about.”[1]
Jesus, through his cultural deviance, brings a new understanding that turns
social conventions and conventional wisdom on its head concerning the
corruption of those who are ritually clean by the unclean. The practice has
been avoidance of the unclean at all cost. The fear and the dread of becoming
unclean or contracting this disease was a constant presence in Judaic society
within Israel. Jesus’ practice of fearlessly touching the unclean goes against
all social and religious protocols of Judaism.
Social conventions and
conventional wisdom expects the holy or pure to be contaminated by the unclean
or impure. Blomberg writes about this fundamental ideology, “. . . the notion
that unclean people and objects constantly threatened to corrupt God’s holy,
elect nation and individuals within it. Like literal physical disease, we may
think of ritual impurity as contagious.”[2]
Impurity appears to act more like a disease or a universal contaminate with no
exceptions. Yet, in this instance Jesus deviates from social convention and
conventional wisdom by touching the leper, thereby conveying into the leper a
healing of his leprosy. Further, Jesus appears to transmit ritual purity and
holiness to the leper. Jesus demonstrates a remarkable willingness to extend
compassion to a person who has been stigmatized and marginalized. What
transpires in the event of Jesus touching and healing the leper is that a human
being emerges who is able to rejoin his community. A new standard has been
demonstrated in Jesus’ willingness to practice touching those who were
considered unclean by allowing his holiness to be transferred to the recipient.
Reflecting upon the biblical material, there are
supporting events wherein Jesus uses touch in order to challenge Judaic
traditional views as already witnessed in the text. By doing this Jesus uses
his social proximity in order to aide those who were in need of redemption, the
marginalized. Dr. MaryKate Morse in her article on Jesus’ use of Social Power, notes several instances that illustrate
Jesus’ use of proximity.[3]
First, Jesus encounters the hemorrhaging woman who touched his clothing in
Matthew 9:18-26 and is healed. Second, Jesus touches the leper in Matthew 8:1-4
and he is healed. Then Jesus receives blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46-52 and he
is healed by recovering his sight. Morse
asserts, “Jesus had a large amount of social power, but he used it in social
settings to invite others into his personal space.”[4]
In each instance Jesus confers to the individual physical healing and a
restoration of their social and communal status. Morse writes, “Physical
proximity with Jesus had the power to heal and restore these persons to the
community in a redeemed role.”[5]
Jesus represents new standards and
expectations that are deviant, even counterintuitive, to the social construct
of first century Judaism. Blomberg recognizes the lack of intuitiveness
concerning the nature of holiness in the religious culture, he elaborates, “The
idea of a godly person’s holiness rubbing off on and transforming an unclean or
unholy person scarcely seems to have been countenanced.”[6] Jesus’ practices and
strategies are counterintuitive to the first century Judaic conventional wisdom
and established traditions, because he reverses the polarity of holiness where
the unclean do not contaminate the pure, but the pure render the unclean, holy.
The practice and strategies reflect back to when Jesus initiated his ministry
in Galilee quoting the prophet Isaiah concerning the signs he would engage,
which included healing, as evidence of the year of the Lord’s favor.
Thus far the context of the narratives in the Gospels
presents Jesus’ practices and strategies as deviant and counterintuitive to the
Judaic social convention and their conventional wisdom. The Gospels witness
that Jesus’ deviance is pervasive throughout the narratives. He challenges the
social construct of first century Judaism as missing the intentions of God
through his positive deviance practices and strategies. Therefore, in
relationship to the context of Judaic cultural norms, societal construct and
conventional wisdom, Jesus’ strategies and practices are definable as socially
deviant by the host culture.
[1] Harrington,
The Gospel of Matthew, 113.
[2] Blomberg, Contagious holiness, 93.
[3]
MaryKate Morse, “Jesus’
Use of Social Power in Honour-Shame Conflicts - Crucible 1-2 October 2008.pdf”,
n.d., http://www.ea.org.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Crucible/Morse%20-%20Jesus%27%20Use%20of%20Social%20Power%20in%20Honour-Shame%20Conflicts%20-%20Crucible%201-2%20October%202008.pdf,
(accessed November 8, 2011).
[4] Ibid., 8.
[5] Ibid., 9.
[6] Blomberg,
Contagious holiness, 93.
No comments:
Post a Comment