A Muse: Tazria & Metzora

The power of the word is no more apparent than in Leviticus 14:38. In effect the priest plays a central role in that society. The priest has the power to declare and render someone unfit to be outside of the “camp”. Determining who is in and who is out has positive upside but also possibly negative downside.

Let us consider a priest who is pure and holy, one whose concern is only the spiritual and physical welfare of his people. By his word will people be moved to action, and hopefully, while there may be some discomfort for the individual, society as a whole will benefit. On the other hand let us assume that the priest is corrupt and his interests aren’t necessarily identifiable with the best interests of the community he represents. It is then possible that he could bring harm not only to the individual, but to those whom he represents. The Bible doesn’t really present us with a system of checks and balances. During the second Temple period we are made aware of much corruption among the priestly class. How many suffered as a result of that corruption?

Fast forward to 2007: Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have the power of the word. Their word as “priests” of society are what helped determine the outcome of Imus and the prejudicial treatment of the Duke University defendants. Unfortunately both of them are corrupt and their interests aren’t representative of the interests of America (just reference their role in the Yankele Rosenblatt murder and the Harlem store arson resulting in seven dead). Yet we have enabled them to put some innocent people outside the camp.
The power of the word is no more apparent than in Leviticus 14:38. In effect the priest plays a central role in that society. The priest has the power to declare and render someone unfit to be outside of the “camp”. Determining who is in and who is out has positive upside but also possibly negative downside.

Let us consider a priest who is pure and holy, one whose concern is only the spiritual and physical welfare of his people. By his word will people be moved to action, and hopefully, while there may be some discomfort for the individual, society as a whole will benefit. On the other hand let us assume that the priest is corrupt and his interests aren’t necessarily identifiable with the best interests of the community he represents. It is then possible that he could bring harm not only to the individual, but to those whom he represents. The Bible doesn’t really present us with a system of checks and balances. During the second Temple period we are made aware of much corruption among the priestly class. How many suffered as a result of that corruption?

Fast forward to 2007: Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have the power of the word. Their word as “priests” of society are what helped determine the outcome of Imus and the prejudicial treatment of the Duke University defendants. Unfortunately both of them are corrupt and their interests aren’t representative of the interests of America (just reference their role in the Yankele Rosenblatt murder and the Harlem store arson resulting in seven dead). Yet we have enabled them to put some innocent people outside the camp.