166 Hanna Stettler received mercy, to pass it on (Matt 18,27.33). Sin and impurity can no longer exclude people from the kingdom of God, since Jesus forgives sins and overcomes impurity. What does exclude from the kingdom, however, is the refusal to pass on to one’s neighbour the mercy which one has received from God. This is shown in the parable of the unfor- giving servant (Matt 18,21-22.34-35; cf. 6,12). As a consequence, the real threat to holiness is now unmercifulness, whereas cultic impurity no longer constitutes such a threat. That for Jesus love and mercy are the true meaning of holiness is proved by the recasting of the Lev 19,2 parr. formula, which challenges Israel to emulate God’s holiness. Instead of “Be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy”, according to Luke, it now runs: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful”. In Matthew it says: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. In the context of both Matthew 5 and Luke 6 this is illustrated by the commandment to love one’s enemies. Jesus replaces “being holy” by love for one’s enemy, and mercy as the essence of sanctification or of any true imitation of God. What place, then, does the purity Torah occupy in Jesus’ concept of sanctification? b) Purity Torah In the light of Jesus’ extensive teaching on ethics, it is remarkable that the synoptics do not transmit a single saying where Jesus confirms the importance of the ritual Torah. Of course, the gospels contain hints which show that he did observe it on occasion. For example, he tells the lepers he has cleansed “to show themselves to the priests” and bring the sacrifice required in such a case (cf. Mark 1,40-45 parr.; Luke 17,12-19 to Lev 13-14), even though the phrase “for a proof to them” (Mark 1,44 parr.) may well express a certain reserve as to the use of such practice (38). But we never find him advocating issues of ritual to his disciples. In order to give full weight to this observation we must bear in mind that in the priestly writings Israel’s holiness was maintained by ritual and cult as well as by ethics. Because Israel was (38) Cf. F. HAHN, Der urchristliche Gottesdienst (SBS 41; Stuttgart 1970) 26, who interprets it as a critique of the representatives of the Temple cult, and ÅDNA, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel, 434, n. 3, who denies the phrase contained such a critical intention. That Jesus sent the 10 lepers he had healed to the Temple to show themselves to the priests (Luke 17,12-19) is not a strong argument for his recognition of the Temple, either (cf. ÅDNA, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel, 435). According to J. Ådna Jesus in sending them to the Temple tested whether they would address their gratitude to God to the right place.