Search on Cleanness/Uncleanness

I was wondering, whilst reading Mark 1:41, why Jesus touched the leper given that touching a leper made someone unclean according to the Old Testament law. As the leper was healed in that instant, it would be difficult to argue that Jesus became unclean.

However, I began to wonder whether, with mankind, when we touch unclean objects we become unclean (sin pollutes) but with Jesus, when he comes into contact with unclean objects, they always become clean (cf Mk 5:28-29). I was going to skim through the gospels to look for other possible examples to support/contradict this idea, but wondered whether there might be a clever Logos way to do it as well and, as I thought it was an interesting proposition, I thought others might be interested in thinking about it too.

Blessings,

Paul

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Paul Chatfield

I'm going to answer my own question, having gone through the gospels by eye, it does seem each time Jesus encounters and touches those unclean they are healed - I could only find 3 occasions recounted in all of the Synoptics: Mt 8:1-4, 14-15, 9:20-22. Interestingly there does appear to be a link between touching Jesus in faith and being healed - note Mt 14:36. That faith is needed is implied in Lk 8:44-48.

How could Logos help me with this - this wasn't meant to be a random theological discussion independent of Logos! In terms of finding occasions of clean/unclean people before Jesus, I'm not sure if it can be done (have Louw-Nida categorised people as clean/unclean? If not, who would have?). However the new clause search did become helpful later on as I looked for both

subject: jesus verb:to touch

object: jesus verb: to touch

These both yielded interesting results supporting the hypothesis that to touch Jesus in faith or be touched by him would make an unclean person clean. What is an unclean person didn't have faith and touched Jesus? We don't have any examples to be able to speculate.

As a final comment, these searches obviously do have limitations. Consider that the fascinating verse Mt 14:36 was missed because it referred to touching Jesus' garment instead of him, whereas it did correctly pick up Mt 6:56. However, these searches do make following up such hypotheses interesting,

Paul

Schezic

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430662#Comment_430662

You Are definitely on the right track. I would suggest including more than just leprosy. Any healing done was a sign that Christ healed BY FAITH. Just for fun, do a simple search on "faith" in the words of Christ. Just another thing to ponder...Jesus did heal a few individuals who were demon possessed. You could make the case that Most received healing by the faith of the one who brought them. The man among who lived among the tombs was an exception that comes to mind. Search the word demon in the Gospels. You may enjoy the connection.

Enjoy your study, God Bless

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430662#Comment_430662

subject: jesus verb:to touch

object: jesus verb: to touch

That is good use of Logos. For missing verses just use person:jesus verb:to touch

it did correctly pick up Mt 6:56.

Mk 6:56?

What is an unclean person didn't have faith and touched Jesus? We don't have any examples to be able to speculate.

Why would they touch him? There are many references to "He healed them all" - Bible Search for (jesus, he) NEAR heal* NEAR all - but see Mt 12:14-15.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430662#Comment_430662

It's down to the vagaries of the original Greek. If you look at Mt 14:36 we see "καὶ ὅσοι ἥψαντο διεσώθησαν" whereas in Mark 6:56 (you did mean Mark not Matthew 6:56?) it is "καὶ ὅσοι ἂν ⸀ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ ἐσῴζοντο". In the Mark verse there is the pronoun αὐτοῦ which is tagged as Jesus with the new referent tag function. In the Matthew verse the "it" was supplied by the translators to fill out the English, there is no αὐτοῦ in the manuscript.

But all is not lost, try this in a clausal search

person:jesus thing:clothing, clothes verb:to touch

[:)]

LimJK

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430662#Comment_430662

As a final comment, these searches obviously do have limitations. Consider that the fascinating verse Mt 14:36 was missed because it referred to touching Jesus' garment instead of him, whereas it did correctly pick up Mt 6:56. However, these searches do make following up such hypotheses interesting,

Paul, what about searching person:Jesus verb:to touch ... and in the Analysis view sort by Subject, Object, etc ... you can see your Mat 14:36 ...

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430662#Comment_430662

What is an unclean person didn't have faith and touched Jesus?

People without faith wouldn't have touched Jesus - at least not deliberately. Touching him was an act of faith. (In addition, the story of the woman cleansed from the flow of blood whilst that the crowd pressing in on Jesus strongly suggests that power went to her alone, and not to anyone else who 'accidentally' touched him.)

Paul Chatfield

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430720#Comment_430720

Thanks for your suggestions guys in particular Patrick S. - thank you for your suggestion of clothing and noticing of the Greek and LimJK - I hadn't though of using the Analysis view sort - that's a nice way to improve my use of Logos.

And thank you for your response Mark Barnes - though my reason for the part of the question you responded to, was slightly different. In the OT law, a person would have to be purified whether contact was deliberate or not. So did Jesus ever become unclean according to the OT law and therefore need to purify Himself? I wondered if every time Jesus came into contact with an unclean person (according to the OT law), they were healed. I couldn't find any cases where he did come into contact with an unclean person and they weren't healed.

So could it ever have been possible for Jesus to have become unclean? I think not and therefore, as I understand it, every accidental contact must have led to healing otherwise Jesus would become unclean according to the OT law and so need to purify Himself.

Anyway, I realise I am probably straying onto a more theological question rather than just a Logos one and don't want to overstep the boundaries of the forum. If you want to share your thoughts with me on this I'd be interested - just add a comment on my wall.

Thank you for your replies guys!

Paul

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430684#Comment_430684

It's down to the vagaries of the original Greek.

You also might miss some places where the verb used isn't "to touch"; for example Luke 4:40 uses "he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them."

I actually don't know how to use clause search to find places where Jesus's hands are the object of a verb. I've tried

person:Jesus object:hands

But it finds 0 occurrences.

The only thing that came close was

person:jesus object-surface:χεῖρας

It misses Luke 4:40. But it does find a bunch of others that would have been missed by "to touch" -- e.g., Mk 6:5; Luke 13:13.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430662#Comment_430662

These both yielded interesting results supporting the hypothesis that to touch Jesus in faith or be touched by him would make an unclean person clean.

In the New Bible Dictionary (Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.) there is a section on page 210 named 'I. Theology of uncleanness' (Logos link = logosres:nbd;ref=Page.p_210;off=2741 ). Of course there are many dictionary and resources that deal with the subject of (ritual) uncleanness, I found this article helpful as it discusses the theology of the concepts of holiness, life, uncleanness & death.

The difference between Jesus and the 'scribes & Pharisees' (Jewish religious leadership obsessed with observance of ritual cleanness ) is that Jesus had life within him, and that supreme life overcame the death, and signs of eventual death i.e. uncleanness, he touched, and of those who touched him (in faith). The scribes and pharisees were obsessed with, and believed that, cleanness could only be maintained by the strict outward observance of keeping ritually clean. They were obsessed with keeping ritually clean but they knew in their hearts (if they were honest) that at their core was, as for all of us, death — ultimate uncleanness. It was not for no reason Jesus called them 'whitewashed sepulchres'.

Not so Jesus — at his core was life, and the difference between the scribes & Pharisees (who would have run a mile from a woman with a discharge of blood because to touch her would have mean uncleanness (death) touching them) and Jesus was that when 'uncleanness' (the absence of life, death) touched him, 'uncleanness' (and death) was banished because his life was the stronger and could not be overcome. To me Jesus was the 'hidden hilasmos' (Gk. ἱλασμός, Logos Bible word study link logos4:Guide;t=Bible_Word_Study;lemma=lbs$2Fel$2F$E1$BC$B1$CE$BB$CE$B1$CF$83$CE$BC$CF$8C$CF$82 ), the mercy seat of the Holy of Holies, moving among people.

The story of the woman with the discharge of blood is one of the (sorry) touching stories of the new testament, full of meaning and life. One can, reading between the lines, just imagine the scene. She was suffering and wanted to be healed. She would have known, on an intellectual level, that for her to touch Jesus in her condition would have mean that, according to OT scripture, he would have become ritually unclean. But in desperation she rationalised that if she could just touch his (outer) garments that would be enough for her to be healed. And it was — she touched the hilasmos, the holy, and just as with Isaiah in Isaiah 6:1-6, she became clean.

(forgive me for getting on the soapbox a bit).

Paul Chatfield

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430885#Comment_430885

Thank you Patrick for that reference - that's really useful. I've been using "I am the way and the truth and the life" evangelistically and explaining how Jesus didn't just know the way, He was the way, and He didn't just tell the message of this universe of a God reaching man was He was That Message of God reaching man. Similarly, He didn't just know how to live life to the full, He was That Life and Life-Giver in Himself.

Your response ties into this last point and is just causing me to marvel all the more at what it must have been like for those at that time to see Him being so different - that, in so many ways, He was as us, but yet also how He would have been markedly different. It's really helping deepen my love and wonder at the person of Christ so thank you!

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430859#Comment_430859

So could it ever have been possible for Jesus to have become unclean? I think not and therefore, as I understand it, every accidental contact must have led to healing otherwise Jesus would become unclean according to the OT law and so need to purify Himself.

I agree that it was not possible for Jesus to have become unclean. There is no mention of any cleansing with regard to Jesus, despite the many 'unclean' situations he encountered, so I think that is sufficient evidence. But I think it's going beyond the evidence to suggest that every contact with Jesus must have led to the other person being cleansed, or healed. In particular that seems to contradict Luke 2:22, which said that Mary needed to be purified after the birth of Jesus. The plural 'their' suggests that Joseph too needed to be purified (see the discussion in Bock).

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430954#Comment_430954

I agree that it was not possible for Jesus to have become unclean. There is no mention of any cleansing with regard to Jesus, despite the many 'unclean' situations he encountered, so I think that is sufficient evidence. But I think it's going beyond the evidence to suggest that every contact with Jesus must have led to the other person being cleansed, or healed. In particular that seems to contradict Luke 2:22, which said that Mary needed to be purified after the birth of Jesus. The plural 'their' suggests that Joseph too needed to be purified (see the discussion in Bock).

But if we take that point then we could ask why did Jesus need to be baptised, which BDAG states was, for John's baptism, a means of purification. Did Jesus need to be baptised (that is, to be purified) we would all say no, but he sought it out. When John said, basically, that Jesus did not need to be baptised (Mt 3:13-17) Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”

How I receive this is that Jesus, even though he did not need this requirement, undertook it to follow what was right and acceptable. Like Paul saying that meat offered to idols has no affect on him, and he would eat it, but in a situation where his action would cause a brother or sister to stumble he would not eat. The overriding principle is clear.

Unfortunately could not read the discussion in Bock, I'm Bock-less [:(], if it is not too long (and within license) can you post here?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430967#Comment_430967

But if we take that point then we could ask why did Jesus need to be baptised, which BDAG states was, for John's baptism, a means of purification. Did Jesus need to be baptised (that is, to be purified) we would all say no, but he sought it out. When John said, basically, that Jesus did not need to be baptised (Mt 3:13-17) Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”

I wouldn't trust BDAG to make theological judgement - that's not its job. Nonetheless, BDAG doesn't say it's for 'purification' in relation to Jesus, but specifically 'dedicatory cleansing'. Notice that Jesus was dedicated at the temple, too (and not redeemed as most firstborn were). The dedicatory part of the baptism was important to him. The initiatory part was also important, given that the baptism marked the start of his public ministry.

John's protest obviously makes sense — he was baptising people as a sign of repentance, and Jesus didn't need to repent. But the wider implications of baptism — dedication and initiation — were necessary for Jesus to demonstrate in order that he might do all the things that righteous people do. I would go much further than you and say that this was in order that he had met every requirement of the law (of which total devotion to God was key). I don't believe he was baptised simply because it was 'acceptable', or not to offend others. His baptism also demonstrated that total dedication to God was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit, and to know that God has accepted us.

Unfortunately could not read the discussion in Bock, I'm Bock-less , if it is not too long (and within license) can you post here?

How can one reconcile a plural reference to the law that applied only to women? Numerous suggestions have been made. The first is to suggest that Luke as a Hellenist either erred or was confused about the law (Bultmann 1963: 299; perhaps Schneider 1977a: 71, who says Luke is “not precise”; Fitzmyer 1981: 424). But better solutions exist:

1. It could be argued that Joseph, because he aided in the delivery, was himself made unclean, since according to the Mishnah contact with blood in the delivery made one an “offspring of uncleanness” (Bock 1987: 83–84; Blackman 1977: 6.10–11; m. Nid. 5.1; 2.5; 1.3–5). If this was the case then he would have needed to make such an offering in order to be ready to present the child.

2. An equally plausible explanation is that if the child was dedicated, then both parents would have participated in the dedication, just as Elkanah, the husband, paid Hannah’s vow for Samuel, even though it was the mother’s vow (1 Sam. 1:21). The only problem with this approach is that a vow is not present in Luke. One could, however, argue that only the dedication aspect is parallel.

3. Machen takes a grammatical solution, arguing that αὐτῶν should be taken as a subjective genitive, which refers succinctly to “their participation” in purification. Thus, the word only makes the point that Joseph was included in the process (Machen 1930: 73, as noted also by Schürmann 1969: 121 n. 180). The problem is that this view is vague in explaining how Joseph is involved. Views 1 and 2 are more complete.

4. Others simply say the problem arises from summarization. Luke is combining several events in a short space, and the combination has produced a lack of clarity (Ernst 1977: 114; Schürmann 1969: 122).

There is obviously a compressed account here, but it also seems natural that if the parents were dedicating the child to the Lord, they would want to be ceremonially clean at the time of dedication. Thus, either view 1 (the birth-cleanliness view) or view 2 (the parental-dedication view) could explain the plural reference. The point of the passage should not be missed in the debate: Jesus’ parents are piously following the law by bringing the child before the Lord.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430977#Comment_430977

I would go much further than you and say that this was in order that he had met every requirement of the law (of which total devotion to God was key).

I think we're saying the same thing, and I would go one step further and say "in order that it be shown that he had met every requirement of the law". Meaning if it had only been Jesus and John at the river would there have been the need for Jesus to be baptised? Perhaps he would still have to please the Father. We can't know.

I don't believe he was baptised simply because it was 'acceptable', or not to offend others.

Agreed, what I was saying initially was in the sense of following the law so as not to be a stumbling block.

His baptism also demonstrated that total dedication to God was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit,

But you're not saying though, I hope, that Jesus had to be baptised in order to receive the Holy Spirit?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431010#Comment_431010

I would go much further than you and say that this was in order that he had met every requirement of the law (of which total devotion to God was key).

I think we're saying the same thing, and I would go one step further and say "in order that it be shown that he had met every requirement of the law". Meaning if it had only been Jesus and John at the river would there have been the need for Jesus to be baptised? Perhaps he would still have to please the Father. We can't know.

Despite what I wrote, it wasn't necessary for Jesus to be baptised to fulfil the requirements of the law, because there was no law saying you had to be baptised. It was necessary to fulfil all righteousness, which helps us understand that righteousness is more than doing the minimum the law requires (because that misses the point of what the law is for). Although I accept the importance of demonstrating his righteousness, the demonstration wasn't just for the sake of the Jews on the bank of the Jordan, so I'm not sure their presence created a need.

His baptism also demonstrated that total dedication to God was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit,

But you're not saying though, I hope, that Jesus had to be baptised in order to receive the Holy Spirit?

Correct.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/430954#Comment_430954

But I think it's going beyond the evidence to suggest that every contact with Jesus must have led to the other person being cleansed, or healed. In particular that seems to contradict Luke 2:22, which said that Mary needed to be purified after the birth of Jesus. The plural 'their' suggests that Joseph too needed to be purified (see the discussion in Bock).

There is another possibility that Bock doesn't address. The antecedents of "their" and "they" may not be identical. In other words, "their" might refer to Mary and Jesus, while "they" refers to Mary and Joseph. These kinds of "unannounced" referent switches are not uncommon.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431010#Comment_431010

But you're not saying though, I hope, that Jesus had to be baptised in order to receive the Holy Spirit?

Yeishuu`a, of course, had the Holy Spirit without exception though every moment of His existence, including his pre- and post- incarnate states. The dove thing was for the purpose of manifestion and prophetic declaration.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431051#Comment_431051

There is another possibility that Block doesn't address. The antecedents of "their" and "they" may not be identical. In other words, "their" might refer to Mary and Jesus, while "they" refers to Mary and Joseph. These kinds of "unannounced" referent switches are not uncommon.

He dealt with it briefly in the paragraph prior to the one I posted:

On the first question of whom the plural refers to, Creed (1930: 39) argues that the reference includes Jesus and Mary, because in 2:22–24 the major figures are Jesus and Mary (also Schneider 1977a: 71). But the verse’s syntax suggests that Luke means Mary and Joseph (“they brought him up for their purification”). The most natural way to understand the verse is to see the subject and the third-person pronoun in agreement (Plummer 1896: 63; Fitzmyer 1981: 424).

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431062#Comment_431062

One other suggestion for the thought process of fulfilling all righteousness.

Jesus "sanctified" the waters. He healed the waters just as He healed those He touched/Touched Him.

All creation fell under the curse due to The Fall, in this, the waters are sanctified which opens the doorway to a Different Baptism through water and spirit.

I will leave it there for your meditations and in the effort of not stretching forum guidelines .

Enough to say: The principles and precepts for this/these types of thought are there in scripture and Logos can help with their discovery. ( Hope that gets me out of trouble-smile)

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431062#Comment_431062

The oppression of syntax. The KJV often uses language that an English grammar of 50 years ago would cringe at (btw, there is nothing wrong with ending sentences with prepositions). What is "most natural" is a matter of opinion...and even so, nothing requires following the "most natural" path. I am not agreeing with Bock's assessment of what is "most natural" mainly because until I read this forum thread, it never occurred to me that there was even an issue here. I always assumed ("naturally") that "their" was Mary and Yeishuu`a and "they" was Mary and Joseph.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431072#Comment_431072

Agree with Mark, the purification was for them, not Him.

There is a principle in all these examples.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431072#Comment_431072

One other suggestion for the thought process of fulfilling all righteousness.

Jesus "sanctified" the waters. He healed the waters just as He healed those He touched/Touched Him.

For the sake of clarification, to what are you referring here? Thanks.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431076#Comment_431076

Agree with Mark, the purification was for them, not Him.

There is a principle in all these examples.

Are you suggesting that Yeishuu`a was never unclean?

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431078#Comment_431078

Simply this: Adams fall closed heaven to man, at the baptism of Jesus ( The Last Adam ) the heavens are re-opened.

When Jesus touches a leper, He is not made unclean, instead, the Leper is made clean.Divine cleanliness is transferred to the Leper.

When Jesus touches the dead, He is not made unclean, the dead are given life. The divine cleanses the unclean.

When Jesus is Baptized in the water, it is not to make Him clean, it is to bring the divine to the waters. It is not Christ that is made Holy, but the waters. The Holy Spirit is drawn down upon the waters, The barrier to Heaven is reopened by way of the water and the Spirit through the work of Christ who is about His Fathers business. The last Adam ( 1 Corinthians 15:45 ) reopens that which was closed.

The point is that Jesus has no sin, no un-rightousness, nothing within Himself to atone for. Jesus changes everything, nothing changes Him.

The Principle is simply that Jesus does what He has commanded others to do, and, in doing so, brings the Divine to those things, thus:

Unclean is not transferred to Him, but is made clean by His Divinity.

Death cannot make Him Unclean, death is swallowed up in His Life, it is changed, not Him.

The waters are made Holy by His divinity, they do not cleans Him, He cleanses the waters- sanctifies them and this is part of Baptism from this point forward.

So forth and so on throughout the Scriptures.

There are many references to these principles in Holy Writ and in the Fathers.

It just helps to make sense of difficult passages . One Key I love in these type thoughts is: Behold! I am making all things new.

Blessings of Grace and Peace.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431094#Comment_431094

All these things can be referenced through the differing tools in Logos.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431094#Comment_431094

I'm sorry for not being clearer. When I asked "to what are you referring", I didn't wish for you to expound your thoughts, but rather indicate the verse(s) to which your statements were based...specifically regarding His "sanctifying the waters". Thanks.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431099#Comment_431099

So sorry.

All of them-smile.

Specifically : all the verses mentioned in this thread and, going back to the Exodus as well.

It all of them God, The Lord goes before His people and opens the way for them.

It's simply the principle these point to.

Lepers cleansed/healed.

Dead brought to life, etc. etc.

In all the verses mentioned, Jesus changes the "state" of that which He touches, that which touches Him/He touches, does not change Him.

Sorry for the confusion, please forgive.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431105#Comment_431105

Not to put too fine a point on it (I don't know if that is even possible), but saying "all of them" is to say none of them. I'm concerned that what you are doing is eisegesis. Drawing conclusions that aren't explicit is one thing...that is at times not just acceptable but required. But often the "generalized sense" conclusions that folks generate are quite wrong. I don't have a fundamental disagreement with the general sense of what you are saying, but I'm not sure the details are precise enough. That's why I keep asking for "verses". I have looked for a verse saying "He heals waters"...or its equivalent...and I'm not finding one. I can think of many verses that talk about water and healing in the same context, but not specifically Him healing water.

For the sake of clarification, I'm not poking at you with a stick just to see the reaction. I asked for a verse because if you have one (or more) then I can use those verses to strengthen my understanding of the general discussion topic. Without a specific verse, I don't see how we get beyond "generalized sense", which as I said before, is frequently undependable.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/431136#Comment_431136

Ahh, I see your dilemma .

There is not a verse in scripture that says " And Jesus sanctified the water, or healed the water, just as there are no verses that directly describe the Holy Trinity or tell us how Jesus brought the dead to life, made the lame to walk or turned water into wine.

There are no scriptures that tell us how he entered rooms with closed doors after His resurrection, how it is is was not recognized while walking and talking with men, but is at the breaking of bread, so forth and so on.

Yet, as I described, the "principles are are there and Logos has the many tools to help us see these things and, discover the writings of others who have dealt with difficult Theological concepts. With Logos huge library system, there are a great many things to see and learn, voices to hear. Smile, pretty much 2000 years of Christian teachings and sermons, right at our finger tips.

Again, it was simply intended as food for thoughts within the thread.

Blessings of Grace and Peace to you and yours.