Search on Cleanness/Uncleanness

Paul Chatfield said:

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 ...

Paul Chatfield said:

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 said:

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. said:

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.

Patrick S. said:

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. said:

Mark Barnes said:

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.

Patrick S. said:

Mark Barnes said:

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.

Patrick S. said:

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.

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)

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

There is a principle in all these examples.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:

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?

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

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.

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.