# Was Jesus made unclean by touching lepers?



## JTB.SDG

I'm preaching on Luke 5:12-16 this Sunday night and came across an unexpected note in the ESV study bible; it says on verse 13: “Jesus is not made unclean by touching the leper. Instead, the leper is cleansed by Jesus' touch.”

I always thought it was both/and? In light of Leviticus 14:5-6; the whole of chapter 15, and 22:5-6, can it be a tenable position that Jesus was NOT made unclean by touching the leper? Am I missing something? It seems to me it's a wonderful picture of the truth that to make us clean, Jesus took the sin disease upon himself.


----------



## Bill Duncan

Do you mean ceremonially unclean?


----------



## Bill Duncan

To use this picture of Jesus taking on our sin disease and the contrary idea that Jesus did not become unclean is a space and time issue. Jesus became unclean in the sense that he bore our sins actually when on Calvary in the time between the sixth and ninth hour, when darkness fell on the land, and he called out in lonely desperation. This would be when the great exchange took place.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Bill Duncan said:


> Do you mean ceremonially unclean?


Yes, I mean ceremonially unclean. Did He not become ceremonially unclean when He touched a leper?


----------



## RamistThomist

technically yes, but since he is the source of cleansing it didn't matter. Unclean doesn't always mean sin. Sexual intercourse between married people made them ceremonially unclean, but they didn't sin (pace gnostic tendencies in the early church).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan

JTB.SDG said:


> Yes, I mean ceremonially unclean. Did He not become ceremonially unclean when He touched a leper?


I get your point now. Does seem like he would have been ceremonially unclean.


----------



## JTB.SDG

I'm assuming that's what the ESV note meant, that Jesus did NOT become ceremonially unclean. It seems to me that He did. Just trying to figure out if I'm missing something or if there were two different lines of thought on that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

BayouHuguenot said:


> technically yes, but since he is the source of cleansing it didn't matter. Unclean doesn't always mean sin. Sexual intercourse between married people made them ceremonially unclean, but they didn't sin (pace gnostic tendencies in the early church).



Yes, I agree Jacob. I'm not wrestling with that point particularly, I don't see any problem with Jesus becoming ceremonially unclean yet without sin; but it does seem to me that He does become ceremonially unclean by touching the leper.


----------



## iainduguid

There aren't any texts that I know that directly bear on this. Here's my (rather tentative) take: ceremonial uncleanness is not sin but it does debar someone from the presence of the living God: contact with the realm of death renders them unfit to appear before the one who is life. Yet Jesus is not debarred from God's presence (except when he takes on our sin at the cross). Rather, he is himself the source of life and so uncleanness has no power to stain him as it does us. Rather his life overpowers the symbolic "death" of leprosy. The surprising thing is not that he is not defiled by the contact but that the lepers aren't killed by the touch of the Holy One.

In the larger scheme of things, Jesus takes all of our "death" - including sin and ceremonial uncleanness - onto himself on the cross, on our behalf, much like all those clean people who were involved in preparing the sacrifice of the red heifer in Numbers 19 are made unclean in order that through their labors many other unclean people might be made clean.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Bill Duncan

Calvin: "Christ possesses such purity as to repel all filth and defilement, he does not, by touching, either pollute himself with leprosy, or become a transgressor of the law." However in the eyes of men he would have been unclean, technically, and more to your point. I think?


----------



## Romans922

BayouHuguenot said:


> technically yes,



Woah there! I know where you are going and others who agree with what you are saying (so I'm not just talking to Jacob here), but that is very dangerous. If Jesus technically was ceremonially unclean then He sinned! We know of course that Christ is completely without sin. 

We aren't trying to find the balance of something here, if that's the goal. Technically as Scripture says, "He was tempted in every way, yet without sin."

Therefore, technically Christ was not ceremonially unclean by touching the leper according to Scripture. He, being the God-man, immediately upon touching the leper made the leper (once-leper) clean. It was Christ's choice to touch the man. If it would technically make him unclean, that decision would be sinful too. It was not. Jesus did not move away from the unclean man as all under the ceremonial law would do, because He is the God-man He went toward the man to make him clean. That's the lesson for us, that if believe in faith that Christ can heal us and ask Him for it, He will come towards us and do so. That's what Matthew Henry teaches.

Now that I see Calvin's quote by Bill, that's exactly where all of us should be on this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan

Jon, you always come up with great stuff. I love PB. I think I'm an addict!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

Romans922 said:


> Woah there! I know where you are going and others who agree with what you are saying (so I'm not just talking to Jacob here), but that is very dangerous. If Jesus technically was ceremonially unclean then He sinned! We know of course that Christ is completely without sin.
> 
> We aren't trying to find the balance of something here, if that's the goal. Technically as Scripture says, "He was tempted in every way, yet without sin."
> 
> Therefore, technically Christ was not ceremonially unclean by touching the leper according to Scripture. He, being the God-man, immediately upon touching the leper made the leper (once-leper) clean. It was Christ's choice to touch the man. If it would technically make him unclean, that decision would be sinful too. It was not. Jesus did not move away from the unclean man as all under the ceremonial law would do, because He is the God-man He went toward the man to make him clean. That's the lesson for us, that if believe in faith that Christ can heal us and ask Him for it, He will come towards us and do so. That's what Matthew Henry teaches.
> 
> Now that I see Calvin's quote by Bill, that's exactly where all of us should be on this.


I appreciate what you're wanting to guard against, but as I see it, ceremonial
uncleanliness wasn't properly sin; it was a picture of sin.

And how would you interpret those passages from Leviticus? Seem pretty clear to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Please help me understand how you would read and interpret those texts.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

JTB.SDG said:


> I appreciate what you're wanting to guard against, but as I see it, ceremonial
> uncleanliness wasn't properly sin; it was a picture of sin.


If I may,
The failure to distinguish between sin and the effect of sin: corruption and death, is to err along with the Pharisees and all the others who looked down upon possibly the majority of Jews whose very livelihoods made them unclean, more often than not. E.g. shepherds, tanners, women...

Ceremonial uncleanness is (as Dr.Duguid helpfully noted already) a picture of _corruption _and _death._ Are corruption and death tied inextricably to sin? Yes, of course. But sin leads to death; it is not death itself, although one may make a different and honest rhetorical and theologically refined statement by speaking in that way.

100% cleanness, all the time, every day, all day, was not typical of an ancient Israelite. Corruption came from all sides. Some was completely unavoidable. If we say uncleanness was a picture of sin, rather than its effect; the natural conclusion is some sins are unavoidable, even necessary.

Those who were "untouchable" in Israel deserved pity, not scorn or disgust. They were very visible and exemplars of the worst cases. The reality was that inside all the Israelites was the sin that brought death. ALL of them were carriers of the disease; but some were (sadly) more obviously contagious. They were the polar opposite picture from the priests.



JTB.SDG said:


> And how would you interpret those passages from Leviticus? Seem pretty clear to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Please help me understand how you would read and interpret those texts.


The issue of uncleanness in Israelite life was that it was difficult to maintain, generally speaking, and that by design. The priestly class was set apart to an extra level of ceremonial purity, the high priest even more so. Their temple service was not going to bring them into ordinary (certainly not extraordinary) corruption, but rather insulated them. If someone was affected by uncleanness from this class, it was very important that he be brought back to an estate of usefulness as soon as possible.

The ordinary Israelite, if he was unclean, also could not participate in the regular religious life of ceremony. He had to purge the _effect of sin_, that death and corruption away, so as to appear before the Lord in a purified state. To look at him as clean was to approve of him, outwardly speaking. No detectable taint.

As for the Lord, he maintained his ceremonial purity as far as an ordinary Israelite would, and possibly better than most, since he was not actively engaged in occupations that made it more likely, he was not married, etc. He was clean _for us, _that is for others around him. He would no doubt have used the legal ceremonies to purify himself for the sake of those who observed him, both as an example and as someone they hoped to catch in "defiance" of the law.

But Jesus proved that if he wished, he could not only touch an "untouchable," but that his touch contracted nothing contagious. That it did not was demonstrable in the contrary effect: the elimination of the disease. His virtue "flowed out" (as when the unclean woman touched him). It was impossible for death to have any intrinsic power over Jesus. Therefore, in his unique case it was actually unnecessary for him to treat the symptoms (effects) of sin, since he had none. But he kept the feasts and other rites for the sake of the law's integrity, and for the nation.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## timfost

I don't think that we can say for Jesus to be ceremonially unclean makes Him a sinner. 

When one touched a leper without the power to heal, the leper's plight contaminated. In contrast, Jesus had the power to heal. The fruit of the miracle in many ways made the leper _ceremonially clean_ through which he would be able to show himself to the priest and be pronounced as such in due process. In other words, such contact that previously made unclean demonstrated the power of sin, contrasted to contact with Christ who had power _over_ sin.

I think the miracle demonstrated that Christ had the power to reverse the picture of the curse showing that He was the One who could not only reverse the picture but the substance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans922 said:


> oah there! I know where you are going and others who agree with what you are saying (so I'm not just talking to Jacob here), but that is very dangerous. If Jesus technically was ceremonially unclean then He sinned!



When a married couple had sex, did they sin?

Did a woman sin when she had her period?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover

JTB.SDG said:


> Yes, I agree Jacob. I'm not wrestling with that point particularly, I don't see any problem with Jesus becoming ceremonially unclean yet without sin; but it does seem to me that He does become ceremonially unclean by touching the leper.



Keep in mind that those passages in Leviticus are referring to ordinary, mortal human beings. Jesus, being also God, doesn't fit that category.


----------



## Charles Johnson

Christ did not any more sin in becoming unclean by touching a leper than he did in taking the sins of the world upon himself. I would tend to think that a double imputation, of Christ's cleanness to the leper and the leper's uncleanness to Christ, is the natural reading. in my opinion to say the law applies differently to Christ comes with a lot of theological problems.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Charles Johnson said:


> in my opinion to say the law applies differently to Christ comes with a lot of theological problems


Did Jesus need to be baptized by John "for repentance and the forgiveness of sins," or "to fulfill all righteousness?" For, as John knew, he was the one needing baptism by Jesus, and not the other way around. The point is: the two reasons are not the same, and the law did not apply to Christ in the same way.

In Mt.17:24-27, Jesus clearly applies a different standard to himself (as a son) than to other Israelites (he compares to strangers). He reasons in v27 that he will follow the law as it applied to the general population, "lest we offend them," and _*not *_because he recognizes a single standard that also applies to him.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Charles Johnson said:


> Christ did not any more sin in becoming unclean by touching a leper than he did in taking the sins of the world upon himself. I would tend to think that a double imputation, of Christ's cleanness to the leper and the leper's uncleanness to Christ, is the natural reading. in my opinion to say the law applies differently to Christ comes with a lot of theological problems.


I would tend to agree with this. Jesus was (and is) fully God but also fully man.

By this logic of: It would have made others ceremonially unclean, but not Jesus, couldn't you say: Jesus could have given in to the temptation to worship before Satan, but since He was the Son of God it wouldn't be/couldn't really be sin?

Anyway, the main point was to edify. Maybe saying something akin to: "It seems that when Jesus did this, it even made him ceremonially unclean" would be a pretty safe thing. And to draw the comparison of a picture of what he would do on the cross when to bring us cleansing He himself took on our sin (by imputation).


----------



## Charles Johnson

Contra_Mundum said:


> Did Jesus need to be baptized by John "for repentance and the forgiveness of sins," or "to fulfill all righteousness?" For, as John knew, he was the one needing baptism by Jesus, and not the other way around. The point is: the two reasons are not the same, and the law did not apply to Christ in the same way.
> 
> In Mt.17:24-27, Jesus clearly applies a different standard to himself (as a son) than to other Israelites (he compares to strangers). He reasons in v27 that he will follow the law as it applied to the general population, "lest we offend them," and _*not *_because he recognizes a single standard that also applies to him.



My bad Rev. Buchanan, I should have been more precise in my language. What I mean is that the idea of the law applying to Christ differently _in the sense of him being exempt from its requirements where other Israelites were not_ comes with theological problems. The problems I have in mind are the following:
1. Christ cannot be said to be truly man if he is exemptable from the moral law.
2. Christ cannot be said to have fulfilled the moral/natural law on our behalf if at any point he was exempt from it.
And I'm less sure of this one, but I'll put it out there for the sake of discussion:
3. Christ cannot be said to fulfill the ceremonial law if he was not subject to it.

I hope that with this clarification, it is clear that the statement of Christ to John the Baptist does not contradict my intended meaning. 
Regarding the second passage you quote, I think you raise a reasonable objection and I'm still ruminating on the implications of this passage.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan

Wasn't Jesus statement to John "for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness", related to this event being his cleansing for his entrance into the priesthood? Wasn't this an anointing ceremony?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

Bill Duncan said:


> Wasn't Jesus statement to John "for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness", related to this event being his cleansing for his entrance into the priesthood? Wasn't this an anointing ceremony?



I see it as a normal New Covenant baptism based on what I've read from Beza and John Brown of Haddington on the subject, in which case it would be the cleansing for the priesthood in the same way as baptism is ordinarily a sacrament of washing for entrance into the priesthood of believers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Charles Johnson said:


> 1. Christ cannot be said to be truly man if he is exemptable from the moral law.
> 2. Christ cannot be said to have fulfilled the moral/natural law on our behalf if at any point he was exempt from it.
> And I'm less sure of this one, but I'll put it out there for the sake of discussion:
> 3. Christ cannot be said to fulfill the ceremonial law if he was not subject to it.


1. The moral law is not the law-division being discussed, but the ceremonial--in particular, the matter of _ceremonial _cleanness.

2. Christ did fulfill the moral law, which is the law we confess he was subject to, per WCF 19:1-2.

3. I would argue that
a) Christ was not _subject to the ceremonial law, _not at all in the same way as the ordinary Israelite, but
b) ordinarily subjected himself to it's ordinances in the course of his earthly ministry for the good of the public.

He was subject to it in all outward respects, so long as he waited on his entry into his mediatorial office. In the same way he was "subject to" his parents, Lk.2:51. In my judgment, the vv already adduced amply demonstrate that he did not view his office as being reduced under the very things over which his office made him, to order and establish (or amend or abolish). See also Jn.7:8-10.

He was not subject to the ceremonies in order to fulfill them, because he is greater than Moses. Moses works for Jesus, and not the other way around. All the ceremonies were serving him; he did not serve the ceremonies. Obedience to the ceremonies was the way in which his subjects served him especially before his arrival, but also in his presence until he made adjustments to them. Jesus is free to change the ceremonies, _as he did in fact do during the conduct of his ministry, _Mk.7:19. No one having such power as that can be said to be under such things.

Further instances include: Jesus exempting his disciples from any condemnation respecting even the manner in which the Sabbath was observed (not the 4th commandment per se) on the basis of his own authorization, Mk.2:23-28; by which he asserts his superior right over that of the scribes, Pharisees, the Sanhedrin; and even the Levitical priesthood.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson

Contra_Mundum said:


> Further instances include: Jesus exempting his disciples from any condemnation respecting even the manner in which the Sabbath was observed (not the 4th commandment per se) on the basis of his own authorization, Mk.2:23-28; by which he asserts his superior right over that of the scribes, Pharisees, the Sanhedrin; and even the Levitical priesthood.


I'm sure you're aware that many reliable commentators view this as an act of necessity and therefore believe that it didn't in principle violate any rules of the Sabbath, and that moreover, any believer an identical circumstance could have taken the same course of action of gleaning wheat on the Sabbath day, and that many reliable commentators view Mark 7:18-19 as an explication of the law of Moses and not constituting any actual change.
I suspect underlying differences on covenant theology and differing views on the mediatorial office/roles of Christ contribute to our differing views on the relationship of Christ to the ceremonial law.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Speaking of the authority of the scribes, Pharisees, Sanhedrin, and priests, I had in mind this text:

Mt.23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees *sit in Moses’ seat*. 3 *Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do*, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."​
In other words, Jesus affirms it did fall within the realm of the OC sphere of authority for admitted leadership to police the _manner_ in which Israel was instructed in how to conform to the Law, e.g. of the Sabbath.

Jesus' authority was superior to theirs, by virtue of his office--an office which these same also denied he held. Yet, the Son of Man is the Lord even of the Sabbath. So, what he frees men from, they are free. Not simply or only because he was recovering a proper Sabbath regard.

That the disciples might have regarded their hunger as a sufficient "need," and so justified _themselves _(and been vindicated by Christ) is beside the point that Jesus makes in the text as to HIM justifying himself (and them) in this thing. Mt.12:5-6 go further, in explicating the teaching.

"5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple *profane *the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is _One_ greater than the temple."​
It is not simply that the priests are blameless because they are leading in worship. The argument that we may/must do the worship-work of the Sabbath is fine and sound, but that is not the reasoning tack Jesus takes, particularly as it applies to him.

The use of the word βεβηλοῦσιν (profane) turns the argument into an a fortiori. Those priests who are *δοῦλοι *to the Temple regs *profane *the Sabbath (this is not merely teaching rhetoric/hyperbole); yet they are blameless. Servants to the Temple are not greater than the Temple, nor the Sabbath.

Ergo, if the Son were to upend every regulation of the Sabbath and Temple, or even change the day on which the Sabbath was observed--a maximally significant profanation--he would be guiltless. Because he's the Son of Man, and he's *greater than* the Temple. If you are greater than, then you are not subject to.

Christ is not merely Lord of these things after he has risen from the dead, or ascended to heaven. He is Lord of those things when he declares them so. When he chooses to institute his changes or adjustments is a matter of his wisdom, not his finally having the freedom to do as he likes.



> Calvin on Mt.12 (and Mk.2; etc. in Harmony of the Gospels)
> 8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Some connect this sentence with a preceding statement, that one greater than the temple is in this place, (ver. 6; ) but I look upon them as different. In the former case, Christ, by an allusion to the temple, affirmed that whatever was connected with his personal holiness was not a transgression of the Law; but now, he declares that he has received authority to exempt his followers from the necessity of observing the Sabbath. *The Son of man,* (he says,) _*in the exercise of his authority, can relax the Sabbath in the same manner as other legal ceremonies*._ And certainly out of Christ the bondage of the Law is wretched, from which he alone delivers those on whom he bestows the free Spirit of adoption,




[As to possible differences on the subjects of CT or Christ's office, I have no idea. The above are textual and exegetical arguments, which (so far as I see) do not disturb CT, and robustly defend the Office.]

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Bill Duncan

Is there significance, relating to the ceremonial law, that Jesus was of a different order of priests? Does his order change the ceremony? Heb. 7:27-28 and Heb. 8


----------



## Jack K

JTB.SDG said:


> It seems to me it's a wonderful picture of the truth that to make us clean, Jesus took the sin disease upon himself.



Amen! What a glorious truth, that Jesus took our sin and uncleanness upon himself to make us clean! Very biblical indeed.

But, as has been pointed out, to take that point from this particular passage/incident is probably a wrong reading. Great point, wrong place to get it. Happens all the time.


----------



## terry43

Just one question on this.. Did not Jesus have to keep ALL the Levitical law perfectly ? Would that not include the ceremonial law as well??


----------



## Contra_Mundum

terry43 said:


> Just one question on this.. Did not Jesus have to keep ALL the Levitical law perfectly ? Would that not include the ceremonial law as well??


I think that's one side's contention here; but I would not agree. At least, I don't believe Jesus had the same _duty_ to keep those regulations as someone who was not the Christ would. I do believe that he did keep them, invariably, especially as he was trained in them as a child, and would have internalized much of the Jewish "yoke" in his natural constitution. He kept them, unless he had a _wisdom purpose _in changing them, and overturning them.

As a child, then as a man until his ministry as Christ was inaugurated at his baptism, he existed under natural pedagogues. He was as a "king under age," and so had a certain wise regard for the rules of the people. Those rules had as their purpose _exhibiting the people's hope in the One coming to fulfill _all that those ceremonies proclaimed. Fulfilling them is not "doing them all perfectly," but rather is living out their meaning in fullness and perfection. Jesus doesn't have to KEEP the Passover, as much as he is destined to BE the Passover.

Jesus is OVER all those ceremonies. He is NOT--and I mean particularly as the inaugurated Christ--UNDER them. This is Calvin's meaning when he says that Christ _instituted changes _to the Sabbath, as one who was greater than the Temple and Lord of the Sabbath. Did Jesus dutifully attend Passovers, from the time he was 13yrs old? Yes, as one who lived out the 5th commandment, he did. But was he subject to those rules in the same way that others were, who needed HIM to BE their Passover Lamb? No, not at all.

Jesus did not _flout _the mores of the Jewish nation. He, after all, gave the Jews the Law on Mt.Sinai (as the Word, the Revealing God). He it was who made these rules and gave them to Israel to teach them of his coming and his real WORK on their behalf. Again, for an ordinary citizen of Israel to obey in these things was an exhibit of the hope he had in the Messiah on his way. Is Jesus hoping in his own saving work, that he will show Himself submissive to Himself when He arrives? That's actually quite incoherent.

So, Jesus wisely kept the ceremonial law to a reasonable--even a high--degree even after he was inaugurated into his ministry. But we have to recognize _why _he kept it so. It was not because he needed such excellence to prove anything. Nor to exemplify it. That would be tantamount to saying that he was UNDER, and NOT OVER it. He did it to fulfill all righteousness. He did it because he was not a revolutionary, intent on a tumultuous overturning of the old order. He did it for love of the people who would see in him something more than just a dutiful servant of Moses, but he whom Moses served.

And, he was not above resetting, repurposing, and even rejecting all ceremonies that no longer had any ongoing function of predicting his arrival and work. He did so on occasion because it was in his judicious interest to do it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## jw

JTB.SDG said:


> Was Jesus made unclean by touching lepers?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## deleteduser99

@Joshua

I logged into this thread because my wife was considering getting on PuritanBoard. I opened this thread as an example of the superiority of PuritanBoard over Facebook with its slower but deeper and wonderfully more edifying discussion.

And what do we see? A cat meme! Too funny!

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## jw

PB > FB

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bill Duncan

Joshua said:


> PB > FB


Yeah. I think I am a hypocrite. This is my Social Media addiction.


----------



## ZackF

Joshua even bathed for this thread @Harley


----------



## JTB.SDG

Jack K said:


> Amen! What a glorious truth, that Jesus took our sin and uncleanness upon himself to make us clean! Very biblical indeed.
> 
> But, as has been pointed out, to take that point from this particular passage/incident is probably a wrong reading. Great point, wrong place to get it. Happens all the time.


Jack, and others, very much appreciate your engagement and thoughts. I think on this one though, I guess I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. The passages I cited earlier (from Leviticus) make it clear that for any man to touch another man with leprosy makes him ceremonially unclean. I don't think Jesus is somehow exempted because He is the Son of God, in a similar way that I wouldn't see Him exempted from getting hungry or tired because He is the Son of God. Since He is fully God but also fully man. And I don't see any other passages in Scripture that would lead me to come to the conclusion that Jesus was any different in this respect; IE, that being the Son of God made Him automatically immune from becoming ceremonially unclean.

Also, if the healings/cleansings are indeed a picture of Christ's saving work, it makes a lot of sense to me that Jesus voluntarily subjected himself to become ceremonially unclean by touching the leper, as a picture of the truth that to save us, He himself bore our sins. Also, in Matthew 8:17, Jesus' healings are said to be the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4, that "He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases." Seems to me the same principle would apply to those He touched who were ceremonially unclean. Again, I don't see being ceremonially unclean as inherently something as sinful; if I did I would think otherwise about this. I see it as again, being a picture of sin. I know Ryken takes another view, but Bock takes this view (see his Volume 1 on Luke, pp464-65; he mentions it twice). So it seems to me both views are tenable. I hold this view loosely and, who knows, maybe I'll become convinced otherwise at a later time, but just for clarity sake wanted to let y'all know where I ended up coming down on it. Thanks again for all the helpful feedback.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

It seems that there is a somewhat unhelpful separation in this thread between Christ's relationship to the ceremonial law as completely separate from the moral law. The opposite is also true. Let me try to explain.

One camp is inferring that to be ceremonially unclean is the same as morally unclean. This makes natural functions of the body separate from the will sinful, such as a woman menstruating or having a baby. Indeed, Mary was unclean after Jesus' birth while she nursed Him. Since actual sin necessitates the will, ceremonial uncleanness does not itself necessitate the breach of a moral code unless we make our argument from the guilt of sin (original sin, which didn't apply to Christ anyway).

On the flip side, for Jesus not to follow the ceremonial law would be a breach of the moral law, specifically breaking the fifth commandment since God laid this on His people. For Him to fulfill all righteousness, He must have kept the 5C perfectly.

Finally, I believe His disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath would not have been a breach of either the moral or ceremonial law, but the tradition of the Pharisees.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

timfost said:


> On the flip side, for Jesus not to follow the ceremonial law would be a breach of the moral law, specifically breaking the fifth commandment since God laid this on His people. For Him to fulfill all righteousness, He must have kept the 5C perfectly.


Does this stipulation (in your judgment) apply to Jesus once he has entered into his role as Christ? Once he is the publicly revealed Lord of the Sabbath, and greater than the Temple?

It is important to think this through. At some discernible level, Jesus Christ must demonstrate that not only is he above the directions of the lesser, temporal authorities who must bow their knee to him, and whose legal powers are subject to his review; he also needs to demonstrate that MOSES bows the knee to him.

Because Moses is not responsible for promulgating (mediating) the moral law--not only does it precede Sinai, it is the literal Voice of God from the mountain top that thunders those ten words--we may therefore say that Jesus' constant and unfailing obedience to it as a man never once deviated (even if it had different expressions according to his ages and stations). He did not obey the moral law _strictly_ as it was found in the Sinai-code; but as it was the moral law, and part of the Sinai-code.

So, Moses continues to rule Israel for fifteen centuries, through the Law, particularly the judicial and ceremonial laws of the nation. Jesus _dutifully _(in conformity to the 5C), and also _wisely _(and more the latter than the former as time went on) followed the judicial and ceremonial law from childhood until he was 30yrs of age, at the very least. But to be clear: he does not do this for the same reason that every other man subject to it does it.

As a man, Jesus was subject to the moral law that binds all mankind--Jews and Gentiles alike. As a Jew, and a man under age, Jesus was subject to the judicial and ceremonial law, as the heir "does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all," Gal.4:1. But something happens when Jesus takes up his Anointed role. He takes on his title of Master, and Moses bends the knee.

We see Jesus as Christ participating in the religious life of the Jews. Jesus did not casually toss Moses aside, once he took on his Lordship. But, if you argue that the Lord Jesus _dutifully_ followed all the ceremonies just an ordinary Jew subject to Moses would, then the "Lord" is not the Lord; but Moses is Lord.

A child who is emancipated is not bound to every dictate of his parents, as he once was. Jesus did not obey his mother on more than one occasion recorded in the Gospels, Mt.12:46-50; Jn.2:4. Why? Because his mother was required to bow her knee to Jesus, as was his (great-grand)father David, Ps.110:1 & Mt.22:41-46.

The Lord Jesus Christ, before he took his titles, did what was required of him _for our sake _by complying and conforming to the judicial and ceremonial law. He kept all that for us, Gal.4:4-5, not merely in the simple sense of the 10C, but as a Jew with all the extra duties of a Jew. If "fulfill all righteousness" does imply that Jesus obeyed (not simply embodied) in every conceivable way the Jewish ceremonies, then he did all he had to do _for our sake _prior to his baptism/anointing.

But Jesus as Lord and Christ has the prerogatives of a Lord! Even the LORD, so great is his authority! He began to demonstrate that authority immediately. He did not curry favor with the present crop of Jewish leaders, and gather a coalition of powerful political partners. No, he put those cats in their place; they saw what was coming (he would take away their place) and didn't like it, Jn.11:48. He chose his own fresh set of ministers, a whole new cabinet for a whole new order.

He did abolish the traditions of the Pharisees. He did return the Sabbath to the people for their delight, as opposed to their chore. That was the moral law restored to its glory. But he did not owe them their taxes, even according to the Law. He did not owe a single sacrifice (even as a child or a young man). The Day of Atonement did absolutely nothing to restore his relationship with his Father; it was never in any danger. He had no native corruption of body or soul.

Jesus as Lord makes laws for others; he does not conform to a "higher" law. The moral law was in fact a mirror of his own (human) soul, unsullied, unfallen, like Adam before catastrophe. The moral law was the very constitution of the Man, Christ Jesus; and He no more would violate it than God would deny His own (divine) nature. Moses' law is something else, something lesser that the office of Christ.

It is no slight matter, this of which I'm calling for our reasoning together. Whatever we need of Jesus' obedience under the ceremonies and judicials of Judaism, we have from his days without title--30yrs at least. But when Jesus takes his titles, he is no more subject to Moses than a child is subject to his parents when he is 30yrs old, and master of his own household.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## timfost

Contra_Mundum said:


> Does this stipulation (in your judgment) apply to Jesus once he has entered into his role as Christ? Once he is the publicly revealed Lord of the Sabbath, and greater than the Temple?
> 
> It is important to think this through. At some discernible level, Jesus Christ must demonstrate that not only is he above the directions of the lesser, temporal authorities who must bow their knee to him, and whose legal powers are subject to his review; he also needs to demonstrate that MOSES bows the knee to him.
> 
> Because Moses is not responsible for promulgating (mediating) the moral law--not only does it precede Sinai, it is the literal Voice of God from the mountain top that thunders those ten words--we may therefore say that Jesus' constant and unfailing obedience to it as a man never once deviated (even if it had different expressions according to his ages and stations). He did not obey the moral law _strictly_ as it was found in the Sinai-code; but as it was the moral law, and part of the Sinai-code.
> 
> So, Moses continues to rule Israel for fifteen centuries, through the Law, particularly the judicial and ceremonial laws of the nation. Jesus _dutifully _(in conformity to the 5C), and also _wisely _(and more the latter than the former as time went on) followed the judicial and ceremonial law from childhood until he was 30yrs of age, at the very least. But to be clear: he does not do this for the same reason that every other man subject to it does it.
> 
> As a man, Jesus was subject to the moral law that binds all mankind--Jews and Gentiles alike. As a Jew, and a man under age, Jesus was subject to the judicial and ceremonial law, as the heir "does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all," Gal.4:1. But something happens when Jesus takes up his Anointed role. He takes on his title of Master, and Moses bends the knee.
> 
> We see Jesus as Christ participating in the religious life of the Jews. Jesus did not casually toss Moses aside, once he took on his Lordship. But, if you argue that the Lord Jesus _dutifully_ followed all the ceremonies just an ordinary Jew subject to Moses would, then the "Lord" is not the Lord; but Moses is Lord.
> 
> A child who is emancipated is not bound to every dictate of his parents, as he once was. Jesus did not obey his mother on more than one occasion recorded in the Gospels, Mt.12:46-50; Jn.2:4. Why? Because his mother was required to bow her knee to Jesus, as was his (grand)father David, Ps.110:1 & Mt.22:41-46.
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ, before he took his titles, did what was required of him _for our sake _by complying and conforming to the judicial and ceremonial law. He kept all that for us, Gal.4:4-5, not merely in the simple sense of the 10C, but as a Jew with all the extra duties of a Jew. If "fulfill all righteousness" does imply that Jesus obeyed (not simply embodied) in every conceivable way the Jewish ceremonies, then he did all he had to do _for our sake _prior to his baptism/anointing.
> 
> But Jesus as Lord and Christ has the prerogatives of a Lord! Even the LORD, so great is his authority! He began to demonstrate that authority immediately. He did not curry favor with the present crop of Jewish leaders, and gather a coalition of powerful political partners. No, he put those cats in their place; they saw what was coming (he would take away their place) and didn't like it, Jn.11:48. He chose his own fresh set of ministers, a whole new cabinet for a whole new order.
> 
> He did abolish the traditions of the Pharisees. He did return the Sabbath to the people for their delight, as opposed to their chore. That was the moral law restored to its glory. But he did not owe them their taxes, even according to the Law. He did not owe a single sacrifice (even as a child or a young man). The Day of Atonement did absolutely nothing to restore his relationship with his Father; it was never in any danger. He had no native corruption of body or soul.
> 
> Jesus as Lord makes laws for others; he does not conform to a "higher" law. The moral law was in fact a mirror of his own (human) soul, unsullied, unfallen, like Adam before catastrophe. The moral law was the very constitution of the Man, Christ Jesus; and He no more would violate it than God would deny His own (divine) nature. Moses' law is something else, something lesser that the office of Christ.
> 
> It is no slight matter, this of which I'm calling for our reasoning together. Whatever we need of Jesus' obedience under the ceremonies and judicials of Judaism, we have from his days without title--30yrs at least. But when Jesus takes his titles, he is no more subject to Moses than a child is subject to his parents when he is 30yrs old, and master of his own household.



Bruce,

I think we are mostly in agreement. Certainly His anointing came with the responsibility to undue Moses' law as you rightfully state. This was His prerogative as Lord. 

Here is where I'm a little hung up-- perhaps it's only my own lack of understanding.

1. The ceremonies were not formally abrogated until the veil in the temple was torn, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, the ceremonial law was still to some degree in effect.

2. Prior to His baptism, He would have been under the ceremonial law, being willfully submitted in obedience to the moral law which calls for obedience to authority. He was not at this time exercising Lordship in abrogating the ceremonial law. Since it was still in effect, He would have submitted until the proper time.

3. His proximity to Mary as a baby would have rendered Him ceremonially unclean for forty or so days (Lev. 12). Am I misunderstand the passage?

Some conclusions: it would seem Jesus was not immuned from ceremonial uncleanness at all points in His life. He obeyed to fulfill all righteousness, not because He was not Lord.

Again, I still don't think that touching the leper would have made Him unclean, in part because He was starting the _process_ of undoing Moses, partly because the leper was no longer a leper when He touched him.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

timfost said:


> 1. The ceremonies were not formally abrogated until the veil in the temple was torn, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, the ceremonial law was still to some degree in effect.


This is fairly well put. However, we need to distinguish between what is functionally the case in the *person *of the Lord Jesus, and what is formally the case in the *kingdom *of the Lord Jesus.



timfost said:


> 2. Prior to His baptism, He would have been under the ceremonial law, being willfully submitted in obedience to the moral law which calls for obedience to authority. He was not at this time exercising Lordship in abrogating the ceremonial law. Since it was still in effect, He would have submitted until the proper time.


I indicated above how Jesus does not take out his red pen, and begin wholesale revisions and cancellations of Jewish law and culture. This is aptly reflected in his own words, "I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill," Mt.5:17. He said this (presumably) in response to the accusation (real or theoretical) that he was a revolutionary. There would not one jot or tittle of the Law be moved until all was accomplished, v18. Christ Jesus has no desire to destabilize the social context supporting his atoning work, or distract from the very text through which he is to be recognized by the people by unwise, injudicious cancellations.

But none of that waiting for the time of his rending of the veil implies that he sees himself as continuing bound under the authority of his own steward, Moses, when once he has been baptized. When Jesus follows the protocol that has been in place for long ages, he does not do it because he lacks the freedom to change it; or because he fears facing his own rebellion from those who love it more than they love him. Some kings don't want to risk losing their thrones (and heads) for contravening an order that is greater than themselves; but those rules do not apply to the King of kings.

Christ during his earthly ministry makes no judgments respecting temporal things (e.g. Lk.12:14), but constrains himself to judgments respecting that moral law, the violation of which has made his saving work a necessity for his people; the keeping of which is required for citizenship in his kingdom (Mt.5:19). He leaves even his own disciples under the restraint both of Jewish rule and Roman rule, other than when he authorizes them to act or speak in his name, and such work would require them to dictate his will to otherwise higher-authority (to themselves).

But the Lord has his own recognizance, which he may impose or release on himself--and no other person living or dead has that. Who taught Moses the ceremonies of the Old Covenant? The LORD, who is identifiable with God the Son. He did not give them as though they were exhibits of the eternal Verity, a reflection of divine perfection and order; which then, he would most naturally and easily adhere to no less than he did the moral law--a kind of reflex action. Rather, as a man he _learned _that obedience, as he also _learned _suffering (Heb.5:8); which was also important for his being a merciful and faithful high priest, Heb.2:17. By contrast, his moral obedience was reflexive.

There is no law, no court to which King Jesus may be properly remanded. His word is law. The court which judged him, and condemned him, had no legitimate authority to do so, Lk.22:67-68. And he told them as much, promising to return and hold them all in contempt, Mt.26:64. What was the issue they finally settled on, as the basis of their charge? That he claimed to be greater than the Temple, Mt.26:61. Every last Israelite was subject to the Temple, that was just a "given;" even the high priest was a servant. But Jesus said otherwise about himself.



timfost said:


> 3. His proximity to Mary as a baby would have rendered Him ceremonially unclean for forty or so days (Lev. 12). Am I misunderstand the passage?


I don't ascertain the connection of this point (3) to those above. Would the baby Jesus be considered "unclean" at certain times, places, or conditions? Definitely, from an observer's standpoint. He would be outside the covenant community if he was not circumcised, and considered unclean on that account. Not that his actual condition would have been so, since he was sinless--not even conceived in sin. But he would have been considered so, and quite reasonably.

And indeed, from contacting his mother in her impurity he would also have been considered unclean (but not so much as to lose his distinction as a "clean Israelite" due to his circumcision). But then, all Jewish children would be assumed to be not-clean-enough to join the rituals of the people; because to assume otherwise would be unsafe for both them and the community.

So, there is no reason to think that because Jesus was incorruptible (and thus internally and uniquely in a state that outward cleanness was meant to idealize for everyone else) that he would be regarded any differently from other children. Formally speaking: just as circumcision indicated his formal purification, Jesus' contact with his ceremonially impure mother indicated a formal impurity on that account. We could argue (not that I recommend it) that invisibly, his incorruptible quality somehow transmitted to her a true state of cleanness--but not before the eyes of men. And so, she went to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifices for purification, Lk.2:22-24.

Prior to his presentation at the Jordan for baptism, Jesus was incognito. He did not miraculously heal his mother of her parturition bloody-impurity. Jesus operated under all the rules of purification (such as circumcision) that any ordinary Israelite did for centuries before his birth. In formal sense, he would be regarded as clean or unclean by those rules and expectations. He would keep himself pure as needed for participation in the religious rites of the people. To do otherwise would be scandalous. And we know he was an observant Jew; so he maintained the ceremonies. He even maintained them, so far as was prudent, after he was baptized.

But his inherent cleanness flowed from him once he was invested in office. This is evident in all his healings, not just of the lepers. Those were just the most blatant. The healing of the woman who had the 7yrs flow of blood is another obvious instance where her uncleanness did not attach to him. "Virtue flowed" from Jesus, and changed her. Her healing is the refutation of any charge that her defilement flowed to him, or had any negative effect on him. This is proof that Jesus is different from anyone else--not in virtue of his humanity, for that must be exactly like ours. But where ordinary men do not repel contamination, but must always be purging the stains of their appearance (though their inward constitution remains evil), Jesus does not have such attraction.

Perhaps here, I might offer a concession to those who appreciate the "double imputation" motif. If Jesus takes the leper's uncleanness, and adopts it as if it did flow to him; but not by some LAW of attraction, not by some demand of Moses or of nature--if we say that Jesus took the lameness and the blindness and the fits and the leprosy, all of that and more; and in some manner stored "all our diseases" (Ps.103:3) and "bore all our sicknesses" (Is.53:4) literally to his account; then yes, you might say he did relieve the leper and the bloody-woman of their taints and hold on to them. However, the fact that the leprosy and the lameness etc. did not appear on him and visibly corrupt him, is the very lack of evidence of that corruption which it is the task of ceremonial uncleanness to bring out into the open (so it might be visibly dealt with).

Healing for Jesus isn't a "trade off," in that sense. The Great Physician didn't have to "pay a price" (as in some magical traditions) in his own body for granting wholeness to someone else. He simply banished the evil, as he banished demons. He did not become possessed by Satan when he relieved the possessed of their oppressors. There is a deferred aspect to our Savior's taking on the wrath of God against our sins, when they are laded on him as the Lamb of God. That takes place in the lead-up to the crucifixion, perhaps in the context of Jn.12:27-28; certainly by the night of Gethsemane, and obviously on the cross. That is when the account is emptied, and the Christ suffers outcast for uncleanness in our place.


----------



## Jack K

Westminster tells us that the ceremonial law contains "typical ordinances … prefiguring Christ." If this is the case, what approach to the ceremonial law would we expect to see from the Christ when he is revealed? Would he be keeping that law to demonstrate his righteousness? Or would he be interacting with that law in ways that show he is its fulfillment? I'd expect more of the latter.

And what do you know? The gospel accounts seem to agree. Already at age twelve, Jesus has an awareness that his relationship to the temple will be about a unique form of service in his Father's house. By John 2:19, he is speaking of the temple in ways that cause some hearers to think he is disrespecting its rites. In John 7:37, he attends a feast but proclaims that it is about him, which would not be the proper way to keep the feast unless Christ-as-fulfillment is the right way to see that law. And when he officiates Passover on the night he is betrayed, he fails to follow Moses' formula again—unless Moses was speaking of him.

Now, what if he touches a man with leprosy? It should not surprise us that he chooses to interact with the ceremonial law this way. But is he keeping that law or breaking it? Because of who he is, that's the wrong question! Once again, he is _fulfilling_ it. He is the purpose and the full glory of the ceremonial law, not its servant.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

timfost said:


> On the flip side, for Jesus not to follow the ceremonial law would be a breach of the moral law, specifically breaking the fifth commandment since God laid this on His people. For Him to fulfill all righteousness, He must have kept the 5C perfectly.



Tim, just to throw in my two cents as well on this particular comment, I don't believe or affirm that Jesus broke any commandment in the ceremonial law (or that He didn't follow it). The ceremonial law commanded Jews to not eat certain foods. It never commanded Jews to not touch lepers. It just stated that when they did so, they became ceremonially unclean.


----------

