Ritual impurity a sin?

[steadfast7]

Was ritual impurity or ceremonial uncleanness considered a sin?

If not, why did it require sacrificial atonement?

If so, did Jesus ever defile himself?

 

[Andres]

If so, did Jesus ever defile himself?

are you really going to ask if our Lord sinned?

 

[Skyler]

are you really going to ask if our Lord sinned?

I think that question is intended to preclude a hasty answer of "yes" without considering the consequences.

 

[py3ak]

Was ritual impurity or ceremonial uncleanness considered a sin?

It seems hard to say yes, because people were required to be defiled in certain contexts: dealing with the dead, childbirth, even some of the labor involved in the sacrifices themselves was defiling.

If not, why did it require sacrificial atonement?

The sacrifices were significant ceremonies: they purified the flesh as a type of the way that the sacrifice of Christ would purify the conscience.

If so, did Jesus ever defile himself?

I don't know that we're told. Touching a corpse rendered you unclean, but does that still apply when the corpse comes back to life?

 

[CharlieJ]

No, ritual impurity by itself was not a sin. It included all sexual activity, monthly cycles, touching dead bodies, skin diseases, and all sorts of biological stuff. However, some aspects of the ceremonial law were both sinful and unclean. For example, eating the wrong food was sinful b/c of the ban. It also resulted in uncleanness.

Also, not all ritual impurity requires sacrifice. Sometimes it's just washing.

 

[TimV]

A good question and interesting point by Ruben. When the prophet laid three times on the boy's dead body and he came back to life there was no mention of ritual cleaning. As to Christ, was there ever a time when He could NOT have come into the Temple, or such like? Or to put in another way was He ever even symbolically separated from communion with the Father until the cross? So, I'll vote no.

 

[torstar]

Prophet, priest, and King are different from us.

When you are all 3 for eternity, that much more so.

 

[he beholds]

Did the OT law exist until Christ rose again, or did it end with his incarnation?

 

[py3ak]

Did the OT law exist until Christ rose again, or did it end with his incarnation?

It did not end with his incarnation, certainly: Christ was circumcised, told the healed lepers to go show themselves to the priest, and so forth. But at the crucifixion when the veil of the Temple was torn in two - well, that would be a reasonable point to consider the ceremonial law completed and done away with.

 

[Jack K]

We're given several accounts of incidents in which Jesus would have been considered ceremonially unclean under normal conditions. Not just touching dead bodies, but also his interactions with lepers and with the woman who'd been bleeding for 12 years. In all these instances, it seems that rather than the uncleanness being passed on to Jesus, his cleanness and wholeness is passed on to those needing help.

So I'm inclined to suspect that although Jesus did keep the Law, with the possible exception of his own death he never found himself unclean. How could he? Uncleanness simply didn't stick to him. It melted away at his very presence.

 

[steadfast7]

My problem is that there is no indication in Leviticus that uncleanness due to discharges or childbirth was viewed as different from the other sins. Both guilt and sin offerings are required to atone for these states (Lev. 14:12, 15:15). Also, is there a distinction between the uncleanness of blood, and the uncleanness of unclean animals? In the case of animals, it was sin to ingest them (11:44). One thing is for certain, Jesus, though experiencing ritual uncleanness on occasion, it was not, and could not have been the kind that requires animal sacrifice for atonement. It could only be the type that renders someone "unclean until evening."

 

[CharlieJ]

Do you think Jesus never sacrificed? Certainly he did. It was required by the law at certain occasions. I don't think that omission would have escaped the Pharisees' notice. Remember, he was baptized into repentance even though he didn't need to repent of anything.

 

[steadfast7]

I dunno, I think there's something basically wrong with Jesus performing an animal sacrifice for anything he had done which needed atoning. Would this not be an admission of guilt?

 

[CharlieJ]

No more than being baptized unto repentance admits that he needs to repent. No more than being circumcised admits that Jesus needed to be cleansed from sin. It's just fulfilling the law for us.

Also, after Jesus' resurrection, Paul sacrificed animals when he made a vow (Acts 21.26). So, I don't think that animal sacrifice in itself is contrary to Christianity.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Can it be proven that there are instances of ceremonial uncleanness in the life of Christ? I rather believe that His perfect divinity, hypostatically united to His humanity precluded actual uncleanness. For instance, at His incarnation, it was His holiness and divinity which rendered Him impervious to original sin, even though he was made of the substance of Mary (Luke 1.35). During His life it can be argued that He never touched a dead body, or a leper, for at the moment of His touch they were no longer dead or leprous.

 

[Peairtach]

Charlie

Do you think Jesus never sacrificed? Certainly he did. It was required by the law at certain occasions. I don't think that omission would have escaped the Pharisees' notice. Remember, he was baptized into repentance even though he didn't need to repent of anything.

Jesus would never have needed to bring one of the sacrifices that was provided in the Levitical economy for personal sin. But it was appropriate for Him to observe otherwise the ceremonials of the OT as He was the Jew par excellence, as He is also the Christian par excellence. Apart from anything else He was obeying positive law from God His Father.

That is He came from among His brethren the Jews and the Christians in order to be the Head and Representative of the Covenant people.

It was also appropriate for Him to take part generally in the ceremonies, because being Head and Surety of the Covenant, He had sins that needed to be dealt with, and which He was going to deal with - they just weren't His own sins.

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:17, ESV)

To some extent, one of the ways that Christ also fulfilled the judicial law was by becoming the criminal par excellence against God's law and its sin-crimes.

All that Christ did in connection with the broad areas of moral, ceremonial and judicial laws takes on new meaning in His case because He had no sins of His own, and would make an interesting study.

Being sinless some of the positive law of the ceremonials would have applied to Jesus and some not. Of course where it did apply to Him it would be sinful for Him to neglect, ignore or disobey it. It would be a study - I don't know how profitable, as maybe certain things in this area aren't revealed - to work through the ceremonials and see how they would have related to Christ and His life.

Maybe it would lead to further light on the fulfillment of the Mosaic law by Christ.

 

[steadfast7]

Can it be proven that there are instances of ceremonial uncleanness in the life of Christ?

Luke 5:12-13: "While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy.a And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him."

The act of touching the leper would have rendered him ritually unclean until evening, but because he didn't have the skin disease himself would not need to perform sacrifice for atonement. There's the issue of bodily discharges of men and women, which did require sacrifice, but we won't go there! I think it is harder to prove that Jesus' flesh did not make contact with uncleanness - for not every touch from the Lord resulted in healing. From my understanding, people were ritually unclean for a large part of their day to day lives.

Charlie:

Also, after Jesus' resurrection, Paul sacrificed animals when he made a vow (Acts 21.26). So, I don't think that animal sacrifice in itself is contrary to Christianity.

If I'm not wrong, in all instances of animal sacrifice, even fellowship and free will offerings, the method of preparing the sacrifice is the same, and the sacrifice is substitutionary in nature by virtue of the hand being placed on the animal, and the fact that it must be unblemished. Perhaps, by the time Paul performed his temple duty, he may have seen the ordinance as an empty act, a mere cultural or contextual move that was strategic to his mission? thoughts?

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

In my view, it is impossible for Christ to contract uncleanness from the leper He touched, because He never touched a leper. His holiness and divinity, the strength of His person as God-man, instantly made the man non-leprous. Instead of Christ contracting uncleanness from the touch, the leper contracted cleanness.

 

[steadfast7]

In my view, it is impossible for Christ to contract uncleanness from the leper He touched, because He never touched a leper. His holiness and divinity, the strength of His person as God-man, instantly made the man non-leprous. Instead of Christ contracting uncleanness from the touch, the leper contracted cleanness.

But consider this: the leper is not technically "clean" - in the ceremonial sense according to Law - until he presents himself to the priest and performs the appropriate ritual. Only then is he pronounced clean. So, from the perspective of the law, Jesus still touched an unclean person.

Also, to suggest that the uncleanness receded away from Jesus' touch takes away the obvious force of the text and the compassion of Jesus that it's meant to convey - that he touched a leper. This mode of cleansing him is critical, when he could have simply spoken healing to him.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

To your first objection, and it is an interesting thought, Christ was always sure to tell any leper that He healed to present himself to the priest and offer what Moses had prescribed. I would simply say that the force of the passage dictates, seeing that it was a miraculous healing, and that performed by the Author of the laws of cleansing, that we accept the man as clean because Christ pronounced him clean. Christ's instruction to lepers after their healing to present themselves to the priest is simply consistent with His commands in Leviticus 14, and for a testimony to the priests that Messiah had come, and was cleansing lepers. See Mark 1.40-45; and Luke 7.22ff. So seeing that Christ had pronounced him clean, he had the authoritative pronouncement you have rightly noted.

In your second objection, I don't agree that the "obvious force of the text" is that Christ touched a leper, but that He "healed" a leper, thereby freeing him to enter the worshipping assembly, and to commune with God in His ordinances, to take his place in the Covenant. The healing of leprosy is a sign of regeneration. Touching a leper is not the issue, healing one is.

My final point here is that we ought to consider it an impossibility for Christ to contract any sin or uncleanness. Every action of His, by virtue of who He is, is right. His father is "well pleased" with His life as a man. Uncleanness speaks of inadvertent sin due to weakness in our fallen race. The difficulty for our understanding regarding Christ is that He partook of our nature apart from the need for any sacrifice or atonement on His part.
Note LC 48:
Question: How Did Christ Humble Himself in His Life? Answer: Christ humbled himself in his life, by subjecting himself to the law, which he perfectly fulfilled; and by conflicting with the indignities of the world, temptations of Satan, and infirmities in his flesh, whether common to the nature of man, or particularly accompanying that his low condition.
He was perfect, even in partaking of our nature.

Thanks for the questions. These are good things to think about.

 

[steadfast7]

Although it's true that in an ultimate sense, Jesus is the author and can authoritatively pronounce the leper clean, I don't think Jesus played the role of Levitical priest in this instance, but rather submitted to the Mosaic code and awaited the leper to be pronounced clean according to that standard. To be sure, he is of the order of Melchizedek, not Aaron. If he were to usurp the right to pronounce the leper clean by Mosaic standards, then he admits himself to belong to the order of Aaron - which cannot be.

I think that ritual uncleanness is not sin in the proper sense, although blood was required for atonement. It must have had another function, or simply demonstrates the shadowy, imperfect nature of the Mosaic covenant. We know that even if he were ritually unclean on Mosaic terms, he was always received and accepted by the Father and without sin. Even IF uncleanness kept him from the earthly temple worship, he was the True Temple of God. This is why I don't have a problem with Jesus being ceremonially unclean. It almost hints at Jesus' subversiveness and transcendence to the Mosaic code.

 

[Peairtach]

Is there any problem with Christ contracting the ceremonial uncleaness of others and dealing with it appropriately? He bore on Him the sins of others.

Within the context of Who He was He observed the Torah - morals, ceremonials and judicials - perfectly and seemlessly. Of course being Who He was certain things about the ceremonial law may not have applied, or not applied as in the same way to others. Some aspects of this are not revealed.

This is why John the Baptist was surprised that Jesus asked him to baptise Him.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. (Is 53:4, ESV)

That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases." (Matt 8:16-17).

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

There is one more principle to be mentioned here, and then I'll leave it to the rest for discussion. In Hebrews 7.26 the Apostle declares that Christ is holy, harmless, *undefiled*, separate from sinners. The root-word used for undefiled is over and again used in the LXX for such ritual uncleanness as we're discussing in this thread. I agree with the post above, that Christ bore our iniquities and sins, but with regard to Himself, Hebrews 7.26 indicates utter perfection, as the High Priest that is suitable for us.

 

[steadfast7]

Just as in English that word "undefiled" can mean ritual as well as spiritual uncleanness, we should not absolutize the meaning to just one. Within the context (holy, harmless, separate from sinners) ritual uncleanness doesn't quite fit. I think the gospel narratives should be the most instructive for us. In both the story of the leper and the woman with the issue of blood, the fact of Jesus touching and being touched is clearly emphasized. It may be that their uncleanness "melted" away from his presence, but there is no evidence of that, and it puts Jesus' full humanity in question, in my opinion. What is clear is physical contact happened, and for all intents and purposes, this meant becoming ritually unclean. Highlighting the issue of touching, author is seems to be suggesting something subversive to the Mosaic law and the Temple, which we see throughout the NT.