Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | DocTrinsograce | 174597 | ||
Dear MJH, Interesting observations. Just a thought: Why not reason in the other direction? As you point out, we know that Jesus was utterly sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21). If it is a given that becoming unclean was an inevitability in His life -- and I believe it was, if for no other reason than Leviticus 22:5-6 and Mark 1:41; 5:41 -- then whatever else that uncleanness might have been, it did not carry the guilt of sin. Consequently, our understanding of the Leviticus must be adjusted in the light of our certain New Testament doctrines. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | mark d seyler | 174626 | ||
Hi Doc, Isn't Leviticus 22 speaking of the sons of Aaron? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | DocTrinsograce | 174659 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, Yes, you are correct! I mentioned Leviticus 22 because Christ is our Kohain Gadol -- our High Priest. I've always thought of Him as taking the "high road" in terms of Mosaic righteousness, as was the common practice of the Pharisee (Matthew 5:20). This was, indeed, an imprecision on my part. However, a corpse is said to be "Avi Avot HaTumah" -- a super contaminating thing, if you will. According to the Mishnah, any Jew touching a corpse is unclean, not just a Kohain (but especially a Kohain). They base this on Numbers 19:11, "Whoever touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days." Even entering the house of a dead person (who was not a near relative) would cause defilement (Numbers 19:14). I do not see how one might exegete the Numbers 19:11 passage in such a way as to interpret "whoever" as applying only to the sons of Aaron. Consequently, in the light of the Law, Jesus would have become tumei (unclean) when He touched the dead girl in Mark 5:41. Furthermore, He would also have become tumei when He entered the house in verse 40. We must conclude, therefore, that being tumei is not necessarily being sinful. I may be mistaken, but I believe this reasoning is sound. Please tell me if you see an error. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | mark d seyler | 174680 | ||
Hi Doc, I think Numbers 19 holds the appropriate references for this situation. One thing, though, perhaps you might tell me what you think. I have always considered the little girl in Mark 5 to have been truly dead. But the Bible doesn't actually record her has being in fact dead, at least as far as I can see. There are 3 people considered to be raised from the dead by Jesus during His earthly ministry, the widow of Nain's son, Lazarus, and this little girl. The widow's son is declared dead, (Luke 7:12) "Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her." Jesus touched his bier, and he returned to life. This is cut and dried. Lazarus, in the same way, is declared both by Jesus and in the narative to be dead. (John 11:14) "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." (Joh 11:44) "And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go." Regarding Jairus' daughter, the text says that those there were "knowing she was dead", but the narrative does not come out and say she was specifically dead. In fact, Jesus says, "Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth." (Luke 8:52) Now, this is one of those verses that is customarily taken in the sense of "He said that, but that's not what He meant", and I wonder if that is actually what we should do? The reason I wonder about this is that the ones that the Bible says plainly that they were dead, Jesus didn't touch. The one He touched He said was not dead. I'm not sure that this even affects the overall question of Jesus becoming unclean, because there is still the matter of the woman with the issue of blood who touched Jesus. That is, if her touching Him is to be considered the same as if He touched her, because that is the way the Law is written: Lev 15:19 "And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even." Then there is one other aspect of this that occurs to me, as I am currently studying in Matthew 12, where Jesus demonstrates that it is lawful to break the Sabbath in case of neccessity, so also perhaps the healings and resurrections would supercede the ceremonial laws of uncleaness. Are there any other instances you can think of where Jesus might have been made unclean? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
5 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | DocTrinsograce | 174707 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, Thank you for your reply. First, let me say, that no other instances come to mind in which Jesus might have been made unclean. I've been thinking about it since MJH asked the question. You listed the only events that I've ever noticed. Secondly, regarding your thoughts on Matthew 12: Kierkegaard called this the "teleological suspension of the ethical." (On the negative side, the concept made famous by Machiavelli was "the end justifies the means.") In essence, it simply means that it is okay to violate an ethical rule if the ultimate objective is to achieve a greater good. There are a number of instances of this in Scripture (Abraham, Rahab, David, etc.), including the one you mention. However, if, as we surmise, being unclean was not sinful, then Jesus might have elected the inconvenience to be tumei in order to bring benefit to another. Finally, in your post you wrote, "I have always considered the little girl in Mark 5 to have been truly dead. But the Bible doesn't actually record her has being in fact dead, at least as far as I can see." I believe you are suggesting the possibility that the statement of the messenger in verse 35, "Thy daughter is dead," was untrue. Perhaps they had incorrectly assessed her condition, she having slipped into a coma or something similar. If that is the case, then Christ's assertion in verse 39, "The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth" would not be figurative. Furthermore, it would mean that Jesus had not become tumei. That is very interesting. It is an idea that is credible and appealing. If you don't mind, I'd like to explore it a bit further. I will posit four objections in order to test the idea -- only four come immediately to mind. None of them are a clear refutation, nor entirely air-tight. Let me know what you think: 1. We are not told anywhere else in the passage that the messenger was mistaken. Christ used "sleep" in figurative sense elsewhere. Consequently, we might expect that this statement (v39) was figurative. 2. The church has always held to the opinion that this was a miracle of "raising the dead." My resources are not unlimited, but I do not find anyone in Christian history that has suggested that the girl was not dead. 3. The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke were written to gentiles. Both authors sought to demonstrate Christ's authority over sin, nature, disease, and the grave. Luke mentions the other instances where Christ brought the dead to life. However, Mark mentions this event alone. 4. Death was, for the people of the NT, much more immediate and frequent than what we face today. If the messenger was mistaken, so were the others (Luke 8:53). Is it likely that they would all so easily mistake a person for dead? Still and all, the idea has appeal since it cuts in half the number of instances in which we might see Jesus having become tumei. Very good thinking, Brother Mark! In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | mark d seyler | 174717 | ||
Hi Doc, I think you've mapped this out rather well! Regarding the "teleological suspension of the ethical", I expect that the "greater good" must be defined as being that which is deemed neccessary for the personal welfare of a living creature, since those are the Biblical examples I see, and only in regards to the Sabbath. I do not see any other examples given that have explicit Scriptural approval. I would not include Abraham or Rahab in this same list. But lest we re-open That thread, let's move on. The more I think about it, the more it seems that to be unclean would not be sin, at least in certain circumstances, because there are at least some ways a person can become unclean that are completely outside of their control, such as a woman in her time of the month, or one whose spouse dies in their sleep. But that's just as it seems to me at this moment, and I am interested in following this to know truly what the Bible says on this. Regarding Jairus's daughter, yes, that's exactly what I am suggesting. It has never occurred to me to think that before. Looking at your 4 points: 1. Jesus used sleep in referrence to Lazarus, who He then said was dead, so I think it is safe to say the He would use "sleep" as figurative of "dead". But then, He did say also, "she is not dead". Are there other places in Scripture, especially among the sayings of Jesus, where we are taught or shown that death should not be called death? I can't think of any, but can you? 2. I have always agreed with the church. I have never heard, to my recollection, anyone suggest that this girl was not actually dead. But then, the Scriptural Text versus anything else is no contest. But I am not making any assertions, I am just asking the question. I still think she was dead. 3. This event could show Jesus' power over disease or the grave equally. The gospel writers may have simply presented the story the way it played out. But each of the gospel writers omit an actual statement of fact that she was dead. (see #4) 4. Only twice in my life have I seen those who have died, and death was immediately recognizable. I have every expectation that it would be all the more so to these who, as you have pointed out, had a much greater experience with it. However, we know that there are those rare times that even those in the medical profession have been wrong, and so we know it is possible to be fooled by certain circumstances. Perhaps more easily if one is expecting death to come at any moment. Nonetheless, that there were so many who considered her dead stands to me as the strongest witness of her actual death. But I do find it curious that while in the other times Jesus raised the dead, the Holy Spirit, through the gospel writer, confirmed their death, but not in this instance, the one where Jesus said "she is not dead". And so that stands, for me, as the strongest witness that she was not dead. I really don't know how to advance this any further. I fear that I have not added substantially to what I have said before, except the number of words - As a friend once said: "You write 40 posts, and what do you get - Another day older writin' stuff on the net!" Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
7 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | DocTrinsograce | 174726 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, The "teleological suspension of the ethical" is what my wife calls, very simply, the "teleo thingy." :-) It is an interesting discussion. I find it useful in day to day life only in relatively narrow situations. For example, if one must break the speed limit in order to get a sick person quickly to the hospital. Although I believe it is the primary reason that it is not sinful for a soldier to take a life in his pursuit of duty in a time of war. In Bible study, there are only very specific situations where it seems -- let me emphasize that word seems -- to come into play. Regardless, one has to take care in discussing it, since it can so easily be used by man's ever-rationalizing heart to justify unrighteous behavior. No discussion of Biblical ethics, though, is complete without mentioning it. I appreciate your introducing the question regarding the damsel of Mark 5. I find myself warming to it more with time! Your responses to my objections are certainly very valid. I particularly concur with you on the power of your final statement: "Jesus said 'she is not dead.'" When it is all said and done, "Let God be true, and every man a liar!" Also, I hope you know that when I cite things like the Mishnah, Talmud, or other Rabbinic sources, I do not see them as authoritative. It is simply a useful insight into Judaic views. Thus, it is hoped that we can better understand the people, culture, and times of the Bible -- a distinct advantage in sound exegesis. Finally, regarding the woman "with an issue of blood" (Matthew 9:20): Note that she touched Him "unawares," so to speak. (The temerity and audacity of this act by a daughter of Abraham is incredible! She risked much!) Except in the case of a Kohain, it is generally understood that becoming unclean unintentionally is not a sin. Given this fact plus your Talitha Theory, we have no clear instance where Jesus became tumei. However, I agree with you that it is arguably true that being unclean is not in and of itself a sin. Thank you for this interesting exchange. It has been valuable. In Him, Doc |
||||||
8 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | mark d seyler | 174728 | ||
Hi Doc, I would be so bold as to say that I understand and concur with all you have written here, including how interesting this is. Thank you for following this through with me. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||