Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Leviticus 5:2 'Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Leviticus 5:2 'Or if someone touches any [ceremonially] unclean thing--whether the carcass of an unclean wild animal or the carcass of an unclean domestic animal or the carcass of unclean creeping things--even if he is unaware of it, he has become unclean, and he will be guilty. |
Subject: unclean is a sin? or not? |
Bible Note: 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 |