Friday, November 11, 2016

Ceremonial purity

THE ISSUE OF PURITY IN MARK'S ACCOUNT OF JESUS' MINISTRY
Dr. Paul Manuel—2015

As with any ancient literature, the New Testament books confront the modern reader with a host of concerns relevant to their day. The gospels especially offer a glimpse at Second Temple Judaism and at issues that affected people's lives. Some of those issues the modern reader recognizes immediately, either because they remain relevant in his own religious tradition or because he has engaged in a special study of them. Other issues remain largely unexplored or unrecognized, and only the discovery of other period literature (or of some other artifact) brings them to the fore. Such is the case with the issue of purification. When the New Testament was the primary representative of its time, modern readers noticed occasional references to ritual cleansing but generally dismissed them as peripheral to the main thrust of the documents which, for the gospels, was asserting and explaining the ministry of Jesus. Consequently, those passages bearing directly on that concern received the most attention while other more arcane references— such as these six dealing with purification—warranted only cursory treatment.

The discovery and study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, roughly contemporary with the New Testament, greatly enlarged current understanding of the period and demonstrated how some of the topics hitherto ignored affected other parts of that culture. More recently, scholars have begun to suggest that the Qumran material may not be the library of a Jewish sect that withdrew from the mainstream of society but may be a library from Jerusalem, perhaps from the temple itself, hastily removed during the first revolt. If that is the case, then the documents are more representative of First Century Judaism than previously thought. Furthermore, the scrolls themselves seem to present the views of more than one religious tradition and suggest the existence of considerable diversity at that time. If the Dead Sea Scrolls do represent the beliefs and practices of more than one separatist group, perhaps even of Jewish society in general, then the New Testament would probably evince similar concerns, at least to the extent that it portrays Second Temple Judaism.

One topic the Dead Sea materials treat in detail is the importance of ceremonial purity, both personal and communal. This is not a sudden interest; rather, it continues a concern that the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, addresses extensively. When God chose Israel to be a holy nation, He intended His people to become like Him. God wanted His holiness to permeate every facet of their lives, and He provided them with a series of guidelines by which they would distinguish between the holy and the profane in matters of business, diet, sex, leisure, and many more. God also demonstrated that holiness is not just a principle but a physical reality; for through the tabernacle then the temple, where God invested His presence, He established holiness in space, with extensive instruction about how to preserve it.

The people learned that sin defiles, but they also learned that other things, not necessarily the fault of the individual,1 can lead to ritual impurity. For example, disease and contact with the dead can defile a person, making him unfit to participate in the community until he underwent the necessary purification rites. Some of the priestly duties rendered them unfit for service in the temple until they performed the proper cleansing ritual. The people, however, failed to maintain their holiness (though not just in matters outside their control but in matters of choice) by deliberately disobeying God, and the biblical writers attribute the Babylonian exile to divine punishment for that failure. Consequently, for the faithful within the post-exilic community, including authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, maintaining holiness (of all kinds) was a serious concern. The Temple Scroll, for example, reiterates the importance of ritual cleansing after the healing of an infectious skin disease or after contracting corpse defilement.

The gospel of Mark, who writes mainly for a gentile readership, often includes details about Judaism for those who may not be familiar with certain Jewish practices, details other gospel writers omit.2 One such practice Mark records is the concern observant Jews have for ritual purification (even in cases when he offers no explicit explanation).3
1. The concern for ceremonial purity was probably the reason for Jesus' baptism.
Mark 1:9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Cf. Matt 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
John used ritual immersion (as God had instructed4) to signify ritual purification for those who repented of their sin. For Jesus, who was "without sin" (Heb 4:15) and did not need to repent, baptism still signified his ceremonial cleansing5 ("to fulfill all righteousness") as he began his public ministry.6
2. The leper expressed confidence in Jesus' ability to cleanse rather than in his ability to cure.
Mark 1:40 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean." 41 Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.
Commentators often regard Jesus' gesture as a sign of his compassion, which it certainly is,7 but it is particularly unusual given the contagion (and defilement) that results from such contact. Some commentators also see here Jesus' abrogation of the ceremonial system. More likely, however, is that Jesus reverses the normal contagion of this potential defilement: The leper does not transmit impurity to Jesus; rather, Jesus transmits purity to the leper. Jesus' healing is, thus, a demonstration of his ability to impart purification, just as Jesus' healing of the paralytic is a sign of his authority to grant pardon.8 That Jesus is actually supportive of the ceremonial system shows in his command to the man that he perform the requirement to have the priest certify the cure.
3. The transfer of unclean spirits to unclean meat illustrated how purity extended to diet.
Mark 5:2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an [unclean] spirit came from the tombs to meet him.... 9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name'?" "My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many."... 11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13 He gave them permission, and the [unclean] spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
Although Mark does not specifically identify the herd of swine as ceremonially unclean, he may have assumed his gentile readers knew enough about Jewish dietary law to see the irony of this situation: the escape of unclean spirits into unclean meat.9
4. The raising of Jairus's daughter demonstrated Jesus' ability to overcome the most contagious cause of impurity.
Mark 5:22 Then one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there. Seeing Jesus, he fell at his feet 23 and pleaded earnestly with him, "My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live." ...35 While Jesus was still speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter is dead," they said. "Why bother the teacher any more?" ...41 He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!"). 42 Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.
Perhaps the greatest source of ceremonial impurity is contact with a corpse, which then requires an extensive decontamination process.10 Jesus apparently did not need to undergo this process (as he did not with leprosy), and none of the other Pharisees suggested he should, perhaps because they realized that his ability to heal did, indeed, impart ceremonial cleanness as well. In any case, and regardless of this girl's actual condition (dead or alive), the possibility of corpse defilement did not deter Jesus from helping.11
5. The healing of a sick woman showed that even an imperceptible form of impurity was treatable.
Mark 5:27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28 because she thought, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." 29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
Probably because she was a woman, she felt that her contact with Jesus had to be surreptitious. Nevertheless, Jesus is not concerned about contracting her impurity and, again, he imparts cleanness to her (as signified by her healing).
6. The discussion about eating with unclean hands assumed the expansion of impurity.
Mark 7:1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem... 2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.... 5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" ... 14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean."... 19b (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
This incident, more than any other, illustrates Mark's concern that his readers understand ceremonial purity, evinced especially by his closing statement (Mark 7:19a).12 Although Matthew and Luke both record the event, they do not include the reason this is an issue for these Pharisees (v. 3). The common belief among many (previously confined to priestly activities in the temple) was that the hands, because they came in contact with many things, some of which were ceremonially unclean., contracted that impurity and could transfer it to food, which then defiled the person who ingested it. Jesus did not agree, and thus he "declared all foods" (i.e., what God designated as such) to be ceremonially "clean". Understanding that the issue here is not kosher or non-kosher foods informs the meaning of v. 19a and keeps one from asserting what the text does not at all support (i.e., that a person can now eat whatever he wants, even if God had previously prohibited it).

These six passages illustrate the issue of purity in Mark's account of Jesus' ministry and the author's desire that his gentile readers understand the concern first century Jews had with maintaining ceremonial cleanliness. An awareness of this matter, often overlooked in a study of the gospels, does help explain what were probably common cares among many contemporaries of Jesus.

For a pdf including Bibliography and Endnotes see here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Relevant and civil comments are welcome. Whether there will be any response depends on whether Dr. Manuel notices them and has the time and inclination to respond or, if not, whether I feel competent to do so.
Jim Skaggs