Making Sense Of Uncleanliness In The Bible

[Basilisa Marie]

Basilisa Marie, it sounds way cooler when you say it that way.

 

Of course it does!!! :)  This is what happens when we just read the bible at "face value" and don't wonder if there's something else being said, especially for the old testament. :) 

 

Interestingly, the concept of "Churching" women grows out of the same old Jewish idea of "uncleanliness."  There used to be this old practice where women were given a special blessing after giving birth.  Usually moms weren't able to be around for a baby's baptism (still in the hospital or at home recovering or what have you), so "churching" was a small ritual that "welcomed" a woman back into the Church after giving birth (even if the baby is stillborn or dies without baptism), and gives thanksgiving for a safe delivery.  

 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03761a.htm
 

 

 

The mother, kneeling in the vestibule, or within the church, and carrying a lighted candle, awaits the priest, who, vested in surplice and white stole, sprinkles her with holy water in the form of a cross. Having recited Psalm 23, "The earth is the Lord'sand the fullness thereof", he offers her the left extremity of the stole and leads her into the church, saying: "Enter thou into the temple of God, adore the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary who has given thee fruitfulness of offspring." She advances to one of the altars and kneels before it, whilst the priest, turned towards her, recites a prayer which expresses the object of the blessing, and then, having sprinkled her again with holy water in the form of the cross, dismisses her, saying: "The peace and blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, descend upon thee, and remain forever. Amen."

 

But seriously, check out the rest of the article on it.  It's super cool, and SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK.   

[Archaeology cat]

I actually asked if I could be "Churched" after my first but it wasn't done.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

If menstruation is clean, than why where a pad or tampon and dispose of it in the rubbish as if it were unclean.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[stevil]

If menstruation is clean, than why where a pad or tampon and dispose of it in the rubbish as if it were unclean.

 

It is the woman that is declared as unclean for 7 days, also any person that touches her during this time.

Are these people disposed of in the rubbish as if they are unclean?
 

[Quid Est Veritas?]

If menstruation is clean, than why where a pad or tampon and dispose of it in the rubbish as if it were unclean.

 

Ritual "uncleanness" is different from proper hygene. Are used facial tissues ritually "unclean"? No. Are they disposed of in the rubbish? Yes. If they were kept around, it would be disgusting and very unhygenic.
And as for not wearing anything, I imagine that might be a bit messy, to say the least.
 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i appreciate that the fellow at the beginning of the thread was willing to say that the Jews got some things wrong.

is he also willing to say by extension that the bible isn't everything from God, not infallible? it does say that the LORD is who said the stuff. 

 

it looks like the later poster wants to stretch things, sure, those body functions are not of the sacred nature, but that doesn't mean all that was being said is that they are unsacred. they called it unclean. the fact that everything it touched needed washed etc shows the connotations are clear. 

 

should we just assume perhaps it was all unclean? or is? i dont see how Jesus' death changed anything per cleanliness or not. I guess colosians does say that Jesus cancelled out the written code and it's erquirements, nailing it to the cross. although, Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not override it. we must have to reconcile these things, as different aspects of the law, if we are to keep the bible ocnsistent.

 
this is just me trying my best to rationalize the bible verses. it seems that if it was once unclean, it always is. to be consistent. 

but, the mature response is to say as poster did, that the Jews got some things wrong, and the bible isn't always to be taken as God's truth. no one likes to say it, but the bible almost surely is not infallible. (never minding some pretty clear contradictions, another thread)

i see no other way but to say it shows a considerable amount of emotional and spiritual immaturity to just accept verses like those as God's honest truth. religion often has that affect on people, and we're all just trying to figure it out, but at a certain point, truth is truth, and there's no way around this stuff. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[mod]Image had an f-bomb in the upper left corner.  However, other than that it said "It's almost as if The Bible was written by racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated men, instead of a loving God. Weird." - Ricky Gervais.    Anyhow, image is gone now due to the f-bomb, but quote remains. - BG[/mod]

[Basilisa Marie]

i appreciate that the fellow at the beginning of the thread was willing to say that the Jews got some things wrong.

is he also willing to say by extension that the bible isn't everything from God, not infallible? it does say that the LORD is who said the stuff. 

 

it looks like the later poster wants to stretch things, sure, those body functions are not of the sacred nature, but that doesn't mean all that was being said is that they are unsacred. they called it unclean. the fact that everything it touched needed washed etc shows the connotations are clear. 

 

should we just assume perhaps it was all unclean? or is? i dont see how Jesus' death changed anything per cleanliness or not. I guess colosians does say that Jesus cancelled out the written code and it's erquirements, nailing it to the cross. although, Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not override it. we must have to reconcile these things, as different aspects of the law, if we are to keep the bible ocnsistent.

 
this is just me trying my best to rationalize the bible verses. it seems that if it was once unclean, it always is. to be consistent. 

but, the mature response is to say as poster did, that the Jews got some things wrong, and the bible isn't always to be taken as God's truth. no one likes to say it, but the bible almost surely is not infallible. (never minding some pretty clear contradictions, another thread)

i see no other way but to say it shows a considerable amount of emotional and spiritual immaturity to just accept verses like those as God's honest truth. religion often has that affect on people, and we're all just trying to figure it out, but at a certain point, truth is truth, and there's no way around this stuff. 

 

I mean, if you want to ignore what experts in Old Testament theology think about the passage you're struggling with, be my guest.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont see how there's any consensus of what OT scholars thought on the matter. 

but regardless, the point they were making about sacred etc, doesn't have to do with the basic idea that it's all considered unclean.

 

and even if they saw the elements discharge not so much as unclean, cause they are part of something sacred.... they still thought the process was unclean. and anything the people touched, was unclean. they are calling what God designed, part of nature, unclean. 

it sounds like eating pork and meat in the bible.... God had to tell Peter, to counter the Jews... saying, "what God has made clean, you are not to call unclean". im sure this is the case for menstration etc, too. or how Jesus had to tell people not to cast stones at people, even though it's the OT itself commands from "God" that dictated it to begin with. 

 

and i simply see no way of getting around the clear conntations of needing to wash everything involved. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"this is just me trying my best to rationalize the bible verses. it seems that if it was once unclean, it always is. to be consistent. 

 

or at least, even if things did change with Jesus coming, it doesn't change the fact that it was called unclean to begin with. (or that people are to be stoned, innocent people are to be killed for others' crimes, women are to be sold as property and raped and such, people are to be slaves etc etc.

[Seven77]

 It's what Basilisa said.  Jewish women would have to be ritually purified because they cooperated with life--- they were considered to be unclean meaning sacred. That is the sense of the word in this context. Father Mitch Pacwa is a Jesuit Bible scholar who explains this. He says that ritual impurity for women is exactly the same as ritual impurity for someone who touches the Torah barehanded-- you can't touch anything sacred without becoming “defiled.”

 

 if you don't understand what is written in Sacred Scripture, it's most probably because you are not reading it properly. The Bible contains passages that must be read in the light of cultural context. We should never let the difficult passages of Scripture get us down or disheartened.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Seven77

[Basilisa Marie]

i dont see how there's any consensus of what OT scholars thought on the matter. 

but regardless, the point they were making about sacred etc, doesn't have to do with the basic idea that it's all considered unclean.

 

and even if they saw the elements discharge not so much as unclean, cause they are part of something sacred.... they still thought the process was unclean. and anything the people touched, was unclean. they are calling what God designed, part of nature, unclean. 

it sounds like eating pork and meat in the bible.... God had to tell Peter, to counter the Jews... saying, "what God has made clean, you are not to call unclean". im sure this is the case for menstration etc, too. or how Jesus had to tell people not to cast stones at people, even though it's the OT itself commands from "God" that dictated it to begin with. 

 

and i simply see no way of getting around the clear conntations of needing to wash everything involved. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that the word "unclean" is a bad translation, and the reason why we get hung up on it is because it's a bad translation. The original word does not mean what we think it means. 

 

It's like when people say "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."  If an alien were reading that with a literal translation, people would think we commonly throw away babies when we bathe them, or that some people did that.  If an alien were to understand our culture and study our language, they would come to understand that we actually mean "don't throw out the good stuff when you're getting rid of the bad stuff."  

[dairygirl4u2c]

what do you propose they meant by unclean if not what we understand it as?

what evidence do you have to back that up?

don't you think that the washing of everything the folks touched, indicates that it does in fact mean unclean? what else could washing it all mean?

 

i could plausibly see, "unsacred", but the fact they had to wash and make sacrifices and that it was not a good thing, makes it seem more like it does in fact mean unclean.

[Seven77]

what do you propose they meant by unclean if not what we understand it as?

 

 1. What has been proposed by Basilisa and myself.

 

what evidence do you have to back that up?

 

2. Father Mitch, a Bible scholar, for one. What evidence do you have to refute it?

 

don't you think that the washing of everything the folks touched, indicates that it does in fact mean unclean? what else could washing it all mean?

 

3. Different contexts. Different meanings.

 

i could plausibly see, "unsacred", but the fact they had to wash and make sacrifices and that it was not a good thing, makes it seem more like it does in fact mean unclean.

 

4. Making sacrifices for something is not a bad thing… not in the least. Where is ritual purification referred to as a remedy for something referred to as explicitly bad?

 

Edited July 18, 2013 by Seven77

[Basilisa Marie]

what do you propose they meant by unclean if not what we understand it as?

what evidence do you have to back that up?

don't you think that the washing of everything the folks touched, indicates that it does in fact mean unclean? what else could washing it all mean?

 

i could plausibly see, "unsacred", but the fact they had to wash and make sacrifices and that it was not a good thing, makes it seem more like it does in fact mean unclean.

 

What I mean is what I said.  We do ritual 'cleansing' in baptism...but we don't consider baptism the same as a bath or shower, do we? No, of course not.  It's a ritual "purification."  It's the same sort of thing with the ritual cleansing.  "Unclean" means that you are in need of the ritual, not that you're dirty.  The fact that our translation of the bible says "unclean" instead of "unsacred" or something similar is a problem with the translation, not with the text.  The stuff that was touched by "unclean" people was ritually purified because others would become unclean if they touched them, because it would further confuse the boundaries between the sacred and the non-sacred.  

 

Being unclean doesn't mean you're bad.  It can - you become "unclean" if you murder someone, because you're taking away someone's life, and life is sacred.  But it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad - when Mary was "purified" after giving birth it wasn't because she was gross or evil or bad, it was a time of celebration and giving thanks to God.  

 

I have a Master's degree in theology and have taken bible classes from scholars who dedicate their whole lives to studying these texts, people who know multiple ancient languages so well that they can do their own translations of the text.  That's my evidence.