This is true, I think.
In Judaism as I understand it (and do say if I have misunderstood) a ritually pure item or person can be rendered ritually unclean by coming into contact with something ritually impure. The focus is on retaining purity by separation, and when contamination occurs by restoring it through ritual purification if possible.
Christ turns this upside down. He shows us that anything that is pure in him cannot be made ritually unclean; it simply cannot be done. Man cannot undo what God has done, and when God makes something pure or holy it stays that way. Therefore when Christ enters the house of a sinner he is not defiled; the house is sanctified by his presence.
This means that Christians are not constrained from associating with sinners, with unclean people, with sick people, with dirt or disease of any kind. A Christian cannot be ritually defiled, because Christ cannot. Wherever Christ goes, whoever he touches, whatever he does, he sanctifies. He cannot be made ritually unclean by anyone. And in him, neither can we; that which is truly holy cannot be defiled.
On point.
There are so many points in scripture where Christ (in fullfilment of what the Torah says) indeed did things that turned the minds of others upside down because of how he went into the areas where people had said (in the name of the Law) to be forbidden.
The example of Christ with the tax-collectors/"sinners" is something to keep in mind, in light of the fact that just because one was Jewish in the days of Christ didn't mean they led a kosher lifestyle and deemed to be "clean"..
Tax collectors were a trip...with most of them indeed WEALTHY, as it was with Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-3 /Luke 19 )..and for those who were tax-collectors, it's something that people often did not want to mix with ...even though Jesus often did went counter to the norms in connecting with them as He often did for those who were outcasts( Matthew 11:19,Matthew 11:18-20, , Matthew 21:31-33/ ,Luke 3:11-13 Luke 3 , Luke 15:1-3 Luke 15, Luke 18:8-10 /Luke 18, etc). When Matthew was called, he did not disguise his past or make any excuse for it, which was humility. Tax collectors were among the most hated and despised in society in society since the money they collected was often extorted for personal gain and partly a tax for Rome, which made them not only theives but traitors to the Jewish Nation. Also, regarding the text, one must keep in mind that there are generally 2 categories of tax collectors: 1.) gabbi collected general taxes on land and property, and a income, referred to as poll and registration taxex; 2.) mokhes colleted a wide variety of use taxes, similar to import duties, buisness license fees, and toll fees. Additionally, there were two categories of mokhes: great mokhes hired others to collect taxes for them; small mokhes did their own assessing and collecting. Matthew was a small mokhes ......and it is likely that there was representivitves of both classes attending Matthew's Feast---ALL of whom were considered social outcasts and of bad reputation. There was still stigma against him when he invited Jesus to come/dine in his home and others were still wondering "Why in the world is Christ fellowshipping with this person who is clearly a sinner?".
For anyone doing sincere research on the types of people who were often at tax-collevtor parties, it'll be apparent that it was not a matter of things being "prime/proper". ...as they were noted to be BUCK WILD!!! For the "religious", Heaven help them if they were there.....but for Christ, He decided to go counter to what many Judeas would've done---and what the Pharisees often did when it came to distancing themselves from anything they thought was unclean. Jesus, in his radical ideology, was able to maintain mobility that the religious leaders simply didn't have...
Christ
associated with sinners at morally upright or at least morally neutral places, such as meals in people's homes .
However, because of his love for others, He was willing to go/do what many were not willing to do.
I think Jesus was speaking directly to this issue here (Luke 10:25-39):
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:25-37)
Those who would have been considered as the most loving of Torah= in the above story not only did not help the half-dead man, but when they saw him they actually passed by on the other side of the road
Considering their positions as Priest and Levite, I’ll assume that they considered the man who lay dying on the side of the road to be unclean, as not only did they not want to help (touch) him, they went to the other side of the road to avoid any possible contact with him. They were more concerned for
their own “clean-ness” than they were for the
very life of the man bleeding, obviously needing aid, lying at the side of the road.
Who did Jesus say to imitate? The consummate Law Keepers, a Priest and a Levite?
No... He instructed the
expert in the law to imitate the
unclean man, a Samaritan.
The responses of the priest and the Levite are truly some of the highlights of the story since they would have become ritually "unclean" by touching what seemed to be a dead person,
Leviticus 22:4----with the implications for us being very striking since we in Christ have been made into priests ourselves/in many ways are as they were,
1 Peter 2:8-10
It brings up the point: If someone around the world in Nigeria is taking care of orphans and widows (or the elderly) in the name of Yeshua--and yet another claiming to know all of the secrets of the Torah is barely able to say "Hi" to their neighbors or show any concern because they don't see them as "spiritual", who would be considered he most observant? Romans 2 automaically comes to mind on the matter, as it concerns what the apostle noted...
And with the Good Samaritan parable, it's fascinating to see how the hero of the Story was one who was considered to be the most "unclean" in the day---a Samaritan, one whom many would call a "half-breed" compared to their acts of righteousness.....and yet the Samaritan kept the true SPirit of the Law more than those who should have known better.
When I was in college, I did my Senior Internship
at an organization aiding those on the streets and working in the Children's Church department with impoverished children at the organization called-City of Refuge-Bringing Hope to Those Who Live on the Margin. For more, one can also go here . It was...and still is...amazing seeing the myriad of people we'd have to deal with on the block---from single mothers to prostitutes to drug-dealers/many various shades of "homeless" people and others in wild lifestyles. Got to actually pray for/witness to a person hooked on crack on Valentines's Day....with him being amazed that God would even consider loving him. The places many lived---from the projects invested with garbage/rats to having homes where the conditions were often unsanitary to the streets, for those homeless---to the food they ate that was often non-healthy, you saw people in REAL LIFE.
And yet LOVE made the difference and the power of Christ despite what others go through made a world of difference. Eating what was given out of respect/concern....talking to them/hanging out. The amount of stories I'd hear from those who used to be hopeless on the streets and in the realm of being qualified by others as “not deserving of aid/help” and how someone looked past the flaws and showed compassion on them in such a way that they truly saw the love/mercy of Christ and it made the difference in them being solid disciples/aiding others today. You see the same thing repeatedly whenever doing street ministry amongst those deemed to be "sinners" and outside the church.
If the example of Christ is to be followed, it needs to be followed fully and not selectively. ...and that needs to be remembered in light of how often there seem to be battles over whether or not Paul agreed with Christ when it comes to assuming Christ (in his observance of the Torah) never did things that were different from it---and yet there are way too many examples in scripture showing otherwise
If it as intended to be 'Father' as used by some ministers then I would object.
