Result of pouring from pure vessel into impure vessel?

[cloudyday2]

One of the most hotly debated questions for Jews of the first century was whether pouring a fluid from a ritually pure vessel into a ritually impure vessel made the higher vessel also impure.

It seems to me that many of the gospel stories can be understood as opinions on this question. Rather than defining purity as the absence of impurity, Jesus seemed to define impurity as the absence of purity. When Jesus came in contact with ritually impure people such as lepers or the woman with chronic bleeding or the dead Lazarus, Jesus made the impure person pure again.

Contrast this understanding of purity with the concern that impurity might climb upwards through a stream of pouring liquid from an impure vessel into a pure vessel above it.

In other words, the Jews in the first century were of two opinions:
(a) the impure vessel makes the pure vessel above it become impure during the pour
(b) the impure vessel does NOT make the pure vessel above it become impure during the pour
But Jesus had a new answer:
(c) the pure vessel makes the impure vessel below it become pure during the pour

Perhaps, this new answer on the ritual purity question also applies to the question of sinfulness vs. righteousness. Maybe salvation is not about removing the sin from the sinner but instead maybe it is about adding some righteousness to the sinner? What condemns a person is not the presence of sin but the absence of righteousness.

So just wondering what others think.

 

[Halbhh]

One of the most hotly debated questions for Jews of the first century was whether pouring a fluid from a ritually pure vessel into a ritually impure vessel made the higher vessel also impure.

It seems to me that many of the gospel stories can be understood as opinions on this question. Rather than defining purity as the absence of impurity, Jesus seemed to define impurity as the absence of purity. When Jesus came in contact with ritually impure people such as lepers or the woman with chronic bleeding or the dead Lazarus, Jesus made the impure person pure again.

Contrast this understanding of purity with the concern that impurity might climb upwards through a stream of pouring liquid from an impure vessel into a pure vessel above it.

So just wondering what others think.

As you read in the gospels, it becomes increasingly clear from Christ's words that the Pharisees were lost (even children of the devil no less) in that the Pharisees focused so much on such little rules and regulations instead of what mattered most (and neglected what mattered most).

Instead of attending to the heart of what is most essential, the true things of God.

This instance of ritual purity of the vessels strongly reminds me of parts of Matthew 23 ESV (have a look)

If you read through much of the bible, it's repeated that God doesn't want his people to just make ritual propitiations, but instead to primarily do His commands to love their neighbors -- show mercy to one another, do real justice, defending the poor and weak and oppressed. These are overwhelmingly more important.

Christ said the central, primary commands (above all others and actually all the rest are parts of how to do these) are: to love God and love our neighbors. (actual love shows in real actions, like mercy and forgiveness and other acts of real kindness/love)

He wants to save those that want to do true good (even though they often fall short over and over, that are at least wanting to and trying to do so). It's humble, that attitude -- to want to do good, even though we fall short so often -- to admit when we fall short, and to want to do His will.

So, you see, this situation: His perfect will and our imperfect following of His will -- that's why we need a Savior. In His mercy and care, God sent one for all of us that would turn to Christ Jesus.

 

[Tolworth John]

Maybe salvation is not about removing the sin from the sinner but instead maybe it is about adding some righteousness to the sinner? What condemns a person is not the presence of sin but the

May I suggest you read Romans chapter 5.
In it Paul's explains that we are saved by Jesus's death and resurrection but he also makes it clear not only are sins forgiven but that rightousness is imparted to us.

 

[dqhall]

One of the most hotly debated questions for Jews of the first century was whether pouring a fluid from a ritually pure vessel into a ritually impure vessel made the higher vessel also impure.

It seems to me that many of the gospel stories can be understood as opinions on this question. Rather than defining purity as the absence of impurity, Jesus seemed to define impurity as the absence of purity. When Jesus came in contact with ritually impure people such as lepers or the woman with chronic bleeding or the dead Lazarus, Jesus made the impure person pure again.

Contrast this understanding of purity with the concern that impurity might climb upwards through a stream of pouring liquid from an impure vessel into a pure vessel above it.

So just wondering what others think.

They did not understand advanced concepts like Pasteurization and sterilization.

There was a theory of jumping uncleanness. Another one was uncleanness by secondary contact. Could a person be made unclean by walking on a road trod by an unclean person? What about sitting in the seat of an unclean person?

In the Gospel of John the gang transporting Jesus from Caiaphas mansion to Pilates’ quarters for his trial did not want to go inside Pilate’s house because he was a Roman Gentile and his house was assumed to be unclean as the Gentiles did not know the law. They waited outside for Pilate to appear. They did not want to be made unclean on the preparation day for the Passover. According to the Talmud Tractate Pesachim, a Jew who was unclean on this day would have been barred from Passover activities and was required to do the Passover observance a month later.

 

[Rachel20]

What condemns a person is not the presence of sin but the absence of righteousness.

I really think so, with the right definitions. I allow for 2 for "righteousness" (one under grace, one under law), otherwise passages like Matthew 25 appear contradictory as shown below (since righteousness under the law requires perfection, it can actually be defined as absence of sin) -

1) Pronouncement on the righteous:

“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Matthew 25:40

These are judged righteous if they've helped one person - this could be 1 out of 1000? So they could fail to help 999 (take this as sin) but help 1 (take this as righteousness)?

2) Pronouncement on the wicked:

“Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ Matthew 25:45

These are judged wicked if they've failed to help one - this could also be 1 out of 1000? They could help 999 (take this as righteousness) but fail to help 1 (take this as sin)?

(note most would see the wicked as having helped 0 out of 1000 in v45, but I don't think that's realistic or consistent, though I don't know what the underlying language requires)

 

[cloudyday2]

I really think so, with the right definitions. I allow for 2 for "righteousness" (one under grace, one under law), otherwise passages like Matthew 25 appear contradictory as shown below (since righteousness under the law requires perfection, it can actually be defined as absence of sin) -

1) Pronouncement on the righteous:

“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Matthew 25:40

These are judged righteous if they've helped one person - this could be 1 out of 1000? So they could fail to help 999 (take this as sin) but help 1 (take this as righteousness)?

2) Pronouncement on the wicked:

“Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ Matthew 25:45

These are judged wicked if they've failed to help one - this could also be 1 out of 1000? They could help 999 (take this as righteousness) but fail to help 1 (take this as sin)?

(note most would see the wicked as having helped 0 out of 1000 in v45, but I don't think that's realistic or consistent, though I don't know what the underlying language requires)

I suppose most of us have done at least one good deed and failed to do at least one good deed, so there does seem to be ambiguity in the judgment. That is an interesting point you brought up.

 

[Rachel20]

so there does seem to be ambiguity in the judgment.

Yet there would be the same standard for "presence of righteousness", just a different plummet in use - fits very well with scriptural theme of law vs grace and leaves your hypothesis intact. Love your thought-provoking posts!