Saturday study 1/31/26

 Part 6: On Purification laws

I posed the theme of this series in the form of a question:

Did Jesus actually change the Law of Moses?

• The point is to see whether Jesus came to merely repeat Moses or whether, as the New Covenant lawgiver, Jesus came to change Torah at certain points.
• Today we look to see if Jesus changed purification laws.

"You Have Heard it Said": Lev 13-14; Num 5; 19

• Illnesses like leprosy/skin disease; chronic discharges, including a woman with a flow of blood (Lev 15)
• Contact with corpses and other sick people (Num 5:1–4; 19)
• Purification laws required washing, sometimes offering sacrifices (e.g., being sprinkled with the red-heifer water)
• For a time the "unclean" had to be banished/excluded from the Jewish community and the Temple, i.e., the presence of God. 

"But I say": Matt 8; Luke 8:40-56

• He touches the sick, like lepers, paralytic and eats with "sinners" (i.e., Gentiles or bakcsiliding Jews, Luke 5:12-32; a woman with blood discharge, Mar 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48).
• He touches a dead girl (Mark 5:35-43; Luke 7:11-17); raised Lazarus (John 11). 
• And although he could heal with a word at a distance (servant of the Roman soldier) he instead wilfully comes into contact with the so-called "unclean," including the dead. 
• NOTE: the Gospels never record Jesus following purification laws. 
• This only really makes sense if Jesus is functioning under a different Law than that from Sinai.

What About?

• Jesus sometimes seems to be under Torah:
• He tells the cleansed leper: “Show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded” (Matt 8:4). But don't stop there, "as a testimony to them," i.e., Torah-observant Jews.
• In other words, as a claim to show them of his Messianic ministry boinafide. 
• He is using their own Torah to verify his claims, without being under Torah. 

The early church: Hebrews 9-10

• Purification laws, e.g., about menstruating, corpse impurity, leprosy quarantines, etc., are not repeated to the church. 
• The whole Torah was but a single shadow (Heb 10:1) imposed only until the coming of Messiah, "he abolishes the first in order to establish the second." (Heb 10:9b)  
• As AB notes:

Just as in Col. 2:16-17 the Messiah, who has come, is the reality of which the calendar of “holy days, new moons and weekly sabbath” are a single shadow. 

• Note v.20 If you have died with Messiah to the elemental spirit forces of the world, why, as if you were alive in the world, do you submit to decrees 21 do not handle, do not taste, do not touch? 22 All these regulations refer to things that will perish with use; they are just human commands and doctrines. 23 These rules may seem to be wise with their invented religion, ascetic practices, and severe treatment of the body, but they are in reality of no value in stopping sinful indulgence.
• So "Obligatory vegetarianism would be an example of such teaching. Or total abstinence from alcohol which goes beyond the standard set by God and Jesus." AB footnotes
• The only “washing” emphasized is baptism, the metaphorical (non-literal) “washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26), and the inner cleansing of conscience (Heb 9–10).
• Heb 9:13–14: ashes of the heifer for the defiled now superseded; Christ’s blood purifies the conscience, not external corpse impurity. 
• Acts 9; 20: apostles handle the dead to raise them, with no corpse purification.
• James 5:14-16 says prayer not Temple purifications, take care for the sick by repenting, forgiveness—not a hint of the Apostles repeating purification laws for the church. 

Notice how “cleansing” language is redirected:

• Hebrews 10:22 speaks of our hearts “sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” and our bodies washed with pure water. 
• The focus is on conscience and heart, not avoiding corpse contamination or menstruating women or "eating with sinners."
• Paul constantly exhorts Christians to purity in terms of holiness and behavior(2 Cor 7:1; Eph 5:3–5; 1 Thes 4:3–7), not ritual washings or observing niddah(7-day menstrual impurity), corpse laws, etc. 
• If Torah purity laws were still binding, Paul's letters to mixed Jew-Gentile churches should be full of instructions about them. They aren’t.
• READ: the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:17-35 it is crucial. 
• Peter says: “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone unholy or unclean." (Acts 10:28)
• Acts 10:34b-35: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, but He welcomes from every nation the person who fears Him and does what is right." 
• This comes immediately after the vision with “unclean” animals. The apostolic conclusion is crystal clear:
• The old clean/unclean categories that barred Jews from Gentile fellowship are gone.
• People once considered “unclean” are now acceptable in Messiah, without first passing through Torah purification.

READ: Galatians 2

• Paul rebukes Peter for refusing to eat with Gentile Christians when “certain men from James” (i.e., Torah-observant Jewish-Christians) came:
• Paul says Peter “lives like a Gentile and not like a Jew”; compelling Gentiles to Judaize is hypocrisy.
• The issue is shared table fellowship (food law keeping) despite previous Torah barriers.
• If purification laws are still binding, Peter couldn’t “live like a Gentile” at all; yet Paul treats that freedom as the normal Christian stance.

But What About?

• In Acts 21 Paul joins four other Jews under a vow and participates in purification rites in the Temple. Some argue this proves continued obligation to Torah rituals.
• But following his letters, it looks like missionary accommodation, diplomacy not Torah-observance necessity: 1Cor 9:

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, so that I may win Jews. To those who are under the Law I became like someone under the Law — even though I myself am not under the Law — so that I may win those under the Law.  21 To those outside the Law I became like one outside the Law, not myself being outside the Law of God, but within the Law of Messiah, so that I may win those who are outside the Law. 

• Paul is willing, for the sake of being a witness to Jesus as the Messiah, to "become like a [Torah-observant] Jew." 
• Yet in his letters he insists that all Christians—whether Jew or Gentile—are not under the Law of Moses but are subject to the Law of Messiah. 
• These are two different, competing, and therefore contrasting sets of laws, just like there are two different covenants!

Summary

• Jesus changed temple purification laws therefore, didn't have to follow any prufication laws because he did not remain Torah-observant. 
• Jesus was the promised Messiah who was uniquely authiorized to establish a new covenant Law.
• Jesus was the spotless lamb of God and his own unique holiness overcomes impurity, where mercy outweighs ritual, and where Temple-based cleanness is replaced by cleanness through him.
• Hebrews describes the old covenant as having “various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10), including the ashes of the heifer for defilement by the dead (Heb 9:13; cf. Num 19). 
• But now, “the blood of Messiah… cleanses your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb 9:14), granting us a new “boldness to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus… our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:19–22). NOTE centrality and importance of the cross! 
• For sickness, James instructs believers to call elders for prayer and anointing with oil, with no mention of Levitical uncleanness: “The prayer of faith will save the sick” (James 5:14–15).
• Contact with the dead (once a major impurity source, Num 19) requires no purification;
• Peter takes Tabitha by the hand and she lives (Acts 9:36–41); 
• Paul embraces Eutychus who fell from the window and seems to revive him (Acts 20:9–12).
• Regarding people, Peter declares, “God has shown me that I should call no person common or unclean” (Acts 10:28), and that God “cleansed their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9), calling the Law’s demands a “yoke… which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10).
• Paul confirms he is “not under the Law [of Moses]… but under the law of Messiah” (1 Cor 9:20–21) and calls Christians to “fulfill the law of Messiah” (Gal 6:2).

NEXT: Last Part 7, On food laws. 

Is this a salvation issue?

When discussing a biblical topic—especially one that’s disputed—someone will sometimes ask:

But is this a salvation issue?

In Scripture, salvation is consistently tied to the obedience of faith meaning, you believe what God says therefore, submit to His words. So the more biblical question to ask yourself is:

Will this affect my “obedience of faith” that is, my belief in what God has said?

The New Testament does not separate believing from obeying. In fact, it regularly contrasts faith, belief with disobedience. Jesus warns:

“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Note the contrast between faith—belief in the Son—and disobedience. The outcome is spelled out in sobering terms when Jesus adds:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

Peter reminds Christians of God’s purpose in calling them:

“...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus the Messiah...” (1 Peter 1:2)

Paul opens and closes Romans with the same defining phrase, framing his entire gospel message:

“Through him we have received grace and Apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for his name.” (Romans 1:5)

“...following the command of the God of the ages, made known to all the nations, to bring about the obedience of faith...” (Romans 16:26)

That repetition is not accidental. Paul emphasizes saving faith as faith that obeys the gospel he delivered. He even describes conversion as becoming obedient “from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed” (Romans 6:17).

The apostle John gives a simple test of authenticity:

“By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

Hebrews makes the same point, tying salvation directly to obedience:

“Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things that he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him...” (Hebrews 5:8–9)

Anthony's note on Hebrews 5:9 summarizes it well:

"Obedience to Jesus is the condition of salvation. Faith without obedience is false faith and cannot save."

In other words, true faith is inseparable from obedience as properly understood in New Testament terms, and it serves as the foundation for salvation (again John 3:36; Hebrews 5:9, etc.).

Therefore, debates over “faith versus works,” or whether this or that is “a salvation issue,” are unnecessary once the biblical concept of the “obedience of faith” is understood as the unifying key to salvation. The biblical measure of whether something is a salvation issue is straightforward:

Does this teaching or practice affect my obedience of faith—so that I can continue in the obedience that flows from what I believe?

To: Dear Mr. Christian

“Long hair is shameful for a man”

The popular long-haired, and beard image of Jesus in Christian art and media contrasts sharply with first-century Jewish and early Christian cultural norms.

Archaeological and historical evidence from first-century Judea indicates that Jewish men typically wore short, trimmed hair and beards. Long hair was rare and usually associated with a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:5)—a vow the Gospels never attribute to Jesus. Priestly regulations and broader Jewish norms even discouraged unkempt or excessively long hair (Ezekiel 44:20).

Additionally, in the wider Greco-Roman world, long hair on men often signaled effeminacy or social deviance, while short, well-kept hair marked respectable manhood.

While the New Testament provides no physical description of Jesus, Paul nonetheless appeals to “nature” when addressing the church at Corinth:

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14).

Although Paul’s immediate argument in 1 Corinthians 11 concerns head coverings in worship, his broader concern is order, modesty, and clear male–female distinctions rooted in creation (Genesis 1:27). By “nature,” Paul is not invoking biological law in a modern scientific sense, but what people instinctively recognize as fitting and honorable—one’s natural sense of what is appropriate for men and women. Even if the specific hairstyle reflects cultural convention rather than a timeless mandate, the underlying principle remains: God’s people should honor, not blur, the distinctions God built into creation.

This understanding is reflected in early Christian art (2nd–3rd-century catacombs and sarcophagi), which often depicts Jesus as a youthful, beardless Good Shepherd with short hair—far removed from the later Byzantine (4th–6th centuries) and Medieval-Renaissance style that drew heavily from Greco-Roman portrayals of philosophers (Aristotle), deities (Zeus or Serapis) and demi-gods (Hercules).

It is therefore unlikely that the familiar long-haired Jesus accurately reflects the historical Jewish Messiah.

The prophets foretold a servant whose appearance would not draw attention through outward beauty:

“He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2).

Finally, correcting inherited imagery is not an act of diminished devotion but one of greater fidelity to Scripture. Within this framework, it is difficult to imagine the New Testament’s “last Adam” and “perfect man” (Hebrews 4:15), who fulfills God’s will without sin, embodying what Paul elsewhere in the same letter calls a “disgrace” for men.

Let us therefore honor the real Jesus—the first-century Jew who perfectly fulfilled God’s will—by allowing Scripture, rather than later artistic tradition, to shape our understanding of who he was. In this seemingly small adjustment, men can more faithfully model and reflect the true Messiah.

Addendum:

Whenever this topic comes up, a common response is to say:

“Well, it depends who or what defines long hair.”

But that is beside the point of 1 Corinthians 11:14. Paul isn’t giving a tape-measure rule for hair length; he is simply calling such a look a disgrace—something shameful—and he uses the word “nature” to mean what your common sense, shaped by your faith and conscience, recognizes. Paul assumed that men generally wore shorter, plainly masculine hair and women generally had longer, feminine hair—practically speaking, long enough to put in a bun or ponytail (see 1 Corinthians 11:15).

Also, Christians should not dismiss what Paul here says by claiming it too “legalistic”—in the process condemning an apostle of Jesus himself! As Paul reminds us in the same chapter:

“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16, NIV).

And think about this: If secular professions like law enforcement (police, military) and some businesses are able to tell what constitutes long hair, why can’t you, Mr. Christian, who claim that you too have the Spirit of God?

Food For Thought

Throughout history it has often been claimed that biblical food laws were given for health reasons. One of the earliest to argue this was the medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides, whose Guide for the Perplexed later shaped both Jewish kosher practice and, indirectly, Islamic halal regulations. But when we read the Torah itself, and listen carefully to the way the laws are framed, it becomes clear that their primary purpose was not for health reasons.

Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 repeatedly ground the food laws in Israel’s calling to be set apart to Yahweh (cp. Lev. 11:44–45; Deut. 14:2). The Law itself never says, Avoid these animals because they are bad for your health. In fact, as the ESV Study Bible notes on Leviticus 11:1–8:

“The diet of these animals is apparently not the basis of their cleanness or uncleanness. The passage itself says nothing about what the animals eat, and the camel, rock badger (hyrax), and hare are exclusively vegetarian but unclean.” [bold mine]

The popular “health laws” interpretation creates theological and ethical problems the text itself does not. Deuteronomy 14:21 adds:

“You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the sojourner who is in your town so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to Yahweh your God.” [bold mine]

If the concern were primarily for health reasons, why would Israel be allowed to hand "unclean" meats to a resident alien or sell it to a foreigner? Are we to imagine that God carefully protected the nation of Israel only while being indifferent to the health of everyone else? That would contradict the wider biblical portrait of Yahweh’s compassion and promise to save all the nations (read His Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12-17).

Similarly, in Deuteronomy 12:21 God speaks of slaughtering certain clean animals “as I have instructed you.” If “clean” simply meant “healthy,” why would God add detailed ritual instructions for their slaughter? And if the Torah were a comprehensive divine health code, why no parallel legislation for a “healthy plant-based diet,” or for numerous other foods and environmental hazards that can threaten human health but are never mentioned?

The fact is food laws functioned as daily, tangible reminders that Israel belonged uniquely to Yahweh. Every meal taught them to distinguish, to separate, to live differently from the nations around them because they were to be a holy people.

Today it is popular to say pork was forbidden because of parasites like trichinella, or that shellfish were banned because they can carry toxins. It is certainly possible that, in God’s providence, some of Israel’s restrictions brought incidental health benefits. But that is very different from saying that health was the stated or primary purpose of His laws. Many “clean” animals and permitted foods can be dangerous if mishandled, and many unregulated aspects of ancient life (water, sanitation, plants, other animals) carried serious health risks that the Torah never addresses. The biblical authors do not appeal to parasites, bacteria, or possible plant-based poisons or toxins. They repeatedly appeal to holiness, obedience, and Israel’s distinct identity as Yahweh’s chosen people.

This is important because if we turn the food laws into a divinely inspired nutritional health diet, we risk missing what God was actually teaching Israel: that every aspect of life, right down to the dinner table, was to express their loyalty to Him. The laws were covenant boundary markers, not a timeless menu for superior health.

Today, in Messiah Jesus, the church is not under the Sinai food laws as an expression of its “obedience of faith.” The New Testament consistently locates holiness not in Torah-mandated rituals—what Paul later terms “works of the Law,” such as circumcision of the flesh and observance of the Jewish calendar (Gal. 5; Col. 2:16–17)—but in the practice and preaching of the Messiah. The food laws should now serve as a reminder that God calls a people to be His own, to live visibly different from the world—not primarily by what we refuse to eat, but by whom we serve and by what He now teaches through His unique Son.

In Mark 7:14–15 Jesus called the crowd to him again and said to them:

“Everyone listen to me and understand this: nothing which is on the outside and goes into you [such as food] can make you unclean. Instead, it is what comes out that makes you unclean.” [bold mine]



With this one remark Jesus pronounced every kind of food clean, thus abolishing the Levitical food laws, as Mark 7:19 later makes clear.

When Charismatics Eclipse the Kingdom Gospel

DISCLAIMER: This critique does not reject miracles or the ongoing work of the holy spirit. It is a call for biblical discernment. Jesus warned that false prophets would perform great signs to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Matt 24:24). He also promised that the spirit of truth would guide believers into all the truth and glorify him—not human personalities (John 16:13–14).

The modern charismatic movement has grown into the most influential system within Christianity, with estimates nearing one billion adherents. What began as fringe, itinerant revivalism now shapes the lives of Catholics and so-called Evangelicals alike. At its heart, however, it is driven by spectacle—prioritizing personal experiences like “encounters,” “anointings,” and “manifestations” over Scripture. This has turned many a faith into an egocentric, glory-seeking enterprise, focused on feelings and status rather than the original New Testament purpose: to preach the Kingdom as the Gospel. As Hebrews 2:3-4 makes clear:

"This salvation had its beginning when spoken through the lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God validated their witness by signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of holy spirit distributed according to His own will."

In other words, God backed up what they said about the kingdom and the name of Jesus (Acts 8:12) by giving them signs, wonders, different kinds of miracles, and distributions of holy spirit, just as He decided. The primary thing was not the gifts in and of themselves. In fact, Paul later warns that “the lawless one” will stage a counterfeit parousia with Satan’s power, “with all kinds of miracles, signs, and amazing but deceptive displays of Satanic power,” deceiving those “who refused to develop a passion for the truth in order to be saved,” so that God “will let loose on them an energy of delusion so that they will believe what is false,” and judgment falls “on those who decided not to believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9–12).

Paul instead insists that all Scripture is God-breathed and sufficient to equip the believer for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17), making Scripture—not subjective experiences—the final judge of doctrine and practice. Authentic New Testament faith centers on the teachings of Jesus and a “love of the truth in order to be saved” (2 Thess 2:9–10), not on a signs-driven, personal experience-addicted religion.

In the Gospels, the signs and miracles of Jesus reveal what the coming Kingdom of God will be like—no sickness, no death, and nonviolence in the spirit. The gifts worked by Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy and served as a preview of the age to come (Matthew 11:4–5; Hebrews 6:5). That is why he sent his disciples to proclaim the Kingdom and heal (Luke 9:2; 10:9), yet warned them not to rejoice in power over demons, but that their “names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). Yet, at the same time warned that many who perform signs will still be rejected for being "workers of evil" (Matthew 7:21–23). His priority was clear: rejoice not in spiritual power, but in your secure place in God’s coming Kingdom.

The gifts, therefore, are temporary signposts pointing to that future Kingdom, not permanent badges of status and prestige in the church. Healings display God’s compassion and authenticate the Kingdom message; they were never given to create profit or personality cults. Pentecost itself showcases intelligible foreign languages serving the Gospel to diverse crowds (Acts 2:4–11)—a reversal of Babel, not a model for private, unintelligible ecstasy.

Paul teaches that charismatic gifts are given “for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7), not for your health or to just make you feel good. Paul says that uninterpreted languages edify only the speaker, not the church (1 Cor 14:4–5, 26). Without love, even the so-called “tongues of men and of angels” are nothing but noise (1 Cor 13:1).

Peter’s healing of the lame man directs all attention to the risen Messiah, not to himself (Acts 3:12–16), and he insists that every gift is to be used in serving others so that “in all things God may be glorified through Jesus” (1 Peter 4:10–11).

James prescribes simple, local prayer by the elders for the sick (Jas 5:14–15) and reminds us that even Elijah “was a man with a nature like ours” (Jas 5:17)—no special “super-anointed” class or brand. By contrast, much of today’s charismatic influencer culture functions as ego-driven entertainment and monetized “ministry,” sharply departing from the New Testament pattern. When Simon tried to buy spiritual gifts, Peter rebuked him severely and called him to repent, warning of the danger of such corruption (Acts 8:18–23).

The New Testament call is to return to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles as our sure guide, where the spirit of God always points to the preaching of the Kingdom as God’s Gospel, builds up the church, and advances the honor of our coming King—not ourselves.

"The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some among you who refuse to believe.” John 6:63-64