Jesus and Purity: The Healing of the Woman with the Issue of Blood

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

As modern Christians looking to the New Testament (NT) for conceptual patterns by which to live our lives, we often face a larger challenge than merely understanding a particular story. Most people of the world read the NT in translation, and a translation can be a peculiar entity. Time and culture can act as impediments to understanding what the text might have meant to the author(s) or readers. Cultural constraints[1] often dictate a level of “interpretation” to be undertaken in order to produce an “intelligible” equivalent.[2] For most of us, to break this deadlock requires that we proceed very slowly through the original sources, keeping constant vigil so as to identify the thematic and conceptual fountainheads for our modern praxis (sometimes well hidden).

To the issue at hand, many concepts of Israelite and Jewish religious practices, such as rigidly defined purity laws or a sacrificial system, are regrettably foreign to us. In fact, some facets of Jewish religious practices during the time of Christ have seemingly become inimical to modern Christians, an exceptional loggerhead having been introduced by the very statement of Christ in Matt. 5.17 regarding the Law.[3] This impasse cannot, however, simply be ignored. For many Christians, of which I am one, orthopraxis depends on the orthodox reading of Scripture. This implies of course that we approach Scripture with the presupposition that it does in fact present Torah, in so far as this term is understood as the collection of particular guidelines for daily living as well as a general ethic on the nature of the divine and human relationship. With respect to the latter rubric, an understanding of NT stories very often requires that we first discern the meaning of the HB antecedents.[4] There is too great an importance for modern Christians to understand their Jewish roots to turn a blind eye to the “gulf of history and culture.”

The story of the woman with the “issue of blood” proves to be a useful lens through which to examine the work and ministry Jesus, one that may help to strengthen modern Christian concepts of Christ’s work when set against the backdrop of Christ’s religious milieu. On the surface it is a story about purity. By examining this surface notion and explicating certain principles inherent in its application, I hope to bring out the underlying concept of holiness before the Lord and the implications that go along with it. But here we return to the “historical separation” alluded to earlier. I do, however, think this gap to be bridgeable and that philology is one way of making such a crossing. To this end, I will be looking at certain words and phrases that may help to bring to life the nature of the concept of purity and impurity and set this definition within the context of Christ’s work and ministry.

Regarding the woman in question, her problematic flow of blood is equitable to a prolonged (12 years!) period of bleeding such as a woman experiences during menstruation. According to the HB, such a woman would have been considered ritually impure[5] and therefore forbidden to enter into communal worship (cf. e.g., Lev. 15.19).[6] This exclusion from the pulse and heart of religious life was a very serious affair (cf. Num. 9), and the very fact that the concept of “cutting off” in the HB was applied to cases of severe offence suggests that the very life of an Israelite is bound closely to the phenomenological relationship between God and the congregation of the faithful (cf. e.g., Ex. 12 and Lev. 16). In short, the identity of an individual as an Israelite is bound up in the relationship between God and the individual as mediated through the regulations governing the community, i.e., the purity laws and the Temple system. In looking at the NT story of the woman from the perspective of HB, the Christian community is reminded of two things: 1) that Christ is a de facto propitiatory sacrifice and 2) of the relationship between miraculous intervention and the process of establishing God’s kingdom through Christ’s work. Should these two points prove to be substantial, the story of the woman with the flow of blood may point us to evidence of, and help to identify more clearly, Jesus’ role as a mediatorial figure (e.g., a priest).

In this short paper I would like to apply my understanding of HB and post-biblical Judaism to the study of a NT story, which I feel was initially intended to function, canonically, as instruction to the Christian community. To examine this proposal, I will first discuss the issue of purity, noting briefly the concept within HB and Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures—LXX).[7] I will then examine the issue of ritual impurity in the NT by way of the story of the woman with the issue of blood. Before doing this, however, the reader must be convinced, as am I, that the issue of purity was as important a concern for a Second Temple Jew as it was for the pre-exilic and post-exilic Israelites.

The literature of the HB provides us with ample evidence of the importance of the Temple and the institution of the purity system for the Israelite religion. This is why the language of the prophet Hosea, “For I desire mercy rather than sacrifice and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings,” is so striking to us. Yet, while other authors have shared Hosea’s position (cf. e.g., Ps. 69.30-31), these instances in no way undermine the ultimate importance of the Temple and the purity system for the Israelites. During the Second Temple Period the force and weight of Jewish purity as mediated through the function of worship at the Temple still held sway in the everyday life of faithful Jews.[8] The religious self-awareness of the Second Temple Jew was embodied in part by the purity laws, which helped define one’s relationship to the Temple and the Divine Presence in the Land. Thus the Temple formed the primary point of emphasis for Judaism, wherein sacrificial offerings and daily worship ceremonies were held in the fashion demanded by Pentateuchal tradition.[9]

Even amongst separatists Jewish movements, such as that at Qumran, and religious purist who saw the Temple priesthood as less than holy, such as the Pharisees, the edifice that was the Temple occupied a significant place in the ethos of the daily life of the faithful Jew.[10] As is evident from Jewish writers such as Philo,[11] Josephus,[12] and other Second Temple texts such as ben Sira chapter 50 (Hebrew and Greek) and Jubilees (e.g., chapter 21), the Temple formed a primary witness of God’s presence in the land and amongst his people. Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, rabbinic sages continued to be occupied to an extraordinary degree in discussing the nature of the Temple rituals (e.g. the red heifer),[13] or in the appropriation of the Temple imagery to the Jewish religion now deprived of the Temple’s functions.[14] In the light of this, it is clear that the Temple representing the Divine Presence in the land and the purity laws regulating the relationship between the divine and the human were foremost elements by which the Jews ordered their daily lives. In short, the Temple was the center of Jewish worship, and the purity laws functioned as “boundary markers” in determining the relative holiness of the faithful vis-à-vis the Divine Presence.[15]

We know from the Pentateuch that the essence of the relationship between God and his people Israel centered on the holiness of the Lord and his people (cf. Ex. 19.6). As a people chosen from among all of the nations (Dt. 4.19, 32.10), Israel was required to maintain a level of holiness before the presence of God who literally “dwelled in their midst.”[16] We also know from Leviticus that the purity laws were designed to clarify this relationship (cf. Lev. 10.10, 11.43-46). In fine, the Temple (or Tent of Meeting in Exodus) signified the tangible evidence of God’s presence in the land, which in turn demanded the regulation of holiness through the purity laws of Leviticus.[17] In the light of all of this, it would not be an overstatement to suggest that Jesus viewed the Temple (both physically and conceptually) and its function as central to the vitality of the Jewish faith. The importance of ritual purity at the time of Christ’s work and ministry is therefore evident. But what are the implications of ritual impurity according to HB?

For the present study, it is most important to focus on the alienation that results from the contraction of a ritual impurity. Lev. 7.19-21 explains that someone in a state of ritual impurity must not eat of or come into contact with any thing that is holy.[18] Note verse 20,

while his impurity is upon him (tum’ato), this soul shall be cut off from among its people.

LXX: And the soul which eats of the meat of the sacrifice of the salvation, which

is the Lord’s, and his impurity (akatharsia) is upon him, that soul shall be destroyed from amongst its people.

It is clear that one function of the purity system is to keep the holy and impure separated. The contact of the impure with the holy leads to either instantaneous expulsion from the community or death. In light of the example above, note Lev. 15.31,

isra’el) from their impurities, so that they do not die in their impurities by defiling (b’tam’am) my dwelling place in their midst.[19]

(akatharsian) so that they shall not die in their impurities by defiling my tabernacle that is among them.

As is clear from the foregoing, the ritually impure must be kept separated from all things holy as long as their period of impurity lasts (also cf. Num. 5.1-4). In most instances, this period of impurity is from one to 7 days. In the case of the parturient, the period is much longer.[20] Thus, the purity system operates in the following manner: it keeps separate the holy and the common, the pure and the impure. This is not to protect the holy from the common, or the pure from the impure, but the other way round. Exodus 19 tells us that the people and the priests of Israel must be consecrated before the Lord and not touch Mount Sinai. Those that do are to be killed. The issue, of course, is one of contact between the common and the holy; it is the common and impure that are in danger of destruction, not the holy and pure.[21] Thus the instruction that those who do touch the mountain are to be stoned or shot with arrows, but not touched. This is adequately summed up in the legislation from Lev. 7.29 above: contact with that which is holy while yet in a state of impurity results in death or excommunication.

Separation from the community is a very serious matter for a religious community founded on communal celebrations and fasts. The many examples from the HB of the importance of community worship, centered at the Temple, suggest that this was a vibrant element in the life of a Second Temple Period Jew.[22] Thus, even temporary excommunication through ritual impurity was a very serious matter. Num. 9 deals with the issue regarding Passover. The situation is that several who have become unclean through touching a corpse were not allowed to present the Passover offering. While an allowance is made for the unclean to participate in the Passover a month’s time removed, the seriousness of a ritual impurity is that it can prohibit someone, whether male or female, from participation in the religious life of the community.

(zub damah) many days, other than the days of her uncleanness (menstruation) or the flow of her uncleanness (menstruation), all the days of her flow is her impurity (tum’ahtah), just as on the days of her uncleanness (cf. Lev. 15.19) she shall be unclean.

LXX: And if a woman should have a flow of blood (h’rusei haimatos) many days, not during the time of her menstruation or after her time of menstruation, all the days of her flow is her impurity (akatharsias) just as in the days of her impurity.

Following the description of the affliction, the legist writes the process for a return to purity for the woman (Lev. 15.28-30). She must wait seven days after her flow has ceased and then offer the purification offering (hatta’t) and the burnt offering (‘olah) at the Temple. Several characteristics of this type of impurity are important to note.

First, ritual impurities such as this regarding the woman with the abnormal flow of blood (as well as others maladies delineated in Lev. 11-15 and Num. 19) are not a result of sinfulness. The flow of blood during menstruation is a natural process. In fact, many instances of ritual impurity are a result of either natural processes[23] or of ritually ordained functions.[24] In the case of the abnormally long period of blood flow, the text never suggests that the woman has sinned. Rather, the requirement of waiting is simply expanded to fit the duration of the malady, while the process of re-purification remains the same.

Secondly, the woman is not singled out by Leviticus to bear the brunt of the ritual purity laws. The discussion of the woman with the genital flow follows in example the man with a genital flow (Lev. 15.2-18). Notice too that the process for re-purification is the same in both instances. There is no qualitative difference between men and women with respect to purity.[25]

Thirdly, a ritual impurity is contagious. Those who are ritually impure are required to remain separated from the rest of the community. In this respect, ritual impurities have characteristics of a plague.

Fourthly, a ritual impurity offends against the Temple directly. This is seen in the requirement of a sacrifice at the end of the required period of rest (Lev. 15.14-15, 29-30). Jacob Milgrom has shown that the sacrifice here rendered is meant to purge the Temple, not the offender.[26]

Finally, perhaps the most important point to note is that ritual impurity defiles the Temple miasmatically.[27] This is clearly the case for the following reason. The ritually impure must always offer a sacrifice at the end of their impurity in order to purge the Temple. Thus it is clear that the Temple has been affected by the ritual impurity. Yet, the ritually impure never come into direct contact with the Temple precincts (or at least this is the ideal situation). The only solution is that a phenomenological relation exists between suppliant and the Temple by which the latter is affected by the purity status of the former.[28]

The re-purification of the Temple is basically a two-step process. First comes the waiting period, during which the impure must remain quarantined. Then the offerings (Lev. 14-15) must be administered to cleanse the Temple (Lev. 15.31; Num. 19.20) and fulfill the re-purification process. This is an important point to stress: the ritually impure are not sinners and, as such, are not required to make atonement for themselves. The verb keper should be understood not as atonement but as purgation. What the priest does in bringing the sacrifices of the ritually impure before the Lord is to purify the Temple, which in a phenomenological way has been defiled by the ritual impurity of the individual. What is most important to remember in the case of the man or woman with a bodily discharge is that they must remain separated, both socially and religiously from the community.[29] The period of their separation corresponds to the period of their affliction. With this in mind, it is now time to turn to the NT and Jesus’ healing of the woman with a genital flow, but I will first summarize the discussion so far.

The ritually impure must not come into contact with the holy. If this occurs, it normally results in the death of the ritually impure. The effort of the legist in this respect works two ways: to safeguard the holiness of the sanctuary and to protect the ritually impure from destruction. Secondly, ritual impurity leads to temporary exile from the community. This is to protect the community from the extreme contagious effects of ritual impurity. Thirdly, ritual impurities are not evidence of sinfulness, although some communities, e.g. Qumran, aligned the two categories much more closely.[30] For the author(s) of the Pentateuch, however, ritual impurity is largely a result of natural processes; therefore the keenness on the part of the legist to protect the ritually impure from death by insisting on their separation from the divine. It is important to point out that woman and men are lumped together, the only difference coming in Lev. 12, which discusses the procedure of the parturient and naturally excludes the male sex. Fourthly, ritual impurity prohibits someone from entering into the communal life of worship at the Temple.[31] That the ritually impure are prohibited from entry into the Temple is clear.[32] Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the Temple formed the focal point for the worship of the community throughout the Second Temple Period. How then, are we to understand the story of the woman with the issue of blood in the NT?

Before I begin a textual analysis of this selection, I would like to stress that the reason for discussing the genital flow and associated impurity of the woman, as opposed to the man, is directed solely by the NT narrative. In fact, the astute reader has already noticed that a man could just as easily be used in the narrative as a woman, though the hyperbole would certainly seem more forced in that situation. Apparently the problem with genital flows is more common in woman (menstruation) than men and it is likely for this reason alone that the NT writer illustrated his point with a woman. Personally, I would like to think that it also shows that women were highly esteemed and cared for by a majority of the adherents to Judaism of the Second Temple Period as well as the early Church.

The story of the woman with the genital flow is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. The longest account is to be found in Mark 5.25-34, followed in length by Lk 8.43-48, and Mt. 9.20-22. Simply because the account is longer, I will be using Mark as my primary example, and bring in Luke and Matthew if needed to facilitate the discussion. The first verse that we should discuss is Mk 5.25, which reads:

And a woman was there, having a flow of blood (en h’rusei haimatos) which had lasted for twelve years.[33]

We will remember that the LXX use the phrase en rusei aimatoj for the genital flow in a woman in Lev. 15 and two observations may be made. The phrase used by the NT writers or translators is a replication of the LXX translation of the Hebrew phrase hmd bvz. Insofar as the LXX stands as a witness to the translation of Hebrew Scriptures, the possibility exists that portions of the Synoptic accounts were written originally in Hebrew.[34] Having the underlying Hebrew phrase in our grasp allows us to probe the possible implications of the woman’s hemorrhaging and her consequent status within the faithful Jewish community. It seems clear that the woman in question in Mark is suffering from the same malady that the Leviticus writer tabs as a ritual impurity. In such a state of ritual impurity, this woman would have been secluded and separated from the religious life of the community. In this state, she would have been disqualified from offering sacrifices in the Temple, from participating in the activities of the Jewish religion, and would have eschewed contact with observant Jews—for 12 years!

We know from this era that women during their monthly cycle were excluded from the Temple precincts, to which Josephus attests:

It (the Temple) had four surrounding courts, each with its special statutory restrictions. The outer court was open to all, foreigners included; women during their impurity were alone refused admission.[35]

Inasmuch as the religious activities associated with the Temple, i.e., purification offerings, Day of Atonement ceremonies, fasts, feasts and festivals, largely defined the practical application of religious mentality during the Second Temple, the burden on this woman must have been immense. Her issue of blood would have been unpleasant enough in itself, but she was also isolated from the institutions that embodied her religious identity. As such, the problem was two-fold: she suffered from a physical discomfort and from alienation from worshipping at the Temple. Her condition, however, seemed beyond help as she had spent much of her money on doctors trying to rid herself of this affliction (Mk. 5.26; Lk. 8.43).

The Synoptics tell us that Jesus was walking in a crowd when the woman touched his garment (Mk. 5.24; Lk. 8.42). According to the Levitical narrative, everyone in the crowd touched by this woman should have been impure until the evening. With everyone pressing together, imagine how quickly the ritual impurity would have spread! In a matter of moments, the whole of the crowd, not to mention Jesus, whose garment she touched, would have been ritually impure. Disobedience towards the impurity laws by not fulfilling the purification process, including physical separation, is punishable by excommunication (Num. 19.19-20). While the biblical material does not view her state of impurity as sin per se, her neglect to separate herself constitutes a serious transgression.[36]

We can now turn our full attention to the story in Mark’s Gospel. The healing of the woman with the issue of blood is sandwiched between the healing of the Gerasene demoniac and the raising from the dead of Jairus’ daughter. For the purposes of this short paper, the structure of Mk. 5 is prohibited by space.

I have already suggested that the woman’s hemorrhaging was tantamount to a ritual impurity. I have also suggested that her actions braving the crowd and touching Jesus’ garments were flaunting the purity strictures established in Leviticus. But the possible implications notwithstanding, what actually happened in the story?

The woman’s issue of blood was instantaneously stopped (5.29). According to the purity regulations in Leviticus 15.28, she would then be required to wait for 7 days before offering a dove and pigeon in the Temple as a sacrifice for purification. Yet Mark does not suggest that Jesus insisted on her doing so. This is contrary to his actions towards the man healed of leprosy in Mk. 1.44 (Mt. 8.2-4 and Lk. 5.12-14) wherein Jesus insists that the man present himself to the priest on duty at the Temple and offer the sacrifices recorded in the Law of Moses.

Jesus’ response in Mk. 5.34 to the woman’s action approaches the tautological, and may be intended to direct our attention, subtly, to Mark’s claim regarding Christ’s function as a priestly figure:

On the face of it, there is nothing that approaches the “priestly” in this statement in spite of the fact that the woman had just been healed from a specifically ritual impurity. Why was the response not more like that given to the leper in Mk. 1.44, which required of the man that he attend to the implementation of the Mosaic customs? An answer may lie in the fact that the woman touched the hem of Jesus’ garment.

The woman’s reason for touching Jesus’ garment could not have been to spare him of ritual impurity by not touching his skin. According to the Levitical rules of ritual impurity, regardless of where she touched Jesus, he would have become ritually impure.[37] So why touch his garment? We know from the HB that the priestly garments effectively consecrated Aaron and subsequent high priests in their daily duties. Exodus 28.41, for instance, reads:

And you shall put them on Aaron your brother, and his sons, and anoint them and consecrate them and make them holy, and they shall minister before me.

Qumran understands the same general idea without any real modification. 11Q19(Temple) XV.15-16 reads:

And when the high priest shall be standing to minister before the Lord, he shall consecrate himself by putting on the garments as his fathers and offering two bulls.

Josephus and Philo, however, each understood the priestly garments in cosmological terms. For these writers, the High Priest, when performing the rituals in the Temple, was acting for all of the created order, which the eight different garments or accoutrements represented.[38] Both, however, offer little comment on how the garments were viewed with respect to their function. Were there any other views on the priestly garments during the Second Temple Period? Rabbinic literature may provide us with some answers.

In Rabbinic writings, the priestly garments were understood to have atoning powers of their own. Leviticus Rabbah 10.6 states:

And the garments (VIII.2). R. Simon said: Even as the sacrifices have an atoning power, so too have the [priestly] garments atoning power…[39]

Each article of clothing of the priestly ensemble was thought to ameliorate for particular sins. In the case of the robe, it atoned for bloodshed.[40] But “atonement” in the Levitical narrative is not the “covering over of sins,” but the required purgation of the Temple, which has been defiled.[41] In short, purgation is an activity that is rendered upon something, rather than for someone, a point clearly understood by the rabbis.[42] In the case of the Levitical narrative, purgation was rendered in the Temple, for the Temple. It could be that the woman in the Gospel narrative touched Jesus’ garment because she believed that it could atone for her “issue of blood.”

If this is the case, then it is plausible to suggest that this woman was ascribing some type of priestly characteristic to Jesus. Objections to this position could be raised. First, we are not expressly told that the woman considered Jesus a high priestly character. Elsewhere, we know that Jesus openly supported the purity system when he commanded the cleansed leper to render the sacrifices of Moses in the Temple (Mt. 8.1f and Mark 1.20f.). Secondly, rabbinic literature is obviously late, and therefore leaves the use of that material open to the criticism of being anachronistic. Moreover, the central message of this story cannot be pinned down to one event. Both the miraculous healing and Christ’s announcement that the woman’s sins are forgiven suggest two different, equal and symbiotic events. These provisos notwithstanding, the touching of Jesus’ garment is a curious act on the part of the woman to which the rabbinic understanding of the atoning power of the priestly garments presents an interesting answer. Indeed, this Gospel story may represent the rabbinic doctrine of the priestly garments in a very early stage of expression.[43]

Returning now to the narrative in Mark, a once peculiarity now appears to offer something of a key to the story. The important verse is 5.30:

What might this power be? An important feature in the re-purification process in HB is the aspect of the sinful element coming into contact with the divine. In the earlier discussion I intimated that contact between the holy and impure was to be avoided for the sake of the impure. Contact between the holy and unholy results in the destruction of the latter. Yet this is precisely the formula for the sacrificial purity system.

When a ritually impure person or one who has committed an inadvertent sin renders a sacrifice in the Temple (hatta’t), the sacrifice actually substitutes for the suppliant. The fact that blood is spilled and brought into contact with the altar (Lev. 4 and 5) suggests that the completion of the re-purification process requires the blood of the individual.[44] In the case of the woman with the issue of blood, it may be that Mark saw no reason to reiterate the further requirements of the Mosaic Law. An objection may be raised here that this argument suffers from silence and from the earlier pericope in Mk. 1.44, wherein Jesus specifically reiterates obedience to the Mosaic commandments regarding the re-purification process. But the problem of silence is pandemic in the Gospels (a synopsis is, by definition, guilty of short-cuts) and the two pericopes are not utterly irresolvable.

First, Mk. 1.44 does present Jesus informing the leper to tender the proper sacrifices in the Temple. Yet it does not suggest that there was any type of imposed waiting period (cf. Lev. 14.8-11). Therefore the argument from silence cuts both ways; we do not know if there was a waiting period imposed on the leper just as we do not know if the woman offered sacrifices for her purification. Furthermore, the Mk. 1.44 narrative contains nothing of the “power” language found in Mk. 5.30. But the significance of verse 30 may rest in its rhetorical function as much as in its theological implication. In the selection from Mk. 1.44, Jesus is aware and confronted by the leper. Thus, he is fully aware of his physical interaction with the afflicted. In the case of the woman with the issue of blood, her clandestine approach and contact with Jesus requires, for the sake of completing the story, that something alert Jesus to her actions. The insertion of the “power” language in Mk. 5.30 may indicate the phenomenological aspect of Christ’s healing ministry. While a projection from the specific to the general is tenuous at best it could be, nonetheless, that this “power” element an element that is to be understood in Mk. 1.44.

This story in the Gospels is about several things. It is about healing, about faith in Jesus, about God’s power, and about his mercy and compassion. I suggest that this story is also about purity. But “purity” has become for us as moderns an abstraction. Surely we all enjoy a nice shower, we all want our hands clean when we eat, and we all take seriously oral hygiene (or at least we should). But biblical purity is not tantamount to cleanliness. For the ancients, purity was a state of being required by the presence of God, or gods, in the land and not, therefore, an abstraction. It defined the boundary of the holy. God’s presence in the land was tangible and localized. Indeed, purity was a sine qua non for a faithful Jewish adherent. Thus we have come full circle from the problems associated with “cultural gaps.” I hope that the above study has demonstrated a way in which the text can educate us about divine realities espoused in the biblical text. In the above example, the intrepid reader will note that HB and NT act in symbiosis when read from a Christian context.[45]

Impurity had the potential to upset this sacred state and impinge upon the divine presence in the Land, bringing with it catastrophic results that could potentially lead to the punishment of the people through warfare, famine, or exile.[46] But more than that, impurity alienates the faithful from their religion. Ultimately, ritual impurity affects the Temple by impinging, phenomenologically, upon the Divine Presence. Purgation of this affront is eventually required by the administration of the hatta’t sacrifice.

Regarding the woman with the issue of blood in the NT, I suggest that we apply this understanding of ritual impurity to the work and ministry of Jesus. Clearly the woman was in a state of ritual impurity, which offends against the Temple in a direct and quantitative capacity as HB posits. In the light of this and the NT story, the Temple must have been awaiting re-purification for twelve years as a result of the woman’s impurity. Her vain attempts to remedy the problem through doctors were likely a desire to rid her of the physical discomfort as well as to return to a state of ritual purity wherein she might once more worship at the Temple. Her contact with Jesus’ garment not only heals her of her malady, but also returns her to a state of ritual purity. I suggest that the “power” that left Jesus when the woman touched him should be understood as the contact between the holy (Jesus) and the impure (the ritually impure woman).[47] Normally, this “power” consumes the impurity. In the NT story, however, the woman is not destroyed. Rather, Jesus’ work and ministry is to return the impure to a state of ritual purity before the Lord. In so doing, Jesus enables the impure to worship once more with the community of the faithful in the sacred place of God. Thus, the ministry of Jesus is a ministry of reconciliation of the impure and God, which is viewed by the Gospel writers as “salvation.”[48]

[1] I am not using this term pejoratively.

[2] In fact, the two categories of “interpretation” and “intelligibility” exist in symbiosis for biblical studies. Cf. Brevard S. Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM Press, 1992) 83. One of C.S. Lewis’ strongest criticisms of his day and age was that “good words” such as “condescend” had taken an almost entirely negative connotation. The tendency runs in the reverse as well. For instance, a word such as “anxious” generally holds today a relatively favorable connotation, “I am anxious to see you” = “I very much want to see you soon.” Misunderstanding of this type could in part be attributed to ignorance on the part of the speaker(s); they simply do not use proper diction. But part of it is reflective of a particular impression held in the general public about a particular term. Lewis’ criticism of this feature of his culture is applicable to even his own writing as it stands in modern culture. For instance, in The Silver Chair chapter 8, Lewis writes about Jill: “Though her tongue was never still, you could hardly say she talked: she prattled and giggled. She made love to everyone—the grooms, the porters, the housemaids, the ladies-in-waiting, and the elderly giant lords whose hunting days were past.” The context leaves little doubt about what was intended, but the phrase “making love” has come to be considered univocally as a sign of sexual intercourse, a connotation clearly not meant by Lewis. This is one small example of the way in which terms are detrimentally univocalized, and indicates one of the hazards of modern translation/interpretive work. Terms are sometimes avoided because they carry an ugly connotation to modern sensibilities. There is something to commend this approach in translating, but only insofar as it makes the text readable to the modern ear. It is one-sided, and misleading, to suggest that “text-intelligibility” depends on how we understand it in our modern culture. If HB and NT are anything, they are standards in and of themselves, pointing to ways of living and interacting with the divine that are not wholly grounded in historical soil. Thus understanding depends on educating one in the tradition of the text and not simply its modern day application.

[3] Early Jewish religious practices were highly liturgical, with an emphasis on sacrifice. This conceptual framework is all too often lost in modern Christian religious observance with the possible exception of the Easter celebration. The problem, of course, is that forgiveness requires propitiation. According to Christian orthodoxy, the repentance and the acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ is still needed for every instance of forgiveness. All too often, modern Christians are reluctant to focus on sacrifice as a necessary element in the act of forgiveness. It naturally follows that if Christ’s sacrifice is essential to an understanding of forgiveness and repentance within the Christian tradition. See Childs Biblical Theology 64 et passim has made this point clear by insisting that the Chrisitan canon, and interpretation as well, is shaped by Christology. The paradigm of forgiveness/sacrifice is a Hebraic one through and through. In short, we must re-appropriate the Hebrew Bible (HB) dynamic of sacrifice and repentance with respect to the work of Christ in the life of a Christian. Noteworthy on this point is Athanasius’ handling of the Incarnation. In his work, he suggests that Christ’s death is valid precisely because Christ was human De Incarnation ed. and trans. by Robert W. Thomson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) 9 and 54. This is a HB concept, note the rendering of the hatta’t for sin (hata’). Mary Douglas’ views in Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: University Press, 1999) are commendable. In that work, she discusses the projectable image of the Temple into multiple spheres of life. I do not think that we can suppose that the Jewish or Christian religions did away with the “Temple motif” in their religious practices, even after 70 A.D. Rather, I think it is better to view these groups as appropriating the “Temple motif” through altered or changed religious beliefs. At Qumran, for instance, the community itself was the Temple. This does not mean, however, that the importance of the Temple motif was undermined. In fact, the Temple motif was central to the communal ethos. The idea was that the community was living in direct communion with God. Cf. 1QM and the preparation plans for battle; CD on the structure of the community; 1QS on the initiation of new adherents. For the purity of the community as demanded by the presence of angels amongst the faithful, cf. e.g., 1QM(War Scroll) 7.6; 4Q491(4QM^a); 1Qsa 2.8-9; 4Q175(Florilegium); and 1QH(Hodayot) 11.21-23, 13.13, and 18.11-14.

[4] Note Childs Biblical Theology 7.

[5] A ritual impurity differs from a moral impurity in several ways, which is summed up nicely by Jonathan Klawans Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: University Press, 2000) 30f. Primarily, ritual impurities are those that render the afflicted person temporarily unclean, affect a section of the Temple, are communicable, and are ameliorated through a waiting period and the presentation of a sacrifice. Moral impurities, however, offended directly against the Divine Presence, the Holy of Holies, are not communicable, and require no definitive waiting period after which amelioration through sacrifices take place.

[6] Note Jacob Milgrom “Leviticus” Anchor Bible Commentary v. I (New York: Doubleday1991) 948-957, 980 and v. II 1711-1726, who fully and clearly discusses the danger presented by the ritually impure vis-à-vis the holiness of God.

[7] The LXX is important in the transference of biblical concepts and typologies insofar as it was likely the Bible used by the Greek authors/translators of the NT.

[8] Note Emil Schürer HJP v.II 81-84, 475-479 regarding the importance of the Levitical purity laws.

[9] The obvious focus in much of the Hebrew Bible regarding the relationship between Heaven and Earth congeals around the emphasis that the two worlds meet in the Temple, where God “dwells” amongst His people. It is not until the formulation of the Wisdom Literature that this attitude is altered in a systematic way, where the focus of the shifting realities of Jewish national identity becomes embodied in the Law of Moses and the universal witness of the Created order. The Psalmic material, e.g., Ps. 19 and many of the “Heavenly Kingship” Psalms, press this issue of universal sovereignty as well, but do so from the perspective of the covenant. Thus, they differ from the Wisdom material, which frequently posits that a well-guided life may be obtained through human scrutiny and is, therefore, open to all who would think. Of course, in the dominant 2^nd Temple text of Wisdom, ben Sira/Sirach, Wisdom is held to be that which is gained from an understanding of God’s Law, or Torah. Cf. R.E. Clements Wisdom in Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1992) 1-39.

[10] Note Jacob Neusner The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 28-29, 32-71 and Mary Douglas Critique and Commentary found in Jacob Neusner The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism 137-142. The debate between Neusner and Douglas seems to center on the notion of a continuous tradition from HB to the rabbis on the issue of purity, in particular on the understanding of a priestly theodicy. Where Douglas and Neusner agree (but only by disagreeing!) is in the importance that the Temple played in the religious life of 2^nd Temple Period Jews.

[11] Philo Spec. Leg. I.66-67, 84-85, 114; Som. I.215; Plant. 46-50; Vita Mosis II.109-135. Note C.T.R. Hayward’s fine summary of Philo’s understanding of the Temple in The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996) 109-142.

[12] Josephus BJ IV.324-325; Ant. III.184-187. Note Hayward’s summary idem 144-153.

[13] Note e.g., m. Parah 3.8, 4.3 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Num. 19.2. C.T.R. Hayward notes this point and states emphatically: The red heifer was of cardinal importance when the Temple stood, and continued to occupy the finest minds among the tannaim and amoraim. Also note Neusner A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part 9, Parah Commentary, and Part 10, Parah Literary and Historical Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1976).

[14] Note e.g., Gn R III.4; Suk. 55b; Lev. R. VII. 2; Schurer’s discussion v. II on the function of Law in Jewish religious awareness in Second Temple period.

[15] The best summary and critique of the purity system of Leviticus as a system of boundary markers is provided by Mary Douglas Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979) in particular chs. 7-8; idem. Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: University Press, 1999) ch. 4.

[16] An interesting point of view on this topic is offered by Martin Buber in Kingship of God (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1967) 99-107, wherein Buber avers that this “dwelling” amongst Israel is an “action” and not a “state of being.” The makes sense in light of the emphasis placed on action within HB vis-à-vis stasis. Take “memory” for instance. While the concept in HB does not refer to the psychological event of “calling to mind” a past event, it most often refers to “calling to mind with the intention of producing actin.” Thus memory in HB is not centered on stasis, but action. On this point note Brevard S. Childs Memory and Tradition in Israel SBT 37 (London: SCM Press, 1962) chapters 1-2.

[17] There are a few sections in Numbers in which the purity laws are also mentioned and I will reference those in passing. Most of our concern has to do with the purity system set down in Leviticus.

[18] Compare the scene at Mt. Sinai and the giving of the Law in which the Lord commands Moses to warn the people not to touch the mountain lest they die (Ex. 19.12f) to the scene at the Day of Atonement in which the Lord commands Moses to warn Aaron not to enter into the Holy of Holies willfully (Lev. 16.1f).

[19] Note here that b’ney isra’el, normally rendered as the “sons of Israel” is used, which, in this instance, must refer to both males and females. It may prove useful to keep this in mind when rendering other instances of the phrase throughout the Pentateuch and beyond.

[20] Klawans Impurity and Sin 39-40 has argued that the prolonged period of time of separation for the woman is to protect her from rigors that might jeopardize her health. He notes that this does not cover the disparity between the length of separation for a male child and a female one. Douglas Leviticus as Literature 182-183 has also argued in such a manner and it is likely that this “period of rest” is the explanation for the prolonged post-partum separation.

[21] Note Ex. 19.22 in which the holiness of the Lord is said to “break out” against the unconsecrated priests. The operation of the Day of Atonement is much the same. The high priest is not permitted entry into the Holy of Holies except for one day. If he transgresses this law, he will be killed, note Lev. 16.2.

[22] Indeed, the very name of the Temple (‘ohel mo’ed—‘tent of meeting’) in Exodus is suggestive of such; cf. Ps. 35.18; 109.30; 111.1 and II Chr. 5.13. On the Second Temple Literature, note Sirach 50; also cf fns. 7 and 8 for Philo and Josephus.

[23] Corpse defilement is essential if a dead body is to be buried, yet is the strongest defiling agent in HB—note Num 9; also note our example here in which the menstrual cycle of a woman renders her impure; those who have contracted naturally occurring skin diseases—Lev. 14.

[24] The priest who removes the ashes of the red heifer becomes ritually impure (akaqartoj) until evening—note Num. 19.l.

[25] This in no way lessens the disparity between men and women in the HB, which is present, but it does serve to illustrate that the use of the HB to subjugate women to men is a misappropriation of the text. If anything, the Pentateuchal tradition displays a keen desire to protect women from rigors that might endanger their well being. Douglas Leviticus as Literature 181 states regarding the ritually impure period of the puerperal woman, “Ritual disablement is not a hardship; indeed, she needs the privilege of rest.”

[26] This is a striking and important feature of Israelite religion, supported grammatically by the use of the Hebrew prepositions lf or dfb when referring to the act of administering the sacrifice. This means that the sacrifices are never meant to purify someone, but to purge something on behalf of someone. The individual is held intimately responsible to the whole of the community. Not only that, but the individual is placed in direct relationship with God; their discomfort is always “felt” by God through the defilement of the Temple.

[27] Milgrom “Leviticus” v. I 256.

[28] This is a curious concept with which to come to terms. It points to a very personal relationship espoused by the Levitical authors wherein concern for the individual is stated in terms qualitatively comparable to those used of the community. One implication of this system is that it portrays a God acutely concerned with the individual. Furthermore, it shows the profound nature of God’s relationship with His people, in which the deity experiences each and every impurity or inadvertency directly. This sheds additional light, in my opinion, on the sublimity of the “suffering servant” narrative in Is. 53.4.

[29] I hesitate to use the term “cultic.” Speaking as a modern, the term often implies or connotes negative sentiments. Admittedly, “religious” is not a great improvement, but I feel as though it may imply a more personalized and intimate understanding of the rituals of “Temple worship,” which I think is a more accurate description of Jewish religious self-awareness in the Second Temple Period.

[30] Note the dialogue of 1QS in which the ritual impure are so termed because of elements of rebellion and sinfulness.

[31] The Greek text Sirach, a Second century Jewish composition originally written in Hebrew, contains a lively portrayal of the Temple service at which the Great High Priest, Simon Son of Onias (a Zadokite), is presenting offerings on the altar. This example gives us some indication as to what the Temple service may have been like. Note 50.17-19, “Then all the people together quickly fell to the ground on their faces to worship their Lord, the Almighty, God Most High. Then the singers praise him with their voices in sweet and full-toned melody. And the people of the Lord Most High offered their prayers before the Merciful One, until the order of worship of the Lord was ended, and they completed his ritual.”

[32] Lev. 12.4 refers to the parturient who is forbidden entry into the sanctuary and is impure (akaqartoj); 13.3—the unclean leper; 15.2—the man with a genital flow; 15.25—the woman with a genital flow.

[33] Robert Lisle Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, 1973) has offered a valuable insight into the possibilities of Hebrew background to the NT. His translation of this passage in Mark is as follows: Md hbz rwx hwx Mwv and lends clarity to the religious implications. This is to be expected based on our observations of the Greek text and supports the notion that the Markan author was dealing with the issue of ritual impurity. Aramaic Peshitta has bmarreethah dadmah—“bitterness of the blood” which may reflect a later attempt to accommodate the story to a society in which the potency of a “flow of blood” as a ritual impurity had been lost due to the Temple’s destruction. Lk.8. 43 has the same phrase as Mark whereas Mt. 9.20 has aimorroousa. Interestingly, in both the Lukan and Matthean narratives, the Aramaic more closely follows the Greek “flow.”

[34] Further commendation for this suggestion rests in studies on the LXX. Most scholars of the LXX suggest that the Pentateuch served as a ‘phrasebook’ for the translators of the rest of the Old Testament. This is to say that the translator(s) of Isaiah, for instance, likely used phrases from the Pentateuch for their translation. Note in particular Emanuel Tov Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint (Jerusalem: Simor Ltd, 1981); Staffan Olofsson The Translation Technique in the LXX ConBOT 30 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1992). If the Pentateuch stood as a ‘phrasebook’ for other translators, it is worthwhile to commend it as a ‘phrasebook’ for the New Testament translators as well. The fact that Hebrew originals for the New Testament books no longer exist does not detract from this observation. Many works such as Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, Jubilees, and Baruch were originally written in a Semitic dialect, translated to Greek, and then the Semitic version was lost.

[35] Josephus Ag. Ap. II.103.

[36] The rabbis understood ritual impurity as a non-transgression. Yet neglect to maintain proper hermetic separation while in a state of ritual impurity is a transgression. Note in particular m.Shab. 2.6.

[37] The rabbis continuously discussed the transmission of impurity with regard to primary, secondary, and tertiary impurities, i.e., items rendered impure by something else. The point on which they all agree is that impurity is highly contagious, defiling most things by contact. Note e.g., m. Sotah 5.2; Tebul Yom 4.1, 3; m. Parah 8.7; b. Shab 13b, 14b. I am grateful to James Crossley for a conversation we had at the British New Testament Conference in Birmingham, England Sept. 4-6, 2003 at which he presented a paper entitled “Jesus and the Transmission of Impurity.” Crossley’s basic position is that Jesus, in Mark’s Gospel in particular, was that Jesus was entering a halakhic debate over the transmission of impurities through unwashed hands. According to Crossley, Jesus lands on the side of the those who suggest that unwashed hands do not defile the eater.

[38] Both Josephus Ant. III.182-184 and Philo Vita Mosis II. 109-135.

[39] Translation taken from Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah trans. by Rev. J. Israelstam (London: The Soncino Press, 1983) 129.

[40] See also, Arakin 16a; B. Yoma 73ab; Zebahim 88b; J. Yoma 7.

[41] See Jacob Milgrom’s fine treatment and thorough treatment of this topic in “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray” Revue Biblique 83 (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1976) 390-399.

[42] James Barr noted in “Sacrifice and Offering” found in Dictionary of the Bible (Ediburgh: T and T Clark,

1963) 874 that the hatta’t sacrifice is “…literally the language of purification.” Cf. Milgrom “Leviticus” v. I 253-254. Milgrom cites a wealth of rabbinic material of which b. Nazir 19a; and Nid.31b are examples.

[43] Also note Lam. 4.14 so defiled are the priests of Jerusalem that no one “dares to touch their garments.”

[44] A phenomenological link between suppliant and offering may be found in Ex. 30.10, a reflection of the Day of Atonement celebration detailed in Lev. 16. In the account in Ex., the writer makes clear that it is the “blood of the sin offering (hatta’t) that atones/purifies the altar (read here Lev. 16) on behalf of the community of Israel. This reading informs, in my opinion, the subsequent priestly legislation on the tendering of the “sin-offering” in e.g., Lev. 4.25, 30; and 5.12. This is particularly telling in light of the fact that when offering a sacrifice for the purification process, a suppliant must first “lay his/her hands” upon the sacrificial animal. Likely this is to represent the transference of impurity/sin to the sacrifice, which is then brought into contact with the divine presence through the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar.

[45] This is to say, Christians understand two issues: first, the healing of the woman with the issue of blood is set in relief by its significance vis-à-vis the purity legislation of the Hebrew Bible. Second, the purity legislation is set in relief by its significance and as being subject to Christ’s work and ministry. Thus, as Christians, we do “Christian biblical theology” as opposed to simply “biblical theology.” Cf. Jon Levenson The Old Testament, Hebrew Bible, and Historical Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster 1993).

[46] The Greeks regarded impurity as dangerous to the land, note e.g., Sophocles Oedipus Turranos and Oedipus at Colonnus.

[47] Cf. Mark 5.30; Lk. 8.46. Here is not the place to discuss the dimensions of this “power.” I think there to be a relationship between the defilement of the Temple and the power that leaves Jesus. I will be discussing this issue in a later work.

[48] In the three Gospel accounts, Jesus says to the woman, “Daughter, your faith has saved you.” The Greek term is from the root swzw, which is used routinely in LXX inter alia in instances in which the author’s life has been preserved—e.g., the story of Lot’s escape from Sodom and Gomorrah in Gn. 19; in Dt. 33.29, Israel is describe as one “saved by the Lord,” a reference likely to the Exodus account; David and his men save the inhabitants of Keilah from the Philistines in 1 Sam. 23; and Ps. 30.4 in which the author says that the Lord “saves him from those who go down to the pit.”