Uncleanness, Sin, and Holiness in the Hebrew Bible

Introduction

Most modern Christians (and essentially all unbelievers) misunderstand the key patterns used by the Hebrew Bible to convey the concepts related to Holiness. They tend to see a binary pattern that can be summarized as: “Holiness is the absence of Sin”. But that’s not the pattern that the ancient authors of the Torah were guided by. Certainly, there is a relationship between sin and holiness. But it’s just not the one we moderns think of. Let’s see what it is.

Background

The overarching purpose of the instructions found mainly in the books of Leviticus and Numbers (but to a lesser degree also in Exodus and Deuteronomy) was to define for Israel how they were to maintain a state of “acceptable-to-God”, both of the things and the people, necessary for them to be with/near Him in their camp. This was the sacrificial system[i]. Remember, following the Exodus, God’s presence was with them; on the mountain, leading them in the cloud and flame through the desert, and resident in the center of their camp in the “tent of meeting”.

Their challenge was that God was holy (6918. קָדוֹשׁ qāḏôš) (Lev 11:44-45). Therefore, any object or person who approached Him had to also be made holy by ritual procedure.

Here we encounter the first pattern that shaped the early priests’ worldview, that of a three-level holiness model. Conceptually it is quite simple as depicted in the adjacent figure.

To the Jew, “clean” was his nominal state. He was required to be clean to live in the camp, so as not to defile the community or the place where God was. However, some things were ritually unclean (corpses, various animals prohibited as food, menstrual blood, certain skin diseases — 6883. צַרְעַת ṣar`aṯ, [incorrectly identified in English bibles as “leprosy”, which it was not]) with which contact would make him unclean.

Generally speaking, all things that were not holy were “common”. Common objects to be used in the presence of God (at His tabernacle/temple: e.g. knives or other utensils) had to first be made holy by submitting them to a sanctifying ritual.

Cleanness and Uncleanness

However, not every common thing was clean and could be made holy. The food laws identify many common animals being declared “unclean” (see Lev 11, 13–14 [ii]). (It’s interesting to note that the penalty for violating the food laws – Kashrut – may originally have been death or banishment[iii], the same as for violating one of the moral laws.)

When one came into contact with any of these sources of uncleanness, he himself became unclean. In that state, he could be remediated back to a state of cleanness by following rituals prescribed by the priests, so that he could once again live within the camp with his people. Such rituals included just the passage of time (e.g. “until sundown”) or time plus one or more sacrifices. But until he had done so, he had to remain separated from the people.

In an encounter with something unclean, the person was “defiled” (made unclean — (2930. טָמֵא ṭāmē’, טָמְאָה ṭām’āh)) by the uncleanness of the encountered object (e.g. a human or animal corpse). The person wasn’t unclean in the same sense as the encountered thing was unclean. But his status of “clean” was revoked and had to be ritually restored. The procedure for such a thing was specified in the “instructions” (i.e. Torah), dependent on the specific situation.

For example, women in their menstrual cycle or having just given birth were considered “unclean” (Lev 12). Their uncleanness had nothing to do with sin. It was the result of their natural condition. And, the key feature of that condition seems to have been their issuance of blood. Why this should be considered “uncleanness” is not stated in the Bible. Perhaps it has to do with blood as the symbol of life, and in these cases that same life source being lost from its intended purpose of life sustainment. Who knows[x]?

The fact is it was nevertheless the view of the ancient Israelite priests. In the case of the post-birth woman, she had first to pursue a cleansing ritual through the passage of time and a ritual bath in water (Lev 12), and then regain her ritual cleanness and the ability to live with God through a Hatta’at (“sin” or purification) offering followed by an Olah (burnt) offering.

Notice. The woman didn’t do anything wrong (i.e. sin). (The same is true for those encountering other forms of uncleanness.) In fact, she only followed God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”. Nevertheless, her priest-defined uncleanness needed to be ritually cleansed.

Holiness Vs Cleanness

Holiness was required to enter the precincts of the temple designated as holy and was reserved for priests. They themselves had gone through the necessary sanctifying rituals to achieve the standing of “holy” before entering the Holy Space. They also had to be members of the right ancestral line (i.e. descendants of the Levite Aaron, Moses’ brother: see below this story).

Here’s where we get into a significant point of ambiguity in the Bible. The priests claimed the franchise on holiness for themselves by prohibiting anyone other than an Aaronic priest from sacrificing at the holy altar or entering the holy temple.

However, we have God’s exhortation in Lev 11:45 to the average Israelite to himself be holy:

“For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.” (KJV)

So what’s going on here with holiness? How did the average Israelite understand what he needed to do to “be holy, for I am holy”?

To get a sense of the tension here we have to recall that God initially created mankind “in his own image” (Ge 1:27). Much later He commissioned Israel to become for Him a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). Under the now-temple cult, through the strictures of Leviticus, however, they are not holy (at least to the priests), nor is there any prescription in the Hebrew Bible to make the common Israelite holy.

It appears that “holiness” became bifurcated; split into two sub-categories. The word itself is:

קׂדֶשׁ qōḏeš: A masculine noun meaning a holy thing, holiness, and sacredness. The word indicates something consecrated and set aside for sacred use only; it was not to be put into common use, for if it was, it became profaned and common (ḥôl), not holy. This noun described holy offerings or things used in Israel’s cult; it described the holy offerings which only the priest or his family could eat (Lev 22:10). Some of the offerings of the Lord were described as Most Holy (Lev 2:3,10; Nu 18:9)

This is the priestly definition of “holy”. The common man, to survive, had to be engaged in common things – bartering and trading, shepherding a flock, weaving cloth for clothing, and preparing food. These activities were “common” (ḥôl).

So it appears that at some point, the priests simply said: “We aren’t going to do common things. We’re going to remain set apart for the things of God”. They concluded that they were the holy ones and the common Israelites were not. Thus, the common Israelite’s prohibition from entering the temple or sacrificing on its altar.

All Levites (the tribe from which priests and temple servants were drawn) were relieved from doing the common things other Israelites had to do to survive, and were privileged to be supported by the non-Levitical tribes (Dt 18:1-8).

But God’s definition of holy was “set apart for Himself, apart from the unholy (unchosen) for life with Him as His people”[iv]. This is what made the nation of Israel unique, “elect”.

This usurpation of holiness, in my opinion, was a brazen act on the part of the priests that, among other things, was above their “pay grade”. Here, they have contradicted God’s manifest intent and proclamation for His people, in classifying them as not holy. This, in my opinion, was a gross overreach.

And apparently, I’m not the only one to see this as priestly overreach. We see evidence that some leaders in Israel also thought that this was unjustified. In Numbers 16 we find the story of Korah the Levite’s “rebellion”. (There are several variants of this story in the Pentateuch.) Here we read Korah (and two other Levites) challenging Moses and Aaron: Num 16:3:

[3] They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

Moses is momentarily contrite, “falling on his face”. The author of Numbers then has Moses declare that God is going to show (of Aaron or Korah and his two friends) who is holy the next morning. The story concludes with Korah and his friends and all of their families and possessions being swallowed up by the earth. This chapter is the entire pedigree of Israel’s Aaronic priesthood and the only rationale offered for tossing aside God’s express charter to the nation to be holy.

The Pattern of Holiness

We can see this priestly hierarchical model instantiated in many of the Pentateuch’s important symbols starting with the Garden in Genesis 1-3. In the Garden, there is God – He Who is holy; the Garden itself and its inhabitants, in a state of holiness in the presence of God; and the region outside of the Garden, where the disobedient inhabitants of the Garden are later exiled because of their actions against God’s will (sin).

We can see this pattern of a hierarchy of holiness in the story of Mt. Sinai/Horeb when God summons Moses to ascend the mountain to His location, along with 70 of Israel’s elders, but leaving the people at the bottom (Ex 24:1-2).

We can also see it in the layout of the Tabernacle and Temple, as represented in the following figure:

Here we see graphically portrayed the mindset of the priests. The Temple layout contained, in fact, a “Court of the Gentiles”, separated from the Temple precinct itself by a physical wall called a soreg. And this area was for those who were ritually “unclean” – the uncircumcised Gentiles.

Then there was a large area in which all structures and people were ritually “clean”. This area included the “Court of the Women”, the “Court of the Jews/Israel”, the altar, and the Temple structure itself.

Within, or proximate to the Temple structure were its altar and its Holy Space (in which was the Menorah, the table of showbread, and the incense stand).

And finally, within the Holy Space was the house of God, symbolized by its Ark of the Covenant as His “Mercy Seat” – the Holy of Holies (or the “especially Holy place”).

So how did the priests prescribe the remediation of Israel’s uncleanness and (in their view) unholiness? That’s what a huge part of the Torah, aside from the historical narrative portions, is all about.

The Priestly Model of Preserving Acceptance by God

The priestly sacrificial system[v] and law were extremely complex and very detailed. It is complicated by the fact that uncleanness has nothing to do with the Israelites’ assumed ungodliness (which modern Christians would describe as sinfulness)[vi]. From the story of the expulsion from the Garden, Israelites understood their innate nature as unholy and so deprived of eternal life in the Garden – sinful, if you will (though they wouldn’t call it sinful). However, the prescriptions for both conditions – uncleanness and unintentional sin – use many of the same sacrifices.

On some level, then, at least to the priests, uncleanness, and sin, though operating in completely different domains (the physical vs the spiritual) had something in common, and that appears to be their unacceptability to YHWH. This is reflected in the Torah conflating the concept of “uncleanness” and “sin” as in the following, speaking of the day of atonement: Lev 16:16:

[16] Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.

Notice that the thing receiving “atonement” is first the Holy Place and then the tent of meeting itself — the objects that had to be undefiled. It was not the sinful Israelites!

On the occasion of realizing that one had unintentionally sinned (a violation of a command of God), the Israelite was required to offer a Hatta’at – literally a sin or purification offering. But this offering was, confusingly, also used to purge some forms of uncleanness from its victim (see below).

“The common denominator unifying the “purification offering” category was the function to purge sins or physical ritual impurities from persons or sacred objects and precincts.”[vii]

So this offering did double duty, both purging the blemish of an unintentional sin[viii] and purging the uncleanness caused by contacting an unclean object. Functionally it is a “purgation” offering.

The offering that was used to confess one’s ungodliness and through it seek God’s (re-)acceptance was the Olah, or burnt, offering (literally “that which goes up”. Lev 1:3-5). In this type the sacrificed animal was completely burned on the altar (except its skin which was given to the priest), causing its smoke to ascend to God. The complete burning of the animal was symbolic of the complete consecration experienced (at least temporarily) by the offeror. (Interestingly, a burnt offering was one step of the procedure followed for sin/purification offerings.)

It’s important to notice that the one who offered this Olah sacrifice was himself considered “clean”. One could not present an offering to the priests in an unclean state unless he was in the process of becoming clean[v]. In the priest’s system, sinfulness wasn’t incompatible with cleanness. Remember, the purpose of maintaining cleanness was to create an environment in which God could live – the Israelite camp — separated from uncleanness.

The only other offering having anything to do with the offeror’s sin or sin nature is the Asham or Guilt offering (sometimes called the Reparation offering). This offering was invoked in the special case where one‘s sin caused a financial loss to another. So it specified either the repayment of the financial harm in silver (plus 20% for the priest) or the sacrifice of a ram.

None of the prescribed sacrifices/offerings detailed in the Pentateuch have anything to do with the propitiation of the offeror’s “sin” as we modern Christians think of such things, i.e. the concept of being “forgiven” of one’s sin. Rather they are more of the sense of paying for the purging of the sin or ritual uncleanness of the offeror so that he could remain “in the camp” in good standing with God and not threatening God’s holiness through his unredeemed sin or uncleanness.

It seems the whole thrust of the entire sacrificial system was the recognition by the Jews of their imperfection (or natural unholiness), resulting in their perpetual need to make sacrifices to the “Holy One of Israel” for the privilege of continuing to live with – to stay close to — Him. This was motivated by their desire for His providence: protection from their enemies and the experience of fruitful flocks and harvests produced by their God.

I’ve tried to think of a good analogy for this system – maybe making rent payments on your home, or continuous payments on an interest-only loan, or on a life insurance policy. There is no end to it.

To repeat, the entire system was designed for one purpose: to allow God to continue to live with the Israelites by mitigating their sin or uncleanness from driving Him away. If they were to allow uncleanness or unatoned sin to enter into His precincts, they reasoned, He might have to retreat to preserve His holiness, and so separate from His people. And, for Israel, that would be cataclysmic.

Conclusion and Contrast With Christianity

The priest’s sacrificial system is, of course, not the model modern Christians have in mind for their status relative to God or their Christ. To them, there are two states: unsaved (the natural state of mankind), or forgiven of their sin, through devotion to Christ, and thereby “saved”.

It is also not a common Christian theme or teaching that their destiny is to live with (or within) the Holy God, as was the everyday experience of the early Israelites. Most Christians see the whole relationship as exclusively their salvation from their sin so that (for most) they can simply “go to heaven”. (Not that God fills heaven or anything (Je 23:24)!). They (most) are happy simply thinking they will avoid going to the other place.

In other words, modern Christians have little, if any, awareness of the vastness of the difference between them as they are now, and God’s holy perfection, something the Tabernacle and Temple Israelites experienced and dealt with daily.

I don’t defend the practices of the Temple cult. However, it seems we’ve cheapened God, His purity, His holiness, and all of His “omni-“ properties, and instead have focused our attention on how Christ punches our ticket out of this world and into the “good” place.

This is, at least in part, a major reason why many modern Christians have never even bothered to open up the books of Leviticus or Numbers (or the “law” parts of Exodus and Deuteronomy). Occasionally they may have had a glance at Exodus for the power of its historical narrative. And, some have perhaps glanced at Deuteronomy for the same reason. But in handling these texts in this way, they have almost assuredly missed the holiness model that guided the formation of early Israelite living and worship patterns described in these books, and that now makes clear how glorious the redemption by Christ for His followers is.

I have written elsewhere that God (YHWH) comes across in the Hebrew Bible as quite incredulous of the incessant sacrificing of animals that the Israelites institutionalized as documented in the Torah (see 1 Sam 15:22, Ps 40:6, Is 1:11-17, Je 7:22, Ho 6:6, Mi 6:6-8). There was obvious tension between the priests, with their sacrificial system, and God’s desire for his people to know and love Him and for themselves to be holy.

In just this brief overview of the highlights of the sacrificial system, and the mindset that produced it, I hope you can see just how radical Christ and His message would have sounded to the first-century Jewish mind. Sacrifice was the only way they had to remain in God’s favor.

Along comes Jesus of Nazareth who says He is the way to live with the Father (Jn 14.6). And He says that not only does He forgive people’s sins (including all of those moral sins that were unforgivable under Temple Judaism: e.g. murder, adultery, theft) of those that trust Him, but that He will indwell those with His Spirit thereby undoing the effect of their natural, sinful state (Jn 16:7, Rom 6:4, 2 Cor 5:17). And to top it all off, He says He is the “Son of God”, the claim that they killed Him for.

In Christ’s Kingdom, His followers can (and sometimes do) sin. But by doing so they cannot be defiled. Christians believe that they have been inoculated from the separation from God resulting from sin (though many believe repentance for that sin is necessary) because they are “members” of Christ Himself who was and is sinless.

Christ, unlike the priestly system, elevates a believer and disciple of Christ from whatever state of uncleanness or sinfulness to holy in one grand motion that incorporates him into Christ, the sinless, perfect representative of the Father. In the Judaic priestly system, one was procedurally prevented from transitioning from unclean to holy in one step, or at all (due to heredity).

If anything, the grinding, cultic sacrificial lives that so many generations of early Israelites lived should make modern Christians even more grateful for Christ, more aware of His perfection, His comprehensive mercy, and more aware of His standing with the Father as our advocate.

Imagine the impoverished Israelite, say in 400 BC, struggling to feed his family but compelled by his view of his standing with God to come up with yet another Olah offering for the Temple. Imagine if he had the opportunity to hear Christ proclaim that He had come and was the fulfillment of the Law (Lk 4:18-21). Imagine, if you can, the joy, profound relief, and encouragement that hearing would have produced. Be thankful!

[i] Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot) (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

[ii] Overview of Jewish Dietary Laws & Regulations (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

[iii] Hebrew National lawsuit: What happens to Jews who eat non-kosher food? (slate.com)

[iv] Remember, God’s purpose for redeeming Israel from Egypt was so that they could serve Him rather than serve Pharaoh (Ex 9:1)

[v] This resource is a handy guide to the purposes and applications of the sacrifices/offerings outlined by the Torah.

[vi] Feder, Yitzhaq, Journal of Ancient Judaism 5 (2014), 290–310

[vii] Gane, Roy E. “The Unifying Logic of Israelite Purification Offerings Within Their Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2010.

[viii] Some intentional sins could be remediated given the subject’s repentance. But there was no atonement for malicious intentional sins. It’s perpetrators were either killed or banished.

[ix] Sprinkle, Joe. “The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2000.

[x] There is speculation that the “why” of these blood-related conditions being declared unclean was related to general hygiene. Most scholars, however, point out that asking “why” questions about the details of the sacrificial system is something like a “fool’s errand” in that for most there is no rational/logical reason. That’s not how the ancient Israelites thought. Rather, they thought in terms of the patterns of relationships within their culture and applying those patterns to their current circumstances. In this “analogic” style of thought, this “unclean” designation may have simply been a reflection of their cultural tradition of separation of husband and wife during the time of these conditions.