Purification

A ceremony which consists in cleansing any thing from pollution or defilement. Purifications are common to Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans.

See IMPURITY.

Purification. Purification, in its legal and technical sense, is applied to the ritual observances, whereby, an Israelite was formally absolved from the taint of uncleanness. The essence of purification, in all cases, consisted in the use of water, whether by way of ablution or aspersion; but in the majora delicta of legal uncleanness, sacrifices of various kinds were added, and the ceremonies, throughout, bore an expiatory character.

Ablution of the person and of the clothes was required in the cases mentioned in Lev 15:18; Lev 11:25; Lev 11:40; Lev 15:17-18. In cases of childbirth, the sacrifice was increased to a lamb of the first year, with a pigeon or turtle-dove. Lev 12:8. The ceremonies of purification required in cases of contact with a corpse or a grave are detailed in Num 19:1. The purification of the leper was a yet more formal proceeding, and indicated the highest pitch of uncleanness. The rites are described in Lev 14:4-32.

The necessity of purification was extended, in the post-Babylonian Period, to a variety of unauthorized cases. Cups and pots and brazen vessels were washed as a matter of ritual observance. Mar 7:4. The washing of the hands before meals was conducted in a formal manner. Mar 7:3. What may have been the specific causes of uncleanness, in those who came up to purify themselves before the Passover, Joh 11:55, or in those who had taken upon themselves the Nazarites’ vow, Act 21:24; Act 21:26, we are not informed.

In conclusion, it may be observed that the distinctive feature, in the Mosaic rites of purification, is their expiatory character. The idea of uncleanness was not peculiar to the Jew; but with all other nations, simple ablution sufficed: no sacrifices were demanded. The Jew, alone, was taught, by the use of expiatory offerings, to discern, to its fullest extent, the connection between the outward sign, and the inward fount of impurity.

The outward purification with water, symbolizing man’s need of inward purity before admission into God’s presence. (See LEPER; PRIEST; BIRTH; NAZARITE.) Lev 11:25; Lev 11:40; Lev 12:6; Lev 12:8; Lev 12:15; Luk 2:22-24; Numbers 19; 31. See HEIFER; RED.) Heb 9:13.) The rabbis multiplied unauthorized purifications, e.g. cups, pots, couches. etc. (Mar 7:3; Joh 2:6.)

One of the essential attributes of God is his purity. This truth is constantly set forth in Scripture, both in plain declarations and also in symbolical representations. ’God is light, and in him is no darkness at all’ (1Jn 1:5) in the remarkable vision recorded in Exo 24:10, we read, ’They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a (paved) work of a sapphire-stone, and as it were the body [Literally the bone of heaven, i.e. the very heaven itself. The Hebrews often used the word ’bone,’ as we use ’marrow,’ for the essence of a thing. Our word bone is literally boen or essence.] of heaven in his clearness.’ With this description we may compare the vision of the Divine glory which St. John had, ’Before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal’ (Rev 4:6). What is compared in the one place to the brilliancy of the firmament [LXX, ὥσπερ εἰ̂δος στερεώματος του̂ οὐρανου̂ τῃ̂ καθαρότητι.]. is described in the other as an ocean of blazing crystal. That spotless purity which is the basis of the Divine character, and the atmosphere in which God exists, cannot indeed be adequately pictured forth by either of these figures. Even the heavens, though they declare his glory, are not pure in his sight. The ethereal splendour of the noonday is turned to darkness in the presence of Him who is ’the Father of lights.’ Saul of Tarsus knew well the dazzling brightness of an Eastern sun at midday, but when the Divine glory of the Sun of Righteousness shone round about him, he found it to be ’above the brightness of the sun’ (Act 26:13).

The ideal condition of man is to be godlike, that is, to be pure and unpolluted in heart, word, and deed. But he fails to live up to this ideal. There is a fearful gulf between the purity of the Divine Being and that defilement which is, in greater or less degree, the sad inheritance of every child of Adam. How is this gulf to be spanned? Who is there that can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? ’If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch’ (Job 9:30-31). ’Though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God’ (Jer 2:22). But what man cannot do, God Himself has done, according to the Scriptures. He has opened a fountain for sin and for uncleanness.

The process whereby moral impurity was to be done away was typified or shadowed forth by the purifications of the Levitical ritual; and the word which is in general use in the O.T. to express the process is thahér (טהר), which signifies, in the intensive form, to make clear, bright, or shining, and hence to make or pronounce clean. It is used of clearness in the passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter.

External purification was taken at a very early time as a symbol of internal cleansing. Thus Jacob says to his household, ’Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: and let us arise, and go up to Bethel’ (Gen 35:2). The cleansing and the change of dress were evidently intended to set forth the resolution to put away those false gods by which their lives had been contaminated. nor were the people of God peculiar in the use of this symbolical rite. It has been found in all ages and in almost all countries, especially where there is a hot climate. The word which is adopted for the purifications appointed by God is also used to express idolatrous purgations in Isa 66:17. The purification in the gardens there spoken of was simply misdirected symbolism.

Among the elements used for ceremonial cleansing in the Levitical system, three are especially to be noticed, namely, fire., water., and blood. Precious metals taken from idolatrous nations were to be passed through the fire; this process, together with an application of water, was considered to have purged them of their defilement. Clothing and all things that could not abide the fire were to be made to go through the water; and the persons of those who had come in contact with the heathen were to be reckoned unclean until this process was accomplished (Num 31:23-24). Cleansing by blood was needed in various cases of ceremonial defilement; in fact, ’almost all things are by the law purged with blood’ (Heb 9:22).

No instance of ceremonial cleansing is more fully detailed or more interesting than that of the leper. Here we have to distinguish between three processes, each of which was called by the same name. There was, first, the actual cure of the disease; secondly, the authoritative pronunciation by the priest; and, thirdly, the external washings, offerings, and other rites which signed and sealed the same, and gave the healed man admittance into the congregation. With regard to the cleansing away of the disease, we have no exact account in Scripture. Leprosy appears to have come and gone, no one knew how. It was regarded as incurable by human means, and was considered to be a special visitation from God. Hence it was often designated as the plague or stroke. [ in the opinion of some scholars leprosy is referred to in Isa 63:4, where we read, ’yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.’ Jerome’s translation is ’et nos putavimus eumquasi leprosrsumet percussum a Deo et humiliatum,’ ’we regarded him as if he were leprous, smitten of God, and humbled.’] The cure of Naaman is thus described, ’H is flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.’ (2Ki 5:14). It was with reference to this actual cure that the leper said to the Lord Jesus, ’Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.’ What the waters of Jordan were appointed to do in the one case, to indicate that salvation was of the Jews, the word and touch of Jesus of Nazareth did in the other, to shew that saving power was vested in Him. Secondly came the inspection by the priest. ’Go, shew thyself to the priest.’ If he was satisfied, by the presence of certain symptoms clearly described in the Law, that the man before him was cured, or ’clean’ (in the first sense of the term), then he ’pronounced him clean’ --literally, ’cleansed him.’ The official and authoritative declaration of the fact is thus identified in language with the fact itself. [This word is unique, and marks severance rather than death.] in order, however, that the man thus doubly ’cleansed’ might be received into the congregation and restored to those privileges from which he had been debarred, it was needful that he should be ’cleansed’ in a third sense through the offering of certain gifts and the performance of sundry remarkable rites, including the being sprinkled with blood and washed with water (see Lev. chaps.13. and 14).

A few other leading instances of the use of the ceremonial word thahér for purification may be noticed. It is used to distinguish the clean from the unclean beasts (Gen 7:2; Gen 7:8; Gen 8:20, Lev 20:25); to express the cleansing of the priests and Levites (Ezr 6:20); the cleansing of the people, the gates, and the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 12:30; Neh 13:9; Neh 13:22; Neh 13:30); of the l and (Eze 39:12; Eze 39:14; Eze 39:16). It also represents the pure gold used in the construction of the tabernacle vessels, &c. (Exo 25:1-40.); the pure perfume (Exo 30:35); the clean place where the ashes of the offerings were cast (Lev 4:12; Lev 6:11); and clean persons, who were to perform certain rites (Lev 7:19; Lev 10:10; Lev 11:32, &c.).

When we turn to the Psalms and the Prophets, we find thahér used several times in a moral and spiritual sense. The following are the most important passages:--Psa 12:6, ’The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in an earthen furnace, purified seven times’ Psa 19:9, ’The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.’ Psa 51:2, ’Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.’ Psa 51:7, ’Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.’ Psa 51:10, ’Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit with in me.’ Pro 15:26, ’The words of the pure are pleasant words.’ Pro 22:11, ’He that loveth pureness (or cleanness) of heart.’ Jer 13:27, ’O Jerusalem, wilt thou not be made clean?’ Jer 33:8, ’I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, and I will pardon all their iniquities.’ Eze 36:25; Eze 36:33, ’Then will I sprinkle clean water up on you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you;’ ’ in the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities.’ Eze 37:23, ’I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, where in they have sinned, and will cleanse them.’ Mat 1:11, ’ in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering,’ in contrast with the polluted offering of verse 7. Mat 3:3, ’He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.’

Purification According to the NT

With the exception of a few passages, thahér has been rendered by καθαρίζω in the LXX. The exceptions are as follows:-- in 2Ch 29:16; 2Ch 29:18; 2Ch 30:17-18, we find ἁγνίζω; in these passages reference is made to the cleansing or purification of the temple and the worshippers at the Feast of the Passover; ἀφαγνίζω occurs in Num 8:6; Num 8:21, where the cleansing of the Levites is spoken of; βρέχω, in Eze 22:24, where the prophet speaks of the l and not being cleansed with rain; ἁγνεία, in 2Ch 30:19; ἁγνισμός, in Num 8:7; δίκαιος, in Pro 30:12; and δοκιμός, in 2Ch 9:17.

Tracing the Greek word καθαρίζω through the N.T., we find that the Levitical purifications marked by this word were fulfilled in Christ. He made a καθαρισμός, or purgation, whereby our sins are done away (Heb 1:3). his blood cleanseth from all sin (1Jn 1:7). Consequently, ’If we confess our sins, God is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity’ (1Jn 1:9). The blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purges the conscience from dead works, so that the purged person is in a position to serve (λατρεύειν) the living God (Heb 9:14). Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word (Eph 5:26). He gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works (Tit 2:14).

In connection with these announcements we have the corresponding exhortations, ’Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God’ (2Co 7:1); ’Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water’ (Heb 10:22).

These passages teach that the offering of Christ is not only the pledge of pardon, but also the appointed means of cleansing for all who feel their moral pollution. The defilement of sin was to find its cure in that one great work. nor were its benefits confined to Jews. What God had cleansed was not to be regarded any longer as common or unclean. The middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was broken down. God made no difference; He purified the hearts of both through faith (Act 15:9).

The cleansing thus effected through Christ answers to all the aspects of the ceremonial cleansing of the O.T.: there is the actual moral change in the individual, the clean heart, the renewed spirit, the godly life; there is the changed social position, membership in the body of Christ becoming a reality; and there is the being pronounced and regarded as clean in the sight of God through the mediatorial agency of the High Priest.

In the law there were many ceremonial defilements, each of which had its appointed purification. To these the scribes and Pharisees added others, such as washing the hands before eating, washing cups and plates - being very zealous in these things, while within they were full of extortion and excess. Mar 7:2-8. In Christianity the purification required extends to the heart, Act 15:9; Jas 4:8; the soul , 1Pe 1:22; and the conscience through the blood of Christ. Heb 9:14.

PURIFICATION (1. καθαρισμός: of washings before and after meals, Joh 2:6; of baptism, a symbol of moral cleansing, Joh 3:25; of the Levitical purification of women after childbirth, Luk 2:22; of cleansing of lepers, Mar 1:44, Luk 5:14. 2. βαπτισμός: of cleansing of vessels, Mar 7:8).—From the time of the Exile onwards, the interest of the Jew had largely centred around ritual observance, conditioned, to begin with, by the necessity of maintaining the separateness of the Remnant that remained. These observances, so far as they concerned purification, had two main sources of origin. Some must have dated from a prehistoric period when religion had but little to do with ethics, and concerned itself rather with maintaining the favour of a deity, thought of as arbitrary, by avoiding practices that might trench upon his holiness. Other observances, of later date, may have had their origin in sanitary requirements. The result, however, as is well known, was that Jewish life became completely fettered by these ordinances, written and oral. When Christ came proclaiming liberty to the captives, He could not avoid running counter in many respects to the regulations dealing with purification. See art. Purity. The various ceremonies of purification referred to in the Gospels are these:

1. In case of leprosy (Mar 1:44, Luk 5:14, Mat 8:2, Luk 17:11-19).—The uncleanness of the leper seems to have been due not to the fear of contagion, for contagious diseases were not, generally speaking, regarded as unclean, but to the repulsive appearance of this particular disease. Leprosy (wh. see) was counted to be a special scourge; and the leper was, like the madman, supposed to be smitten of God. This distinctiveness of leprosy in the view of the priest is shown by the word used of its removal. Almost invariably its cleansing is denoted by the word καθαρίζειν. The exception to this is in the account of the healing of the Ten Lepers (Luk 17:15), where the word ἰᾶσθαι is used; but this exception may be accounted for on the ground that the narrative is dealing with Samaritans, who were regarded as being an alien people. The regulations for the purification of leprosy had two parts (Lev 14:1-32). In the first ceremony, on the conclusion of which the leper was admitted to the camp, though not to his tent, two living birds were taken. One was killed over an earthenware vessel filled with ‘living’ (spring) water, in such manner that the blood dropped into the vessel. The other bird, along with cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop, was then dipped into the blood-stained water, and the leper was sprinkled with it seven times. The bird was then released ‘into the open field,’ and was supposed to fly away with the leprosy, the blood-brotherhood between the leper and the bird being established by the immersion of the bird in the water.

The ceremony is akin to that of the laying of the sins of the people upon the head of the scapegoat, which was then sent away into the wilderness (Lev 16:21). By a similar ceremony, an Arab widow who is about to remarry makes a bird fly away with the uncleanness of her widowhood (W. R. Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] ^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} 422, 447).

The second part of the ceremony took place eight days after the first part. Probably the object of the interval was to ensure an additional period of quarantine in which it might be seen whether the cure had been effective. If the leper were in good circumstances, he offered two he lambs and was anointed by the priest with blood and oil. If the sufferer were poor, he could offer, in place of two lambs, one lamb and two turtledoves, or two small pigeons. Our Lord did not interfere in any way with the offerings for purification of leprosy (Mar 1:44, Luk 5:14, Mat 8:4).

2. In connexion with food (Mar 7:1-23, Mat 15:1-20, Joh 2:6; Joh 3:25).—The particular ritual connected with the ceremonial washing of hands affected Jewish life many times a day. Of the six books of the Mishna, the longest (Tohârôth) is devoted to the question of purification, and thirty chapters of this book deal with the cleansing of vessels. Even if the hands were already ceremonially clean, they had to be washed before a meal. A washing of the hands between the courses, as also a washing at the conclusion of the feast, was practised frequently; but this custom may have had its origin in obvious convenience, and not in any striving after ritual cleanliness (2Ki 3:11). In the ceremony itself, the hands were held over a basin while water was poured over them. The water was allowed to run down to the wrist (? Mar 7:3, see Swete’s note). Such was the ritual in the case of an ordinary meal. But if holy or sacrificial food was to be partaken of, the hands had to be completely immersed in the water. If the hands were ceremonially unclean, there had to be two washings. In the first, the fingers were elevated and the water was allowed to run down to the wrist. In the second, the finger tips were depressed, so that the water might run from the wrist downward, and might thus carry off the water that had, on the first washing, contracted the defilement of the hands. The water to be used in ceremonial washing was kept from possible defilement by being kept in large jars (ὑδρίαι, Joh 2:6). The vessel by which the water was drawn from these jars had to contain at least a quarter of a log, i.e. a measure equal to one and a half ‘eggshells’ (Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] ii. 9 ff.).

3. Before the Passover (Joh 11:55; Joh 18:28).—If the Jews were so particular to ensure ceremonial purity before an ordinary meal, they insisted on absolute ritual purity before the celebration of the Passover (Lev 7:20-21). The reason that kept Christ’s accusers from following Him into the judgment-hall (Joh 18:28) may have been simply the fear of the defilement they would incur by entering a heathen house. But it is still more likely that they remained outside for fear that the judgment-hall might contain somewhere within its walls a portion of leaven. The exclusion of leaven from all sacrifices offered to Jehovah was a very early custom (Exo 23:18; Exo 34:25), and must have been due to the desire to avoid the association of any form of corruption with the Feast. This seems all the more clear, when it is noticed that the exclusion of leaven is associated with the command that no fat or flesh shall remain over till the morning. The efficacy of the sacrifice lay in the living flesh and blood of the victim; thus everything of the nature of putrefaction had to be avoided. For this reason, milk, the commonest of foods in the East, had no place in Hebrew sacrifice (W. R. Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] ^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} 220).

4. After childbirth (Luk 2:22).—That childbirth renders a woman unclean is an almost universal belief among primitive peoples. Among some Arab tribes it was customary to build a hut outside the camp, where the woman had to stay for a time (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iv. 828^b; Wellhausen, Reste^{2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} , 170). The Priestly Code recognized two degrees of uncleanness (Leviticus 12). After the birth of a boy, the mother was to be counted unclean, as in menstruation, for a week, and was to continue ‘in the blood of her purifying’ for 33 days longer, during which she could touch no hallowed thing nor come into the sanctuary. She was thus unclean, in greater or less degree, for 40 days. But if the child were a girl, both periods of uncleanness were doubled. At the expiry of the 40, or of the 80, days, the mother offered a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering. But if she were poor (as was Mary, Luk 2:24), she could substitute for the lamb a young pigeon or a turtle-dove.

5. Graves as causes of defilement are referred to in Mat 23:27, Luk 11:44 (cf. Tomb).

R. Bruce Taylor.

See ṬAHARAH:

PURIFICATION.—See Clean and Unclean.

pū-ri-fi-kā´shun. See PURGE; PURITY; UNCLEAN.

(ἁãíéóìüò, Act_21:26; êáèáñéóìüò, Heb_1:3; 2Pe_1:9)

Purification is an old-world idea and ideal. It arose out of the mystery of God and the misery of man. The signification of ἁãíéóìüò is that we must approach God carefully, of êáèáñéóìüò that we are unable to do so without the help of some mediator who cleanses. Men instinctively felt that those mysterious presences which surround man were dangerous forces, and that both in approaching and leaving them a wise ritual of restrictions was necessary. Outside the Bible these restrictions are called ‘tabus.’ Aaron, for instance, washed both before and after the act of atonement (Lev_16:4; Lev_16:23-24; W. R. Smith, RS_2, 1894, p. 152 ff., and additional note B). Man’s misery had taught him the need of being made fit, and so there lurked at the heart of tabu the idea of an act of moral cleansing. It was to be such as both to annul man’s guilt and to appease God. Thus after child-birth, bringing with it the mystery of Divine forces, the mother kept days of purification. Whenever man sighted the Unseen Powers-when with the dead, e.g., or in war-he was under tabu. The Nazirite vow (Numbers 6, Act_21:26) was a continuous tabu, an active hourly recognition of the Unseen. St. Paul was Jew enough to respond to these forms, and Christian enough to extract value out of them (Act_18:18)-to make them ‘days of separation’ (Num_6:4, Heb_7:26) in the religious life.

The Jewish sacrificial system is the specially Divine one among the primitive systems of sacrifice and tabu. It puts into dogmatic form the vague God-ward instincts of the primeval heart. One instinct was the community of blood between the god, man, and the animal world, so that, if the blood of a human or an animal victim was shed, it was an offering of their common life, and, if the flesh was eaten, they became one in a mysterious sacrament (W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 312 ff.; J. G. Frazer, GB_2 [1900] ii. 318). So the sin-offering was eaten (Lev_6:26), embodying man’s guilty feelings towards God and God’s appeased feelings towards man. The final act of this mystery is when ‘God made Jesus Christ to be sin,’ a sin-offering, a setting forth of man’s guilt and God’s purification. He made ‘purification of sins’ (Heb_1:3). How?

There are three answers. (a) Psychological.-He fulfils the vague cravings for a guilt-offering from the beginning. That which we cannot put into words, but which has written itself in history, in language, in religion, in instinctive humanity, He is and does. (b) Ethical.-An exhibition on a great scale of an act of justice purges a people. Aristotle made this one of the uses of tragedy, to purify the passions by pity and terror (cf. S. A. Brooke, Life and Letters of F. W. Robertson, new ed., 1868, Letters 86, 87). Christ’s death was such an exhibition. (c) Spiritual (‘cleansing their hearts by faith’).-Personal identification with His suffering cleanses (J. R. Seeley, Ecce Homo11, 1873, p. 7; Rom_6:4-7; Sanday-Headlam, ICC_, ‘Romans’5, 1902, p. 162). It is the absence of such identification which in 2Pe_1:9 is deplored.

Literature.-B. F. Westcott, Hebrews, 1889, pp. 283, 293, The Epistles of St. John, 1883, p. 34; A. Edersheim, The Temple; its Ministry and Service, 1874, ch. 18; J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, 1897; J. M‘Leod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement6, 1895.

Sherwin Smith.

See UNCLEANNESS.