Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Well, Christmas and the related nativity scenes will soon be upon us,

so what better way to prepare than with a few thoughts on Luke 2.21–24, Levitical regulations, bodily discharge, and textual variants?

#ChristmasSermonsOnOffer

#RateOfCommissionTBC

——————

Luke 2.21–35 provides us with our earliest glimpse into Jesus’ earthly life,

but it’s frequently overlooked in Christmas nativities and sermons.

One factor may be its unfamiliarity.

Many Westerners feel familiar enough with the events of Bethlehem (2.1–20).

Fields, shepherds, sheep, an inn: it sounds almost like Yorkshire.

But with the advent of 2.21, we’re plunged into much less familiar territory:

a temple, priests, Levitical regulations, purification rituals.

(Not, to my knowledge, the things of Yorkshire.)

Another factor may, paradoxically, be how ordinary our text is.

Gone are the angels and the hustle and bustle of 2.1–20.

The shepherds have returned to their day jobs (2.20),

and Mary is now left to do what any devout Jewish mother would do in her situation:

first she has her child circumcised, and then she offers the necessary sacrifices (for purification) at the Temple (2.21–24).

——————

Note: Mary would also (presumably) have paid the necessary redemption price to ‘buy Jesus back’ from the service of YHWH in the Temple (Exod. 13.2, 11–15, 34.18–20, Num. 3.7–13, 18.15), though Luke declines to mention it. Why?

My guess is as follows: because Luke wants us to see Jesus as a uniquely devoted/consecrated servant of his Father.

When we find the Samuel-like Jesus (grown in stature with both God and man: 2.52 cp. 1 Sam. 2.26) back at the Temple twelve Passovers later, we should not be surprised. That’s where he belongs.

——————

CIRCUMCISION:

While Jesus’ circumcision is in one sense an ordinary act, it is in another sense one of the most significant acts in world history.

For a start, it connects Jesus with the promise made to Abraham back in the mists of time,

which has been remembered ever since by means of the circumcision of Abraham’s seed, and has now been ‘remembered’ by YHWH (1.54–55).

In addition, it makes Jesus subject to the Mosaic law (Gal. 5.3).

In the course of Luke 2, Jesus is ‘born of a woman’ (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός) and ‘born under the law’ (γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον),

which, Paul tells us, is precisely what enables him to ‘redeem those under the law’.

As such, Jesus’ circumcision is foundational to his life’s work (Gal. 4.4–5).

——————

But, before we move on, it may be helpful to give some further thought to one of the above clauses, namely γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός = ‘born of a woman’.

Aren’t most men born of women?

As David Clines writes in reference to the text of Job 14.1 (viz. ‘A man who is born of a woman is short of days’),

‘The restrictive clause in Job 14.1 makes us wonder,…Are there any humans *not* born of a woman?’.

Paul wants us to ponder the same question.

Why? What is Paul’s point?

It is twofold.

First, Jesus was born into a fallen creation.

As readers of Scripture, we know of at least one man who has not been born of a woman: Adam.

Yet, in Gal. 4.4, Paul puts Jesus in a different category to Adam. Adam wasn’t born into a fallen world; Jesus was.

Second, Jesus was born of a *virgin*.

If Paul simply wanted to refer to Jesus as fully man, he could have employed a more natural phrase, such as ‘born of flesh and blood’ or ‘begotten of man’.

But of course these things weren’t true of Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin.

As such, Gal. 4.4’s turn of phrase neatly captures the nature of Jesus’ person and experience.

In his ontology/genealogy, Jesus was insulated from Adam’s curse, yet, in his experience, he was anything *but* insulated.

As we’ll see, these same two notions are hinted at by Luke.

——————

PURIFICATION:

The text of 2.22 contains an unusual/unexpected detail.

*Their* purification (καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν)?

Where does Moses mention the purification of anyone apart from the woman who’s given birth?

The answer: he doesn’t. (Or at least not explicitly.)

As a result, Luke has been described as ‘confused about Jewish law’,

where the phrase ‘confused about Jewish law’ serves as shorthand for ‘unable to read the OT’.

But, before we level such charges at Luke, let’s consider the relevant regulations more carefully.

——————

The text of Lev. 12.2–3 reads as follows:

As can be seen, a woman who has given birth—hereafter, a ‘yoledet’—is deemed to have been made impure.

Her period of impurity consists of two stages:

🔹 For 7 days, the yoledet has the status of a menstruant woman (נִדָּה)—that is to say, she is ‘unclean’ (טמא).

🔹 And then, for a further 33 days, although she is no longer said to be ‘unclean’ (טמא), the yoledet is forbidden to make contact with ‘what is holy’ as well as to enter ‘the sancutary’,

The regulations of Lev. 12 therefore seem clear enough insofar as they go.

But they leave an important question unanswered, namely, What about the status of the newborn *child*?

Is the child also deemed impure? And, if so, might Luke have the child’s impurity in mind in 2.22?

Note: What is at stake here is *ceremonial* purity (or lack thereof), and to contract ceremonial impurity is not to commit a sin (unless one wants to deem it a sin to give birth); it is simply a byproduct of life in a fallen world.

That newborn children are deemed impure is not, however, an inherently implausible notion.

And, significantly, it’s a notion whose origins lie not in Christian apologetic works,

but in early Jewish and Rabbinic texts. (It’s also proffered as a viable option by Jacob Milgrom: cp. Milgrom 1991:746.)

The main points in its favour can be summarised as follows:

🔹 In Lev. 12–15, a mother’s uncleanness (טמא) is said to be contagious (cp. Lev. 12.2 w. 15.19ff.), and a newborn child would obviously be in close contact with its mother (both at the time of birth and immediately afterwards).

It’s therefore hard to see why a child *wouldn’t* contract its mother’s impurity (at least in the first seven days of its life).

And it would seem odd for a newborn child to be immune to ceremonial impurity for some reasons.

After all, Scripture doesn’t present children as without blemish when they enter into the world.

After Job’s reference to ‘a man who is born of a woman’ (cf. above), Job asks, ‘Who can bring what is clean out of what is unclean?’ (Job 14.4), the answer to which is ‘No one!’.

🔹 Newborn children were considered ceremonially impure in a number of other cultures (most notably, in ancient Egyptian culture: Thiessen 2012).

The ‘default view’ of Leviticus’s original readership may, therefore, have been to view newborn children as impure in some way,

in which case Moses may not have thought it necessary to state explicitly.

Note: Modern-day Jewish communities in Ethiopia view newborn children as ceremonially impure and consequently baptise them as soon as they are born (cp. מנהג יהודי אתיופיה בדין טהרת יולדת by Yosi Ziv: biu.ac.il/jh/parasha/taz…):

🔹 In Sifra Tazria Parashat Yoledet (the earliest known Rabbinic commentary on Lev. 12), *some* authorities at least appear to view newborn children as unclean,

since, in Section 5, the child is posited to be the *source* of its mother’s uncleanness (הוא מטמא את אמו).

That view is denied in Section 8, but later re-assumed in Section 11. (The argument isn’t always easy to follow.)

sefaria.org/Sifra%2C_Tazri…

🔹 Finally, the book of Jubilees appears to view newborn children are ceremonially impure for as long as their mother remains ceremonially impure.

In a fairly unusual text (Jub. 3.8–13), the book of Jubilees describes Adam and Eve’s admission into the Garden of Eden.

The Garden is said to be the holiest place on earth.

As a result, Adam is not allowed to enter the Garden for the first 40 days of his life,

while Eve is not allowed to do so for the first 80 days of her life.

The reason why is not explicitly stated, though is said to concern a birth related law of some kind.

Suffice it to say, only Lev. 12’s regulations seem able to explain the text of Jubilees. (Where else would a 40 day restriction from holy things in the case of males, with an extension to 80 days in the case of females, originate from?)

But on what basis could Lev. 12’s regulations be applied to Adam and Eve?

Neither Adam nor Eve have given birth to anyone.

Only one explanatory option therefore remains:

The author of Jubilees saw Adam and Eve as newborns and took Lev. 12’s uncleanness to extend to newborn children.

——————

REFLECTIONS ON LEV. 12:

In sum, then, newborn children are likely to have been deemed ceremonially impure—and hence in need of purification—by at least certain sects in Judaism in Jesus’ day (presumably the stricter ones).

If so, the text of Luke 2.22 may reflect not an ignorance of Jewish law, but a deep familiarity with it.

More precisely, our text may reflect how stricter sects would have viewed the ritual described in Luke 2.22, i.e., as a ritual which purified both mother and child.

On such a view, the textual history of Luke 2.22 also makes good sense.

Thiessen summarises the state of the evidence as follows:

Note: In terms of translations, the Tyndale (1526, 1534), Coverdale (1535), and Luther (1545) all have ‘their purification’. The switch to ‘her purification’ is first attested in the Geneva (1560) and is maintained in the KJV.

Apparently, then, as knowledge of 1st cent. AD Jewish practices declined, scribes found the words ‘their purification’ awkward and tended either to conform them to Greek translations of Lev. 12 or to omit them altogether.

(That, however, is rather a blunt assessment of the situation, and I’d be interested to have the input of someone of greater skill and experience in text-critical matters.)

#TextCriticalHelpNeeded

——————

THEOLOGICAL/THEMATIC IMPLICATIONS:

Suppose, then, the above claims are correct. What follows?

Well, the thrust of Luke’s gospel of course remains the same.

But, within its super-structure, the text of Luke 2.22 takes on a slightly different nuance.

On (what I will call) ‘the Dual Purification View’, Luke’s point in 2.22 is as follows:

Jesus is born into a fallen world and, like everyone else, is affected by its impurity (cp. our discussion of Gal. 4.4 above).

But, at the end of the allotted days, Jesus is presented before God entirely free from blemish/impurity.

And, of course, for Luke, that is a highly significant notion.

Consider, by way of background, two particular features of Luke’s gospel.

First, it begins and ends in symmetric fashion.

At both ends of the text, we have an expectant group of believers congregated in the Temple, a priest who lifts his hands aloft, and the Spirit outpoured on God’s people.

And a bit later (or earlier if you’re at the end of the gospel), we have Jesus lost at a Passover, a concerned couple on the road, a sudden realisation, and Jesus discovered three days later.

Second, Luke’s gospel is particularly concerned with the proper observance of the law and with ‘holiness’—a word found more in Luke 1–2 than in the whole of Matthew/Mark.

🔹 Luke alone mentions the devout Zechariah and Elizabeth and how they walk ‘blamelessly in the commandments’ of the LORD.

🔹 Luke alone is concerned with Joseph and Mary’s yearly observance of the Passover (and by extension with Jesus’ observance of it) and, at the other end of his gospel, with the women’s observance of the Sabbath (23.56).

🔹 And it is not Matthew/Mark but Luke who explains how ‘the Holy Spirit’ will come upon Mary and enable a ‘holy child’ to be born (1.35) in fulfilment of the ‘holy prophets and covenant’ (1.68–75).

That Jesus is presented ‘holy to the LORD’ (2.23) in an entirely pure/unblemished state is, therefore, an important point for Luke to make.

And, on the Dual Purification View, it is precisely what the text of 2.22 emphasises.

Moreover, on the Dual Purification View, Jesus’ presentation at the Temple resonates with an event at the other end of Luke’s gospel, namely the moment when Jesus is presented to his Father in heaven as an pure/unblemished sacrifice.

Of the Synoptic Gospel-writers, Luke is particularly concerned with Jesus’ status as an unblemished sacrifice:

🔹 It is Luke alone who has the criminal on the cross declare, ‘This man has done nothing wrong!’ (23.42).

🔹 While Matthew and Mark have Jesus refer to himself as ‘forsaken’ (cp. Psa. 22.1), Luke has him commit/present (παρατίθημι) his spirit into the hands of his Father in heaven (23.46).

🔹 While Matthew and Mark’s centurion cries out ‘Truly this was the Son of God!’, Luke’s cries out ‘Truly this man was *innocent*’ (23.47).

🔹 And, while Matthew and Mark focus on Joseph of Arimathea’s ‘richness’ and ‘esteem’, Luke singles him out as a man who is ‘righteous’ (23.50).

For Luke, then, everything is carried out properly and in order, and, just as Jesus is presented at the Temple in a pure/unblemished state, so Jesus presents himself to God surrounded by attestations of his pure/unblemished status,...

...later, and perhaps most incredibly of all, to present his Church to himself (and to God) in precisely the same purified state (Eph. 5.27).

THE END

P.S. Pdf available below (complete with a couple of bonus features):

academia.edu/40998651/