Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Time to Start the Nativity Stories Methinks.

SUB-TITLE: On the 8th Day of Christmas, Two Purification Rituals!

The text of Luke 2.21–24 provides us with our earliest glimpse into Jesus’ earthly life,

yet its content is often neglected in sermons and nativity plays.

A likely reason why is our lack of familiarity with its imagery.

Many folk in England feel at home with the events of Bethlehem (cp. 2.1–20).

Fields, shepherds, sheep, an inn: it doesn’t feel too far removed from Yorkshire.

Yet, with the advent of 2.21, we suddenly find ourselves in less familiar territory: Jerusalem.

We read of temple worship, circumcision, and animal sacrifice—things not so commonly associated with Yorkshire (to my knowledge)...

...and not so easy to enact in nativity plays.

Another reason for our text’s neglect may, paradoxically, be its ordinariness.

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 the situation:

have her child circumcised (2.21) and offer the necessary sacrifices at the Temple (2.22–24).

Our text thus describes the first time blood is shed in Luke’s Gospel, though not the last.

--- CIRCUMCISION ---

While Jesus’ circumcision is in one sense quite ordinary, it’s at the same time *extra*ordinary,

and hugely significant.

For a start, it connects Jesus with the promise made long ago to Abraham—a promise which has since been remembered by means of circumcision, and has now been ‘remembered’ by YHWH (1.54–55).

It also makes Jesus subject to the Mosaic law (Gal. 5.3).

In the events of our text, Jesus is ‘born of a woman’ and ‘born under the law’, which is precisely what enables him to ‘redeem those under the law’ (Gal. 4.4–5).

An uncircumcised Messiah would, by definition, be separated from his people and, by that token, no Messiah at all.

--- ‘BORN OF A WOMAN’ ---

Before we go any further, however, we need to consider one of the aforementioned phrases more carefully, namely γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός = ‘born of a woman’.

Aren’t most men born of women?

What’s Paul’s point?

It’s twofold.

First, that Jesus was born of a virgin.

If Paul wanted to emphasise Jesus’ humanity, he could have employed more natural phrases—e.g., ‘born of flesh and blood’, ‘begotten of man’—,

yet he declined to do so. Why? Because these things weren’t true of Jesus. Jesus was born of a woman, yet without a human father.

Second, that Jesus was born into a fallen creation.

As students of Scripture, we know of at least one man who wasn’t born of a woman: Adam.

Yet, while Jesus is an Adamic figure, his situation is very different from Adam’s.

While Adam was born into a perfect world, Jesus was born into a world which was far from perfect.

‘A man who is born of a woman’, Job tells us, ‘is few of days and full of trouble’ (Job 14.1),

and so it would be with Jesus, until YHWH ‘prolonged his days’ (Isa. 53).

Paul thus hints at both the nature of Jesus’ person and experience.

In his ontology/genealogy, Jesus was shielded from Adam’s curse,

yet, in his experience, he was anything but—‘a man of pain/sorrows, acquainted with grief’.

The same two notions are brought out in our text.

--- PURIFICATION ---

The text of 2.22 contains an unusual detail: *their* purification (καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν).

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

He doesn’t.

Or at least he doesn’t explicitly.

Consequently, Luke is often said to be confused about Jewish customs.

But is the confusion ours or Luke’s?

Luke doesn’t appear to be confused about Jewish customs elsewhere in his Gospel.

Since the Biblical narrative has children named at birth (Cain, Jacob’s sons, Tamar’s sons, Ichabod, etc.), it would be natural for Luke to have John and Jesus named at birth,

yet Luke instead has them named on the day of their circumcision (cp. 1.58–63, 2.21),

which, while without precedent in Scripture, the Mishnah, and the Talmud(im), is now embraced as traditional Jewish practice.

(Outside of Luke, our earliest reference to a child named on the day of his circumcision is found in an 8th cent. Midrash.)

It’s also traditional for parents to keep a child’s name secret until he’s circumcised,

which is clearly presupposed in 1.58–63’s events (since John’s relatives aren’t aware of what his parents plan to name him until the time of his circumcision).

Exactly how far these traditions go back isn’t clear,

but we don’t have any record of their existence prior to Luke’s Gospel,

and they’re highly unlikely to have derived from Luke’s Gospel.

Before we charge Luke with ignorance of Jewish customs, then, let’s consider his text and the related Levitical regulations more carefully.

--- LEVITICUS 12 ---

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

As can be seen, a woman who has given birth—a yoledet—is thereby made impure.

Her time of impurity consists of two stages:

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

🔹 And then, for a further thirty-three days, although she’s no longer said to be ‘unclean’ (טמא), she’s forbidden to make contact with ‘what is holy’ as well as to enter the sanctuary.

Fine, one might say.

But Leviticus 12’s regulations leave an important question unanswered:

What about the status of the child? Is only the mother deemed impure, or the child too?

It’s hard to say for sure.

That ancient readers of Leviticus 12 viewed newborn children as ceremonially impure isn’t, however, an implausible notion.

Here’s why:

🔹 In Leviticus 12–15, the yoledet’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 reason.

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

As Job asks (in the aftermath of his reference to ‘a man born of a woman’), ‘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 other cultures, most notably in ancient Egyptian culture.

And if Leviticus was meant to govern a people who’d recently emerged from Egypt--say, by means of some epic event of exodus-like proportions--, then it may well have been natural for its readers to view newborn children as impure,

...in which case Moses might not have thought it necessary to mention such a thing. (Like all law codes, the regulations of Leviticus are non-exhaustive.)

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

Indeed, in Section 5, the newborn child is posited as the *source* of its mother’s uncleanness (הוא מטמא את אמו).

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

(What follows is indebted to an excellent paper by @MattThiessenNT.)

When the book of Jubilees describes Adam and Eve’s admission into the garden of Eden (Jub. 3.8–13), the garden is said to be the holiest place on earth.

As a result, Adam isn’t allowed to enter it for the first 40 days of his life, while Eve isn’t allowed to do so for 80.

The reason why isn’t explicitly stated, though it’s said to concern a birth related law of some kind,

which only Leviticus 12’s regulations seem able to explain.

(Where else do we read about 40 day restriction from holy things in the case of males, with an extension to 80 days in the case of females?)

On what basis, then, the question arises, could Leviticus 12’s regulations be applied to Adam and Eve?

Neither Adam nor Eve have given birth to anyone.

A plausible explanation is as follows:

the author of Jubilees viewed Adam and Eve as newborns and took Leviticus 12’s uncleanness to extend to newborn children.

--- LUKE & LEVITICUS 12 ---

As far as at least some Jewish sects in Jesus’ day were concerned, then, newborn children may well have been deemed ceremonially impure and hence in need of purification,

in which case the text of Luke 2.22 wouldn’t reflect an ignorance of Jewish customs, but a deep familiarity with them (per the situation with John’s name-bestowal),

and our text would describe how Judaism’s stricter sects viewed 2.22’s ritual, namely as a ritual which (jointly) purified both mother and child.

That Luke 2.22 reflects such specialist knowledge of Jewish customs is confirmed by its textual witnesses,

since the earliest and most important Greek witnesses to Luke 2.22 support a plural pronoun (καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν = ‘their purification’),

(with thanks to greekcntr.org/collation/inde…)

…and people’s uneasiness with the translation ‘their purification’ is reflected in direction of travel in English translations over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries:

--- THEOLOGICAL/THEMATIC IMPLICATIONS ---

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

Well, the main thrust of our text remains the same (as one would expect).

But, within the context of its super-structure, our text assumes a slightly different nuance.

On what I’ll call ‘the Dual Purification View’, Luke’s point is as follows:

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

but, at the end of his appointed forty days, he is presented before God entirely free from blemish/impurity—which, for Luke, is a significant notion.

The introduction to Luke’s gospel has a particular concern with holiness and with the proper observance of the law:

🔹 The word ‘holy’ (and its derivatives) is found more in Luke chs. 1–2 than it is in the gospels of Matthew and Mark combined.

🔹 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 (and by extension Jesus’) yearly observance of the Passover.

🔹 And Luke alone explains how ‘the Holy Spirit’ will overshadow Mary and enable a ‘holy child’ to be born (1.35) in fulfilment of the ‘holy prophets and covenant’.

Given Luke’s concern with holiness and the law, it would make sense for Luke to emphasise how Jesus is presented to the LORD in an entirely pure/unblemished state (on even the strictest standards of purity),

which, on the Dual Purification View, is precisely what the text of 2.22 does.

Furthermore, on the Dual Purification View, Jesus’ presentation at the Temple resonates with the climax of Luke’s gospel,

namely the moment when Jesus is presented to his Father in heaven as a pure/unblemished sacrifice.

Indeed, of the Synoptic Gospel-writers, Luke in particular emphasises Jesus’ status as a pure/unblemished sacrifice:

🔹 Luke alone 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 centurion cries out ‘Truly this man was innocent/righteous (δίκαιος)’ (23.47).

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

🔹 And Luke alone has Jesus’ followers observe the Sabbath ‘per the LORD’s command’ in the aftermath of his death (cp. 23.56).

For Luke, then, everything is done properly and in order, and, just as Jesus is presented at the Temple in a unblemished state (a fact not mentioned by Luke unless we adopt the Dual Purification View),

so Jesus presents himself to God surrounded by attestations of his unblemished status,

ultimately and most remarkably of all to present his Church to himself (and to his Father) in precisely the same unblemished state (cp. Eph. 5.27).

--- THE END ---

Please Re-Tweet.