Mary's impurity?

[DeaconDean]

In Luke 2:22, we read:

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"

In the Levitical Laws, we read:

"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled." -Lev. 12:2-4

What made Mary impure? She for sure was not defiled by a man.

And if she could not touch anything "holy" for 33 days after the presentation of the child for circumcision, how could she nurse or care for Jesus?

Perhaps because she was touched by blood during the act of child-birth, other than that, I cannot think of anything that would make her impure?

And according to Luke 2:22, what made Jesus impure?

"And when the time came for their purification" -Lk. 2:22 (ESV)

"Their", plural, Mary and Jesus.

Perhaps I'm over-thinking this.

Thoughts?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

In Luke 2:22, we read:

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"

In the Levitical Laws, we read:

"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled." -Lev. 12:2-4

What made Mary impure? She for sure was not defiled by a man.

And if she could not touch anything "holy" for 33 days after the presentation of the child for circumcision, how could she nurse or care for Jesus?

Perhaps because she was touched by blood during the act of child-birth, other than that, I cannot think of anything that would make her impure?

And according to Luke 2:22, what made Jesus impure?

"And when the time came for their purification" -Lk. 2:22 (ESV)

"Their", plural, Mary and Jesus.

Perhaps I'm over-thinking this.

Thoughts?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I think perhaps you are overthinking this. The key here is according to the law of Moses. It was incumbent of Christ to fulfill the law in every jot and tittle. He did so even by and through His mother by keeping the law of Moses. The law was a ceremonial uncleanness not an actual uncleanness.

 

[Hupomone10]

I think perhaps you are overthinking this. The key here is according to the law of Moses. It was incumbent of Christ to fulfill the law in every jot and tittle. He did so even by and through His mother by keeping the law of Moses. The law was a ceremonial uncleanness not an actual uncleanness.

My thoughts exactly. Good to see (hear) you again Twin; good to hear you again Dean.

Maybe it is similar to Jesus' baptism:
Matthew 3:14-15
14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Avid]

... The law was a ceremonial uncleanness not an actual uncleanness.

This is good. We need to see things from all perspectives. There is a specific thing that was required by the law SIMPLY BECAUSE a male child was born. I believe that the requirement was longer for female children.

The Law dealt with the Temple, and the types of holy things pertaining to the administration of the law in general. In the eyes of God's law, the child and the mother (Mary & Jesus in this case) had both been covered, to varying degrees, with the fluids necessary for the formation and delivery of the child. Those fluids (including the blood) were not considered clean, and the time required had to do with the time for getting things back to the normal level of CLEAN according to the law. The sacrifice was symbolic and required to show all the nation how those requirements had been fulfilled.

Our LORD was not one to shirk the law, but to fulfill it. These laws were not fulfilled till 33 years later (as opposed to 33 days,) and it was afterward that God showed us, by Paul and Peter, how his attitude toward the keeping of ordinances was altered.

 

[DeaconDean]

Here again friends, you missed the point.

Mary hadn't been touched by a man. No defilement there.

Pregnant, she had no menstrual cycle, no defilement there.

But you guys are telling me that giving birth makes a woman "impure" according to the Torah?

If so, why does the Codex Bezea translate "her" to "their" signifing Mary and Jesus were "impure"?

That is the way the ESV renders that verse.

"And when the time came for their purification" -Lk. 2:22 (ESV)

Joseph hadn't touched her, so it can't mean Mary and Joseph.

I just want to know what caused her to be "impure".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[CrossDrivenWriter]

Here again friends, you missed the point.

Mary hadn't been touched by a man. No defilement there.

Pregnant, she had no menstrual cycle, no defilement there.

But you guys are telling me that giving birth makes a woman "impure" according to the Torah?

If so, why does the Codex Bezea translate "her" to "their" signifing Mary and Jesus were "impure"?

That is the way the ESV renders that verse.

"And when the time came for their purification" -Lk. 2:22 (ESV)

Joseph hadn't touched her, so it can't mean Mary and Joseph.

I just want to know what caused her to be "impure".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Have you read the book "How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth"?

EDIT: Nevermind. You probably know more.

 

[DeaconDean]

Have you read the book "How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth"?

EDIT: Nevermind. You probably know more.

I never thought of this question until I started researching textual criticism. A point brought out by George Edward Rice in "The Alteration of Luke's Tradition By The Textual Variants in the Codex Bezae".

I quote:

The question of the necessity of Mary's purification has been raised by some scholars. Williams says that Luke may well have written this verse somewhat loosely. Therefore, the pronoun a0Tiliv ("their") was altered to abToG ("his") intentionally to indicate a belief in the virgin conception,3 i.e. Mary was not defiled by a man; therefore, she would need no purification; and the a6To0 ("his") would apply to Jesus.

This position, of course, raises a question about the proper understanding of the original Mosaic instruction in Leviticus 12:4-6. Is the purification required because of the act of conception or because of giving birth? Also, one might add, the law does not require the purification of the child.​

3 Williams, Alterations, p. 29.

Ibid, p. 90

Seems like a decent question.

Yes, I have read the book. It was required of me in seminary.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[tz620q]

I never thought of this question until I started researching textual criticism. A point brought out by George Edward Rice in "The Alteration of Luke's Tradition By The Textual Variants in the Codex Bezae".

I quote:



Ibid, p. 90

Seems like a decent question.

Yes, I have read the book. It was required of me in seminary.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Don't have an answer for the impurity of Mary beyond pure ritual; but perhaps the impurity of the son had to do with the Jewish thought that everyone outside the Abrahamic covenant (non-Jew) were considered impure. The circumcision of the male child brought them into the covenant and made them part of the Jewish community and therefore pure.

 

[Dkh587]

Here again friends, you missed the point.

Mary hadn't been touched by a man. No defilement there.

Pregnant, she had no menstrual cycle, no defilement there.

But you guys are telling me that giving birth makes a woman "impure" according to the Torah?

If so, why does the Codex Bezea translate "her" to "their" signifing Mary and Jesus were "impure"?

That is the way the ESV renders that verse.

"And when the time came for their purification" -Lk. 2:22 (ESV)

Joseph hadn't touched her, so it can't mean Mary and Joseph.

I just want to know what caused her to be "impure".

God Bless

Till all are one.

The King James says "her". It's clearly talking about Mary, not Jesus.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Luke‬ 2‬:22‬ KJV)

Mary GAVE BIRTH so she by law had to do her 40 days...

The KJV is much more accurate and trustworthy than the ESV. Check out "New World Order: Bible Versions" if you haven't already seen it. Very long but very eye opening

God bless

 

[DeaconDean]

The King James says "her". It's clearly talking about Mary, not Jesus.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Luke‬ 2‬:22‬ KJV)

Mary GAVE BIRTH so she by law had to do her 40 days...

The KJV is much more accurate and trustworthy than the ESV. Check out "New World Order: Bible Versions" if you haven't already seen it. Very long but very eye opening

God bless

During the course of study on "textual criticism", I ran across this question.

First off, to even suggest that Jesus was "impure" oftentimes bring one to the verge of categation.

However, it took me a while to find the answer to my own question.

In this case, I have to admit that the English Standard Version, is the correct rendering.

And to even suggest Mary was impure, is...

Here is the deal. Mary became "impure" by way of childbirth.

a person or thing could contract ritual "uncleanness" (or "impurity") in a variety of ways: by skin diseases, discharges of bodily fluids, touching something dead ( Num 5:2 ), or eating unclean foods ( Lev 11 ; Deut 14 ).

Source

As many fathers and mothers know, the loss of blood is common during childbirth. Mary was "unclean"/ "impure" by reason of that. Likewise, Jesus also. No child born can escape being exposed to blood in the birth process or escape some exposure to blood during circumcision.

That was how Luke viewed the subject. And is part of the explaination as to why it should read: "after the days of their purification".

They were not "impure" in the strick sense. It was only from a "ritualistic" standpoint.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

In Luke 2:22, we read:

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"

In the Levitical Laws, we read:

"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled." -Lev. 12:2-4

What made Mary impure? She for sure was not defiled by a man.

And if she could not touch anything "holy" for 33 days after the presentation of the child for circumcision, how could she nurse or care for Jesus?

Perhaps because she was touched by blood during the act of child-birth, other than that, I cannot think of anything that would make her impure?

Mary became “ceremonially unclean” because she bore a male child (Lev, 12:2). Under the Law, Jesus was not a “hallowed thing,” and, therefore, the Law did not forbid Mary from touching Jesus.

And according to Luke 2:22, what made Jesus impure?

"And when the time came for their purification" -Lk. 2:22 (ESV)

"Their", plural, Mary and Jesus.

Perhaps I'm over-thinking this.

Thoughts?

God Bless

Till all are one.

The Greek pronoun translated as ’their’ in verse 22 does NOT refer to Mary and Jesus, but to Mary and Joseph, for it was ‘they’ who brought Jesus up to Jerusalem. Nonetheless, in spite of the grammar, since the time of Origen the pronoun has been mistakenly interpreted by many to refer to Mary and Jesus rather than to Mary and Joseph. Luke appears to be seeing the purification as a family event, and hence he speaks of Mary and Joseph and their purification even though only Mary needed to be purified under the Law.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The King James says "her". It's clearly talking about Mary, not Jesus.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Luke‬ 2‬:22‬ KJV)

Mary GAVE BIRTH so she by law had to do her 40 days...

The KJV is much more accurate and trustworthy than the ESV. Check out "New World Order: Bible Versions" if you haven't already seen it. Very long but very eye opening

God bless

The KJV is “clearly” in error regarding the singular feminine pronoun in Luke 2:22. The error is a consequence of the New Testament in the KJV having been translated from a seriously corrupt Greek text. This thread, however, is not the place to discuss obvious errors in the KJV, but to discuss the correct interpretation of an accurate reading of Luke 2:22.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Greek pronoun translated as ’their’ in verse 22 does NOT refer to Mary and Jesus, but to Mary and Joseph, for it was ‘they’ who brought Jesus up to Jerusalem. Nonetheless, in spite of the grammar, since the time of Origen the pronoun has been mistakenly interpreted by many to refer to Mary and Jesus rather than to Mary and Joseph. Luke appears to be seeing the purification as a family event, and hence he speaks of Mary and Joseph and their purification even though only Mary needed to be purified under the Law.

One question friend: What made Joseph "impure"?

Actually, "their" is how the Codex "B" has it, the ESV has it, but the Codex "D" has "his".

But here again, I agree that it was purely from a "ritualistic" standpoint, according to the Torah.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

One question friend: What made Joseph "impure"?

Actually, "their" is how the Codex "B" has it, the ESV has it, but the Codex "D" has "his".

But here again, I agree that it was purely from a "ritualistic" standpoint, according to the Torah.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I am familiar with the textual history of Luke 2:22. Luke used the plural pronoun which would have seemed absurd to some early scribes who changed it to a singular feminine pronoun. The change from the plural to the masculine singular in “D” is difficult to explain because it makes no sense. I have consulted the commentaries on Luke by Bock, Creed, Fitzmyer, Godet, Marshall, Meyer, and Nolland. All of these except for the commentary by Meyer have a good discussion of the textual issue and the possible interpretations of the variants. Godet stands alone in believing that Joseph needed to be purified, writing that he was “involved in her uncleanness,” but not telling us how he was involved. All of these commentaries, with the exception of Creed who favors the Mary and Jesus interpretation, very strongly favor the Mary and Joseph interpretation. The commentaries by Bock, Fitzmyer, Marshall, and Nolland are all recent and give detailed discussions on this verse that should be read by anyone with a serious interest in it.

 

[DeaconDean]

I am familiar with the textual history of Luke 2:22. Luke used the plural pronoun which would have seemed absurd to some early scribes who changed it to a singular feminine pronoun. The change from the plural to the masculine singular in “D” is difficult to explain because it makes no sense. I have consulted the commentaries on Luke by Bock, Creed, Fitzmyer, Godet, Marshall, Meyer, and Nolland. All of these except for the commentary by Meyer have a good discussion of the textual issue and the possible interpretations of the variants. Godet stands alone in believing that Joseph needed to be purified, writing that he was “involved in her uncleanness,” but not telling us how he was involved. All of these commentaries, with the exception of Creed who favors the Mary and Jesus interpretation, very strongly favor the Mary and Joseph interpretation. The commentaries by Bock, Fitzmyer, Marshall, and Nolland are all recent and give detailed discussions on this verse that should be read by anyone with a serious interest in it.

George Edward Rice also mentioned those.

I just don't grasp Joseph being "impure" although he might have when you consider the birth process. Likewise, Jesus too.

Any how, thank you for your help.

I do appreciate it.

God Bless

Till all are one.