Original Meaning
LEVITICUS 12 IS the shortest chapter in Leviticus. It provides instructions regarding a mother’s period of physical ritual impurity following childbirth and her ritual purification at the end of this time. References to her flow of blood in verses 4, 5, 7 show that the impurity results from a normal discharge that normally lasts for two to six weeks after a woman gives birth. Since this is a pelvic/genital discharge that begins bright red, the first week or two, depending on the sex of the child, are treated like the regular ritual impurity of a menstrual period (vv. 2, 5). Therefore this impurity is communicable to persons by touch (15:19), and whatever she lies or sits on conveys impurity to those who contact them (15:20–23).
During the following period of thirty-three or sixty-six days of postnatal blood purification (lit., “bloods of purification”), the mother’s impurity is not communicable by touch, and she is only restricted from contacting anything sacred or entering the sanctuary compound (12:4). She is free to contact anything in the common sphere, including her husband by resuming sexual relations.1
When the period of impurity is over, the mother must bring a pair of sacrifices to the sanctuary: a young (year-old) sheep for a burnt offering and a dove or pigeon for a purification offering (12:6). This is the administrative order. We know by now that in the actual ritual procedure the purification offering would be performed first (cf. 9:8–16). We also know that such a pair of sacrifices carries the function of a purification offering, with the burnt offering supplementing its quantity (cf. 5:6–10; Num. 15:24, 27).
If the mother cannot afford a sheep for a burnt offering, she can offer a bird instead (Lev. 12:8; cf. Luke 2:24). While the officiating priest would slaughter a bird at the altar because of its small size (Lev. 1:15; 5:8), there is no indication in 12:6 that the offerer is not permitted to slaughter a sheep, as usual (cf. 1:4–5, 11).2 In this case the offerer happens to be a woman, which shows that women could participate in sacrifices as offerers.
By translating ḥaṭṭaʾt as “sin offering” in 12:6, 8, English versions of the Bible raise the question: How has the mother sinned? This problem also disturbed the disciples of Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai, who asked him why the Torah stipulated that a woman should offer a sacrifice after she gave birth. His answer was that when she kneels in bearing the child, that is, in terrible labor pain, she impetuously swears that she will not have intercourse with her husband, obviously because she doesn’t want to go through this again!3
Closer examination shows that the question of how the mother has sinned is invalid, arising from misunderstanding of the text rather than from the text itself. She has not sinned, as shown by the fact that the goal of her pair of sacrifices is to expiate (kipper) for her so that “she will be ceremonially clean from (privative min) her flow of blood” (12:7; cf. v. 8). The goal/meaning of the ritual procedure is to remove physical ritual impurity from the woman so that she is ritually pure, not to remove moral fault from her in preparation for divine forgiveness (contrast 4:20, 26, 31, 35). So her ḥaṭṭaʾt is a “purification offering.”
Not only has the mother not sinned; she is not sick. Childbirth and regular menstruation are healthy processes in spite of a sign at the office of a doctor in Rome, Italy: “Specialist in Women and Other Diseases.” So why does a genital flow of blood cause ritual impurity? Although it is no longer necessary to practice the rituals of Leviticus 12 since the earthly sancta that must be protected from contact with impurity and the sacrificial system of remedies are gone and have been superseded by Christ’s heavenly ministry (Heb. 7–10), this chapter of Leviticus teaches something profound about the nature of human beings in relation to God: Ever since the human race fell into sin (Gen. 3), which results in death (Rom. 6:23), every human life begins under a cloud of mortality (Rom. 5:12).
Now we run into a longstanding crux of interpretation. Postnatal purification of a mother is affected by the sex of her child. If it is a boy, she is impure for seven days as during her menstruation, plus thirty-three days of blood purification, for a total of forty days (12:2, 4). This forty-day period covers the normal time of up to six weeks, during which a mother’s genital bleeding continues following childbirth. But if the baby is a girl, the mother is impure for two weeks (fourteen days) as during her menstruation, plus sixty-six days of blood purification, for a total of eighty days (12:5). Since Leviticus supplies no explicit rationale for the difference, we are left with the question: Why does a mother’s ritual impurity last twice as long if she has a girl?
Interpreters have suggested a variety of answers. Here are a few of the less wild ones.4 (1) The postpartum discharge of a woman who gives birth to a girl lasts longer than if she has a boy. This notion has no basis in gynecological fact.5
(2) Leviticus 12 reflects disparity between the sexes that also appears in 27:2–7, where the redemption price of a female is significantly less than that of a male, down to half for ages five to twenty (27:5). But such monetary equivalents of persons for purposes of dedication to the sanctuary are based on their work capability, as shown by the fact that the most valuable persons are those in the prime of their adulthood. Granted that there is disparity between the sexes, as in chapter 12, but what does work capability have to do with relative ritual purity?
(3) Immediately after 12:2 specifies a seven-day impurity accompanying birth of a boy, verse 3 reminds the Israelites that the boy must be circumcised when he is eight days old (cf. Gen. 17:12; 21:4; Luke 1:59; 2:21). So the mother’s initial period of communicable impurity ends just before the day of her son’s circumcision. Perhaps his circumcision, which involves blood, somehow has a purifying effect on her. However, there is no evidence that circumcision ritually purifies an infant, let alone his mother.6
J. Magonet has come up with a better possibility. Since some vaginal bleeding can occur on the part of a newborn girl, the doubled time of the mother’s purification could be based on the actual and potential genital discharge of both females. “Since this uncleanness has to be ritually dealt with and the baby cannot do so, the mother with whom the child was formerly united and from whom she has emerged, symbolically bears the uncleanness so that the period is doubled.”7
Bridging Contexts
IMPURITY WITH GENITAL discharges. Association of impurity with genital discharges, including those of menstruation and childbirth, is found in many cultures around the world.8 In fact, according to a Hittite birth ritual text, a sacrifice is offered on the seventh day after birth, and whereas a boy is pure at the age of three months, a girl must wait until she is four months old.9 While this differs from that of Leviticus 12 in that it concerns impurity of the child rather than of the mother, it is similar to the Israelite regulations in that the first week constitutes an initial period of impurity and completion of purification takes longer in the case of a girl.
The intercultural scope of impurities connected with reproduction, and also with death, indicates that their basis goes deeper than any uniquely Israelite factors, such as infant circumcision. J. Milgrom concludes, “Thus their origin cannot be traced to a creed or a ritual but must reside in some universal human condition that has evoked the same response all over the globe.”10
Whatever the rationale for the time periods in Leviticus 12 may be, they concern ritual impurity, not the relative worth of the sexes. Although a female naturally incurs more involuntary physical ritual impurity than a male during her lifetime,11 greater susceptibility to impurity does not indicate lower social standing.12 For example, human corpses carry more serious impurity than carcasses of unclean animals (cf. Num. 19 with Lev. 11).13
Said Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, “And do we have against the Pharisees only this matter alone?” Lo, they say, “The bones of an ass are clean, but the bones of Yohanan, high priest, are unclean.” They said to him, “According to their preciousness is their uncleanness.”14
Physical ritual impurity as a conceptual category. In the Bible, such impurity was the state of belonging to a conceptual category that was disqualified from contact with the sacred domain, which consisted of the intrinsically holy deity and things that had a special connection to him. For example, a ritually impure person was prohibited from eating the holy meat of a well-being offering (7:20–21). The purpose of the biblical laws regulating impurities was to keep these physical (not moral) evils separate from holiness in order to avoid danger and to maintain the Lord’s Presence in the midst of the Israelites, in spite of all their impurities (cf. 16:16).
To understand how ritual impurity works as a conceptual category, it is helpful to recall a childhood term: “cooties.” The word literally denotes “lice.” But young boys who don’t know that try to stay away from girls or things associated with them because they are supposed to carry contagious “cooties.” To such boys the word metaphorically connotes “femininity,” from which they feel constrained to protect their maleness. Although this use of the term “cooties” is an immature expression that does not survive the onslaught of puberty, it is analogous to biblical ritual impurity in that it places people and things in a conceptual category.15
Although ritual impurity mainly resulted from physical states of human beings, some of which involved disease or death, the impurity itself was not the same as literal disease.16 An Israelite could enter the “impure” category by having a physical condition, such as a healthy or unhealthy genital discharge (chs. 12, 15) or scaly skin disease (chs. 13–14), or by coming in contact with someone or something carrying impurity that acted like sickness in that it was contagious (e.g., 11:24–28; 15). Even when the defiling physical condition ceased, a person remained impure until he or she was purified by an appropriate ritual (e.g., bathing, laundering clothes, sacrifice) and until any applicable durations of impurity expired (e.g., “until evening”).
Even when an impure state resulted from a diseased condition, the purpose of rituals was not to heal the sickness but rather to move a person back to the “pure” category. For instance, only a person who was already healed from scaly skin disease was eligible for ritual purification in order to be reinstated in the Israelite camp (ch. 14; cf. Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14).
Ritual impurity was not the same as ordinary dirt,17 as shown by the following examples: (1) You could scrub a corpse for hours and it would still be impure because it remained a corpse. (2) “Going to the bathroom” did not result in ritual impurity. (3) Purification from minor ritual impurities included waiting until evening (e.g., 11:24–25, 15:5–8), which could not contribute to ordinary cleanliness.
The relationship between sin and physical ritual impurity. Only violations of divine commands were sins for which forgiveness was needed (e.g., Lev. 4–5). Contracting a bodily impurity, for which purification was needed, did not by itself constitute a sin or moral fault.18 Note the following factors. (1) The Hebrew text does not use terms for moral faults (e.g., ḥaṭṭaʾt [“sin”], pešaʿ [“transgression”], ʿawon [“iniquity/culpability”]) or forgiveness (e.g., verb slḥ [“forgive”]) with reference to physical ritual impurities.
(2) Some impurities, such as scaly skin disease (chs. 13–14) and genital discharges (ch. 15), were contracted involuntarily and therefore unavoidably. Since no choice was involved in such a situation, not even an ignorant choice, becoming impure could not be regarded as disobedience to God’s law in any sense.
(3) Fabrics and houses defiled by “scaly skin disease” (chs. 13–14) could hardly be accountable for moral violations.19
(4) Some voluntary impurities were necessary. Sexual intercourse, which carried a light impurity (15:18), was necessary for childbirth, which generated severe impurity (ch. 12). This process of reproduction, which was created and blessed by God (cf. Gen. 1:28; 9:1), was essential for the survival of human society.20
Deliberately contracting impurity could be permitted, as was the case with sexual intercourse (Lev. 15:18) and coming in contact with corpses (Num. 19:11). However, God forbade some defilements (e.g., Lev. 11:43; 18:19; 20:18; 21:1–4, 11; Num. 6:6–7, 9–12). Contracting such a forbidden impurity, neglecting timely purification for a permitted impurity (Lev. 5:2–3; Num. 19:13, 20), or contacting something holy while in a state of impurity (Lev. 7:20–21; 22:3–7) constituted punishable moral fault—not because ritual impurity was sin, but because God’s command concerning ritual impurity was violated.21
Sin regarding ritual impurity was expiable by sacrifice in some cases, such as forgetting to undergo purification for a permitted impurity (5:2–3, 5–6) or accidentally having impurity and holiness come together (Num. 6:9–12). However, a person who deliberately contracted a forbidden impurity (Lev. 20:18), neglected purification for a permitted impurity (Num. 19:13, 20), or brought impurity in contact with holiness (Lev. 7:20–21) was ineligible for expiation.
While sins and physical ritual impurities were clearly distinct, they had a lot in common. Both were defined in relation to the Lord’s holiness, which includes his holy moral character as expressed by his commandments. Sinning could be unintentional (4:2) or deliberate (19:20–21). Becoming ritually impure could also be unintentional (Num. 6:9) or deliberate (Lev. 11:40).
Wright points out that the two types of evil (i.e., sins and ritual impurities) were more closely linked than we would expect.22 (1) Like permitted impurities contracted involuntarily, inadvertent “sins” did not involve conscious commission. Although an inadvertent sin was not involuntary in the sense that physical functions can happen without any thought at all, it was committed with some kind of ignorance. (2) The same kind of sacrifice (i.e., the “outer altar” purification offering) remedied both sins and some permitted impurities. (3) Moral faults generated a kind of (nonphysical) ritual impurity. For example, on the Day of Atonement the person who led Azazel’s goat (the so-called “scapegoat”), which carried only moral faults (Lev. 16:21–22), was subsequently required to undergo ritual purification (16:26).
In the various kinds of moral and ritual evils, Wright finds a unified spectrum of impurity: “If all these conditions or actions are not sins, they all are at least a threat to what is holy and hence must either be, when serious, avoided, or when less grave, controlled. For the Priestly writer, all the defilement-creating conditions were of the same conceptual family.”23
It appears that the common denominator between the various physical ritual impurities—corpse contamination, degeneration of skin by scaly skin disease, and loss of fluids from the reproductive organs—has to do with death.24 However, this is not death in general. Maccoby points out that life-threatening loss of blood from a wound was not ritually impure, as we would expect if all death were in view. By contrast, genital discharges that were not physically dangerous caused defilement (Lev. 15). So Maccoby convincingly narrows the death focus of physical ritual impurity to “an expression of the birth-death cycle that comprises mortality.”25 This impurity/mortality is diametrically opposed to holiness/life.
Like physical ritual impurities, sins are related to death, but in a different way. Inexpiable sins result in destruction: the death of the sinner and/or the terminal divine penalty of krt (“cutting off”; e.g., Lev. 20:2–3; Num. 15:30–31). “Whereas moral faults cause death (cf. Rom. 6:23), physical ritual impurities arise from an existing state of mortality, which, according to Gen 3, has burdened the human race as a consequence of the moral fault of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve (cf. Rom. 5:12, 14).”26
By treating both moral and physical aspects of restoration, the purification offering enacted a double bridge between human imperfection and divine holiness. This bridge demonstrated the inseparable connection between (1) “legal” obligation for wrongful action that needed forgiveness and (2) a mortal state that needed healing. The double remedy was for whole human beings, who were in need of physical and moral healing along with freedom from obligation resulting from moral and physical faultiness. In this way the purification offering maintained theological balance that simultaneously served as an antidote to legalism and antinomianism.27
Contemporary Significance
TOTAL HEALING. From Leviticus 12 we learn that it is appropriate to acknowledge human mortality and dependence on God at the same time as we celebrate new life. A Jewish circumcision ceremony does this well. The baby sheds a little blood as he is initiated into the covenant by which he is subject to and dependent on the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. The little fellow cries and is bandaged. While he is still whimpering, all the family, friends, and neighbors enjoy a big party with lots of food. It is a quintessentially human occasion: bittersweet.
At Christian infant dedications, we tend to remember that even before our little ones know enough to commit sins for which they can be held morally accountable, they are children of Adam and Eve. Through us they inescapably inherit the effluents of mortality and evil propensities that flow from sin (Ps. 51:5; 58:3). Like us, they need divine redemption to live as God created them to. Like Christ’s disciples, we need him to remind us: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them” (Matt. 19:14).
The fact that the effects of sin are already present at birth shows that they pervade our being. But Augustine said to God: “Rightly do I place in him my firm hope that you will cure all my ills through him who sits at your right hand and pleads for us: otherwise I should despair. For my ills are many and great, many and great indeed; but your medicine is greater still.”28 Several aspects of this speech are striking. (1) Augustine views his state as characterized by all kinds of sickness. (2) He wants total healing, not a partial fix. (3) He identifies God’s agent of healing by describing Christ in his priestly role. For Augustine, the Great Physician kept up his “medical license” when he became the heavenly Mediator.
Augustine’s hope for healing through Christ was well founded. Before going to heaven, Christ showed his concern for treating whole human beings. In Mark 2 he demonstrates the close connection between forgiveness from sin and healing from the physical state caused by sin:
“Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . .” He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!” (Mark 2:9–12; cf. Matt. 9:5–8; Luke 5:23–26).
Jesus knows that the paralyzed man needs physical healing. That is why his four friends transport him on a mat (Mark 2:3–4). But Jesus also perceives that the man needs peace with God. When one is tortured of body and soul, why relieve one agony but leave the other to perpetuate suffering? Will everyone praise God as jubilantly for a job half done?
It is no accident that Christ gave forgiveness with healing during his earthly ministry. This is a foretaste of the gift provided by his sacrifice, the ultimate Purification Offering. We think of this as a sacrifice for sin, and so it was (John 1:29). However, by overlooking the fact that purification offerings addressed not only acts of sin but also the state of mortality that results from sin, Christians have missed a magnificent fact:
Through Christ’s sacrifice, He not only forgives us from our sins (1 Jn 1:9), He heals us from our disease of mortality and gives us eternal life (Jn 3:16)! Psalm 103 refers to the two aspects of our restoration: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and do not forget all his benefits—who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases” (Ps 103:2–3).29
Romans 6:23 begins: “For the wages of sin is death.” So disobedient action has led to a state of mortality. But God doesn’t just wipe out the disobedience. The verse continues: “. . . but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (emphasis supplied).
Christian worship is focused toward God’s heavenly temple, where Christ has gone to minister as our High Priest (Heb. 7–10). We no longer have God’s glorious Presence visibly residing at one particular location on earth. So there is no Christian “Holy Place” in this special sense. Thus, Christians are no longer obliged to observe the Pentateuchal laws of ritual purification, which governed interactions between the Israelites and the Lord while he dwelt among them in his sanctuary. While we dedicate our churches to God and invite Christ to meet with us (Matt. 18:20), they are not temples with resident Shekinahs hovering above them in glory clouds. Therefore we do not need to station deacons and deaconesses at the doors of our churches to make sure that participants in the Lord’s Supper/communion have not recently incurred ritual impurity, which could be of a very personal nature.
Although for us the biblical purity laws are relics in the sense that we are not bound to keep them, they apply to us in some deeper ways by teaching us some crucial aspects of sin and salvation. (1) Sinful action has resulted in our mortality. (2) Our fallen state has estranged us from God and his holiness. (3) Through Christ, God gives us the total healing of wholeness, purity, and life in place of brokenness, defilement, and death.
Through these concepts we learn that total healing, by accepting the “medicine” and perhaps even the “scalpel” of the divine Physician, provides the only lasting solution to the core problems of our morality and mortality. No legalistic, list-making, compartmentalizing approach will do. Weakened by “myocardial infractions” (sins of the heart) and riddled with metastasizing moral cancer, we have hope through God’s total care. He will not rest until the job is done.
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Rev. 21:3–4)
“For my ills are many and great, many and great indeed; but your medicine is greater still.”30 “If for being delivered from slavery to freedom we chant a hymn of praise, should we not do so all the more for being delivered from death to life?”31