Luke 2:22-24 Purification Offering

[Mannyfit75]

The Lord be with you,

Greetings. I like to point out several accounts in the passage of Luke 2:22-24 in regards to purification offering.

It reads:

“When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it was written in the law of the Lord, “Every male child that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, " a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Let us look to where this law of the Moses is. We found this passage in Leviticus 12:6-8. It says,

“And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledoves for sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and a atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her, who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atone for her, and she shall be clean.”

Commentary: I read Leviticus several times, and it is consider to be unclean if any bodily fluid comes out of us, either by blood, or semen. I like to point out Leviticus 15:1-32, to show you. Feel free to look at it.

Now let us go back to Luke 2:22-24. In verse 22 it reads, “when the time of their purification…”

Who is being purified here, Luke 22 addresses their. I would assumed their implies Mary and Jesus.

I know neither Mary nor Jesus had sin in them, personal sin nor do they suffer the affects of original sin from our first parents. Yet, we see here they were obedient to the Law. When I was reading this passage, it make me ponder if the birth of Jesus coming out of the womb of Mary came out naturally, which would imply bodily fluid covering the infant Jesus?

I don’t want to make this a Apologetic thread, nor am I using this as means to prove Immaculate Conception, rather I like to know how this verse gives a deeper meaning on how Jesus came into the world.

We know in a few weeks, the Advent will be coming up, so I think reflecting on this passage is important.

 

[rwoehmke]

What exactly is the supposed connection between the Birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception? They are two very separate events; the conception of Mary by Anne and Joachim and than later the conception of Jesus by Mary and the Holy Spirit followed by His birth the exact mechanism of which I am totally in the dark about.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What exactly is the supposed connection between the Birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception? They are two very separate events; the conception of Mary by Anne and Joachim and than later the conception of Jesus by Mary and the Holy Spirit followed by His birth the exact mechanism of which I am totally in the dark about.

I didn’t bring this thread up to discuss Immaculate Conception. I bring it to get a deeper meaning on the birth of Jesus Christ. Since he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Did Jesus came out through vaginal opening of Mary? Excuse me to be explicit. The baby Jesus would be covered in body fluid. We know bodily fluid according to Mosaic Law is consider to be unclean.

or did Jesus came out without breaking the natural birth canal of Mary?

I also like to see some Patristic sources on this passage if it would be possible.

 

[Benadam]

Manny, I can only give you some of my personal Catholic thoughts about it. It’s something I’ve wondered about too. I think in terms of what seems fitting. The manner in which Jesus entered the womb makes for me an easy thing to believe that the manner in which He leaves is supernatural. Also connected is the manner in which he leaves the tomb ie; passing through the stone door. His incarnation and His ressurection are both passages between eternity and time. His birth is not. I believe that the hymen was passed through supernaturally similar to the stone that He would pass through exiting the tomb. I believe that the manner of His passage through Our Mother’s womb would be supernatural signs of the incarnation and resurrection and have the supernatural elements of those passages but be a very human experience of birth. I think He had fluids to be washed off an umbilical cord to cut.

 

[dacoobob]

Why exactly would you have any reason to doubt that that Jesus was born naturally? I don’t see any necessity for some sort of supernatural C-section…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why exactly would you have any reason to doubt that that Jesus was born naturally? I don’t see any necessity for some sort of supernatural C-section…

I have no doubts at all. I consider the birth of Christ as a complete mystery.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Exodus 13:2
“Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.”

Exodus 13:12
you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD.

Leviticus 12:8
If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ "

newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=when+the+time+of+their+purification&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9#913

 

[dacoobob]

I have no doubts at all. I consider the birth of Christ as a complete mystery.

Ok, why do you see it as a mystery? What makes you suspect that He might not have been born like the real human being He was? Is it a Church tradition? I really am curious; I’ve never heard anyone suggest such a thing before…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ok, why do you see it as a mystery? What makes you suspect that He might not have been born like the real human being He was? Is it a Church tradition? I really am curious; I’ve never heard anyone suggest such a thing before…

For one it is not normal for some human woman to give birth to a child without the intervention of man. Instead, we see God, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and she will conceived and bear a son. The exact details how Jesus came out through the uterus, down to the birth canel, to something to ponder about.

If Jesus came out like everyone else, covered in bodily fluid. Would that make him unclean, and thus making purification rites necessary?

I wouldn’t think about it so much so I said to myself. It’s a mystery.

 

[Nita]

…
or did Jesus came out without breaking the natural birth canal of Mary?

I also like to see some Patristic sources on this passage if it would be possible.

Some patristic quotes on the miraculous birth of Jesus:

**St. Gregory of Nazianz **(Oration on Holy Baptism, AD 381)
“…Believe in the Son of God, …, born of the Virgin Mary in an indescribable and stainless way, …

**St. Ambrose of Milan **[Treatise “The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary” (AD 391/392)]
“Who is this gate if not Mary? Is it not closed because whe is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.”

**St. Augustine of Hippo **(Letter of Augustine to Volusian AD 412)
“The very greatness of His power… That same power which afterwards brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate virginal womb of the Mother. If you seek out the reason for this it will no longer be marvelous. If you demand a comparable example it will no longer be unique. Let us grant that God can do something which, we confess, we cannot fathom. In such matters the whole explanation of what is done is to be found in the power of the one doing it.”

(Sermon of St. Auigustine)
“A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder t this, O man? It was fitting for God to be born thus, …”

**St. Peter Chrysologus **(Sermon post AD 432)
“Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conceiving and the Virgin’s giving birth are just like those of other women? Theirs is of the earth, hers is of heaven. … A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains.”

**Pope Leo I ** (Letter to the Bishop of Constantinople 449 AD)
“”He was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin Mother, who gave birth to Him while preserving her virginity just as she had, while preserving her virginity, conceived Him.”

**St. Gregory I ** (Homilies on the Gospels AD 590-591)
“”The body of the Lord came into the presence of the disciples through closed doors, which body, in truth, at His birth came forth to human eyes from the closed womb of the Virgin. What wonder, then, if, after His Resurrection and about to reign victorious in eternity, He entered through closed doors, who, coming so that He might die, came forth from the unopened womb of the Virgin?

**St. Sophronius of Jerusalem **(Synodal Letter AD 634)
“”At the same time, however, there were the sublime and preeminent indications of His divinity…such as His being conceived without seed, the exultation of John in the womb, the undespoiling birth, the immaculate virginity which was unblemished before the birth, during the birth, and after the birth … all of which, accomplished on a level above human reason and nature, were indications proclamatory of the divine essence and nature of the Word of God…”

**St. John Damascene **(The Source of Knowledge post AD 743)
“He that was born kept her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. The conception was through the sense of hearing; but the birth was through the usual channel by which children come, even if some do prattle of His birth being through the side of the Mother of God. Certainly it was not impossible for Him to come by this gate without injuring its seal in any way. Thus the Ever-Virgin remains after birth a Virgin still, never having consorted with man until death. …For how were it possible that she, who had borne God, and had come to know the miracle from her experience of subsequent events, should receive the embrace of a man? Perish the thought!”

 

[Nita]

I noticed the Douay translates Luke 2:22 differently from the RSV - perhaps different Greek manuscripts were used.

Douay: “And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord,”

I consider them doing it to fulfill perfectly the Mosaic Law. Similar to when Our Lord came to John the Baptist (whose baptism was one of repentance for sin) and asked to be baptized (Mt. 3:15). Jesus said He wished it “to fulfill all justice”. I have meditated about what Jesus meant by those words. My thoughts: Jesus became man to represent us (or stand in for us - fallen, sinful humanity). He would fulfill perfectly, on behalf of fallen mankind, all of the laws of God.

Regarding the miraculous birth of Our Lord, I like to ponder the Old Testament verses that the Fathers cite as referring to that event:

**Isaiah 66:7 ** Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?

**Song of Songs 4:12 **A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed.

Ezekiel 44:2 And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”

Nita

 

[Benadam]

Mary may not have been aware of being sinless.The deeper meaning related to her obedience to ritual purity aside, ‘if’ she knew, I doubt she thought of it as something that would exclude her from practicing her faith like any other Jewish woman. I would expect her response to it to be like her son’s response to His divinty, not something to grasp.

 

[DCD]

Ok, why do you see it as a mystery? What makes you suspect that He might not have been born like the real human being He was? Is it a Church tradition? I really am curious; I’ve never heard anyone suggest such a thing before…

dacoobob,

Do you have access to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott? He has a good section on this topic that might be of some help to you.

Calvin held this and he used Ezekiel 44:2 to support his view.

St. Augustine says: “in such things the whole ground of the mystery is the might of Him who permits it to happen” (Ep. 137,2,8). Awesome insights from one of the great Catholic Fathers.

Peace,
David

 

[Mannyfit75]

I noticed the Douay translates Luke 2:22 differently from the RSV - perhaps different Greek manuscripts were used.

Douay: “And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord,”

I consider them doing it to fulfill perfectly the Mosaic Law. Similar to when Our Lord came to John the Baptist (whose baptism was one of repentance for sin) and asked to be baptized (Mt. 3:15). Jesus said He wished it “to fulfill all justice”. I have meditated about what Jesus meant by those words. My thoughts: Jesus became man to represent us (or stand in for us - fallen, sinful humanity). He would fulfill perfectly, on behalf of fallen mankind, all of the laws of God.

Regarding the miraculous birth of Our Lord, I like to ponder the Old Testament verses that the Fathers cite as referring to that event:

**Isaiah 66:7 ** Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?

**Song of Songs 4:12 **A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed.

Ezekiel 44:2 And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”

Nita

Thanks.

 

[dacoobob]

Some patristic quotes on the miraculous birth of Jesus:

**St. Gregory of Nazianz **(Oration on Holy Baptism, AD 381)
“…Believe in the Son of God, …, born of the Virgin Mary in an indescribable and stainless way, …

**St. Ambrose of Milan **[Treatise “The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary” (AD 391/392)]
“Who is this gate if not Mary? Is it not closed because whe is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.”

**St. Augustine of Hippo **(Letter of Augustine to Volusian AD 412)
“The very greatness of His power… That same power which afterwards brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate virginal womb of the Mother. If you seek out the reason for this it will no longer be marvelous. If you demand a comparable example it will no longer be unique. Let us grant that God can do something which, we confess, we cannot fathom. In such matters the whole explanation of what is done is to be found in the power of the one doing it.”

(Sermon of St. Auigustine)
“A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder t this, O man? It was fitting for God to be born thus, …”

**St. Peter Chrysologus **(Sermon post AD 432)
“Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conceiving and the Virgin’s giving birth are just like those of other women? Theirs is of the earth, hers is of heaven. … A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains.”

**Pope Leo I ** (Letter to the Bishop of Constantinople 449 AD)
“”He was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin Mother, who gave birth to Him while preserving her virginity just as she had, while preserving her virginity, conceived Him.”

**St. Gregory I ** (Homilies on the Gospels AD 590-591)
“”The body of the Lord came into the presence of the disciples through closed doors, which body, in truth, at His birth came forth to human eyes from the closed womb of the Virgin. What wonder, then, if, after His Resurrection and about to reign victorious in eternity, He entered through closed doors, who, coming so that He might die, came forth from the unopened womb of the Virgin?

**St. Sophronius of Jerusalem **(Synodal Letter AD 634)
“”At the same time, however, there were the sublime and preeminent indications of His divinity…such as His being conceived without seed, the exultation of John in the womb, the undespoiling birth, the immaculate virginity which was unblemished before the birth, during the birth, and after the birth … all of which, accomplished on a level above human reason and nature, were indications proclamatory of the divine essence and nature of the Word of God…”

**St. John Damascene **(The Source of Knowledge post AD 743)
“He that was born kept her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. The conception was through the sense of hearing; but the birth was through the usual channel by which children come, even if some do prattle of His birth being through the side of the Mother of God. Certainly it was not impossible for Him to come by this gate without injuring its seal in any way. Thus the Ever-Virgin remains after birth a Virgin still, never having consorted with man until death. …For how were it possible that she, who had borne God, and had come to know the miracle from her experience of subsequent events, should receive the embrace of a man? Perish the thought!”

Thanks for the quotes. These Fathers seem to have (rather naively, imho) equated “virginity” with “intact hymen.”

The other idea seems to be that the Christ child would have been rendered ritually “unclean” by a natural birth. But really, so what? In Leviticus, we can see that all sorts of everyday things render someone temporarily “unclean.” Indeed it would be impossible to live a normal human life without ever being ritually unclean at any time. Being ritually unclean was NOT a sin. To say that Jesus was never “unclean” according to the OT Law would be to deny his humanity, imho. The whole thing is a bit too Gnostic for me.

But is all this one of those “take it or leave it” traditions, like all the stories about Jesus’ childhood, or a real Tradition-with-a-capital-T that Catholics are bound or at least strongly encouraged to believe in, like the Assumption of Mary before it was defined? Btw, I hope I don’t come off as attacking Church traditions. I’m just giving my gut-level response to an idea that is new to me-- skepticism and curiosity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for the quotes. These Fathers seem to have (rather naively, imho) equated “virginity” with “intact hymen.”

The other idea seems to be that the Christ child would have been rendered ritually “unclean” by a natural birth. But really, so what? In Leviticus, we can see that all sorts of everyday things render someone temporarily “unclean.” Indeed it would be impossible to live a normal human life without ever being ritually unclean at any time. Being ritually unclean was NOT a sin. To say that Jesus was never “unclean” according to the OT Law would be to deny his humanity, imho. The whole thing is a bit too Gnostic for me.

But is all this one of those “take it or leave it” traditions, like all the stories about Jesus’ childhood, or a real Tradition-with-a-capital-T that Catholics are bound or at least strongly encouraged to believe in, like the Assumption of Mary before it was defined? Btw, I hope I don’t come off as attacking Church traditions. I’m just giving my gut-level response to an idea that is new to me-- skepticism and curiosity.

It isn’t Gnostic. Do you even know what that is? Many of these Early Church Fathers are against Gnosticism. Before you may any ridicules claims, you better know what you are talking about. Augustine, Ambrose, and all the rest were very much oppose to it. Gnostics also believe all matter as evil.

 

[dacoobob]

Gnostics also believe all matter as evil.

Exactly, which is why this whole idea sounds quasi-Gnostic to me. In addition to being fully Divine, Christ was fully human-- He ate real food, breathed real air, used the outhouse, sweated, got dirty, just like every other man. That’s the beauty of the Incarnation. Some seem (SEEM-- maybe I’m way off here!) to have the idea that He floated around six inches off the ground, never getting his His hands dirty. Matter is not evil, and neither is amniotic fluid. And don’t forget that those yucky “birth fluids” are mostly the same stuff the baby has been floating in for the previous nine months. Jesus the infant human came into contact with them if he was really inside Mary’s womb, no matter how he exited…

EDIT: I want to emphasize again that I’m not accusing any Church Fathers or present posters of actual Gnostic heresy. I just think the idea currently under discussion smacks a bit of quasi-Gnostic style thinking. That’s all. Maybe I’m going too far the other way and profaning Christ’s holy Body. In case you hadn’t guessed, I was brought up Protestant and my response probably reflects that.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Exactly, which is why this whole idea sounds quasi-Gnostic to me. In addition to being fully Divine, Christ was fully human-- He ate real food, breathed real air, used the outhouse, sweated, got dirty, just like every other man. That’s the beauty of the Incarnation. Some seem (SEEM-- maybe I’m way off here!) to have the idea that He floated around six inches off the ground, never getting his His hands dirty. Matter is not evil, and neither is amniotic fluid. And don’t forget that those yucky “birth fluids” are mostly the same stuff the baby has been floating in for the previous nine months. Jesus the infant human came into contact with them if he was really inside Mary’s womb, no matter how he exited…

I like to quote Fr. Loya, with Mary’s acceptance of God’s will that she would be the Mother of His Beloved Son, Heaven touch Earth. Jesus who is from heaven, and Mary who is from earth. The Word, the Eternal Word became flesh through the consent of Mary by saying, “Be it done unto me according to your word.”

EDIT: I want to emphasize again that I’m not accusing any Church Fathers or present posters of actual Gnostic heresy. I just think the idea currently under discussion smacks a bit of quasi-Gnostic style thinking. That’s all. Maybe I’m going too far the other way and profaning Christ’s holy Body. In case you hadn’t guessed, I was brought up Protestant and my response probably reflects that.

I can tell. I would also like to add that the purifiction offering is required under the Mosaic Law. She was without sin. I’m very sure of that. In order to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, God, the Father see fit that he preserved Mary from the stains of original sin, and committing any actual sin. Just as the Ark of the Old Covenant, it was made of pure gold to make it a perfect dwelling of the Lord. Likewise, Jesus, who is high priest, manna, and Word of God is the New Covenant, and Mary became literally the Ark.

 

[dacoobob]

I like to quote Fr. Loya, with Mary’s acceptance of God’s will that she would be the Mother of His Beloved Son, Heaven touch Earth. Jesus who is from heaven, and Mary who is from earth. The Word, the Eternal Word became flesh through the consent of Mary by saying, “Be it done unto me according to your word.”

No argument here…

I can tell. I would also like to add that the purifiction offering is required under the Mosaic Law. She was without sin. I’m very sure of that. In order to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, God, the Father see fit that he preserved Mary from the stains of original sin, and committing any actual sin. Just as the Ark of the Old Covenant, it was made of pure gold to make it a perfect dwelling of the Lord. Likewise, Jesus, who is high priest, manna, and Word of God is the New Covenant, and Mary became literally the Ark.

Nor here. Whether Mary sinned or not is none of my business. In any event Jesus certainly did not sin, although He also followed the Law, making all the required offerings just like His mother. But that has little to do with the topic at hand. I’m still curious why you think Jesus wasn’t born naturally. Just-- curious. It’s an idea I’ve never heard before. I’m really really not trying to start any argument here (yes really!), and I apologize if I’ve already offended anyone…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nor here. Whether Mary sinned or not is none of my business. In any event Jesus certainly did not sin, although He also followed the Law, making all the required offerings just like His mother. But that has little to do with the topic at hand. I’m still curious why you think Jesus wasn’t born naturally. Just-- curious. It’s an idea I’ve never heard before. I’m really really not trying to start any argument here (yes really!), and I apologize if I’ve already offended anyone…

I don’t really know if he was born naturally or not.