On the Purification Ritual of the Mother of God

Summary of Argument

Sin offerings in Leviticus don’t mean moral fault in all cases such as Leviticus 12-15’s language of “וְטָהֵֽרָה” which means “to make clean” vs Leviticus 4-5’s use of “וְנִסְלַ֥ח” which means “it shall be forgiven” or “and will be forgiven.” This priestly formula is indicative of two distinct forms of sin offering(הַֽחַטָּ֔את), one implying ritual uncleanliness alone which has no moral guilt(Lev 12-15), and one implying moral guilt(Lev 4-5).

Luke 2:22 often reads “their purification” (τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν), if purification = personal sin/guilt it would imply both Mary and Jesus in reductio, yet this cannot be the case, therefore the purification does not pertain to moral guilt.

Leviticus 12, the ritual Mary took part in, also would not apply in any way to Mary by necessity, the reason for such is that it has a specific condition of “ַתַזְרִ֔יעַ” which means to receive seed, if we are to say that this applies to Mary, we deny the virgin birth.

Christ, who is sinless also went through a penitential rite to fulfill righteousness (the baptism of repentance), he was in no need of such but did it anyways (Matt 3:13-15, John 3, etc)

Mary’s ritual in Luke 2:22 thus represents submission to the law, obedience, and consecration, as the Mother of our most Holy Lord, helping him to fulfill the law and all righteousness, despite no necessity to take part in the ritual.

What is a Sin Offering? (ḥaṭṭā’āṯ)

The term used in Leviticus 12 for the sacrifice is ḥaṭṭā’āṯ, traditionally translated as “sin offering.” The sin offering is used in a twofold way (1) for the atoning/cleansing of ritual uncleanliness, such is the case in Leviticus 12. (2) for the atoning/forgiving of moral guilt/personal sin, such is the case in Leviticus 4.

As to the first, we see the cleansing ritual performed in a number of places in the scripture, for example we see ḥaṭṭā'āṯ offered in Exodus 29:36 for the consecration of the tabernacle, now clearly, the altar has no personal guilt/sin, yet there is still a ḥaṭṭā'āṯ offered for it.

We can see this further in Numbers 6, where a Nazirite is given instructions so as to not defile oneself by coming in contact with a corpse. In Numbers 6:8 we see a Nazirite who is Holy to the Lord and obeys his separation, in Numbers 6:9-12 we see what offering he would have to give in the case he does come in contact with a corpse, that is “he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing” and “On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest” in this case, the Nazirite has in fact sinned, as he broke his separation and did not stay holy to the Lord. However, in Verse 13 and 14, we see that the Holy Nazirite still has to do a sin offering, despite staying holy to the Lord. This Holy Nazirite has no moral guilt, yet still does the offering.

Rabbi Jacob Milgrom notes in his 1991 commentary on Leviticus that “sin offering” as a translation of ḥaṭṭā’āṯ can be very misleading, he prefers the translation of “purification offering” as it shows that it is not necessarily moral guilt that is being atoned for, but rather a variety of ritual impurity as well as moral guilt.

In specific to Leviticus 12, St Andrews Encyclopedia of Theology, published by Roy E. Gane says in 4.3.3

“Moreover, the ḥaṭṭā’t sacrifice also expiated physical ritual impurities, which were not moral faults – as shown by passages in which offerers of such sacrifices received purification, not forgiveness (Lev 12:6–8; 14:19–20, 30–31; 15:14–15, 19–30; cf. Num 19). The rendering ‘sin offering’ in these instances wrongly conveys the impression that physical impurities are sins. As such, a better translation is needed.”

Jonathan Klawans in his book Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism says

“sin does not produce ritual impurity, and ritual impurity does not render one sinful.” clearly agreeing with both the above quotation from St Andrews as well as the overall analysis that Leviticus 12 is not in reference to moral guilt.

Luke 2:22 analysis

The ritual that Mary partakes in seen in Luke 2:22 is exactly the Leviticus 12 ritual that we have now analyzed, so how does this apply?

Firstly, we see that Mary brings the prescribed offering for one who cannot afford to bring a Lamb as an offering, this is to back “although He was rich, became poor for our sake” (2 Cor 8:9) as such, she brought a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.

The second thing of note is that the greek of the passage says “τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν” or “for their purification” if we are to grant that Lev 12 implies moral guilt, it would necessarily imply that Christ himself would also need purification for sin, which is a position no rational Christian could ever hold (Hebrews 4:15).

Some may object and point out that the KJV and its variants translate as “of her purification” thus nullifying the proposed dilemma. The KJV derives its translation from the Textus Receptus which uses “αὐτῆς” rather than “αὐτῶν” however this is seen in none of the early manuscripts, in fact seemingly the only place where this is seen is the Latin Vulgate, which uses “purgationis eius”, eius is a 3rd person singular genitive case, it specifies no gender, but english translators of the vulgate always translate it to “her purification.”

This however, does not harm the Catholic case in the slightest, it is true that the one purified in the ritual according to Lev 12 is the mother, and Jerome in translating it knew this, which is seemingly why he uses eius rather than eorum. However, the purification ritual still signifies no moral guilt. Luke’s use of the plural “their purification” most naturally reflects the fact that more than one legal ritual action was being carried out: Mary’s purification under Leviticus 12 and Jesus’ presentation/redemption as firstborn under Exodus 13. If purification is read as moral guilt, the reductio still stands, as Luke specifically denotes both of them as being purified.

Connecting Luke to Lev

You’ll notice in Leviticus 12:2 that it says “ַתַזְרִ֔יעַ” which means to receive seed, or “conceive with seed.” This conditional is a beautiful glimpse into the complexity of God’s providential use of scripture. St Bede the Venerable points out clearly to us this incredible fact

“If you diligently examine the words of the law, you will find indeed that the mother of God as she is free from all connection with man, so is she exempt from any obligation of the law. For not every woman who brings forth, but she who has received seed and brought forth, is pronounced unclean, and by the ordinances of the law is taught that she must be cleansed, in order to distinguish probably from her who though a virgin has conceived and brought forth. But that we might be loosed from the bonds of the law, as did Christ, so also Mary submitted herself of her own will to the law.”

• St Bede the Venerable

“it says, And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, 'Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, if any woman conceives and bears a male child, she will be unclean for seven days.' First, let us consider according to the historical sense if this does not seem to be a superfluous addition, A woman who conceives and bears a male child. How else could she bear a male child unless she had conceived? But the addition is not superfluous. For the Lawgiver added this word to distinguish her who conceived and gave birth without seed from other women so as not to designate as unclean every woman who had given birth but her who had given birth by receiving seed. There can also be added to this the fact that this Law which is written concerning uncleanness pertains to women. But concerning Mary, it is said that a virgin conceived and gave birth. Therefore, let women carry the burdens of the Law, but let virgins be immune from them.”

• Origen of Alexandria in Homily 8 on Leviticus

You’ll notice clearly that both of these patristics clearly denote Mary as EXEMPT from the law, yet she partook in the law so as to submit to it on behalf of her Son, who by following the law perfectly fulfills all righteousness.

So after examination of the text, it is clear that

1. Mary has in no way shown that she has personal sin, as the ritual only pertains to ritual impurity
2. That the view which says it does pertain to personal sin is absurd and untenable
3. That Mary had no requirement to even do the ritual, as she did not receive seed
4. That Mary partook in the ritual to assist her Son in fulfilling all righteousness.

Concerning other temple Law

The New Testament shows that Jesus voluntarily underwent certain rituals “to fulfill all righteousness,” though He had no personal need of purification or the rituals. For example, at the Baptism of Jesus, John the Baptist was shocked because Jesus, the Sinless One, had no need of the baptism of repentance and yet asked John to baptise him. “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15). Further, in Matt 17:26-27 we see Jesus pay the temple tax for Himself and Peter even though he clearly tells Peter that he has no need to do so.

Our Lord subjected himself to these temple laws and rituals so as to fulfill all righteousness, despite no obligation to do so, similarly, his mother partook in the purification ritual so as to assist her Son in fulfilling righteousness. Her humble conformity to God’s law is precisely what we should expect from the “handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38), who had said “yes” to God at the Annunciation with total obedience and trust.

Titus of Bostra

“Therefore the Evangelist has well observed, that the days of her purification were come according to the law, who since she had conceived of the Holy Spirit, was free from all uncleanness. It follows, They brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.”

It is clear from this that the Blessed Virgin had no need of the ritual as she was ‘free from all uncleanness’

St Hippolytus of Rome

“When they brought Him to the temple to present Him to the Lord, they offered the oblations of purification. For if the gifts of purification according to the law were offered for Him, in this indeed He was made tinder the law. But the Word was not subject to the law in such wise as the sycophants fancy, since He is the law Himself; neither did God need sacrifices of purification, for He purifies and sanctifies all things at once in a moment. But though He took to Himself the frame of man as He received it from the Virgin, and was made under the law, and was thus purified after the manner of the first-born, it was not because He needed this ceremonial that He underwent its services, but only for the purpose of redeeming from the bondage of the law those who were sold under the judgment of the curse.”

Hippolytus teaches that the purification includes Christ, but not because he needed to do so, but rather so that he fulfills all righteousness, thus, Mary in being the handmaid of the Lord, assists her Son in His mission.

St Vincent Ferrer

“And so, expressly, the evangelist Luke says, "And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses," (Lk 2:22). She herself had no need of purification, for in Leviticus 12 it says, "If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child," (Lv 12:2). Moses seems to have spoken to exempt the mother of God from uncleanness, who had given birth having not received seed, and so it is clear that she was not obliged to the fulfillment of this precept, but fulfilled the observance of purification voluntarily.”

St Thomas Aquinas

“I Answer that As the fullness of grace flowed from Christ on to His Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in humility: for God giveth grace to the humble, as is written James 4:6. And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law, wished, nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens of the Law, in order to give an example of humility and obedience; and in order to show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons He wished His Mother also to fulfill the prescriptions of the Law, to which, nevertheless, she was not subject. Reply Obj. 1: Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she wished to fulfill the observance of purification, not because she needed it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the Evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification according to the Law were accomplished;** for she needed no purification in herself.**”

Defining the Immaculate Conception

“Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.”

• (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)

Final defense

As you can see, the immaculate conception does not claim that Mary is free from ritual impurity, but rather that she is free from the stain of sin due to a singular grace of God, granted to her at the infusion of her soul to her body.

Due to this as well as all the above evidence, one cannot say that the ritual in Luke 2:22 is evidence against the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.