Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 12:1
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
1. These precepts are addressed to Moses only.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This chapter would more naturally follow the 15th chapter of Leviticus. See the note to Lev 15:1.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 12:1-8
She shall Be unclean.
Birth-sin and its developments
The theme of the chapter is the same as that of the one preceding and the one following. The subject is sin, portrayed by symbols. In the division of the animals into clean and unclean we had the nature of sin in its general character and outward manifestations. It is a brutalisation of humanity. It has its type in all sorts of savage, noxious, vile, annoying creatures. But this chapter presents another and still more affecting phase of mans corruption. Surveying those masses of sin and vileness which hang about our world, the question arises, Whence comes it? How are we to account for it? It is useless to attribute it to errors in the structure of society, for society itself is the mere aggregate of human life, feelings, opinions, intercourse, agreement, and doings. It is man that corrupts society, and not society that corrupts man. The one may react very powerfully upon the other, but the errors and corruptions in both must have a common source. What is that seat? Penetrating to the moral signification of this chapter, we have the true answer. Sin is not only a grovelling brutality assumed or taken upon a man from without. It is a manifestation which comes from within. It is a corruption which cleaves to the nature, mingles with the very transmissions of life, and taints the vital forces as they descend from parent to child, from generation to generation. We are unclean, not only practically and by contact with a bad world, but innately. We were conceived in sin; we were shapen in iniquity. And it is just this that forms the real subject of this chapter. It is the type of the source and seat of human vileness. The uncleanness here spoken of is no more a real uncleanness than that attributed to certain animals in the preceding chapter. The whole regulation is ceremonial, and not at all binding upon us. It is an arbitrary law, made only for the time then present, as a figure of spiritual truths. Its great significance lies in its typical nature. And a more vivid and impressive picture can hardly be conceived. It imposes a special legal disability upon woman, and so connects with the fact that the woman being deceived was in the transgression (1Ti 2:14). It is a vivid remembrancer of the occurrences in Eden. It tells us that we all have come of sinful mothers. It portrays defilement as the state in which we receive our being; for who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). You may plant a good seed, and surround it with all the conditions necessary to a goodly plant; but it may put forth so eccentrically, or meet with some mishap in the incipient stages of its development, in consequence of which all its subsequent growth will be marred, and all its fruits give evidence of the adversities that befell it in the beginning. You may open a pure fountain, giving forth nothing but pure, good water; yet the issuing stream may touch upon poison and take up turbid corn-mixtures at its first departure from its source, and so carry and show pollution whithersoever it goes. And so it has been with humanity. It was created pure and good, but by that power of free choice which necessarily belongs to a moral being some of its first movements were eccentric and detrimental to its original qualities. It absorbed vileness at its very beginning; and hence all its subsequent develop-merits have upon them the taint of that first mishap and contagion. It is worse in some lines than in others. The operations of Divine grace in the parent doubtless help to enfeeble it in the child. Now it is just to this universal taint of human nature, derived from the defection of Adam, that the whole outgrowth of this worlds iniquity is to be traced. By virtue of our relation to an infected parentage we come into the world with more or less affinity for evil. The presentation of the objects to which this proclivity leans awakens those biases into activity. This awakening of the power of lust is what we call temptation. There is an innate taint or bias, the presentation to which of the objects of evil desire involuntarily excites lust; and from this has flown out the flood of evil which has deluged all the earth. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
In the eighth day the flesh . . . shall be circumcised.
The ordinance of circumcision
Although the rite of circumcision here receives a new and special sanction, it had been appointed long before by God as the sign of His covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:10-14). Nor was it, probably, even then a new thing. That the ancient Egyptians practised it is well known; so also did the Arabs and Phoenicians; in fact, the custom has been very extensively observed, not only by nations with whom the Israelites came in contact, but by others who have not had, in historic times, connection with any civilised peoples, as, e.g., the Congo negroes and certain Indian tribes in South America. The fundamental idea connected with circumcision by most of the peoples who have practised it appears to have been physical purification; indeed, the Arabs call it by the name tatur, which has this precise meaning. And it deserves to be noticed that for this idea regarding circumcision there is so much reason in fact that high medical authorities have attributed to it a real hygienic value, especially in warm climates. No one need feel any difficulty in supposing that this common conception attached to the rite also in the minds of the Hebrews. Rather all the more fitting it was, if there was a basis in fact for this familiar opinion, that God should thus have taken a ceremony already known to the surrounding peoples, and in itself of a wholesome physical effect, and constituted it for Abraham and his seed a symbol of an analogous spiritual fact, namely, the purification of sin at its fountain-head, the cleansing of the evil nature with which we all are born. When the Hebrew infant was circumcised it was an outward sign and seal of the covenant of God with Abraham and with his seed to be a God to him and to his seed after him; and it signified further that this covenant of God was to be carried out and made effectual only through the putting away of the flesh, the corrupt nature with which we are born, and of all that belongs to it, in order that, thus circumcised with the circumcision of the heart, every child of Abraham might indeed be an Israelite in whom there should be no guile. And the law commands, in accord with the original command to Abraham, that the circumcision should take place on the eighth day. This is the more noticeable, that among other nations which practised or still practise the rite the time is different. The Egyptians circumcised their sons between the sixth and tenth years, the modern Mohammedans between the twelfth and fourteenth. What is the significance of this eighth day? In the first place, it is easy to see that we have in this direction a provision of Gods mercy; for if delayed beyond infancy or early childhood, as among many other peoples, the operation is much more serious, and may even involve some danger, while in so early infancy it is comparatively trifling, and attended with no risk. Further, by the administration of circumcision at the very opening of life it is suggested that in the Divine ideal the grace which was signified thereby, of the cleansing of nature, was to be bestowed upon the child, not first at a late period of life, but from its very beginning, thus anticipating the earliest awakening of the principle of inborn sin. But the question still remains, Why was the eighth day selected, and not rather, e.g., the sixth or seventh, which weald have no less perfectly represented these ideas? The answer is to be found in the symbolic significance of the eighth day. As the old creation was completed in six days, with a following Sabbath of rest, so that six is ever the number of the old creation, as under imperfection and sin, the eighth day, the first of a new week, everywhere in Scripture appears as the number symbolic of the new creation, in which all things shall be restored in the great redemption through the Second Adam. The thought finds its fullest expression in the resurrection of Christ, as the Firstborn from the dead, the Beginning and the Lord of the new creation, who in His resurrection body manifested the firstfruits in physical life of the new creation, rising from the dead on the first, or, in other words, the day after the seventh, the eighth day. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
Her purifying.–Purification after child-birth
The teaching of this law is twofold: it concerns, first, the woman, and, secondly, the child which she bears. As regards the woman, it emphasises the fact that, because first in the transgression, she is under special pains and penalties in virtue of her sex. The capacity of motherhood, which is her crown and glory, though still a precious privilege, has yet been made, because of sin, an inevitable instrument of pain, and that because of her relation to the first sin. We are thus reminded that the specific curse denounced against the woman (Gen 3:16) is no dead letter, but a fact. No doubt the conception is one which raises difficulties which in themselves are great, and to modern thought are greater than ever. Nevertheless, the fact abides unaltered that even to this day woman is under special pains and disabilities inseparably connected with her power of motherhood. But why should all the daughters of Eve suffer because of her sin? Where is the justice in such an ordinance? A question this is to which we cannot yet give any satisfactory answer. But it does not follow that because in any proposition there are difficulties which at present we are unable to solve therefore the proposition is false. And, further, it is important to observe that this law, under which womanhood abides, is after all only a special case under that law of the Divine government by which the iniquities of the fathers are visited upon the children. It is most certainly a law which, to our apprehension, suggests great moral difficulties, even to the most reverent spirits; but it is no less certainly a law which represents a conspicuous and tremendous fact, which is illustrated, e.g., in the family of every drunkard in the world. And it is well worth observing that while the ceremonial law, which was specially intended to keep this fact before the mind and the conscience, is abrogated, tile fact that woman is stiff under certain Divinely-imposed disabilities because of that first sin is reaffirmed in the New Testament, and is by apostolic authority applied in the administration of Church government (1Ti 2:12-13). But, in the second place, we may also derive abiding instruction from this law concerning the child which is of man begotten and of woman born. It teaches us that not only has the curse thus fallen on the woman, but that, because she is herself a sinful creature, she can only bring forth another sinful creature like herself; and if a daughter, then a daughter inheriting all her own peculiar infirmities and disabilities. The law, as regards both mother and child, expresses in the language of symbolism those words of David in his penitential confession (Psa 51:5). Men may contemptuously call this theology, or even rail at it as Calvinism; but it is more than theology, more than Calvinism; it is a fact, to which until this present time history has seen but one exception, even that mysterious Son of the Virgin, who claimed, however, to be no mere man, but the Christ, the Son of the Blessed! And yet many, who surely can think but superficially upon the solemn facts of life, still object to this most strenuously, that even the new-born child should be regarded as in nature sinful and unclean. Difficulty here we must all admit–difficulty so great that it is hard to overstate it–regarding the bearing of this fact on the character of the holy and merciful God, who in the beginning made man; and yet, surely, deeper thought must confess that herein the Mosaic view of infant nature–a view which is assumed and taught throughout Holy Scripture–however humbling to our natural pride, is only in strictest accord with what the admitted principles of the most exact science compel us to admit. For whenever, in any case, we find all creatures of the same class doing, under all circumstances, any one thing, we conclude that the reason for this can only lie in the nature of such creatures, antecedent to any influence of a tendency to imitation. If, for instance, the ox everywhere and always eats the green thing of the earth, and not flesh, the reason, we say, is found simply in the nature of the ox as he comes into being. So when we see all men everywhere, under all circumstances, as soon as ever they come to the time of free moral choice, always choosing and committing sin, what can we conclude–regarding this not as a theological, but merely as a scientific question–but that man, as he comes into the world, must have a sinful nature? And this being so, then why must not the law of heredity apply, according to which, by a law which knows of no exceptions, like ever produces its like? Least of all, then, should those object to the view of child-nature which is represented in this law who accept these commonplaces of modern science as representing facts. Wiser it were to turn attention to the other teaching of the law, that, notwithstanding these sad and humiliating facts, there is provision made by God, through the cleansing by grace of the very nature in which we are born and atonement for the sin which without our fault we inherit, for a complete redemption from all the inherited corruption and guilt. And especially should Christian parents with joy and thankfulness receive the manifest teaching of this law, that God our Father offers to parental faith Himself to take in hand our children, even from the earliest beginning of their infant days, and, purifying the fountain of their life through a circumcision made without hands, receive the little ones into covenant relation with Himself, to their eternal salvation. (S. H. Kellogg D. D.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XII
Ordinances concerning the purification of women after
child-birth, 1;
after the birth of a son, who is to be circumcised the eighth
day, 2, 3.
The mother to be considered unclean for forty days, 4.
After the birth of a daughter, fourscore days, 5.
When the days of her purifying were ended, she was to bring a
lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove
for a sin-offering, 6, 7.
If poor, and not able to bring a lamb, she was to bring either
two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, 8.
NOTES ON CHAP. XII
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And the Lord spake unto Moses,…. The laws in the preceding chapter were delivered both to Moses and Aaron, but what follows in this only to Moses; but inasmuch as the priest had a concern in it, it being his business to offer the sacrifices required by the following law, it was no doubt given to Moses, to be delivered to Aaron, as well as to the people. R. Semlai remarks, that as the creation of man was after that of the beasts, fowls, fishes, &c. so the laws concerning the uncleanness of men are after those relating to beasts, &c, and they begin with the uncleanness of a new mother, because, as Aben Ezra observes, the birth is the beginning of man:
saying: as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Uncleanness and Purification after Child-Birth. – Lev 12:2-4. “ If a woman bring forth ( ) seed and bear a boy, she shall be unclean seven days as in the days of the uncleanness of her (monthly) sickness.” , from to flow, lit., that which is to flow, is applied more especially to the uncleanness of a woman’s secretions (Lev 15:19). , inf. of , to be sickly or ill, is applied here and in Lev 15:33; Lev 20:18, to the suffering connected with an issue of blood.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Ceremonial Purification. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 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. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 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. 5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
The law here pronounces women lying-in ceremonially unclean. The Jews say, “The law extended even to an abortion, if the child was so formed as that the sex was distinguishable.” 1. There was some time of strict separation immediately after the birth, which continued seven days for a son and fourteen for a daughter, Lev 12:2; Lev 12:5. During these days she was separated from her husband and friends, and those that necessarily attended her were ceremonially unclean, which was one reason why the males were not circumcised till the eighth day, because they participated in the mother’s pollution during the days of her separation. 2. There was also a longer time appointed for their purifying; thirty-three days more (forty in all) if the birth were a male, and double that time if a female, Lev 12:4; Lev 12:5. During this time they were only separated from the sanctuary and forbidden to eat of the passover, or peace-offerings, or, if a priest’s wife, to eat of any thing that was holy to the Lord. Why the time of both those was double for a female to what it was for a male I can assign no reason but the will of the Law-maker; in Christ Jesus no difference is made of male and female, Gal 3:28; Col 3:11. But this ceremonial uncleanness which the law laid women in child-bed under was to signify the pollution of sin which we are all conceived and born in, Ps. li. 5. For, if the root be impure, so is the branch, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? If sin had not entered, nothing but purity and honour had attended all the productions of that great blessing, Be fruitful and multiply; but now that the nature of man is degenerated the propagation of that nature is laid under these marks of disgrace, because of the sin and corruption that are propagated with it, and in remembrance of the curse upon the woman that was first in the transgression. That in sorrow (to which it is here further added in shame) she should bring forth children. And the exclusion of the woman for so many days from the sanctuary, and all participation of the holy things, signified that our original corruption (that sinning sin which we brought into the world with us) would have excluded us for ever from the enjoyment of God and his favours if he had not graciously provided for our purifying.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER TWELVE
Verses 1-5:
Among many ancient peoples, childbirth was considered to make both mother and child ceremonially “unclean” for a period of time. Scripture gives no reason for including in the Law the provisions regarding the ceremonial uncleanness of childbirth. It is suggested that God did not originate nor condone this concept, but that He gave laws regulating it among His people.
Following the birth of a male child, the mother was considered ceremonially unclean for seven days. It is suggested that the reason for this was the blood passed in giving birth. This was a time of strict separation, from husband and friends, all except those who attended her.
The time of this ceremonial uncleanness and separation was fourteen days, in the birth of a female child.
The circumcision of the male child took place on the eighth day. This was in keeping with God’s instruction to Abraham, Ge 17:12. This was practiced in the time of Christ, see Lu 1:59; 2:21.
When the period of separation was completed, an additional period of purification must be observed. In the case of a male child, this period was thirty-three days following the initial week. In the case of the female child, the period was double that, sixty-six days following the initial two weeks. During this period, the mother was forbidden to enter the sanctuary, and to partake of any holy food (as in the case of the Levites) as well as the Passover. This was also a time of isolation, during which she was not allowed to have sexual relations with her husband.
One benefit of this period of separation would be a time of bonding between mother and child. All fellowship and personal contact with others was forbidden during this time of ceremonial uncleanness.
Another benefit would be to allow her to recover from the physical and psychological trauma of childbirth. She would not be subject to another pregnancy before she was physically recovered.
Still another benefit would accrue to the husband: he would learn
self-control, in subduing his sexual desires during the time of his
wife’s separation. This would enable him to demonstrate his love in
ways other than sexual relations. -These regulations do not imply that there is something “unclean” or sinful about the birth of a child. The biological act which results in conception, the pregnancy, and the birth process are ordained of God, and are holy and right see Ps 127:3-5; 139:13-17; Pr 5:15-21. Sin has degraded this holy and wonderful process by offering fulfillment outside the realm of marriage. God provides a way in which the purity and holiness of marriage and human birth can be restored and enjoyed, by those who trust in Him.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Maternity
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 12:2.If a woman hath conceived she shall be unclean. Thus at the very entrance into life uncleanness clings to us. Not a child is born without defilement surrounding its birth. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psa. 51:5). How can he be clean that is born of a woman? (Job. 25:4). How humbling is this Scripture presentation of our case. From the cradle to the grave mans life is pronounced unclean. Surely it should arrest all self-elation and boasting. Pitiable indeed sounds the vain panegyric upon the dignity of human nature; melancholy is the haughty assumption of excellence and worthiness, in the light of this vision of mans defilement from birth till death. He should rather abhor himself, and repent in dust and ashes (Job. 42:6). Instead of the too common flattery of human nature, be this mirror of his humiliating impurity held up to the face of the self-satisfied sinner, that he may see the hole of the pit whence he was digged (Isa. 51:1), and cry in penitential lowliness, We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6).
Lev. 12:6.She shall bring a lamb. Always, in Gods graciousness, the remedy rises for the malady. Defilement has its antidote in atonement. The two grand aspects of the sacrificial death of Christ stood out here in the lamb for a burnt offering, in which He offered Himself without spot to God; and in the sin offering, in which He substituted Himself as the victim for men. From the humbling spectacle of human helplessness and defilement here given what can be more assuring and consolatory than to gain a view, in type, of the perfect merits of Jesuswho in Himself concentrated the unsullied grace and dignity of humanity, and in His sacrifice effectually atoned for the guiltiness and degradation of our fallen race. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Lev. 12:2; Lev. 12:5.If the woman have born a man child If she bear a maid child. The mothers defilement was ceremoniously less for the male child than for the female. Is not this a perpetuated memorial of the fact that sin entered the world through the woman, she being the first transgressor? Certainly this is the basis of Pauls argument for her inferior position in the Christian Church (1Ti. 2:11-14) Or, in this shorter banishment from sanctuary privileges when her child was a male, there may be found an intimation of the blessed privilege coveted by all Hebrew mothers, of giving birth to THE MAN CHILD, who was to be born of a woman, to redress the woes of the fall. Every suggestion of the coming Emmanuel was cherished as the soft radiance of that promised MORNING STAR. And so the heavier penalty fell on the birth of the female child, since woman was a remembrance of sin, whereas the ameliorated penalty was attached to the birth of a male, since the Man Child was the herald of the promised Saviour.
Lev. 12:8.If she be not able to bring a lamb. However poor the woman might be, there could be no exemption from the presentation of an atonement offering. Poverty must come, though with meek aspect, trusting in reconciling blood. And the poor in spirit, whose faith is tremulous, whose apprehension is feeble, must, nevertheless, lay hope on the merits of sacrifice. None can be allowed, through lowliness of station or poverty of soul, to evade the propitiatory atonement. All must place trust in Christ whatever our lot in life, whatever our spiritual mood. Yet how tender is Gods consideration! He will allow the turtle dove to suffice for the poor, and regard it as equally efficacious as the richer offerers lamb, so that the humblest Israelite should be harassed by no fear lest she forfeit privilege by her lowlier gift. Gods perfect grace comes to the very condition in which the poor and needy are to be found. And so, in this Christian dispensation, the lowest and the feeblest have the atoning blood brought within their reach, and through its merits may recover all the privileges from which uncleanness excludes them. To the poor the gospel is preached.
HOMILIES
Topic: MOTHERHOOD
Scripture shows that God thinks much of mothers. Allusions to a mothers sufferings, perils, relationship, affection, are very numerous. She passes through no experience which has not been noticed, described, and used by the Lord as a simile of spiritual truth. Motherhood, in all its aspects, is the reiterated theme of Gods Word. This must afford a wealth of consolation and support to a believing mother in her trials and solicitudes; her watchful Father has shown that He minutely considers all her various cares, her mysterious pangs, her heart struggles between dread and delight, her yearnings and her love.
The birth of a child is also an event which constantly engages inspiration. The Word makes frequent reference to the incident. A new life ushered into the world, is a fact which touches the heart of God. Another being launched upon the floods of possibility; another factor in the intricate sum of human existence, whose results must affect the ultimate reckoning; another soul added to the millions whose destiny is bliss or woe. There is no room for doubting that the divine Father is concerned for each human offspring. He notes the childs entrance, gives directions concerning it, sends counsels for its career desires its salvation and sanctification, calls it to the immortal Home made ready by Christ. It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish (Mat. 18:14).
I. How observant is Scripture of the HUMILIATIONS incident to MOTHERHOOD.
This chapter is a witness.
1. Scripture has sanctioned and sanctified wifely relationship (Psa. 113:9).
2. Scripture recognises every stage of physical suffering which motherhood entails (Jer. 4:31).
3. Scripture forewarns of the tender sorrows and distresses incident to maternity (Joh. 16:21; Isa. 26:17).
4. Scripture contains special messages of compassion and hope for mothers in their period of solicitude (Isa. 40:11).
II. How emphatically does Scripture pay tribute to the HONOURS of MOTHERHOOD.
In making a mother the symbol of the Church of God (Gal. 4:6; Eph. 5:32).
In comparing Jehovahs consolatory ministries to those of a mother (Isa. 66:13).
In using motherhood as the channel of Christs advent (Luk. 1:35).
In the tender consideration for His mother manifested by Jesus (Luk. 2:52; Joh. 19:26-27).
In the command given to children to pay their mothers reverence (Mat. 15:4, etc.). [See Addenda to chap. xii., Maternity.]
III. How watchfully does Scripture guard the HAPPINESS which should be the crown of MOTHERHOOD.
1. Conjugal loyalty is scrupulously demanded (Mal. 2:15-16; Eph. 5:25; Eph. 5:28).
2. A mothers place in the family is carefully indicated (Eph. 6:1-2).
3. The grace which flows through mothers to their children is recognised with emphatic approval (2Ti. 1:5).
4. The blessedness of a mothers privilege is indicated in Christs welcome of the mothers who brought their children to Him (Luk. 18:15-17).
And say to mothers, What a holy charge
Is theirs; with what a kingly power their love
Might rule the fountains of the new-born mind;
Warn them to wake at early dawn, and sow
Good seed before the world has sown its tares.Mrs. Sigourney.
Though her child is born in sin, and she is humiliated by her own uncleanness, yet can a mother retrieve her humiliation by uplifting her child in prayer to God, by training her offspring in the faith of Christ, and at last, with her children saved in the Lord, appearing in the glory of the Eternal Presence with the glad cry, Behold me, and the children which thou hast given me! [See Addenda, Childhood.]
Topic: BIRTH
I. In its pangs there survives the MEMORIES OF THE WOEFUL FALL.
Our ancestress Eve sinned, therefore, unto the woman God said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).
II. In its uncleanness there arise SUGGESTIONS OF OUR TRANSMITTED DEFILEMENT.
Physical impurity, amid which a babe is ushered into the world, is but a sign of that corruption, moral and spiritual, which parents pass on to their offspring: Altogether born in sin (Joh. 9:34).
III. In its transports there reappears the JOYOUSNESS OF THE MESSIAHS INCARNATION.
Sang the angels, Unto you is born a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord (Luk. 2:11). A woman, as soon as she is delivered of the child, remembereth no more the anguish for joy that a man-child is born into the world (Joh. 16:21).
Topic: POLLUTION AND PURIFYING
The birth of a child should be an event of gratitude and delight. It is never wholly so; for a shadow falls on every new-born life.
(a) It is born in sin, and, therefore may perish in sin!
(b) It is born amid travail, and maydread possibility that!occasion death through the anguish of birth.
(c) It is an event marked by God as qualified with uncleanness. For He sees in every birth, since Eves fall, the perpetuation of sin, the propagation of a sinning race.
I. UNCLEAN: such is the VERDICT OF HEAVEN UPON HUMAN LIFE.
God has here written the word pollution upon the very entrance of a babe into existence.
1. It brands the mother as unclean, and excludes her from social fellowship and sanctuary privileges. We are not now judged by this ceremonial standard; but a principle underlies this banishment of the mother. It declares that there is taint in the blood. There has never been a sinless mother on this earth. Certainly not Eve; nor even the Virgin Maryfor she had equally to observe the days of her purification (Luk. 2:22). Womanhood is defiled; therefore maternity is not pure.
2. It brands the child as defiled. The tender babe holds in its physical form the germs of foul disease, of corrupt affections and passions. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? From a poisoned fountain there can flow only vitiated streams. Leave that babe to follow its inbred desires and it will degenerate into evil. Goodness is never self-evolved, but only badness. They go astray as soon as they be born (Psa. 58:2).
II. CLEANSING: such is THE DEMAND OF GOD UPON EVERY ONE DEFILED.
Here upon the mother only, because the ceremonial directions deal with the mother. But the demand is equally enforced upon all; each sex, every life. The male child was unclean till circumcised (Lev. 12:3).
1. Until cleansing is effected there is banishment: the door is closed upon social life, for she must be separate: and closed upon sacred scenes, for she must not come into the sanctuary. Defilement excludes us from all that is happiest, purest, best.
2. Until cleansing is effected there is degradation: the woman forfeited her place of dignity in her own home and in Gods temple. Impurity is a degradation. We sink thereby from our honoured place in creation; we grovel instead of triumph; we are bowed into shame before God instead of joying in His favour; and we are refused the blessedness which is the right of sinless man, of treading Gods courts with acceptance, and abiding in the delights of holy privilege.
III. PURIFIED: such is the POSSIBILITY OPENED BY GOD TO ALL WHO ARE UNCLEAN.
1. Womanhood sanctified (Lev. 12:7). In the Christian dispensation there is a richer purifying than the ceremonial; it cleanses from all sin. Look in upon the Bethany homeMary sat at Jesus feet. See the apostles list of consecrated women in the Christian church at Rome (Romans 16). Lift your eyes to the pure souls, an hundred and forty and four thousand with the Lamb on Mount Sion: virgin saints, all undefiled (Rev. 14:1; Rev. 14:4).
2. Childhood consecrated (Lev. 12:3), thereby enrolled as a member of the Israel of God: and now placed in the hands of Jesus who, blessing the children, declares, of such is the kingdom of heaven.
There is merit in Christs atonement which purges all sins stains. There is grace in His heart by which all may be rejoiced. There is beauty in His righteousness with which all may be clothed in sacred comeliness.
Topic: THE STATUTE RELATING TO MATERNITY
This chapter records the rites to be observed by Hebrew women in connection with their new experiences of maternity. The period of ceremonial restrictions would differ according to the sex of the child; but, in both cases, the mother would be permitted to present her offering before the Lord, and, eventually, be restored to her former status among the people. The statute suggests the following reflections:
I. THAT ANGUISH IS ASSOCIATED WITH MATERNITY.
Through the Fall the sorrows of conception were greatly multiplied, and the pangs of childbirth became intensified. The whole period of conception, with many, is a burden; and the time of travail one of most excruciating pain. Though the mother experiences one of natures keenest joys when she knows that to her a child is born, yet there are accompanying sorrows which only the feelings of maternity can know, as no stranger can intermendle with the joy.
II. THAT PRIVACY IS ASSOCIATED WITH MATERNITY.
Although the procreation of children is normal and of divine ordination, yet, where there is virtuous womanly modesty, there is always a sense of shyness and reserve during period of preparation for advent of the little stranger, especially at the season of delivery. The instincts of nature suggest withdrawal from public observation and general familiar intercourse even with friends. Hence, even among heathen nations, special rites and customs have always been associated with the experiences under consideration. Such restraints and reserve do not degrade the gentler sex in the sight of God or the eyes of rightminded men; woman rather rises thereby in honour and esteem.
III. THAT DEPRAVITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH MATERNITY.
Maternity, under honourable conditions, is no sin: yet, by it, depravity is communicated; as the Psalmist expresses the fact, Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. There is a hereditary tendency in human nature to sin; so that giving birth to a child is the propagation of sinfulness, and an extension of the consequences of transgression, entailing moral, as well as ceremonial defilement. The rite of purification, under these circumstances, is both symbol and type of purification of the children of men by atonement of our great High Priest on Calvary. Responsibilities, commensurate with the honour of maternity, suggested by the statute. Imperative, that children born in sin, with inherent depraved propensities, should be taught the law of the Lord, and trained in holiness and righteousness all their days.
IV. THAT SALVATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH MATERNITY.
Though for a while the mother was kept secluded from society, the restrictions were only of a temporary character. She was soon seen presenting her appointed offerings before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The burnt offering was the basis of all other offerings; and signified, not only the sovereign claim of Jehovah upon all we have and are; but, also the disposition of the worshipper to become a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God. Behold the goodness of God in promising to accept two turtles, or two young pigeons if the offerer were not able to present a lamb; one for the burnt offering, the other for the sin offering. The intention and frame of mind were of more importance than the offering itself, as the Scriptures elsewhere declare, Behold! to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. This ritebeing for the Jews, and associated with the Levitical economyis abrogated now; a more minute examination, therefore, would not minister to edificationis not necessary. Some moral teachings have been indicated, and they may, when convenient, be reiterated in public as part of the didactic function of preaching; for principles, gathered from divine laws, have undying roots, and inexhaustible meanings. This, as well as other rights, was observed down to the advent of our blessed Lord; for Mary, the mother of Jesus, offered in the Temple the least offering allowed at thanksgiving and sacrifice after child-birth; an irrefutable proof of the abject poverty of her worldly circumstances. On national, as well as on religious grounds, no objection can be offered under the gospel to women, having been delivered in the time of maternal solicitude and sorrow, publicly paying their vows in the courts of the Lord, and with grateful hearts re-dedicating themselves to the service of the Most High. If womankind reflect with sorrow upon the fact that it was through Eves seduction that Adam fell and sin entered our world, they may reflect with joy upon the fact that it was through their own sex that the second Adam came, who has reversed the curse of sin and redeemed the human race. If in connection with the first man shame seems to cover womanhood, the second man, the Lord from heaven, placed a wreath of undying glory on her brow, as we see lying in the arms of Mary at Bethlehem, the holy child Jesus. Paul asserts, in his first Epistle to Timothy (Lev. 5:15), that women shall be saved through the child-bearing; salvation has come through its ordinance, and if women abide in faith, love, sanctification, and holy self-control, they shall be cleansed from all moral impurity, shall be not only sanctified, but saved, through the Child born, the Son given.F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 12
MOTHERHOOD:
There is no mother like the mother that bore us.Spanish Proverb.
A mother is a mother still,
The holiest thing alive.COLERIDGE.
A mothers love
Is an undying feeling. Earth may chill
And sever other sympathies, and prove
How weak all human bonds are; it may kill
Friendship, and crush hearts with them; but the thrill
Of the maternal breast must ever move
In blest communion with her child, and fill
Even heaven itself with prayers and hymns of love.PATTERSON.
Monica, Augustines mother. Never did mother struggle more earnestly than she. From her sons nineteenth to his twenty-eighth year, while he was revelling in all sins foulness, she persisted in resolute hope and fervent prayer. In his twenty-ninth year she was still instant in prayer, when he left her and journeyed to Rome. From Rome he went to Milan, and thither the praying mother followed him. And there the answer to her prayer and reward of her Christian influence came. In Ambroses preaching contrition came to Augustine, and that event made Monicas happiness complete.
CHILDHOOD:
Children are what their mothers are.
No fondest fathers fondest care
Can fashion so the infants heart
As those creative beams that dart,
With all their hopes and fears, upon
The cradle of a sleeping son.LANDER.
The mothers heart is the childs schoolroom.BEECHER.
Cecil, who had adopted infidel sentiment in his youth, and prided himself upon his strong arguments against religion, said, long afterwards: There was one argument I could never get over, the influence and life of a holy mother.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
C. 2. LAWS OF PURIFICATION AFTER CHILDBIRTH 12:18
a. THE PERIOD OF CEREMONIAL UNCLEANNESS AFTER CHILDBIRTH 12:15
TEXT 12:15
1
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
2
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean.
3
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4
And she shall 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.
5
But if she bear a maid-child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:15
228.
Is there any reason for God addressing this instruction to Moses alone?
229.
Is there some physical as well as ceremonial cleansing in the first seven days after childbirth?
230.
On what day after birth are babies circumcised today? Why?
231.
Just what is meant in Lev. 12:4 by the phrase the blood of her purifying?
232.
From what specific privileges was the mother separated during the thirty-three days?
233.
Why the increase of days in the birth of a girl?
PARAPHRASE 12:15
The Lord told Moses to give these instructions to the people of Israel: When a baby boy is born, the mother shall be ceremonially defiled for seven days, and under the same restrictions as during her monthly periods. On the eighth day, her son must be circumcised. Then, for the next thirty-three days, while she is recovering from her ceremonial impurity, she must not touch anything sacred, nor enter the Tabernacle. When a baby girl is born, the mothers ceremonial impurity shall last two weeks, during which time she will be under the same restrictions as during menstruation. Then for a further sixty-six days she shall continue her recovery.
COMMENT 12:15
Lev. 12:1-5 It was to Moses God spoke the order of creation, i.e. fish, fowl and animals and then man. It is here God addresses Moses concerning the purification of fish, fowl and animals, and finally man. Laws of defilement from without and then laws of defilement from within.
Hygienic-medicinal reasons for the strict laws of separation at childbirth immediately come to mind. Very high mortality rate at birth is almost always associated with contamination through contact. If the mother and child are isolated for 40 days the chances for survival are greatly increased. We do not associate moral uncleanness with any of the fish, fowl or animals designated by God as unclean. Neither do we have reason to moralize on the uncleanness of the mother at childbirth. Not one word is said about purifying the child. Circumcision was a mark of identification in the covenant God made with Abraham. Any cleanness was 100% ceremonial. What possible intrinsic moral value could be found in the purification process of the mother or the foreskin of the male child? We wont even mention the discussion that could be offered for the plain fact that girls must remain unclean forever if circumcision clears the record with God! The only moral association is in the development of the habit of obedience to the laws of God. The issue of blood following childbirth usually lasts only three or four days, but for exceptional cases seven days are allotted. During this time whoever or whatever the mother touches is ceremonially unclean, so she is insured a practical isolation. This same period of time is prescribed for all women at the time of their monthly menstruation period. Cf. Lev. 15:19. It would seem such regulations had been observed by the Jews before Moses wrote them into the Levitical code.
Read Gen. 17:10; Gen. 17:13 for the origin of the covenant of circumcision.
The thirty-three day period was given for the complete clearing up of the discharge consequent upon childbirth. Although this happens usually not later than three weeks, more time is given for the exceptional cases. Having a bath at the end of seven days she could return to normal intercourse with her husband and was permitted to partake of the second tithe if she was the wife of a priest. The blood that appeared from the eighth day to the thirty-third would be pure as contrasted with the blood of the after-birth.
We offer no more reason for the double purification period for the birth of the female child other than an emphasis upon the historical fact that by woman came the transgression. Cf. 1Ti. 2:14. It could be that it was because of such restrictions of female children that Paul said There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3:28.
FACT QUESTIONS 12:15
280.
How does the order of creation relate to this section?
281.
What hygienic or medicinal reasons could be given for this purification?
282.
Show how it is impossible to associate personal moral blame to the uncleanness of this chapter and of chapter eleven.
283.
What moral lesson could have been learned in all this?
284.
Show the practical value of the two periods of purification for mother and child.
285.
Why 80 days for a girl child?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XII.
(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses.As the reason why God graciously addressed the regulation about the clean and unclean animals to Moses and Aaron conjointly (see Lev. 11:1), no longer operates here, the Lord now addresses the laws of purification to the Lawgiver alone. The laws of defilement contracted from without by eating or coming in contact with unclean objects are naturally followed by precepts about defilement arising from within the human body itself. The spiritual guides in the time of Christ, however, account for the sequence of these laws by declaring that the arrangement follows the order of the Creation, Just as at the Creation God made the animals first, and then formed man, so in the laws of purity the animals take the precedence of man, and are treated of first.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. She shall be unclean It is a mystery that marriage, a sacrament of love, prefiguring the oneness of Christ and the Church, should attain its divinely appointed end only by entailing ceremonial impurity. But nothing more impressively teaches the depravity of the human race than the early announcement that both conception (Lev 15:16-18) and birth are inevitably attended by pollutions which imperatively demand purgation before the person of the parent can be acceptable to the holy Jehovah. This suggests the strong assertion of David respecting the moral corruption of his nature while in embryo, Psa 51:5. When Richard Watson was asked for the strongest proof text of inherited depravity, or original sin, he quoted Joh 3:6.
Seven days This number of days makes the period of uncleanness the same length with the menstrual days of the separation. See Lev 15:19.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’
Once again it is stressed that this command came from Yahweh through Moses. But when we consider Lev 11:1 and Lev 13:1 we must ask, why only to Moses? The answer is probably because in this case the priests are not called on to judge anything. No one is required in order to declare that there has been a birth, the midwives would declare on the sex of the baby, and all would know the position with regard to cleanness and uncleanness. The expertise of the priests was not required.
Again we have to note that the only limit on this section timewise is the death of Moses. But whenever it was given the mention of circumcision, which was not practised in the wilderness, was seen as preparation for a future in the land of Canaan (as specifically with houses later (Lev 14:34)). As the people waited in Kadesh almost on the border of the land, they still lived in expectancy of finally entering the land, and the Law was designed to encourage them in their expectation.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Days of Separation and Purification Following Childbirth (Comments on this Passage in The Book of Jubilees ) When a woman gives birth to a male child, she is considered unclean for seven days in which she is to separate herself from social activity. When she bears a female child, her time of uncleanness is two weeks. Jewish tradition says that this period of time was based upon the fact that Adam was created during the first week of Creation while the woman was created during the second week.
“In the first week was Adam created, and the rib – his wife: in the second week He showed her unto him: and for this reason the commandment was given to keep in their defilement, for a male seven days, and for a female twice seven days.” (The Book of Jubilees 3.8-9) [20]
[20] The Book of Jubilees, trans. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol 2, ed. R. H. Charles, 1-82 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 16.
It is also interesting to read in The Book of Jubilees that Adam was not brought into the Garden of Eden until he had completed forty days in the land, and while the woman had to complete eighty days before being brought in. This may be compared to the days of purification for a male child being a total of forty days (Lev 12:4) while being eighty days for the birth of a female (Lev 12:5) before the woman could enter into the Sanctuary.
“And after Adam had completed forty days in the land where he had been created, we brought him into the garden of Eden to till and keep it, but his wife they brought in on the eightieth day, and after this she entered into the garden of Eden. And for this reason the commandment is written on the heavenly tablets in regard to her that gives birth: ‘if she bears a male, she shall remain in her uncleanness seven days according to the first week of days, and thirty and three days shall she remain in the blood of her purifying, and she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor enter into the sanctuary, until she accomplishes these days which (are enjoined) in the case of a male child. But in the case of a female child she shall remain in her uncleanness two weeks of days, according to the first two weeks, and sixty-six days in the blood of her purification, and they will be in all eighty days.’ And when she had completed these eighty days we brought her into the garden of Eden, for it is holier than all the earth besides and every tree that is planted in it is holy. Therefore, there was ordained regarding her who bears a male or a female child the statute of those days that she should touch no hallowed thing, nor enter into the sanctuary until these days for the male or female child are accomplished. This is the law and testimony which was written down for Israel, in order that they should observe (it) all the days.” ( The Book of Jubilees 3.9-15) [21]
[21] The Book of Jubilees, trans. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol 2, ed. R. H. Charles, 1-82 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 16.
The Days of Separation and Purification Following Childbirth (Joseph and Mary) Notice how Joseph and Mary bring the baby Jesus to the Temple according to the Law. They gave the offering that poor people were allowed to give. This happened before the three wise men came bearing gifts to them.
The Days of Separation and Purification Following Childbirth (The Sin Offering) Why does God judge a woman and her son for seven days after childbirth? I believe that it is as a sign that every man is born into sin. This is why a man is not circumcised until the eighth day, because he is unclean for the first seven days of his life and is not allowed into the Temple. This view is supported by the fact that the parents are to come to the Temple after the time of purification and offer a sin offering unto the Lord.
Lev 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 12:2 Lev 12:3 Lev 12:3
[22] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, and H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Leviticus 12:3.
[23] Bert Thompson, Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8 th Day [on-line]; accessed 19 June 2009; available from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204; Internet.
Illustration – I had my son circumcised on the eighth day, and he suffered very little pain and discomfort. The only time when he cried was coming out of surgery. After nursing him in response to this cry, he never showed any visible signs of discomfort or pain again.
I had my firstborn son circumcised on the eighth day. My wife and I took him to the hospital on this eighth day where it was performed by a surgeon. I observed that it took my wife one week after childbirth before she felt like going out of the house on such an errand, and this is after she had a natural childbirth with no complications.
Lev 12:4 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 12:4
Lev 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
Lev 12:6 Lev 12:7 Lev 12:8 Lev 12:8
Luk 2:24, “And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Purification after Childbirth.
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, if a woman have conceived seed, v. 3. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised, v. 4. And she shall then, v. 5. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation, v. 6. And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, v. 7. who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. v. 8. And if she be not able to bring a lamb,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
UNCLEANNESS DERIVED FROM CHILDBIRTH.
As there is a natural disgust felt for some kinds of food, which serves as a foundation for the precepts of the last chapter, so there is an instinct which regards some of the concomitants of childbirth, and some diseases, as foul and defiling. In accordance with these instincts, purifying rites are commanded for the restoration of those affected to ceremonial cleanness. These instincts and consequent regulations respecting women in childbirth are found in very many different nations. “The Hindoo law pronounced the mother of a newborn child to be impure for forty days, required the father to bathe as soon as the birth had taken place, and debarred the whole family for a period from religious rites, while they were ‘to confine themselves to an inward remembrance of the Deity;’ in a Brahmin family this rule extended to all relations within the fourth degree, for ten days, at the end of which they had to bathe. According to the Parsee law, the mother and child were bathed, and the mother had to live in seclusion for forty days, after which she had to undergo other purifying rites. The Arabs are said by Burekhardt to regard the mother as unclean for forty days. The ancient Greeks suffered neither childbirth nor death to take place within consecrated places; both mother and child were bathed, and the mother was not allowed to approach an altar for forty days. The term of forty days, it is evident, was generally regarded as a critical one for both the mother and the child. The day on which the Romans gave the name to the childthe eighth day for a girl, and the ninth for a boywas called lustrieus dies, ‘the day of purification,’ because certain lustral rites in behalf of the child were performed on the occasion, and some sort of offering was made. The amphidromia of the Greeks was a similar lustration for the child, when the name was given, probably between the seventh and tenth days” (Clark).
Lev 12:2-4
She shall be unclean seven days. The mother is to be unclean seven days, and after that to be in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days (Lev 12:4). The difference between these two states maybe seen by looking on to Le Lev 15:19-28, and comparing that passage with Lev 15:4 of this chapter. In the first stage, during the seven days, she made all that she touched unclean; in the second stage, during the thirty-three days, she was only required to touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, as she was progressing towards cleanness. The number of days during which she is to be altogether unclean is to be according to the days of the separation for her infirmity, that is, seven days, as in the case of her monthly courses (see Le Lev 15:19). In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. The Levitical legislation recognizes the regulation as to the day of the circumcision made at the time of the covenant with Abraham. “And he that is eight days old (or a son of eight days) shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations” (Gen 17:12). Until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. “When in a state of impurity, the Hebrews were forbidden to enter the sanctuary, to keep the Passover, and to partake of holy food, whether of sacrificial meat, of sacred offerings and gifts, or of shew-bread, because the clean only were fit to approach the holy God and all that appertains to him (Lev 7:19-21; Lev 22:3; Num 9:6; Num 18:11; 1Sa 21:5)’ (Kalisch).
Lev 12:5
If she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. The reason why the duration of the mother’s uncleanness is twice as long at a girl’s birth as at a boy’s, would appear to be that the uncleanness attached to the child as well as to the mother, but as the boy was placed in a state of ceremonial purity at once by the act of circumcision, which took place on the eighth day, he thereupon ceased to be unclean, anti the mother’s uncleanness alone remained; whereas in the case of a girl, both mother and child were unclean during the period that the former was “in the blood of her purifying,” and therefore that period had to be doubly long. See Luk 2:20, where the right reading is, “When the days of their purification, according to the Law of Moses, were accomplished.” For eight days the infant Saviour submitted to legal uncleanness in “fulfilling all righteousness” (Mat 3:15), and therefore the whole forty days were spoken of as “the days of their purification.”
Lev 12:6, Lev 12:7
The previous verses having stated the conditions and the term of continuance of the uncleanness arising from childbirth, the three final verses describe the offerings to be made by the woman for her purification. She shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering. Two things are noticeable here: first, that the burnt offering, symbolizing self-devotion, is far more costly and important than the sin offering, which had not to be offered for any individual personal sin, but only for human sin, “which had been indirectly manifested in her bodily condition” (Keil); and secondly, that in this one case the sin offering appears to succeed the burnt offering instead of preceding it. No doubt the changed order is owing to the cause just mentioned; the idea of sin, though it may not be altogether put aside (Gen 3:16), is not to be prominent, as though it were peculiar to the special woman who was purified.
Lev 12:8
If she be not able to bring a lamb. A concession is made to poverty, which in later times appears to have been largely acted on. It was, as we know, taken advantage of by the mother of our Lord (Luk 2:24).
HOMILETICS
Lev 12:6
Generation, conception, and birth, not having anything sinful necessarily connected with them, the sin offering in this case is rather an intimation of original sin than an atonement for actual sin; the “sorrow” attached to childbirth being especially connected with the fall of man as a result of Eve’s share in bringing it about (Gen 3:16). There is nothing in the Bible to countenance ascetic or Manichaean views of marriage intercourse. Where any prohibitory injunctions are given on the subject, the purpose is to avoid ceremonial, not moral, uncleanness (Exo 19:15; 1Sa 21:4; cf. Le 1Sa 15:18).
Lev 12:8
Some fifteen hundred years after this law of purification after childbirth had been given to and by Moses, a man child was born in a country which did not at the time of the legislation of Moses belong to the Israelites, and which those whom Moses addressed had never seen. The country was Palestine, the city Bethlehem. The birth took place in a stable, for the mother was poor. For eight days she remained unclean, and on the eighth day the child was circumcised, and “his name was called Jesus” (Luk 2:21). For thirty-three days longer she continued “in the blood of her purifying” (Lev 12:4), and then “when the days of their purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, and to offer a sacrifice, according to that which is said in the Law of the Lord” (Luk 2:22, Luk 2:24). Had the mother been wealthy, she would have offered a lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or turtle-dove, for a sin offering, but though of the house and lineage of David, she was poor, and her sacrifice was therefore “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons”one of the birds being for a burnt offering, betokening the devotion of her life afresh to God after the peril that she had gone through; the other for a sin offering, recognizing her share in the penalty of Eve as partaker in original sin. “On bringing her offering, she would enter the temple through ‘the gate of the firstborn,’ and stand in waiting at the gate of Nicanor, from the time that the incense was kindled on the golden altar. Behind her, in the court of the women, was the crowd of worshippers, while she herself, at the top of the Levites’ steps, which led up to the great court, would witness all that passed in the sanctuary. At last one of the officiating priests would come to her at the gate of Nicanor, and take from her hand the poor’s offering, which she had brought. The morning sacrifice was ended, and but few would linger behind while the offering for her purification was actually made. She who brought it mingled prayer and thanksgiving with the service. And now the priest once more approached her, and, sprinkling her with the sacrificial blood, declared her cleansed. Her ‘firstborn’ was next redeemed at the hand of the priest with five shekels of silver; two benedictions being at the same time pronouncedone for the happy event which had enriched the family with a firstborn, the other for the law of redemption” (Edersheim, ‘Temple Service ‘). It was probably as she descended the steps that Simeon took the babe from her arms, and blessed God and them, and that Anna “gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luk 2:38). “And when they had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth” (Luk 2:39). Thus obediently did the virgin mother of the Lord submit herself to the regulations of the Levitical Law, and thus humbly and graciously did the infant Saviour begin from the day of his birth to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mat 3:15) in his own person, though by the hands of others.
Lessons
1. To obey the positive laws and to submit to the positive institutions of the religious community to which we belong,
2. To take measures, when we have even involuntarily and without sin on our part ceased to be in open communion with God and God’s people, to recover that communion.
3. To see that the measures which we take with this end are appointed by God or by his authority, and are in accordance with his will.
4. To be sure that such steps as we take be accompanied by an acknowledgment of sin and a throwing ourselves for acceptance on the merits of the sacrifice of the cross (which is our sin offering), and a consecration of ourselves to God’s service (which is our burnt offering).
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 12:1-8
The purification of the Church.
At the commencement of his treatise on this Book of Leviticus, Cyril of Alexandria truly says, that as the Word of God came into the world arrayed in flesh, in which bodily appearance he was seen of all, while his divinity was seen only by the elect; so has the written Word a letter, or outward sense, which is obvious to ordinary perception, and an inward meaning which must be spiritually discerned. According to this rule, the purification of the Church is the subject of the text, which is presented under two aspects. It is
I. DISTRIBUTIVELY CONSIDERED. The necessity of the spiritual birth may be collected:
1. From the impurity of the natural.
(1) This is expressed in the ceremonial uncleanness of the mother. In case of the birth of a son, she had to remain forty days in a state of impurity. During this period she must not touch any hallowed thing, else it became polluted; and she must not enter the holy place of the temple. In case her child were a daughter, the term of this uncleanness was doubled. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”
(2) Her uncleanness is in her blood, which is the same as saying it is in her nature. To be “born of blood” is therefore a periphrasis for a natural birth in depravity, and it is consequently opposed to the spiritual birth (see Joh 1:13).
(3) This maternal uncleanness is also described as her “infirmity,” in allusion to the pain, sorrow, and weakness through which she passes; and calls to remembrance the curse upon the original offense (Gen 3:16). The birth amidst this “infirmity” shows the utter helplessness and sorrowfulness of our moral state by nature.
(4) No wonder, then, that the child also should be accounted unclean. Until the eighth day he had no sign of the covenant upon him. But an infant could not have “sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression;” therefore this exclusion from the covenant from the birth evinces hereditary depravity and guilt (Psa 51:5; Eph 2:3).
2. From the rite of circumcision.
(1) It was the sign of introduction into the covenant of God (Gen 17:9-14). This supposes a spiritual birth, since the pollutions of the natural birth excluded the child from the favour of God.
(2) The sign expressed this moral change to be the cutting off all that was forward in fleshly desires (see Deu 10:16; Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29; Php 3:3). These, however necessary to the natural man, must not rule us here; for when the seven days of the world are over, they will be no more (see Mat 22:30; 1Co 15:50; 2Co 5:2-4; see also Homiletic notes on 2Co 9:1-7).
(3) Hence, the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is another way for expressing the “circumcision of the heart,” and therefore it is called the “circumcision of Christ,” or of Christianity (Col 2:11, Col 2:12). By parity of reason, the “baptism of water” corresponds to the “circumcision which is outward in the flesh.”
(4) Circumcision was proper to express the necessity of a spiritual birth in the dispensation of the covenant before Christ came, as it figured his sacrificial death (the “cutting off” of the” Holy Seed”), through which we claim the blessings of salvation. Now he has come, the type is fittingly abolished, and the baptismal water introduced, which is the emblem of the purifying spirit of the gospel.
II. COLLECTIVELY CONSIDERED.
1. The Church is the mother of the children of God.
(1) Every man was intended to be a figure of Christ. The first man was such (Rom 5:14). This privilege is shared by his male descendants (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27; 1Co 11:7). So every woman was intended to be a figure of the Church of God (1Co 11:7-9). The marriage union, therefore, represents the union between Christ and his Church (Eph 5:22-32). And the fruit of marriage should represent the children of God (see Isa 54:1-8; Isa 49:20-23; Gal 4:25-31).
(2) But all this may be reversed. Men, through perversity, may come to represent Belial rather than Christ. Women may become idolatrous, and represent an anti-Christian rather than a Christian Church. Thus Jezebel, who demoralized Ahab, became a type of those anti-Christian State Churches which demoralize the kings of the nations (see Rev 2:20-23; Rev 17:1-18.).
2. In her present state she is impure.
(1) Under the Law she was far from perfect. The elaborate system of ceremonial purifications imposed upon her evinced this. Her history and the judgments she suffered go to the same conclusion. The uncleanness of the mother in the text is not an exaggerated picture,
(2) Nor is she perfect under the gospel. The saints are in her. Many of her children have experienced the circumcision of the heart. But many more have only had that which is outward in the flesh. The “tares”hypocrites and unbelieversare mingled with the “wheat,” a state of things which is destined to continue “until the harvest” (Mat 13:30, Mat 13:39).
3. But she is in the process of her purification.
(1) The first stage in this process was marked by the rite of circumcision. During the time prior to that event, she was in her “separation,” viz. from her husband and friends, and those in necessary attendance upon her were unclean. This indicates the great difference which the cutting off of the Great Purifier of his people makes to the spiritual liberty of the Church (Rom 7:1-4).
(2) Still the period of her uncleanness was extended to forty days from the beginning. Her “separation” terminated on the eighth day, but during the whole period she must not eat the Passover, nor the peace offerings, nor come into the sanctuary (verse 4). These forty days may be presumed to be similar in typical expression to the forty years of the Church in the wilderness before it was fit to enter Canaan (see Deu 8:2, Deu 8:16).
(3) In the case of the birth of a female this period of forty days was doubled. This may be designed to show that under the gospel, where the distinction of male and female is abolished (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), still the wilderness state of the Church is continued. Our Lord was forty days upon earth before he entered into his glory, and in that state represented the state of the Church that is spiritually risen with him, but not yet glorified.
(4) The entrance of the mother into the temple when her purification was perfected represented the state of the Church in heaven (see Eph 5:27). The offerings with which she entered showed that her happiness is the purchase of the Redeemer’s passion. Her feasting upon the holy things expressed those joys of the heavenly state elsewhere described as “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7-9).J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 12:1-8
Born in sin.
cf. Gen 3:16; Psa 51:5; Luk 2:21; 1Ti 2:15. From the division of the animals into clean and unclean, and the sanctity thereby inculcated, we are invited to proceed to those personal liabilities to uncleanness for which due rites were provided. The first of these takes life at its fountain-head, and refers to the uncleanness connected with birth. Motherhood involved a longer or shorter period of ceremonial separationforty days in the case of a son, seventy days in the case of a daughter, after which a burnt offering and a sin offering are to be presented to the Lord, and atonement made for her that she may be clean.
I. LET US START WITH THE PHYSICAL FACT THAT NATURE HAS ASSOCIATED WITH CHILDBIRTH A SENSE ON THE MOTHER‘S PART OF PERSONAL UNCLEANNESS. The “issue of her blood” (1Ti 2:7) stamps the physical process with defilement. No mother can avoid this sense of personal uncleanness, not even the blessed Virgin (Luk 3:22-24). Upon the fact it is needless to dwell.
II. THE MORAL COUNTERPART TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT SIN IS TRANSMITTED BY ORDINARY GENERATION. As David puts it in Psa 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” From generation to generation is the legacy of evil transmitted. Hereditary sin must be recognized as a much wider phenomenon than “hereditary genius.” The law of heredity must be accepted as at the bottom of human experience, if the mother, in spite of all her fondness for her babe, finds that she has transmitted sinful qualities; if this is the universal experience in ordinary generation, then the sense of uncleanness, physically induced, contracts a moral significance.
III. THERE IS AT THE SAME TIME A SENSE OF JOY AND TRIUMPH ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIRTH OF CHILDREN. If there is an element of sorrow and of judgment, as God indicates by his utterance at the Fall (Gen 3:16), there is also an element of triumph, caught from the “protevangelium,” which speaks of victory through the woman’s seed (Gen 3:15). Our Lord even speaks of it as an appropriate figure of the coming apostolic joy: “A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world” (Joh 16:21). The sorrow is the preliminary of joy, the joy is its crown.
IV. THE TWO ELEMENTS OF JOY AND JUDGMENT HAD THEIR EXPRESSION IN THE BURNT AND SIN OFFERING THE MOTHER WAS DIRECTED TO PRESENT TO THE LORD. The ritual is the same whether it be a son or a daughter. The difference in the time of separation was due to a supposed physical fact that “a female child causes the mother more labour and a longer illness. This belief,” continues Ewald, “, was itself caused by the well-known primitive disfavour with which the birth of a girl was regarded.” No moral significance is to be attached, therefore, to the difference in the duration of the mother’s separation. But at the end of either period there is to be brought a burnt offering and a sin offering. The burnt offering is to be, if the mother can afford it, “a lamb of the first year,” while the sin offering is only to be “a young pigeon” or a “turtledove.” It is evident, therefore, that, while a poor mother might bring as her burnt offering a “turtledove” or “young pigeon,” the ritual attaches emphasis to the burnt offering rather than to the sin offering. It has even been supposed that the burnt offering took precedence in the order of time in this particular instance. At all events, the joy of consecration, which the burnt offering expresses, is more emphatic in this ritual than the atonement for unavoidable defilement, which is expressed by the sin offering. The undertone of judgment is certainly discernible, but high above it sound the notes of grateful, holy joy. The mother rejoiced that, though unavoidably unclean in her child-bearing, the Lord had put away her uncleanness, and she was ready to dedicate herself and her child unto the Lord in the rite of the burnt offering.
V. THIS RITUAL RECEIVES PECULIAR EMPHASIS FROM ITS CELEBRATION BY THE ‘VIRGIN‘ MOTHER. Mary had the usual physical concomitants in the birth of Jesus, we have every reason to believe, the termination of which this ritual of purification was intended to celebrate. The sense of uncleanness was manifestly hers, since she enters upon the ritual as no exception to the general rule and law. Not only so, but Luke boldly states, “when the days of their purification, according to the Law of Moses, were fulfilled” ( , not ), including Jesus along with Mary, for Oosterzee’s notion that it is Joseph and Mary, not Jesus and Mary, will not satisfy the case. In what sense, then, was Jesus associated with his mother in a ritual of purification? It is certain that there was not transmitted to Jesus any sinful disposition or qualities, as in ordinary generation. His whole life belied this idea. He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” But this does not prevent the idea being accepted that there was transmitted in his extraordinary generation responsibility for human sin. In other words, Jesus Christ was born with a liability on account of the sins of others. Having entered into the human family, having condescended to be born, he became liable for the responsibilities and debts of the human family, and the ritual so regarded him. Not only so, but our Lord had entered upon his “bloody passion” when at eight days old he had passed through the painful operation of circumcision. The rites in the temple thirty-three days after only expressed in legal form the liability on account of human sin upon which he had already entered. But if the atonement of the sin offering has thus a distinctive meaning in this exceptional case, the burnt offering had also its fulfillment. Mary dedicated, not only herself, but her Son, according to the Law of the Lord, “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” Simeon and Anna recognized in the infant the dedicated Messiah. Thus did Mary, as mother of Jesus, fulfill all righteousness.
VI. WE ARE SURELY TAUGHT HERE THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS THROUGH SORROW AND HUMILIATION THAT TRIUMPH IS REACHED. The hope of a triumphant woman’s seed sustained Jewish mothers in their sorrow. They looked for salvation through child-bearing, according to the idea of the apostle (1Ti 2:15). God’s meaning was through the child-bearing ( ), that is, the motherhood of the Virgin. Yet the hope sustained multitudes of mothers in their agonies. At length the Conqueror of the devil appeared. He came as an infant, and braved the dangers of development, and became “the Man of sorrows,” and passed through death to victory. To the same law we must constantly conform. Humiliation is the price of exaltation in the case of Jesus and of all his people. The apostles had their season of sorrow in connection with Christ’s crucifixion, and so sore it was that our Lord does not hesitate to compare it to a woman’s travail; but at Pentecost they got the joy and exhilaration which compensated for all. The law of the kingdom is that we enter it through much tribulation. “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luk 14:11). When we humble ourselves under a sense of sin, when we humble ourselves under a sense of unprofitableness, then are we treading the path which leads to power and triumph.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 12:1-8
The statutes on maternity.
We may seek
I. THE EXPLANATION or THIS STATUTE. And we shall find the explanation
(1) not in the notion that any actual sin is involved in it;
(2) but in the fact that there is connected with it that which is painfully suggestive of sin. (There was nothing actually “unclean” in the camel or hare, but it was constituted so because it was fairly suggestive of it.)
1. The sorrow of maternity (Joh 16:21) points clearly to the primeval curse, and therefore to the primeval sin (Gen 3:16).
2. The birth of a human child means the entrance into the world of one in whom are the germs of sin (Psa 51:5; Psa 58:3; Eph 2:3).
3. Maternity suggests the sexual relation, and that suggests the abounding and baneful sin of impurity. Hence sin is associated with the birth of the human infant, and the physical condition (Lev 12:7) attending it is typical of sin, constitutes “uncleanness,” and necessitates purification.
II. THE THOUGHTS WE GAIN FROM THIS STATUTE. We learn:
1. The communicativeness of sin. We transmit our follies, our errors, our iniquities, by ordinary generation. Our children, because they are our children, will go astray, and will be in danger of those very errors into which we ourselves have fallen. Those who become parents must take the responsibility of bringing into the world children like themselves, who will inherit their dispositions, their habits of thought, their character. Sin is communicated from generation to generation through heredity, and also through the contagiousness of evil example. There is nothing more diffusive.
2. The extension of the consequences of sin. How sin sends forth its stream of sorrow! The pangs of maternity, answered by the opening cry of the infant as it enters the worlddo these not speak the truth, that a world of sin is a world of sorrow, that succeeding generations of sinners are succeeding generations of sufferers, and that this will he so to the end of the world?
3. The removableness of guilt from the sight of God. The “uncleanness” of the mother was not irremovable. It did temporarily but did not permanently separate her from the sanctuary (Lev 12:4). After a limited retirement she might come with her sin offering and her burnt offering to “the door of the tabernacle” (Lev 12:6). If she were poor she might bring an offering within the reach of the poorest (Lev 12:8), and the priest would “make atonement,” and she would “be clean” (Lev 12:8). Whatever guilt we contract, whether in communicating evil to others or as the indirect consequence of the sin of others, by whatsoever our souls have been defiled, our lives stained and corrupted, we may all come to the cross of the Redeemer, and through his atoning sacrifice be made clean in the sight of God. And thus coming, our sin offering will not be unaccompanied by a burnt offering; the forgiveness of our sin will be followed by the dedication of our whole selves to the service of the Lord.C.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 12:2-7
Woman under the Law and under the gospel.
Every childbirth re-echoes in the ears of woman the sentence passed upon her ancestress Eve. That such a season of rejoicing should be attended with such throes of agony speaks loudly of the curse entailed by sin. There is no earthly pleasure entirely free from its shadow, pain. Great movements of society, deep thoughts, even inspiring melodies, are not ushered into the world without the pangs of travail.
I. THE LAW REMINDS US HERE OF WOMAN‘S CONNECTION WITH THE PRIMAL SIN.
1. She is to be considered “unclean” for a fixed period after bringing forth a child. In the first part of “separation for her infirmity,” she communicates defilement to whatever she touches, and must therefore, as far as possible, remain apart. But in the succeeding thirty-three or sixty-six “days of her purifying,” she may fulfill her domestic duties, only she must not come into contact with hallowed things, not partake of sacrificial meals, nor enter the sanctuary, Thus the fulfillment of her maternal hopes renders her unfit for a season to join in the worship of the holy God. She is led to rejoice with trembling; she is at once exalted and depressed. She sees that the new life is not separate from corruption, is allied to uncleanness and death, and in order to be redeemed requires hallowing by obedience to God’s ordinances.
2. To cleanse the mother from the stains of childbirth and to allow of restored fellowship with God, atonement is requisite. First a burnt offering, that the life spared and secluded temporarily may be wholly surrendered in spirit to the Author and Sustainer of life. Then a sin offering to expiate all ceremonial offenses connected with the begetting of children. If these rites appertain simply to the parent, yet must the knowledge of them afterwards acquaint the child with the state of separation from God into which it was the unwitting instrument of introducing the parent, and there is at least a hint that the origin of life is not free from taint.
II. THE LAW INDICATES THE INFERIOR ESTEEM IN WHICH WOMAN WAS ANCIENTLY HELD.
1. The uncleanness contracted by bearing a female child lasted twice as long as when a boy was born. This has indeed been explained on physiological grounds, as formerly maintained, But there is ample warrant for the other view (see 1Sa 1:11; Jer 20:15, and Joh 16:21, for the joy caused by the birth of a male child). In Le Lev 27:5, the female is esteemed at half the price of the male. Each mother of a male might cherish the hope that to her was granted the promised seedthe Messiah.
2. No rite of initiation into the covenant for the female. The Jews regarded circumcision as the badge of honour, the mark of privilege and blessing. Woman entered the nation without special recognition. She was not capable of becoming the head of a family, on whose proved nationality so much depended, for if she married she became a member of her husband’s family.
III. THE GOSPEL DIGNIFIES THE POSITION OF WOMAN.
1. It abolishes before the Lord distinctions of sex. “There is neither male nor female; ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” “There is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision.” Woman has equal rights with man, saving only what natural modesty forbids her claiming, and what is the general law promulgated from the first (Gen 3:16), that the husband shall rule over her. Both men and women are baptized (Act 8:12) and endowed with the Spirit.
2. It is the glory of woman to have been the medium of the incarnation of the Son of God. Her shame is removed. Even the poverty of woman is ennobled by the example of the Virgin Mary bringing her “pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
3. Woman’s quick appreciation of truth and steadfast fidelity are specially notable under the preaching of Christ and the apostles. Ready to adore the Lord. as an intent, to supply his wants during his ministry, to bathe his feet with repentant, grateful tears, to anoint him before his burial, to follow him on the road to Calvary, to be nearest to him at the cross, and the first at his grave on the Resurrection morn, woman occupies a place in the gospel records alike conspicuous and honourable. Nor are the faith and love and devotion of woman less marked in the Acts and the Epistles. Well has woman striven to erase the stigma of the first transgression. Eighteen centuries of the continually progressive elevation of woman in the social and mental scale have only attested the cardinal principles of Christianity. The position of woman in any nation now serves as an index to the stage of civilization which it has reached.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Chapters 12-15
Ceremonial purifications,
For defilement from secretions and from leprosy. The double objectto exalt the sacred laws, to honour the natural laws of health and cleanliness. Thus we are taught
I. RELIGION PRESERVES, PURIFIES, EXALTS HUMAN NATURE. The facts of family life are to be connected with the sanctuary. The more we think of both the joyful and the sorrowful events of our individual and social life as intimately bound up with our religion, the better we shall be prepared to find God’s blessing always both preserving and sanctifying.
II. ALL REGULATIONS WHICH CONCERN THE BODILY LIFE AND THE TEMPORAL HAPPINESS OF MEN SHOULD BE SURROUNDED WITH RELIGIOUS REVERENCE. Science is a curse to the world unless it is the handmaid to religion. Oar bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost. Our earthly life is the threshold of eternity.
III. TYPICALLY. Leprosy represents human depravity and misery. We see it brought into relation to the cleansing blood of atonement. The sin which works death both by the individual acts and by contact with others, both in person and in condition, is cleansed away both in guilt and in power. The leper is not excluded from mercy, but is dealt with by the priest as having his place in the covenant. Our vileness does not shut us out from the love or’ God, but his love is revealed as an atoning love. “He is able to save unto the uttermost,” but it is “those who come unto God by him.”R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
SECOND SECTION
The purification and cleanness of the human conditions of the offerers. The lying-in women. The leprosy in men, in garments, in houses. Sexual impurities and purifications. Leviticus 12-15Lange
Laws of Purification after Childbirth
Leviticus 12
1And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived1 seed, and born a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; according to [as2] the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4And she shall then continue in3 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. 5But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. 6And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb [sheep4] of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7who shall offer it before the Lord, and5 make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8And if she be not able to bring a lamb [one of the flock6], then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 12:2. . The Sam. here has the Niphal. Comp. Gen 1:11 for similar use of Hiphil.
Lev 12:2. . The text institutes a comparison, saying that the one is the same as the other, rather than makes one the law for the other.
Lev 12:4. . There is no distinction in the A. V. between this and the preposition of the preceding verse. Two MSS. read here also as in Lev 12:4.
Lev 12:6. . See Textual Note5 on Lev 3:7.
Lev 12:7. One MS., the Sam., LXX., and Syr., here supply the word priest, which is necessarily understood from the connection.
Lev 12:8. a different word from that in Lev 12:6, and used either of sheep or goats, but according to Frst, only of the young of either.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Here begins a new Parashah of the law extending to Lev 13:59; the parallel section of the prophets is 2Ki 4:42 to 2Ki 5:19, a prominent subject of which is the cleansing of Naaman from his leprosy.
The previous chapter was addressed to Moses and Aaron conjointly, and so is the following, the latter part of Leviticus 14 (beginning at Lev 12:33), and Leviticus 15; the present chapter and the earlier part of Leviticus 14 are addressed to Moses alone. The reason of this difference seems to lie in the fact that the parts addressed to Moses alone are simple commands given to him as the legislator, requiring no exercise of judgment in their application; while those addressed to both called for more or less of a discrimination which was entrusted by the law to the priests.
The previous chapter treated of uncleanness of men arising from the lower animals which, if attended to promptly, in no case required more for its purification than ablutions, and continued only until evening. This and the three following chapters treat of uncleanness arising from the human body, in most cases requiring expiatory sacrifices with various, and often prolonged, periods before the purification became complete. The various sources of this defilement are: child-bearing (12); leprosy (13, 14); and certain secretions (15); to these is added in Num 19:11-16 the most intense of all defilements, that arising from contact with a human corpse. The omission of a vast mass of other sources of impurity, and restriction of rites of purification to these few, certainly indicates (as Keil has shown) that these are not simply regulations for the promotion of cleanliness, or of good morals and decency, but had a higher symbolical and educational meaning. The defilement of child-bearing, which occupies the present chapter, is placed first not only because birth is the natural starting point for the treatment of all that concerns the human body, but also plainly to prevent any possible confusion between this defilement and those mentioned in Lev 15:19-30. There is indeed a certain degree of connection between the two, and this made it all the more necessary that this should be treated by itself, as being a different thing and resting upon different grounds.
In regard to purifications in general, Kalisch says: Next to sacrifices, purifications were the most important part of Hebrew rituals. Whenever both were prescribed together, the latter appeared indeed as merely preparatory to the former, since sacrifices were deemed the main agency of restored peace or holiness; but purifications, like offerings, were frequently ordained as separate and independent acts of worship: closely entwined with the thoughts and habits of the Hebrews, they formed an essential part of their religious system.. The Hebrews purified, or, as they understood the term, sanctified themselves, whenever they desired to rise to the Deity, that is, before solemn ceremonies and seasons, as sacrifices and festivals (Gen 35:2-4; 1Sa 16:5; comp. 2Ch 30:17); or whenever they expected the Deity to descend to them by some supernatural manifestation, as a disclosure of heavenly wisdom, or a deed of miraculous power and help (Exo 19:10; Exo 19:14-15; Jos 3:5; Jos 7:13). Therefore, when in a state of impurity, they were forbidden to enter the sanctuary, to keep the Passover, and to partake of holy food, whether of sacrificial meat, of sacred offerings and gifts, or of shew bread, because the clean only were fit to approach the holy God and all that appertains to Him (Lev 7:19-21; Lev 22:3; Num 9:6; Num 18:11; Num 18:13; 1Sa 21:5). Later he adds: If compared with the purificatory laws of other nations, those of the Pentateuch appear in a favorable light….. They exhibit no vestige of a dualism; in every detail they are stamped by the monotheistic creed; God alone, the merciful, wise and omnipotent Ruler, sends trials and diseases; and no evil genius has the power of causing uncleanness. They are singular in the noble principles on which they are framedthe perfection and holiness of God; and they are thereby raised above frivolity and unmeaning formalism. Moreover, it would be unjust to deny that they were understood as symbols, or as means of sanctification; to defile oneself and to sin, and also to cleanse and to hallow, are frequently used as equivalents. They must be pronounced simple if considered side by side with those of the Parsees, the Hindoos, the Egyptians, or the Talmud.
The connection here hinted at between uncleanness and sin, between purity and holiness, is a very important one. It rests partly on a symbolism which finds place in all languages, and is abundantly recognized in the diction of the New Testament; and partly upon that actual connection existing between the soul and the body (spoken of in the last chapter), whereby the one is deeply affected by the state and condition of the other. In both respects the educational value of the Levitical laws of purity to a people in their spiritual infancy were of the utmost value. The importance of the symbolism was further enhanced by the broad distinction made between defilements arising from human and those from other sources, and connecting the sin offering only with the former.
This chapter consists of two parts: Lev 12:1-5 relate to the time of seclusion, Lev 12:6-8 to the means of purification. The following are Langes Exegetical Notes on the chapter in full:
The origin of life makes man unclean in regard to his theocratic right of communion; just as death, or the touch of the dead, and no less that which impairs lifesickness, especially as it is represented by the leprosy, and so also every disturbance of the springs of life. But this surely does not mean that finite life itself was thought of as unclean, and that it must therefore be reconciled to the universal life (Bhr II., p. 461, opposed to which Sommer and Keil); and it also does not mean that original sin alone has produced all this darkening of life, although the natural condition appears here throughout laden with sinfulness; since we find directions for the purification of lying-in women among the most different nations (see Knobel, p. 466). [The following brief summary of some of these is given by Clark: The Hindoo law pronounced the mother of a newborn child to be impure for forty days, required the father to bathe as soon as the birth had taken place, and debarred the whole family for a period from religious rites, while they were to confine themselves to an inward remembrance of the Deity: in a Brahmin family this rule extended to all relations within the fourth degree, for ten days, at the end of which they had to bathe. According to the Parsee law, the mother and child were bathed, and the mother had to live in seclusion for forty days, after which she had to undergo other purifying rites. The Arabs are said by Burckhardt to regard the mother as unclean for forty days. The ancient Greeks suffered neither child-birth nor death to take place within consecrated places: both mother and child were bathed, and the mother was not allowed to approach an altar for forty days. The term of forty days, it is evident, was generally regarded as a critical one for both the mother and the child.The day on which the Romans gave the name to the child, the eighth day for a girl, and the ninth for a boy, was called lustricus dies, the day of purification, because certain lustral rites in behalf of the child were performed on the occasion, and some sort of offering was made. The Amphidromia of the Greeks was a similar lustration for the child, when the name was given, probably between the seventh and tenth days (Menu v. 62; Ayeen Akbery, Vol. II., p. 556; Zend Avesta, ap. Bhr; Thucid. III. 104; Eurip. Iph. Taur. 382; Callim. Hym. ad Jov. 16, Hym. ad Del. 123; Censorin. De Die Nat. c. xi., p. 51; Celsus, II. 1; Festus, s. Lustrici Dies with the note in Lindemann, II. 480; Smith, Dict. of Antiq. s. Amphidromia).F. G.]But, in general, by this establishment of the uncleanness of the natural processes of birth and death, the truth was expressed, that the ideal life of man was already a kind of immortal life, which had to raise itself above the natural conditions of human lifethe natural side of his beingand set itself in opposition thereto.
If now any one says that all these regulations are not to be considered under the aspect of sanitary or dietetic, but only of typical or religious precepts, we must hold this antithesis to be thoroughly false; there are plain indications that always, from the tree of knowledge down, especially from the circumcision, the one particular was joined with the other.
Lev 12:2 ss. In regard to the uncleanness of lying-in women, in the first place there are two conditions to be distinguished: first, the time of their especial sickness; secondly, the time of their recovery through the blood (the issue of blood) of their purification. These times differ according as she has borne a son or a daughter. If the child be a boy, the time of her especial sickness is fixed at seven days, exactly like the regulation in regard to the monthly courses. Then on the eighth day the circumcision of the boy was to follow, and from that time for thirty-three daysthe eighth day reckoned inshe was to remain at home with the boy, engaged in a constant process of recovery and purification. But why are the seven days of her especial uncleanness doubled to two weeks by the birth of a girl? It is said that this has its foundation in the belief of antiquity that the bloody and watery issues last longer after the birth of a female than of a male (see the citations from Hippocrates [op. ed. Khn. i. p. 393], Aristotle [Hist. anim. vi. 22; vii. 3], and Burdach [Physiologie III., p. 34] in Keil). Whether this view formed a natural reason for the above regulation or not, there was certainly also a theocratic reason of importance: the boy was circumcisedthe girl was not; for this the twice seven days might form an equivalent. The girl was so far a Jewess, but not yet an Israelitess [i.e. a descendant of Abraham after the flesh, but not yet incorporated with the chosen people.F. G.]. It was now moreover the proper consequence that the thirty-three days of recovery were doubled to sixty-six days, wherein, indeed, the law of circumcision is still more strongly reflected. The totality of the forty days of purification at the birth of a boy corresponds to the former explanation of the forty days in the life of Moses and Elijah: it is the symbolical time of purification, of exclusion from the world, as it was extended for the whole people to forty years. And the doubling of the forty days in the case of the new-born girl explains itself, if forty days are reckoned for the girl and forty for the mother; a doubling which could not be applied to the circumcised boy. Moreover, the coperation of the physical view, already noticed, may be also taken into consideration. [It is particularly to be noticed that the uncleanness continued only seven or fourteen days. During this time it appears from the analogy of Lev 15:19-24, the woman was unclean in the sense that every person and thing touched by her became itself unclean and capable of communicating defilement. After this period, the woman was no longer unclean, but might perform at home all the ordinary duties of domestic life; only she was forbidden to approach the sanctuary (i.e., the court of the tabernacle) until the time of her purification. The suggestion of Lange (which was also the opinion of Calvin) that the difference in the length of time for the uncleanness and the purification at the birth of a boy or a girl was due to the fact of the boys being formally received into the visible Church of God by circumcision, is a complete and satisfactory solution of a long-vexed question; but this solution necessarily carries with it the determination that the law had respect to the child as well as to the mother. To this two objections are proposed: first, the case of still-born children; but this was so exceptional that there was no occasion to provide for it in the law. When it did occurif the principle above given is correctthere being no child for whom purification was required, the time would probably have been reduced to that which was considered necessary for the mother alone. The other objection arises from the necessity of including the infant Jesus in the purification of the Virgin Mary, Luk 2:22 (where it is very observable that the Evangelist does not hesitate to say 7), but this is easily disposed of on the principle announced by Himself in regard to His baptism that thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness (Mat 3:15). This is the view taken by S. Augustine (Qust. in Hept. L. III. 40).F. G.].
Lev 12:6. The equalization of girls with boys appears again in the appointed completing sacrifice. [That is, in the time at which it was offered; there was no distinction in the sacrifice itself.F. G.]. And in this there is not first a sin offering brought, and then a burnt offering, as in the trespass offerings; but first a costly burnt offering, as the expression of the consecration of the new life;namely, a year old lamb, and then a sin offering small in proportion, a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove. [This order of the offerings is a remarkable deviation from the general principle that when the two offerings came together, the sin offering always preceded. The reason of this exception appears to lie in the fact that at the birth of a child feelings of joy and gratitude are naturally uppermost; the thought of the childs heritage of sinfulness comes afterward.F. G.]. Only in case of necessity was the burnt offering reduced and made the same as in the sin offering. [This necessity seems to have been liberally interpreted by custom, and the smaller offering to have been allowed generally to the humbler classes of society. Comp. Luk 2:22-24. The time of the offering also could not be before the fortieth or the eightieth day, but only a very strict construction of the law could forbid its being deferred to a later period for those living at a distance from the sanctuary, as appears to have been done at the birth of Samuel, 1Sa 1:22-25.F. G.]. That bearing and being born, as well as being unclean through sickness and touching the dead, could not be thought of without human complicity in sin, or at least in guilt, was set forth by this law; but how gently was this judgment expressed! If it is now said of this sacrifice from one point of view: for a son, for a daughter [Lev 12:6], and then again so she shall be clean [Lev 12:8], so again is the time, just as much as the sacrifice of purification, designated as common for mother and child. Keil is thus incorrect when he supposes that the woman did not require purification for the child, but only for herself. According to the fundamental principles of the Levitical law, it could not be conceived that a clean child lay on the breast of an unclean mother. In this very community of the Levitical uncleanness, this inner fellowship between mother and child is raised above the supposed separation in their condition. It is evident that the thing here treated of is indefinite sinfulness, but not sins becoming known indirectly in the corporeal manifestation of them.
Upon the laws of purity among other nations in regard to women in childbed, see Knobel, p. 466, and so too on the circumcision, p. 467.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. The theocratic law is joined throughout with the sanitary law, without giving up its pre-dominating and symbolical Levitical signification. In the law of lying-in women there comes especially into notice the connection or unity between mother and child, and the difference between the man-child and the woman-child. See the Exegetical. Lange.
II. The doctrine, echoed in a hundred creeds, that Purity is, next to life, the highest boon of man, was among them also [the Israelites] a truth and a reality. Kalisch.
III. The fall casts a shade of impenetrable darkness over the birth of a child of man. All that reason can say is, that this is another child of sin and heir of death. The mother in Israel is here taught that while there is impurity and guilt connected with the bearer and the born of the fallen race, yet there is a propitiation on which she may rely for herself and for her off-spring, and a purification which she has for herself, and may confidently expect for her child, while she trains him up in the way he should go. Murphy.
IV. This chapter shows clearly in the difference between the times of uncleanness and of purification at the birth of a boy and of a girl, the difference in relation to the ancient church brought about by circumcision. The Christian church has taken the place of the Jewish, and baptism has taken the place of circumcision; the same relation therefore may be expected to hold between these.
V. Inasmuch as a sin offering was to be presented conjointly for the mother and the new-born child, the doctrine of original sin is plainly taught in this law. Origen (Hom. viii. in Lev., 3) draws the same conclusion from the fact that baptism is appointed for the remission of sins, and yet is administered to infants.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
As the primeval curse on sin fell, for the woman, on child-bearing, so in child-bearing she becomes by the law unclean, and must present for her purification a sin offering. That curse remains and still clings to every child of sin coming into the world; for purification resort must be had to that true Propitiation for sin of which the sin offering was a type.
As the mother and her child emerge out of the impurity, she learns to hope for the day when both will emerge out of the bondage and corruption of sin; as the child is circumcised on the eighth day, the confiding parents pray and wait and watch and work for the circumcision of the heart, which is hopefully foreshadowed by the outward rite; as the mother offers her burnt sacrifice and sin sacrifice she rejoices in the knowledge that there is a propitiation that is sufficient for her, and for her children, and for her childrens children to all generations. Murphy.
The priestly people of God have always a war to wage with the defilements of the natural life. Even the uncleanness which belongs to the natural vigor of a lying-in woman, and to a newborn child, must be taken away and atoned for. Lange.
In accordance with this law, on the fortieth I day after His birth from the Blessed Virgins womb, Christ, the second Adam, our Emmanuel, was presented in the substance of our flesh; and on the fortieth day after His resurrection, or birth from the grave (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5), He was presented in our flesh in the heavenly sanctuary, and we were presented in Him in the dress of a cleansed and glorified humanity. Wordsworth.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 12:2. . The Sam. here has the Niphal. Comp. Gen 1:11 for similar use of Hiphil.
[2]Lev 12:2. . The text institutes a comparison, saying that the one is the same as the other, rather than makes one the law for the other.
[3]Lev 12:4. . There is no distinction in the A. V. between this and the preposition of the preceding verse. Two MSS. read here also as in Lev 12:4.
[4]Lev 12:6. . See Textual Note5 on Lev 3:7.
[5]Lev 12:7. One MS., the Sam., LXX., and Syr., here supply the word priest, which is necessarily understood from the connection.
[6]Lev 12:8. a different word from that in Lev 12:6, and used either of sheep or goats, but according to Frst, only of the young of either.
[7]In note on Luk 2:22 the view taken by Oosterzee is that the plural refers to Mary and Joseph.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The foregoing Chapter having stated what the divine law concerning clean and unclean food is, in this proceeds to lay down the law concerning the uncleanness of a woman in child-bearing. The time prescribed for her continuing in the uncleanness of child-bearing, and her burnt offering, and sin offering are pointed out.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The period of separation both from civil and religious communion, in time of child-bearing was very strict: and is observed by the Jews with equal strictness in the present hour. And the law of separation extended even to those that attended the woman.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
VI
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
Leviticus 11-15
The scope of Leviticus 11-15.
The minds of commentators, Bible students, and people generally have been very much perplexed to account for this feature of the Levitical law. In other words, that only certain animals must be used for food, and then, uncleanness coming from three other directions, one of which is exceedingly delicate; that, you will have to read about and not have the discussion of it. First, the sexual uncleanness of man or woman; and second, the touching of dead bodies, whether they are clean or unclean; and third, leprosy. And when you have taken those three, you have taken all except what is based on the distinction between the clean and the unclean animals. This applies in two directions, viz.: as to use in sacrifices and more largely as to use in eating. This Levitical distinction between the clean and the unclean and remedies for removing uncleanness have perplexed the minds of more Bible students, perhaps, than any other one thing. And their difficulty is, to account for the principle which determines such legislation, and various opinions have been entertained as to the principle which accounts for this Levitical legislation. I am quite sure that no man could rationally account for the principles that were in the Divine Mind as to these distinctions apart from what the Divine Mind has said. He may attempt philosophically to account for the state which depended only upon the law, but that does not account for the reason or principle underlying it. And there is always a reason for every law. Whether that reason is assigned or not, there is a reason. My own mind is pretty well settled on the subject, though I have tried hard enough to confuse it by reading the literature of various men that have tried to account for it in various ways.
There are certain antecedent facts that are necessary to a settlement of the question, and the first fact is that as God made man before he was a sinner he was a vegetarian. I mean to say that he was permitted to eat only fruits, cereals, and salads and things of that kind. This is the first fact. The second significant fact on the eating question is found in the beginning of Gen 9 . When Noah came out of the ark, this language is used: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” You see this is an entirely new race commission. The first race commission begins with Adam. Now the race starts anew with an entirely new head. “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth . . .” Now comes the clause, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.” Now, the reference there, “as I have given you the green herb,” refers to the first law on the subject, the law of Eden. I quote: “And God said, Behold I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food” (Gen 1:29 ).
Now, that is the original commission about what man must eat, but in this more enlarged commission given to the race through Noah in chapter 9 before there were any Jews, Noah and his family standing for the race, God says, “As I gave you the green herb for food so now I give you every living thing that moveth.” In no discussion that I have ever seen are the facts brought out that I am giving you now. So you see the race is spoken of, Noah being the head of the race; there is no legislation against what you shall eat, either vegetable or animal food, no clean or unclean animals.
Now, the third fact, and I am discussing only the eating now, is that when God gave to Peter the key to the kingdom of heaven that opened the door to the Gentiles, as recorded in Act 10 , he let down a great ark or white sheet from heaven and in that ark were all the animals, whether brutes, that is, beasts, or birds, or creeping things; and he says, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” Peter says “Not so, Lord; I have never been accustomed to eat anything unclean.” And God says, “What I have cleansed call thou not common.” The import of all which is, that whatever legislation was made by Moses with reference to distinction of meats in eating, stops with the Jews; and hence the apostle Paul elaborately argues his liberty to eat anything if it is received with thankfulness. So that it is a fact that in the New Testament the Levitical law as to the distinction between clean and unclean animals is abrogated.
Now, notice the bearing of this fact on the New Testament, i.e., the principle that led to the legislation. When you come to the New Testament times and the kingdom of God is taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, again there is no limitation. These facts force us to look for a reason in the Divine Mind that applied to this people, that is, the Jews as a people in order to get at the distinction. Now I venture to say that you never get beyond the reach of these facts.
The next thing is the distinction between clean and unclean, not as to eating, but as to sacrifice. When did that originate? It did not originate with Noah, as far as sacrifices are concerned, for God commissioned Noah to take into the ark with him one pair of unclean animals and birds and seven pairs of clean animals and birds, as if Noah understood it, and Noah did understand it. And so when Noah came out of the ark he took of the animals and offered sacrifice to God; so this question is forced upon us: Where did the distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originate? Not with Adam, not with Noah. Now I will give you the origin. It is equal to a plain statement. It originated as soon as man sinned; when he was expelled from the garden and the symbolical, or typical, method of approach to God was appointed. We know this to be true. In Gen 4 , when one of Adam’s sons brought the clean beast from the flock and God received it, and the other offered simply the produce from his farm, his was rejected; so that I offer to you as the conviction of my mind that the distinction between clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originated when man sinned.
Now, when an issue stands perfectly clear in my own mind, I am on pretty sure ground and my conviction is very clear so far as clean and unclean animals are concerned, that it originated when man sinned, by the appointment of God and would necessarily cease when the Antitype came. So that we find God’s own distinction in animals for sacrifice going back to the sin of man, further back than we carry the distinction of eating. Now, these facts will help us to get at the origin of the distinction between the clean and the unclean in the Divine Mind establishing this regulation. So I point out, first, that the distinction between clean and unclean animals both as to sacrifice and eating was to symbolize certain great spiritual truths and when the symbol was fulfilled, the obligation to continue would then cease. That is principle one. Principle two is for hygienic reasons, sanitary reasons. You know what “hygienic” means. You have studied medicine enough to know that. Sanitary reasons had something to do with it but modern scientists claim that it had everything to do with this distinction between the unclean and the clean animals. Now it is a sad truth that they consider only one principle and that is the sanitary reason, claiming that, as far as eating is concerned, it is the only one worth discussing. I admit the sanitary reason, but I do not give it the prominence that they do, since the commission to Noah did not include it as a race commission. Therefore, the sanitary reason for the whole race does not explain it.
It is wise to use those foods, the use of which is the least dangerous to human health. God knew that this law would last only until the Messiah came and that it applied to the Jews, and that the Jews would simply be around the Mediterranean Sea, in a tropical country, and if I were living in that country now, I wouldn’t eat swine meat, for sanitary reasons. In the tropics it is not best to eat hog meat, and this law proscribes some food that can’t be eaten. Whether in the tropics or out of it, it is not best to eat blood. Statistics have been carefully gathered, that to me are intensely significant. You take the Jews living now in any country of the world, and where they follow the regimen of diet prescribed in the book of Leviticus, these Jews average a longer life than other people, better health than other people and less liable to contagious diseases than other people. Read an account of an epidemic sweeping clear over the country and it is astonishing how very few Jews have it. Now, that fact shows that the food we eat has a great deal to do with the health of the body. Look at those people in the camp life in the wilderness, in the blazing hot country, and for sanitary reasons, these Levitical reasons, they were forbidden to eat certain things. I mention that as the second principle.
Now the third principle. It was the purpose of God to isolate Israel from all the nations of the earth; and in order to isolate Israel) her worship was to be separated from that of other people. .For if they came to the table with the Gentiles, then intermarriage is permitted, and with intermarriage comes the idolatry of the heathen. The history, as you will see when you study Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, shows the introduction of idolatry to come with the association of the Jews with the heathen. A Jewish king with a heathen wife came near blotting religion from the world, and in it all Elijah stood alone with the exception of 7,000 people that had not bowed their knees to Baal. But he thought he was alone in the world and asked God to take him out of the world. So these people must be kept separate from the other people, there must be things that separate them; things that would not permit that degree of intimate association that permits marriage. So these things were given to make a line of demarcation between the Jews and the Gentiles. But when the Jewish policy had served its purpose, then the same God that drew that line tore it down and blotted out the distinction between the clean and the unclean. Those are the three reasons that are satisfactory to my mind, and while I might cite fifty others, advocated by commentators, none of them seems to be of any force but these three. Now note carefully: First, the distinction was made in order to symbolize certain great spiritual truths that would be brought out; second, hygienic or sanitary reasons led to this distinction, and third, this legislation was to isolate Israel and tend to keep it as a separate and particular people.
I come now to another feature of the case, viz.: the touching of dead bodies. If one was defiled, there was a ritual prescribed by which he could become clean ceremonially, before God. It is easy to see in that case the spiritual truth that is embodied in that symbolism. Death is the wages of sin, and the body without the spirit is dead. Now then, in order to make these people realize the necessity of holiness, they must keep apart from the dead. “Let the dead bury their dead.” And if propriety would admit of the discussion of the sexual feature of it, I could make that explanation perfectly satisfactory to you also.
Now we come to the case of leprosy. Why was leprosy and no other form of sickness selected? The commentaries discuss much whether the leprosy of Leviticus is the leprosy of modern times as we understand it. I say to you that it is. I have not time to prove it, but you may just take my assurance that when Leviticus says leprosy it means leprosy in its most loathsome form. Why, now, was leprosy put along beside the bodies of dead men? Simply because one declared to be leprous was as one dead. It was a living death. As it progressed and disfigured the body, it would eat away the nose and the different parts of the body. In other words, -the soul was confined in the charnel house of corruption. He must be segregated, he must hide himself, must not allow other people to come near him. The law commanded him to cover his upper lip, and when he saw any one coming toward him he must cry out, “Unclean, unclean, unclean!” Therefore we find leprosy selected both in the Old and the New Testaments as expressive of sin, and the healing of leprosy as the exercise of the power of God. Medicine cannot cure leprosy when it gets to a certain stage.
A great many things commence like leprosy, and such cases had to be tested, therefore some of these regulations. A man is segregated and the high priest examines him and keeps him segregated until it is known not to be leprosy. Here are the symptoms: First, if the skin turns perfectly white, this is the first step; second, there appear growing out of that spot hairs that are white; that man is pronounced a leper, and then that last fearful sloughing off, eating form comes. Sometimes people would have this white spot and the white hair appearing in this spot and not have leprosy. It was because it did not develop a case in full, but the high priest was to count them lepers until it was shown not to be leprosy. Lepers regarded leprosy as a stroke from God, and indeed that is the etymological meaning of the word. The Hebrew word means a stroke, that is, stroke from God. When the application was made to the king of Israel to heal Naaman, who was a leper, he says, “They seek occasion against me; am I God, that I can make alive?” He meant that it required supernatural power, divine power, to heal a leper. Some of the most noted sermons that have ever been preached have been sermons on leprosy as a type of sin.
Now we come to consider the distinction, not as to the reason of its appointment, but what the distinction itself was between the clean and the unclean, and that is easy to tell. Of the beasts, there must be two things to make it a clean beast, and it did not merely apply to sacrifices. I will show you the limitation directly. No beast could be offered as sacrifice or be eaten as food, unless it possessed two characteristics, viz.: a cloven hoof and the chewing of the cud. Now, the camel’s hoof is not cloven but it chews the cud; the sheep’s hoof is cloven and it does chew the cud; the hog’s hoof is cloven but it does not chew the cud. A number of wild animals are good for food because they divide the hoof and chew the cud, but only domestic animals that divide the hoof and chew the cud could be used as sacrifice. The others were unclean, but any animal, domestic or otherwise, that chewed the cud and divided the hoof could be eaten, for instance, the antelope, the deer, and all other animals of that kind. Now this is the distinction of beasts.
Now we come to the birds and there the distinction is expressed in classes. Certain birds are mentioned, for instance, the dove, the pigeon. They could be used as sacrifice. They had the characteristic generally attributed to them, of innocence. They were not birds of prey. Certain others are specified. All carnivorous birds were excluded, and some birds eat bad flesh, as you know, and that applied to the beasts. There were graminivorous beasts; that means “grass-eating” beasts. They did not have tusks. They had molars, or grinders. The graminivorous beast perhaps would be clean, but none could be clean that was not a grass-eating beast. The eagle, the vulture, the owl, the bat, the stork, the heron, and the crane are mentioned by name as not clean. The goose, the duck, the chicken, and all the variety of quail could be eaten, but only certain ones could be used as sacrifice.
Now we come to another class, and here is what the Hebrew, literally translated, says about a certain class of things that were clean: First, he must be winged, and second, he must have four legs beside the hind legs used for hopping and jumping; as locusts, crickets, etc. Many people eat them. John the Baptist was a “bug-eater,” and in some countries the locust is a general article of food. Now think of that, fellow. First) he must be able to fly; he must be able to walk on all fours; he must have wings to fly, and his hind legs must be hopping legs. There is, of course, in this country, a great deal of prejudice against eating grasshoppers, but I am sure that if you were over in those countries and did not know what they were, you would eat them. They are dried in the sun and then ground up into flour and baked into a kind of cake. So you would not know what it was. I confess I don’t want any myself.
Now, have you got that perfectly clear? The animal in order to be eaten, must divide the hoof and chew the cud, and in order to be used as a sacrifice, must not only do that but it must be domestic; as, the cow, the sheep, the goat. The birds are specified by classes and must not be carnivorous birds. The grasshopper class must have four legs, two hoppers, and be able to fly. Now, there is one more class and that is the fishes. Two characteristics the fish must have in order to be Levitically fit to eat. It must have fins and it must have scales fins and scales both. The catfish wouldn’t do. It has no scales; but there are others that would not do; as, the oyster. There people didn’t eat many oysters and we leave them out in the hot months. Now suppose it was hot all the time, as it is there; we would eat very few oysters. The rule will not apply to fishes as to birds. The fishes that have fins and scales are carnivorous; for instance, take a big trout. He eats the smaller fish and is carnivorous and voracious. There are four distinctions in fact, and I have discussed the principles.
Now the method of removing uncleanness, and the details are elaborate. I recommend again the volume on Leviticus in the Expositors Bible, as one of the best expositions of the book I ever read, by Kellogg. He is not poisoned by higher criticism, as most of these books are. When I go over a book, I am sure to tell you what books to use. The Expositor’s and the Cambridge Bibles are widely used; while some parts of them you cannot rely on, you can rely on the Leviticus volume of the Expositor’s Bible.
Dr. Wilkinson, of Chicago, came down to Texas to deliver a series of lectures. One of his subjects was “The Book of Leviticus” and all his lectures were on the introduction to the book. He came to me and said, “What have you on Leviticus that is any account?” I said, “Take Kellogg, of the Expositor’s Bible.” He says, “It is in mighty bad company.” But when he brought the book back, he said, “I thank you that you called my attention to that book. I had such a dislike for the Expositor’s Bible that I never thought to look in there for anything good, but it is superb.”
Now, I will tell you of another that will bring out the spiritual, and that is Mackintosh. He is spiritual, though a premillennialist. They do stand foursquare for the truth and I have always loved that kind of a man. If they stand square and do not yield to the higher critics; if they are spiritually minded and their teaching is spiritual, I am going to take them close to my heart and convert them as fast as I can. There are some mighty good people among them. Moody was one. A. C. Dixon, W. B. Riley, and others are among them and they are mighty good people.
Our next lesson is on Lev 17 and we take up the law of holiness in that. That refers to eating, which has been discussed in this study, but solely with reference to the distinction of meats. That law of holiness governs eating in other respects, viz.: the purity of life, the purity in the marriage relation all that comes under the head of this law. The most interesting part of Leviticus after we pass chapter 16 is the times, the set times in which Israel is to appear before God. It follows out this idea viz.: that Leviticus is the developments of that part of the law which is the altar and shows the way of approach to God, through what one shall approach God, through whom he shall approach God, and then gives the inauguration of the service after it has been established, the culmination of that service in regard to the clean and the unclean animals, and the times to come before God, i.e., the set times: First, the evening and the morning; second, the weekly sabbaths; third, the monthly, or lunar sabbaths; fourth, the great annual sabbaths; fifth, the landsabbath, or the seventh-year sabbath; and sixth, the Jubilee sabbath, the seven times seven, or fiftieth-year sabbath, the Jubilee.
QUESTIONS
1. What puzzling question relative to the distinction between, the clean and the unclean in eating and in sacrifice?
2. What is the real difficulty with Bible students on this question?
3. What three divisions of uncleanness as relating to persons?
4. Who two classes, or divisions, as relating to animals?
5. How, then, account for these principles?
6. What antecedent facts necessary to a settlement of this question as it relates to eating?
7. What is the import of the revelation to Peter in. Act 10 ?
8. What, then, does Paul say on this question?
9. What bearing has this principle on New Testament revelation?
10. What do these facts force us to look for?
11. When did the distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originate?
12. Then, when would this distinction between the clean and unclean animals for sacrifice necessarily cease?
13. According to these facts, what is principle number one as to the distinction between clean and unclean animals relating to both sacrifice and eating?
14. What, then, is principle number two?
15. What is the contention of modern scientists on this and your reply?
16. How did this principle apply to the Jews?
17. What evidence of its influence on the Jewish life?
18. What is principle number three?
19. What three things were essential to accomplish the isolation of Israel?
20. When were these distinctions blotted out?
21. Why did the touching of a dead body render one unclean?
22. Why was leprosy and no other form of sickness selected?
23. Why was leprosy selected in both Testaments as expressive of sin?
24. What are the symptoms of leprosy?
25. How did lepers regard leprosy and why?
26. What distinction between clean and unclean beasts as to eating?
27. What distinction as to sacrifice?
28. What distinction as to birds?
29. What is said of the grasshopper class?
30. What distinguishes the clean from the unclean in fishes?
Leviticus Chapter 12
CHAPTER 21.
BIRTH UNCLEANNESS.
Lev 12:1-8 .
Jehovah here gives a moral lesson of the deepest moment. Man since the fall is radically unclean. None slower to learn, or readier to forget, than Israel, yet neither son nor daughter was born without the continual memento. The mother who in this case was immediately concerned had to feel its consequence, and was even reminded of woman’s part, when sin first entered, by the added sentence awarded if the babe were a female.
Sin is not at all limited to crime, or to glaring evil. What a mischievously and unequivocally false version is that given in the A.V. of 1Jn 3:4 , where we read that “sin is the transgression of the law!” Millions have thence derived their notion of sin, and have thereby been misled into the great error, on the one hand, of ignoring a vast deal of real sin, and on the other of arguing that all men must be under the law, inasmuch as it is certain that all sinned. But any such reasoning proceeds on a false principle. For the true meaning of the apostle’s statement is, that “sin is lawlessness,” the far wider and subtler evil of doing one’s own will without the check of divinely imposed authority. In the R.V. it is properly rendered, “sin is lawlessness,” which is absolutely true, and applies to all mankind whether they did or did not know the law.
All transgression of the law is sin, but all sin is far from being transgression of the law. Hence the Jews are called “transgressors,” for they distinctively were under law; whereas scripture speaks of the Gentiles as “sinners,” not as “transgressors,” which they must hays been if all men were alike under law. But this is expressively disproved by Rom 2:12 , where Gentiles are distinguished from Jews on that very ground: “for as many as have sinned without law shall perish without lay; and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law …. in a day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ.” If Gentiles had not law, they had conscience, which made them feel guilty in dereliction of a natural duty, as is shown in the same context.
Here it is rather uncleanness before God as the universal effect of the dark inheritance of sin. One could not speak of sinning in babes male or female, but there was uncleanness in all. And Jehovah took care that from Himself Israel should know of it as to their own offspring. Here it is not about the nations He speaks but of the chosen people, that no flesh should boast.
” 1 And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, 2 Speak to the children of Israel, saying, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a male, then (and) she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her infirmity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised. 4 And she shall continue thirty-three days in the blood of her cleansing; no holy thing shall she touch, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her cleansing are fulfilled. 5 And if she bear a female, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation; and she shall continue sixty-six days in the blood of her cleansing. 6 And when the days of her cleansing are fulfilled for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest. 7 And he shall offer it before Jehovah and make atonement for her; and she shall be clean from the fountain of her blood. This [is the] law for her that beareth male or female. 8 And if her hand cannot find enough for a sheep, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her; and she shall be clean” (vers. 1-8).
Thus was the uncleanness of man turned to divine account and mercy withal. The evil was owned before Jehovah. On the eighth day was the male child separated to Him by the sign of death to the flesh. Such was the covenant token, even before the law, though maintained by it, till a better circumcision not made by hands. But the mother continued for thirty three beyond the seven days, apart from holy things or place, and then, brought her Burnt-offering and her Sin-offering, which the priest offered in atonement, and she became clean. In case of a female child, the time of abiding unclean was doubled. The apostle even would not have us forget that Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman having been deceived was in transgression. Grace reigns through righteousness unto life eternal through Jesus Christ our Lord. A better sacrifice, a fuller holiness, and a higher life should then be given in sovereign grace, and this to all, Greek or Jew, who believe; for all were then proved alike lost sinners, now alike saved by faith in Jesus.
What a contrast is this chapter with the Rabbinic corruption of the law by tradition of man! What contempt of women and children, to say nothing of slaves! “Gather the people together” (says Deu 31:12 ), “men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear Jehovah your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.” This the oral law abjures. “A woman’s wisdom,” says R. Eliezer in the Talmud (Joma, fol. 66, Col 2 ), is only for the distaff;” and what is worse. he cites Exo 35:25 for his unbelieving folly and presumption. Had he forgotten so many that were highly favoured, and even vehicles of the Holy Spirit’s power? A woman specially suffered in moral government. Jehovah here proves His gracious consideration in an ordinance expressly marking His concern that they should be purified from that which recalled sin and entailed uncleanness. Sacrifice alone could effect this; yet not a Sin-offering only but the Burnt-offoring in full acceptance.
Such was the tender care of God, that poverty was comforted in His receiving a pigeon or a, turtledove for a Burnt-offering, whereas the richest could not boast of more than a pigeon or a turtledove for a Sin-offering. What was imperative for the atoning clearance of the evil was the same. Rich and poor stood on the same level. For the joy of acceptance the pigeon of the poor was as valid as the rich woman’s sheep. What a rebuke to every form of respecting persons! What grace that the Lord of glory was born of a virgin mother, whose poverty was shown in the offering proper to it! What a chasm separates the “Daily Prayers” of the Jew from the scriptures! “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a heathen.” “Blessed etc. who hast not made me a slave.” “Blessed etc. who hast not made me a woman.” The inspired wisest of men says, “A foolish man despiseth his mother” (Pro 15:20 ); indeed the Ten words commanded from the first, “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exo 20:12 ).
With such shameless contempt for women, slaves, and Gentiles, none can wonder that the sons of Israel claim for themselves exorbitant honour. Thus in the Pentecostal Prayer of their Liturgy, they are taught to believe, that at Sinai were set all the generations of the people (i.e. their souls) with those who stood before the mountain, and to say, “there was no blemish in them, for they were entirely perfect.” The Talmud seeks to explain this egregious fable in the words, “why were the Gentiles defiled? Because they did not stand upon mount Sinai, for in the hour that the serpent came to Eve, he communicated a defilement which was taken away from Israel when they stood on mount Sinai; but the defilement of the Gentiles was not removed, as they did not stand on mount Sinai.”
The oral law, as we are assured, was bold and bad in our Lord’s day, when He denounced it as making void the word of God; but it did not fail, as with Gnostics and others heterodox in Christendom, to increase to greater ungodliness. Yea, the very generation, that stood and heard the Ten words, set up the calf of gold and worshipped it directly after, before the tables of stone were brought down by Moses; and he, instead of regarding them as “healed from every blemish,” told them in his closing words (Deu 31 ).) “I know thy rebellion and thy stiff neck. Lo I while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against Jehovah, and how much more after my death? . . . For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and will turn away from the way which I have commanded you” (vers. 27-29).
It is in vain that the Rabbis invent such fictions and teach the Jews to believe in themselves, instead of in the Saviour and redemption through His blood. Only faith supposes and produces repentance This the natural heart abhors. From nothing does man shrink more than truly acknowledging his own badness; but God leads him to it, and Jesus gives to the labouring and burdened soul rest. But to deny uncleanness even in a babe or its mother, to deny its universality, is Satan’s lie, and as opposed to the Law and the Prophets as it is to Christianity. Grace demanded a sacrifice here, as it gave one infinitely better in Christ; but even a babe is unclean in itself through the fault of the first parents.
And is it not of all moment for souls apt to follow the Jews to profit by their fatal error, that standing on Mount Sinai could remove defilement from Israel or any others? For the evident truth set out at Sinai was, that no sinner could stand there before God. There He was making known to Israel that they should not go up into the mount, or touch the border of it: “whosoever toucheth the mount be surely put to death.” No wonder that the whole people that was in the camp trembled; for mount Sinai altogether smoked, because Jehovah descended on it in fire; and its smoke rose up as the smoke of a furnace; and the whole mountain shook greatly. And when the people saw the thunderings and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet increasing and become exceeding loud, who can wonder that they trembled, and stood afar off, and said to Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die?
Alas! these later Rabbis are more insensible and senseless than the people who durst not touch mount Sinai, instead of standing in the conscious and comfortable knowledge that their defilement was taken away. Not so, vain men, and blind leaders of the blind, You misread your own law: else ye would more than ever tremble at the recollection of Sinai. For the law works out wrath, not the removal of defilement save provisionally and for the flesh, leaving the conscience uncleansed. It was on another mount, even Calvary, that the true and only efficacious work was wrought by the Messiah on the cross for finishing transgression, and making an end of sins, and purging away iniquity, and bringing in everlasting righteousness. But Him your fathers seeing saw not, darker and more guilty than Gentiles there, who before that asked, Are we also blind? And Jesus said to them, If ye were blind, ye would not have sin; but now ye say, We see, your sin remains.
spake. See note on Lev 5:14.
Chapter 12
In chapter twelve, the Lord now deals with a woman who has born a child. And if it’s
a male child: she shall be unclean for seven days; after the birth of the child the separation from her infirmity. And in the eighth day they shall circumcise the child. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying for 33 days; and [during that time] is not to touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are fulfilled. But if she bears a girl child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, and be separated: then, in the days of her purifying for 66 days. And then when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, [which is the offering of consecration], and a young pigeon, or turtle dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest ( Lev 12:2-6 ):
So an offering of consecration and a sin offering.
The priest shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; she shall be cleansed from the issue of blood. This is the law for her that has born a male child or a female. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then shall she bring two turtles [that would be turtle doves], or two young pigeons; and the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean ( Lev 12:7-8 ).
Now, it is interesting when Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Jesus, came for this purifying right kind of a thing that Mary brought two turtle doves which would indicate that they were of poor circumstances. They weren’t wealthy at all. They were poor people. They could not afford to bring a sheep. And the poor people could bring the two turtle doves; and thus, Mary indicating the poverty of Mary and Joseph brought two turtle doves for the sacrifice for her right of purification and all.
“
In this brief section, which deals with the beginning of life, the religious aspect of childbirth is most unquestionably the permanent value. The separation of the woman from the congregation for a period is the suggestion of the recognition of the fact that the race is sinful and of the necessary consequence that every child is born in sin.
The return of the mother to her place in the privileges of worship could be brought about only by the presentation of sin and burnt offerings. While these requirements kept fresh in the mind this sense of sin, the provision of a way of return spoke in the language of hope. If men are born in sin, through expiation and devotion a way is yet made for their restoration to the place of communion with God. Thus at the beginning of every life the appalling need and the gracious provision were brought freshly to mind.
Purification after Child-Bearing
Lev 12:1-8
The birth of a boy involved seven days ceremonial defilement; of a girl, fourteen. Not the child, but the mother, was adjudged to be unclean, securing her a period of retirement and rest. The gracious gradation in the sacrifices made it possible for the poorest to obey, and it is a memorable fact that the mother of our Lord brought two pigeons or doves-meet emblems of her gentle nature-when she presented her babe in the Temple. See Luk 2:24. Our Lord became poor, that through His poverty we might be eternally enriched. In the light of this ceremonial, we are led back to Psa 51:5, which we must personally and sadly ponder.
The initial rite of the Hebrew religion stood for separation. The parent taught the child to remember that he belonged to a separated race. It was impossible for him to consort with those who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. We all need to undergo the circumcision of Christ, which consists in putting away the sins of the flesh, and ceasing to trust in our own energy. See Col 2:11-12.
2. Childbirth Laws and Inherited Sin
CHAPTER 12
1. The man-child (Lev 12:1-4)
2. The maid-child (Lev 12:5)
3. The offerings (Lev 12:6-8)
The childbirth laws as contained in this chapter are full of meaning. The woman is constituted unclean by the birth of a child. When a man-child was born, she was to be unclean for seven days, and her purification was to end thirty-three days after that; forty days after childbirth. (A. Bonar, in his work on Leviticus, makes the following conjecture: May it have been the case that Adam and Eve remained only forty days unfallen! These forty days would thus be a reminiscence of that holy time on earth. The last Adam was forty days on earth after His resurrection, recalling to mind earths time of paradise.) In case of the birth of a maid-child the days of uncleanness were just double, fourteen and sixty-six. But why was this? The key to the spiritual meaning of this chapter is found in this very fact. Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (1Ti 2:14). It was by the woman that the fall was brought about through the Serpent. The facts that sin is in the world, how it came into the world and that sin is inherited, transmitted from generation to generation, are made known in this brief chapter. The woman is constituted unclean because she is a sinful creature. Her sorrow and pain in childbirth, which no science nor discovery can remove, is a definite witness to the truth as contained in the third chapter of Genesis. And because she is a sinful creature and unclean, her offspring too is sinful and unclean, for who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? What later David expressed, when he stood in the light, confessing his sin, is here seen in the childbirth laws. Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psa 51:5) And one well may think here of her who was a sinful woman like every other woman, but who conceived by the Holy Spirit, Mary, the virgin. The One born of her had no sin, but is that holy thing called the Son of God (Luk 1:35).
on the eighth day the male child was to be circumcised. Both circumcision and the eighth day are of spiritual significance. The eighth day is the type of resurrection, the new creation. Circumcision is given in the New Testament in its true meaning. See Rom 6:6; Col 2:11; Php 3:3. This indicates the manner in which God hath dealt with inherited sin in the cross of His blessed Son, our Saviour and Lord. Then follows the commandment concerning the offerings, when the days of purification were ended. It was for both the male and the female, the same offering, a lamb and a young pigeon or turtle dove. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles or two young pigeons. Read and compare with Luk 2:22.
Reciprocal: Lev 5:3 – the uncleanness Lev 7:21 – the uncleanness Num 18:20 – General
SIN AT THE FOUNTAINHEAD
What period of uncleanness followed the birth of a male (Lev 12:2)? What transaction in his life took place on the 8th day (Lev 12:3)? How long was the period of the mothers purification (Lev 12:4)? What difference was there as to these two periods in the case of a female child (Lev 12:5)? What was required of the mother at the close of this period (Lev 12:6)? The reason for it (Lev 12:7)? How does Lev 12:8 compare with Luk 2:24, point to the lowly condition of the mother of Jesus as well as to her own need of a Savior?
EXPLANATION AND APPLICATION
The great principles underlying this chapter will come before us more definitely in chapter 15. The theme is the same there as here, and indeed throughout the whole section, viz.: sin and its only remedy. Here, however, we have sin at its source, humanly speaking. Sin is not merely something which man takes on outside of himself, but something which is a part of him. It belongs not to his nature as God made him, but to his nature as fallen and transmitted from Adam. Sin is here seen mingling with the transmission of life and tainting the vital forces as they descend from parent to child, and from generation to generation (Psa 57:5). It is this awful truth that forms the subject of this chapter.
The mere physical uncleanness spoken of is not the real thing, but only ceremonial and typical. In other words, the regulations laid down are not for women everywhere and always, but as a figure for the time then present.
They impose a special legal disability on the woman because she was first in the transgression of Eden (1Ti 2:14), and show us that we all have come of sinful mothers and hence are ourselves sinful (Job 14:4). In the birth of a child, the original curse against the woman is regarded by the law as reaching its fullest expression, for now by means of those powers given her for good and blessing she can bring into the world only the child of sin.
The Meaning of Circumcision
We have learned that circumcision was not original with the Hebrews, being practiced by other nations in warm climates for hygienic reasons; but God adopted and constituted it in Abraham a symbol of an analogous spiritual fact, viz.: the purification of sin at its fountainhead, the cleansing of the evil nature with which we all are born. Read Col 2:10-11, the meaning of which is that there is no need of ritual circumcision for believers on Christ as they have the spiritual substance of it in Christ. Their circumcision is not made with hands, but is a spiritual thing, a real thing. It is the putting off of the body of the flesh, the realization of that which the other symbolized. Not of the putting off of a part, but the nature itself. It took place when we were buried with Him in the baptism, i.e., the baptism of the Holy Ghost, by which we were made one with Him so thoroughly that in Gods sight we lay in the same grave, having died on Calvary in Him.
The Eighth Day
The eighth day will be often met as we proceed, and needs to be recognized in its symbolic and prophetic significance.
The old creation was finished in six days with a following Sabbath, rendering six the number of the old creation as under imperfection and sin. But the eighth day, which is the first of a new week, appears everywhere in Scripture as symbolizing the new creation in which all things shall be restored in the redemption through the second Adam.
The thought finds its fullest expression in the resurrection of Christ as the Firstborn from the dead, the Beginning and the Lord of the new creation, who rose from the dead on the first day, on the day after the seventh, the eighth day. This gives the key to the use of the number eight in the Mosaic symbolism. With good reason, therefore, was circumcision ordered for the eighth day, as it symbolized the putting off of the old nature and the putting on of a new and purified nature in Christ (2Co 5:17 RV, margin).
QUESTIONS
1. What is sin?
2. Quote Job 14:4.
3. What Christian fact is symbolized by circumcision?
4. What does the 8th day symbolize in Scripture?
5. Quote 2Co 5:17 in the Revised Version.
Lev 12:1. From uncleanness contracted by the touching or eating of external things, he now comes to that uncleanness which ariseth from ourselves.
Lev 12:2. Speak unto the children of Israel: that every man may convey the law to his wife, and assist in the ceremony of purification.
Lev 12:3. Circumcised. To this law our Saviour submitted, that he might fulfil all righteousness.
REFLECTIONS.
By this holy law of ceremonial defilement during the season of parturition, we are reminded of the original stain and depravity of human nature, which must be cleansed with sacrificial blood, or we shall all be cut off from the congregation of the Lord. David, viewing original sin, connected with actual transgression, said, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Hence the mother and the child both need the atonement of the Saviours blood, in order to inherit the blessings of the covenant. The body of an infant evidently partakes of disease and death from its parents, and the mind, however inexplicable, is most assuredly tainted from the same source. Else why should the righteous God afflict the unoffending babe with severe pain, and even with death. Let us not therefore complain, like the enemies of revelation, but rather avail ourselves of the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness, that we may approach the Lord with boldness, and live through the sprinkling of the Redeemers blood.
When a male child was born, forty days were fixed for the purification of the mother; and when a daughter was born, the time was eighty days. The text itself suggests a reason for this which ought to satisfy us; namely, that the male was circumcised the eighth day, to which females were not subject.
We learn from this law, that a woman and her family ought to offer up gratitude and praise to God after her delivery; for though the peculiarities of the law are abolished, gratitude is of equal force and obligation in all ages. And where is the place so proper to render thanks for family mercies so signal, as the house and the altar of God. It becomes the just to be thankful; and he that offereth praise glorifieth God. As the woman was forty days after the birth of a son before she could approach the sanctuary, so it is very remarkable that Moses was forty days on the mount; Elijah was forty days in approaching God at Horeb; our Lord was forty days in the desert, and forty days after his resurrection before he approached the Father in glory.
Leviticus 12
This brief section reads out to us, after its own peculiar fashion, the double lesson of “man’s ruin and God’s remedy.” But though the fashion is peculiar, the lesson is most distinct and impressive. It is, at once, deeply humbling and divinely comforting. The effect of all scripture, when interpreted to one’s own soul, directly, by the power of the Holy Ghost, is to lead us out of self to Christ. wherever we see our fallen nature – at whatever stage of its history we contemplate it, whether in its conception, at its birth, or at any point along its whole career, from the womb to the coffin, it wears the double stamp of iniquity and defilement. This is, sometimes, forgotten amid the glitter and glare, the pomp and fashion, the wealth and splendour of human life. The mind of man is fruitful in devices to cover his humiliation. In various ways he seeks to ornament and gild, and put on an appearance of strength and glory; but it is all vain. He has only to be seen as he enters this world, a poor helpless creature; or, as he passes away from it, to take his place with the clod of the valley, in order to have a most convincing proof of the hollowness of all his pride, the vanity of all his glory. Those whose path through this world has been brightened by what man calls glory, have entered in nakedness and helplessness, and retreated amid disease and death.
Nor is this all. It is not merely helplessness that belongs to man – that characterises him as he enters this life. There is defilement also. “Behold,” says the psalmist,” I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Ps. 51: 5) “How can he be clean that is born of a woman?” (Job 25: 4) In the chapter before us, we are taught that the conception and birth of “a man child,” involved “seven days” of ceremonial defilement to the mother, together with thirty-three days of separation from the sanctuary; and these periods were doubled in the case of “a maid child.” Has this no voice? Can we not read, herein, an humbling lesson? Does it not declare to us, in language not to be misunderstood, that man is “an unclean thing,” and that he needs the blood of atonement to cleanse him? Truly so. Man may imagine that he can work out a righteousness of his own. He may vainly boast of the dignity of human nature. He may put on a lofty air, and assume a haughty bearing, as he moves across the stage of life; but if he would just retire for a few moments, and ponder over the short section of our book which now lies open before us, his pride, pomp, dignity, and righteousness would speedily vanish; and, instead thereof, he might find the solid basis of all true dignity, as well as the ground of divine righteousness, in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The shadow of this cross passes before us in a double way in our chapter; first, in the circumcision of the “man child,” whereby he became enrolled as a member of the Israel of God; and, secondly, in the burnt offering and sin offering, whereby the mother was restored from every defiling influence, rendered fit, once more, to approach the sanctuary, and to come in contact with holy things. “And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest; who shall offer it before the Lord, and make, an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.” (Ver. 6, 7) The death of Christ, in its two grand aspects, is here introduced to our thoughts, as the only thing which could possibly meet, and perfectly remove, the defilement connected with man’s natural birth. The burnt offering presents the death of Christ, according to the divine estimate thereof; the sin offering, on the other hand, presents the death of Christ, as bearing upon the sinner’s need.
“And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.” Nothing but blood-shedding could impart cleanness. The cross is the only remedy for man’s infirmity, and man’s defilement. Wherever that glorious work is apprehended, by faith, there is perfect cleanness enjoyed. Now, the apprehension may be feeble – the faith may be but wavering – the experience may be shallow; but, let the reader remember, for his soul’s joy and comfort, that it is not the depth of his experience, the stability of his faith, or the strength of his apprehension, but the divine value, the changeless efficacy of the blood of Jesus. This gives great rest to the heart. The sacrifice of the cross is the same to every member of the Israel of God, whatever be his status in the assembly. The tender considerateness of our ever gracious God is seen in the fact that the blood of a turtle dove was as efficacious for the poor, as the blood of a bullock for the rich. The full value of the atoning work was alike maintained and exhibited in each. Had it not been so, the humble Israelite, if involved in ceremonial defilement, might, as she gazed upon the well-stocked pastures of some wealthy neighbour, exclaim, “Alas! what shall I do? How shall I be cleansed? How shall I get back to my place and privilege in the assembly? I have neither flock nor herd. I am poor and needy.” But, blessed be God, the case of such an one was fully met. A pigeon or turtle dove was quite sufficient. The same perfect and beautiful grace shines forth, in the case of the leper, in Lev. 14: “And if he be poor and cannot get so much, then he shall take, &c . . . . . . . And he shall offer the one of the turtle doves, or of the young pigeons, such as he can get; even such as he is able to get . . . . . This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy, whose hand is not able to get that which pertaineth to his cleansing.” (Ver. 21, 30-32)
Grace meets the needy one just where he is, and as he is. The atoning blood is brought within the reach of the very lowest, the very poorest, the very feeblest. All who need it can have it. “If he be poor” – what then? Let him be cast aside? Ah no; Israel’s God could never so deal with the poor and needy. There is ample provision for all such in the gracious expression, “Such as he can get; even such as he is able to get.” Most exquisite grace! “To the poor the Gospel is preached.” None can say, “the blood of Jesus was beyond me.” Each can be challenged with the inquiry, “how near would you have it brought to you?” “I bring near my righteousness.” How “near?” So near, that it is “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly.” (Rom. 4: 5) Again, “the word is nigh thee.” How “nigh? “So nigh “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth, the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. 10: 9) So also that most touching and beautiful invitation,” Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money.” (Isa. 55: 1)
What matchless grace shines in the expressions, “to him that worketh not,” and, “he that hath no money!” They are as like God as they are unlike man. Salvation is as free as the air we breathe. Did we create the air? Did we mingle its component parts? No; but we enjoy it, and, by enjoying it, get power to live and act by Him who made it. So is it in the matter of salvation. We get it without a fraction, without an effort. We feed upon the wealth of another; we rest in the work finished by another; and, moreover, it is by so feeding and resting, that we are enabled to work for Him on whose wealth we feed, and in whose work we rest. This is a grand Gospel paradox, perfectly inexplicable to legality, but beautifully plain to faith. Divine grace delights in making provision for those who are “not able” to make provision for themselves.
But, there is another invaluable lesson furnished by this twelfth chapter of Leviticus. We not only read, herein, the grace of God to the poor, but, by comparing its closing verse with Luke 2: 24, we learn the amazing depth to which God stooped in order to manifest that grace. The Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, the pure and spotless Lamb, the Holy One, who knew no Sin, was “made of a woman,” and that woman – wondrous mystery! – having borne in her womb, and brought forth, that pure and perfect, that holy and spotless human body, had to undergo the usual ceremonial, and accomplish the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses. And not only do we read divine grace in the fact of her having thus to purify herself, but also the mode in which this was accomplished. “And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons.” From this simple circumstance we learn that the reputed parents of our blessed Lord Jesus were so poor, as to be obliged to take advantage of the gracious provision made for those whose means did not afford “a lamb for a burnt offering.” What a thought! The Lord of Glory, the most High God, Possessor of heaven and earth, the One to whom pertained “the cattle upon a thousand hills” – yea, the wealth of the universe – appeared in the world which His hands had made, in the narrow circumstances of humble life. The Levitical economy had made provision for the poor, and the mother of Jesus availed herself thereof. Truly, there is a profound lesson in this for the human heart. The Lord Jesus did not make his appearance, in this world, in connection with the great or the noble. He was pre-eminently a poor man. He took His place with the poor. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” (2 Cor. 8: 9)
May it ever be our joy to feed upon this precious grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which we have been made rich for time and for eternity. He emptied Himself of all that love could give, that we might be filled. He stripped Himself, that we might be clothed. He died, that we might live. He, in the greatness of His grace, travelled down from the height of divine wealth into the depth of human poverty, in order that we might be raised from the dunghill of nature’s ruin, to take our place amid the princes of His people, for ever. Oh! that the sense of this grace, wrought in our hearts by the power of the Holy Ghost, may constrain us to a more unreserved surrender of ourselves to Him, to whom we owe our present and everlasting felicity, our riches, our life, our all!
1115. Ritual Cleanliness and Uncleanliness.
Leviticus 11, Animals; Leviticus 12, Childbirth; Leviticus 13, Skin diseases (including tainted garments); Lev 14:1-32, Purgation for skin diseases; Lev 14:33-57, Leprosy in houses, and general conclusion to the Law; Leviticus 15, Issues.
Probably to most modern readers, this section is the least intelligible in the book. We must consider it (a) in its ethnological and (b) its specifically Hebrew aspect, (a) These laws are properly taboos. The term is Polynesian, signifying what is in itself, or artificially, forbidden, either for the whole community, or else for common people, or priests, or kings (p. 629). Taboos may relate to places, or to the sexes, or to certain ages. Certain kinds of food may be taboo, universally, or as determined temporarily by a chief; individuals may be taboo to one anotherspeech with a mother-in-law is very widely forbidden, and also approach to ones wife after childbirth; or the wife must not pronounce her husbands name. In the Australian initiation ceremonies, speaking is taboo to the initiates for certain periods. The origin of taboo is still obscure. What is not customary comes in time to excite horror (cf. the varying laws of decency in different primitive tribes). This horror is felt to be religious, and it can be easily used by chiefs or priests, for selfish or for hygienic purposes. (b) Heb. practice shows a notable restriction in the institution. In early times a chief could temporarily impose a ban (Jos 6:18, 1Sa 14:24); and taboos are recognised on priests (Lev 10:6, etc.) and in connexion with animals, birth, and certain diseases. Why? From the nature of things, or for moral or hygienic or ritual reasons? The suggestion of Nature is an insecure guide, since taboos on animals (e.g, swine, holy animals among Greeks and Arabs) and actions (e.g. sexual rules) vary so widely. Morality will not explain taboos on animal flesh (save that perhaps some kinds of flesh may arouse passion) or the restriction on the young mother. Hygiene may explain some taboos; but why the restriction of food to animals Levitically clean, or why should a mother be unclean for forty days after the birth of a boy, eighty days after the birth of a girl? Ritual may explain some prohibitions, as of animals which were only used in heathen rites; it may be, as Bertholet suggests, that whatever is under the protection or power of an alien god is unclean or taboo (hence perhaps the rejection of horseflesh for food; horses were sacred among the heathen Saxons; camels are forbidden to Thibetan lamas). What, then, of the infected house? Probably all four reasons were operative; given the concept of things not to be associated with ordinary life, the class would grow by the addition of things which, for various reasons, were disliked. Note the traces of systemisation in the code. The connexion of the ideas underlying it with institutions so widespread in primitive thought shows that the law carries us back to a period far anterior to Moses, though the distinction between clean and unclean is not mentioned in Exodus 21-23. Clean must be distinguished from holy. The former is the condition of intercourse with all society; the latter of approach to God. Hence, there are grades of holiness; but uncleanness exhibits only differences of duration (until the evening, etc.). The holy and the unclean, however, are alike in being untouchable by man, though for different reasons; hence the Rabbinic phrase, used of canonical books, they defile the hands (p. 39). [We may infer from Hag 2:11-13 that the infection of uncleanness was more virulent than the infection of holiness. Holy flesh could convey holiness to the skirt but the skirt could not convey it to the food it touched. The corpse could convey uncleanness to the person who touched it, and he in turn could convey it to the food. The holy communicates its quality only to one remove, the unclean to two. The reason is apparently that the holiness of a holy thing is always derivative, since nothing is holy in itself but becomes holy only through consecration to God, the sole fount of holiness (p. 196). A thing may, however, be unclean in itself. There are therefore really four terms in the holy, only three in the unclean series in this passage; viz. (a) God, holy flesh, skirt, food; (b) corpse, man unclean through contact, food. Holiness and uncleanness are thus each infectious at two removes from the source, but no further.A. S. P.] The section is probably not original in this place; it breaks the connexion between chs. 10 and 16. Some parts are distinct from the rest, e.g. Lev 11:24-40, Lev 11:43-45; Lev 13:1-46 must have been originally distinct from Lev 14:3-20. A similar code is found in Deuteronomy 14. Probably Deuteronomy 14 is a copy of an older version of Leviticus 11, e.g. Dt. omits the cormorant (17). In one respect Lev. is milder than Dt. (contrast Lev 11:39 f. with Deu 14:21). Lev. adds the permission of leaping insects, and gives a special direction as to fishes.
LAWS CONNECTED WITH CHILDBIRTH
Every child born into the world adds to the sin that was first introduced by the woman. Yet God had told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28), and this instruction was not changed when they sinned, though God told the woman, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen 3:16). But each child born is a reminder that sin requires a sacrifice. So in Israel when a woman had borne a male child, she was to be unclean for seven days. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin was to be circumcised. The number eight signifies a new beginning, which takes place when the flesh is cut off, for the flesh profits nothing (Joh 6:63).
Then she was to remain 33 days in the blood of her purification (v. 4). She was not to touch anything that was consecrated to the service of God, nor enter the sanctuary, until her purification was complete. But if she should bear a female child, the time was twice as long, two weeks being unclean and 66 days of waiting until purification was accomplished. This stems from the fact that Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression (1Ti 2:14), and it is through the woman that the race of sinners is perpetuated.
In each case, however, when the time was completed, whether for a male or female, the mother was to bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering (v. 6). Notice here that there was no trespass offering, for it was not a matter of her having done anything wrong. But the sin offering deals with the sinful nature that is inherited by birth, so that this offering speaks of God having, by the cross of Christ, condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3). The burnt offering tells us that God’s glory is really the first consideration in this matter. When God is glorified and sin condemned, then the unclean is rendered clean (v. 7).
However, a provision of grace was made for one who was poor (v. 8). If she could not bring a lamb, then another young pigeon or turtledove would substitute for the lamb. Joseph and Mary took advantage of this provision for poverty, when presenting the Lord Jesus to God in the temple (Luk 2:22-24).
2. Uncleanness due to childbirth ch. 12
The laws of purification begun in this chapter connect in principle with the preceding ones that deal with unclean food and animals. The defilement dealt with in this group of laws (chs. 12-15) proceeded from the human body. Pollution could come from within the Israelite as well as from his or her environment. Contamination resulted in separation from the fellowship of the sanctuary and or fellow Israelites.
". . . at first sight no reason or rationale is apparent for the material selected in Leviticus 12. The subject matter of this chapter deals solely with the question of the impurity of childbirth. What was the ’logic’ of focusing on this particular topic at this point in the collection of laws? Many consider its placement here completely arbitrary. However, the details of the text as well as the larger structural patterns provide helpful clues about its purpose. For example, the terminology of Leviticus 12 alludes to the curse involving childbirth in Genesis 3. This suggests that beyond the parallels in Leviticus 11, the further arrangement of topics in Leviticus may also fit within the pattern of Genesis 1-11. If this be the case, then the purpose behind the narrative’s present structure may be to portray the spread of ritual defilement in Israel’s camp as a reversal of God’s original plan of blessing." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 39. He offered charts comparing the laws in Leviticus with the Flood and Babel stories in Genesis on pp. 40-41 and pp. 338-39.]
Two different situations caused uncleanness: moral transgression and ceremonial defilement. Moral transgressions caused spiritual defilement (moral uncleanness). However ceremonial defilement (ritual uncleanness) did not necessarily mean that the defiled person had sinned. Some practices that resulted in ceremonial uncleanness were not morally wrong in themselves, such as childbearing. Therefore we must not think "sinful" whenever we read "unclean." "Unclean" does not mean "sinful" but "impure." Impurity restricted the Israelite from participating in corporate worship at the tabernacle.
The ritual purification of the mother of a newborn son lasted a total of 40 days. For the first seven of these she was contagiously unclean. Even though she had not entered the sanctuary after the birth of her child, her presence in the camp had still contaminated the altar (cf. Lev 15:31). That is why she had to offer a sin (purification) offering. Her ritual uncleanness evidently resulted from the woman’s bodily discharge that followed the baby’s delivery (cf. Lev 12:4-5; Lev 12:7). The lochia is a discharge from the vagina that continues for several weeks after childbirth. For the remaining 33 days she was to remain separate from the sanctuary and anything holy. This period served the double purpose of allowing the new mother to regain her health and strength as well as her ritual purity. The Law did not regard a newborn child as unclean, and circumcision was not a purification rite for the child. The most extensive discussion of circumcision is in Gen 17:9-14, not Lev 12:3.
Keil and Delitzsch believed that the number 40 ". . . refers to a period of temptation, of the trial of faith, as well as to a period of the strengthening of faith through the miraculous support bestowed by God." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:161. Cf. Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 8:2; 1 Kings 19:8; Matthew 4:2.]
According to this explanation, the strengthening of her faith was the reason for the 40-day recovery period.
All these periods were twice as long if the woman bore a female child. One explanation for this difference is that in the case of a female child the mother had given birth to a sinner who would normally bring forth another sinner herself eventually. Another explanation is that God designed this distinction since "the superiority of their [male’s] sex . . . pervades the Mosaic institutions." [Note: Bush, p. 114.] Advocates see support for this viewpoint in the fact that the redemption price of women was about half that of men in Israel (Lev 27:2-7). Another possibility is that the distinction resulted from the curse on Eve and her sex that followed the Fall. [Note: Bonar, pp. 236-37.] Fourth, there is some medical evidence that the postnatal discharge (lochia) lasts longer in the case of a girl. [Note: D. I. Macht, "A Scientific Appreciation of Leviticus 12:1-5," Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):253-60.] If this was true in ancient Israel, this explanation may explain the difference. [Note: See Sprinkle, p. 644, for several other explanations, and the NET Bible note on 12:5.]
Why should a bloody discharge make someone "unclean"? If we apply the "normalcy" principle already observed to this legislation, we could conclude that bleeding suggested an unnatural condition to the Israelites. Loss of blood leads to death, the antithesis of a healthy normal life. Anyone losing blood is at least potentially in danger of becoming less than physically perfect and is, therefore, unclean. [Note: Douglas, p. 51.]
". . . blood is at once the most effective ritual cleanser (’the blood makes atonement,’ Lev 17:11) and the most polluting substance when it is in the wrong place. This is profound. Our greatest woes result from the corruption of our highest good, e.g., speech, sex, technology, atomic power." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 188.]
"Some commentators have found difficulty with this section of purification laws, since it appears to designate as unclean the act of childbirth that resulted from God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). Since children were regarded as a divine heritage and gift (Psa 127:3), and a fruitful woman was esteemed as blessed of God (cf. Psa 128:3), it would appear somewhat surprising for the birth of a child to be regarded as a circumstance that was sinful, and therefore needed atonement. The legislation, however, deals with the secretions that occur at parturition, and it is these that make the mother unclean. Thus the chapter should be read within the context of chapter 15, which also deals with bodily secretions." [Note: Harrison, pp. 133-34.]
"It was the sense of the sacredness of the tabernacle and temple space that made purification from moral and ritual impurity essential." [Note: Sprinkle, p. 654.]
Circumcision (Lev 12:3) was an act of obedience to God by the parents that demonstrated their faith in God’s promises to Abraham (Genesis 17). For many years people believed that circumcision was a hygienic practice. However some medical experts now dispute this theory claiming that the practice has little value in promoting good health. Nevertheless some medical studies have indicated that the eighth day after birth is the best time to circumcise a boy because his blood clots best then in his early development. [Note: See L. Holt Jr. and R. McIntosh, Holt Pediatrics, pp. 125-26.]
Some of Israel’s neighbor nations also practiced circumcision. However they did so as a puberty rite, mainly on adolescents. Apparently infant circumcision was peculiar to Israel. It precluded any licentious puberty ritual that the other nations may have observed as well as conveying a spiritual message about the faith of the parents. [Note: See Harris, p. 574.]
"This narrative tells us that as long as the woman was unclean, ’she must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary’ (Lev 12:4). This statement defines impurity with respect to the sanctuary (the tabernacle) and, more importantly, in terms of one’s acceptability within the worshiping community. Impurity is not defined in terms of a vague notion of taboo but in terms of acceptance or restriction from worship. The sense of impurity is thus defined with respect to the goal of the covenant and the goal of Creation . . . , that is, the worship of God." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 334. This author proceeded to point out parallels between the creation account and this chapter.]
The fact that Mary, the mother of Jesus, brought two birds for the offerings specified here (Luk 2:22-24) indicates that she and Joseph were poor (Lev 12:8). It also shows that she was a sinner since she offered a sin offering (Lev 12:8). God made provision so the poor could offer birds instead of a lamb for the burnt offering (cf. Lev 1:14-17; Lev 14:21-22).
"God’s holy nature demands that all who experience the physical aspects of this life (here the process of childbirth) must be sanctified to enter his presence." [Note: Ross, p. 273.]
THE UNCLEANNESS OF CHILD BEARING
Lev 12:1-8
THE reference in Lev 12:2 to the regulations given in Lev 15:19, as remarked in the preceding chapter, shows us that the author of these laws regarded the circumstances attending child birth as falling under the same general category, in a ceremonial and symbolic aspect, as the law of issues. As a special case, however, the law concerning child birth presents some very distinctive and instructive features.
The period during which the mother was regarded as unclean, in the full comprehension of that term, was seven days, as in the analogous case mentioned in Lev 15:19, with the remarkable exception, that when she had borne a daughter this period was doubled. At the expiration of this period of seven days, her ceremonial uncleanness was regarded as in so far lessened that the restrictions affecting the ordinary relations of life, as ordered, Lev 15:19-23, were removed. She was not, however, yet allowed to touch any hallowed thing or to come into the sanctuary, until she had fulfilled, from the time of the birth of the child, if a son, forty days; if a daughter, twice forty, or eighty days. At the expiration of the longer period, she was to bring, as in the law concerning the prolonged issue of {Lev 15:25-30} a burnt offering and a sin offering unto the door of the tent of meeting, wherewith the priest was to make an atonement for her; when first she should be accounted clean, and restored to full covenant privileges. The only difference from the similar law in chapter 15 is in regard to the burnt offering commanded, which was larger and more costly, -a lamb, instead of a turtle dove, or a young pigeon. Still, in the same spirit of gracious accommodation to the poor which was illustrated in the general law of the sin offering, it was ordered (Lev 12:8): “If her means suffice not for a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons; the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering.” The law then applied, according to Lev 15:29-30. A gracious provision this was, as all will remember, of which the mother of our Lord availed herself, {Luk 2:22-24} as being one of those who were too poor to bring a lamb for a burnt offering.
To the meaning of these regulations, the key is found in the same conceptions which we have seen to underlie the law concerning issues. In the birth of a child, the special original curse against the woman is regarded by the law as reaching its fullest, most consummate and significant expression. For the extreme evil of the state of sin into which the first woman, by that first sin, brought all womanhood, is seen most of all in this, that now woman, by means of those powers given her for good and blessing, can bring into the world only a child of sin. And it is, apparently, because we here see the operation of this curse in its most conspicuous form, that the time of her enforced separation from the tabernacle worship is prolonged to a period either of forty or eighty days.
It has been usual to speak of the time of the mothers uncleanness, and subsequent continued exclusion from the tabernacle worship, as being doubled in the case of the birth of a daughter; but it were, perhaps, more accurate to regard the normal length of these periods as being respectively fourteen and eighty days, of which the former is double of that required in Lev 15:28. This normal period would then be more properly regarded as shortened by one half in the case of a male child, in virtue of his circumcision on the eighth day.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary