Leviticus 12:1

This little chapter is big in the difficulty of its interpretation. We have discovered practically no help from any source whatever in our efforts to unravel the mysteries of this remarkable chapter.

"And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 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. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 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. 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."

The appearance here of the "forty" and "double forty" time periods is interesting. To each of the Numbers 33 days (Leviticus 12:4) and 66 days (Leviticus 12:5), one must add the seven days of Leviticus 12:2 and the fourteen days of Leviticus 12:5, making totals of 40,80. When a male child was circumcised on the "eighth day," that day was reckoned with the 33. The highly symbolical meaning of the number "forty" is frequently apparent in the Bible. There were forty-day fasts by Elijah, Moses and Christ. There were forty years of penalty inflicted upon Israel in the matter of their wilderness sojourn. "Forty" days and nights of rain brought the Great Deluge upon mankind.

However, the matter of surpassing interest in this passage is the question of WHY double the days of purification were required for the mother of a female child, contrasting with only half that time for the mother of a man-child! A number of commentators such as Clements, Noth, and Gordon mentioned the diminished values that ancient societies placed upon girl children. Yes, it is true that ancient societies downgraded and despised female children, but there is no way to persuade a believer in Jesus Christ that Almighty God approved of such gross errors and honored them in the establishment of the rules mentioned here. No! That cannot be the case at all.

This is true, first of all, because the text itself forbids such a view. There was no difference in God's sight between the value of a male or female child. Why? Exactly the same offering was to be brought to God for either, a lamb a year old, or in cases of poverty, two-turtle doves, or two young pigeons. This equality in the required offering (Leviticus 12:6) proves that God held male and female children EQUALLY PRECIOUS in His holy sight!

In view of the naturalness, necessity, beauty and joy of childbirth, the question arises as to WHY any purification at all was required of the mother. Such a requirement must be lodged in the general sinfulness of mankind, who, in every pivotal relationship of life has always been required to acknowledge his sin and need of forgiveness from God. Note that in the purpose of the offering of the lamb, or the turtle-doves, that the object was not that of forgiving the infant, but of forgiving the mother (Leviticus 12:7). Failure to understand this vital fact has led to all kinds of wild speculations about ORIGINAL SIN. McGee and Kellogg, as well as others, have erred by their acceptance of such ideas. No sin of any kind attaches either to the female, or to the male child in this passage.

Although there is no trace whatever here of original sin, there is nevertheless, a connection and a remembrance of the original transgression, namely, that of the Fall of Mankind, and of the leading part taken in that primeval disaster by our mother Eve. It will be remembered that a part of the double curse placed upon Eve had to do with the pains of childbirth, and the 80-day period of purification here (twice that for a male child) required for purification of the mother in case of the birth of a female child, is merely an effective and perpetual reminder of the penalty executed upon Eve and upon her gender. Was it appropriate that this penalty should thus have been in remembrance throughout the days of the Mosaic law? Certainly, because when it was forever removed in Jesus Christ, the contrast would appear glorious. It is the glory of the Son of God that he was "born of woman," "born under the law." The shorter period of purification for the male child was an eloquent manner of speaking to all generations of that salvation which would still come to humanity through the birth of that One referred to in Revelation as "a son, a He-Man child!" (Revelation 12:5).

Efforts to de-sex the Bible have appeared in the current era, but the possibility of such efforts ever proving successful is nil. Sex is that of which life comes, and getting rid of it is impossible as long as life exists. The law of childbirth has not changed throughout the life of the race of Adam, and it is a safe postulation that it will never change.

"As in the days of the impurity of her sickness ... as in her impurity ..." These expressions in Leviticus 12:3 and Leviticus 12:5, are reference to the woman's menstrual cycle which also imposed upon her a period of uncleanness, and the double reference to it here indicates the connection between these ceremonies and the whole subject of childbearing.