If Any Passage of Scripture Could Be Arguably Sexist, This Might Be It. Or Perhaps Not.

Laws Concerning Childbirth

Leviticus 12

Leviticus 12:1- 8

¹Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ² “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying:

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. ³ On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. ⁴ Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. ⁵ But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

⁶ ‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one-year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. ⁷ Then he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female. ⁸ But if she cannot afford 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; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

Thoughts on the Passage

My initial thought in reading this passage this time around was that if ever there was a portion of Scripture that the women’s lib movement could call sexist, this was it.

At face value, the passage clearly distinguishes between having a male and a female child. When a male child is born, the woman is ‘unclean’ for seven days and then she remains unwashed for thirty-three days, not allowed to touch any consecrated thing nor enter into a place of worship during that time. Meanwhile, the son will have been circumcised on the eighth day.

If the woman has a female child, she is deemed unclean for twice as long (two weeks) and also remains unwashed for twice as long (sixty-six days).  One assumes the restrictions for that period are the same as for when she has a male child.

When those respective periods are over, the mother is to somehow acquire a one-year old lamb and take it to the priest for burnt offering, as well as a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.  The priest offers these to God and makes atonement for her (I suppose for having a child, or perhaps for being unclean), after which she is or can be cleansed from her blood. 

The passage ends with the provision to double up on the pigeons or doves if the woman cannot afford to purchase a one-year old lamb. Throughout the entire chapter there is no mention of the father or husband. One can easily see the argument that anti-sexists can make.

In the New Testament, in Luke chapter 2, verse 24 we read that Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the end of her period of purification, after having given birth to Jesus, offered a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons for the sacrifice that needed to be made. This was an indication that young Joseph and his wife were not from a wealthy family.

Now let’s see what we can make of this whole passage:

Robert Jamieson writes (regarding the days of the mother being purified), “Though the occasion was of a festive character, yet the sacrifices appointed were not a peace offering, but a burnt offering and sin offering, in order to impress the mind of the parent with recollections of the origin of sin, and that the child inherited a fallen and sinful nature.”

David Guzik has many good thoughts on this passage.  He writes:

“The commanded time of ceremonial impurity should not be regarded as a negative attitude towards birth or childbearing on God's part. God commands childbearing, in that man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), children are regarded as a gift from God (Psalm 127:3), and a woman with many kids is considered blessed (Psalm 128:3).

“The key to understanding this ceremony is to understand the idea of original sin. As wonderful as a new baby is, God wanted it to be remembered that with every birth another sinner was brought into the world, and the woman was here symbolically responsible for bringing a new sinner into the world. Perhaps just as importantly, the time of ceremonial impurity gave the new mother a time of rest and seclusion.” Something that might be welcomed by many.

On the issue of why the purification time requirements were twice as long for a female child, Guzik suggests the following:

“The longer period of ceremonial uncleanness for the birth of a daughter should not be understood as a penalty. Instead, it is linked to the idea stated in the previous verses – that the time of impurity is for the symbolic responsibility of bringing other sinners into the world. When giving birth to a female, a mother brings a sinner into the world who will bring still other sinners into the world.”  I understand how, when many have thrown out the idea of sin altogether today, this would not make a lot of sense.  But I believe, symbolically, what Guzik offers here is a possible explanation of the passage.

Guzik also tells us that some “also suggest the longer period of time in connection with the birth of a girl was because girls are usually smaller at birth, and this would allow more time for the mother's focused care and attention on the child. As well, since sons were more prized, the longer time at home for a mother with a newborn girl would force the family to bond more deeply, over a more extended period of time.” Perhaps.

Matthew Henry on the other hand, offers no reason for the difference in treatment between a male and female child, except for “the will of the Maker” since God created them male and female from the beginning, as equals. I personally like Guzik’s efforts to at least attribute some cause to God’s deliberate distinctions here, even if as humans, we may never know fully what God had in mind. Suffice it for me that there is an explanation.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.