Luke 2:21-24

The following are text excerpts from Volume I, chapters 7: “From Bethlehem o Nazareth: Transitional Journey,” pp. 130-133.

Click here if you would like to download the actual page excerpts from Volume I in a .pdf format.

LUKE 2:21–24 Jesus Is Presented and Circumcised at the Temple

21After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord”), 24and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

  1. Luke, a Gentile, goes to considerable lengths to describe the Holy Family’s obser­vance of Jewish law. What might be his purpose?

The Rites of Circumcision and Purification

Bethlehem was located about six miles from Jerusalem, the site of the temple. Going from one place to the other was not as difficult a journey as the earlier one, from Nazareth to Bethlehem, which Luke has already described. Nonetheless, it required the considerable efforts of Joseph and Mary, who were now charged with the responsibility of caring for a newborn around whom such great expectations hovered that it caused angels to sing. They make this further trip, even though they are already away from what Luke tells us is their home. They live without proper lodging in circumstances that can hardly be described as comfortable, or even normal. That they make the journey from Bethlehem to the Jerusalem Temple proves their devotion to the Judaic law, and their commitment to following the path that they believe they have been called to walk. In this way, we see that Joseph and Mary, like Zechariah and Elizabeth, are “righteous.”

Would Luke, our gentile evangelist, have offered this account had he not strongly believed that it was essential to maintain a connection to Judaic tradition? Perhaps this is his way of honoring the ancient people of God, even as he proclaims his story to a new people—previous strangers to Jewish ways.

Luke describes some of the Jewish customs and legal requirements. The circumcision of a boy was to occur at eight-days old, an ancient rite dating back to Genesis. This practice had its roots in the story of God giving Abram a new name, Abraham, and establishing circum­cision as marking a male’s entry into the covenant community (Gen. 17:9–14). By presenting Jesus at the temple for circumcision, Mary and Joseph honor the old ways and assure the child’s place in the community.

The circumcision requirement, and the requirement of a woman’s purification after giving birth, were codified at Leviticus 12:1–8:

1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:

2Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. 5If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days.

6When the days of her purification are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7He shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement on her behalf; then she shall be clean from her flow of blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, male or female. 8If she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on her behalf, and she shall be clean.

✝✝✝

Though only the mother was obligated to participate in the post-natal purification ritual, Luke speaks of “their” purification. Luke, a Gentile, may have misunderstood these technical requirements of the Hebrew law as being applicable to more than just the mother. Yet, his report serves as a reminder, inadvertent or otherwise, that the care of a child and participation in religious observance are more complete when the family as a whole participates.
Luke also treats the purification and circumcision dates as occurring simultaneously. Here, as well, he demonstrates a less-than-complete familiarity with the Levitical law. The quoted OT text shows that the new mother’s purification ritual was to occur forty days after the birth of a male child. The baby’s circumcision was to take place only eight days after his birth. Hence, the two rites were separated by a number of weeks.

There may be one more error to consider before completing what could become a tedious legal analysis. Jesus was presented and dedicated to God, as required of a first-born male. However, the law provided that such a child was to be “redeemed”—or “bought back,” as Professor Culpepper says—for five shekels of silver (Num. 18:15–16). There is no mention of the redemption payment in Luke’s summary. The failure to mention it, though, does not necessarily mean the payment wasn’t made. Since Mary and Joseph are depicted as observant Jews, we may assume they discharged their obligations under the law to the extent of their ability. It is likely that such a payment was made, though the text does not mention it.1

And, this notion of doing what they are able also tells us a little more about the Holy Family. Luke reports that the offering made for Mary’s purification was a “pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” tracking the OT edict of the new mother making a burnt offering and a sin offering, and the priest making atonement. Mary’s offering is the one allowed the poor, as two additional birds were a considerably less expensive sacrifice than a lamb, the preferred burnt offering for those who could afford it. Again, we see Luke identifying Jesus with the poor, not the rich.

  1. We have observed here how Luke, a Gentile, shows an imperfect understanding of the Judaic law. Yet, he honors that tradition to the extent of the knowledge and ability he does possess. Does Luke’s approach teach us something about effort rather than perfection? About the limits of knowledge? Does it tell us something about reaching beyond our own cultural conditioning and seeking common ground with other communities? How can we achieve these goals?
  2. Luke’s imperfect descriptions of Old Testament law show that the Bible is not completely consistent internally. Does that knowledge tend to weaken the basis of your faith? If so, can that “weakness” be turned into a strength? For instance, does the fact that even an evangelist can make a few mistakes, and still get his book in the Bible, liberate you in your own interpretive efforts? Can it help you to risk being wrong, knowing that God is more concerned with your conscientious commitment than with your unerring knowledge?
  1. Alternatively, one might argue that the omission is intentional—Jesus is not “bought back” because his consecration to God is complete. This interpretation, though theologically sound, is historically suspect. Since Luke has not shown a thorough knowledge of the details of Judaic law, it is fairly likely that he is unaware of the redemption provision, which is found in another book of the Hebrew Bible. [↩]