Was Jesus Purified in Luke 2:22?
Updated: Oct 1
Luke 2:22 contains an important textual difference between traditional and modern Spanish Bible translations. The KJV in English reads:
“And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished…
The American Standard Version, however, reads:
“And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled…”
The Reina-Valera 1960 (RV1960) follows the ASV and reads “la purificación de ellos” (their).
The Reina-Valera Gómez (RVG) follows the traditional reading and refers to “ella” (her).
The question is therefore straightforward: Was Jesus included in the purification ceremony described in Luke 2:22, or was it Mary alone who needed purification? I believe that “her purification” is obviously the correct reading. Let's look at the reasons why.
Jesus did not need to be purified
One of the primary arguments is that the passage does not present a doctrinal problem because the purification mentioned in Luke 2:22 was ceremonial rather than purification from personal sin. Defenders of the RV1960 explain that the purification was required after childbirth and that it should not be understood as Mary being purified from personal sin. It is argued that Jesus' circumcision and presentation related to obedience to the Law, symbolism, and His identification with sinners rather than with personal sin.
At first, this argument may sound reasonable. But there is a significant problem. The purification ceremony was itself symbolic of cleansing from sin. We know this because it included a sin offering. If Jesus was included in the purification, even if we say that His purification was merely ceremonial, then His participation would still symbolically associate Him with the purification from sin.
Scripture teaches the opposite of what this symbolism would represent. Jesus Christ was completely without sin. 1 Peter 1:19 states:
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
Hebrews 4:15 teaches that Christ was tempted in every way as we are, “yet without sin.” And 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin…”
Christ did not need to be purified from sin because He was the spotless Lamb of God. In fact, Christ is the One who purifies us. Hebrews 9:14 states:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
The Old Testament purification ritual pointed toward the cleansing that Christ Himself would accomplish. Therefore, it makes little sense to place Jesus on the receiving end of a purification ritual symbolizing cleansing from sin. Jesus did not need to be purified, even symbolically. He was the purifier.
The Law required only the mother to be purified
The second problem for the defenders of the RV1960 is that the Old Testament itself tells us who was required to undergo the purification ritual. Leviticus 12:2-6 describes the purification required after childbirth:
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. 6 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 turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
Notice the repeated emphasis in this passage: she. The Law does not say that the newborn child needed to undergo this purification ritual. It does not say that the child needs the sin offering. The mother was the one who was ceremonially unclean and required purification.
Jesus certainly underwent circumcision on the eighth day, as Luke 2:21 records. But circumcision was a separate requirement and was connected to the Abrahamic covenant. It was not the same ritual as the purification offering described in Leviticus 12 and did not involve the sin offering.
The traditional reading of Luke 2:22 is obviously the correct reading because it agrees with the Old Testament passages. When the days of her purification had been completed, they brought Jesus to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. This fits perfectly with the Old Testament background.
The Argument of Physical Contact is Flawed
Instead of just accepting that “their purification” is an error and that the traditional reading is correct, defenders of the RV1960 try to justify a possible purification ceremony for Jesus. Some attempt to answer this contradiction by appealing to other passages concerning ceremonial uncleanness.
Leviticus 15:19 says that when a woman was unclean, anyone touching her would be unclean until evening. Some RV1960 defenders reason that because Mary would naturally have physical contact with the newborn Jesus, the child would logically remain ceremonially unclean along with her until the purification ceremony was completed. But this is speculation. The Law specifically tells us what was required after childbirth. God knew that a mother would care for and touch her newborn child. Yet when God gave the Law, He specifically placed the purification requirement upon the mother and not on the child.
We cannot simply add a requirement for the child that God did not give. Proverbs 30:6 warns:
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The fact that Jesus would naturally have physical contact with His mother does not establish that He therefore needed the purification ceremony of new mothers. The Law does not say that He did. To try to invent this requirement to justify a corrupt reading in your favorite Spanish Bible is not wise.
The Manuscript Evidence Does not Prove that "them" is correct
The next argument concerns the Greek manuscript evidence. Some defenders of “their purification” point out that a majority of Greek manuscripts contain the reading translated “their,” and note that some editions of the Received Text also contain this reading.
It is true that some Greek manuscripts read “them.” There are also manuscripts and ancient versions that contain “her.” Some early editions of the Received Text likewise contained “them.” But the fact that an erroneous reading appeared in an old edition does not make that reading correct. The history of the Received Text itself demonstrates this. Early editions of Erasmus, for example, contained readings that were later corrected in subsequent editions. One well-known example is 1 John 5:7, which was absent from the first two editions of Erasmus and later appeared in subsequent editions.
The fact that an early edition contains an erroneous reading does not mean that we are required to preserve that erroneous reading forever. Errors can and should be corrected.
In the case of Luke 2:22, the KJV translators used “her” because that is the correct reading that is also supported by manuscript evidence. The Spanish textual tradition likewise testifies to “her” being the correct reading. The original Biblia de Oso of 1569, for example, refers specifically to the purification of Mary, and the Valera 1602 likewise has “her.”
The issue cannot be settled simply by noting that many Greek manuscripts say ‘them.’ The question is which reading is correct? And the context of the Law clearly shows that the correct reading is “her.”
Both readings cannot be correct
RV1960 defenders say that this is an example of a difficult textual decision. Their reasoning is essentially that one reading has stronger manuscript support while the other seems to fit the theology and context better. Therefore, they argue, the decision is not necessarily easy. Often they will use terms like “acceptable textual variant” to describe these corrupt readings and argue that we should accept them as equally valid.
But this approach presents a serious problem. There are not two equally valid Bibles. There are not two equally correct readings. One reading is correct and one reading is incorrect.
And in this case, the context is extraordinarily important. Leviticus tells us only the mother needed purification. Luke describes the fulfillment of those days. Jesus was sinless. The purification ceremony symbolized cleansing. And Jesus Himself is the One who provides cleansing from sin. All of these facts point in the same direction. “Her” is the correct reading.
The RV1960 changed the traditional reading to follow corrupt English Bibles
There is another important issue that should not be overlooked. The Reina-Valera 1909 from which the RV1960 was revised reads:
Y como se cumplieron los días de la purificación de ella…
The RV1909 followed the traditional reading “her purification.” Why, then, did the RV1960 change it? According to José Flores in El Texto del Nuevo Testamento:
One principle added to the first list of the RV 1960 revision committee was that wherever the RV1909 Version has departed from the Textus Receptus to follow a better text, we did not return to the Receptus. Point 12 of the working principles states: in cases where there is a doubt over the correct translation of the original, we consulted preferentially The English Revised Version of 1885, The American Standard Version of 1901, The Revised Standard Version of 1946, and the International Critical Commentary. Flores also explains that where there was uncertainty concerning the original translation, the committee consulted English revisions such as the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version, as well as the International Critical Commentary.
This is significant because the ASV, RSV, and ERV all read “their purification.” Therefore, the RV1960's reading should not be presented as though the committee simply encountered an impossible textual dilemma and painstakingly arrived at “their.” They were simply following the corrupt English Critical Text versions.
Conclusion
The reading “their purification” as found in the RV1960, ASV, RSV, and others creates a theological and contextual difficulty that is unnecessary when the traditional reading, “her purification,” is followed.
The KJV has “her.” The Reina Valera Gómez has “her.” Jesus did not need to be purified. The purification in Luke 2:22 refers to Mary's purification, not Jesus' purification. The reading “her” is correct.
The RV1960's “their” should not be defended merely because it has manuscript support. An error does not become truth because it appears in many manuscripts. We do not need to justify the error. We need to recognize it and correct it. Thankfully the Reina Valera Gómez Spanish Bible has done just that.
