Luke 2:22 and "her" or "their" purification"

Luke 2:22 in the KJV reads:

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.

Many modern translations do not read "her purification" but "their purification," including the following:

When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. (NRSV)

And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. (1995 NASB)

And then the days of their purification were completed to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. (Lexham)

The majority of texts reads “their purification” (του καθαρισμου αυτων) such as א A B L W Θ f^1.13 and the Majority text while “her purification” (του καθαρισμου αυτης) is supported by only one cursive text (76).

Commenting on this textual variant, Philip Comfort wrote:

The TR WH NU reading [“their purification”], though strongly supported, is puzzling because the law of Moses called for the purification of only the woman who gave birth (see Lev 12:6), not the husband or child. This problem prompted the variants listed above. The first [“his purification”] indicates that the baby Jesus was purified, the second [“the purification”] leaves the matter ambiguous, and the third [“her purification”] specifically identifies Mary. The third reading, supported by one late cursive manuscript (76), was adopted in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514) and several of Beza’s editions, which were followed by the KJV: “It is a remarkable instance of a reading which had almost no authority becoming widely adopted” (Plummer 1896, 63).

In defense of the TR WH NU reading, Luke may have considered the purification a family matter, involving both Mary and Joseph (the grammatical subjects of the verse). But commentators since Origen have tried to make “their” refer to Mary and Jesus (Fitzmeyer 1981, 424), arguing that the purification of Mary and the presentation of Jesus were considered as two aspects of the one “cleansing” (Marshall 1978, 116). (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament Manuscripts and how they relate to the major English Translations [Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008], 172, comments in square brackets added for clarification)

Max Thurian offered the following explanation for the use of “their purification”:

. . . Mary, as a faithful Jewess, would not wish to avoid the practice of the law, and she thus reveals, as St. Paul was to say of her, that ‘God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law in order that he might redeem those under the law’ (Gal. 4:4-5). Mary and Joseph were ready to fulfil the law with regard to Jesus because for them it would have been a moral sin not to have carried out an order of legal purification. On the other hand the Gospel speaks of their purification, as opposed to the law which only recognizes the purification of a woman ‘Her purification,’ (Lev. 12.6) Does the use of this plural mean that both Joseph and Mary are involved? That would appear strange since the man in this instance did not contract any impurity according to the law. Was it then a case of Mary and Jesus? The same difficulty arises. It seems more likely that the Gospel here refers rather to the whole religious law of purification to which men submit out of respect for the holiness of God and His demands, than the case of one or two people in particular, Mary and Joseph or Jesus. It is the whole age of law which is here referred to, and the religious act of the ascent to the Temple for the Presentation and Sacrifice. (Max Thurian, Mary Mother of all Christians [trans. Neville B. Cryer; New York: Herder and Herder, 1963], 98)

Some opponents of Roman Catholic Mariology argue that Luke 2:22-24 is a valid proof-text against the sinlessness (and, ipso facto, the Immaculate Conception) of Mary. While I am very critical of Catholic theology on this point, this is not a good argument and rests upon much eisegesis. For my refutation of an appeal to this as a valid proof-text against Catholic theology, see:

Mary's Offering in Luke 2 and How NOT to argue against the Immaculate Conception

Max Thurian: Mary being the "Mother of God" (Theotokos) does not necessitate the Other Marian Dogmas and Doctrines

Many Catholics tend to use Mary being the Mother of God as a justification for all the other Marian dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism, especially the Immaculate Conception (e.g., Christopher Ferrara used Ephesus [431 AD] proclaiming Mary being Theotokos as evidence for the Immaculate Conception in his debate against James White).

While Mary can be understood as the mother of God as she was the mother of Jesus, a divine person, and even the 1830 Book of Mormon referred to Mary as the “mother of God” (e.g., 1 Nephi 11:18), there is nothing in Mary being Mother of God or Theotokos (literally “God-bearer”) and/or the decree of the Council of Ephesus that necessitate the other dogmas and doctrines.

Max Thurian, then a Reformed Protestant with strong ecumenical leanings who would later convert to Roman Catholicism, was correct when he wrote:

The Ephesian dogma has an essentially Christological import. Mary is not called Mother of God in order that her person may be glorified, but for the sake of Christ, in order that the truth about Christ’s person should be plainly and clearly understood. (Max Thurian, Mary Mother of all Christians [trans. Neville B. Cryer; New York: Herder and Herder, 1963], 74)

For more on Mariology, see my book:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)

The other major dogmas and doctrines of Mariology that divide Latter-day Saints and Roman Catholics are discussed, including two chapters on the Immaculate Conception.

Cecil Andrews of Take Heed Ministries on the Conception of Jesus in Latter-day Saint Theology

Cecil Andrews of “Take Heed” Ministries has long embarrassed himself on the topic of “Mormonism” (see Answering Cecil Andrews on Salvation; Answering Cecil Andrews on the LDS Priesthoods; Cecil Andrews on Mormonism and the Nature of a "Cult")

Recently, he has been trying to revise the long-refuted claim that the Church teaches that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary to create the human body for Jesus. For refutations, see, for e.g.:

Refutation of "Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex" (cf. Did Brigham Young Deny the Virginal Conception of Jesus in October 1866? An example of Anti-Mormon Quote Mining)

I also discuss this in “Appendix 2: The Virginal Conception in Latter-day Saint Theology” in my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (pp. 184-207).

Alonzo L. Gaskill Refutes the Claim LDS Christology is "Arian"

I have addressed and refuted the false but, sadly, popular claim that Latter-day Saint Christology is “Arian”:

Is Latter-day Saint Christology "Arian"?

In his book comparing and contrasting Latter-day Saint theology and practices with those of Jehovah’s Witnesses (a group that do have an Arian Christology), Alonzo Gaskill wrote:

Latter-day Saints differ with Witnesses on the degree to which Jesus can be classified as God (with a capital G). Like Witnesses, some might call Mormons Arian because they see Jesus as subordinate to the Father. However, unlike Witnesses or Arians, Mormons do not see Jesus as “a god” or of “like substance with the Father.” On the contrary, the LDS take is that Jesus is fully divine, a full participant in the Godhead, and (in His post-resurrected state) fully like the Father in His nature, attributes, powers, glory, etc. Yes, Mormons see Jesus as placing Himself in subjection to the Father throughout His mortal ministry. However, they sense something changed with regards to His status at the point he was resurrected. The shift in Jesus’s language about Himself after the resurrection is frequently highlighted. For example, in Matthew 5:48, Jesus (prior to His death and resurrection) said to those living on the Eastern Hemisphere: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” However, after His resurrection, Jesus said to those on the Western Hemisphere: “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect” (emphasis added). In LDS theology, Jesus was one with the Father during His pre-moral and moral states. However, He was physically different than the Father during those periods—and He was entirely on His Father’s errand. Nevertheless, after His resurrection Jesus’s physical nature became as the Father’s, by which He assumed a status slightly different to that which He had previously had. He was now fully like the Father. (Alonzo L. Gaskill, Know your Religions, Volume 3: A Comparative Look at Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 66)

Does Revelation 20:1 teach a flat earth?

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. (Rev 20:1)

Rev 20:1 is a text used by proponents of a flat earth being a biblical doctrine (yes, such a movement still persists even today, sadly). Writing in response to this, Robert Sungenis wrote the following (note: Sungenis refers to the book of Revelation as the Apocalypse [a designation I prefer, too]):

The mere fact that the RSV puts "bottomless" and "pit" in the same sentence tells us immediately that the translators understood the phrase symbolically, since a "pit," in colloquial parlance, is not bottomless. The phrase "bottomless pit" is a common, although somewhat graphic, translation of the Greek αβυσσος, more commonly understood as "abyss." It appears nine times in the New Testament, but seven of them are in the Apocalypse of John (Lk 8:31; Rm 10:7; Ap 9:1, 2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1-2). The other two passages refer only to something that is deep. Luke 8:31, for example, use αβυσσος in reference to a lake into which the demon-possessed pigs were cast by Jesus. Romans 10:7 uses αβυσσος in reference to the place in which bodies are buried. Hence these two passages throw a dim light on translating αβυσσος as "bottomless pit," much less will it allow a flat-earther to use this symbolic passage to teach the Earth is flat. This is why most English translations render αβυσσος as "abyss," while the KJV and RSV are the only popular translations that render it "bottomless pit." The reason the majority of Bibles simply translate αβυσσος to "abyss" is that the exact meaning of the word is ambiguous. In general, it refers to a demote and unseen location that disallows movement and activity (e.g., as in Ap 20:1 in which Satan is chained so that he cannot move about; or as in Rm 10:17 in which a place of burial is one in which the dead are inactive). In the end, it does not refer to a "bottomless pit," per se, and thus there is no recourse for the flat-earther to claim that the Apostle John is contradicting a globe earth. (Robert A. Sungenis, Flat Earth/Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2018], 170-71)

Does the New Testament Teach an Ordained, Ministerial New Covenant Priesthood?

In a recent article, one liberal scholar and historian wrote the following against Latter-day Saint claims to authority:

For Latter-day Saints, one of the striking and surprising characteristics of the New Testament church is the almost complete absence of priesthood in its doctrine, structure and history. Certainly, there are references to priests and concepts related to priesthood, such as Sadducees, Levites, the Jerusalem temple and cultic worship (which was performed by priests). But these priests were usually not followers of Jesus or members of the early church. If we take a concordance of the King James Bible and look at all the uses of “priesthood” in the New Testament, we find that the word is not found in the Gospels or Acts, or in the letters of Paul. In fact, it is found in only two chapters in the entire New Testament: Hebrews 7 and 1 Peter 2. The concept of priesthood is not a key doctrine in the New Testament. It is barely mentioned, outside of Hebrews (and in that book, priesthood is applied only to Jesus). There was certainly a church structure in the early church and offices, but these were not viewed as priesthood offices. (Todd Compton, “’Prominent among the Apostles’: Women, Priesthood, and Position in the New Testament,” Restoration Studies volume XIX [2018]: 181-214, here, p. 196, emphasis added)

Compton’s claims are similar to those of Raymond Brown (whom he quotes in the article) and other liberals in Catholicism and other groups that, as with Latter-day Saints believe in an ordained, ministerial New Covenant Priesthood. However, Brown, as great a scholar he was on many issues, and Compton et al., are simply incorrect in their assessment of New Testament theology of the Priesthood and other topics.

For a book-length treatment showing the opposite to be true, see my book:

After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (2018)

Carol J. Schlueter on Hyperbole in the Pauline Epistles

Commenting on Paul’s use of hyperbole in his epistles and the difficulty in his original listeners in interpreting some of his texts, Carol J. Schlueter, in a book based on her PhD dissertation supervised by E.P. Sanders (a heavy-hitter if there was one in Pauline studies) wrote the following:

Paul’s exaggeration appears to have led to confusion in some of his churches. In 1 Cor. 5.9-13, Paul had written to the Corinthians about not associating with sexually immoral people, but the Corinthians were puzzled as to his exact meaning. Apparently they thought he meant the non-Christian people in Corinth but he really only meant immoral followers of Christ (1 Cor. 5.11). Within 1 Cor 5.9-13 there is a long list of derogatory words that cover every kind of unsavoury person: pornoi (‘sexually immoral persons’), pleonektai (‘coveters’), harpagai (‘swindlers’ or ‘rogues’), loidoroi (‘revilers’), methysoi (‘drunkards’) and eidololatrai (‘idolaters’). Paul advises his convers not to associate with a Christian who is such a person, Once he starts a list of vices, rhetorical momentum takes over, and a form of exaggeration results. The list seems to imply that there may have been members of the Christian community who were guilty of such transgressions. This is doubtful. How many swindlers, revilers and idolaters were actually in the church? These verses are indicative of Paul’s generalizing tendencies which, in this case, misled the Corinthians.

In some cases it can be shown that Paul was immediately conscious of having gone too far, or at least of having appeared to do so. In Romans 6-7 he parallels and so virtually equates the law with sin and the flesh (7.5-6). Subsequently, he asks whether or not he has implied that the law is sin. He denies it (7.7). Mē genoito as the reply to a rhetorical question frequently signals an overstatement, or at least a possible interpretation of his position.

Sometimes, it can be shown, Paul had greatly assisted in the over-interpretation. The vice lists indicate that those who commit various sins and remain in an unrepentant state will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 69-11; Gal. 5.19-21). But when he had to deal with individuals like the man in Corinth who was living with his stepmother, Paul softened his rhetoric. Perhaps the man in Corinth took view that ‘All things are lawful’ (1 Cor. 10.23) to its logical conclusion. Perhaps the man thought that Christians were already living in the eschaton, and as such they were new creations; the old had passed away (2 Cor. 5.17); and all things done unto the Lord were good (1 Cor. 10.23-31). Paul had contributed to the misunderstanding of what was appropriate behaviour.

We also see exaggeration when Paul describes his ethical theory. Those in Christ are a new creation (2 Cor. 5.17; Gal. 6.15). As such, they experience the indwelling Spirit who leads them to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8.1-13; Gal. 5; Phil. 1.11) and to fulfil the law through love for people (Rom. 8.4. But in actual fact his letters are filled with exhortations to live better lives, to be blameless for the day of Christ (Phil. 1.10; 1 Thess. 3.13). Thus, although some of Paul’s rhetoric sounds as if the fruits of the Spirit automatically follow the indwelling of the Spirit, he knew better. (Carol J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 91-92, emphasis added)

Such confusion in certain portions of Paul’s letters can’t help but remind one of the assessment of his epistles in 2 Pet 3:16, " . . . there are some things in them hard to understand . . . " (NRSV) It also blows holes into popular views of the nature of the “perspicuity” of the Bible, an important building block in Sola Scriptura (for more on this doctrine, see Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura). It also highlights the importance of sound exegesis and knowledge of ancient rhetoric and other important tools.