Why was a mother unclean for 7 days for giving birth to a boy, but she was unclean for 14 days for giving birth to a girl?

Critics point out that mothers were doubly unclean for having a girl. From this, they infer that girls were generally less clean than boys. Is this the case?

We can offer a number of responses to help explain this difficulty:

First, the mother was not sinful for having a girl. The issue is being clean or unclean—not sinful or sinless. The burnt offering came first followed by the sin offering—not the other way around. Rooker writes, “The order of the offerings in Leviticus 12 suggests that the personal sin of the mother is not the issue.”^[1] Furthermore, boys and girls were not unequal. The sacrifices were identical. Rooker writes, “This observation supports the view that the male and female infants as well as male and female adults were considered equal in value before God.”^[2]

Second, the baby boy was circumcised on the eighth day. If the baby boys were considered unclean after seven days, they wouldn’t have been able to be circumcised on the eighth day. Medically, the best time to be circumcised is eight days after conception, because Vitamin K levels are at their highest.^[3] While the boys were recovering from circumcision, the baby girls were allowed to rest, as well.

Third, this could be a sign of protection for infant girls—rather than inferiority. By being called unclean, this provided rest for the mother. If she was unclean, she would not be required to work around the home or travel to the sanctuary to make an offering.^[4] Travel would have been very strenuous for a young mother. Moreover, by being called unclean, this would prevent the spread of childbed fever, which took many lives back then.^[5] The mother may have rested longer, because they protected girls more in their culture. If a modern woman was given four days to rest in the hospital, rather than two, we wouldn’t consider this an act of bigotry. In fact, we’d probably consider it an act of favoritism.

Fourth, the discharge of blood made the mother unclean. The text states that blood was the focus of the uncleanness: “She will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood” (v.7). This is because life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). Harrison^[6] and Rooker^[7] speculate that the mother and daughter would both (eventually) discharge blood on their menstrual cycles. Under this view, the sacrifice was doubled because it anticipated the daughter having her monthly cycle one day.

Fifth, this could be a polemic against fertility cults in the ancient Near East. In pagan religions, sex, pregnancy, and child sacrifice served to “worship” the fertility deities. But by having the mother excluded from the Tabernacle/Temple, this would create distance “between fertility and the worship of God.” Consequently, this would communicate that “God was not at all subject to processes of procreation as were the deities in pagan beliefs, but he in fact is the one who blesses with new life.”^[8]

^[1] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 184.

^[2] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 185.

[3] See Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, “Moses and Preventative Medicine,” Bibliotheca Sacra (July–September 1990): 277.

^[4] Harris writes, “Being unclean she could not do the cooking or keep the house.” R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 574.

^[5] Harris writes, “It is possible that such a provision would help prevent the spread of childbed fever, which in former days took so many lives. If the mother was unclean, presumably any midwife would have to wash in water and be unclean until the evening, which might help prevent the direct transmission of this disease.” R. Laird Harris, “Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 574.

^[6] R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 138–139.

^[7] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 183.

^[8] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 183–184.