Take the 2-minute tour ×

God could have entered into the world as Jesus by any number of ways, including appearing as a grown adult Jesus or as an infant via a miracle, but instead God chose to impregnate Mary through her ear (Catholics say) and dwell in her uterus for 9 full months.

Not too long before this, when Moses received the 5 books of the Old Testament and the Commandments, some written in the hand of God using his own words, containing a number of passages outlining laws equating the touching of a menstruating woman with touching the dead, something forbidden to the Jewish tribe who are rabbis. Pages are devoted to procedures on how one can disinfect and un-curse oneself after such contact. After painstakingly explaining to the Jews about the uncleanliness and dangers of even touching a menstruating woman, why is God immediately jumping into Mary's uterus and dwells within this most unholy (as described by God) location , and for 9 months (while taking only 7 days to create the universe and all within it).

Question: If a woman is a vessel of sin whose presence can desecrate a whole ritual due to her menstrual uncleanliness, and whose mangy hands are no better than a corpses (God's words in 3rd book I think) and contact with her should be avoided at all costs, why did God decide to spend around 270 days right at the very epicenter of menstrual activity as baby Jesus and come into the world in the same blood and liquids that priests can't be near to before sacrifice or otherwise that sacrifice would be rejected by God as unclean and foul?

Summarize: (Why reject offering from hands of a priest touched by a menstruating woman as blasphemous, polluted and unclean when it seems God enjoys going for lengthy 'swims' in the very same polluted "waters"for months at a time.)

Edit: Pregnant through the ear: Mary becomes pregnant when the angel Gabriel comes and announces it to her- therefore her pregnancy must have something to do with the faculty of hearing. In the early church, the breath of the Holy Ghost was supposed to have entered her ear- this was actually held to be true by many of the church Fathers, including Pope Felix. Mystics who have written on the subject include St Augustine and St Agoband- and Bernard of Clairvaux. (written by Karen on http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/boardarchives/2001/sep2001/ears.html ) but you can Google and see other sources.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Bye, Andrew Leach, Narnian, DJClayworth, Affable Geek Feb 4 '14 at 19:39


This question appears to be off-topic because it is about an opinion as to why God does what he does. –  Bye Feb 4 '14 at 17:30
God did what he did; speculation is pointless. Although Mary could not have said "Yes" if there was no pregnancy for her to agree to. Perhaps, too, it's the beginning of the New Covenant and the end of the Old Law: Do not call unclean what I have called clean. –  Andrew Leach Feb 4 '14 at 17:56
@NickNo Are you aware that menstruation does not happen during pregnancy? That would pretty much seem to invalidate your entire question. –  DJClayworth Feb 4 '14 at 18:44
Doh! @davidstratton you beat me to it! (Couldn't see the comment on my phone) –  Affable Geek Feb 4 '14 at 19:41
@nickno Moses received the Torah probably 1200 to 1500 years before Christ. That isn't "not too long before" –  Affable Geek Feb 4 '14 at 19:42

2 Answers 2

Indeed, Jesus did many things which could be regarded as somehow improper for God to do, even without reference to specific tenets of the Torah.

  • He became incarnate as a human being.
  • At various times, he came into contact with dead bodies, people with hemorrhages, lepers, etc.
  • He was betrayed, arrested, beaten, nailed to a cross, and he died.

The Gospel declares that all of this was the most wonderful, perfect and unexpected thing that God could have done. God cannot be sullied by the "unclean" but makes it clean by his presence. This is redemption and the coming of the Kingdom. It does what the pursuit of ritual purity and Temple sacrifices could not do.

Compare the statement of faith in Philippians 2:5-11,


and also Romans 8:3,


There are so many iterations of this idea in the NT that you may as well just read the whole thing. In any case, the Incarnation is no different. Augustine writes:

God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My Birth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain, and yet not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied. 1

The fourth-century hymn Te Deum likewise says:

When you took it upon yourself to deliver man, you did not abhor the Virgin's womb.
Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem, non horruisti Virginis uterum.

(The line was adopted into the English translation of O Come, All Ye Faithful / Adeste Fideles, where it is probably better known these days. The original doesn't have any "abhor" language but just says that Jesus was gestant puellae viscera, carried in the flesh of a virgin.)

The Gospel narrative about the Incarnation doesn't quite explain this doctrinally, but the overall sentiment is very clear. In Mary's Magnificat she says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant" (Luke 1:46ff). What we may see as lowly or even unclean, God has hallowed and made glorious.

1. Contra Quinque Haereses, ch. 5. Quoted by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3.31.4 ad 3 and translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920.

share|improve this answer

You do know that a pregnant woman stops menstrating for the duration of the pregnancy, right? As such, Mary wasn't ritually unclean.

As to women being inherently sinful, you just made that up.


Galatians 3:28

share|improve this answer
"you just made that up" might be an overstatement. It might be a conclusion (albeit incorrect) that he just didn't bother to explain. –  mojo Feb 5 '14 at 4:28
I disagree. There is no difference between the location where the fertilized egg attaches and the source of menstrual blood. Both are called placenta. So in essence , 9 months was spent attached to a clot of menstrual blood. –  NickNo Feb 5 '14 at 12:02
@AffableGeek Please google "inherently sinful nature", and the quarter million pages of results will refresh your memory as to the Church doctrine regarding the Original Sin and may you be forgiven for being a false witness against me and for accusing me falsely of inventing falsehoods. –  NickNo Feb 5 '14 at 12:15
@NickNo please be respectful of our users. Thanks. –  wax eagle Feb 5 '14 at 13:12
