Why Did Mary Offer a Sin Offering? [Ecumenical]

BlackCordelias ^ | July 13, 2009 | BFHU

[NYer]

Q. Mary, like every other Jew of her time, was born under law. In other words, under the old covenant, she had to obey the 10 Commandments and all the ceremonial laws given by God through Moses. For example, we see her observing the pregnancy and childbirth laws here:

(Luke 2:22-24) When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord She must also bring to the priest a lamb for a burnt offering and a dove for a sin offering. The priest will then offer them to the Lord to make atonement for her.

A. The above quotation of Luke is inaccurate Here is what the NIV actually says:

When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.

Q. Now, if Mary was always pure and sinless, why did she go through the purification period? Why did she offer a sacrifice for sin to the priest? Why would the priest need to make atonement for her to cleanse her?

Leviticus 12:1-8 The LORD said to Moses, ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period… . 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering

A. These are very good and very legitimate questions. Of course, being ceremonially unclean is not equivalent to being sinful. The laws here are going to apply to everyone. They would not have written these laws with one immaculate virgin in mind. But scripture does seem to indicate in Luke, that Mary offered a sin offering.

Good point about Mary’s sin offering. But the Catholic reply would be that she offered the sin offering out of humility and to avoid scandal and to fulfill all righteousness, (Mt. 3) just as her Divine Son was baptized in the Jordan by John. John’s baptism was for repentance and yet we both agree Jesus did not need to be baptized b/c He did not need to repent of any sin. And yet He submitted to baptism. And Mary offered the sin offering according to the Law. Both fulfilled all righteousness in humility.

Q. As we have seen, Mary was born under law and she observed the Law of Moses with regard to pregnancy and childbirth. But the Bible says that no one can become righteous in God’s sight by observing the law. In fact, the purpose of the law is to increase sin in man and show man his utter sinfulness, hopelessness and, hence, need for God’s grace.

If Mary was born without sin and never sinned, it would mean that she perfectly obeyed the entire Law of Moses (the 10 Commandments and more than 360 ceremonial laws) in thought, word and deed, all of the time, and thus, achieved righteousness by the law!

A. No, she did not achieve righteousness by the law. She was righteous from her conception by the power of God. And yes, she kept the entire law.

Q. So, Mary did not need “the righteousness from God, apart from the law” that “comes through faith in Jesus Christ”? In other words, she did not need Jesus to die for her sins because she had none — she was not a sinner!

A. She certainly did need Jesus to save her. True, she was not a sinner but she certainly DID have faith in Jesus Christ her Divine Son. She was the first believer. She was saved by Jesus from sin BEFORE she sinned by a unique grace of God Almighty. Surely God could do this if He wanted to do it. Just as Jesus’ death saves all people, even those who lived and died before His incarnation, so His salvation through His death and resurrection was applied to Mary before it actually happened in time.

Q. Matthew 11:11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Even the most “insignificant” Christian is greater than the most prominent Old Testament prophet! To be made righteous by the blood of Christ, to be born again as a child of God, and to know Jesus as Lord and Saviour, is far better than being a mighty Old Testament prophet who is not walking in the New Covenant.

A. And Our Blessed Mother would most definitely fall into this category. So, she too, as a Christian and in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist.

Q. Jesus said that “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist”.

A. This must be referring to OT people. Because Jesus also was born of woman and yet we both agree He is the greatest of all.

Q. So, if anyone is to be put on a pedestal, why have the Catholics chosen Mary instead of the greater John the Baptist?

A. Because she is the mother of Our Lord and unlike Eve, she was perfectly obedient to God.

Q. I mean no disrespect to Mary or John the Baptist. But Christians should merely give them the same honour and respect they give to any Christian. Only Jesus is to be exalted above all!

A. Jesus is exalted above all. We worship Him. We honor Mary for who she is we do not worship her.

Q. Jesus’ response when someone called Mary blessed: Luke 11:27,28 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

The woman in the crowd was impressed with Jesus’ teaching, but, she gave the glory to Mary. Jesus’ response did two things. It shifted the focus from one person—Mary—to ANYONE who hears the Word of God and obeys it. This, in turn, puts Mary on equal footing with anyone who hears the Word of God and obeys it.

A. True. And, of course, Mary also heard the word of God and obeyed it. All who do this are blessed just as Jesus said. This is true. I would submit that Jesus’ response did redirect the woman’s focus from honoring His mother to the necessity that this woman attend to her own salvation. But, it in no way indicates that Mary is thus equal in every way to any Christian who hears and obeys Jesus regardless of the perfection of their obedience. But she would be equal to any Christian who believed and obeyed perfectly.
In closing , I would like to say that you have submitted some very good and thoughtful questions. I have also submitted to you a different way to understand the same scriptures. I hope you can see that it is possible to interpret the same scriptures differently. This is the very reason there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations.

The basic difference between Protestant interpretation of scripture and Catholic is that for us the Faith existed before the NT scriptures were written down. So the NT is a product of the Catholic Faith and is not contrary to any of our beliefs and doctrines.

For instance, no one in the Catholic Church sat down and read the Angelic salutation in Luke 1–”Hail Full of Grace..” thought it over and said, “I know, this must mean that Mary was sinless, immaculate from the first instance of her conception!”

If the Catholic Church had done that Protestant derision would be deserved. But no, that is not why we cite this verse. The Catholic Church has always believed in the immaculate conception of Mary. This was never seriously questioned until some time after the Protestant Reformation. (Even Luther believed in her immaculate conception.)We cite this verse in response to Protestant demands for scripture. And because we know that Protestants will only consider scripture Catholics give the scriptural evidence we have for our beliefs. Protestants will then often scoff because they think we derived our doctrine and dogma from what seems to them insubstantial scriptural evidence. But as I said above, our doctrines do not come out of scripture in the same way Protestants derive their doctrine. Our doctrine comes directly from the teaching of Jesus to the apostles to us.

On the other hand, Protestants, 1500 years later, read scriptures and then decide what is to be believed based on their own private interpretation.

By the way this is proscribed in

2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

The reason I am Catholic is that for many scriptures there are more than one way to interpret them. I have decided that the oldest Church, the one that can trace her origin back to the apostles, founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, is the one church most likely to KNOW how the scriptures should be interpreted.

Protestant individuals, 1500 – 2000 years removed from the events in the NT, are pretty much on their own. Their hope is that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth but this has not been the case since the differences in Protestant interpretation has spawned thousands of different denominations in direct opposition to Jesus’ desire that we all be ONE.

[annalex]

Well, it is strictly speaking an inference. There is no scripture that says “Mary was free from sin and had no other children”. We are supposed to think as well as read, no?

This is just as much an inference as the Trinity is the inference. There is not scripture that says “God is one in three Persons”. The idea that unless there is a clear scriptural prooftext is itself am extrascriptural, in fact, counterscriptural inference.

You are incorrect that the sinlessness, as well as perpetual virginity of Virgin Mary is not held by the Orthodox. They have objections to the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Their objection is not based on what is ar os not stated in the Holy Scripture, but rather to the manner in which it was adopted by the Church in Rome. At times, they also miscast the doctrine, which is unfortunate but has nothing to do with our argument here.

I agree that the doctrines must be checked by the Scripture. That happens to be a Cathoic teaching as well.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Specific words for “nephew” etc. exist, but it doesn’t mean they are used unless the precise relationship is the focus of the speech.

So your position is that it is not definitive that Jesus had literal brothers and sisters from Mary; He may have, He may not have. The scripture is inconclusive?

How we know that Mary had no other children? We infer it.

And what scripture provides the basis for that inference?

First, theologically, as the totality of human fulfillment inherent in the choice of being the virginal Mother of God would seem to preclude other familial ambition.

That is simply a statement, not a reason. You infer that Mary is virginal because your theological statement says she is virginal.

Second, if Jesus had blood relatives, why would St. John the Evangelist chosen as caretaker?

Why not Joseph's family? Or Mary's sisters, or other relatives? In fact, your own position - they were cousins, not brothers and sisters - would run counter to your own claim that Jesus did not have blood relatives.

Jesus chose John for symbolic reasons, I submit. John was not needed to take care of her physically; John was needed to care for her spiritually. Jesus named them mother and son spiritually, to tend to each others spiritual needs.

Thirdly, it doesn’t seem that the purpose of the marriage of Mary to Joseph was to make babies anyway. When Archangel announces to Mary, she seems perplexed by the suggestion that she would become pregnant by anyone. “I know not man”, she replies. How many young brides do you know who marvel at the idea that they would soon give birth to a great man? She had never intended to be a mother, or to be a consummated wife.

Ummm, Mary and Joseph weren't married when the angel appeared; they were engaged. Mary and Joseph - being good Jews - would not have consummated marriage because they were not yet married. Mary was perplexed because she had not even married, let alone slept with her husband-to-be!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I agree that the doctrines must be checked by the Scripture. That happens to be a Cathoic teaching as well.

Unless that doctrine is ex cathedra, such as the eternal chastity of Mary, or her sinless nature. According to the Catechism there can be no question; the debate is over.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Great!

Now if only we could get rid of that annoying 7th inning stretch tradition of singing ‘Take me out to the ballgame’ - as if baseball games aren’t long enough!

[delacoert]

If we went through the entire list of Papal Bulls, when all is said and done, it still would not establish the assertion that a Catholic believer is not allowed to interpret and receive from scripture in his own life.

If a Catholic were to look at Gen. 8:1 and believe that it assures him that God remembers him and his whole family in the midst of a great trial, he is not prohibited to interpret and have faith that it is so, even though no theologian may have interpreted it precisely that way.

On the other hand, Catholics, like Protestants may run into some difficulties with the authorities in their church if they proclaim an interpretation of scripture that is counter to accepted doctrine. In either case, it is likely that they will be told to hush up and repent. And again, in either case, excommunication would not be the first response to error.

[bdeaner]

According to the Catechism there can be no question; the debate is over.

Correct. Ex Cathedra teachings are not up for debate among Catholics. They are considered infallible, and their rejection is heresy, the result of which is excommunication.

Protestants similarly hold that canonized Scripture is infallible and that their rejection is not up for debate. The Catholic Church simply has an expanded conception of the Word which includes inspired, ex cathedra teachings of the Magisterium--teachings which cannot and never have contradicted Scripture -- which is not to say that there are not alternative interpretations, but such alternatives are considered heretical. Note, however, that Church teachings do not add to Scripture; they are teachings on the Scriptures.

[delacoert]

hehe

I like to go get a hotdog (with a bazillion others) at the 7th inning stretch. If only everyone else would just stand there and sing, I could get that hotdog before the 8th inning starts.

[delacoert]

Time for me to call it a night.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Note, however, that Church teachings do not add to Scripture; they are teachings on the Scriptures.

Then what is the scriptural basis for the sinless nature of Mary and the denial of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? These infallible positions would be in addition to the scriptures, if there isn't a scriptural basis for them, correct?

[annalex]

Yes, from Scripture alone we cannot conclude that Mary had no other biological children. We cannot, however, conclude that she definitely had them. It is absurd to suggest so, but not directly contradictory to the scripture.

I agree that the reasons St. Jonh was chosed as Mary’s adoptive son and caretaker was primarily spiritual, in order to confer Mary’s motherhood to all disciples of Christ, and conversely, to elicit her protection of all Christians (see Apoc. 12). It would nevertheless be a violation of the Jewish laws to select a heir who is not a blood relative if a blood relative is available.

Regarding Mary’s reaction in Luke 1: the angel did not suggest the Mary will be pregnant before the marriage to Joseph was to be consummated. Therefore, the logical reaction would have been the same as when any American bride is told that her son will be president of the US one day: “Ah, thanks. I’ll be sure to name the baby Jesus then”. Instead her reaction was “How am I going to get a son in the first place?” It is a very unusual reaction.

[annalex]

It is the obligation of the Magisterium of the Church, including, of course, the Holy Father, to check any theological utterings not only against the Holy Scripture but also against the entire doctrinal catechesis of the Church, prior to promulgating any doctrine. It is true that once an infallible determination has been made, it is binding, but the reason it is binding is that is it authentic historically and scripturally.

The Pope, or the councils, never advance new doctrines. They clarify existing doctrines, often in application to the questions the flock has. For example, the teaching against abortion, euthanasia and contraception is not a new doctrine; it is the clarification of the position the Church has always had in application to the new technological possibilites unavailable — blissfully — in 1c.

[Kolokotronis]

“So there is no scriptural claim that Mary was sinless, just an inference running counter to 2000 years of Orthodox tradition.”

Quite the opposite, P. We Orthodox call her Panagia because we believe that she was in fact sinless throughout her life in accord with the Consensus Patrum. We do not however accept the IC since in our understanding of the Sin of Adam, there is no need for it.

[thefrankbaum]

But the Psalms *are* prayers. And prayers are merely petitions - that is the reason you have “prayers for relief” when you file a suit in court, or if you asked “what, pray tell, are you talking about?” There is a distinction between such prayer and worship, which is only for God.

[thefrankbaum]

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted. But, the question remains, are, for example, Michael and Gabriel sinless? If no, what evidence do you have? If yes, my original post holds - sinless is not a trait exclusive to God. Also, I’m not saying that Angels are unable to sin, just that they were created without sin.

[Puddleglum]

Because she was Jewish and humble and obedient to the Law until the second covenant was fulfilled.

[Iscool]

This is the very reason there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations.

Now there's 40,000 denominations, eh??? When you going to provide some proof for this claim???

[Iscool]

How so? Jesus Christ was born into a family that includes sinners, like us. The vessel in which He chose to enter this world, however, was without sin.

There is ZERO evidence of that...And it doesn't even make good sense...

[Iscool]

Nothing in Scripture indicates the teachings of Christ solely appear in Scripture. The notion is a rationalization by people uncomfortable with the notion that an oral tradition could issue forth from Christ, through the Apostles, to the modern day

You are mistaken...And God layed it out so a 12 year old could understand it...

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God...And we are to use the scripture as the standard by which we judge Christian matters...

When it comes to another religion, or someone deviating from the Gospel of the Grace of God, tradition, private revelation from God, apparitions, etc., we are to chew the person out, correct the person with scripture and then instruct the person in the ways of righteousness...

And by this correction from the scripture, a man will gain perfection while being completely, thouroughly furnished unto all good works...

The scripture is what it takes, and all it takes...

[Iscool]

Now, how can she be full of grace if she had sinned?

God didn't say she was full of grace...That's an addition by your religion...

[Scythian]

Mary Worship Alert ...