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.

[NYer]

The further they wandered from Scripture, the more aberrant they became.

Such a statement, dear friend, requires support. From which "Scripture" did the Catholic Church wander? What is the source of your statement?

[thefrankbaum]

Well, I'm glad to be getting somewhere constructively! But, yeah, I agree with you - some Angels are without sin. Therefore, we can't fairly say "sinlessness" is only applicable to God, no?

The angels in heaven indeed are sinless. Yet we are not to worship them.

Agreed 100%. But, when the Psalms command the Angels or beseech their assistance, are the Angels being worshiped?

They are not described as omniscient, to my knowledge, so I assume they aren’t.

The Psalmist pleads for their assistance though, doesn't he? And as you've said, Angels are in Heaven, serving God. So, that means either (1) Angels are in fact omniscient, and thus that is another trait not applicable solely to God, or (2) the relationship between Heaven and Earth is one that those is Heaven can "see" all of Earth simultaneously. Thus, if (2) is correct and Mary is in Heaven, is she not able to do the same as the Angels?

[NYer]

One might as well ask, if Jesus was God incarnate, why on earth would he need to go through the rigamarole of being "presented in the temple according to the law of Moses?"

Excellent point! Salvation made a similar comment with regards to Mary.

[maryz]

we just don’t agree that she has attributes belonging only to God (sinlessness, omniscience...)

I've never encountered "sinlessness" mentioned as a Divine attribute -- God is "All-Good," of course, which would necessarily include sinlessness, but would be so minor a part of it and so overshadowed by the Divine reality as not to be worth mentioning. Put another way, "All-Good" necessarily excludes sin (sort of tautological, or something, since sin is almost by definition that which is opposed to God!), but sinlessness doesn't come anywhere near implying "All-Good"!

No one that I've ever heard of has ever attributed omniscience to a creature -- to any creature. OTH, it's not at all hard to picture someone who knows far more than we do and who is nonetheless unimaginably far from omniscient.

[Salvation]

A big difference between the words of those around Stephen in ACTS and the Archangel Gabriel in LUKE.

[Salvation]

Read this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2296215/posts?page=15#15

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I don’t follow... Was Stephen filled with grace? Did he need to be sinless to be filled with grace? If Stephen was filled with grace and was not sinless, then being filled with grace does not imply a sinless life.

[Mr Rogers]

The point is that traditions should not contradict Scripture. If one must choose between trusting scripture, and trusting the Pope, then one either trusts Scripture (Protestant) or the Pope (Catholic).

When Scripture says (and, BTW, these are quotes from the OT),

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

then one can believe it, or believe the Pope’s footnote “No one EXCEPT Mary”.

If you place tradition above Scripture, that is your choice. But one shouldn’t pretend it doesn’t exist as a choice.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I’m not disputing that Mary wasn’t filled with grace; that is clearly expressed in the Bible. That is not in question.

What I am disputing that being filled with grace implies that one is sinless. We have the example of Stephen being filled with grace, but he was not without sin.

[Melian]

As a Catholic, I thank you for your thoughtful responses. You have made your position very clear.

I ask you to consider for a moment that perhaps all your study and inquiry is based on the belief that only Scripture matters. If you have viewed Church history though that prism, you have viewed it with a bias.

I ask you to remember that Christ promised to guide His Church forever. It also states in scripture that the writers of the Gospels couldn’t write down all the wondrous things Christ did and all his teachings. Scripture only records a small percentage of what He did and taught. Christ didn’t tell the Apostles to sit down and write out their teachings and evangelize by having everyone study it. He told them to go and verbally teach His word. He set up a system to do that with a hierarchy. He sent them the Spirit to guide their thinking. This is all Scripture based fact.

If you can imagine studying Scripture from that perspective, from the basis of Christ’s intentions and actions for His Church, I think you would begin to see where Catholics are coming from. We believe in the system Christ set up before He died. He passed on insight, understanding, and knowledge verbally. He didn’t write it down for the Apostles. He sent them to verbally teach others. He began traditions, like the breaking of the bread in Mass, and asked them to continue His traditions. He followed Jewish customs and traditions. He believed in them as the fulfillment of God’s promises to man.

Christ wanted His Church to continue oral teaching and tradition. He wanted us to remember what He taught us and set up a living, breathing body to do that. His message, and His Church, is more than Scripture.

I also ask you to consider that He chastised the Jews who clung to the letter of the Law/Scripture and didn’t want to learn from the living, breathing, acting Man in front of them. They had no respect for Christ’s oral tradition and teaching.

No matter how you slice it, breaking away from a Church after 15 centuries because of disagreements/concerns is still breaking away from an existing Church. It is separating yourself from the original. Only one Church can really trace its roots, leadership, teaching, oral tradition, and written record back to Christ. Various Protestant faiths filtered the Gospels to fit their beliefs.

I hope this clarifies what many Catholics feel for you. We believe that if you go back and research the earliest versions of Scripture, in the original languages, you will find ample reasons for Catholic dogma. I invite you to consider that you are studying Christianity through the prism of what you want to find- that only Scripture matters. Look to the original Scripture with an open mind and heart and you will find that the Catholic Church is the most scripturally accurate Church, from Christ’s time to today.

Thank you for your patience with my long post. I thank you for what you cited that we have in common.

[NYer]

They are servants of God and are not to be worshiped.

The Sacred Scriptures have revealed the proper names of only three Angels, all of whom belong to the Choir of the Archangels. The names are well known to all, namely: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael. Ancient apocryphal literature of the Old Testament contains several other names of Archangels in addition to the three just mentioned. Like the sources themselves, these other names are spurious. Names like Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Jeremiel are not found in the canonical books of Sacred Scripture, but in the apocryphal book of Enoch, fourth book of Esdras,[1] and in rabbinical literature. The Church does not permit proper names of Angels that are not found in the canonical books of the Bible. All such names that were taken from apocryphal writings were rejected under Pope Zachary, in 745. There must have been danger of serious abuses in this regard during that century, because a similar step was taken in a synod held at Aix-la-Chapelle in 789.

The Catholic Church has set apart September 29 as a feast day to honor the archangels. We also acknowledge that each person who walks this earth has a guardian angel. We have prayers, in praise of these illustrious beings.

Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel

Saint Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness
and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host,
by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all the other evil spirits who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Guardian Angel Prayer

Angel of God, my guardian dear,
To whom His love commits me here,
Ever this day be at my side,
To light and guard, to rule and guide. Amen

[Mr Rogers]

You might also read this:

http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.html

A taste:

” The idea that one can read into this word meaning “object of grace/favor” any degree of sinlessness or perfection on the basis of a “perfect” verb form indicates a complete misunderstanding of what “perfect” means in grammatical terms. In verbs, it only means “completed action”; not sinlessness! To go back to the discussion in point 4 above, if the present is a line with an arrow and the aorist is an “x”, then the perfect would be a line with an “x” at the end, that is, action begun in the past and now complete. The action doesn’t have to have begun in eternity nor does the completion of the action impart perfection of any sort on the object. In our case all it would mean is that Mary had received favor from God in the past and was still in His good-graces.”

Also, the perfect past participle is used, I believe, in the preceding verse in Luke (1.27): “...to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph...”

So apparently, if one reads perfect past participles the way Catholics do in verse 28, then in verse 27, Mary perfectly pledged to stay pledged forever to be married, but not to marry. Kind of like always winter, never Christmas.

[Salvation]

Why, then, is Mary called "The Ark of the New Covenant?

You know, I'm sure that when anyone touched the "old" Ark of the Covenant mentioned in the Old Testament that they died instantly.

That is one reason that Catholics believe that Mary is "The Ark of the New Covenant and that no one, not even her most chast spouse, St. Joseph, touched her in procreating children.

One does not take lightly the Words from the Creed: We believe.....(soon to be "I believe/Credo"....by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Catholics bow their heads during that phrase of the Creed during Mass because it is so important; bet you didn't know that, huh?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Thank you, most enlightening!

I have yet to find anywhere in the Bible where a precondition of being filled with grace or the Holy Spirit requires one to have always been sinless. Perhaps one of our Catholic friends can educate us?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Why, then, is Mary called "The Ark of the New Covenant?

Because she carried the new Promise of God. Seems simple enough to me.

You know, I'm sure that when anyone touched the "old" Ark of the Covenant mentioned in the Old Testament that they died instantly.

I agree. Yet we have plenty of examples of Mary touching others without them bursting into flames. Clearly she was not the same type of Ark as that which carried the ten commandments, the jar of manna, and Aaron's staff.

That is one reason that Catholics believe that Mary is "The Ark of the New Covenant and that no one, not even her most chast spouse, St. Joseph, touched her in procreating children.

Yes, Catechism 499. But this leaves you with a conundrum: either there were more men and women born of virgin birth, or the Bible is lying - multiple times - when it talks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus (see Matt 12:46, Matt 13:55-56, Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, John 7:1-10, Acts 1:14 - all four Gospels and the book of Acts).

So did Mary have additional immaculate conceptions? Or did she consummate her marriage to Joseph after the birth of Jesus, as Matthew 1:25 alludes to, meaning she was no longer a virgin?

[Ahithophel]

[Mary] did not need Jesus to die for her sins because she had none — she was not a sinner!

Sinners need a savior. If Mary was not a sinner, she wouldn't need a savior. Yet in Luke 1 we find she includes herself among those in need of a savior:

"And Mary said: 'My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.'" (Luke 1:46-47 NASV)

If she was perfect, Mary would not have acknowledged anyone as her savior. The reason Mary acknowledged her need for a savior is because, "as it is written, 'there is none righteous, not even one.'" (Romans 3:10)

Additionally, we know the wages of sin is death, so if Mary had no sin, she should would be alive today or there would be some record of her being the third person (after Enoch and Elijah) taken to heaven without dying. But you know as well as I do, there is no such account recorded anywhere in church history.

Finally, Mary's Magnificat shows the Catholic idea of Mary as co-redemptrix is flawed. How could a perfect, co-savior possibly need a savior? If Mary is a co-redemptrix, it would mean sinners are redeemed and come to the Father not just through Jesus, but also through his mother Mary. And if that were true, it would prove Jesus a liar when he said in John 14, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6) And Peter would have been lying when, filled with the Holy Spirit and referring to Jesus, he proclaimed in Acts 4, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) "Salvation in no one else" -- you'll have to agree, I think, that the term "no one else" pretty much excludes you, me and Mary. Peace, A

[NYer]

Yet in Luke 1 we find she includes herself among those in need of a savior:

Mary did need a savior and had a savior. She admitted this - My spirit rejoices in God my Savior. She never sinned; that is true. But that is not to say that she did not need a savior. How could she be sinless without a savior? God exists outside of time. See my post #13.

[Kolokotronis]

This is a good article overall, NYer. Its a shame it was spoiled by this:

“The Catholic Church has always believed in the immaculate conception of Mary.”

That’s simply untrue. That notion was never held in The Church in the East and isn’t to this day. Many in the West rejected it, +Thomas Aquinas for example. The IC is made necessary by the the West’s conception of both the reality and effects of the Sin of Adam, a conception rejected by all the Fathers save Blessed Augustine. As a matter of dogma in the Latin Church it is less than 200 years old and was proclaimed by no council but by an asserted infallible declaration of Pius IX. There are those among the Orthodox who state that this doctrine, far from being true dogma, is in fact a type of Christological heresy which effectively denies Christ’s human nature as per the Council of Chalcedon.

[annalex]

The Catholic understanding of Grace is that it displaces sin, not merely covers it up. This is why one described as filled with grace no longer has sin.

Further, the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary and Jesus alone were without sin, and that all the rest have committed sins at least once. It is entirely compatible with Catholicism to think that John the Baptist was also without sin. In the case of Noah, for example, the Scripture tells us that he was “perfect in every way”, so even based on the Scripture alone you are required to believe that Noah was without sin.

So, you are setting up a straw man. You presume that we teach that St. Stephen was not in fact without sin as he was martyred. But we don’t teach that. In fact, we teach that everyone who validly received the Holy Communion is likewise free from sin from that moment on till he either dies or commits a sin. Baptism, ditto, frees one from sin. You probably disagree with all or with some of these doctrines, but you cannot say that juxtaposing St. Stephen being “pleres charis” and Our Lady being “kecharitomene” (the underlying Greek is in fact different) you are pointing to some contradiction in Catholic teaching.

Having said that, let us examine the contexts. Our Lady is proclaimed by Archangel Gabriel already filled with grace. This is why the grammatical prefect tense is important: here is a young girl and she is said to be filled with grace already. This the scriptural basis not merely of her sinlessness but also of her immaculate conception: since she had been filled with grace prior to Archangel Gabriel talking to her, it is reasonable to think that she had been that way since the beginning of the life, since Sts Joachim and Anna concieved her.

No similar inference exists with St. Stephen. He is undergoing martyrdom, and martyrdom is like baptism. He is filled with grace at that moment, but nothing can be inferred about his condition prior to that from that verse in Acts.

[Marie2]

“all your study and inquiry is based on the belief that only Scripture matters. If you have viewed Church history though that prism, you have viewed it with a bias.”

I admit to that, pretty much. It’s not so much that only Scripture MATTERS, as much as it is the supreme authority on doctrinal issues, for me.

I do agree that Christ promised to guide His Church forever. Perhaps we differ as to how. I do believe the Bible, the Holy Spirit making it clear to us, and God’s providence are the primary methods.