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.

[DungeonMaster]

And what Scriptures were they searching? The Revelation of John? The four Gospels? Of course not - they were searching the Jewish texts. They were seeing whether the oral teachings of the Apostles were consistent with the Old Testament. They found that the oral teachings were consistent, and thus believed. See my post above addressed to Iscool, and how Scripture, at the end of the Gospel of John, specifically indicates it does not contain the whole of Christ's teachings.

Yes they obviously searched old testiment scriptures which is an even stronger argument for the excellence of the scriptures. The verse about Jesus doing more than what was written does not detract from the completion or excellence of the scriptures it just says tells us that the Holy Spirit, the perfect editor, did some editing yet gave us ALL we need.

[kosta50]

Where in the Jewish scriptures does it say that the Messiah will die for the sins of the world and be resurrected on the third day, and why do the Jews not believe it if it's in their scriptures?

[NYer]

If Mary were sinless, she would have committed a sin when she declared herself a sinner in need of redemption.

Where in Scripture does Mary declare herself a sinner?

[editor-surveyor]

"She did not. She declared Christ her Savior. She said nothing about her sin."

I know that you have to be intelligent enough to see the absurdity of your statement. From what was she saved? (hell fire of course!)

Its unfortunate that you reject God's word.

[Religion Moderator]

This Religion Forum thread is labeled “ecumenical” - that means no antagonism is allowed on this thread.

[thefrankbaum]

It doesn't; however, the Jewish Scriptures do foreshadow the coming of the Messiah, no? Why does the Scripture searched have to explicitly spell it out?

[thefrankbaum]

Yes they obviously searched old testiment scriptures which is an even stronger argument for the excellence of the scriptures. The verse about Jesus doing more than what was written does not detract from the completion or excellence of the scriptures it just says tells us that the Holy Spirit, the perfect editor, did some editing yet gave us ALL we need.

Or, the Old Covenant was one of laws, and the New one is of faith. In order to live according to the law, you needed to have it written to know it, whereas under the New Covenant, you needed to eat the Bread of Life. Written Scripture is not necessary for that purpose.

[kosta50]

It doesn't; however, the Jewish Scriptures do foreshadow the coming of the Messiah, no? Why does the Scripture searched have to explicitly spell it out?

Because the foreshadowing is a nebulous matter, at best, a matter of personal (often hyperbolic) interpretations, and controversy. Besides, I though faith comes from God, not the Bible. Abraham, Noah, Job, etc., all had true faith (according to the Bible) without the scriptures. If one does not have faith, reading the Bible will not make him "see" the truth (because he hasn't been given the "eyes" to see), right? Yet Acts 17 seems to suggest otherwise.

[thefrankbaum]

Besides, I though faith comes from God, not the Bible. Abraham, Noah, Job, etc., all had true faith (according to the Bible) without the scriptures.

It absolutely does, but God has given us the Scriptures to know Him better - as has been pointed out on this thread, Scripture *is* profitable, it is just not sufficient.

If one does not have faith, reading the Bible will not make him "see" the truth (because he hasn't been given the "eyes" to see), right? Yet Acts 17 seems to suggest otherwise

Agreed. But faith in God came to +Aquinas in a very different way than it came to +Teresa of Avila. Scripture, coupled with the oral teachings of Paul, is one path to Him - the Bereans apparently took that one.

[kosta50]

It absolutely does, but God has given us the Scriptures to know Him better

How do you know that?

Scripture, coupled with the oral teachings of Paul, is one path to Him - the Bereans apparently took that one

Scriptures didn't give them faith, as Acts 17 suggests because multittudes of Greeks believed Paul without the scriptures and foreshadowing metaphors.

[thefrankbaum]

How do you know that?

2 Tim. 15: "The holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
If Scripture can make you wise, which leads to faith in Christ, then Scripture is a step to knowing God.

Scriptures didn't give them faith, as Acts 17 suggests because multittudes of Greeks believed Paul without the scriptures and foreshadowing metaphors.

I never said Scripture gave them faith. I said Scripture coupled with the preaching of Paul led to their belief. See above - Scripture can help prepare people for salvation.

[kosta50]

2 Tim.[3:]15: "The holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

You left out "since you were an infant." How can infants read the scripture? The whole verse makes no sense. It also implies that faith comes from reading the scriptures, and in this case implies that the Old Testament is sufficient to make you believe in Christ, which is patently wrong.

Regardless, it doesn't say that God gave us scriptures so that we may know him better, as you suggest.

I never said Scripture gave them faith. I said Scripture coupled with the preaching of Paul led to their belief. See above - Scripture can help prepare people for salvation.

What scriptures? Old Testament leads you to belief that Jesus is the Christ? I don't think so. What good is the New Testament if the Old one is sufficient?

[annalex]

That Mary was saved from committing a sin does not indicate she committed one.

I recently was saved from killing myself and my family by a street light. I did not break any traffic rules.

[thefrankbaum]

It also implies that faith comes from reading the scriptures, and in this case implies that the Old Testament is sufficient to make you believe in Christ, which is patently wrong.

I'm afraid you and I disagree on how this verse is read. I do not believe it implies that the OT is sufficient; I believe it does say that the Gospel of Christ (in this case, through the oral teaching of Paul) is consistent with OT prophecy, and the OT illuminates and is the basis for the Gospel.

What scriptures? Old Testament leads you to belief that Jesus is the Christ? I don't think so. What good is the New Testament if the Old one is sufficient?

Again, and I'll leave it here, but, generally, yes, the OT can be a step to belief in Christ. It is not sufficient by itself.

[kosta50]

I believe it does say that the Gospel of Christ (in this case, through the oral teaching of Paul) is consistent with OT prophecy, and the OT illuminates and is the basis for the Gospel

But since there were pagan Greeks (multitudes) who accepted Paul's teaching without the scriptures from their infancy, it makes the scriptures irrelevant and unnecessary.

Besides, the OT prophesy is not all that clear-cut, or else the Jews in general would have recognized Christ purely on the basis of their scriptures.

One can argue that perhaps God didn't want them to, so what good is scripture is there is no God-given faith?

[thefrankbaum]

But since there were pagan Greeks (multitudes) who accepted Paul's teaching without the scriptures from their infancy, it makes the scriptures irrelevant and unnecessary.

While I agree that Scripture isn't *necessary* to accept Christ, it doesn't follow that it is irrelevant. You might be able to kill a deer with a heavy rock. That means a rifle is unnecessary. But I don't think you'd argue that a rifle is irrelevant to such action - it is a different means to the same end.

Besides, the OT prophesy is not all that clear-cut, or else the Jews in general would have recognized Christ purely on the basis of their scriptures.

One can argue that perhaps God didn't want them to, so what good is scripture is there is no God-given faith?

Absolutely it is not clear-cut. And faith is necessary to fully comprehend Scripture. But God can use Scripture to build faith - how many stories are there of people changing in a hotel room after reading Gideon's Bible?

[editor-surveyor]

Mary was not saved from committing a sin. Mary committed many sins, as all humans do, and as God’s word plainly says.

If it were possible for a human to live a sinless life, there would have been no reason for our Lord to have suffered and die on the cross. (”there is none righteous, no not one”)

[kosta50]

While I agree that Scripture isn't *necessary* to accept Christ, it doesn't follow that it is irrelevant. You might be able to kill a deer with a heavy rock. That means a rifle is unnecessary. But I don't think you'd argue that a rifle is irrelevant to such action - it is a different means to the same end

Agreed, but that makes the scriptures just one of many, indeed a limitless number of means available to the same end. Yet, most Protestants profess sola scriptura as the only way.

But God can use Scripture to build faith - how many stories are there of people changing in a hotel room after reading Gideon's Bible?

It's not what God can or cannot do, but what is necessary for faith to appear. Frankly it sounds a bit naive to say that God chooses to "download" faith to people like Paul, Job, Lot, Abraham or Noah, while subjecting others to life-long studies of scriptures. God is not partial or changing.

This thing about different means towards the same end sounds a bit like a rationalization to me although on the surface it "makes sense" in a human box. With God, rocks and rifles are not an issue. By definition, God is perfect and perfection does not come in different varieties.

[thefrankbaum]

Agreed, but that makes the scriptures just one of many, indeed a limitless number of means available to the same end.

Even a central Amazonian knows God in a way, since the Natural law is still a portion of the Divine Law. He works as He sees fit. To think that Faith cannot be had outside the Scriptures, IMHO, is limiting to grace, and not a position I'd easily ascribe to.

Yet, most Protestants profess sola scriptura as the only way.

Indeed they do. Which is why I cannot follow them.

It's not what God can or cannot do, but what is necessary for faith to appear. Frankly it sounds a bit naive to say that God chooses to "download" faith to people like Paul, Job, Lot, Abraham or Noah, while subjecting others to life-long studies of scriptures. God is not partial or changing.

I would say that God generally beat Paul over the head with faith before he would accept it, rather than a "download." But, two things: (1) is it not your experience that some people generally have a greater faith, even among children raised in the same family? Why this is, I don't really have an answer...do you? (2) I don't believe people acquire faith from "life-long studies of Scripture." In order to have the patience to conduct such a task, you must have some faith as an impetus, I imagine. However, I believe faith can *grow* through study of God - Theology. One realm of such study is through His revelation in Scripture. Would you disagree?

This thing about different means towards the same end sounds a bit like a rationalization to me although on the surface it "makes sense" in a human box. With God, rocks and rifles are not an issue. By definition, God is perfect and perfection does not come in different varieties.

God is perfect, and immutable. Absolutely. We are not, and experience shows us that we generally approach things differently. Which is more pleasing to God: joining a celibate order and dedicating your life to prayer, or marrying and bringing forth a large, loving Christian family?

[kosta50]

He works as He sees fit

I am not sure I buy that. The Bible is clear that God is impartial and that we should be impartial. Also, by analogy, we would not treat our children differently, making some work harder than others, or teaching some more and some less.

To think that Faith cannot be had outside the Scriptures, IMHO, is limiting to grace, and not a position I'd easily ascribe to.

Even scriptures tell us that faith existed before scriptures.

is it not your experience that some people generally have a greater faith, even among children raised in the same family? Why this is, I don't really have an answer...do you?

That depends how you define faith, but as far as their differences are concerned, I don't have a clue.

I don't believe people acquire faith from "life-long studies of Scripture." In order to have the patience to conduct such a task, you must have some faith as an impetus, I imagine.

There are well known theologians who are not believers.  They study theology because they are fascinated by it. In fact, some claim they became non-believers through it.

However, I believe faith can *grow* through study of God - Theology.

Theology is a study of God (Greek theos + logia), a study of what people wrote about God through their faith in him.  Some people may find theological arguments compelling because they express their beliefs in greater detail and in a more scholarly, authoritative way, thereby leading to a sense of "growing" in knowledge of God.

One realm of such study is through His revelation in Scripture. Would you disagree?

I am the wrong person to ask that question.

Which is more pleasing to God: joining a celibate order and dedicating your life to prayer, or marrying and bringing forth a large, loving Christian family?

Why can both not be 'pleasing' to God, just as there may be different innumerable paths towards faith?

He works as He sees fit

I am not sure I buy that. The Bible is clear that God is impartial and that we should be impartial. Also, by analogy, we would not treat our children differently, making some work harder than others, or teaching some more and some less.

To think that Faith cannot be had outside the Scriptures, IMHO, is limiting to grace, and not a position I'd easily ascribe to.

Even scriptures tell us that faith existed before scriptures.

is it not your experience that some people generally have a greater faith, even among children raised in the same family? Why this is, I don't really have an answer...do you?

That depends how you define faith, but as far as their differences are concerned, I don't have a clue.

I don't believe people acquire faith from "life-long studies of Scripture." In order to have the patience to conduct such a task, you must have some faith as an impetus, I imagine.

There are well known theologians who are not believers.  They study theology because they are fascinated by it. In fact, some claim they became non-believers through it.

However, I believe faith can *grow* through study of God - Theology.

Theology is a study of God (Greek theos + logia), a study of what people wrote about God through their faith in him.  Some people may find theological arguments compelling because they express their beliefs in greater detail and in a more scholarly, authoritative way, thereby leading to a sense of "growing" in knowledge of God.

One realm of such study is through His revelation in Scripture. Would you disagree?

I am the wrong person to ask that question.

Which is more pleasing to God: joining a celibate order and dedicating your life to prayer, or marrying and bringing forth a large, loving Christian family?

Why can both not be 'pleasing' to God, just as there may be different innumerable paths towards faith?