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.

[Mr Rogers]

My original post is that all men are sinful. It is NOT out of context, for the entire NT assumes the same. Please show me a quote from Scripture that contradicts it, or indicates Mary was sinless. And please do not bring up the silly argument from Luke 1...it doesn’t hold water.

Since you cannot interpret scripture in any way contrary to what your church teaches, you effectively leave the church alone to do the interpreting. This is a classic sign of a cult.

Purgatory twists scripture into unrecognizable strangeness, as does the idea that Mary lived a sinless life. The idea that Mary was the New Ark of the Covenant is equally bizarre.

And if Peter was the Head of the Church on earth, neither he nor Jesus gave any indication. Indeed, when Jesus was asked who was the greatest of the 12, Jesus indicated the entire idea was wrong. Had it been Peter, it would have been a GREAT time to clarify it. Also, had the other disciples interpreted the statements of Jesus in Matthew 16 to mean Peter was Numero Uno, they wouldn’t have asked who the greatest was.

There are multiple passages warning about false teachers. None of them conclude with, “But hold fast to Peter, the Rock, and his Apostolic Succession!”

I’m not just disagreeing with your interpretation, I’m showing WHY it is out in left field. Feel free to show me wrong, since your church has all the right answers already.

[Mr Rogers]

“If you’re walking along a road, don’t see a pit, and nearly fall in but are grabbed at the last second by a friend, were you saved from that pit by your friend?”

But Scripture tells us that ALL fell into the pit, and NO ONE managed to stay out.

[thefrankbaum]

Since you cannot interpret scripture in any way contrary to what your church teaches, you effectively leave the church alone to do the interpreting. This is a classic sign of a cult.

And you apparently believe you can interpret Scripture perfectly. This is the classic sign of pride. But where does this name calling get us? I'm afraid I'm going to end this conversation, as it appears to be going nowhere.

[delacoert]

Since the Pope alone can interpret scripture...

Where did you get that idea? It is not true.

See, for instance, The Limits of Scripture Interpretation

[Mr Rogers]

“Finally, the Scriptures that we both hold so dear are the ones the Catholic Church’s leaders deemed divinely inspired. The formal Catholic Church selected which writings were to be included in the New Testament and which weren’t divinely inspired.”

No. The Councils in Africa ratified what was already the common acceptance of scripture, and had been for 200-300 years. It was the local congregations that decided which writings were on par with the already existing scriptures, which were important in preventing false doctrine from the day of Jesus’s resurrection.

Even JESUS, raised from the dead, used scripture to instruct:

“24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself...”Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”” - Luke 24

And Paul used it to evangelize the Jews:

“11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed...” - Acts 17

[Mr Rogers]

I should have said the Church the Pope infallibly leads...

[Mr Rogers]

No, I believe the Holy Spirit will guide us as we search for the truth.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Well, the Greek uses the word for brother, not cousin (which is a different word). Seems odd that all four Gospels would use the same word - brother.

Taken at face value, Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary; see Matthew 13:53-56. Jesus is in his hometown, and his townsfolk - the people he grew up with - questioned his teachings, saying he was the son of Mary, with brothers and sisters. In fact, his sisters were still with the townsfolk!

Now, if you want to assume that the Gospels meant cousins rather than actual brothers, you have to figure out why the word brother was actually used, especially in relation to Jesus' relation to Mary! Calling Jesus the son of Mary and that Mary and his brothers and sisters were together would seem to indicate a true brother/sister relationship, not cousins. All four Gospels (and Acts) agree, and all of them are quite explicit.

However there is no Biblical foundation for Mary never having another child that I know of; can you provide any supporting scripture that would indicate Mary didn't have more children? Not the Catechism, but actual scripture?

Seems this is a clear position where the Protestant and Orthodox churches are united in a clear position held since the founding of the Christianity and thus representing the true and accurate position of Christianity (especially since this position became Catholic dogma in the mid 1800s).

[delacoert]

I should have said the Church the Pope infallibly leads...

Once again, your understanding of how Catholics receive the Truth from the scripture is incorrect.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Even I am “full of grace” after having said my penance after the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But that doesn’t mean that I am sinless.

Oh, I agree! Thus how does Mary being full a grace translate to Mary being sinless? I am curious of the Biblical foundation for the equating of being grace-filled meaning sinless.

[Mr Rogers]

Enlighten me.

[Melian]

Christ used the Old Testament scriptures to instruct them on all the prophesies concerning the Messiah. Paul, likewise, is referring to the Old Testament and using it to help people realize Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures regarding the Messiah. The Catholic Church selected and protected the New Testament scriptures. Local congregations did not decide what was to be included in the New Testament. The successors of Peter and the hierarchy of the Church decided that.

No one is denying that Christ used Old Testament scripture to help people recognize Him, but He relied much more on oral teaching. Anything relating to Him and how He wanted us to live in the future was taught using oral instruction, and doing miraculous acts... also known as outward signs. Our sacraments are outward signs, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

Christ loved Scripture and revered it. But He explained what it meant in a new way... He said many things to the people and the Apostles that weren’t in Old Testament scripture (for example that He wanted His followers to “gnaw” on His flesh to have life within them) and He set up the tradition of oral teaching.

[Salvation]

Catholics believe that Mary was sinless because she housed the God-Christ child in her womb?

My common sense tells me that God,the father, would not choose Mary unless she was deemed sinless. Remember, The Holy Spirit?

Conceived through the Holy Spirit......thus we have all three persons of the Trinity in this story. God the Father willing it so, God the Holy Spirit through which God the Son, was made human, an extreme act of humility on the part of Jesus Christ, to become Man, but acutally insignificant when we look to the extreme humility of Christ the Son of God dying on the Cross for our sins.

[ConservChristian]

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

Again a simple answer -- right there in Holy Scripture!

"Grace" (in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.

Yes, it is a simple answer, but it is not the one you promote.

[Salvation]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the words, ‘not one you promote.’

Are you talking about the opinion of the Catholic Church, aren’t you?

[boatbums]

First of all, stating that Roman Catholicism dates back 2000 years is not a correct statement. Christianity dates back to the first century is the correct way of saying it. Hence, BC (before Christ or before Christian era) and AD (Anno Domini or after the Christian era). The Church of Rome was not the only Christian church. Claiming age however impressive it may sound at first, doesn't prove much as despite its complexity Hinduism is not only one of the numerically largest, but also the oldest living major tradition on earth, with roots reaching back into the prehistory.

The protestant movement is said to have started in the sixteenth century, but we know that Luther and others that broke away from the Catholic Church did so because they believed the Roman Catholic Church had strayed from the truth of the Gospel.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Catholics believe that Mary was sinless because she housed the God-Christ child in her womb?

Yes, although that runs counter to the Council of Trent's findings that Adam's sin tainted all of his descendants, which would, of course, include Mary. And of course, include all of us, too!

Thus we have a paradox: Mary is tainted by sin - per the Council of Trent and the infallible nature of the Church's teachings arising thereof - but we also have Mary being claimed to be sinless by Papal ex cathedra declaration some 300 years thereafter.

My common sense tells me that God,the father, would not choose Mary unless she was deemed sinless.

So it is not based on scripture, but only on what you believe to be a logical reason. Fair enough, at least we are in agreement there is no scriptural basis for Mary being sinless.

Remember, The Holy Spirit?

Yes, and he resides in all Christians, even though we are sinful. Somehow we do not need to be sinless to receive the grace of God and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

[delacoert]

As I posted earlier, see The Limits of Scripture Interpretation.

An even better article is Studying Scripture renews the Church, Denver bishop teaches .

[boatbums]

Not all angels are in heaven all the time as our Heavenly Father uses them as messengers, avengers, in our presence unaware (we are unaware they are angels), protectors, etc. There are many Scriptural passages both in the OT and NT that speak to the different roles angels have played in the history of man and even before man existed.

That angels have sinned (1/3) and rebelled against God and others (2/3) have remained faithful to God is not proof angels are sinless. Only that they have more power than man does to not sin.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

From the link you provided:

"In matters of faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of holy Scripture which holy mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures. Therefore no one is allowed to interpret the same sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers" (De Filius 2).

Essentially, you can interpret Scripture only as the Catholic Church decrees, based upon tradition and previous teachings. Per Vatican I, there is but one interpretation, and that is the one of the Catholic Church.