A Dramatic Biblical Moment That Nearly Everyone Missed

The moment of the Presentation of Jesus was one of the most dramatic in biblical history, yet almost no one noticed.

The first part of this post is review for those of you who read my blog regularly. To skip to the newer insights, skip down to the sentence in red.

Joseph and Mary have gone to Jerusalem to fulfill two ancient mandates: the Rite of Purification for a woman after childbirth and the Rite of Presentation for a firstborn male child. These rites set the stage for a dramatic moment in biblical history, a moment missed by almost everyone.

Jewish law considered that after a woman gave birth she was ritually impure for a period of time. This was based on the flow of blood that occurred during childbirth. At that time, just about anyone who came in contact with blood incurred a ritual uncleanness for a period of time. The Book of Leviticus has this to say regarding a woman who has given birth:

The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: 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. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.” ‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 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. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean” (Lev 12:1-8).

Some see a fairly negative concept at work here: a woman becomes ritually unclean by giving birth. This was due not to giving birth per se but to the flow of blood and other fluids during the process. Even more distressing to modern sensibilities is that a woman who gave birth to a daughter was considered ritually unclean for an even longer period of time. Alas, it is well that the power of the Church to bind and loose has freed us from this thinking. Keep in mind that this was ceremonial law, not moral law; hence, the Church is not setting aside immutable moral law in abrogating such notions of ritual impurity.

Obedient to the Law – Nevertheless Joseph and Mary, obedient to law, make the dramatic ascent to the Temple with the Son of God carried in Mary’s arms. It has been forty days since the birth of the Lord in fulfillment of the Law.

As they ascend the glorious steps to the Temple Mount they also fulfill another requirement of the Law:

You are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD. Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons. In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons’’ (Ex 13:12-15).

Something even more dramatic takes place here. To understand what it is, let’s look back to 587 B.C.

The Babylonians had invaded Jerusalem and the unthinkable had happened. The Holy City was destroyed and, along with it, the Temple of God. Inside the Temple something even more precious than the building had been housed: the Ark of the Covenant.

Recall what the Ark of Covenant was in the Old Testament. It was a box of acacia wood, covered in gold. Inside it were placed the two tablets on which God had inscribed the Ten Commandments. Also in it was the staff of Aaron and a vial of the manna. Even more important, in this box, this ark, dwelt the very Presence of God in Israel. God mysteriously dwelt within, much as is the case today in our understanding of the tabernacle in our Catholic churches.

The Lost Ark – Incredibly, however, the Ark was lost when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem in 587 BC. Some thought that Jeremiah had hidden it in the mountains. Others, that the priests had hastily hidden it in the maze of caves beneath the Temple Mount. Still others argued that it was taken to Ethiopia. But the Ark was gone.

Empty Temple – When the Temple was rebuilt some eighty years later, the Holy of Holies was restored but the Ark was still missing. The High Priest still performed the yearly ritual and entered the Holy of Holies, but the room was empty. Some argued for a spiritual presence in the Temple, but in fact the Ark and the certain presence of God were missing in the Temple after 587 B.C. Something—someone—was missing. The very Holy of Holies was an empty room. The Ark and the presence of God it carried were missing. The Ark, the mercy seat, was gone. Would it ever be found? Would it ever be returned to the Temple? Would the Holy Presence of God ever find its way to the Temple again?

The ascent to Jerusalem is a steep one. Mountains surround Jerusalem and it sits up at a higher altitude than the area around it. As the ancient Jews made the climb they sang the psalms of ascent (120-134). As Joseph and Mary ascended, they too sang the words that instilled joy: I Lift up mine eye to the mountains from whence cometh my help (Ps 121). I rejoiced when they said to me let us go up to the House of the Lord (Ps 122). To you O Lord I have lifted my eyes (Ps 123). Like Mount Zion are those who trust in the Lord (Ps 125). Out of the depths I call unto you O Lord (Ps 130). Let us enter God’s dwelling, let us worship at the Lord’s footstool. Arise O Lord and enter your dwelling place, You and the Ark of your strength (132). Come and bless the Lord. You who stand in the House of the Lord Lift your hands to the Sanctuary and bless the Lord. The Lord bless you from Zion (134).

Singing these songs, Mary carried Jesus. The climb was even more difficult when carrying a newborn, but the burden was sweet. Then came the final ascent up the stairs to the Temple Mount. They probably entered on the southern side through the Huldah gates. They went up the steep stairs, through the tunnel in the walls, and emerged on the bright Temple platform above.

God had returned to His Temple. He and the Ark who carried Him were now found. Mary, the Ark, carrying Jesus in her arms. Jesus, very God, true God from True God. Yes, God and the Ark had been found and God was once again present among His people on the Temple Mount. Scripture says,

And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? (Mal 3:1-2)

What a dramatic moment and yet what a remarkable understatement by God! If I had directed the moment I would have called for blaring trumpet, claps of thunder, and multitudes of angels! And everyone would have fallen to his knees in recognition of the great fulfillment and the great return of God to His Temple.

Yet it would seem that only an elderly man and woman (Simeon and Anna) took any note at all. They alone understood that they were in the presence of greatness and beheld the drama of the moment.

Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” There was also a prophetess, Anna … Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2).

Yes, this was the dramatic moment that had been anticipated for centuries. The Ark of God was found (Mary) and God (Jesus) returned to His temple, but only a few noticed. Just a few understood and celebrated.

What about us? At every Mass, Jesus, God Himself, is present. Do you notice? Do you really see Him? Or do you see only the priest and the human elements of the Mass? Are you Simeon? Anna? Mary? Joseph? Or are you just among those on the Temple Mount who miss the dramatic moment of God with us?

I invite you to take a look at the grammatical structure of the word Kecharitomene.

Here's a note of interest. A variant of charitoo (grace) used in Ephesians 1:6 is echaritosen, in what is called in Greek grammar the " aorist indicative active." There's a sense of continuing action:

"That the glory of his grace may be praised, that which overflows upon us by his Beloved One." (Ephesians 1:6)

In a related yet contrasting way, Kecharitomene --- what Mary is called by the angel --- is a finished thing, a perfect passive participle, meaning "having been" or "have already been" graced, a past action, done to her by someone else, and fully completed in the past.

That's significant.

Here's anothr related but contrasting use of that root word charitoo: Sirach 18:17 in the LXX uses kecharitomeno. However, is not used as a form of address; indeed it is not used with reference to a particular person at all but only as a proverbial type: in other words, it is talking about a general ideal, which could be rendered this way: "the ideally grace-filled person can give both a good word and a good gift."

This is the ideal proverb-type language which the Archangel Gabriel uniquely applies to Mary as an individual, defining her (in particular) as fulfilling that ideal image.

There's another term, pleres charitoo, applied to the martyr Stephen, but it is a different term and doesn't have the specific meaning of having been perfectly grace-filled in the past. Not that Mary has grace to dispense as it were, but that she has been the (passive) recipient of a grace perfectly fulfilled.

There is only ONE time this very word, "Kecharitomene," was used as it is by the Archangel Gabriel in Luke, when it appears as a defining descriptor of one "totally grac-filled" woman, Mary --- as directly following "Chaire," which means "Hail!" which is followed by either a name, a title, or a form of address.

So the word the Archangel uses in addressing Mary, actually defining her.

Kecharitomene, a word describing a general OT "Wisdom literature" ideal in Sirach, points to only one other use: in Luke, in the NT, where the Archangel shows us that it applies to Mary individually and perfectly.

This has been discussed back-and-forth, hither-and-thither many times in the FR Religion Forum, and if you want to read the details you can google keywords

"Mrs Don-o" Kecharitomene

And a lot of it will show up in the google results.

Aren’t we talking about the purification of the woman (40 days) required by Jewish law?

1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying:

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 3‘On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4‘Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. 5‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

6‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7‘Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female. 8‘But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” Leviticus 12:1-8 NASB

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/12-6.htm

She shall bring a lamb of the first year.—Or, as the Margin has it, a son of his year, that is, a lamb which was within the year of its birth. This burnt offering was an expression of gratitude for the Divine mercy vouchsafed to her in the hours of sorrow and danger, or, as some ancients suggest, it was designed as a confession of impatient and reproachful thoughts harboured by the mother during her pregnancy and the time of parturition (comp. Genesis 25:22); whilst the sin offering was to atone for sinful and violent expressions which she may have heedlessly uttered in the hours of labour and agony. Though when the two sacrifices are mentioned together, the sin offering generally precedes the burnt offering (see Leviticus 5:7; Leviticus 14:31; Leviticus 15:15; Leviticus 15:30; Leviticus 16:3; Leviticus 16:5, &c.), here the burnt offering takes precedence, because it is the more costly of the two. Besides the mother after child-birth (Leviticus 12:6; Leviticus 12:8), there were three other unclean persons who had to bring a sin offering for their uncleanness: the leper (Leviticus 14:19; Leviticus 14:31), the woman that had an issue (Leviticus 15:15), and the man that had an issue (Leviticus 15:30).

I'm pretty sure the Angelic Salutation in Luke #22 counts as documentation.

No it doesn't as has been explained numerous times by reference through the Catholic Encyclopedia Online. For some reason you persist is relying upon this disproven argument which the CE admits is not found in Scripture.

Moreover, I am unaware of any Christian seriously disputing God's preservation of His Mother from the stain of sin, for the first 1500 years of Christian Biblical interpretation.

Aside from the New Testament??

If you can find any such dispute prior to the 16th century, of course, I shall be open to reading and learning.

Questionable as such references have been provided before which you continue to reject.

However....once again I will provide it from a Roman Catholic source which bills itself as "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history."

Evidence from Scripture:

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.

ECFs who say Mary was not sinless:

brackets mine added for background

[What this illustrates is a contradiction of Roman Catholic teaching that there was unanimous consent among the ECFs on this issue, and others. To the contrary, the ECFs are all over the place on this, and other issues, near and dear to Rome. It is why "Tradition" is rejected and is not to be equated with Scripture.]

In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

[the reference to the older fathers is interesting as it indicates the belief of Mary's sinlessness was a later development]

Origen [184/253], although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul ; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt ; and that for her sins also Christ died ( Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").

In the same manner St. Basil [329-379. recognized as a Doctor in the RCC] writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).

St. Chrysostom [349-407. recognized as a Doctor in the RCC] accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum ( Matthew 12:46 ; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056

Justin Martyr: [100-165]Justin Martyr didn't think Mary was sinless. He refers to every person being a sinner, and he denies that a Jewish opponent he was debating, Trypho, can cite a single person who didn't need to be saved by Christ from sins he had committed. No Roman Catholic could issue such a challenge to Trypho:

"Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression....For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God." (Dialogue with Trypho, 88, 95)

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Mary.html#Justin Martyr

Clement of Alexandria [150-215]:

"Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God. He is to us a spotless image; to Him we are to try with all our might to assimilate our souls. He is wholly free from human passions; wherefore also He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless. As far, however, as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible. For nothing is so urgent in the first place as deliverance from passions and disorders, and then the checking of our liability to fall into sins that have become habitual. It is best, therefore, not to sin at all in any way, which we assert to be the prerogative of God alone...But He welcomes the repentance of the sinner-loving repentance-which follows sins.

For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all." (The Instructor, 1:2, 3:12)

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Mary.html#Justin Martyr

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception:

The older feast of the Conception of Mary (Conception of St. Anne), which originated in the monasteries of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object. Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of St. John's conception, not discussing the sinlessness. This feast in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056

Roman Catholicism points to the woman clothed with the sun as being Mary Revelation 12:1.

1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; Rev 12:1 NASB

However, Rev 12:2 is omitted in this discussion.

2and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth Rev 12:2 NASB

If the Roman Catholic wants to say Mary is the New Eve and reference Genesis 3:15 as referring to Mary then the Roman Catholic has to allow Gen 3:16 as also being Mary.

16To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Gen 3:16 NASB

In either case, a woman undergoing labor pains is under the curse and is a sinner.

The Roman Catholic is picking and choosing Scripture to support a doctrine not found, nor hinted at, in Scripture. They are practicing eisegesis in this manner.

The belief of Mary's sinlessness was not "handed down" from the original Apostles. It is a false doctrine not supported in Scripture, indeed, it is contradicted by Scripture, that has developed over time.

Once again I will provide The Catholic Encyclopedia Online which bills itself as "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history" regarding Scripture and the Immaculate Conception:

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

Yet Roman Catholicism plows ahead and attempts to show proof from Scripture.

I will now address your claims from the New Testament regarding what is said about this issue.

1. Mary is revealed to be “full of grace” in Luke 1:28.

Another bad translation leading to bad theology. The proper translation is: Greetings, you favored with grace.

4. Mary is revealed to possess a “blessed state” parallel with Christ’s in Luke 1:42.

And we see the Roman Catholic elevating Mary to the status of Jesus....though the text doesn't indicate that.

And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! Luke 1:42 NASB

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Matthew 25:34 NASB

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, Eph 1:3 NASB

Blessed is a verb with the meaning of 2127 /eulogéō ("confer what is beneficial") is used of God blessing people (Lk 1:28; Eph 1:3; Heb 6:14, etc.) – and His people blessing Him (Lk 1:64, 2:28, 24:53; 1 Cor 14:16; Js 3:9).http://biblehub.com/greek/2127.htm

5. Mary is not just called “blessed” among women, but “more blessed than all women” (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.

And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! Luke 1:42 NASB. The text does not say more blessed than all women.

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Luke 1:42 Douay-Rheims

Mary understood what was happening:

48“For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. Luke 1:48 NASB

6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless “Ark of the Covenant” in Luke 1.

No where in the passage is that indicated.

Indeed, the opposite is observed by Mary herself.....she recognized her sinful state and need of a Savior. 47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

Luke would be contradicting all that Paul wrote in Romans and elsewhere regarding the sinful nature of mankind. As Luke knew Paul we do not see the good doctor doing so. Why? Because Luke understood, as Paul did, we are all sinners.

None of the NT writers ever carve out an exception for Mary being sinless. None.

7. Mary is revealed to be the “New Eve” in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.

37“For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. Luke 1:37-18 NASB

4And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” John 2:4 NASB

In none of these passages is there any indication of Mary being called the "New Eve".

In all of the texts you've cited none say what the Roman Catholic claims. Except, if you practice eisegesis...that is reading something into the text that isn't there to support a belief.

Now, concerning the claim that Revelation 12 supports Mary and the Immaculate Conception.

1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. Rev 12:1-2 NASB

If the Roman Catholic is citing Revelation 12:1 as referring to Mary then they have to allow 12:2 as being Mary as well....unless somehow the subject of the passage changes mid-sentence.

Rev 12:2 contradicts the claim of Isaiah 66:7-8 of Mary being free from the pangs of labor....allowing for discussion the passage is about Mary to begin with.

This carries us back to Genesis 3:15 which the Roman Catholic claims to be about Mary as well.

15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Gen 3:15 NASB

It should be noted though for the reader of the thread that only the Douay Rheims renders the text to read as "she shall crush thy head". And as previously noted by the Catholic Encyclopedia Online, and ignored for some reason, "the translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically."

This carries us to Genesis 3:16 which explains the punishment upon the woman, and all subsequent women, that they will have pain in childbirth.

No exception to this punishment has been noted in Scripture.

No exception for being sinless for any created being has been noted in Scripture. Not. One.

The only person Scripture notes as being sinless is Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God. He is the only One.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.