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.

[bdeaner]

Mr Rogers,

Your comments should be directed to Kolokotronis, because they support my argument against his. The fact that Christ was without sin does NOT mean he is unworthy of our worship. Likewise, that Mary was without sin does not imply she is unworthy of our veneration (dulia). That was my point.

[bdeaner]

Mr Rogers,

Your comments should be directed to Kolokotronis, because they support my argument against his. The fact that Christ was without sin does NOT mean he is unworthy of our worship. Likewise, that Mary was without sin does not imply she is unworthy of our veneration (dulia). That was my point.

[Iscool]

Nothing I'm saying disagrees with that. Notice what the passage doesn't say.

I've noticed a lot of the many things the passages DON'T say...

It also doesn't say Jesus loved His Armani suit and Birkenstock sandles...But I'm sure he must have...

Nowhere in Scripture does it say written texts constitute the entire corpus of the teachings of God. In fact, the last verse of John explicitly refutes that position.

Why not concentrate on what scriptures do say, instead of trying to add things which it doesn't say...

The passage says the scripture is good for doctrine...And we are to reprove and correct those who try to use a doctrine NOT FOUND in the scriptures...

The passage says we are to judge, prove and correct, based on the written words of God...

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

So why weren't these things written in a book??? Because they were redundant??? Because there were too many to write down??? And was what was written enough for us to know the way to Jesus/Heaven???

Paul says it is...

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

And what did John say about it???

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Again, we can figure on what John DID NOT SAY which seems to be so popular with you guys, (then you can fill in the supposed blanks)...Or we can believe John and Paul...

By believing what John WROTE, we can have eternal life...WITHOUT any private revelation from your religion...

And what else did John say???

1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God

John says all we need is the written scripture to know and understand the road to salvation and Jesus Christ...

It doesn't matter what Jesus did that would fill 40 billion books plus some...The ones that Jesus gave us are all we need...There is no reason in the world that Jesus would or did reveal anything to anyone beyond what is written in the scriptures...

The inspired word of God says so...

[bdeaner]

He will still be saved, but he will not receive the reward a good worker who has built soundly will receive.

Your statement implies you do not understand the Catholic doctrine of purgatory on its own terms. ONLY the saved experience purgatory -- in this life and the next. By definition, purgation is suffering that accompanies the process of sanctification, both now and in the afterlife, if necessary. Purgatory is not for those who are damned. They go to hell, and have no hope. Those going through purgation are the saved destined for heaven. There is a joy in the sufferings of Purgatory, because one knows the suffering has as its end the beatific vision -- eternal happiness with Our Lord.

[Iscool]

Another fallacious argument lacking logical validity.

Like I keep telling you guys, God did not reveal his Spiritual Truth to anyone thru logic; philosophy...

Your story about Mary is based on your logic...That is NOT how God reveals His Truth...

[thefrankbaum]

I've noticed a lot of the many things the passages DON'T say...
It also doesn't say Jesus loved His Armani suit and Birkenstock sandles...But I'm sure he must have...

Non-sequitur. You were using that passage to demonstrate that Scripture alone is sufficient. That is not what the passage says.

The passage says the scripture is good for doctrine...And we are to reprove and correct those who try to use a doctrine NOT FOUND in the scriptures...

No, it says "for reproof," using the translation you've provided. It does not say "for reproof of things not found in the Scripture." You're adding to Scripture. Plus, it says Scripture is "profitable," not sufficient.

It doesn't matter what Jesus did that would fill 40 billion books plus some...The ones that Jesus gave us are all we need...There is no reason in the world that Jesus would or did reveal anything to anyone beyond what is written in the scriptures...

Jesus didn't give us a single scrap of paper. Nor did He command His disciples to write down and chronicle all His teachings, so let's not assume that "[t]here is no reason in the world that Jesus would or did reveal anything to anyone beyond what is written in the scriptures," especially as oral teaching was the norm through the first thousand-odd years of Christianity. They wrote some teachings down for the same reason people write textbooks today - they are (1) a good way to pass on information and ensure it isn't lost by death, and (2) they present a base from which to teach.

[Mr Rogers]

Correct me if I am wrong - Purgatory is punishment for some sort of sin, is it not? It is about purifying.

Corinthians 3 has nothing to do with punishment. It merely says the work we do in building the church will be evaluated by God, and not everyone will have done a good job. Those who do a poor job will suffer the pangs of regret and sorrow for having built poorly - but there is no punishment in this passage. Nor is there any indication this is a prolonged period of time, or that those who built poorly will not be allowed in Heaven until they have suffered enough.

[bdeaner]

The rejection of reason is based on an absence of faith -- a lack of faith in the unquestionable fact that our God-given gift of reason was not supplied to us in vain, but can and does lead us to the Truth, when understood in conjunction with the faith we are supplied with through grace. A person's renunciation of logic and reason is sufficient evidence for the wise person to read no further whatever that person has to say.

Nevertheless, irregardless of your personal renunciation of logic and reason, to the extent you choose to reply to my comments, I will continue to point out any logical fallacies that plague your words; and so far, they have been legion. Others who are are reading along--others who, unlike you, value logic and reason--may not notice the fallacious nature of your self-endorsed illogical style of argumentation. So I will gladly point it out, to the extent you continue to exhibit it.

In closing: True faith implies reason. Reason implies faith.

[Mr Rogers]

As I read about early church history, it is painfully obvious that many ‘church fathers’ would be better described as ‘barely converted pagan philosophers’.

Instead of building the church and caring for the flock, they debated a bunch of garbage using human logic. And human logic cannot grasp God. It is sinful to try.

In a sense, I don’t give a rat’s rear end if Mary was sinless - I’M not, and no one else I’ve met is. And no number of Hail Marys will change that!

But scripture is clear that all save Jesus have sinned, and the real issue here is if a man (the Pope) or a council of men can make stuff up and place it higher than Scripture. And THAT offends me.

[Mr Rogers]

“In closing: True faith implies reason. Reason implies faith.”

This is where we differ.

“19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” - 1 Corinthians 1

Human logic is great for figuring out how to build a better mouse trap, or the genetics of a horse.

But for approaching God? Worthless as tits on a boar hog.

[Kolokotronis]

“Your statement implies you do not understand the Catholic doctrine of purgatory on its own terms.”

To be fair, bdeaner, very, very few people, including Roman Catholics, understand the Latin concept of purgatory. It is, by the way, another Latin “dogma” which may well prevent reunion of the the Pope with the other Patriarchs of The Church. The notion will receive no more support from Orthodox Christians than it did the last time Rome tried to jam it down Orthodoxy’s throat.

[bdeaner]

It merely says the work we do in building the church will be evaluated by God, and not everyone will have done a good job. Those who do a poor job will suffer the pangs of regret and sorrow for having built poorly - but there is no punishment in this passage.

Pangs of regret and sorrow are "punishment" in the Catholic sense of the term. The Lord's punishment is not about vengeance; it is about justice -- the natural consequences of sin. That's what temporal punishment is -- the intrinsic justice in the cosmos such that sin results in suffering. With baptism and confession, we can be cleansed of our sins, in the sense that we become 'saved' through grace and avoid ETERNAL damnation. But the debt of our temporal punishment -- the natural consequences of sin -- still need to be paid. Purgatory is the name for the suffering of temporal punishment.

For example, if I cheat on my wife, God will forgive me if I sincerely seek contrition. But the trust of my wife in my faithfulness will be severely damaged, and the quality of our relationship will suffer, until I regain the trust. The suffering I experience as a consequence of my sin remains, even after God has forgiven me. This is an example of "purgation" -- the 'fire' that is a natural consequence of sin. Just as it can occur in life, Catholics believe a similar kind of suffering continues after death, as a preparation for heaven, and whatever that may be -- a state, place, etc. -- the name for it is "Purgatory." The concept is actually very similar to the Hindu and Buddhist notions of 'karma,' but I wouldn't want to draw the analogy too closely.

[Mr Rogers]

“For example, if I cheat on my wife, God will forgive me if I sincerely seek contrition. But the trust of my wife in my faithfulness will be severely damaged, and the quality of our relationship will suffer, until I regain the trust. The suffering I experience as a consequence of my sin remains...”

So in this case, if you die a few days following your sin (and if it were me, my wife would probably ensure that result!), then God would say, “I’ve forgiven you, bdeaner, but your wife still needs for you to suffer more...”?

“Just as it can occur in life, Catholics believe a similar kind of suffering continues after death, as a preparation for heaven, and whatever that may be — a state, place, etc. — the name for it is “Purgatory.”

Catholics may believe it, but there is no scriptural warrant for it. And there SHOULD be. Every exhortation to behave better - and Paul and James and Peter gave us plenty - should be capped with, “For if you do not, you will suffer in Purgatory”.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life...At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, “gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita” (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and he adds “that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life” (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire.”

The best argument against Purgatory is that the Apostles seem quite ignorant of it. There is no excuse for its absence as a clearly taught doctrine other than it doesn’t exist.

[bdeaner]

God IS Reason, the Logos, the basis of all order in the universe. If God is Logos, it means that a norm of reason follows from what God is. Things are, because they have natures and are intended to be the way they are because God is what he is: He has his own inner order.

To reject God as the Logos, is to reject an essential distinction between Christianity and Islam. In Islam, God is not Logos, but "Will," as most Muslum thinkers hold Allah to be. For them, Logos places a "limit" on Allah. He cannot do everything because he cannot do both evil and good. He cannot do contradictionaries.

Thus, if we want to "worship" Allah, it means we must be able to make what is evil good or what is good evil. That is, we can do whatever is said to be the "will" of Allah, even if it means doing violence as if it were "reasonable."

Otherwise, we would "limit" the "power" of Allah -- an attempt to make violence "reasonable." This different conception of the Godhead constitutes the essential difference between Christianity and Islam, both in their concept of worship and of science. It's the reason why science as we know it emerged in a Catholic Culture rather than in the Muslim world, or any pagan world, for that matter.

Truth is the conformity of the mind with reality. This means that a reality exists that we do not ourselves make. It is a reality that cannot be "otherwise" by our own will. It also means that God established what is, not we ourselves.

Thus, if we are to know the "truth," which is what makes us "free," it means that we know what God created, is what it is. We rejoice to know the truth that we did not make. The wonder of what is, elates us.

If Allah is pure will, then anything that is, can be the opposite of what it is, so that nothing really is what it is. It can always be otherwise.

Faith directs itself to reason and that reason is a reality that is not invented by the human mind. We did not fabricate the mind we have that thinks. We are to use it. We invent neither it nor reality.

There can be no "dialogue" about anything until the basic principles of reason are granted both in theory and practice. Chesterton remarked on the fact that those who begin to attack the Church for this or that reason, mostly end up attacking it for any reason.

What is behind the attack on reason or the refusal to admit that God is Logos already a suspicion that the Church is right about intellect and its conditions. We have no guarantee that reason will freely be accepted.

Von Balthasar said that we are warned that we are sent among wolves. We are naive to think that Christ was wrong when he warned us that the world would hate us for upholding Logos and the order of things it implies -- the actual implication of your reference to St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians. The wisdom of this world is founded on a false premise -- a premise that is lacking in the proper grounds for reason, the Logos that is God, discovered within the intrinsic order and goodness of His creation.

[boatbums]

Isaiah 55:8-9 (New International Version)

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.

9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

[bdeaner]

Purgatory is there in the NT, they just don't use the word "Purgatory." They also believe in the Trinity, even though they never used the word "Trinity." If you wish to reject purgatory on these grounds, then you would have to reject the Trinity on the same grounds -- and I don't think you want to do that.

Otherwise, I am going to defer further discussion of Purgatory for later, since this thread is about Mariology. I have a post on Purgatory coming up. I'll ping you when it's up.

[annalex]

So, the man builds his life like a building. Parts are good material, parts are rubbish. Now, the day comes and all that is disclosed; his life’s work is tested. The rubbish is purged, the rest is now purified and the man is saved.

What do you call that place where people enter for purification after judgement, and following the purification they are saved? I call it purgatory, the place where purifucation occurs.

[Iscool]

No, it says "for reproof," using the translation you've provided. It does not say "for reproof of things not found in the Scripture." You're adding to Scripture. Plus, it says Scripture is "profitable," not sufficient.

Well it's profitable enough for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness...

Jesus didn't give us a single scrap of paper. Nor did He command His disciples to write down and chronicle all His teachings, so let's not assume that "[t]here is no reason in the world that Jesus would or did reveal anything to anyone beyond what is written in the scriptures,"

How many times did Jesus tell people to search the OT scriptures??? Jesus constantly quoted the scriptures because that where His truth is...

Did Jesus quote without a written authority to back him up, like your church does??? Of course He didn't...He knew people would come along and add words to His words, claim private revelation with no means to prove it...

You are ignoring the other passages I added in the last post...

[Mr Rogers]

“What do you call that place where people enter for purification after judgement, and following the purification they are saved?”

I don’t need a name, for no such place exists. We are saved, not by having our sins burned out of us, but by the blood of the Lamb.

“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.” - Ephesians 2.4-8

HAVE BEEN saved, not will be once your sin is burned away.

“18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” - John 3

And I believe, if bdeaner is correct, that Catholic doctrine agrees with me that we are saved before death. Where we differ is if Christians will still face punishment for sins after death. Since it seems kind of important, I reckon SOMEONE would have mentioned it SOMEWHERE in Scripture.

Like the Primacy of Peter, it is one of those Catholic doctrines that is conspicuous by its absence.

[Iscool]

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

I just read your last post and these passages immediately came to mind...