The Immaculate Conception in Scripture

In my new book, Behold Your Mother - A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception:

2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc.

3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22.

4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42.

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

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

8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.

Here, I will present some snippets from three of these biblical reasons for faith. But first, I must say I am sympathetic to my Protestant friends, and others, who struggle with this teaching of the Catholic Faith. Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I John 1:8 adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.” These texts could not be clearer for millions of Protestants: “How could anyone believe Mary was free from all sin in light of these Scriptures? What’s more, Mary herself said, ‘My soul rejoices in God my savior’ in Luke 1:47. She clearly understood herself to be a sinner if she admits to needing a savior.”

Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was “saved.” Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. The problem here is Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact.

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever (Jude 24-25).

The great Franciscan theologian, Duns Scotus, explained ca. 600 years ago that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a massive 20-feet deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he would need someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead resulting in the man not falling into the ditch at all, he would have been saved from falling in the first place. Analogously, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.

But what about “all have sinned,” and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him?” Wouldn’t “all” and/or “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No Christian would dare say that! Yet, no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, if one is going to take I John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense, then any man would apply to Jesus as well!

The truth is—and all Christians agree—Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: “Christ was tempted in all points even as we are and yet he was without sin.” The real question now is: are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes, there are. In fact, there are millions of them.

First of all, we need to recall that both of these texts—Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8—are dealing with personal rather than original sin. Romans 5:12 will deal with original sin. And there are two exceptions to that general biblical norm as well. But for now, we will simply deal with Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8. I John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, St. John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins…” We do not confess original sin; we confess personal sins.

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness (Romans 3:10-14).

Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No, they haven’t (see Romans 9:11)! Or, how about the mentally challenged who do not have the use of their intellects and wills? These cannot sin because in order to sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. Right there you have millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8.

The question remains: how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is. Indeed, there is much biblical support, but in this brief post I shall cite just three examples, among the eight, as I said before, that give us biblical support for this ancient doctrine of the Faith.

And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

Many Protestants will insist this text to be little more than a common greeting of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary. “What would this have to do with Mary being without sin?” Yet, the truth is, according to Mary herself, this was no common greeting. The text reveals Mary to have been “greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be” (Luke 1:29, emphasis added). What was it about this greeting that was so uncommon for Mary to react this way? There are at least two key reasons:

First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.” Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would almost be expected to be found in the immediate context. “Hail, king of the Jews” in John 19:3 and “Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting” (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholics answers and saying, “Hello, he who fixes computers.” In our culture, I would just be considered weird. But in Hebrew culture, names, and name changes, tell us something that is permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (changed from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Gen. 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”) in Gen. 17:15, and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Gen. 32:28.

In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Romans 4:1-18; Is. 51:1-2). They become Patriarch and Matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the Patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The people of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the Patriarch Jacob who was not just named Israel, but he truly became “he who prevails with God.”

An entire tome could be written concerning the significance of God’s revelation of his name in Exodus 3:14-15 as I AM. God revealed to us volumes about his divine nature in and through the revelation of his name—God is pure being with no beginning and no end; he is all perfection, etc.

When you add to this the fact that St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his “name” for Mary, we get deeper insight into the meaning of Mary’s new name. This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has the aorist tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. That’s Mary’s name! So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God.

One objection to the above is rooted in Eph. 2:8-9. Here, St. Paul uses the perfect tense and passive voice when he says, “For by grace you have been saved…” Why wouldn’t we then conclude all Christians are complete in salvation for all time? There seems to be an inconsistency in usage here.

Actually, the Catholic Church understands that Christians are completed in grace when they are baptized. In context, St. Paul is speaking about the initial grace of salvation in Ephesians two. The verses leading up to Eph. 2:8-9, make this clear:

… we all lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath…even when we were dead in trespasses and sins…(by grace you have been saved)” (vss. 3-5).

But there is no indication here, as there is with Mary, that the Christian is going to stay that way. In other words, Eph. 2:8-9 does not confer a name.

In fact, because of original sin, we can guarantee that though we are certainly perfected in grace through baptism, ordinarily speaking, we will not stay that way after we are baptized; that is, if we live for very long afterward (see I John 1:8)! There may be times in the lives of Christians when they are completed or perfected in grace temporarily. For example, after going to confession or receiving the Eucharist well-disposed. We let God, of course, be the judge of this, not us, as St. Paul tells us in I Cor. 4:3-4:

I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted (Gr.—justified). It is the Lord who judges me.

But only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

Genesis 3:15 is often referred to by biblical scholars as the Protoevangelium. It is a sort of “gospel” before “the gospel.” This little text contains in very few words God’s plan of salvation which would be both revealed and realized in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, when one reads the text, one cannot help but note that this prophetic woman seems to have what could be termed almost a disturbing prominence and importance in God’s providential plan:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

Not only do we have the Virgin Birth here implied because the text says the Messiah would be born of “the seed of the woman” (the “seed” is normally of the man), but notice “the woman” is not included as “the seed” of the devil. It seems that both the woman and her seed are in opposition to and therefore not under the dominion of the devil and “his seed,” i.e., all who have original sin and are “by nature children of wrath” as St. Paul puts it in Eph. 2:3. Here, we have in seed form (pun intended), the fact that the woman—Mary—would be without sin, especially original sin, just as her Son—the Messiah—would be. The emphasis on Mary is truly remarkable in that the future Messiah was only mentioned in relation to her. There can be little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary and their absolute opposition to the devil.

The Old Testament ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. It was a picture of the purity and holiness God fittingly demands of those objects and/or persons most closely associated with himself and the plan of salvation. Because it would contain the very presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s staff—it had to be most pure and untouched by sinful man (see II Sam. 6:1-9; Exodus 25:10ff; Numbers 4:15; Heb. 9:4).

In the New Testament, the new and true Ark would not be an inanimate object, but a person—the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new and true Ark be when we consider the old ark was a mere “shadow” in relation to it (see Heb. 10:1)? This image of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is an indicator that Mary would fittingly be free from all contagion of sin in order for her to be a worthy vessel to bear God in her womb. And most importantly, just as the Old Covenant ark was pristine from the moment it was constructed with explicit divine instructions in Exodus 25, so would Mary be most pure from the moment of her conception. God, in a sense, prepared his own dwelling place in both the Old and New Testaments.

In Behold Your Mother, there is much more that I say not only about these three above biblical reasons for the Immaculate Conception, but I give you five more reasons as well. There is only so much I can do in a brief blog post. But if you would like to dive deeper, click here.

I believe that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant because the Catholic Church teaches that they are inspired and inerrant.

I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary because the Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary contradict nothing in Scripture, and they are reasonable in themselves.

I notice in your statements to morgana that you do not cite any Scripture in support of the immaculate conception. Perhaps because there isn't any. From the online edition of the catholic encyclopedia.

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

That right there in itself should cause the rcc to stop teaching this false doctrine.

Luke 1:28

The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

We won't go into the incorrect translation of Luke 1:28 which should be Greetings, you favored with grace, or Greetings, favored one.

Other texts

From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of God's Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles (4:7, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee"), no theological conclusion can be drawn. These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus". For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to take an extreme position by applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of God.

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....

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.

This sounds eerily similar to Montanism. You will recall that it believed in ongoing revelation. Sure sounds like what the rcc is espousing with this doctrine and the assumption. You will recall it was one of the reasons the early church wanted a written canon.

And you will most likely stop commenting on these type threads as well.

For the record, I'm not a Catholic, just a non-denominational Christian, and I worry about what many of the commenters are doing to themselves with their comments and the thoughts and emotions behind them.

As crazy as this might sound, I hope, for their sakes, that their hearts are pure and that one day they will seek forgiveness.

Maybe ignorance can be an excuse for some? I've recently begun to read but a tiny little piece of the vast collection of writings and accounts of Mother Mary and her active role in our salvation.

Personally, I'm grateful. Bless you, Mother Mary.

I believe that the Scriptures are inspired, and inerrant, because the Catholic Church teaches that they are.
I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary because the Catholic Church teaches them.

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption do not contradict anything in Scripture, and are reasonable doctrines in themselves.

The catholic church also instigated the Inquisition. You believe in the killing of people who disagreed with Rome? The rcc was advocating that also.

You believe indulgences should be sold? The rcc taught that.

You believe everyone has to be subject to the pope and do what he says?

You believe you can lose your salvation? The bible notes if you can lose it, you can't get it back. Are you sure you believe this? The rcc teaches this also.

I leave you with this from your own catholic apologists.

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

It is necessary to distinguish between dogmas that have been solemnly and formally defined by the Church, and actions taken by someone here or someone there who happened to be Catholic.

The notion of “once-saved-always-saved” has to be among the top five moronic beliefs concocted in the last 200 years. It flies in the face of reason, and it is not taught anywhere in Scripture. Intellectually and morally, it is a low point in the history of the maimed, deformed, crackpot versions of Christianity that have been loosed on the world by Satan since the Reformation.

I notice you did not answer my questions. That you didn't is telling and very characteristic of catholics on this board. When confronted with what Rome has taught in the past, catholics run away faster than the Road Runner.

If catholics really believe you can lose your salvation, then every catholic should be camping out at the door of their priest and constantly confessing sins. Every single waking minute of the day, month and year. 7/24/365

The fear the catholic must live in not knowing if they are "in a right relationship with God" at death must be paralyzing.

Amazing that catholicism ignores Ephesians 1 where the Bible notes that "you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given to us as a pledge of our inheritance with a view to the redemption of God's own possession to the praise of His glory." I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where we are ever unsealed; either by Him or our own efforts.

The Protestant obsession with “assurance” comes from Luther’s own neuroses.

Catholics do not live in the kind of fear you cartoonishly describe, because salvation cannot be “lost” in the manner you describe. It can only be rejected, deliberately.

The conditions for a mortal sin are: grave matter, sufficient knowledge/refection, and a free act of the will.

No one commits mortal sin unknowingly or by accident. “Salvation” cannot be misplaced like one’s glasses or car keys.

The words in Ephesians describe how GOD has committed himself to our salvation. Jesus has given his life in order to bring us the possibility of living in grace.

The words in Ephesians are NOT a description of OUR subjective psychological state.

Protestants would profit by a better understanding of how Luther’s warped, neurotic psyche led him to twist the gospel. Luther re-interpreted Scriptures describing GOD’s unshakable desire to save us into a description of SUBJECTIVE “assurance” about our salvation.

The Protestant obsession with “assurance” comes from Luther’s own neuroses.

To be quite honest, I've never read much on Luther.

The understanding of eternal life is evident in reading the Word.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. John 3:36

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. John 3:14-15

Sure sounds like John was talking about an assurance of salvation.

Also, I notice how you've attempted to stray away from the topic of this thread....the immaculate conception.

Perhaps it's because you cannot scripturally defend the immaculate conception. Even rcc apologists admit they can't.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. John 3:36
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. John 3:14-15

Sure sounds like John was talking about an assurance of salvation.

You have given a perfect example of what I was talking about. Read those two Scripture verses again. They are talking about the FACT of salvation. There is no reference whatever to the SUBJECTIVE emotional state of "assurance."

Are you capable of reading those verses without seeing something that ISN'T THERE?

I thought I had made clear, but I’ll say it again:

I DON’T CARE that the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

I DOES NOT BOTHER ME that the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

The reason for this is that I reject the self-contradictory, man-made, un-Scriptural doctrine of sola scriptura, which is not taught in Scripture.

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.