Skip to comments.Why Did Mary Offer a Sin Offering? [Ecumenical]
Posted on 07/19/2009 2:17:43 PM PDT by 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. Johns 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 personMaryto 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 womans 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.
“I’ve never encountered “sinlessness” mentioned as a Divine attribute “
I think it is a very major attribute. Were it not so, there would be no need that I can think of for heaven and hell. Heaven is a place of no sin; we can’t go there because we are sinners; Christ died to atone for our sins so that we could be declared righteous and so get into heaven. That’s a very central Christian doctrine.
Do you propose that God is a sinner? I can’t imagine how. We’d have no need of a Savior, then. Or God would need one.
Can you help me with a citation for psalm(s) you are referencing?
This is the fundamental leap of faith ex scriptura that most have a problem with (including the Orthodox churches, according to Kolokotronis) - being filled with grace does make one blameless and washes away your sins, but it does not imply that you were in that state since birth.
So, you are setting up a straw man. You presume that we teach that St. Stephen was not in fact without sin as he was martyred.
I did no such thing, and if it was implied, then accept my apologies! Rather, I wanted to use the example of Stephen being filled with grace as a case where a clearly NOT-sinless man was also filled with grace, as Mary. Meaning that being filled with grace does NOT confer with it a state of being without sin since conception. In effect, Stephen is a key example that shows the opposite of the conclusion made about Mary.
Our Lady is proclaimed by Archangel Gabriel already filled with grace. This is why the grammatical prefect tense is important: here is a young girl and she is said to be filled with grace already. This the scriptural basis not merely of her sinlessness but also of her immaculate conception: since she had been filled with grace prior to Archangel Gabriel talking to her, it is reasonable to think that she had been that way since the beginning of the life, since Sts Joachim and Anna concieved her.
Except that the root caritow means favored, NOT sinless. In fact, there is no foundational claim for caritow to mean sinless - either canonically or implicitly. Mary was favored, and found favor in the eyes of God, but she was NOT sinless. Perhaps you could try to interpet the Bible in that way, but it is far from obvious or unequivocal.
Furthermore, one needs to look no further than Romans 3:23 - ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. Not all but Mary, but ALL. Man's sinful nature is complete and inherent since Adam and Eve.
Christ could not be fully man if his mother were not.
That is simply not true. The Pope is bound by Scripture same as any Christian. The difference comes in the interpretation of Scripture - Catholics understand that God's teachings come in both oral and written form. Protestants tend to believe in only the latter.
If you want to cherry-pick Scripture quotes, let's look at this:
"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9)
Tell me, what do you call the gentleman who provided half of your DNA?
How does the IC deny Christ's humanity, K?
“How does the IC deny Christ’s humanity, K?”
The argument is that the IC denies the humanity of Panagia, making her a demi goddess of sorts. If Christ’s mother was not fully human, then He has no fully human nature. It is also argued that if Panagia was indeed preserved from conception from any sin, then she is not worthy of emulation as she was a sort of holy automaton. As I said, it really all stems from the problem posed by Christ being born of a woman if that woman was “stained” with Original Sin. Because The Church in the East never accepted Blessed Augustine’s understanding of ancestral sin, the problem of a less than perfect, ab initio, mother for God never arises.
Interesting, and not something I’ve been exposed to before. However, both Adam and Eve were created without original sin - were they not fully human? And the BVM, although preserved from the sin of Adam, made the affirmative choice to refrain from sin throughout her life, succeeding where Eve (also without original sin) failed. Hmm, something to ponder, anyway...
I called him Dad - in the flesh. But God is my father, for we read, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..." and "but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God..."
I haven't cherry-picked any Scriptures. I would appreciate it if you would cite an example otherwise.
Since the Pope alone can interpret scripture, he is free to twist it into a pretzel to get the results he wants. Consider Purgatory and Indulgences...or the ridiculous idea that Mary was born sinless and lived sinless...or the even more ridiculous idea that Peter was made Vicar of Christ by Jesus!
His mother was most definitely not a man.
not to hijack this lively thread or anything, but have you a link to anything on that provocative new encyclical?
“And the BVM, although preserved from the sin of Adam, made the affirmative choice to refrain from sin throughout her life...”
Contradicts Scripture. If true, then Jesus had no need to die. “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”
**or the Bible is lying - multiple times **
The Bible isn’t lying. Aunts and uncles and cousins often lived in a compound together. They were consider “brothers and sisters.”
Saint Paul speaks to the recipiemts of his many letters in these same words, “brothers and sisters.”
And I don’t think in either instance there was lying going on in the Bible. It’s just that some people have chosen to believe that Mary and Joseph had other children. Not so.
BTW, I sent you a brief FReepmail.
**? If Stephen was filled with grace and was not sinless, **
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.
You have FReepmail to answer your question.
Really? You never said "in the living room" when your mother asked "where is your father?" Further, you must believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantion, because Jesus did say "I am the bread of life." Or was that saying merely hyperbole, whereas his quote on calling men "father" literal?
I haven't cherry-picked any Scriptures. I would appreciate it if you would cite an example otherwise.
Your original post pulled one quote out of a book of Scripture.
Since the Pope alone can interpret scripture,
That is simply untrue. Any well-informed Catholic can interpret Scripture. Of course, that interpretation cannot come in a vacuum, but must be enlightened by the statements of Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Church Fathers, etc.
but he is free to twist it into a pretzel to get the results he wants.
Again, simply untrue. Show me one doctrine or dogma, in toto, that twists Scripture.
Consider Purgatory and Indulgences
Purgatory: nothing unclean may enter into Heaven. Are you completely free of sin upon death? Indulgences: Whatever is bound on earth...
or the ridiculous idea that Mary was born sinless and lived sinless
So the New Ark of the Covenant, the new Eve, was just ordinary? Despite the fact that the old Ark was commanded to be adorned with jewels, gold, etc.?
or the even more ridiculous idea that Peter was made Vicar of Christ by Jesus!
"You are Rock, and upon this Rock..."
You are merely disagreeing with our interpretation of Scripture.
Psalm 103 and 148 both command Angels to worship God.
Exactly. And from what? What is it she needed to be saved from?
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? Were you saved by your friend any less than people who had already fallen into the pit and then were then pulled from that pit by your friend?
“I admit to that, pretty much. Its not so much that only Scripture MATTERS, as much as it is the supreme authority on doctrinal issues, for me.”
Scripture cannot be the supreme authority for the simple reason that the Gospels were not written for many years after Christ died. Until they were written, the supreme authority on doctrinal issues was Peter and his successors. Christ set it up that way. The Scriptures didn’t exist and Christ selected oral Church teaching as His method of evangelization.
In addition, Christ set up His Church knowing full well that He was using foolish and sometimes sinful men. Peter’s weaknesses were well known to Christ. Still, he selected Peter, warts and all. He wanted frail humans, guided by the Holy Spirit, spreading the faith. He knew the Church would not always be perfect and He never promised it would be. What He promised was that His Church would last forever and that the apostolic leadership would be guided by the Spirit. He said He would not leave us orphans.
If you believe Scripture, you know that the Holy Spirit enlightened the minds of the Apostles and Mary on Pentecost. From the very first days, those enlightened minds set up the Mass and a hierarchy of Church leadership. If you believe Scripture, do a real study of what the early Church actually did. You will find it remarkably similar to the practices of the Catholic Church of today.
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. How did they decide that? Well, they relied on Church tradition, oral teaching, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So the Scripture you are relying on as a final authority was compiled and protected through the ages by the Catholic Church. How could they get that right and nothing else? Did the Holy Spirit guide them on just this issue? In the 16th century, men began altering the translations and leaving passages out as it suited them and their own agendas.
It would seem to me that if you want to use Scripture as the supreme authority on doctrinal issues, you would at least want to use the text as it was originally written, not after men have tinkered with it. Go back to the first ancient versions of Scripture and you will find something closer to the Truth. You will also find that Catholic teaching, tradition, and dogma are completely scriptural.
If you really want to know what the Church teaches, without the bias or self-preservation a minister might include in his explanations and teachings to you, I invite you to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Every concept is spelled out clearly with references to the Scriptural passage that relates to it. Then cross-reference with a good Catholic Bible which will contain books and passages you may never have seen...passages that have existed in the Bible since it was written.
I will pray for you, Marie, and I hope that God blesses you always.