Why Did Mary Offer a Sin Offering? [Ecumenical]

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.

The phase, "the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account" is antecedent to the section you quote.

Yes. And with the paragraph and conclusion of Vatican I, you are not allowed to reach a conclusion different from the teachings or ex cathedra or extraordinary magisterium findings of the Catholic Church. Correct?

For example, take the Catholic positions on communion and Mary's eternal virginity. The former mandates that there is only a literal interpretation; symbolic is not allowed. The latter demands symbolic/inferred only, literal is not allowed.

The Catholic Church has essentially dictated when a person must interpret Scripture literally and when they cannot. And any interpretation to the contrary - even if there is a reasonable logical support for that contrary conclusion - is heretical and must be avoided.

How is that not the Catholic Church dictating how scripture must be interpreted? We have the Catholic Church explicitly stating that you must follow the teachings and dictates of the Church, and that you cannot reach different conclusions, and that you must interpret literally when told to do so, and symbolically/figuratively when told so.

Seems to me to be pretty cut-and-dried; the Catholic Church is - according to its own dogma - the sole arbiter of how to read and interpret scripture.

Now, about sola scriptura, I would merely point you to 2 Tim 3:14-17. Paul explicitly states that the scriptures written and lessons orally taught at the time Timothy was a child were all that were needed to gain the wisdom to be saved. Nothing more, nothing less.

I also know enough of Catholicism to realize that the Catholic Church does not address this section of scripture, probably for the very claim it makes. You do not need additional teachings or writings to gain salvation. In fact, I would recommend a reading through the entire chapter (2 Tim 3) through eyes not colored of any church or dogma, but as a clearly scriptural warning about how institutions and men are corruptible and corrupted.

being filled with grace [...] does not imply that you were in that state since birth

Of course. This is why I drew the distinction between St. Stephen and Our Lady. I agree that both were filled with grace at a certain time in their lives, and therefore their sin was washed away: Mary was filled with grace even prior to the Annunciation and St. Stephen -- at his electin as deacon and subsequent martyrdom. (And I was filled with grace this morning along with a couple hundred other people). The inference that Mary was filled with grace since her conception is made because otherwise we have to presume some oher moment in her life when that outpouring of grace had occurred, and the Scripture is silent on that. In the case of St. Stephen it is clear from context that he received the grace because of his faith just like he also received the blessing of martyrdom. Since he was an adult convert like all the deacons and bishops of the Early Church, we cannot presume anything of his life prior to the ordination. However, if you wish to believe, on the strength of the passage in Acts 6, that St. Stephen was sinless all his life, that would be a reasonable, especially for a Bible Alone Christian, interpretation. It just does not happen to come from the Catholic Holy Tradition.

I agree that if we were go by scripture alone, we would have some competing interpretations of Luke 1:28. But we don't go by scripture alone: the Church received the deposit of faith from the Holy Apostles in its entirety, which in due course produced both the New Testament Scripture and the infallible interpretation thereof. My task here as a Catholic is not to deduce the Catholic doctrine from the Scripture but rather explain the Scripture in the light of the doctrine received by the Church from the Holy Spirit directly.

the root caritow means favored, NOT sinless

The root is charis (χαρις), grace. "Favor" is an translation suitable in non-theological contexts; do a parallel search of "grace" in your preferred translation in the New Testament and you will always or nearly always find the Greek original say "χαρις" or an inflection thereof. "κεχαριτωμενη" means something like "engraced". The only reason Prtoestant translations use "favor" is to downplay the significance of Archangel's choice of words. Of course it does not mean "sinless"; sinlessness is an inference, not the text itself.

Romans 3:23

But Noah and, of course, Christ are described in the Scripture as free from sin. We know of sinlessness of others. For example, what sin did the babies massacred by Herod commit? Would not reason compel us to think that a two year old baby cannot sin?

Further look at the context of Romans 3. Not only have "all" sinned, they also do not seek God, none of them is righteous and in fact all are quick to shed blood. It is clear that St. Paul speaks in generalities in that passage. Indeed, the entire passage is a paraphrase of Psalm 14(13). But the next Psalm speaks of righteousless: "He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice: He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour", etc. Romans 3 is to be taken in the same way the relevant psalms are written, as a contrast between the sinful and the righteous, but not as a prooftext of universal sinfulness.

“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.”

I understand that the gospels and indeed the whole NT was not written until after Christ died and rose again. Until the NT was written, indeed, all the Scriptures we had were the Old Testament and the direct teaching of the apostles. I think they were more than adequate since by definition the apostles were taught directly by Jesus, and appointed as apostles by Him. That was ‘a’ if not ‘the’ main purpose of the apostles. So I accept apostolic teaching; I just think it ceased with the death of the last apostle.

When they died I am grateful they left us the NT canon. That’s what I rely on. Not on anyone who came after any apostle.

“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.”

Well, I’ll just say “amen” to that!

As for them setting up the Mass at Pentecost, oh no :), you know we see the Mass as rather a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. In other words, on the cross, “It is finished,” I don’t think we are instructed to re-sacrifice again and again in some way. The mass is a big argument between Protestants and Roman Catholics, of course. That, the authority of the Magisterium and the Pope and so forth, and the worship/veneration whatever you may call it of the saints.

It is true we must utilize the Scriptures as originally written, and not tinkered with. In this Protestants and Roman Catholics are in the same boat. I think we agree on the 66 books and most accepted English translations of them. So yes, I think they “got that right,” as I confess the RC church has gotten several doctrines right. I just can’t accept any unBiblical doctrine they may teach. You ask what is unBiblical they have taught? The sale of indulgences is a primary example. Obviously a terrible thing to do. Perhaps they have officially renounced that; I hope so. Purgatory is another one. Limbo, which I think has been recently, I am not sure what the term would be, recalled or changed or what have you.

It was the only church at the time that accepted the canon; you may truly call it the Roman Catholic church, I may call it the Protestant, but it was everybody, before the east/west split and the Reformation. The various church councils, consisting of duly ordained men, accepted it. We both recognize that, I think. Yes, I think they got it right!

“He said He would not leave us orphans.” God is good. I know we agree upon that.

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.