Featured Mary, Salvation, and Sin Offering

In a recent post, DHK wrote the following about Mary's visit to the Temple after the birth of Jesus: "The entire reason for this offering was to admit that she was a sinner. She was unclean and needed to be purified, not only physically, but spiritually. She was a sinner. This was a sin offering, an admission that she was a sinner in need of a Savior which she already admitted in Luke 1 :47". I have to ask the question then; sin offering for what, having a baby? This is an incredible statement by anyone as I have ever seen.. Imagine that, it is a sin to have a baby. Incredible, simply incredible!

Maybe the true explanation for this is that this was done simply for purification after childbirth, that this had only to do with a ritual uncleanliness which in and of itself did not imply any moral fault. Mary was simply fulfilling all the precepts of the Law, (which, clearly wasn't written to make allowances for a sinless man like Jesus, who also followed the Law or his sinless mother). We should not forget that Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent of either.


DHK also said: "Thus from Scripture we see Mary was a sinner; Mary is dead. A dead sinner cannot have a part in the salvation of anyone. I have a better chance of playing a part in your salvation than Mary or any of the apostles including Peter". Are we to believe that Mary had no part in the salvation of humanity? Good grief, the fact is that without her there would have been no Jesus at all. Common sense tells us that apart from any other person who ever existed, she did indeed play a very important part in the salvation process and I cannot understand how anyone can deny that reality.

 

I never questioned the concept this being a purification act, but the idea that it was some kind of "sin offering" - as if she had been complicit in some sort of sin.

 

You are talking apples and oranges here. The birth of the Savior is a unique event in the history of the world as placed against you, your daughter and her patients. If you can't see the difference between the two, the only thing I could now say would be that going along with your line of reasoning, the Holy Spirit had no part in the salvation of humanity either.

 

What sins did she commit? Remember the Holy of Holies, a place so holy, God said only the Chief Priest could go in there. Now, the Savior is going to be born, the holiest person ever to set foot upon the earth, and God is now going to do a complete 180 and have a sinner bear him into this world? That is insane. No! God would absolve Mary of all sin so she could bear the "holiest of holies" into this world.

 

Sure, sure. Again I ask you, what was her sin? You can believe what you want. But how do you know do you know for sure? Were you there? Did God tell you personally, face to face? But really, why did God choose a Jewish virgin for the Savior's entry onto earth? Wouldn't a woman who had had children before been a better choice? Or maybe a prostitute? Now that would have been quite a statement! No, there was a reason for a virgin, a pure undefiled Jewish maiden whom He made full of grace before any of this could happen.

You know, I will admit that some orthodox believers take this Mary thing a bit far, but the fact remains that she was indeed the mother of the Incarnate Word and she rightfully has a place of honor in the Christian narrative. You folks on the other hand go way to the other extreme and treat her like she is nothing to Christendom, just something to be thrown away after usage - and that's not right.

 

Well, we just do not agree on the Mary thing.

 

Her calling God her Savior does not mean that she was subject to original sin. God absolved her of that before she was born, so the Savior would have a pure and undefiled way into this world.

The fact is we are both reading into the Scriptures what we believe to be true here - things could really go either way.