Mary, Salvation, and Sin Offering

[Adonia]

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.

 

[annsni]

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.

It would have been both. No, having a baby is not a sin but it was still something that she needed purification from AND since she called her infant son her Savior, we know that she needed a Savior because she was sinful. Pure holy sinless ones don't need a savior.

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.

The only part Mary played was to be the mother of Jesus. She fed Him, changed Him, bathed Him, taught Him (but that begs the question - what did Jesus have to learn that He didn't know??) and loved Him like any mother would. However, she had no part in the salvation of the world just like I have no part in my daughter's patients being able to hear. I cannot go to her patients and say "You can hear because of me." because that's not true. They can hear because my daughter has assisted them in their hearing difficulties and maybe got them a hearing aid or helped with a cochlear implant (she is going to be an audiologist).

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

Under the Law, women stayed outside the camp when going through their menstrual cycle. They had to be purified before regaining entrance into the camp.

Now, in regards to childbirth, I am not sure what they needed to do...maybe it was similiar to those who were going through their monthly menstrual.

Remember, Jesus lived under the Law...see Galatians 4:4...and they...all of Israel...still had to live under the Law's authority. The Law was not fulfilled under three days and nights after Jesus hung, bled & died on the cross.

So Mary had to be purfied as the Law commanded.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘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.[Leviticus 12:1-2]

Now, if she gave birth to a daughter, she was ceremonially unclean for 14 days.

Remember, they...Israel...was under the authority of the Law during the life of Christ. 95% or more of the 4 gospels was while the Jews lived under the Law.

 

[Adonia]

It would have been both. No, having a baby is not a sin but it was still something that she needed purification from AND since she called her infant son her Savior, we know that she needed a Savior because she was sinful. Pure holy sinless ones don't need a savior.




The only part Mary played was to be the mother of Jesus. She fed Him, changed Him, bathed Him, taught Him (but that begs the question - what did Jesus have to learn that He didn't know??) and loved Him like any mother would. However, she had no part in the salvation of the world just like I have no part in my daughter's patients being able to hear. I cannot go to her patients and say "You can hear because of me." because that's not true. They can hear because my daughter has assisted them in their hearing difficulties and maybe got them a hearing aid or helped with a cochlear implant (she is going to be an audiologist).

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘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.[Leviticus 12:1-2]

Now, if she gave birth to a daughter, she was ceremonially unclean for 14 days.

Remember, they...Israel...was under the authority of the Law during the life of Christ. 95% or more of the 4 gospels was while the Jews lived under the Law.

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.

 

[Adonia]

It would have been both. No, having a baby is not a sin but it was still something that she needed purification from AND since she called her infant son her Savior, we know that she needed a Savior because she was sinful. Pure holy sinless ones don't need a savior.




The only part Mary played was to be the mother of Jesus. She fed Him, changed Him, bathed Him, taught Him (but that begs the question - what did Jesus have to learn that He didn't know??) and loved Him like any mother would. However, she had no part in the salvation of the world just like I have no part in my daughter's patients being able to hear. I cannot go to her patients and say "You can hear because of me." because that's not true. They can hear because my daughter has assisted them in their hearing difficulties and maybe got them a hearing aid or helped with a cochlear implant (she is going to be an audiologist).

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.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

And you have missed the concept God laid out for women after childbirth...

“‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. “‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. But 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. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean."[Leviticus 12:6-8]

The purification after childbirth also had a sacrifice for her sins.

 

[annsni]

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.

Umm - I'd say the Trinity and a mother/child are quite different, wouldn't you think?

 

[Adonia]

And you have missed the concept God laid out for women after childbirth...

“‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. “‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. But 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. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean."[Leviticus 12:6-8]

The purification after childbirth also had a sacrifice for her sins.

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.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

Read Leviticus 12 for yourself. The women AFTER childbirth had to also have a sin offering in the purification. Don't take my word...read it for yourself.

Mary was not sinless, even whilst carrying Jesus in her womb.

 

[Adonia]

Read Leviticus 12 for yourself. The women AFTER childbirth had to also have a sin offering in the purification. Don't take my word...read it for yourself.

Mary was not sinless, even whilst carrying Jesus in her womb.

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.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sure, sure. You can believe what you want. How 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 sent a message, wouldn't it? 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.

The reason why God chose a virgin to birth the Christ was to prove His power, and that He, and not Joseph, was/is His Father.

Mary was not sinless. Not in the least.

 

[SovereignGrace]

"and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,"[Luke 1:47]

Mary proclaimed God as her Savior pre-birth of Christ. If she was sinless, she had no need of being saved. Jesus was prophesied as "He will save His ppl from their sins."

 

[annsni]

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.

Why would it be insane?

 

[annsni]

"and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,"[Luke 1:47]

Mary proclaimed God as her Savior pre-birth of Christ. If she was sinless, she had no need of being saved. Jesus was prophesied as "He will save His ppl from their sins."

Agreed. Sinless=not needing a Savior. Mary called herself a sinner then - KNOWING she needed a Savior.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Adonia, you added this to a post I already quoted...

"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."

None deny Mary gave birth to the Incarnate Word. But that does not equate to her being sinless. She found favor in God's eyes, just as Noah did right before He destroyed the populace, minus 8 souls, with the flood. But Noah was not sinless either.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Agreed. Sinless=not needing a Savior. Mary called herself a sinner then - KNOWING she needed a Savior.

She is venerating Mary.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Why would it be insane?

It takes Mary off the throne.

 

[Adonia]

It takes Mary off the throne.

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

 

[Adonia]

Agreed. Sinless=not needing a Savior. Mary called herself a sinner then - KNOWING she needed a Savior.

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.