Mary vs Lev 12:6-7

  • Thread starter Thread starter figget3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

figget3

Guest
I am a convert and my younger brother is ev. protestant. He asked me: If Mary was free from sin, why did she make a “sin offering” following the birth of Jesus. I explained that, as observant Jews, Mary and Joseph would have followed the law. He said that he hoped that wasn’t all there was to it!!! I guess the silent question is: Did Mary know she was sinless? and Am I right about the sin offering? Thanks!
Linda
Figget 3
 
Thank You Steve,

During my conversation with my brotherI told him just that and he said it was not the same because He/Jesus was “fulfilling all righteousness” and thus was not the same sort of situation. Do you think Mary knew she was sinless?

Linda
Figget3
 
40.png
figget3:
I am a convert and my younger brother is ev. protestant. He asked me: If Mary was free from sin, why did she make a “sin offering” following the birth of Jesus. I explained that, as observant Jews, Mary and Joseph would have followed the law. He said that he hoped that wasn’t all there was to it!!! I guess the silent question is: Did Mary know she was sinless? and Am I right about the sin offering? Thanks!
Linda
Figget 3
No. I don’t think Our Blessed Mother knew she was sinless. (Can’t prove it. Just my observations) As far as making a sin offering, where does it say a person is exempt if sinless. Mary would have sinned if she didn’t make a sin offering. It was the law. Like her Son, she was fulfilling all righteousness in as much as she can.
 
40.png
figget3:
I am a convert and my younger brother is ev. protestant. He asked me: If Mary was free from sin, why did she make a “sin offering” following the birth of Jesus. I explained that, as observant Jews, Mary and Joseph would have followed the law. He said that he hoped that wasn’t all there was to it!!! I guess the silent question is: Did Mary know she was sinless? and Am I right about the sin offering? Thanks!
Linda
Figget 3
Read the whole chapter. The issue is what is sometimes called “Levitical Sin” or “Levitical Uncleanliness.” Under Jewish law, people who performed certain acts – such as preparing a corpse for burial, giving birth, and so on – were “unclean” and had to be purified and make an offering. These acts were obviously not sins in the sense of being offenses against God. In fact, some of them were not only moral but mandatory.

Mary had committed no immoral act, and was therefore sinless.
 
vern humphrey:
Read the whole chapter. The issue is what is sometimes called “Levitical Sin” or “Levitical Uncleanliness.” Under Jewish law, people who performed certain acts – such as preparing a corpse for burial, giving birth, and so on – were “unclean” and had to be purified and make an offering. These acts were obviously not sins in the sense of being offenses against God. In fact, some of them were not only moral but mandatory.

Mary had committed no immoral act, and was therefore sinless.
Exactly right. The Levitical law required ritual purification for many routine acts which resulted in “ritual impurity” but did not constitute sin.
 
40.png
JimG:
Exactly right. The Levitical law required ritual purification for many routine acts which resulted in “ritual impurity” but did not constitute sin.
And this is a good example of the ultra-Protestant use pf “proof texts.” Without taking the whole chapter into account and understanding the Levitical law, a wrong interpretation is placed on a single verse – making it say something it clearly does not mean.
 
Jesus was circumcised, he didn’t have to, it was in obediance to the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top