Why didn't Mary oppose the sin offering after birth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Opal0427
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leviticus 12 is what you need to read.

God commands women that give birth to go to the temple, not because they sinned but because they are ritually impure. The same reason why God commands women to do the same after they had their periods.

It has nothing to do with sin. It would be a sin if Mary DIDN’T go to the temple after she gave birth.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be comprehension problem here that isn’t mine and that I can’t fix. Checking out now.
 
Last edited:
CarmeliteKnight said:
Leviticus 12 is what you need to read.

God commands women that give birth to go to the temple, not because they sinned but because they are ritually impure. The same reason why God commands women to do the same after they had their periods.

It has nothing to do with sin. It would be a sin if Mary DIDN’T go to the temple after she gave birt
Click to expand...
Exactly…

The OP Question suggests a strong lack of Knowledge re: The OT

And in light of the Nativity - the same could be said re: The NT -

In fact - it seems offensive to Catholics/Christians
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
In fact - it seems offensive to Catholics/Christians
Click to expand...
It is a shame when we start characterizing questions as offensive. OP seemed to be asking a question for clarification. I don’t think it matters what his religious state is or how Christian he is.
 
Last edited:
Whatever Mary did - had to be in perfect conformity with the Will of God.
 
QwertyGirl said:
It is a shame when we start characterizing questions as offensive.
Click to expand...
No it’s not…

What makes you think that some questions unto themselves might not offend people?

Offenses exist and if we seem to witness some - we’re allowed to call attention to it.

And Note: I don’t stand alone in that opinion …
 
Last edited:
I guess that tells us what we need to know.

Perhaps Catholic ANSWERS Forum may not be a place for those so easily offended.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. She was a very obedient Israeli. As stated in another thread:
For her to NOT go to the temple after Jesus’ birth would have been a sin.
 
QwertyGirl said:
I guess that tells us what we need to know.

Perhaps Catholic ANSWERS Forum may not be a place for those so easily offended.
Click to expand...
And Who’s behaving “offended” now?

“us” and ‘easily’ most likely misrepresents…
 
Last edited:
I would look at Jesus’ reply to John when John balks at baptizing the sinless Jesus: Matthew 3:15:
Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.
 
I think the OP’s question is quite sensical.

The essence is: given that an Israelite woman after childbirth is obliged under Lev 12:6 to offer a sin offering (חַטָּאת hatat) for the purposes of atonement (כֹּפֶר kofer), is it the case that the act of childbirth is a sin?

I should say at the outset that this particular ritual has befuddled Jewish and Christian theologians for quite a long while, and some of their most common questions are:
  1. Is a חַטָּאת (hatat) a sin offering or a purification offering? The etymology is unambiguously related to sin more than purification, and Lev 12:6 requires that the hatat be made after “the days of purification have been fulfilled” rather than before. Yet, in what respect is childbirth a sin given that God commands Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” and that a great number of offspring was generally viewed in the OT as a sign of divine favour?
  2. If it is a sin offering, then what transgression has the woman committed? Again, any cogent theological explanation of childbirth being somehow sinful has long proved elusive (and it’s probably illusory).
I don’t have a more comprehensive answer for this (complex) question, but it’s an interesting one filled with lots of interesting twists and turns that the OP should investigate further.
 
Last edited:
Catholic Answers apologists have already answered this question:

Question:​

At the Presentation, why did Mary make a sin offering (Lk 2:24, Lv 12:8) if she was without sin?

Answer:​

For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Opal0427 said:
Jesus constantly pushed the limits of the law and tested people’s inflexible minds on behalf of truth.
Click to expand...
I think this is an unhealthy understanding of what Jesus did. I don’t think he “pushed limits.” He explained & taught a deeper truth.
Opal0427 said:
So, why did Mary offer the sin offering after giving birth then if she was sinless?
Click to expand...
I didn’t know it was a sin offering, I’ll have to look that up. My understanding is the first born son is to be consecrated to God & the turtle doves were offered as ransom.
 
Thank you for the link. Do you know of any sources I could use to prove that this offering was not based on any moral faults?

My protestant friend who’s interested in Catholicism is stuck on this problem. Thinking, if Catholicism itself says truth can’t directly contradict scripture, but also teaches Mary is sinless… Then, he would need some evidence that the scripture i Leviticus isn’t blantantly saying that under Jewish law, Mary sinned simply by giving birth.

He agrees we aren’t tied to that law anymore, but from His understanding, that freedom didn’t start until Jesus’s ministry or Pentacost.

This is a serious logical argument I think to a non-Catholic interested in Catholicism. It makes Catholicism seem self-refuting to him. I can’t just say “because we said so”.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

How can they be saved through child birth if it’s a sin?
 
Last edited:
His logic is that it was called a sin under the old testament laws (like many things we no longer consider sins). And since Mary was under those laws at the time she gave birth, she sinned. I can’t find any evidence to refute that logic since the passage itself says a “sin offering” for “her atonement”.
 
Last edited:
Opal0427 said:
Thanks I remember something about this in RCIA. Is there any scripture or other writings you could refer me to that could help me explain the differences between ritual “sin” and actual sin in the old testament?
Click to expand...
I can only point to the book of Leviticus in general, and chapter 12 in particular at the moment.
 
What is his other option besides Catholicism?

Even the protestant reformer Martin Luther believed Mary was sinless:

In 1544 Luther said: ‘God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.’[15][ need quotation to verify ] Elsewhere, “All seed except Mary was vitiated [by original sin].”[16] When concentrating specifically on Mary herself as the Mother of God, Luther acknowledges God’s singular action in bringing her into the world, but in making general comments about the universality of human sinfulness, he includes her among all the rest of humanity.
Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person."[17]
Lutheran Mariology - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
I’d ask why he is so sure of his interpretation of scripture being correct.

There’s other things he could consider such as which church gave us the bible.
 
Last edited:
I think you might have just given me a simple revelation. God literally commands people to be fruitful and multiply. To sin morally is to disobey God. And having children is portrayed as a sign of Gods blessing. God doesn’t bless people with sin and generally doesn’t command people to
do traditionally sinful things. Those would be the exceptions rather than the rule. Leading to the logical conclusion that whatever the sin offering was for, it couldn’t have been a sin simply to give birth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top