Why doesn't the Bible say that Mary was sinless?

[PhilVaz]

As for the Bible and Mary’s sinlessness, here are the biblical arguments:

Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium)

The literal sense of the passage: Between Satan and his followers on the one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant moral warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messiah, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. Thus the passage is indirectly messianic.

The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Redeemer, and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-Marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers, e.g. St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanius, Isidore of Pelusium, St. Leo the Great, etc. According to this interpretation, Mary stands with Christ in a perfect and victorious enmity towards Satan and his following.

Many of the later scholastics and a great many modern theologians argue that Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had ever been under his dominion. Consequently she must have entered this world without the stain of original sin.

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”)

The expression (Greek kecharitomene) in the angel’s salutation, represents a proper name, and must on this account express a characteristic quality of Mary. The principal reason why the pleasure of God rests in special fashion on her is her election to the dignity of the Mother of God (Theotokos). Accordingly, Mary’s endowment with grace proceeding from God’s pleasure must also be of unique perfect. However, it is perfect only if it be perfect not only intensively but also extensively, that is, if it extends over her whole life, beginning with her entry into the world.

See also The Meaning of Kecharitomene (Full of Grace)

Luke 1:42 (“blessed art thou among [above all] women”)

The blessing of God which rests upon Mary is made parallel to the blessing of God which rests upon Christ in His humanity. This parallelism suggests that Mary, just like Christ, was from the beginning of her human existence, free from all sin. Also, since Hebrew/Aramaic (the language that Jesus and His apostles probably spoke) does not have the comparative/superlative (better, best), the text uses “among” as meaning “above all” – the verse can be translated: “You are the most blessed of all women!”

“…when Elizabeth called Mary ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1:42), [this is] a Semitic way of saying, ‘You are the most blessed of all women.’…Mary is the most blessed woman, as Elizabeth proclaimed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and for this reason ‘all generations will call [Mary] blessed’ (Luke 1:48). Mary is, therefore, even more blessed than our mother, Eve, who was conceived without original sin, as all Christians believe. What makes Mary more blessed? Both the fact that she bore her Savior and that, unlike the immaculately conceived [created] Eve, Mary was immaculately conceived and never sinned. Sinlessness is the only true blessing, and Mary is the most blessed woman who ever existed because, by God’s grace, she never sinned.” (Fr. Mitch Pacwa, in a response to The Cult of the Virgin [Baker, 1992] by Miller/Samples, page 164)

continued…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Mary as New Ark of the Covenant

If God, who attached the promise of His Presence and Revelation to the Temple of Jerusalem alone, and more particularly the Holy of Holies enters the dwelling-place of Mary to accomplish the act of His Presence and Revelation in its most extraordinary form, the Incarnation, then surely it is because Mary really is at that moment both Temple and Holy of Holies, the dwelling of God and the (New) Ark of the Covenant, thus full of God’s grace and devoid of sin. Later Christ, and then the entire Church, and then each Christian, will be called “Temples of God” (John 2:21; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), holy, glorified and sinless (Eph 5:25-27; Rev 21:1ff, 27), but at the moment of the Annunciation by the angel, and virginal conception of Jesus, Mary is the dwelling of God.

The response of the angel to Mary, who is astounded by her divine motherhood since she is a virgin (Luke 1:34), is going to make clearer, by references to the Old Testament, the fact that she actually is the place at that moment of the Ark of the Covenant and the dwelling-place of God:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the Most High will overshadow thee (Greek epikiasei); that is why he who shall be born will be called the Son of God…” (Luke 1:35).

The parallelism of this text with that of the book of Exodus (40:35) has been indicated by many commentators, both Catholic and Protestant (H. Sahlin [1945]; A.G. Hebert [1951]; J. Coppins [1955]; cited by Thurian, page 46, 196). For Mary, as for the dwelling of God in the desert, the consequences of the Presence of God in the ‘Shekinah’ the luminous and enveloping cloud, is that God’s glory, which comes to fill her, is present. Like the glory of God which filled the dwelling covered by the shadow of the luminous cloud, the Holy Son of God is going to come and dwell in the Virgin Mary.

“In introducing Mary as the Ark, [Luke] draws on Old Testament texts that any Jewish reader would understand and identify with the Ark. Examples here include the similitude between Exodus 40:34,35 and Luke 1:35 and the striking parallels between the Elizabeth’s visit to Mary and the transportation of the Ark of the Covenant from the house of Abinadab to that of Obededom and to Jerusalem…” (Robert Payesko’s The Truth About Mary and his site www.Mariology.com)

– Exodus 40:34 with Luke 1:35 (power of the Most High will overshadow)
– 2 Samuel 6:9 with Luke 1:43 (honored with a visit from the mother of my Lord)
– 2 Samuel 6:14-15 with Luke 1:44 (the babe leaped/danced in my womb for joy)
– 2 Samuel 6:11 with Luke 1:56 (reference to continue for three months)
– 2 Samuel 6:11 with Luke 1:57 (fertility is associated with blessing)

Mary, the Daughter of Zion, the virgin of Israel, the Dwelling of God, and the Ark of the Covenant! These titles serve to indicate that Mary is the place where God’s final visitation of His people is taking place. Already the prophet had united the symbols of the woman and the dwelling in speaking of Israel whom God would visit and dwell in (cf. Jeremiah 31:3-6; Isaiah 62:5,11,12). The fusion of these two images, the Daughter of Zion and the Dwelling of God, used by the messianic prophet is complete in the symbolism relating to the Church in the last time, when the people of God (of whom Mary is the type) shall be renewed (Rev 21:1-3). The new Jerusalem, the transfigured Church, is thus indicated at the same time by these images of the holy city, the young woman betrothed, the Tabernacle, and the Holy Tent which sheltered the divine Presence in the desert. Moreover, in the book of Revelation our vision is directed to the double symbol of the Temple and the Woman, the dwelling-place (or New Ark of the Covenant) of God our Savior.

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened and the ark of the covenant was seen within his temple…and a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun…” (Rev 11:19; 12:1).

Mary, who is the embodiment of the Church, the Daughter of Zion, and the Dwelling of God on the day of the Incarnation, will take her place once more in the heart of the people of God, and after having been the Ark of the Covenant by bearing the Son of God, she will be like any member of the mystical Body of His Son, the Church, the Dwelling of God, who bears Him spiritually in her heart. But, because of her unique vocation as the Mother of God, she will remain the privileged type of the Church, the symbol of a virginal motherhood which the Church will have to re-live without ceasing in its ministry as Mother of the Faithful. Thus Mary, the Mother of the Lord, who has borne the physical body of Christ and is the dwelling of God and the Ark of the Covenant, remains the figure of motherhood for the Church; as a spiritual mother, the Holy Church gives birth to the members of the Body of Christ, the faithful, by her own life, by the Word of God and the Sacraments of His Presence. And they in their turn become temples of the Holy Spirit, and find in Mary the example which encourages them in that purity of heart and of body which, having been redeemed, belong henceforth only to God; they bear God with them and witness to His glory which dwells in them in fullness (see Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians, chapter 4 “Dwelling of God”, pages 42-55).

These biblical arguments are not decisive for the Immaculate Conception by themselves, but these are the main Catholic arguments from the Bible. Thurian, btw, was a Calvinist when he wrote the book (1963) I quote and summarize above. Twenty-five years later he did become a Catholic.

The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (summary of Juniper Carol, Archbishop Ullathorne, Ludwig Ott, Max Thurian, etc)

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

emerald << The issue for me is do I believe God is able to give us His infallible written Word, yes I do and He has. How God did this is up to God, He is sovereign! Need to beware of humanism by the back door. >>

The issue for me is do I believe God is able to give us all the doctrines of the Catholic Christian faith, without error, yes I do and He has. How God did this is up to God, He is sovereign! Need to beware of humanism by the back door.

Is that an argument you would accept? Really doesn’t get us very far either way: Bible and/or Catholic doctrine.

For the history of the Immaculate Conception, see link.

The history of the complete Bible traces a similar path, through all those same Catholic Fathers, Catholic Doctors, Catholic bishops, priests, monks, and saints. Study this please.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

emerald << Are you questioning the sufficiency of Gods written Word to teach us all we need to know for the Christian life? Did God fail to give us all we need for the Christian life in His infallible written Word? >>

Are you questioning the sufficiency of God’s Word, oral and written (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2), and God’s Sufficient Church to teach us all we need to know for the Christian life? Did God fail to give us all we need for the Christian life in His infallible Word, oral and written, protected, passed on, and safeguarded by His infallible Spirit-inspired Church?



Again, doesn’t get us very far. BTW, God’s word doesn’t “teach” by itself and can be “distorted” (Acts 8:30ff; 2 Peter 3:16). God’s word requires reliable teachers and leaders in authority to whom we submit (1 Thess 2:13; Heb 13:7,17; 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 3:16). Originally those teachers were the apostles and others they approved (Matt 10:2ff; 16:18f; 28:18ff; Luke 10:16; Rom 1:1; Gal 1:1; 1 Cor 2:4,7,13; Eph 2:19f; 4:4-6,11ff; 2 Tim 2:2; etc). The question is what happened after them?

Did Jesus tell them to write everything down? According to the Bible, No (John 20:30; 21:25; 2 John 12; 3 John 13; 1 Peter 5:12; Eph 3:3; Acts 2:42; etc). Did Jesus tell them to write anything down? According to the Bible, No (Matt 28:18ff; John 14:16f, 26; 16:13f; Jude 3). Where then was the new covenant authority placed according to Jesus and the Bible? Answer: the visible Church, led by the apostles, with St. Peter as the head and rock (Matt 16:18f; 18:17f; 28:18ff; John 20:21ff; cf. 1 Tim 3:15; Acts 15:1ff; Eph 2:19f; Rev 21:14).

All we need to do is find that visible “Bible Church” and we find the authority that Jesus established, along with all Jesus’ and the apostles’ teachings. That’s the Catholic argument in a nutshell. And I love to quote these guys:

“The authors of the New Testament did not distinguish between the visible and invisible church. To them, the church that existed in the world was the only church there was…This visible church was the church…we do an injustice to the teaching of the New Testament authors if we impose this conception of an invisible church on the ideas they formulated. These authors were describing the concrete, historical, visible church that had come into existence in their day, and which was rapidly spreading throughout the Mediterranean world. It is this church that they chose to label the ecclesia.” (Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church [Baker, 2000], page 105,106)

On the nature of the Church, Keith Mathison (Shape of Sola Scriptura) says: The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals. The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10). The Church is “our mother,” “the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…the Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her” (Luke 10:16). And “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ. It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (Mathison, pages 268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17).” (Mathison, page 272)

Phil P

 

[JustaServant]

Why didn’t God say in His Word that Mary is sinless?

Surely if Mary was sinless God would have made sure that this fact was recorded in His Word.

Luke 1:28, 30 - Angel said to Mary she was: “full of grace, and that she found favor with God”
Luke 1:48 - In Mary Song, she prophecies, “all generations will call me blessed”
Luke 10:40 - Elizabeth said to Mary that she was, “the most blessed among women”

 

[emeraldisle]

Luke 1:28, 30 - Angel said to Mary she was: “full of grace, and that she found favor with God”
Luke 1:48 - In Mary Song, she prophecies, “all generations will call me blessed”
Luke 10:40 - Elizabeth said to Mary that she was, “the most blessed among women”

The following two verses have been put forward as supposed Biblical evidence for the idea that Mary was sinless;

And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” Luke 1:28

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” Gen 3:15

However when you look at these two verses carefully with good exegesis and hermeneutics they do not teach that Mary was sinless.

Now the Bible clearly says that Lord Jesus was sinless, as the following verses show us;

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

So why would God tell us in His written Word that Jesus is sinless and then not tell us that Mary is sinless, well of course its because Mary wasn’t sinless, period. The Bible clearly says Mary is blessed and highly favored but it doesn’t say she was sinless.

 

[bookgirl32]

I’d like to ask you to show me, in God’s written word, where it says that God’s written word is His *only *revelation .

EI, I’d still like you to answer me here, if you could.

 

[sawman]

Read most of the thread, I give up.
Emeraldisle cannot see the point of any scriptural, logical, authoritative, or philological presentation. The imperial self ruleth from on high, impervious to all assault.

This thread is too much like self-flagellation.
Later!
Peace to all!

 

[Tom]

So why would God tell us in His written Word that Jesus is sinless and then not tell us that Mary is sinless, well of course its because Mary wasn’t sinless, period. The Bible clearly says Mary is blessed and highly favored but it doesn’t say she was sinless.

Because the written Word is not about Mary, it’s about her Son. Mary is not God. Keep in mind not even all He did and said were recorded, why in the world would you think the sinlessness of Mary would need to be recorded?

 

[jofa]

Would someone please show me where scripture says “Mary sinned”?..
jofa

 

[emeraldisle]

Would someone please show me where scripture says “Mary sinned”?..
jofa

Good point, but did you know that it doesn’t say in the Bible that Daniel sinned. So is it ok to start a new teaching that Daniel was sinless?

.

 

[jofa]

Like the Trinity (oh that again!), something doesn’t have to be stated explicitly in the Bible to be true. As you can see from previous posts, a good case could be made for this doctrine, as a good case could be made for the Trinity. I assure you, though, if you drop a Bible in the middle of, say, the deepest jungle where no one has heard of Christ or christianity and yet, in this case, having studied english previously, that person read that Bible, they would never come up with Trinity nor I.C.- nor even the concepts much less the words we use for those concepts…That’s why JW’s can read Scripture and argue against the Trinity (somewhat successfully, I might add). Neither are explicitly laid out in Scripture, yet, according to Catholic interpretation, both truths can be supported by Scripture.
Anyway, isn’t it true that you believe individuals should interpret Scripture by themselves under the guidance of the H.S.? Well, I for one always pray for His guidance when I open my Bible (which is most days). Yet, these teachings are both in harmony with the Scriptures for me… You do support my right to interpret, don’t you?
Peace in Christ brother/sister Christian!
jofa

 

[Philthy]

So why would God tell us in His written Word that Jesus is sinless and then not tell us that Mary is sinless, well of course its because Mary wasn’t sinless, period.

You ducked my question as to why the OT never speaks of a “New Testament” Scripture - why would the bible not tell us that a NT is coming? According to your logic above its because it wasnt forthcoming.

 

[emeraldisle]

Like the Trinity (oh that again!), something doesn’t have to be stated explicitly in the Bible to be true. As you can see from previous posts, a good case could be made for this doctrine, as a good case could be made for the Trinity. I assure you, though, if you drop a Bible in the middle of, say, the deepest jungle where no one has heard of Christ or christianity and yet, in this case, having studied english previously, that person read that Bible, they would never come up with Trinity nor I.C.- nor even the concepts much less the words we use for those concepts…That’s why JW’s can read Scripture and argue against the Trinity (somewhat successfully, I might add). Neither are explicitly laid out in Scripture, yet, according to Catholic interpretation, both truths can be supported by Scripture.
Anyway, isn’t it true that you believe individuals should interpret Scripture by themselves under the guidance of the H.S.? Well, I for one always pray for His guidance when I open my Bible (which is most days). Yet, these teachings are both in harmony with the Scriptures for me… You do support my right to interpret, don’t you?
Peace in Christ brother/sister Christian!
jofa

If the Trinity was presented in a Biblical court of law it would get a unanimous decision to say its true. There is plently of Biblical evidence for the Trinity. BTW JW’s don’t have the Holy Spirit so its hardly suprising that they don’t know the truth of the Trinity.

Now if the issue of Mary being sinless was presented in a Biblical court of law it would be dismissed on the grounds that there is no biblical evidence for this idea.

You do support my right to interpret, don’t you?

Its not a question of rights but “Truth”.

.

 

[mommyof4]

Why didn’t God say in His Word that Mary is sinless?

Surely if Mary was sinless God would have made sure that this fact was recorded in His Word.

Because He knew that we’d have to have topics to debate on CAF 2000 years later.

 

[maryj]

The following two verses have been put forward as supposed Biblical evidence for the idea that Mary was sinless;

And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” Luke 1:28

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” Gen 3:15

However when you look at these two verses carefully with good exegesis and hermeneutics they do not teach that Mary was sinless.

Now the Bible clearly says that Lord Jesus was sinless, as the following verses show us;

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

So why would God tell us in His written Word that Jesus is sinless and then not tell us that Mary is sinless, well of course its because Mary wasn’t sinless, period. The Bible clearly says Mary is blessed and highly favored but it doesn’t say she was sinless.

And so I ask for the third time. Do you know what the definition of “enmity” is? Do you deny that Gen 3:15 states that God has put enmity between the woman who shall bear the Messiah and the serpent? I shall wait patiently for your answer, if you will answer.

 

[jofa]

Also, from your example of Daniel you clearly understand that the Bible doesn’t have all the info. You say it must say “Mary didn’t sin”, but not “Mary did sin”. Convenient. I suspect that due to her important role in the coming of Christ they should have pointed out her sin if there was any. But that’s just one interpretation amongst millions of Christian interpretations (all under the guidance of the H.S.).
Allow me to tangent: 33,000 + denominations and as many differences in Bible interpretation. That means either the H.S. is schizo or humans are interpreting through preconceived doctrinal glasses. Then we have to ask, how do we know my particular denomination/ or personal interpretation is the most true? What safeguards did God provide to secure correct interpretation? If the H.S. is guiding everyone who asks Him to, why such extreme differences: saved by faith alone, once saved always saved, you can lose you salvation, contraception okay, abortion okay, abortion always murder, abortion sometimes murder, regenerative baptism, symbolic baptism, etc. These are not minor differences.
The point is not you’re wrong, I’m right - because you could use this same argument against the Church, however, it goes to show that you can’t claim your own interpretation to be infallible. So why argue? We’ve made our Catholic explanations, and you’ve responded with yours. I think ours are better - you don’t. No big! Move on! Peace!
jofa

 

[Rolltide]

If the Trinity was presented in a Biblical court of law it would get a unanimous decision to say its true. There is plently of Biblical evidence for the Trinity. BTW JW’s don’t have the Holy Spirit so its hardly suprising that they don’t know the truth of the Trinity.

The Trinity WAS presented in a Biblical court of law… it was called the Council of Nicea, and virtually all of Christendom attended. Not only was there NOT a unanimous acceptance of the Trinity, but followers of the bishop Arius were almost successful in having the idea rejected entirely! The debate was SO heated that it resulted in the creation of the Nicene Creed as a definitive statement of the minimum requirements one needed to believe in order to be Christian.

Now I absolutely hold to the belief in the Trinity, but it took a massive theological debate within the Catholic Church to iron out this point. Without Sacred Tradition, it becomes much more difficult to defend.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

And yet again emerlardisle ignores my post regarding the translation of Luke 1:28.

 

[bookgirl32]

If the Trinity was presented in a Biblical court of law it would get a unanimous decision to say its true. There is plently of Biblical evidence for the Trinity. BTW JW’s don’t have the Holy Spirit so its hardly suprising that they don’t know the truth of the Trinity.

Now if the issue of Mary being sinless was presented in a Biblical court of law it would be dismissed on the grounds that there is no biblical evidence for this idea.

Its not a question of rights but “Truth”.

.

Okay, so who is teaching the truth, and how do you know they’re right?