Luke 2:22-24; Explanation


#1

Luke 2:22-24
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Presented in the Temple

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Mary offered a sacrifice… Sacrifices were offered for sins? Mary had sins?


#2

Nope. NOT all sacrifices offered in the Temple of Jerusalem were “for sin”.

She offered the sacrifice to offer her son to God as was prescribed by the law of Moses. So that it might be pleasing to HIM.


#3

The sacrifice was for her ritual cleansing after the flow of blood from childbirth. She took a ritual bath in a miqvah, which was used for such purposes. This all comes from the very short chapter 12 of Leviticus. Mary had to abide by the Levitical law for sinners, just as Jesus had to be born under the law in order to fulfill the law. I don’t think there was any sin involved in this childbirth.


#4

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 22. Of her purification. The blessed Virgin mother stood not in need of this ceremony, to which she submitted herself, as her Son did to that of circumcision. (Witham) — Whence St. Lawrence Justinian in his sermon on the purification, very well observes: grace raised the Virgin above the law; humility subjected her to it. Jesus Christ, in subjecting himself to the law of Moses, has left an example to princes and magistrates, to obey their own laws; for then they may expect them to be observed by others, when themselves shew respect to them. (Barradius.)


#5

Are you saying that it wasn’t a sin offering? Or, are you saying that it was a sin offering but Mary only did it because it was the law? Just trying to understand. Thanks!


#6

No. Mary had obedience and humility. She submitted to the laws of her people. While there was no reason for her to make a sin offering, there was a reason to avoid the appearance of scandal.


#7

Is deception a sin? There is nothing in God’s Word that says in effect that she gave the sin offering but really didn’t have to do it. I realize that it is your theology and as a Roman Catholic you HAVE to believe it. But God’s word says she gave a sin offering. Period.

Proverbs 30:6

New International Version (NIV)

Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.


#8

And what sin did she commit that she made this offering for?


#9

Aside from the fact that the Bible does not say it was a sin offering.

So, it seems it logically follow that you believe Jesus is a sinner. Jesus was baptized. Of course, you might say, “he didn’t have to do it!” But wouldn’t that just be deception on his part? Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, isn’t it?
Of course, I understand that as an evangelical you have to affirm Jesus was sinless. But God’s word said he was baptized, period.

:rolleyes:


#10

=JD27076;11472288]Luke 2:22-24
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Presented in the Temple

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Mary offered a sacrifice… Sacrifices were offered for sins? Mary had sins?

No:D
Mary was SINLESS:thumbsup:

Christ came NOT to void the OT laws and practices BUT to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”.

Giving birth; similar to a women’s “period” were THOUGHT to “soil” or make the women “unpure”.

The ritual was one of PURIFICATION; NOT removal of sins.

The Sacrifice here was again a ritual of dedication to God; not a removal of sins.

So we see NO association with either Mary,Joseph or Christ in these passages.:thumbsup:

God Bless you and THANKS for asking,
Patrick


#11

Yes, very good point! Let’s see what is said:

Matthew 3:13-15

New International Version (NIV)

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

John DID ask Jesus. It’s not left to our imagination to wonder why. It’s written. Unlike the situation with the sin offering that Mary made.

Thanks for realizing that I do believe Jesus was sinless!


#12

"Rather He emptied himself, taking the form of a book–wait that’s not right.:slight_smile:

Yes, exhortations about avoiding the appearance of scandal appear elsewhere in scripture and consistently with the same message. It is a leap to consider the faithful as masters of deception. Paul exhorts the faithful regarding both food offered to idols (Cor.) and tolerance of some observance by weaker in faith of mosaic festivals (Rom). The Ruling in Jerusalem was to aid the weaker toward unity (Acts). Eleazar gave his life to avoid the appearance of scandal (Macc). Oh, the deception of it all.:eek:

Sacred Scripture is inerrant; each person’s individual interpretation is not. This why Jesus gave us the Church.


#13

Luke 2:24 – Mary’s Sin Offering

Why did Mary make a sin offering in accordance with the Law of Moses if she was without sin? Here are the relevant passages:

Leviticus 12:7-8
‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 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.’ "

Luke 2:22-24
22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

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 at His baptism, 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.


#14

It’s not left to our imagination to wonder why when the pillar and foundation of the truth declares it so. :rolleyes:


#15

So in essence you are saying that in giving birth to the savior of mankind the Blessed Virgin Mary committed a sin. Tell me, is THAT really your theology???

Furthermore, since God was the Creator of all things and designed man to procreate, of which childbirth is an integral part, Then God designed women to sin everytime they give birth. So the only way to avoid committing this sin is for women to not engage in procreation which then is a sin as it defies God’s command to “…be fruitful and multiply” But if they are fruitful and multiply they sin. Either way they sin. What does that say about sin requiring a free will choice?


#16

It seems to me that, under the Mosaic Law, the Jews were supposed to ritually clean at all times and to be ritually unclean for any reason whatsoever was considered a “sin.” Now, there were a variety of natural conditions that rendered a Jew ritually unclean under the Mosaic Law that didn’t otherwise involve sin in the sense that we use the word today. For example, a Jewish man who had a nocturnal emission or a Jewish woman who had her regular menstral flow was considered ritually unclean for a time. For more irregular natural conditions that rendered a Jew ritually unclean, such as having an irregular vaginal or penile discharge or leprosy, the Jew, once he recovered, was required to make a “sin offering” for having been ritually unclean. Childbirth was another of those irregular natural conditions that rendered a Jewish woman ritually unclean and for which, once she recovered, she was required to make a “sin offering” for having been ritually unclean.

The “sin” of being ritually unclean for a time due to some natural cause, such as childbirth, is hardly what I would consider a real sin. If childbirth was the Virgin Mary’s only “sin,” no one should have any trouble regarding her as sinless. Jesus Christ, as a man, undoubtedly had an occasional nocturnal emission which would have rendered him similarly ritually unclean for a time and no one has a problem regarding him as sinless.


#17

God’s law said that she was to make an offering. Yes, Leviticus 12 clearly says that one of the birds was a sin offering.

To not make the offering would have been disobedience to God’s law. To not make the offering would have been sin.

She had no sin but made the offering anyway in obedience to the law. I say good for her.

-Tim-


#18

Proverbs 30:6

New International Version (NIV)

Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Reply With Quote

Please be careful how you direct your rebukes. It appears you are suggesting someone, perhaps even the Catholic Church is a liar. To suggest someone is a liar when they are not, is a very powerful violation of Gods commandment against bearing false witness. While someone can be wrong in their theology, to imply the are lying is something else entirely.


#19

The Church teaches that Mary was sinless, so it was a sin offering, but only to fulfill the requirements of the Mosaic law. She would have sinned if she did not follow the law of Moses.


#20

=TRH1292;11473077] Aside from the fact that the Bible does not say it was a sin offering.

So, it seems it logically follow that you believe Jesus is a sinner. Jesus was baptized. Of course, you might say, “he didn’t have to do it!” But wouldn’t that just be deception on his part? Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, isn’t it?
Of course, I understand that as an evangelical you have to affirm Jesus was sinless. But God’s word said he was baptized, period.

:rolleyes:

“deception?” NO!

GOOD Example [John 3:5] YES:thumbsup:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.