Last Wednesday, Rand of a pattern of sound words wrote a post comparing Romanism (normally known as Roman Catholocism) to Biblical Christianity. Funky Dung of Ales Rarus was (understandably) offended by Rand’s characterization of Romanism as “a wicked false religion.” So he weighed in with his response, saying several things which demand a reply.

Mary‘s Status

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus was born of a sinless, perfect mother, who is declared the ‘Queen of Heaven’.

Biblical Christinity - Jesus was born of a kind, godly woman, but still a sinner by birth and choice (Luke 1:26-38).

Funky Dung’s response:
The best explanation I have ever heard for Mary’s sinless conception was from a Rabbi. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God on earth. It could only be safely approached and touched by ritually clean priests at certain times of the year. Mary was the ark of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:26-28). Her preservation from Original Sin, as well as actual sin, does not, as some suggest, imply that she did not need Christ’s saving grace, made possible by the cross. God is not bound by time. He created it. Thus, Mary received at her conception the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice.

The idea that Mary had to be sinless in order to carry Jesus is an idea I had never really considered before. So it seems to me that the question is, “Did Mary have to be sinless in order to carry Jesus?”

To be honest, after considering it, I don’t see that it was a problem that Mary was imperfect. First of all, I don’t know of any verses which say that Mary had to be sinless. More importantly, if you compare the Old Testament to the New Testament, you will see a marked difference in how God interacts with humanity.

In the Old Testament, God always acted through an intermediary. Of all the Old Testament prophets, Moses was the closest to God, and even he — though he was in God’s presence several times — never actually saw God’s face.

But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

(Ex. 33:20-23, NASB)

Interaction with God was marked by infrequent contact and separation. The Levites were designated as intermediaries, engaging in rituals to make themselves as clean as possible and presenting offerings on behalf of the general populace. Only the Head Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that was only once a year. There were strict rules about contact with “unclean” objects and people.

In contrast, the ministry of Jesus is marked by his intimate contact with people. He hung out with the dregs of the earth.

“And it came about that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax-gatherers and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?” And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

(Mark 2:15-17, NASB)

He spent significant amounts of time in crowds, teaching and healing the sick and “unclean.” He wasn’t afraid to touch lepers. Contact with such people did not make Jesus “unclean,” on the contrary, Jesus’ “super clean” nature made the “unclean” clean.

During Jesus’ time on earth, He was destroying the separation between God and man.

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, Show us the Father?”

(John 14:6-9, NASB)

At this point, Jesus was telling His disciples that they were face to face with God. They were intimates with God in a way that Moses never was. Yet the formal separation between God and man was still in place.

God marked the formal end of this separation in an extremely vivid manner:

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

(Mark 15:37-38, NASB)

Is it unreasonable to think that if God/Jesus was in intimate contact with “sinners” before the formal end of that separation then there would be no problem with intimate contact with Mary in spite of her own sins?

If anything, the Bible implies that it was necessary for Mary to be a sinner. Consider this passage in Galations:

But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

(Gal. 4:4-5, NASB)

The entire passage containing these verses is instructive. In Galations 3-4, Paul is explaining how all men were cursed and living under the law, leading to sin and death, and how Christ rescued us from that curse. Notice that these two verses simply state that Christ had to be born “under the Law” as a prerequisite for Him to be able to redeem us. Romans 5:12-21 also strongly contrasts “under the law” against “under grace”.

Make sure you take time to study Galations 3-4 and Romans 5:12-21. I will be returning to them in part three.

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2