Showing posts with label Immaculate Conception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immaculate Conception. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 8, 2021

VIDEO: How the cherubim witness to Mary's Immaculate Conception

New 5+ minute video on how the cherubim angels witness to Mary's Immaculate Conception. Video is based on prior post How the cherubim witness to Mary's Immaculate Conception

See video on Rumble or YouTube.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

How the cherubim witness to Mary's Immaculate Conception

The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to the Virgin Mary conceived without the stain of original sin. This is the defining text from the papal encyclical Ineffabilis Deus from 1854:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
While the definition was pronounced in 1854, the teaching is firmly rooted in divine revelation, both in Scripture and Tradition in the early Church through today. In this particular article, I do not intend on giving a full apologetic on the validity of this dogma. For a fuller Biblical and Traditional treatment of the dogma, I recommend reading the full encyclical Ineffabilis Deus or good Catholic books on Mary, such as Luigi Gambero's Mary and the Fathers of the Church. Other good web resources on the Immaculate Conception include or various articles at

The specific defense of the Immaculate Conception I intend to give here is the witness of the cherubim in Scripture. I find it to be a strong signpost pointing to Mary's incompatibility with sin. And since I have not seen this angle presented explicitly, I've elected to review it here.

First, I will briefly explain the concept of typology in Scripture. A type (or figure) in the Old Testament that has its fulfillment in a New Testament counterpart is said to be the NT's antetype. An example may help. Romans 5:14 tells us of "Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:18 continues the idea: "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

A characteristic about typology is that the NT type is always the superior, fulfilled version of the OT antetype. We see this explained elsewhere in Scripture. Examples include Haggai 2:9 which says: "Greater will be the future glory of this house than the former, says the Lord of hosts." Or 2 Corinthians 3:11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor."

You see the parallel between the two characters, Adam and Jesus, one who brought death and One Who brought life. Jesus and Adam are the first of their kind, yet Jesus is the superior. Jesus Himself gives a clear example of typology in John 6:49-50 when He says: "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die." The manna in the OT could only sustain physical life for a time. Jesus, the Bread of Life–the NT type of the manna–sustains eternal spiritual life and is thus the superior type.

With that in mind, and before I proceed to the witness of the cherubim, recall that Mary is the type of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark contained manna, Aaron the priest's rod, and the ten commandments. Mary contained the new manna, Jesus, Who is also the true High Priest and the Word made flesh. In 2 Sam 6:9, David exclaimed: ""How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" This parallels the words of Elizabeth in Luke 1:43 when she exclaimed: "[W]hy is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" There are at least a dozen strong parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. A good chart depicting this can be seen at The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly confirms the teaching that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant (CCC#2676).

What is important to know about the Ark in my apologetic, is that God commanded Moses to build the Ark and include figures of two cherubim:
Exodus 25:18,22 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat... There I will meet with you ... from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony.
Notice how the cherubim flank both sides of the place God dwells. And Scripture tells us that the high priest could not even approach the Ark unless he first be purified from sin (cf. Lv 16:2-11; Hb 9:3-7). Keep that in mind a moment.

Another antetype of Mary, less-common in apologetics for her Immaculate Conception, is the Garden of Eden, another "dwelling place" of God. Here are two Early Church Fathers supporting Mary as type of the Garden:
O virgin who surpasses Eden's garden of delights!
St. Theodotus of Ancyra, On the Nativity of Our Savior, 21

God’s Eden is Mary; in her there is no serpent that harms...., no Eve that kills, but from her springs the Tree of Life that restores the exiles of Eden.
St. Ephraim, On the Annunciation of the Mother of God, hymn 3:302
Ineffabilis Deus makes reference to Mary as the type of "that garden enclosed on all sides, which cannot be violated or corrupted by any deceitful plots." The encyclical refers to Song of Songs 4:12 which speaks of a "bride" who is "a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed" as well as other references to this bride as a "garden" throughout the chapter. That particular verse is also a testimony to Mary's perpetual virginity and has been understood as such by the Church.3 Mary is also a "bride" to the Holy Spirit because their union brought forth the child Jesus.4 But I bring this up to further support the image of "garden" with Mary.

Now remember, Mary whom God chose as His dwelling place, is the superior type of her OT counterparts.

Draw your attention to the Genesis 3 account of the Fall. Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. Adam is punished for this and they are exiled from the Garden:
Genesis 3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.
The very next verse reads:
Genesis 3:24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Notice once again, how the cherubim are assigned to guard the dwelling place of God–the Garden of Eden. And more importantly, notice how when Adam and Eve exhibited sin, they were vanquished from the Garden.5

It's also important to note another parallel between the temple in which was the Ark and the Garden. The cherubim guarded the east gate of the Garden. And the east gate is also the entrance to the temple (Ez 43:1-5, 1 Kg 6:22-35).

Father Pascale Parente described the origin of the word cherubim, which is derived from the singular word "KeRUBH." Fr. Parente wrote:
Scholars differ widely on the meaning and the origin of this word. It seems that this was originally an Assyrian word which was later given a definite meaning by the Hebrews. Assyrians, Persians and Egyptians paid great honor to protective deities... These protective deities were the common guardians of temples and tombs, where some such statues can still be seen. ... In Sacred Scripture, the Cherubim appear as heavenly custodians and protectors of holy places and holy things.6
Essentially, this confirms what the testimony of Scripture already suggests–the cherubim protect the holy.

With that in mind, return to Mary as the Ark–the Ark which was flanked by two cherubim. And then return to the other "dwelling place of God" which is the Garden, also guarded by cherubim. Both localities are guarded from the presence of sin. The priest had to purify himself from sin before approaching the Ark. The Garden was kept free from sin and guarded in the same way as the Ark–by the cherubim.

Therefore, we see the powerful witness of the cherubim–that Mary is without any stain of sin, including original sin, since God tells us in divine revelation that she is the untainted Ark and Garden, both guarded from sin by the cherubim. And Mary, as the NT type of these protected OT places, is protected from sin in an even more splendorous way.

[EDIT: I originally posted this briefly for part of a day back in December, but removed it because I tried to get it published. I had some nice comments from a couple publications, but they were interested in other things at this time.]

1Quoted in Malty, Fr. Tadros Y Malaty, St. Mary in the Orthodox Concept, 1975, p. 28
2Quoted in Ibid, p. 58
3The teaching in Ineffabilis Deus linking Sg 4:12 is by no means a novel idea. For example, St. Jerome (d. 420) explicitly says Sg 4:12 refers to Mary (Letter to Pammachius). There is also the interpretation of St. Peter Chrysologus (d. 450) (Sermon 145).
4See Pope Paul VI's Gaudete in Domino for a magisterial example teaching Mary's espousal to the Holy Spirit.
5One may ask how, if sin is incompatible with the Garden, was the serpent there? Certainly the devil, whom tradition says is represented in the figure of the snake, was not in the Garden in a residential sense as were Adam and Eve. The devil, as pure spirit, certainly did not have the same presence with God in the Garden that pre-Fall Adam and Eve did. The passage should be understood such that the devil's wiles had a certain influence of Adam and Eve, as represented by the suggestion of the snake, but we should not conclude he communed with God in the Garden as did God's children. To support this, consider the devil tempting Jesus in the desert (eg. Lk 4:1-13). In that scene, the devil in a proximate sense is "in the presence of God," but in the spiritual sense he remains eternally distant.
6Parente, Fr. Pascale, The Angels in Catholic Teaching and Tradition, Tan Books, Charlotte, NC, 1973, p. 52-52

Monday, April 18, 2011

The misuse of Luke 2:22-24 against the Immaculate Conception

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception has numerous typological roots in Scripture, such as the figure of Eve created without original sin; the precision, gold, and immaculateness of the Ark of the Covenant; or even the Church, a spotless bride presented to the Lord. Even in Christian antiquity did the Early Church Fathers identify her as these Biblical figures and recognize her sinless pedigree.1

Though the teaching has roots even back to the Old Testament, the Church received the words to certify the dogma in the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus. The defining paragraph reads:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
In reading the entire document, it is clear that this includes all stains of sin, original or actual.

This of course is no small point of contention between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants generally do not recognize or acknowledge the typological figures in Scripture that point to her Immaculate Conception.

However, the purpose of this post is not to provide an extensive apologetic for the dogma. It is to bring attention the flaw in one of the critics' arguments against Mary's Immaculate Conception. The argument says because Mary underwent the rite of purification for sin after Christ's birth (Luke 2:22-24), she therefore must have sinned.

For example, Reese Currie of Compass Distributors writes:
Under the Law of Moses, Mary offered a sin offering, the reason for so doing being that one has sinned. So the notion that Mary led a sinless life is proven false...
Here is the Scriptural text in question:
And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." (Luke 2:22-24)
The quoted portion refers back to Leviticus:
Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. ... And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean." (Lev. 12:2-3,6-8)
Authors like Currie focus on the phrase "for a sin offering." Thus, since Mary underwent the purification rite of the Old Covenant under which her action occurred, some critics consider Luke 2 as a "proof" against the idea that Mary is without all stain of sin.

But this conclusion results in a number of problems.

A sin to bleed?
First is a simple problem in understanding the sign of the rite, rather than a statement about the woman's sanctity. According to the text of Leviticus 12, the "sin" the woman committed was the ceremonial need to be purified from the uncleanliness "from the flow of her blood." (cf. Lev. 15 for further context on Jews and sexual "regulations.") No woman commits a sin simply when her body involuntarily behaves according to biology and sheds blood. The idea that "bleeding is morally sinful" is nonsensical on its face. The rite in Leviticus is a "legal" uncleanliness and part of the OT "law" Christ superseded by fulfilling the law. (cf. Gal. 3:13; Mat. 5:17)

The view of sexual actions in the Old Testament often were associated with unholiness. For instance, in 1 Sam. 21:4-5, the priest in the scene refuses to give "holy bread" to men who had recently had relations with women. Of course, God even commanded pre-Fall man to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28) so sexual activity is of course not inherently sinful. These Old Testament figures are rather signal of the actual holiness required to approach God. Understanding how Israel thus viewed these rites points us to the holiness to come.

So then Jesus must have sinned too since he underwent rites for sin?
The second consequence of the critics' argument is perhaps more revealing of its unreasonableness. Remember, the critics' rule is if a person undergoes an OT ritual for sin, that person necessarily must be a sinner. However, the example of Christ, who was without sin (Heb. 2:17; 4:15), destroys the critics' rule.

Notice in the very text of Luke 2:22 it reads when the time came for "their purification." Most manuscripts read "their" in the original Greek (see footnote 2 at NetBible, incidentally a Protestant source). If that is the case, then according to the critics, Jesus, too, must have been a sinner in need of purification. After all, this gibes with the full context to which Luke 2 refers. Leviticus 12:3 reads "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." In the Old Testament, an uncircumcised male is seen as cut off from God's people, a disgrace, a breaker of God's covenant (cf. Gen. 17:14; Gen. 34:14). Shall the critic therefore call Jesus a disgrace, cut off from God?

Consider also that Jesus underwent John's "baptism of repentance" (Acts 13:24, Mat. 3:11, etc.):
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. (Mat. 3:13-15)
This is an enlightening text. Even though the rite of John's baptism was for the purpose of the recipient's repentance, Jesus "consents" anyway. John even argued with Jesus, questioning why Jesus would even want to undergo the baptism! Yet Jesus consents for a purpose other than a need to repent of sin. He consents for a reason other than the legal purpose of the rite. In doing so, Jesus reveals at least one other reason to undergo a rite for sin: for fulfillment.

And therefore, one cannot consider Luke 2:22-24 a prooftext of any sort against Mary's Immaculate Conception. For she needn't be a sinner to undergo a legal rite for sin.

1For examples, see books like Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Luigi Gambero or The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin.