Staff Apologist, John Pacheco, went "undercover" to expose and refute the Anti-Marian agenda of some former Roman Catholics. Using the board handle of "Mathias1", John secretly slipped into NTRMin’s public discussion board just before Dr. Eric and crew required positive ID for board members. After a few rather light discussions with board participants, Dr. Eric weighed in against "Mathias1" by beguiling his followers with a rather long and seemingly impressive response against Her Majesty. Unfortunately for "Mathias1", he was unable to post his rebuttal to Dr. Eric because of an unfortunate leak which got "Mathias1" booted from the board. (Drat, those private e-mails!)
After a prolonged absence in the field on other missions, however, "Mathias1" has returned to CAI headquarters with a devastating rebuttal to Dr. Eric. After reading the dialogue, you will understand why "Mathias1" was especially selected by Her Majesty to bring back a wayward, but still loved and cherished, son. Her Majesty has knighted John's undercover identity, Mathias, with a '1' - the Service's code number assigned to precious few agents. It means Licence to Refute.
Eric Svendsen's comments are in red. John Pacheco's comments are in blue.
Actually, although the NT doesn't have much to say about Mary (very odd if she is indeed central to the gospel message itself; about which the NT has plenty to say...
Mary's role in our redemption is 'central' in the sense that she is the mother of the Savior of the human race. To attack Mary’s identity, as Nestorius (Cyril’s opponent) and Valentinus (Basil’s opponent) attempted to do, is to obscure and destroy the authentic identity of Christ. She is invariably brought into the picture in order to protect Jesus' person. In that sense, therefore, she is central because her role cannot be ignored in grasping the fullness of who Jesus Christ really is. If she were not central, she would never have been an issue. The fact that Christianity's common heritage appeals to *her* identity vindicates my position and not Eric's.
...what it *does* say about her is quite revealing. Particularly striking is the fact that in each case where Mary and Jesus confront each other, Jesus is at pains to distance himself from her. She misunderstands and even opposes Jesus' mission throughout the gospel accounts.
There is not one hint of Mary "opposing Jesus' mission" in all of Scripture, much less any "confrontation". It is far from coherent to suggest that the woman who knew Jesus was divine and consented to bear his very person would later come to "confront and oppose him". For what purpose? And how is that consistent with her total self-giving to God at the annunciation?
Time and again Jesus let's [sic] his disciples know that she has absolutely no special status based on her biological relationship to Him.
No, that is incorrect. She has no special status insofar as her maternity tries to directly approach His divinity. However, insofar as her maternity and Christ's humanity is concerned, she does have a very special status, as all mothers do with their sons. And precisely because of the mystery of the incarnation and the indissoluble hypostatic union of His two natures through one person, Mary has indeed indirect access and influence with the Godhead via Christ's human nature - the degree of which, quite obviously, no one else can reach.
In fact, he makes it clear in no uncertain terms that he intends to sever--and finally does sever--all biological ties to her at his death. He is no longer her son, but rather her Lord.
That's rather comical considering Eric's citation of St. Augustine later on. St. Augustine seems to take an opposing view of the matter; namely, that Our Lord did not recognize his Mother at Cana but did so at the Crucifixion!
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary [the wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home." This, without a doubt, was the hour whereof Jesus, when about to turn the water into wine, had said to His mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." This hour, therefore, He had foretold, which at that time had not yet arrived, when it should be His to acknowledge her at the point of death, and with reference to which He had been born as a mortal man. At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity; but now, when in the midst of human sufferings, He commended with human affection [the mother] by whom He had become man. For then, He who had created Mary became known in His power; but now, that which Mary had brought forth was hanging on the cross. (Tractate 119,1)
There is no "severing of biological ties" in Augustine's estimation, nor does Holy Scripture ever hint at such a wild and drunken speculation.
What are these verse(s) in question which indicate that he “severed his biological ties”? There are none. Also, severing his sonship to Mary would constitute a great dishonor to His Mother, and for what purpose? To reward her for standing at the foot of the cross while His "followers" were cowering in some hole somewhere? Eric must be delusional.
No exaltated status of Mary can legitimately "develop" from the NT portrait of her. Such a direction contradicts the direction of the NT writers.
According to whom? Eric or their pupils?
As for the "oral tradition" to which you referred; you might want to inform the earliest commentators (such as Basil, about this "marian tradition" since it is clear they knew nothing of it. I've written a little book about all this that you might want to pick up sometime : )
Well, I am rather astounded that Eric would make such a statement on the patristics concerning Mary. The Fathers writings of Mary are very Catholic and legion.
Since Eric mentions Basil, here is something from him:
"Since the humanity of that time had nothing to equal Mary’s purity, as to be able to accommodate the working of the Holy Spirit...the Blessed Virgin was chosen..." (On Holy Generation of Christ, 3)
Basil also went on to describe Mary as having “God-bearing flesh” and claiming that her womb was the “workshop of this economy”. Indeed, St. Basil had lots of nice Catholic things to say about the Blessed Mother. He might not have touched on her mediation explicitly, but then again I don’t think it’s fair to demand any single Father, who was many times embroiled in a particular kind of Marian-related controversy, to give his views on a doctrine which was not an issue when he lived. Basil also believed that Mary was theotokos.
A true mother of any son is, by her natural and maternal role, a mediator in the family. All of us recognize that as a natural truth. Some people may disagree with me, but I think for the most part, the majority would concede this point. Mothers are always acting as conciliators and mediators in a family - that’s part of their job.
If Mary is truly the Mother of God, then she is also a mediator with God and in particular her Son. It seems to me that if Eric were to concede that Mary is the Mother of God, the development of her as mediatrix is hardly a huge theological jump. And, as he should know, Mary as theotokos is the buzz word for orthodoxy at Ephesus and Chalcedon. But then again, because he has sought to sever such a link between mother and son as he has indicated above, then I guess he doesn’t have to worry about Mary being either Mother of God and much less a mediatrix. The thing about theotokos is that it provides the foundation for all Marian doctrines. Accept it and the others are just a stone's throw away.
Yes, yes, I know; hence co-Mediatrix. But let’s not stop there. Let’s look at some other possible “co-mediators.” Joseph, by his “fiat,” agreed of his own free will to take Mary and the child down to Egypt; without this “fiat” on Joseph’s part, Jesus would have been killed in the “slaughter of the innocents” and the world could not have been redeemed; hence, Joseph is co-Mediator and absolutely central to the gospel message itself. Paul, by his “fiat,” agreed of his own free will to take the gospel to the Gentiles; without this “fiat” on Paul’s part, The gospel could never have been taken to the Gentiles, and you and I would have been eternally lost today; hence, Paul is co-Mediator and absolutely central to the gospel message itself. Judas, by his “fiat,” agreed of his own free will to betray Jesus into the hands of sinners; without this “fiat” on Judas’ part, Jesus could not have died for our sins, and the world could not have been redeemed; hence, Judas is co-Mediator and absolutely central to the gospel message itself. Herod, by his “fiat,” agreed of his own free will to hand Jesus over to be crucified; without this “fiat” on Herod’s part, Jesus could not have died for our sins, and the world could not have been redeemed; hence, Herod is co-Mediator and absolutely central to the gospel message itself. I could go on and on and on with virtually every character in the Bible. Do you see how silly it is to engage in special pleading with regard to Mary?
Well, I would agree, of course, that all Christians are in a profound and deep sense mediators with Christ. When you witness to someone, you are fulfilling your duty as an ambassador of Christ, and the job of an ambassador is to mediate:
"We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." (2 Cor. 5:20)
Two things to reflect carefully on:
1) St. Paul attributes Christ’s mediation THROUGH the body;
2) St. Paul’s appeal is ON BEHALF of Christ. This makes St. Paul a type of mediator between the world and Christ.
The mediation of the members of the body is predicated and draws its power and authority from the supreme mediation of Christ who is the true and only mediator between God and men. To say that Jesus is the only mediator does not preclude his body from participating in that mediation. How could it? There is, after all, only ONE BODY OF CHRIST (Cf. Romans 7:4, Romans 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 1 Cor. 12:12-27, Eph. 3:6, Eph. 4:4,12,16,25, Eph. 5:23, Col 1:18, Col 3:15)! What it does exclude, however, is another way to the Father through, for instance, another prophet or religion. In existing as the body of Christ, individual members of this body are not set against Christ in His mediation, but act as a sort of conduit through which He works in this world (Cf. Rom. 15:18). Hence, our mediation is a logical corollary to this great truth since the body cannot be separated from the Head (Cf. 1 Cor 11:3). Or, as St. Paul asks the contentious Corinthians: Is Christ now divided? (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:13) Since Christ lives through his mystical body in this world, so too therefore does His mediation.
In the incarnational economy of Christianity, this mediation provides a very logical basis for Mary’s particular place in it. The only issue remaining is one of degree of this subordinate mediation which all Christians share. The New Testament (along with the Old) is replete with hierarchical evidence of preference: angels (Col. 1:16, Eph.3:10, Romans 8:38, Jude 1:9, 1 Thes. 4:16, Luke 1:26); the Apostles over their appointed ministers (Cf. Acts 15, 1 Cor 12:28, 1 Thes 3:2); within the Apostles themselves (Cf. Matthew 17:1-4, Mark 5:37, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:32-33, Luke 22:8, Galatians 2:9); and those who will sit at God’s right hand (Cf. Mark 10:40). Even St. John has always been considered the "beloved disciple", the "one whom Jesus loved".
In regards to Mary, her particular mediation to Christ is more significant than any other Christian because:
i) She was closer to Christ physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, and temporally than any human being has ever been.
ii) She proximately supplied the very flesh that would redeem the world (Cf. Genesis 2:23). Christian redemption is based on the flesh of Christ. On that basis alone, Mary's place is special and unique. She was, after all, the place where God incarnated himself: where the word was made flesh - the central point in human history occurring within her very womb. Nothing else compares to this. On that basis alone, she herself is a profound mediation since through her womb, mediation was incarnated.
iii) She was Jesus' first, most obedient and loyal, and oldest disciple. She loved Jesus the most. And love (not faith) is the greatest of all the theological virtues (Cf. 1 Cor. 13:13).
iv) She is the principal human participant in the inauguration of human salvation. Her womb was the place where salvation itself became a reality. She inaugurates the beginning of Jesus public ministry. And she is the bridge which links birth of the Messiah to His death on a cross to the birth of the Church: “Woman, behold your Son” just as she was the bridge between God and Man since God became Man WITHIN her.
Much more, of course, could be added, but the above examples are sufficient for my purpose. All of this certainly qualifies her for a special mediatorial role within the Christian Church. Certainly, speaking for myself, I can say that her mediation is substantially more than my own, but perhaps I am underestimating Eric's mediation in the body. I will therefore defer judgement on whether he thinks his particular contribution is as great as the Virgin's. I know he thinks his book Who Is My Mother is something special, but it would have to be rather exceptional to surpass the hosting of the Incarnation.
To attack Mary’s identity is, as Nestorius (Cyril’s opponent) and Valentinus (Basil’s opponent) attempted to do, to obscure and destroy the authentic identity of Christ. She is invariably brought into the picture in order to protect Jesus.
What? How is anyone “attacking” Mary’s identity. Mary is simply a woman-that’s all she needs to be to bear the Messiah. Who’s attacking that? How does that “obscure and destroy the authentic identity of Christ”? And, by the way, she is not “brought into the picture in order to protect Jesus”; rather, she is brought into the picture to bear the Messiah. Moreover, I thought “protectorate” was Joseph’s role. If Mary is actually the “protectorate,” then she didn’t need to marry Joseph at all.
Because space does not permit me to go into a number of heresies that directly bear on Mary's role, I will instead confine myself to a few.
Let us first look at Nestorianism. Let me first begin by citing the very FIRST of the 12 Anathemas of Ephesus (431 A.D.):
"If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is theotokos for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema."
If Mary is not central to protecting Christ's person, as understood in our common Trinitarianism, then why is theotokos used in the very first anathema? I'll tell you why: because by defining who Mary is, you define who Christ is, and by denying who Mary is, you effectively deny who Christ is. That's why she is mentioned in the very FIRST anathema in the list.
They did this, of course, in response to Nestorius who tried to push the idea that Christ was two persons, and so he identified Mary not as Theotokos (God Bearer) but rather Christokos (Christ Bearer). Leo, who became Pope twenty years later, commissioned John Cassian to refute Nestorius. What follows are a few of his criticisms of Nestorius in his monumental work which has been entitled:
The Seven Books of St. John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius
In the citations below, I think one will see why Mary is so central to guarding Our Lord's divinity:
1) AND so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God...In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God. ….And lest the weakness of human nature should not be able to bear the entrance of Divinity the power of the Most High strengthened the ever to be honored Virgin….
(De incarnatione Christi, 2:2:557)2) Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if He be, as He certainly is, God: then she who bore God is Theotocos, i.e., the mother of God. Unless perhaps you want to take refuge in so utterly absurd and blasphemous a contradiction as to deny that she from whom God was born is the mother of God, while you cannot deny that He who was born is God.
(De incarnatione Christi, 2:2:561)3) I am obliged, you heretic, to make use of a plain and simple question to confute you. Tell me, I pray, who was He, to whom Peter gave that answer? You cannot deny that it was the Christ. I ask then, what do you call Christ? man or God? Man certainly without any doubt: for hence springs the whole of your heresy, because you deny that Christ is the Son of God. And so too you say that Mary is Christotocos, but not Theotocos, because she was the mother of Christ, not of God. Therefore you maintain, that Christ is only a man, and not God, and so that He is the Son of man not of God. What then does Peter reply to this? "Thou art," he says, "the Christ, the Son of the living God." That Christ whom you declare to be only the Son of man, he testifies to be the Son of God. Whom would you like us to believe? you or Peter? I imagine that you are not so shameless as to venture to prefer your own opinion to that of the first of the Apostles.
(De incarnatione Christi, 2:3:571)4) What then says the Creed? or what did you yourself say in the Creed? Surely "the Lord Jesus Christ, Very God of Very God; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom the worlds were created and all things made:" and that this same Person "for us came and was born of the Virgin Mary." Since then you said that God was born of Mary, how can you deny that Mary was the mother of God?
(De incarnatione Christi, 6:10:598)5) He replies to the objection in which they say that the child born ought to be of one substance with the mother. BUT indeed in your deceit and blasphemy you use a grand argument for denying and attacking the Lord God, when you say that "the child born ought to be of one substance with the mother." I do not entirely admit it, and maintain that in the matter of the birth of God it would not be observed; for the birth was not so much the work of her who bore Him as of her Son, and He was born as He willed, whose doing it was that He was born. Next, if you say that the child born ought to be of one substance with the parent, I affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ was of one substance with His Father, and also with His mother. For in accordance with the difference of the Persons He showed a likeness to each parent. For according to His Divinity He was of one substance with the Father: but according to the flesh He was of one substance with His mother. Not that it was one Person who was of one substance with the Father, and another who was of one substance with His mother, but because the same Lord Jesus Christ, both born as man, and also being God, had in Him the properties of each parent, and in that He was man He showed a likeness to His human mother, and in that He was God He possessed the very nature of God the Father.
(De incarnatione Christi, 6:XIII)6) He shows that those who patronize this false teaching acknowledge two Christs. BUT still, I had begun to say, that as you certainly make out two Christs this very matter must be illustrated and made clear. Tell me, I pray you, you who sever Christ from the Son of God, how can you confess in the Creed that Christ was begotten of God? For you say: "I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Son." Here then you have Jesus Christ the Son of God: but you say that it was not the same Son of God who was born of Mary. Therefore there is one Christ of God, and another of Mary. In your view then there are two Christs. For, though in the Creed you do not deny Christ, you say that the Christ of Mary is another than the one whom you confess in the Creed. But perhaps you say that Christ was not begotten of God: how then do you say in the Creed: "I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God?" You must then either deny the Creed or confess that Christ is the Son of God. But if you confess in the Creed that Christ is the Son of God, you must also confess that the same Christ, the Son of God, is of Mary. Or if you make out another Christ of Mary, you certainly make the blasphemous assertion that there are two Christs.
(De incarnatione Christi, 6:XV)
In order to safeguard Jesus' true identity as God and Man, and all of the terms that follow from that (i.e. substances, natures, wills, persons, hypostasis, etc.) it was necessary for the Church to identify the SOURCE from which all these things came. One source is God and the other is Mary. Hence, it is no great surprise to find the Church Fathers appealing to Mary and her identity to define who Jesus was! This is testified to by the very next Ecumenical Council after Ephesus:
But there are those who are trying to ruin the proclamation of the truth, and through their private heresies they have spawned novel formulas: some by daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord's economy on our behalf, and refusing to apply the word God-bearer to the Virgin… (Council of Chacedon. 451)
Notice what the Council states? It says that by refusing to apply God-bearer to Mary, the heretic ends up "corrupting the mystery of the Lord's economy" and "ruin[ing] the proclamation of the truth". Those are rather strong words to be directed at "believers" who refuse to accept the title of a woman who, according to her detractors, is not central to the gospel message, not the least of which is the divinity of Jesus Himself!
The patristic witness and concilliar witness to this issue is quite clear: Mary's identity does indeed protect Jesus' identity as God incarnate.
And not only did the Fathers and the Councils appeal to Mary's identity to help define and protect Jesus' divinity, but they also did so to protect is humanity.
Here are selected citations from Pelikan's Mary Through the Centuries:
"Irenaeus, to whom we owe the first large-scale exposition of the parallel between Eve and Mary, is likewise one of the sources from whom we learn that such a hesitancy among the followers of the Gnostic teacher Valentinus had led them to assert that Jesus had not been born of the Virgin Mary in the usual sense at all, but had "passed through Mary as water runs through a tube", not only without birth pangs but without the involvement of the mother except in a purely passive sense...It was likewise in response to this Gnostic threat to the true humanity of Jesus, as well as in defense of the unique position not only of Jesus but of Mary in the history of salvation, that Irenaeus found this decisive role for the Virgin. The most important intellectual struggle of the first five centuries of Christian history - indeed the most important intellectual strugge in all of Christian history - took place in response to the question of whether the divine in Jesus Christ was identical with God the Creator. For the answer to that challenge, too, was Mary, defined now as Theotokos, Mother of God." (p.47-48)
"...various early interpretations of the figure of Christ had striven to exempt him from the loathsome concreteness that flesh is heir to. And since nothing about human flesh was more concrete, and to many of them nothing was more loathsome, than the processes of human procreation and birth, they were especially intent on rescuing his humanity from an involvement in those processes. This inevitably made Mary the primary focus of their reinterpreations, as well as the orthodox replies." (p.51)
In that sense, therefore, she is central because her role cannot be ignored in grasping the fullness of who Jesus Christ really is. If she were not central, she would never have been an issue. The fact that our common heritage appeals to her identity vindicates my position and not Eric's.
Again I ask, what? If the NT tells me that Jesus is God (which it most certainly does), and if it also tells me that Jesus is man (which it most certainly does), what in the world do I need to know about Mary to believe that the first two points? All I need to know is that Jesus was born of a woman as Paul tells us in Galatians. Biblically, her significance ends with that general point.
This is simply a gratuitous assertion on Eric's part. The heretics appealed to the bible to butress their positions as well. When such terms like substances, natures, persons, wills, etc. started being thrown around - concepts, by the way, not exactly having an abundant depth in the bible - the Church had to respond in order to squash various forms of subordinationism. That's why Eric and his fundy friends must consistently appeal to the Fathers and Concilliar decrees to salvage orthodox Christology and Trinitarianism. Without them and the definitions that they provide, his "biblical position" alone is not worth a hill of beans. It's merely one possible interpretation among a plethora of them. To substantiate his position, he must have some semblance of continuity of his non/anti-Marian beliefs, which quite certainly, he does not.
Mary's significance cannot be merely restricted to the bible, but must be understood within the entirety of Church history. If Mary's role was insignificant to the Church, she would never have retained the prominence that she has received throughout history: the Fathers and the Councils' glowing testimony of her are replete throughout their writings, deliberations, and definitions. As explained above, her role and identity are often central to Christianity's central tenets. Those are the uncompromising facts of Christian orthodoxy. One simply cannot ignore her central significance in formulating the definitions that formed what even Eric considers to be 'orthodox' Christology (mind you, with Eric's recent escapades into Christology, this might not be completely true any longer). As my two examples above demonstrated, when the heretics attacked Our Lord's identity - whether human or divine - Mary's identity was used by the Church to squash their teachings.
Surely; but first, some preliminary observations about the text. “What to me and to you?”-v. 4: Both Augustine and Chrysostom believed that Jesus was reprimanding his mother in this passage.
In a short while, Mark Bonocore will provide us with an insightful look into why some of the Eastern Fathers might have believed this. For the time being, let us ponder this little detail:
The title theotokos which was already in use at the time in the West and even by some Eastern fathers (like Basil) was almost unknown among theologians from Chrysostom's Antiochene school. (Antioch was focusing more on the human nature of Christ than on His divinity.) If Chrysostom were to try and voice this particular regional interpretation of Antioch (and perhaps Constantinople) in the Alexandrian school, strong resistance would have certainly been forthcoming. (See Gambero's Mary and the Fathers of the Church, p.171-180)
Yet despite this limitation in Chrysostom's view, he still has the courage to say:
"A virgin drove us out of paradise; through a Virgin we have found eternal life." (Commentary on the Psalms 44,7)
Augustine has this to say: “His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, ‘That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross.’ This, indeed, is the meaning of ‘Mine hour is not yet come’” (Tract. in Ioannem VIII.9).
Augustine wrote these words in defense of Our Lord's humanity against the Manichaens who advocated doceticism - a heresy which denied the true humanity of Jesus. Augustine used this text as an apologetic to demonstrate that, indeed, Our Lord was human.
For then it was that He recognized, who, in truth, always did know. He knew His mother in predestination, even before He was born of her; even before, as God, He created her of whom, as man, He was to be created, He knew her as His mother: but at a certain hour in a mystery He did not recognize her; and at a certain hour which had not yet come, again in a mystery, He does recognize her. For then did He recognize her, when that to which she gave birth was a-dying. That by which Mary was made did not die, but that which was made of Mary; not the eternity of the divine nature, but the weakness of the flesh, was dying. He made that answer therefore, making a distinction in the faith of believers, between the who; and the how, He came.
(Tract. in Ioannem VIII.9)
Unlike Eric Svendsen, Augustine approaches this text with a certain sensitivity and delicacy by recognizing the "mystery" of Our Lord's actions as if to imply that one should not be so hasty to form presumptious conclusions about Our Lord's words to His Mother. There would be no need, indeed it would have been wholly superflous, to insert the phrase "in a mystery" unless it was to save readers from jumping to false and premature conclusions about Our Lord's disposition toward His mother. Unfortunately, by not recognizing such delicacy on the part of Augustine, Eric exposes, yet again, the blunt instrument he uses in exegeting patristic texts.
Augustine reiterates this view in his Tractate CXIX.1: “At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts [at Cana], He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity.”
First, the "repelling" in question is only an apparent one. It is not real. Our Lord did not grant requests on the basis of a sin (i.e. in this case, a sin of presumption.) The point of Our Lord's words is simply this: "on the basis of my divinity, you have no claim. But on the basis of my humanity and your maternity, you do." Hence, by His words, he defines and claims his Divinity, but by granting her request, he recognizes his mother's influence over Him, even though, as He says, "it is not my time". Whose time? God's time. Here we see the dynamic interplay of the hypostatic union where the humanity of Jesus "trumps" His divinity for the love of His mother. Therefore, on the basis of His divinity, she had no claim. On the basis of His humanity, which she supplied, she does.
Second, Augustine believed that Mary was sinless:
"We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." (On Nature and Grace, Ch.42)
Hence, when he speaks of Jesus "repelling" His Mother, it cannot mean that he believed her to sin (i.e. through the sin of presumption). As Mark Bonocore will explain later on, the concept of "venial sins" had not yet been fully developed by Augustine. This explains why in the discourse cited above, Augustine can attribute a "repelling" by Jesus of His Mother yet at the same time maintain that she never sinned. The most likely explanation for Augustine's interpretation of the passage, therefore, is that he wanted to emphasize that Our Lord was truly human, and once again, Augustine, like many Fathers and Councils will do after him, used Mary in order to do it.
Third, here is the context of the text in question:
The Lord being now crucified, and the parting of His garments having also been completed by the casting of the lot, let us look at what the evangelist John thereafter relates. "And these things," he says, "the soldiers did. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary [the wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home." This, without a doubt, was the hour whereof Jesus, when about to turn the water into wine, had said to His mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." This hour, therefore, He had foretold, which at that time had not yet arrived, when it should be His to acknowledge her at the point of death, and with reference to which He had been born as a mortal man. At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity; but now, when in the midst of human sufferings, He commended with human affection [the mother] by whom He had become man. For then, He who had created Mary became known in His power; but now, that which Mary had brought forth was hanging on the cross. (Tractate, 119,1, Re: John 19-24-30)
Why did Eric leave out the second part of Augustine's comments? -
"but now, when in the midst of human sufferings, He commended with human affection [the mother] by whom He had become man."
The answer, of course, is because Mary is presented in a very favorable light being "commended with human affection" to St. John. What is rather apparent from the context of Augustine's apologetic is that he is attempting to demarcate between Our Lord's divinity and His humanity. The purpose of his attack on docetic Christology is not to demote Mary but to defend Christ's humanity. Any fair, sober consideration of Augustine's writings could not help but come to this conclusion.
This understanding of Jesus’ words as a reprimand is by no means uncommon in the patristic writings; it shows up as well in Irenaeus, who understands Jesus’ tone toward Mary to be harsh in this passage: “When Mary pressed on toward the admirable sign of the wine and wanted prematurely to participate in the anticipated cup, the Lord said, repelling her untimely haste: ‘Woman, what have I to do with you’” (Against Heresies 3.16,7).
Here is the context of that passage with Eric's citation in red:
"With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come" -- waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father. This is also the reason why, when men were often desirous to take Him, it is said, "No man laid hands upon Him, for the hour of His being taken was not yet come;" nor the time of His passion, which had been foreknown by the Father; as also says the prophet Habakkuk, "By this Thou shalt be known when the years have drawn nigh; Thou shalt be set forth when the time comes; because my soul is disturbed by anger, Thou shalt remember Thy mercy." Paul also says: "But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth His Son." By which is made manifest, that all things which had been foreknown of the Father, our Lord did accomplish in their order, season, and hour, foreknown and fitting, being indeed one and the same, but rich and great. For He fulfils the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things which have been formed, the only-begotten of the Father, Christ who was announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fulness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man. (Against Heresies 3.16,7)
I do not see in this discourse a strict "reprimand" by Jesus. Irenaeus' point is not emphasing the "What have I to do with you" part but the "mine hour has not yet come" part. This is clearly seen by the fact that the whole passage is talking about God's inscrutable timing for divine revelation. No one is disputing that Mary's time table for a miracle was not the same as Our Lord's - that much is obvious - but this does not necessarily gravitate to interpreting Irenaeus' comments as a strict "reprimand". It is more like a reminder (albeit somewhat stern, granted) from Jesus to His mother that His hour had not yet come. Even the saintly Fathers of our common heritage disagreed with one another, after all. There is no great scandal in that. Mary was human, after all, and she, like all of us, was ignorant of God's plans. She was not ominiscient. The key point of contention for Eric is to show that Mary's action was a sin which would have been met with a strict reprimand (Cf. Galatians 2:11 ff). That and precisely that is what wins the prize on this question. If Mary did not sin on this occasion (which is my contention), then he has no basis for appealing to this passage as evidence of Mary being reprimanded in the strict sense.
As a Mother, she requested from the PERSON of her Son a favor. As God, He reminds her that she has no claim on His divinity. However, as her Son, she does have such a claim. That is why He performs the miracle - because the Divine Son has forever tied Himself to his humanity and all that that entails - which includes obedience to His human mother. Since therefore one cannot separate Christ's humanity from His divinity (which is a truth that all Trinitarians affirm), then neither can one nullify the Mother's "pull" with her Son either. As Mother to his sacred humanity, she has maternal rights over her Son, and because the sacred humanity is "of one accord" with Jesus' divinity, then that means that Mary has indirect access to divinity itself by virtue of the hypostatic union - a union, it must be stressed, she had a central role in forming. Moreover, the fact that the Lord granted her request could hardly support the contention of the strict reprimand which would have been necessitated by a sin of presumption. If the Lord strictly "reprimands" someone, He does not then grant the request and reward the sin which was, only a few seconds before, scolded.
But since Eric has brought up Irenaeus as a witness against Mary, let me provide the viewing audience with Irenaeus' glowing praises of her:
"...[the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled -- was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former disobeyed God, the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin ; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death. (Against Heresies 5.19,1)
An "advocate" who "rescues the human race"? I thought Jesus was the only advocate who did that? Apparently the saintly Father saw no false dichotomy between Mother and Son which Eric has sought to manufacture. Evidence such as this teaching, so early (Against Heresies was written around 180 A.D.) in Christian history, provides the basis for such doctrines of Mary as Co-Mediatrix. An advocate is, after all, a mediator.
It is also found in Theodoret, who, commenting on our passage in his Dialogue II, writes: “At one time [Jesus] gives honor to his mother as to her that gave him birth; at another time he rebukes her as her Lord.”
Catholic Apologist Mark Bonocore provides some valuable thoughts on this question:
First of all, Theodoret of Cyrus was a Nestorian for a long time. This alone calls his Marian theology into question. Yet, in terms of the "rebuke" given to her (John 2), this was a common exegesis in the Greek-speaking Church (Chrysostom and Basil also interpret it this way). However, two things: 1) The Latin and Syrian fathers never saw it this way; and 2) What the Greek fathers are missing is that Jesus is using a **Hebrewism** when He says "ti emoi kai soi guna" ("What is this between me and to you, woman?"), which was a common Hebrew way of showing **solidarity** (e.g. Gen 23:15, Gen 13:8, etc.) rather than a "rebuke." What's more, while the Greek Church liked to say that this "rebuke" was in response to a "maternal vanity" on the part of Mary, it is VERY important to keep in mind that this kind of "vanity" was not seen as a venial sin by the Greek fathers, since these Greek fathers DID NOT HAVE A CONCEPT OF VENIAL SIN OR CONCUPICENCE ROOTED IN ORIGINAL SIN, because this theology (an aspect of Latin theology) was not yet worked out by St. Augustine during his struggles against the Pelagians. However, once Pelagianism came to be seen as a full heresy for the Greeks (this took a long time --part the lifetime of Theodoret), this interpretation of John 2 was dropped by them completely; and no modern Greek Orthodox, for example, will say that Jesus is "rebuking" Mary in John 2.
Moreover, they are not talking for Tradition, but only for a popular **regional** interpretation that was discarded in the wake of Pelagianism because of what it implied. As I said, no pre-Augustinian Greek father would consider "vanity" a "venial sin" like we would today. Rather, they merely saw it as part of typical human nature, or a lack of the Divine nature; and so their Greek interpretation (which probably arose from some pastoral sermon about the limitations of earthly parenthood) was an imperfect one on three important counts: 1) Linguistic (in that it failed to appreciate the Hebrewism used by Jesus); 2) Geographic (in that it was an interpretation limited to the Greek speaking Church, rather than a universal Traditional understanding) and 3) Theological in that it served the purposes of Pelagius against the Tradition of Mary's sinlessness, which the Greeks CLEARLY subscribed to.
For example, the same St. John Chrysostom who, like Theodoret of Cyrus, speaks of John 6 as a "rebuke," also speaks of Mary as sinless and immaculate, saying ... "Therefore, he called it 'Eden' or 'virgin soil,' because this 'virgin' was a type of that other Virgin (Mary). As the first soil produced for us the Garden of Paradise without any seed, so the Virgin gave birth to Christ ..." (The Changing of Names) And he also writes ... "A virgin [Eve] drove us out of Paradise; through a Virgin we have found eternal life." (Commentary on Psalm 44). Here, we must keep in mind that the Greek fathers, who tended to objectify women, equated "virginity" with sinlessness in a female context. What's more, the Greek Liturgies penned by St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Greek both call Mary "Panagia" ("All Holy One") and "Panagiota" ("All Sinless One"). So, the burden of proof lies with Eric and his Fundie chums, for they have to show that these Greeks broke with the Traditon of their ***contemporaries*** in the rest of the Church (i.e., the Latin West and the Syrian East) and directly denied Mary's sinlessness. ...Which is something they cannot show.
Incidentally, here are a few selected citations from the same Theodoret Dialogue which Eric quoted. Very Marian, I should say....
1) Testimony of the Holy Ambrosius, bishop of Milan. In his Exposition of the Faith:-- "We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, was begotten before all ages, without beginning, of the Father, and that in these last days the same was made flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, assumed the manhood, in its perfection, of a reasonable soul and body, of one substance with the Father as touching His Godhead and of one substance with us as touching His manhood. For union of two perfect natures hath been after an ineffable manner. Wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; knowing that being co-eternal with His own Father as touching His Godhead, by virtue of which also He is creator of all, He deigned, after the assent of the Holy Virgin, when she said to the angel 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word' to build after an ineffable fashion a temple out of her for Himself, and to unite this temple to Himself by her conception, (DIALOGUES -- THE "ERANISTES" OR "POLYMORPHUS" OF THE BLESSED THEODORETUS, BISHOP OF CYRUS, 205)
2) Testimony of the Holy Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, from his discourse on "The Lord is my shepherd":-- "And an ark of incorruptible wood was the Saviour Himself, for the incorruptibility and indestructibility of His Tabernacle signified its producing no corruption of sin. For the sinner who confesses his sin says ' My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.' But the Lord was without sin, made in His human nature of incorruptible wood, that is to say, of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost overland within anti without, as it were, by purest gold of the word of God." (177)
3) Testimony of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. From his letter to Nestorius: -- "The natures which have been brought together in the true unity are distinct, and of hath there is one God and Son, but the difference of the natures has not been removed in consequence of the union." Of the same from his letter against the Orientals: -- "There is an union of two natures, wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance with this perception of the unconfounded union we acknowledge the Holy Virgin as Mother of God because the Word of God was made flesh and was made man, and from the very conception united to Himself the temper taken from her." (214)
4) Testimony of the blessed Gelasius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: -- "He was bound, He was wounded, He was crucified, He was handled, He was marked with scars, He received a lance's wound, and all these indignities were undergone by the body born of Mary, while that which was begotten froth the Father before the ages none was able to harm, for the Word had no such nature. For how can any one con- strain Godhead? (241)
The Greek text of Jesus’ response to his mother’s words reads literally, “what to me and to you.” The identical construction occurs in Judg 11:12, where Jephthah inquires of the Ammonite king who is attacking his countrymen: “What do you have to do with me that you have attacked our country?” In 2 Sam 16:10, King David responds to Abishai’s offer to decapitate Shimei who is cursing David, “What do you and I have in common, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the LORD said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who can ask, ‘Why do you do this?’” In 1 King 17:18, the widow of Zarephath whose son has just died cries out in despair to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?” In 2 King 3:13, the prophet Elisha says to Joram, the wicked king of Israel, “What do we have to do with each other? Go to the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother.” And in 2 Chron 35:21, Neco the king of Egypt asks Josiah the king of Judah why he is coming against him in battle: “What do you have to do with me, O king of Judah? It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you.” However Jesus’ reply to Mary is construed, whenever this phrase occurs in the Old Testament it always in some way distances the speaker from the interlocutor.
This same negative connotation is carried over to the NT writings as well. There are several NT passages where the identical Greek construction appears, and in every one of them the idea of distancing and/or reproach is involved. It is used in Matt 8:29 of the demon-possessed men who shout to Jesus, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” It is similarly used in Mark 1:24 of the demon-possessed man who calls out to Jesus, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-the Holy One of God!” It is used again of still another demon-possessed man in Mark 5:7 who, we are told, shouts at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!” It is used in Luke 4:34, the parallel to Mark 1:24, again of a demon-possessed man, “Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-the Holy One of God!” Finally, it is used in Luke 8:28, Luke’s parallel to Mark 5:7, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!” The meaning of the phrase is roughly “why are you bothering me” (or better) “leave me alone!” and carries the intent of distancing the two parties in question, with an overtone of reproach. This very same connotation is found in all its occurrences in the literature of classical Greek, koine and later Hellenistic Greek, and in classical and later Latin.
If anyone but Mary were the recipient of Jesus’ words here, it is doubtful that we would have so many attempting to posit an exception (in the case of John 2:4) to the consistent meaning of this phrase everywhere else it is found. Our understanding of this passage must be guided by the language used, and not vice versa. If in every place it occurs-whether in the LXX, the NT, classical Greek literature, Hellenistic Greek literature, or classical and later Latin literature-this phrase always and without exception carries a negative connotation of reproach, it is precarious in the extreme to suggest we should render it differently in our present passage just because Mary happens to be the recipient. Such exegesis should be avoided not merely because it is tendentious, but because it is a case of special pleading with regard to Mary.
"On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water."" (John 2:1-7)
The first thing we should immediately notice about this passage is that it is a "mini Catholic Gospel" - all of the elements are there: a problem, an intercession of a saint, God's hearing and granting of the intercession, movement by the saint to solve the problem, co-operation of the servants, sacramentals, dispensers, a taste of the heavenly gift, joy and contentment.
Now to Eric's points....Firstly, even if the passage is seen as a reproach or distancing of Our Lord, it is only an apparent or masked one as I have already argued. Nevertheless, Eric's interpretation of the passage is far from certain. The phrase in question could be as a certain distancing, but then again it might not be.
First and foremost, there is the issue of the grammatical range of the Greek phrase in question. The idiomatic expression occurred in Greek, but most take it to be a Greek Translation of a Hebrew idiomatic Semitism. Here is a sample of positions, most of which are at variance with Eric's:
Some early Fathers favoured this translation. The affirmative interrogative "Has my hour not now come?" is given by Gregory of Nyssa & Theodore of Mopsuestia (R. Brown The Gospel According to John I-XII: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 29, 2nd ed. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986: p. 99). Another modern scholar who gives that opinion is J. Michl, "Bemerkungen zu Joh. 2,4", Biblica 36 (1955), p. 492-509.
Yet, despite the testimony of these sources, Eric makes the following curious claim: "if in every place it occurs-whether in the LXX, the NT, classical Greek literature, Hellenistic Greek literature, or classical and later Latin literature-this phrase always and without exception carries a negative connotation of reproach, it is precarious in the extreme to suggest we should render it differently in our present passage just because Mary happens to be the recipient." This is a very strange statement indeed considering the wide divergance of opinion on the matter. How is it that all of the scholarly sources cited above account for their opinion? Do they not have at least some historical or grammatical basis for their opinion? I should think that they most certainly do. So the question is: how can Eric make such a categorical and comprehensive claim? He seems to be rather more optimistic of his opinion than he ought to be.
Apart from the issue of grammar, the contextual problems of Eric's position are also legion. The connotation of reproach is determined by the immediate context of the passage, and not necessarily by the idiom of speech.
First, as Brown had indicated above, one Old Testament passage, 2 Samuel 16:10, does not necessarily support Eric's contention of an absolute or exceptionless rule regarding "what to me and to you", the problems with the other sources I cited notwithstanding.
"As King David approached Bahurim, a man from the same clan as Saul's family came out from there. His name was Shimei son of Gera, and he cursed as he came out. He pelted David and all the king's officials with stones, though all the troops and the special guard were on David's right and left. As he cursed, Shimei said, "Get out, get out, you man of blood, you scoundrel! The Lord has repaid you for all the blood you shed in the household of Saul, in whose place you have reigned. The Lord has handed the kingdom over to your son Absalom. You have come to ruin because you are a man of blood!" Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head." But the king said, "What do you and I have in common, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the Lord said to him, 'Curse David,' who can ask, 'Why do you do this?' " (2 Samuel 16:5-10)
The above passage does not suggest an opposition between David and Abishai. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite. The context clearly reveals that David and Abishai are on the same side. At the very least, it is possible to render the text: What does that have to do with us, you sons of Zeruiah?
Second, all of the New Testament passages Eric cites above in support of his position involve a demon possessed man (Cf. Matt 8:29, Mark 1:24, Mark 5:7, Luke 4:34, Luke 8:28). In fact, there are simply two scenarios in the New Testament involving "what to me and to you": one involving demons and the other involving Mary. This hardly represents a sufficient population from which to draw an exceptionless rule.
Third, all of the passages cited in support of his position (with the exception of 2 Samuel 16:10 perhaps) presuppose a diametrical opposition between the participants in light of their immediate or past history. There exists no such history between Jesus and His mother. Therefore, because of the lack of evidence for a diametrical opposition, the context of the immediate passage must take precedence in determining what Jesus meant.
Fourth, Mary is the first disciple to publically identify and profess Jesus' divinity. She asks something of Him that neither man or woman could yet know nor that mortal man could fulfill. Jesus recognizes that his Mother knows and understands His mission - otherwise his reply "My hour has not yet come" would make little sense as she would naturally know what He meant. This interplay shows the intense intimacy between Mother and Son - both of them and only them knowing the truth of who Jesus was.
Fifth, the distancing of Jesus, if that view were taken, is not in itself a categorical distancing but only a temporary one. Hence, Jesus tells his mother that the time is not yet here. If Our Lord simply wanted to distance himself from His mother and put her in "her place", then it would be very strange for Him to "temporalize" the situation, and deflect attention away from his alleged reprimand.
Sixth, if Mary understood Jesus' comments as a reproach, her whole response and reaction would reflect that. She, as a disciple, would quietly leave her Son alone after such an allegedly strong rebuke. But does that happen? No. The exact opposite happens. She orders the servants to "do whatever Jesus tells them to do". In other words, in faith she expects Jesus to do what she had asked. Unless Mary received Jesus words positively or without reproach, then her whole response would have made little sense, especially in light of her humble nature. Such an exegetical position would effectively fall out with the revealed character of this humble servant of the Lord. On the other hand, if Mary understood Jesus words without reproach, this would explain why Mary does not skip a beat but orders the servants to do what He says. If he was distancing himself from her, it would be kind of presumptuous for her to tell the servants to await his orders; and it would be rather bizarre for Jesus to distance himself from her but then do precisely what she wanted in the first place in the very next verse!
This handmaid knew God's mercy and love more than any other, entrusting the servants to Jesus' instruction. Seeing her faith, Jesus responds, and He responds is a big way, performing his first public miracle at her bequest. And under what circumstances is the miracle performed? Under filial protest(?) and maternal intercession, no less!
If the Son is understood to include Mary in his plan of salvation, then this effectively puts a Marian spin on the passsage. If, on the other hand, the Son is understood to protest at her request, it only shows that His love for her surpasses the timing of the plan of salvation. Either way, Mary comes out smelling like the rose that she is.
Finally, Jesus grants Mary's request despite it not being "His time". What is the signficance of this? How can God be moved to change the timing of salvation history by a mere human's request? Who can change God's mind? The only person that I can recall that did that was Moses, and he was some kind of intercessor.
“Woman”-v. 4: Just as significant for the meaning of this passage in John is Jesus’ address to Mary as “woman.” Even Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the title “woman” is completely unattested in reference to one’s mother.
Yes, and that is the very interesting thing about Jesus' address. If He were trying to deflect attention from her, then He would simply refer to her the way everyone else refers to their own mother by calling her "Mother". By calling her "Woman", He is drawing attention not only to Himself and to His divinity but to her as well. If He were to refer to her as "Mother" or "Mary", there would have been no apparent significance to His address, but by referring to her with such an enigmatic title, one is forced to recognize it. Either He is demoting His mother, or He is elevating her in a mysterious way. The stakes are high indeed.
The title “woman” is Jesus’ common way of addressing women in the NT (the woman at the well; the woman caught in adultery, etc.).
Yes, and we are compelled to conclude that Jesus either insulted His mother by such a common address or He had some other intention. Calling someone "woman" might be considered polite to a stranger, but it might not qualify as such to one's own mother.
However, this is not to say that this is the only way Jesus addresses women. In the case of women with whom he is particularly close, he sometimes uses the woman’s proper name. In Luke 10:41 he refers to “Martha” (cf. John 11:5 which tells us that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus”). In John 20:15-16, Jesus first calls Mary Magdalene “woman” (v. 15); then “Mary” (v. 16). The first address (“woman”) seems to be said with the intent of preventing Mary from recognizing him immediately (cf. Luke 24:16; “they were kept from recognizing him”), and to give the impression that she is speaking with a stranger (viz., the gardener). The second address (“Mary”) is clearly intended to close the distance and reestablish the intimacy that Mary once enjoyed with Jesus. In other words, when there is a special relationship between Jesus and a woman who is a known disciple, he often uses more personal addresses.
And yet, it would have been an even more bizarre address for Jesus to call his Mother by her first name. In fact, if He were to do that, one could argue that such an address would not close the distance between Mother and Son, but rather widen it. The fact that when Jesus addresses Mary, He only refers to her as "woman", and not by any other title.
The title “woman,” by contrast, seems to be used to establish distance between Jesus and the other party.
Yet, the example of the woman caught in adultery seems to contradict you. In that instance, Our Lord used the title to express His respect towards a prostitute, and close the distance between Him and her and widen the distance between Him and the mob:
At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:2-11)
One might expect, then, that had Jesus intended to convey an intimate relationship with his mother-one that was unencumbered by distance-he would have chosen “mother” or “Mary” or the like. Instead, he uses an address that is polite but distancing.
Again, whether it is polite to address one's mother as "woman" is a matter of dispute.
Indeed, the fact that Jesus never once in all the gospels calls Mary by the title “mother” indicates not only that there is no special emphasis on Mary’s physical motherhood, but may also indicate something much more significant; namely, that Mary’s physical motherhood is quite intentionally downplayed.
I find it rather remarkable that anyone would suggest that, in all His 33 years, Jesus would never refer to his mother as "Mother". The fact that there is no explicit and direct reference to Jesus calling Mary "mother" proves little if anything at all. Indeed, He never referred to his alleged uterine brothers or sisters by "Brother" or "Sister" but that hardly discourages Helvidians from considering them to be so. The Gospel of John mentions that Mary was indeed His Mother (Cf. John 2:1,3,5,12, John 19:25-26), and that is all that is required for a theological truth. Mary was Jesus' Mother, and Jesus was God. Furthermore, Jesus refers to His mother as "woman" a sum total of two times - once at the beginning of His Ministry (John 2:4, John 19:26) and once at the end. This would suggest that, far from attributing a very common position to Mary, He was actually elevating it. But more on this later.
Throughout Eric's books and writings, it is more than evident that he has an anti-sacramental prejudice. Although he will not concede it, this prejudice and the consequential attacks on Marian truths has inevitably lead to an attack on the Incarnation itself. He makes it a point to emphasize - time and time again - that "Mary's physical motherhood is quite intentionally downplayed." Yet, this assertion is quite gnostic in its undertone, and it is a half-truth at best; a distortion at worst. Throughout his writings, he seeks to separate the physical order from the spiritual order. Yet, seemingly oblivious to him, is that his attack is ultimately directed at the Incarnation which is the epitome of spirit and matter. But let us digress a bit...
Jesus does not demote the physical order per se in order to elevate the spiritual order. Both, being created by Him, are good and holy. To make such an arbitrary and ridiculous separation would be bordering on gnosticism.
The physical order is good. The spiritual order is better. There is no necessary conflict between them. However, when a conflict does occur (i.e. when someone elevates the physical ties over (or at the expense of) the spiritual ones), Jesus instructs us to put the spiritual ones over the physical ones. This is the significance of Jesus' teaching about renouncing family for the sake of the gospel. (Cf. Mark 10:29-30, Luke 14:26, Luke 18:29). It is also the basis for Jesus teaching about his spiritual family (Cf. Matthew 12:48, Mark 3:33, Luke 8:21). Spiritual growth must not be inhibited by the physical order or uterine family ties.
In the case of Mary, however, a curious lacuna develops in the New Testament concerning the aforementioned principle. Mary's physical motherhood was generated by her spiritual assent and obedience to the Word of God, and thus was in complete harmony with the will of God. Indeed, it was the will of God that she bear his very person and thereby become the mother of God! In her case, she became the spiritual Mother of God by her obedience and assent before she became the physical Mother of God. Mary could not have been the Mother of God through the physical order before becoming the Mother of God through the spiritual order. As such, in her particular case, she had to be both or neither. Mary is the prime example of the physical and spiritual order being perfectly balanced. Whereas Eve was an instrument of spiritual and physical division between man and God, Mary becomes God's instrument in mitigating and mediating that division through Jesus.
“Do whatever he tells you”-v. 5: Carson’s thoughts are lucid: “On this reasoning, one wonders why everyone who ever asked Jesus for help and found in him the solution to some pressing need, should not be elevated to the status of mediator or mediatrix” (Commentary on the Gospel of John).
Mediation in the Body is predicated on how much the person did God's will. Since only one human person consented to bring about the Incarnation, that puts her in an exclusive club in the order of mediation.
The situation here is simple. Mary has, by her anxious words, tacitly requested Jesus’ help in solving a crisis (v. 3). Jesus in turn initially rebuffs the request, placing distance between him and Mary (v. 4), but then complies (v. 6-7). The view that Jesus’ words must have been an affirmative response to Mary’s request does not take into account the pattern of request-rebuff-compliance found throughout the gospels. This same pattern occurs in John 4:46-54 (the “second miraculous sign” at Cana, v. 54). There Jesus is asked by a man to heal his son (v. 46-47). Jesus initially rebuffs the request in v. 48: “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders you will never believe.” The man persists in his request (v. 49); and Jesus finally complies (v. 50).
I fail to see how this establishes Eric's point. The pattern of request-rebuff-compliance only causes us to look more closely at the object of the apparent rebuff. In fact, if we examine the Scriptures carefully, what we learn is quite revealing. Let's take a look at the first of Eric's citations:
"Therefore He came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and was imploring Him to come down and heal his son; for he was at the point of death. So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe." The royal official said to Him, "Sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus said to him, "Go; your son lives." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off." (John 4:46-50)
What admirable qualities do we see exhibited here? Answer: persistence and faith. If Eric wants to remain consistent in his analysis above and attribute these qualities to Jesus' mother, I would be very amenable to accepting it.
John 7:1-10 gives us another example of the pattern. There Jesus’ brothers make a request that he “go to Judea” (vv.3-4). Jesus initially rebuffs the request (vv. 6-9), and then complies (v. 10).
No. He does not "comply" at all. The context of the passage is one of clear hostility between Jesus and his brothers. Jesus does not grant their "request". Instead, the Gospel recounts that after "having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee" (v.9) and did not go to Judea. He responded this way as a rebuke and a refusal to their goading. It is only after "His brothers had gone up to the feast, [that] He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret." (John 7:10) so as to not give the impression of compliance.
As an aside, it must be remarked that the brothers do not engage in a respectful "request" at all but rather more of a taunt. Contrast their belligerent provocation to Jesus in this passage, for instance, to Mary's motherly request in John 2. Both parties are trying to invoke Jesus' divinity. The brothers do it their way - through the flesh; Mary does it through the spirit. Moreover, Jesus was likely already planning to go to Judea but ended up delaying His decision because of the "negative intercession" of His brothers. We can contrast this to the events at Cana: Jesus was not planning to begin his public ministry at Cana; but here again, He changed His mind because of the "positive interecession" of His mother. The disposition between the the two parties is like night and day, and only further seeks to portray the Blessed Mother in an even more positive light. It shows that she was on the side of Her Son, and not Jesus' "brothers" at all, as Eric attempts to suggest in Mark 3.
A Synoptic example of this pattern may be found in Matt 15:21-28. There a Canaanite woman requests of Jesus that her daughter be healed of demon possession. Jesus rebuffs this request twice: once in v. 24 (“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”) and the second time in v. 26 (“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs”). After much persistence Jesus finally complies (v. 28).
Again, we see the same themes demonstated with this woman as we did earlier with the nobleman: perserverance and faith.
"But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once." (Matt 15:24-28)
In any case, it is clear that Jesus does not alleviate Mary’s concern over the shortage of wine because of any special relationship to her--in that case, what would explain the fact that Jesus complies in all the other instances where we find this pattern? Jesus seems instead to grant the request in spite of the requester, as an illustrative tool, both to show his own glory and to teach others not to assume they have a right to request anything from him based on biological ties.
As demonstrated above, the instances Eric has pointed out only seek to further erode, and certainly do not strengthen, his position. Two of them showed perserverance and faith; the other showed faithlessness. All of the episodes cited, however, only further highlight Mary's obedience and trust at Cana.
Insofar as a "special relationship to her" goes, this is testified by the fact that it was through her intercession that 1) Jesus begins His public ministry and 2) His divinity is first gloriously manifested. In other words, while 30 years earlier she gave birth to His humanity at Bethlehem, she now brings forth His Divinity. She therefore shows herself to be the first of Jesus' disciples and the first to know and induce his Godhood.
Another signficant fact is Jesus' comment about "His hour". He says in the Gospel that: "My hour has not yet come." In spite of this, however, Jesus grants His mother's request. The question is why? Eric will have us believe that it is to only show Jesus' glory and magnanimity and it has little, or more precisely nothing, to do with his relationship with his mother. Yet, as we have seen, Jesus' response does not, in point of fact, fit the context which Eric seeks to portray. Jesus would not perform a miracle for someone if He were trying to truly distance Himself from that person. He never did such a thing in all of Scripture. In fact, He did quite the opposite (Cf. Mark 6:5-6). There is, of course, one alternative - the one that is most apparent and plain from the reading of the text: Jesus, out of love and respect for His mother's request, was moved to compassion and altered His Divine plan and timing for her. In other words, His hour had not yet come, but hers had.
Jesus seems instead to grant the request in spite of the requester, as an illustrative tool, both to show his own glory and to teach others not to assume they have a right to request anything from him based on biological ties.
On the contary, if Jesus wanted to truly "teach others not to assume they have a right to request anything from him based on biological ties", his response would have been to refuse rather than to comply with Mary's request! It is a poor teacher indeed who seeks to correct a precocious student by granting them the very thing which should be refused. If Jesus really wanted to "sever" his biological ties with His mother, as Eric has consistently maintained in his writings, then Cana would have been a perfect place to do it! Close your eyes and picture the scene: Imagine Jesus at the crowded wedding feast of Cana, His first public appearance after the beginning of His ministry. He is surrounded by His new disciples. Mary approaches Jesus with the stewards of the wedding party in tow. She makes her pitch. And what does Jesus ultimately do? He complies with the request after telling His Mother that it was not "His time". Now I ask you, dear reader, is that the kind of reaction you would expect from a teacher who wanted to emphasize that His mother had no pull with him any longer? To me, this would have been perfect opportunity to show that He was no mama's boy. The fact that He did not refuse His mother: “ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” (1 Kings 2: 20-21) shows that He remains His Mother's Son.
Also interesting to note is that John chooses to record this episode in the first place. One must ask why he felt this was important for his readers to know. Prescinding from the Roman Catholic proposal that Mary is to be seen as an Intercessor of sorts (which we have already investigated and rejected), the only reasonable explanation is that John wanted to show clearly that Jesus was indebted to no one-not even to his own mother. This is significant since John is the apostle who took Mary in to live with him after Jesus’ death (John 19:26-27). If anyone knew Mary on an intimate basis, John did. Yet, far from exalting Mary as the spiritual mother of the church, or the heavenly intercessor, or the like, John portrays her in a decidedly unflattering way!
Not at all. The Catholic interpretation of the passage has cogency; Eric's view does not. The bottom line here, folks, is that Jesus, like a good Son, complied with His mother's request and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, changed God's timetable. Others could not (Cf. John 11:6). That's pretty awesome.
In fact, he makes it clear in no uncertain terms that he intends to sever--and finally does sever--all biological ties to her at his death. He is no longer her son, but rather her Lord.
First of all, there is absolutely no evidence for this rather absurd assertion. There is no hint anywhere in Holy Scripture of Jesus severing any biological ties with any of His relatives, much less Mary. There is one recorded instance (possibly two) of confrontation between Jesus and His brothers (Cf. John 7:1-10), but there is no severing to speak of. Secondly, if Jesus is no longer Mary's son, then He is no longer the Son of Man today because a Son of man must have a mother. Is Eric prepared to accept this consequence? If he is, then he has just shot down his own redemption (via the Incarnation).
Let's start with Mark 3 (with parallels in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21). (v. 20) “Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. (v. 21) When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him
The Greek phrase in question oi par autou does not necessarily translate into "family", but might include friends, followers, disciples, or members of a household. The NASB, for instance, translates the verse: "And when His own people, heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him..."
...for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ . . . [so here we have a group of people identified as Jesus' family deciding to take charge of him because they think he is insane.
I will address this in more detail in just a moment but for now let me make one small point. In his book, Eric makes a big deal about the crowd always being astonished by Jesus and never being in doubt of His sanity (see below). Yet, it is likewise true that Jesus' family never thinks he is insane either, and this is similarly "unattested in Mark".
Furthermore, it is questionable whether the phrase "He is out of his mind" or "He has lost his senses" is necessarily the best one. In fact, the Greek phrase in question was used by Mark elsewhere to indicate astonishment at the teachings of Christ (Cf. Mark 2:12; 5:42; 6:51). Insanity might therefore be too strong a translation. Another rendering of the phrase could be "He is beside himself" as the KJV and RSV translate it.
Now, we discover a few verses later just who this family is] . . . (v. 31) Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. . .
The group of persons in verse 21 is not necessarily the same group (i.e. the Mother of Jesus and His brothers) in verse 31 - sandwiching techniques notwithstanding. One could easily argue that Mark was trying to differentiate both groups by not identifying Jesus' mother and brothers in verse 21. In fact, in view of Mark's wish to emphasize the spiritual relationship of Jesus to His followers over the physical relationship to His family, there would have been even more of a reason to identify them as Jesus' immediate family members (in v. 21) in order to show the contrast between "the spirit" and "the flesh". This is particularly relevant in light of Mark 6:3 where he takes care to identify the members of Jesus' family.
[and so now we know that Mary is part of the family who heads out to silence Jesus because she thinks he is insane].
No.
#1 - We do not know that Mary was part of that group in v.21.
#2 - Even if she were part of that group, there is no necessary indication that every single one of those "people" felt that He was insane. Mark is simply trying to capture the consensus of opinion in the group.
#3 - In arguing against the proposition that it was the crowd who accuses Jesus of being "out of his mind", Svendsen writes: "Third, in Mark, the "crowd" is always only astonished by Jesus - never in doubt of his sanity." Moreover, while the word existemi does sometimes mean insanity ("out of mind", 2 Cor 5:13), Wasnbrough's solution ("out of control with enthusiasm") in unattested in Mark and elsewhere." (p.110-111, Who Is My Mother?).
In all of the other three instances in Mark, the word is translated as "astonished":
There are a few things to note here. First, on an exegetical level, Svendsen seeks to exempt the crowd from thinking Jesus is insane because it is unattested in Mark, but, as intimated above, he refuses to apply the same standard when the subject has been switched from "the crowd" to "Jesus' family". In other words, it is permissible, according to Eric, to apply "insanity" to the accusation by Jesus' family but not so with the crowd. Yet, there is no objective basis for making such arbitrary attributions. If the "insanity" translation of existemi is to be rejected for the crowd's impression towards Jesus, then for the same reason, it is also to be rejected for Jesus' family's impression towards Him as well. Second, no where in Mark is Jesus' family portrayed as thinking He was insane either, but you do not see Eric dismissing them as the identity of "they" in the phrase "for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" (v.21b)
Let us turn then to perhaps the best translation of the passage found in the Revised Standard Version:
"Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself.'" (Mark 3:20-22)
For the sake of argument, however, I will accept "He is insane" as an exegetically possible translation, and therefore will use it in the forthcoming analysis. My contention is not with this particular sentence. Rather, it is with the the group identified as "they" in "for they [people/followers/Jesus'family] were saying". Who are "they"? Is it Jesus' disciples as some exegetes posit? Is it Jesus' family as Eric and others maintain? Or is it the crowd as the RSV and other exegetes suggest?
To answer this question, we must turn to the surrounding context and examine the literary techniques Mark employs. From a contextual stand point, let us examine the passage again carefully:
V.20a And again a crowd comes together,
V.20b so that they cannot even eat bread.
V.21a And his relatives having heard [of it] went out to lay hold on him,
V.21b for they said, He is out of his mind.
Now in order to answer the question of the all important identity of "they" in v.21b, we must consider the circumstances that led the particular group in v.21b to say that Jesus was "insane".
What is the reason the group in v.21b says Jesus was "insane"? What reason would Jesus family have for saying that He was "insane"? There is no reason. Why would Jesus' family say that He was "insane" because of the mere mention He could not even eat a meal? There would have been no provocation on their part to do so. Remember, they were not with Jesus to even be provoked to such an insult until verse 31 (if you accept that the group identified v.21a and v.31 is his family). And the text does not even suggest any other reason why they might be provoked to this opinion. On the other hand, if the group in v.21b is the crowd and not Jesus' family, there are several reasons to believe why the crowd would say such a thing.
#1 - Eric says this in his book: "Moreover, Mark does not elsewhere present the crowd as being hostile to Jesus before the crucifixion, and nothing in the narrative leads us to believe that the crowd is hostile here." (p.111). Yet we notice a little later in Mark 6:1-6 the exact opposite evidence being presented:
"And he went out thence and came to his own country, and his disciples follow him. And when sabbath was come he began to teach in the synagogue, and many hearing were amazed, saying, Whence [has] this [man] these things? and what [is] the wisdom that is given to him, and such works of power are done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not despised save in his own country, and among [his] kinsmen, and in his own house. And he could not do any work of power there, save that laying his hands on a few infirm persons he healed [them]. And he wondered because of their unbelief. And he went round the villages in a circuit, teaching." (Mark 6:1-6)
Notice that the crowd in Mark 6 above "took offense at him". Notice also that both in Mark 3 and Mark 6, both confrontations took place in "his home town". This suggests that indeed there is evidence of hostility and confrontation between the crowd and Jesus in Nazareth.
#2 - The second point to be discussed involves the surrounding context of verses 20-21:
Question: Why
couldn't Jesus eat?
Answer: Because He was being pressed by the crowd. (v.20b)
Question: Why did
some of the crowd say he was insane?
Answer: Because He was teaching them the gospel.
Question: Why were the scribes (who came down from Jerusalem) saying that He "was possessed by Beelzebub." (v.21)?
Answer: Because Jesus was teaching the gospel to the crowd, and having heard it, they rejected Him and made their accusation.
Hence, under this scenario one can quickly see that it is very likely that it was indeed the crowd who was saying that Jesus was "insane".
In Eric's book, he makes much ado about Mark's literary technique called "sandwiching":
"Mark's account uses a 'sandwiching technique that connects vv.20-21 with vv.31-35. In vv.20-21 he notes that Jesus' family sets out to "take charge of him"...His family arrives in vv.31-35. Between the two mentions of Jesus family Mark records that the teachers of the law had charged Jesus with demon possession." (p.108)
If we were to take this same "sandwiching" technique and apply it simultaneously between Jesus' confrontation between the crowd and Jesus confrontation with the scribes, we see the same kind of technique being utilized on a different plane.
1. In both passages, Jesus is confronted by the crowd or scribes
2. In both passages, both the family and Jesus become aware of it
3. In both passages, both the family and Jesus respond
4. In both passages, the reason for the response is given either by the crowd or by the scribes.
Now, why is this important? Notice the parallelism between #1 and #4 on the one part and #2 and #3 on the other part? In #2 and #3, the subjects in question are Jesus and his family. In #1 and #4, the subjects identified are the crowd and the scribes. This is suggestive since it implies that the infamous "they" in verse 21b is indeed the crowd and not the family of Jesus as the following chart demonstrates:
1a.------->4a.
1b.------->4b.
With both numbered verses, the 'a' is identified with the crowd and 'b' is identified with the scribes. '1' sets up a confrontation while '4' gives the reason why action was taken by either the family (3a) or by Jesus Himself (3b).
#4 - Perhaps the most damaging evidence against Eric's thesis is his own penetrating assessment of Mary's disposition in the whole Marcan account. According to Eric, Mary "heads out to silence Jesus because she thinks he is insane." Indeed, one is left quite speechless at this remark. Readers can form their own conclusions about how close such an assessment comes to Mary's character as recorded in the Gospel narratives.
Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. (v. 32) A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.’ (v. 33) ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ he asked. (v. 34) Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! (v. 35) Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.’” Jesus is in essence replacing his biological family (his brothers and sisters and mother) with his spiritual family.
Far from it. He is, in fact, using a biological relationship to explain how those who are not biologically related to Him can commune with Him on a spiritual plane. He does this by appealing to the most intense bonding humans share on earth: the human family. He is therefore using the biological family as a basis for understanding the spiritual family. In effect, He is saying, "You know well the bond that exists between a mother and a child or a brother and a brother on a biological level. Well, you can experience that same (and even more intense) bond with me if you believe in me and do God's will." Now, how does this impact Jesus' biological family? Not much actually. It is what it is. Good and pleasing to God, but it is only a shadow of the spiritual family He wants everyone to be a part of. As previously explained, in the case of Mary, however, her particular spiritual obedience required a BIOLOGICAL response. On this basis alone, it is absurd to say that Jesus is "replacing his biological mother" when God was the one who initiated that biological relationship on the foundation of a spiritual communion with Mary - a spiritual and physical communion which generated the Incarnation! In essence, then, Mary is blessed precisely because she obeyed the Word of God in becoming the Mother of God. The special place of her physical maternity is irrevocably dependent on her spiritual obedience. The two cannot be separated.
St. Augustine understood this very well. Mary had to have accepted the Word of God first, and receive the Christ child first in her heart before she could do so in her womb. The greatness lies principally in the former but is actualized in the latter.
"Therefore Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ...Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh." (De Virginitate, 3)
And if she was declared blessed by being the physical mother of God, how much more, St. Augustine says, is she in the spiritual plane. For Mary, therefore, receiving the Word of God was first a spiritual exercise and then an obedience to that spirtual assent. Here we see how the Catholic teaching on justification has its basis in the incarnation. If Mary had received God "spiritually" but not physically, that is through "faith alone" without obedience, there could not have been an incarnation. Alternatively, if she were to become pregnant without faith, her physical maternity alone would have availed her nothing, as St. Augustine taught above.
Another passage is Mark 6:1-6 (with parallels in Matthew 13:53-58 and Luke 4:22-24). Here the townspeople are wondering just who Jesus is: "'Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.' In v. 4 Jesus responds to this: “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.” So not only does Jesus receive no honor from those in his hometown (i.e., those who “took offence at him”), but neither does he receive it from his “relatives,” nor those “in his own house” (i.e., the mother, brothers and sisters just mentioned). And so Jesus counts his own mother among those who do not honor Him.
Well, suffice it to say, that there is no direct evidence which says that Mary is included in that dubious group. There is, of course, much to say about this passage, but you'll have to wait for book to read about it.
Luke 2:21-35 (Simeon; “a sword shall pierce your own soul, too”). In this passage, the infant Jesus is presented in the temple and receives a blessing from Simeon. (v. 34) “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against-(v. 35) and a sword will pierce your own soul too-so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.” This phrase has often been taken by Roman Catholics to mean that Mary would experience the anguish of seeing her son suffer and die on the cross.
Of course. That is the plain reading of the text: that a Mother would share in the suffering of her own Son. Is Eric seriously disputing that Mary felt anguish at her Son's suffering and death?
But, this interpretation depends on two unlikely things: (1) that Luke is making a reference to Mary's presence at the cross. But when we get to Luke's scene at the cross (later in chap. 23), he doesn't even mention Mary. And John's gospel, which is the only account that mentions Mary in the detailed way this interpretation requires, had not yet even been written. Obviously Luke is not going to record something that requires for its interpretation a writing that at that time did not even exist. And so if Simeon's prophesy refers to Mary's anguish at the cross, then this prophesy remains unfulfilled so far as Luke is concerned.
Luke does not have to mention Mary at the cross for this prophesy to come to its fulfillment, any more than the destruction of Rome needs to be described in the New Testament for to be fulfilled (Cf. Matthew 24:2). All he has to know is that Jesus was crucified and that Mary suffered.
(2) The other thing this interpretation depends on is an awkward change of thought. Simeon is speaking of the "falling and rising of many in Israel . . . so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed.” This is referring to the demands of discipleship: Jesus becomes the focal point around which some will rise and others will fall. To propose that Simeon suddenly changes the subject to Mary's anguish at the cross makes no sense at all.
Indeed, it makes little sense for Simeon to introduce such an alleged insignificant figure at all, but he does so. Why? Because he wishes to stress that Mary's union with Christ is a profoundly intimate one - as a faithful Mother to a Son. Notice, for instance, how Mary's anguish (a sword piercing her soul) follows directly the sign of opposition which Jesus becomes. This demonstrates that her anguish is a consequence of people who reject Him. Notice as well that Simeon does not directly prophesy about Christ's passion, but rather Mary's.
In fact, the climax of Mary's suffering occurs underneath the cross - the ultimate "sign of opposition" to the Gospel, and under that cross Our Saviour is 'pierced' (Cf. John 19:34,37). Yet the only other time such a rendering occurs in the Gospels is with Mary in Luke 2:35 where her soul is 'pierced.'
"For a stun that shall be spoken against. By a sign, we properly, understand in Scripture a cross. Moses, it is said, set the serpent "upon a pole." That is upon a cross. Or else a sign is indicative of something strange and obscure seen by the simple but understood by the intelligent." (Basil, Letter CCLX, 8)
When Simeon tells Mary that a "sword" will pierce her own soul as well, he is referring to a “sword of division” that separates those who reject Jesus (and as a result will “fall”) from those who become “disciples" (and as a result will “rise”).
Yes, that is true. And more particularly so with the woman He uses to embody Christian discipleship - the first woman and disciple whose "soul was pierced" because of her love for Him.
In Luke 12:51, Luke records Jesus as saying: "Do you think I came to br