The "Problem" of the Virgin Mary
|
The "Problem" of the Virgin Mary |
Bible Truth The Virgin Mary. Communion: |
It is a curious fact that Evangelical Protestants seem to have a major problem with the Virgin Mary. It is a problem that goes far beyond theological reason and debate. In some quarters there seems to be a major antipathy, almost hatred, directed at one of the key figures in the story of redemption. In fact a few protestant apologists write of the Mother of the Redeemer almost as if she were the enemy of God. How can this unhealthy state of affairs have come about? Perhaps it has something to do with the misogynistic tendencies that were evident in many of the Reformers, although most actually maintained Marian doctrines that would surprise their modern-day followers. There is also a great deal of ignorance among modern-day protestants as to the Scriptural and other ancient support for most of the Marian doctrines. It is the fundamentalist move away from Mary that has been the recent aberation. Yet even many Protestant Christians who are not so extreme still believe that Catholic and Orthodox doctrines on the Virgin Mary are unscriptural and are inventions of the Medieval Church, being unknown to the early Christians. How true is this? To find out, we must examine the doctrines about the Virgin Mary which some Evangelical Protestants claim to be unscriptural. 1. Mary is the Mother of God.
There is probably an element of cultural conditioning here. Giving Mary such a title seems too grand to many protestants. For centuries most protestants have tried to ignore Mary, and have avoided all talk and discussion of her - except perhaps to condemn Catholic "excesses". But this is a serious matter. To call Mary the "Mother of Jesus" and yet refuse to call her "Mother of God" is to diminish Jesus as well as Mary, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly or fully God. It was this sort of thinking that led to the formal definition of the title Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. Patriarch Nestorius had preached that Mary was not Mother of God, being only the mother of Jesus's physical body, which was then indwelt by God the Word. This was condemned as Heresy, since the Gospels tell us that the Word did not unite with man, but was made man. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.." (John 1.14). This is a crucial difference. Jesus was not two persons: the Son of God, and the Son of Mary, but one person, the Son of God and Mary. If this were not so, his death could not have saved us. THE NATURE OF JESUS 1. To be our Saviour, Jesus needed to be both fully God, and fully man, descended from Adam. He could not be a counterfeit, or someone who just looked human.. 2. God the Word has existed as spirit from the beginning of time. 3. At the Incarnation, through the action of the Holy Spirit, God the Word took flesh and full humanity from the Virgin Mary. Both His Human Nature and His human body came from Mary, These united with His Divine Nature in Jesus. 4. This produced one person with one consciousness, both fully God and fully man, who is truly both Son of God and Son of Mary. 5. . The Virgin Mary is therefore the Mother of ALL of the PERSON of Jesus Christ, and is therefore truly Mother of God the Son. Nestorius did not recant, and founded his own church - which is no longer with us. In effect, in saying that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God, he was denying the reality of the incarnation. Attempts to downgrade Mary seem always lead to a downgrading of the full divinity of Jesus. BUT DOESN'T CONCENTRATING ON THE VIRGIN MARY DISTRACT US FROM GOD AND FROM JESUS? This is a common complaint of Protestants, but one I really fail to understand. Does admiring any part of God's creation distract you from God? When you walk through a forest of tall, ancient trees and you admire their beauty, does it distract you from God? When you look at a sunset or a towering mountain, does that turn you away from God? Of course not. For most people such things draw them closer to God. Similarly when you admire people like St Francis, Mother Theresa, or other Christians who have given up their lives to serve God. Does that make you turn away from God - or is it more likely to make you think of the greatness of the God who inspired such people? So it is also with Mary. 2. Mary is the Mother of All Christians An evangelical Christian once retorted indignantly to me "Mary isn't my Mother." To which I was forced to respond. "Then what you're really saying is that Jesus is not your Brother." And in truth it is as simple as that. If we as Christians are brothers of Jesus, then, as with Jesus, God is our Father and Mary is our Mother. The bible also teaches, that all Christians become part of the body of Christ. Again this re-emphasises the fact that as Christians become one with Jesus they share with Him, the Fatherhood of God and also, the motherhood of Mary. The New Testament has two further passages which confirm Mary's motherhood of Christians: John 19.25: Near the cross of Jesus, stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on the disciple took her into his home. This is not just a personal bequest of his Mother to John, but, being from the cross itself, has a greater significance. First of all, if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of Mary, He would have made His first request to John. But if you look at the passage, you will see that His first statement is to Mary. The emphasis is therefore upon Mary being Mother to John, not John "looking after" Mary. John here represents all the disciples of Jesus, and hence all Christians, who are given Mary as their Mother. Revelation 12.17: Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. This passage shows the Dragon (Satan), making war on the Woman (Mary)'s offspring, following the birth of Jesus. (see Queen of Heaven for more on Revelation 12) These offspring, clearly represent the community of Christians, who are "the rest of" Mary's children. HERE TOO TYPOLOGY COMES TO OUR AID. The Old Testament contains many "Types" or precursors of New Testament figures or events. Adam is accepted as a "type" of Jesus, who is sometimes called "the 2nd Adam". Adam, as the first man, sinned, and brought death to all. Jesus, as the second Adam, did not sin, and brought life. So too as Eve brought death to us through disobedience, " Mary as "the Second Eve", brought life through her obedience. So how is the first Eve described? Gen 2:20: "The man called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living." And so the Second Eve became the mother of all who live in Christ. 3. Mary's Bodily Assumption into Heaven I find it strange that Protestant Evangelicals never seem to wonder where Mary is now, or what her role might be. If they do chance to wonder, they generally keep it to themselves. Raise too many of the wrong topics, and questions may start being asked about whether you really are "one of the group". Therefore it is quite common for Protestant evangelicals who are quite certain that Uncle Fred is in heaven, wearing his kingly crown, or that they themselves are heaven bound, to question Mary's presence there. So, let's scotch that one straight away. If the Virgin Mary isn't in heaven, then there's very little chance that anyone else will ever get there. Mary is the supreme example, or prototype, of what happens to a person who fully places trust and faith in God. Everything we hope to become in Christ, She already is. . Out of the millions of "decisions" made for Christ, Mary's was the first. Therefore, whatever promises the Holy Scriptures hold for us, Mary already possesses. BUT WHY DO PEOPLE SAY THAT MARY WAS TAKEN BODILY TO HEAVEN - IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE? The problem with showing Mary's Assumption, (or the deaths of Mary or most of the Apostles, for that matter), in the Bible, is that the Gospel record ends before any of these events occurred. The Assumption is, however, implicit in Revelation Chapter 12 (see Queen of Heaven).
Early references to the Assumption of Mary include Timothy of Jerusalem in around 380 AD, who wrote: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension," Gregory of Tours in 580 wrote: "Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who, we believe, was a virgin before and after childbirth, was, as we have said before, carried to Paradise preceded by the Lord amidst the singing of angelic choirs." Apocryphal writings detailing the Assumption have been dated back to the 200s. Although other early references are few, the fact that the Celebration of Mary's Assumption into Heaven was not opposed in what was a highly disputatious age, argues strongly for a general acceptance and belief in the doctrine. BUT ISN'T IT WRONG TO SAY THAT ANYONE BUT JESUS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN? THAT IS HIS PRIVELEGE ALONE. This point is quite often made by Protestant apologists. But they are mistaken. The Old Testament tells us that both Enoch and Elijah were assumed (taken) bodily into heaven. So Mary's Assumption, far from being unbiblical, in fact follows a strong Biblical pattern. Furthermore, it appears from the New Testament, (Jude 9), that Moses too was believed by the Apostolic authors to have been assumed into heaven, even though no record of this appears anywhere in the Old Testament. The incident quoted in Jude comes from the apocryphal (non-scriptural) account of the assumption of Moses. This, incidentally, provides a biblical record of an important teaching that was passed down over an extremely long period purely by non-biblical Tradition. ISN'T MARY'S ASSUMPTION A NEW DOCTRINE? No. As we have already seen, it is a very old belief in the Church. What happened in 1950 was that the Pope "defined" it as a Catholic dogma. This did not make it a new doctrine - it simply reinforced its status. The fact that the Christian Community has believed from the earliest days that Mary was taken bodily into heaven can also be proved from the fact that no-one ever claimed to have her relics. From the times of the persecutions, relics of the Saints had an immense value. Christians would often risk their lives to collect the remains of martyrs from the Arena and preserve their relics. In later days, having the body of a holy Saint in your church could make your city wealthy. St Peter's body has the greatest church in the world built on top of it. Thomas a Becket drew enormous pilgrim crowds to Canterbury. St James drew millions to Compostella. Any Church or city that could have claimed to hold Mary's body, or even a single bone from her finger would have at once become one of the richest and most popular places of pilgrimage in the world. In fact about 400 AD the Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. He was informed that there were no relics of Mary. So valuable were relics that many were accused of fraudulently manufacturing them just to draw pilgrims and create wealth. Yet from the earliest days no-one has claimed to have the body of the Virgin Mary - or even as much as a single small bone. Why not? Because her body was hard to find? Not really. Plenty claimed to own part of the True Cross or even the Crown of Thorns. So why did no-one claim to have Mary's body? There is one reason. Quite simply because no-one would have believed them. From the earliest days of the Church everyone KNEW that Mary's body was not on earth. Every Christian knew that she had been assumed bodily into heaven. If there had been room for any argument about that fact, if there had been room for the slightest doubt, then some church somewhere would have claimed to have had Mary's body. To read more of this topic in the related theme of Mary as Queen of heaven, please click here. On the following page, Queen of Heaven, we examine more doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary, including Mary as Queen of Heaven, the Immaculate Conception and Mary as Mediatrix. 4. Ever Virgin The traditional belief of all the Ancient churches is that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. "For neither did Mary, who is to be honoured and praised above all others, marry anyone, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever and immaculate virgin." (Didimus the Blind, The Trinity. 381 AD) However, many Protestants in recent times have chosen to argue with this, claiming that Mary had other children, besides Jesus, quoting texts like the following: Matt 1.24-25: And being aroused from sleep, Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife, and did not know her until she bore her son, the Firstborn. And he called his name Jesus. Critics argue that, 1. The
word "until", implies that
Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of Jesus;
and 2. the word "Firstborn",
might imply that Mary had other children. Matt 28.20: "..and surely I am with you always, until the end of the age." John 21.22: Jesus answered. "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" 2 Sam 6.23: "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day." In all these examples, the word "until" does not mean that Jesus will cease to be with us after the end of the age, that John was intended to die should he still be alive when Jesus returned, or that Michol had a son after death. The word "until" shows that the writer is concerned primarily to inform us what happens before a specific event - not after. For the rest, let us allow a very unexpected defender of Marian doctrine to answer the points: There have
been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this
passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other
children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then
dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the
gospel writer did not wish to record what happened
afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's
obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and
truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to
Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had
he shared her company... And besides this, Our Lord Jesus
Christ is called the first born. This is not because
there was a second or a third, but because the gospel
writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks
thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was
any question of the second." BUT WHAT ABOUT JESUS' BROTHERS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? There are several gospel references to Jesus having "brothers and sisters". This is the most specific: Matthew 13:55. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us?" One traditional response is that these may have been children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Joseph is traditionally held to be much older than Mary. Another important factor here is that the language used in the Palestine of Jesus's time was Aramaic. In the Aramaic language used at that time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews therefore had to use the word brother where they meant to describe any close male relative. This is so even today in many languages and cultures, particularly where there is an extended family system. The loose term "brother" or "sister" is used to cover the children of ones uncles and aunts as well as those of ones own parents. WHAT PROOF IS THERE OF THIS? Gen 14:14 "And when Abram heard that his Brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan." The "brother" referred to here is Lot. Lot was the son of Aran, Abram's own dead brother (Gen 11:26-28). He was therefore Abram's Nephew, even though the text refers to him as a "brother". BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK, WHICH DOES HAVE A WORD FOR COUSIN. This is a bit of a red-herring for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers that the Book of Matthew, at least, was originally written in Aramaic, and so was translated into Greek. Secondly, we know that the people of Palestine in Jesus's time spoke in Aramaic, and it is therefore in Aramaic in which the oral stories which were later written down to form the Gospels, were transmitted. So it is likely that the Aramaic word "brother", meaning not only sibling, but any kinsman, was translated into the Greek word "brother", which has the tighter meaning of sibling only. This is clearly what has happened in Genesis 14.14 above. SO WHO WERE THESE "BROTHERS OF JESUS?" A. While James and Joses are
mentioned as Jesus's brothers in Matthew
13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40
that their mother was another Mary. This "other Mary" at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus's so-called "brothers", James and Joses. B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. "But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." The precise positioning of the ANDs in the original Greek makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary's sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus. C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn't he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly not as a brother of Jesus, only as a servant. To have identified himself as Jesus's blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but Jude doesn't so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus's so-called "brothers" is eliminated. D. James "Brother of Jesus" is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, "brother of Jesus" cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling. A few more points:
|
This is
quite simply explained. The main puzzle is why any
Christian should object to this title. All Christians
believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and also IS God,
being the 2nd Person of the Trinity, along with the
Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is also the son of Mary.
Now many Protestants are quite prepared to say "Mary,
Mother of Jesus," but balk at saying "Mary,
Mother of God." Why?
Mary's
Bodily Assumption is also a long-standing teaching of the
Ancient Churches. The celebratory festival in August
dates from at least the 400s in Palestine, and had
reached Gaul by the 500s. The setting of a Festival Day
for a doctrine is evidence not only of a strong and
almost universally-held belief in that doctrine, but also
of a long-standing belief - since it is rare for Festival
to be celebrated for a belief or incident for which there
is not some long attestation. As a comparison, the date
of December the 25th for the celebration of Christmas was
set only in 354 AD by Pope Julius I.