Scriptural Support for Devotion to Mary?

[steve]

the idea that the only thing that Mary and Eve have in common is that they were both mothers is a real over-simplification (if it is not, simply speaking, false). For, in their study of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers recognized, in the Scriptures, a number of other similarities that exist between these two women. The main similarities that the Fathers noticed between Mary and Eve include the following:

Even though church fathers identified certain features of Eve's story with that of Mary, they are not comparisons that are made by any scriptural writer, and it cannot be shown that any such parallels carry any theological significance. Even if every comparison presented was a true one, it would not provide a case for venerating Mary any more than Christians venerate Eve.

Of course, most of the comparisons are actually contrasts. The fathers point out ways in which Mary was unlike Eve. However, these dissimilarities are not only found between Eve and Mary, but between every rebel and every saint.

Arguments such as these for the veneration of Mary were not derived from studies of the scriptures, because the scriptures do not advocate veneration of Mary anywhere, and do not provide such arguments as these.

1. Eve was a virgin; Mary was a virgin

But Eve was never a virgin mother, as Mary was. There is nothing unusual about a girl or woman being a virgin, so there is nothing noteworthy about this characteristic of Eve. Eve (and every woman ever to walk the earth) began her life as a virgin. In this particular respect, Eve is no more or less comparable to Mary than was Jezebel, or any other woman.

Unlike Mary, Eve was not a virgin when she conceived—nor is there any evidence that Eve was a virgin when she sinned, as is suggested in this argument. God's command to have intercourse was given upon the creation of the first couple. Unless she and Adam sinned very quickly, it is not likely that she was still a virgin when she was deceived by Satan.

2. Eve was tempted by the "word of the serpent" (the evil angel); Mary was encouraged by the words of the holy angel

The serpent is never identified in scripture with any angel. Eve was indeed tempted (as all men and women are). If you are tempted by Satan, does that connect you significantly with anyone who has received a message from an angel? In what way? What does encouragement by a holy angel have in common with being deceived by a serpent?

3. Eve, fell into pride, disobedience, and disbelief; Mary, responded with humility, obedience, and belief

We might as justly say that Noah got drunk, and was thus a type of the John the Baptist, who never got drunk.

Eve is never said to have fallen into pride. However, in other respects (like all other people) she fell into disobedience and disbelief. Eve and Mary both had occasions in their lives where they obeyed and occasions where they sinned. Mary obeyed on one important occasion and Eve disobeyed on one important occasion. However, Eve's disobedience was not connected in any way with her childbearing, whereas Mary's obedience was specifically related to her childbearing. It was not a child of Eve that brought sin into the world, but it was a child of Mary that brought salvation. Where is the connection, specifically, between Eve and Mary here? Mary responded in faith and obedience—so do all Christians.

4. Eve's sin led to death for the human race; Mary's good choice led to life for the human race

The Bible does not support either of these statements. Sin came into the human race through Adam (not Eve); life came through Jesus (not Mary). Mary did not save us by her good choice (as Jesus did). We are never even told that she was given a choice. The angel simply told her what was going to happen to her. It is true that she raised no objection, but we have no record of her being given a choice about it. Jesus, on the other hand, had a choice in the Garden of Gethsemane, either to call twelve legions of angels, or to go to the cross. Why will you strip Him of this unique glory and give it to His mother?

5. The devil conquered mankind by going through a woman, Eve; God conquered the devil by going through a woman, Mary

In scripture, both Adam and Eve were the first to succumb to Satan (all other humans have likewise done so, except Jesus), but only Jesus (not Mary) is given credit for having conquered Satan. To take the credit that scripture afford to Christ alone, and to distribute it between Himself and His mother in a manner that neither Christ, nor His apostles, nor His mother ever did seems to border upon blasphemy...regardless how many doctors of the church may conspire to do so.

I can see why the Catholic Church, for so long, discouraged reading of the Bible (they apparently don't know how to study and expound it), but simply claimed the church's traditions are of equal value to scripture. In recent times, Catholics have changed their strategy, and have attempted to engage Protestants on the latter's own ground—biblical exegesis. Since they appear to have no aptitude for such endeavors, it might be better for them to go back to the old dictum: ignore the scriptures; follow human tradition.

[Joan]

This is just the help I was looking for. Thank you!

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings, in Christ,

Returning momentarily to this thread......

Before I get to the actual content of our discussion (i.e., the teachings of Scripture on Mary), I need to first address the tone of some of Steve's comments in his posts on this thread. Steve, I am impressed with your learning and knowledge of the Scriptures, and I admire your zeal as a student and teacher of Scripture. However, I object to the tone of some of your comments on this thread concerning the Catholic Church and her doctrine. Though you may not agree with all that the Catholic Church teaches (you may even firmly disagree with some of what the Church teaches), nevertheless, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that you voice your disagreement with the Catholic Church in a more respectful manner. Comments such as, "Is it possible for anyone who has a smattering of biblical familiarity to see such [examples used by Catholics to defend their points] as persuasive?", and, "Since (Catholics) appear to have no aptitude for such endeavors [i.e., Biblical exegesis], it might be better for them to go back to the old dictum: ignore the scriptures; follow human tradition," and other like comments on your last couple posts are unnecessarily polemical (especially when it ought to be apparent that one of the members participating in this thread-- namely, myself-- agrees with what the Catholic Church teaches on this topic; and, in case there was any doubt as to whether or not I am Catholic, I will clarify the matter here and say that I am a Catholic....and happy to be one). Therefore, should you have a disagreement with a teaching of the Catholic Church on a given teaching, I ask that you express this disagreement in a more respectful manner.

Furthermore, I might also ask you to consider more deeply that the majority of Christians throughout the centuries have been Catholic, and, also, that a great number of brilliant minds who have studied the Scriptures deeply have been Catholic. Consider, for example, men like Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Anselm, Aquinas (and, more recently, John Paul II, Benedict XVI), and many other like minds were/are all undeniably brilliant men and very knowledgeable of the Scriptures, and all were/are Catholic (and, I might add, all have read the Scriptures in a manner like to the manner suggested by the video presented at the top of this thread, and also in my previous posts). Therefore, again, though you may still disagree with their manner of reading and interpreting the Scriptures; nevertheless, out of due respect for the obvious brilliance and knowledge of the Scriptures which was possessed by these men, it is still necessary to voice disagreements with their conclusions in a respectful manner (should you find yourself disagreeing with them). After all, one mark of a wise man is his ability to disagree with other wise men in an appropriately respectful manner.

Having said that, I'd like to move on and consider more closely some of the points made when this thread was last "active".

Though this thread is primarily about the Scriptural teachings concerning Mary, I'd first like to address the issue of the teachings of the Church Fathers on this matter. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that there is an agreement among us (at least—it seems-- between Steve and me) that the early Church Fathers did view Mary as a "second Eve". However, there is disagreement as to how important this fact is, and as to whether or not the Church Fathers were actually correct in this regard. I hold that this fact (that the Church Fathers, in virtual unanimity, taught that the Scriptures present Mary to us as a "second Eve") is a very important fact for I believe that a unanimous testimony of the Fathers on a given doctrine is a certain sign that such a doctrine is of the Christian faith (and, thus, I also believe that the Fathers were correct on their teaching that the Scriptures present Mary to us as a "second Eve"). Now, since this is a thread on the Scriptural teachings concerning Mary, I do not now want to get into a deep discussion here on the nature of supernatural revelation (and what role such testimony as the writings of the Fathers plays in discerning what is revealed by God); perhaps this can be discussed in greater detail later. For now, I think it is sufficient to say that the early Church had a definite devotion to Mary, and that the Marian beliefs and practices which are so typical of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have clear roots in the early Church. This claim can be supported by evidence found not only in the writings of the Church Fathers (as has already been stated), but also in other practices of the early Church (for example, from the earliest days of the Church, Christians built churches in honor of Mary; liturgical feast days were held in her honor; early Christians prayed prayers were said to her, or in her honor; hymns were written in honor of her; Christian art, such as paintings and statues, was made in her honor; the teachings of early Church Councils encouraged devotion to Mary; etc.). Thus, if all these things are a sign of what primitive Christianity was like-- and I believe it is an undeniable fact that they are such a sign-- then we must say that primitive Christianity certainly had a strong "Marian" element (this is not to say that Christ Himself was not the center of the early Church; but, it is to say that the primitive Christian Church not only did not see a conflict between honoring Mary, and worshiping her Son; but, to the contrary, the early Church saw honoring Mary as a necessary "overflow" from the worship paid to her Divine Son). If anyone wishes to contend this point, this argument can be furthered, if necessary….. Otherwise, we can move on to the next point (which is the main point of this thread).

Moving onto the original question of this thread-- what do the Scriptures teach about Mary (and, more specifically, do they teach that we should venerate Mary)?-- much can be said, and so it is difficult to know where to start (we could go to the Old Testament prophecies about Christ and Mary, such as Gen. 3:15, Isa. 7:14, Psa. 45, etc.; or we could go to the N.T. testimony). Perhaps for simplicity's sake, a good place to start would be in looking at what the Gospels teach us about Mary and, in particular, the Gospel according to Luke.

Now, when we look at the Gospel according to Luke, the very first thing that we must recognize that Mary is, at the very least, a woman who is to be held in great esteem (whether or not she can actually hear and respond to prayers said to her is another question; for now, I am content to simply show that the Scriptures teach us that this woman is to be held in great esteem). On this point, there may be wide agreement among us (however, I suspect that there may be varying opinions with regard to exactly how highly she should be esteemed). Now, if we look to the account of "the annunciation", we read the following:
"In the sixth month [of Elizabeth's pregnancy] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you! (Blessed are you among women!)'" (Luke 1:26-28)

Now, I'd like to offer some commentary on these verses (forgive me if this is too long, but I felt the need to give and present here a thoughtful consideration of this passage from Scripture)....First, we must recognize the characters involved in this scenario. First, we have Almighty God; second, we have the Angel Gabriel; third, we have Mary; fourth, we have Joseph (a descendent of David), Mary's betrothed, whom Matthew tells us is a "just man" (Matt. 1:19). Now, in this scenario, Almighty God chooses to send an Angel to this virgin named Mary. Now, we must also recognize WHAT an angel is; for, an angel is a mighty, spiritual being, as we read all throughout the Scriptures (eg., Gen. 19:1; 2 Sam. 24:16; 2 Chr. 32:21; etc. etc.). For this reason, when angels appear to men, the Sacred Scriptures present the men as offering honor or obeisance to the angel; for example, in the Book of Revelation, the great Apostle, John, the one who leaned on the Lord's breast at the Last Supper, when he encountered an angel, he thought the angel was God Himself, and so fell down at the angel's feet to worship him (see Rev. 19:10). Thus, there is a great disparity between the dignity of angels and of men.

From the foregoing, then, we should be able to see the tremendous significance of an ANGEL saying to this virgin, Mary, "Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you!" Instead of Mary honoring the angel, as one might expect, it is the other way around: the angel honors the virgin. What does this tell us about Mary? Certainly, it tells us that she is worthy of great honor; for, if a mighty angel honors her, then surely she is worthy of extraordinary honor. If a mighty angel honors her in this manner, then surely mere men owe her even greater honor.

Secondly, we must inquire as to why the angel honored her in this manner. The answer is easy to find, even in the context of the passage. For the angel tells us that Mary is, "Full of grace!" and that the "Lord is with (her)," and that, "She has found favor with God." The significance of the first praise is this: Mary has been perfected in grace (note: the Greek word used here is “kecharitomene” (κεχαριτωμένη) which is the perfect passive participle of “charitoo” (χαριτόω); this tense denotes a continuance of a completed action (see H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b.). In this case, it denotes that Mary has been perfected in grace or is, as the current translation states, “full of grace”, and not merely “highly favored”, as some translations render “kecharitomene”). Now, grace is the life of God in the soul; thus, for Mary to be perfected in grace, as the Angel, who speaks the truth, has said she is, then her soul has been perfectly filled with the life of God. Thus, for this reason, she is worthy of honor, even from an angel. The significance of the second praise is this: The Lord is with her. This makes more explicit what was implicit in the first praise; for, she who is "full of grace" necessarily is with the Lord, and the Lord is with her. Now, all honor is ultimately due to the Lord; but, the closer a thing is to the source of honor, the more that thing is also worthy of honor, in virtue of being close to the source of honor. Therefore, Mary, who is close to the source of honor, for "the Lord is with her", is also worthy of great honor; indeed, not so great as honor as the Lord, for only the Lord is worthy of the honor that is due to Him (Exod. 20:3), but with an honor fitting for one whom the Lord has chosen to be with. The third praise of Mary, "For you have found favor with God," tells us the reason for the angel's visit. Indeed, the angel visited-- as we read later on-- to tell Mary that she is to be the Mother of the Savior, and to await her final consent (i.e., "Be it done unto me according to your word.") But, lest anyone think that it was without reason that God chose Mary for this special role, the angel tells us that Mary "has found favor with God." In other words, it is because of the favor that Mary has with God that God sent the Angel to Mary to request her consent to become the Mother of the Christ.

But, how did Mary find favor with God? How does anyone find favor with God, if not through keeping His commandments ("If you love me, keep my commandments. You are my friends, if you do what I command you." (see John, chap. 15)) Therefore, if Mary found favor with God, Mary must have kept His commandments; and if Mary kept His commandments, she must have been a woman of virtue, for no woman keeps the commandments well but she be a woman of virtue. But, a woman of virtue, one who fears the Lord, is to be praised, as it is written, "Charm is deceitful, beauty fleeting, but the woman who fears the Lord, she is to be praised." (see Proverbs 31) Thus it is, that Mary's virtue gave her the power to keep the commandments, and for this she found favor with God; and it was because she found favor with God that God Himself sent the angel to this virgin of Nazareth, to seek her consent to be Mother of the Son of God (and, so it is, that Mary herself merited to be the Mother of the Savior, for a merit is a reward for good works, and Mary received the reward of becoming the Mother of the Savior because she did the good work of keeping the commandments).

Now, it should be noted that in some ancient copies of the Scriptures, the angel is recorded as also saying to Mary, "Blessed are you among women!" While scholars have debated whether or not this saying in this part of the Scriptures is authentic, there is no debate that the same words, "Blessed are you among women," were spoken to Mary by Elizabeth, under the influence of the Holy Spirit (see Luke 1:41-42). Therefore, we can take it as a truth that Sacred Scripture teaches that Mary is "Blessed among women." Now, this phrase, "Blessed among women," hearkens our memories back to the Old Testament Books of Judges and Judith. For, in the Book of Judges, we read how the woman, Jael, defeated the wicked enemy of God's people, namely Sisera, by running a peg through his temple, killing him. In response to freeing Israel from this wicked foe, Jael was praised as being, "Most blessed of women." (Judges 5:24) Likewise, in the Book of Judith, the holy woman, Judith, performs the heroic deed of chopping of the head of the wicked Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrians, the enemies of Israel. In response to this saving act of Judith, Uzziah spoke to Judith, saying, "O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth." (Judith 13:18) Now, it is clear that Jael and Judith, those who were said to be, "Blessed among women," are types of the virgin, Mary, who is the woman truly blessed among women, for it was she who was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. Further, just as Jael and Judith saved Israel by crushing the heads of Israel's enemies by means of peg and sword, so, too, the virgin Mary, by means of her Divine Son, the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, crushed the head of the enemy of the human race, the ancient serpent, that is, the devil, in fulfillment of the promise of God given in Genesis 3:15. Thus it is that this holy woman, Mary, is the woman towards whom all other holy women in the Old Testament point, and therefore she is "blessed among women".

Thus, it is, that Mary is to be held in great esteem by men. For, if she is held in high esteem by an angel (a spirit much greater than any man) then how much moreso is she to be held in great esteem by men?

But, we have not delved deeply enough into what these Scriptures are telling us concerning the esteem with which this virgin, Mary, is to be held. We must further consider the reward that God bestowed upon her; for, in considering the reward that God bestowed upon her, we have a better idea of how she was viewed in God's eyes and, thus, we have a better idea of how we should view her. Now, God bestowed upon Mary the greatest gift possible: the gift of becoming the Mother of the Savior, Jesus Christ. But, to understand the magnitude of this gift, we must consider Who is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity; the Son of God; the Savior of the World; the King of the Universe; the Lord of lords; the Long-Awaited Messiah, the Joy of man's desiring; Father-Forever; the Prince of Peace; God-Hero; God Himself, in the flesh! This is Jesus Christ, and THIS is the One Whom Mary, the virgin, was chosen to bear. Can any honor be greater than this? None whatsoever. If we realize Who Jesus Christ is, then we also realize the great dignity which GOD bestowed upon the virgin, Mary. And if God bestowed upon Mary such an honor, then does that not also mean that this virgin, Mary, was held in great esteem by God? But, if this virgin, Mary, was held in such great esteem by Almighty God, how much more highly must she be held in esteem by men, we who are not God, but are made from the dust of the earth?

Now, before I end this reflection, I must address a possible objection to one thing I have written; that is, some may object and say that Mary did not actually choose to be the Mother of Christ, for the divine Scriptures never tell us that she was given this choice. However, in response to this, it must be noted that not everything which is contained in the Scriptures is explicitly or clearly stated; for, some things are implicitly stated or taught (or are safely assumed by common sense, such as the fact that we can safely assume that Christ had all the features common to human nature, such as 2 arms, 2 legs, etc., though this is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures). So, when we read of the annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the virgin Mary, we are not explicitly told that Mary is given a choice; but, we are given enough information to know that such is implicitly taught in the account. For, in the account given to us by the author, Luke, we are told that the angel Gabriel departed from Mary when Mary uttered the words, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to your word." (Luke 1: 38) We must inquire, "Why did the angel depart from her at this point, and not earlier, and not later?" The answer is obvious: It was because the angel received the answer that he was awaiting for. For, when one departs from a place, one does so because one no longer has need of remaining in that place. Prior to hearing the virgin's words, "Be it done unto me according to your word," the angel did not depart; the angel did not depart because he had need of remaining in that place, for he was still awaiting that for which he came. And what was that for which he came? That for which he came were the words which she spoke to him, "Be it done unto me according to you word." Then he departed, showing that those were the words which he needed; and having received those words, he no longer had need of remaining in that place, and thus he departed. Thus it is that Scripture shows us that Mary had a choice
in the matter, for the angel was awaiting her decision before he left.

But, there is a further reason for believing and knowing that Mary was given a choice in the matter. For, in this announcement, Mary is told that she will be with child. But, what good man is there who does not first seek his wife's consent before causing her to be with child? Is there any man of even mere decent sense who does not first seek the wife's consent to become the mother of his child? And, is not the opposite-- the lack of seeking consent-- not only improper, but outright barbarous? Indeed, this is so. Therefore, we ought not think that God would do anything less than that which any decent man would do; thus, as any decent man first seek's his wife's consent before causing her to be with child, so too, the Lord of the Universe, Who is all good, would, in His goodness, first seek the consent of her upon whom He looked with such favor: He, in His love and justice towards His favored daughter, would first seek to receive her consent before causing her to be with child. For God to do otherwise would, it seems to me, be very unfitting considering His goodness and the respect that He shows towards the freedom of His creatures (in this cause, the respect He would have had to have shown the freedom of His favored daughter).

Thus, it is, that Mary freely chose to become the Mother of the Savior, Jesus Christ. Thus it is, that we men, who have been redeemed and saved by the Precious Blood of her Divine Son, are greatly indebted to her. For, without her free choice to become the Mother of Christ, we would not have had a Savior. Without her offering her own body to house and nurture the Incarnate God, the Incarnate God would not have become Incarnate, for it was from her flesh that He took His Sacred Flesh, it was from her body that He received His own Body, it was from her milk that His Body was nourished, it was from her blood that He received His own Precious Blood, the price of our redemption. Regardless of whether or not Mary can hear our prayers or not (I believe she can, but that is not the question at hand), is there not a large debt of gratitude that we owe to this woman, the mother of our Redeemer and our God? There is.

Thus, it is, that Mary, a woman who was honored by a mighty angel and was highly favored by Almighty God Himself, is to be greatly esteemed by all men (not simply regarded as a "good woman" or a "nice lady", but as one who is to be held in great esteem). For, as the divine Scriptures record that she herself prophesied, "Behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed." (Luke 1:48)

In Christ (the Son of God, and Son of Mary),
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)
"How does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

[TK]

In regard to Gabriel's address of Mary, I offer the following only as a means of comparison:

Now the Angel of the LORD came and sat under the terebinth tree which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon threshed wheat in the winepress, in order to hide it from the Midianites. 12 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him, and said to him, “The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor!” Judges 6:11-12

The angel here was announcing that the Lord was with Gideon(which was likely news to Gideon), but he was certainly no mighty man of valor (yet).

TK

[BrotherAlan]

Thanks, TK, for the reference to Judges 6:12 —that is a good “parallel” text to Luke 1:28.

Now, when the angel called Gideon a “mighty man of valor”, he either meant a.) that Gideon was, at that point, a mighty man of valor (i.e., a man of fortitude); or, he meant b.) that Gideon had the potential to become a mighty man of valor (and that, in the future, he would become such a man). Now, it seems to me that one could argue either way on this point. On the one hand, there are signs that he may have been a timid man at that time, such as his requesting multiple signs from God, his fear of his family’s opinion (Judges 6:27); on the other hand, these signs are not necessarily indications that he was lacking in fortitude (they could simply be manifestations of his great humility, which certainly is evident in the text, eg., Judges 6:15, and not signs that he lacked fortitude)). And, the fact is that he did eventually perform great deeds in battle (so, perhaps he truly did have the virtue of fortitude even when the angel visited him; but that this fortitude may have been “hidden”, so to speak, due to his great humility). But, again, I suppose that either opinion could be argued (though, I’d say that I myself am leaning towards the opinion that Gideon already was a man of fortitude at the time of the angel’s visit).

One thing, though, that is worth noting in the angel’s praise of Mary is that the angel Gabriel speaks in a past tense in speaking to Mary. That is, the angel says to Mary that she is “κεχαριτωμένη”, which is a perfect passive participle (again, one could translate this as Mary is “full of grace”, or, better, “[i[has been[/i] perfected in grace”); and he says that Mary has found favor with God (the word used for “has found” is εὗρες , a past (aorist) tense of εὑρίσκω; the word used for “favor” is χάριν, which is the accusative (direct object) form of χάρις, which could also be translated as “grace”). So, when the angel spoke to Mary, it is clear that he is stating that she already has beenfilled with grace and thus, at this point in time (while he is speaking), she is in God’s favor/grace.

But, your point is well-taken that God, in declaring someone to have a positive quality, could be indicating a positive quality that he is going to give them in the future (as may have been the case with Gideon); but, I would also add that it could also mean that it is a positive quality that the person already possesses (as I think the text shows was the case with Mary).

Thanks again for bringing out that comparable text from Judges! God bless!

-BrotherAlan

[TK]

Brother Alan-

When you say that Mary was "full of grace" and therefore merited God's favor in choosing her to bear Messiah, are you suggesting that she was the ONLY young girl in Israel who fit this description?

I guess I am trying to figure out if you believe that Mary was only one of potentially many possible choices, or that there was "something about Mary" specifically (i.e., Immaculate Conception, etc) that made her unique.

Thanks,

TK

[BrotherAlan]

Hello, TK—

One quick note that I wanted to make on my last post, but which I forgot, is that when the Angel spoke to Mary, he addressed her as “κεχαριτωμένη” (“full of grace”, “you who have been perfected in grace”)—almost as if that was her name or title (in other words, to the angel, Mary’s defining characteristic was that she was filled with God’s grace, which prompted him to simply address her as “full of grace”, κεχαριτωμένη…..kind of like when we address a real fast runner as, “speedy”, or something like that!). I think this is one more thing worth keeping in mind when considering what Scripture teaches us about Mary.

Now, to get to your last post….

First, you asked:

When you say that Mary was "full of grace" and therefore merited God's favor in choosing her to bear Messiah, are you suggesting that she was the ONLY young girl in Israel who fit this description?

As far as I know, there is no other woman in Scripture who is described or addressed as κεχαριτωμένη (filled with grace). This is one reason why I believe that, yes, Mary was the only girl who was perfectly filled with God’s grace.


You also asked/wrote:

I guess I am trying to figure out if you believe that Mary was only one of potentially many possible choices, or that there was "something about Mary" specifically (i.e., Immaculate Conception, etc) that made her unique.

Before I answer this question, I think it would be helpful to first make a couple logical distinctions. When speaking about whether or not something is “possible”, we can speak of a thing being possible “absolutely speaking”, or a thing being possible “relatively speaking”. A thing is possible “absolutely speaking” if the thing can be, without bringing in any other considerations (for example, absolutely speaking, it is possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow). A thing is possible “relatively speaking” (or “practically speaking”) if it can be, while taking into account all relevant circumstances (eg., it is not possible, practically/relatively speaking, that the sun will not rise tomorrow—it is going to happen!). Further, when speaking of something as being “necessary” for the sake of existing, simply speaking; or, we can speak of something as being “necessary” for the sake of existing well.

Now, having made these distinctions, I would answer this question of yours by saying that, absolutely speaking, God could have chosen any woman to have been the mother of the Messiah (for, God is all-powerful and, thus, He could have made this happen, if He wanted to); thus, it was not absolutely necessary, for the sake of God becoming Man, that His Mother be sinless. But, relatively/practically speaking, Mary was the only fitting choice (for, it would have been very unfitting for God to have chosen any other woman other than Mary); for the sake of God becoming Man in a wholly fitting manner (i.e., for the Incarnation to be carried out in a good and proper manner), it was “necessary” (relatively speaking) that His Mother be sinless. And so, yes, I do believe that there was “something about Mary”….

Why do I say this? I say this based on the consideration, first, of the person of the Messiah; second, on the person of Mary. First, if we consider the Messiah, Jesus Christ, we recognize that He is true God and true man. Being true God, it is fitting for Him to receive a perfect human nature. Now, a human nature consists of a body and a soul; the soul is given directly by God, but the body is received from the mother (and the father). Now, the Messiah, being born of a virgin, received His body only from His mother (for He has no biological human father). Therefore, in order to guard the dignity of the Divine Messiah, it was wholly fitting that His mother be a woman who had always been perfected in grace (and, thus, never touched by any sin). Furthermore, not only did the Messiah receive His body from His mother, but He also dwelt in Her womb, was nourished by Her, and was raised by Her; for these reasons, too, it would be fitting for His mother to have been perfected in grace (and, thus, sinless). Since Mary is the only woman who fits this description, she is the only woman who could have been truly worthy to be the Mother of the Divine Messiah.

So, long story short, God could have, absolutely speaking, chosen any woman; but, the only fitting choice was Mary. And, this is because the Son Whom she bore is God. Thus, the ultimate reason why God made Mary perfect in grace was because of the infinite dignity of His Son, Jesus Christ…..This all goes back to the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Good questions….God bless, TK!
In Christ,
BrotherAlan

“Jesus Christ is Lord!” (Phil. 2:11)

[RICHinCHRIST]

for these reasons, too, it would be fitting for His mother to have been perfected in grace (and, thus, sinless). Since Mary is the only woman who fits this description, she is the only woman who could have been truly worthy to be the Mother of the Divine Messiah.

Hi Alan,

Regarding Mary's sinlessness, I have a scripture for you to consider:


Here Mary rejoices in God "her Savior". Is she not implying that God must save her? Therefore, if Mary was sinless, why would she need a Savior? She could save herself if she had never sinned. Mary didn't say, "God chose me because I am sinless and I live perfectly before Him!"... No, she said "His mercy is on those who fear Him" (Luke 1:50), thereby implying she was one of those who received God's mercy. She would not need to be the recipient of mercy if she was born sinless and lived sinless.

Being true God, it is fitting for Him to receive a perfect human nature. Now, a human nature consists of a body and a soul; the soul is given directly by God, but the body is received from the mother (and the father). Now, the Messiah, being born of a virgin, received His body only from His mother (for He has no biological human father). Therefore, it would be very fitting (to the point of being practically necessary), in order to guard the dignity of the Divine Messiah, that His mother be a woman who had always been perfected in grace (and, thus, never touched by any sin)

Also, it seems your logic is that Jesus, in order to be completely divine, would need a sinless mother in regards to His flesh being uncorrupted, or the way you put it: "Jesus had a perfect human nature". Wouldn't this logic therefore imply that Mary would also need sinless parents? How would she be born sinless if she had sinful parents?

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings,

Thank you, RICHinCHRIST, for your post and for your (very good!) questions (in fact, your first question was the big question that many Catholic theologians wrestled with for centuries before finally developing a resolution). I'll do my best to respond to your questions/comments.

1. With regard to that first question (of Mary standing in need of a Savior and of mercy).....Mary did indeed need a Savior (and her Savior is the only Savior there is-- namely, her Son, Jesus Christ). There is no true contradiction between Mary being sinless and Christ being her Savior (which I'll try now to explain).

Now, when it comes to a person being saved, we need to distinguish between a.) what occurs; and b.) how it occurs. Now, with regard to what occurs, the effect is the same for all men-- they are freed from sin and enter into the friendship of God. But, with regard to how this occurs, the manner differs between human persons. On the one hand, there are those of us who are conceived in original sin; in this case, Christ's saving work is brought to effect in us after we are conceived in original sin (and, in many cases, also after we commit actual sins ourselves). However, in the case of Mary, Christ's saving work is brought to effect in her before she was conceived in original sin (Christ saved her in a "preservative" manner); and, thus, Christ's saving work was more perfect in her in that it prevented her from having any contact with sin whatsoever! So, in both instances, Christ is the Savior-- He is the Savior of all men-- but, in the second instance (i.e., in the case of Mary) the manner in which He effected His saving work was the more perfect (and, for this reason, Mary was all the more grateful to Him).

I should add, too, that this manner in which Mary was saved was a work of mercy on the part of God towards Mary (indeed, it was the most perfect work of mercy on any human person). For, Mary, being a daughter of Adam and Eve, would have contracted Original Sin had it not been for the fact that God gave her the special privilige of being conceived immaculately (and, thus, her being sinless is not something which removes her need for a Savior-- not at all!-- but, rather, her being sinless is a most perfect effect of Christ's saving work on her).

Theologians have given an analogy to help illustrate this explanation, which analogy goes something like this: Suppose that a man is walking in a forest and he happens to fall into a deep, muddy pit (so deep, he is unable to get out). The man stands in need of someone to save him. Fortunately, another man does come along and rescues him from the pit, and helps clean him up. The man is very grateful to the rescuer-man. Now, suppose later that a woman comes along, walking along the same path in the forest, and she is headed for the same pit. But, the same rescuer-man grabs the woman just before she falls into the pit. The woman is extremely grateful. Both persons were saved from the pit and, eventually, were clean; the man was saved and cleaned up after he fell in, while the woman was saved and kept clean by being prevented from falling in at all....Now, the muddy pit corresponds to sin; the rescuer-man corresponds Christ; the woman corresponds to Mary; the man corresponds to everyone else who is saved.
.
So, in sum, I believe that Mary did stand in need of salvation-- which only comes through Jesus Christ-- and that she received this salvation in a most perfect manner. Christ, on the other hand, stood in need of no Savior, for He is the Savior.

2. With regard to the question about the fittingness of Christ's mother being sinless, you wrote/asked:
"Also, it seems your logic is that Jesus, in order to be completely divine, would need a sinless mother in regards to His flesh being uncorrupted, or the way you put it: "Jesus had a perfect human nature". Wouldn't this logic therefore imply that Mary would also need sinless parents? How would she be born sinless if she had sinful parents?"

Again, good questions....In response, I'll note again that, absolutely speaking, the Son of God could have received His flesh from any woman (or, for that matter, from no woman at all! He's God, He could do that), and still have been truly God, and a perfect man, without any sin. But, if we look at this from a point of fittingness, taking into consideration the great dignity that Christ has, both as God and man, we can see that it was wholly fitting for Christ to take His flesh from a sinless woman. For, it is important for us to remember that Jesus Christ truly did exist before He was conceived in Mary's womb; He is the eternal Son of God, a Person possessing infinite dignity. Furthermore, as Man, He is the Redeemer of mankind, the Savior and King of the human race. Therefore, if we consider these things-- Christ's infinite dignity both as God and man-- I think we can see how that it would be wholly fitting for Him -- the pre-existent, eternal Son of God, and the Redeemer-King of mankind-- to take His flesh from a sinless woman.

The case is, of course, different with Mary. For, while Mary has a high dignity-- a very high dignity-- her dignity is nothing when it is compared to Christ's (and she would be the first to say that!). For, unlike Christ, Mary is a creature, not God. Unlike Christ, the Savior, Mary stood in need of salvation and redemption. Unlike Christ, Mary is one of the redeemed, being redeemed by the merits of her Son; while Christ is the Redeemer Himself (not being redeemed by the merits of another, nor even by His own). Unlike Christ, Mary was conceived by the union of man and woman, while Christ was conceived virginally, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Unlike Christ, Mary did not exist before her immaculate conception; and, thus, unlike her Divine Son, she did not have any pre-existent dignity (prior to her conception). Etc. Etc. Etc. Thus, while Mary has a very high dignity-- higher, I believe, than any other creatures, even the angels-- nevertheless, Christ's dignity is infinitely higher than hers! Therefore, it was not necessary, even from a point of view of fittingness, that Mary's mother be sinless (for, in fact, I believe that Mary’s mother, Anne, was a holy woman, but not immaculately conceived).

So, in sum to this question, for an individual to be immaculately conceived, it is not absolutely necessary that that individual's mother be sinless. Thus, again, while I believe that Mary's mother (Anne) was a holy woman, I do not believe that Anne was immaculately conceived. However, in the case of Jesus Christ, because of His infinitely great dignity as the eternal Son of God and the Redeemer-King of mankind, it was, again, wholly fitting that His mother be sinless (for, it was from her that this great God and Redeemer would take His flesh)....And so, I believe (along with the whole of the Catholic Church) that Mary was conceived immaculate, and she was conceived in this manner for the sake of being a truly worthy mother for her Son, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world, to Whom-- with the Father and the Holy Spirit-- belongs all power and glory, now and forever! Amen.

I hope that makes some sense, my brother. Peace of Jesus Christ be with you....

In Christ Jesus,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

[Apollos]

I think this is a bit of a straw man.