The Narrow Path Ministries

I wonder if I could ask for help from others more theologically adept than I am? I am having a friendly discussion with a Catholic brother who is also on this forum. He sent me a link to a video, in commemoration of the Feast of the Incarnation/Annunciation. He says the video is fairly long - 11 minutes - but that for someone who wants to get at least a summary for the Scriptural support for Marian devotion, this is a good one. My response to the video was visceral, not logical. He wrote back, asking me to defend my position, but it is too big a subject for me to manage within my time (and intelligence) constraints. I’m posting the link in hopes of getting input other than my own, which is awkward, at best. I know what I believe and why, but when I land in a debate it gets over my head in a matter of seconds. Thank you in advance for your help!

Here is the link:+++
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

I dont have a problem with honoring Mary. I am sure she was very nice. And I do think perhaps Protestants go overboard in their attempts to show Mary as little honor as possible.

That being said, the video didn't convince me of anything in regard to how Catholics view Mary. I think she was a sinful virgin when she was overshadowed by the HS (in the Maginficant she said she needed a Saviour). However I am not suggesting that she was not a godly young woman. I believe that she was. But there is nothing in the Bible to suggest she was assumed into heaven or that she was "immaculately conceived."

Jesus didn't seem to give any special honor to his mother, evidenced by a couple of passages in the gospels.

When he calls her "woman" i think he was likely just using a term of address common in that day. To suggest that he was referring back to Adam calling Eve "woman" is a bit of a stretch.

However, I do believe that the episode at Cana is a good lesson as to how intercession can "change God's mind." Recall that Jesus only did what He saw His Father doing. So when the trouble with the wine was brought to his attention he said it was not his time, because the Father told him it was not His time. However, when Mary interceded, I believe that God then gave Jesus the "green light." Mary's faith, I believe, changed the outcome. Of course it is entirely possible that I am all wet.

AT any rate, my wife grew up in a strong Catholic environment and she gets a little miffed by the protestant under-reaction to Mary. Of course she does not now believe all the Catholic dogma surrounding Mary, but she does think, as do I, that Mary deserves some modicum of respect, if not honor.

TK

I want to reword my response to say, I don't pray to Mary, have devotions to her, or celebrate special feast days in her honor, but I hold Mary in very high regard. Especially when I consider the stigma she knew she would be taking on when she agreed to the Lord's plan for her. That was big deal, and she must have suffered much as a result. I don't think she ever quite lived it down.

I think the RCC claims that Jesus never turned down his mother's request, but when his mother and brothers came looking for him he did say "Who are my mother and brothers but those who do the will of my Father."

For anyone sincerely interested in a more in-depth look at the Scriptural support for devotion to Mary, I recommend Dr. Scott Hahn's Book, "Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God". (Dr. Hahn is a former presbyterian minister; he later converted to the Catholic Church, and is now a professor of Scripture at a Catholic university, a lecturer, and an author of a number of books).

In this book, Dr. Hahn, following the example of a number of the early Church Fathers, draws out of Scripture many insights concerning Mary based on Biblical typology (i.e., the idea that “the Old Testament is revealed in the New”, and “the New Testament is hidden in the Old”). Thus, by analyzing the Scriptures, he comes to see Mary as the New Eve (an insight that a number of Church Fathers, both in the East and the West, had of Mary), the New Arc, and the New “Queen Mother” of the New Davidic King, Jesus Christ (i.e., the fulfillment of the queen-mother of the old Davidic kings found in the 2 Books of Kings). He also does address a number of difficulties with devotion to Mary that many Christians have (for, he himself personally experienced all of these difficulties prior to entering into the Catholic Church); in particular, he treats of the apparent rebukes that Jesus gives to Mary in the Gospels, by analyzing the text and the whole situation, he shows how these are not rebukes, but actually the opposite (for example: at Cana, the expression used by Christ to Mary, “What have you to do with me?” was a common Hebrew and Greek idiom of that time, signifying respect, as is clear in other places in Scripture (eg., Lk. 8:28); the fact that Jesus performs the miracle is sign enough that He was not angry with His mother).

This book also shows how Mary truly can be (and is) a loving mother to all sincere Christians; and a loving relationship with her is not at all a hindrance to a loving relationship with Christ, but quite the opposite. That is, being close to her will bring us closer to Christ (as being close to any holy person will bring us closer to Christ; that is why having good, Christian friends is so important). And, this has been the experience of countless thousands/millions of Christians throughout the centuries.

Lastly, let us also have a proper appreciation for the dignity to which God raised this woman, Mary. If we consider and truly understand Who her Son is, then it would be difficult to exaggerate the dignity with which God “clothed” her. Her Son is the Eternal God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity (and, thus, she can properly be called “Mother of God”, for her Son, Jesus, is true God-- as the Church has called her at least since the Council of Ephesus in 431). Only Christ had the ability to choose His own mother (for, being God, He could do so!), and he chose Mary (and, thus, remained in her womb for 9 months, then with her in Nazareth for the great majority of his earthly life-- 30 of the 33 years....let us not forget that). And, so, I might add, that if Mary is good enough for Jesus....she's quite good enough for you and me!

Furthermore, Christ chose her to be His mother precisely because of her holiness-- after the ANGEL (a great spiritual being) greated her with the words, “Hail, full of grace!”, he then said to Mary that “she found favor with God” (showing that Mary was chosen to fulfill this great role of Mother of God, Mother of the Savior because of the holiness with which she pleased God). Thus it is evident that Mary played a very active and important part in the Incarnation of the Son of God (it is through this holy woman, Blessed Mary, that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled-- for, it was through her that “a son was given to us”, Jesus, Our Savior). Thanks be to Almighty God for Mary, she who is “blessed among women”....


In Christ,
Brother Alan

“All generations will call me blessed.” (Mary; Luke 1:48)

For anyone sincerely interested in a more in-depth look at the Scriptural support for devotion to Mary, I recommend Dr. Scott Hahn's Book, "Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God". (Dr. Hahn is a former presbyterian minister; he later converted to the Catholic Church, and is now a professor of Scripture at a Catholic university, a lecturer, and an author of a number of books).

I first heard Dr. Hahn give his testimony in 1998. Since then, I have always wished that I had the opportunity to debate him, because he makes what seem to be to be outrageous applications of scripture. He said he had been a Presbyterian theologian, before his conversion to Rome, but when he gave a sampling of the "scriptural" arguments that convinced him to become a Catholic, I could not help but think, "How could a Protestant scholar possibly have such a shallow understanding of the scriptures?" I had the same impression when Tim Staples said that, though he was an Assembly of God minister, he was unable to refute the scriptural arguments given to him by a Catholic friend. He (and Hahn) both shared, in their respective testimonies, the specific scriptures that convinced them to change, and I could hardly believe my ears! What kind of Protestant minister would not immediately see through the transparent twisting of the verses used by the Catholics to establish their points? Take the examples below:

In this book, Dr. Hahn, following the example of a number of the early Church Fathers, draws out of Scripture many insights concerning Mary based on Biblical typology (i.e., the idea that “the Old Testament is revealed in the New”, and “the New Testament is hidden in the Old”). Thus, by analyzing the Scriptures, he comes to see Mary as the New Eve (an insight that a number of Church Fathers, both in the East and the West, had of Mary), the New Arc, and the New “Queen Mother” of the New Davidic King, Jesus Christ (i.e., the fulfillment of the queen-mother of the old Davidic kings found in the 2 Books of Kings).

Is it possible for anyone who has a smattering of biblical familiarity to see such examples as persuasive? Let's take them individually.

1. "Mary is the New Eve."

Whatever the church fathers may have thought to the contrary, Eve does not correspond in any particular to Mary, except that both were mothers. More importantly, Eve does have an antitype identified in scripture—and it isn't Mary. According to Paul, Christ is a second "Adam." If this is so, then we would expect the second "Eve" to be Christ's wife, not His mother (since Eve was Adam's wife, not his mother). In this, our instincts do not fail us, since Paul quotes the passage about husbands and wives (from Genesis 2:24) and specifically says that the mystery of the man and the woman is that of Christ and the Church (Eph.5:31-32). Thus, Eve is a type of the church, not of Mary. In fact, where Eve is called "the mother of all living" (Gen.3:20), Paul says the heavenly Jerusalem (which is identified with the Church, in Hebrews 12:22-23) is "the mother of us all" (Gal.4:26). Yet, Mary is nowhere said to be the "mother" of Christians—nor of anyone else, other than Jesus, James, Joses, Simon, Jude and a few daughters (Matt.13:55-56). Was Scott Hahn "a teacher in Israel," and he did "not know these things" (John 3:10)???

2. "Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant."

How is this idea defended? By the fact that the Torah tablets (the "Word of God") were inside the Ark, just as Christ (the "Word of God") was in the womb of Mary. However, the type is weak in the extreme. The Ark was the permanent resting place of the tablets, while Mary's womb was not the permanent abode of Jesus, but merely the channel through whom He came into the world. It is more likely that the Ark would be (if anything) a type of Christ Himself, who said, "Your word is in my heart" (Ps.40:6-8; cf., Heb.10:5-7), as the Ten Commandments were "in the heart of" the Ark. However, I would not press this point too much. All I can say is that there is no exegetical reason to make the ark a type of Mary. Even on the assumption that the Ark did represent Mary, it should serve as a corrective to the veneration of Mary, since the veneration of the ark, it would seem, proved to be a fatal mistake that Israel made (1 Samuel 4:3).

3. "Mary is the New 'Queen Mother' of the New Davidic King, Jesus Christ"

David was a type of Christ. His mother was not a queen (and might even have been a prostitute—Psalm 51:5—though this cannot be pressed). Some of the kings of Judah and Israel had queen mothers, who bore some authority. However, there is no "Queen of Heaven," except in the pagan religions, which referred to Ishtar and Astarte by such titles (Jer. 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). In the Bible, Mary is a privileged girl, but is never regarded as a queen, a co-redemptrix or a co-ruler with Christ.

Why would a "Presbyterian theologian" think there was anything valid in any of these comparisons to Mary? Have Protestants drifted that far into incompetence in the area of biblical exegesis—or even of clear thinking?


This book also shows how Mary truly can be (and is) a loving mother to all sincere Christians; and a loving relationship with her is not at all a hindrance to a loving relationship with Christ, but quite the opposite. That is, being close to her will bring us closer to Christ (as being close to any holy person will bring us closer to Christ; that is why having good, Christian friends is so important). And, this has been the experience of countless thousands/millions of Christians throughout the centuries.

How can a person have a "loving relationship" with a deceased person? Mary cannot be a mother to all sincere Christians, since we all have other mothers, and bear no blood relationship to Mary. Mary cannot be a mother to all Christians because she does not even have a personal acquaintance with all Christians. Are we being asked to regard her as omniscient and omnipresent? If so, then she has divine attributes, and should be called a "goddess," rather than a woman.

Lastly, let us also have a proper appreciation for the dignity to which God raised this woman, Mary. If we consider and truly understand Who her Son is, then it would be difficult to exaggerate the dignity with which God “clothed” her. Her Son is the Eternal God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity (and, thus, she can properly be called “Mother of God”, for her Son, Jesus, is true God-- as the Church has called her at least since the Council of Ephesus in 431). Only Christ had the ability to choose His own mother (for, being God, He could do so!), and he chose Mary (and, thus, remained in her womb for 9 months, then with her in Nazareth for the great majority of his earthly life-- 30 of the 33 years....let us not forget that). And, so, I might add, that if Mary is good enough for Jesus....she's quite good enough for you and me!

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus picked His own mother. The Father seems to have done that. Nor does the fact that she was "good enough for Jesus"—that is, good enough to be His mother—provide an argument that she is "good enough" to be the mother of us all. There is no question of her being "good enough." There is the question of her having a certain role, and not another. My mother was certainly "good enough" to play the role of my mother, but that doesn't translate into an argument for her being the mother of every lesser man than me, as well. If I were to follow this reasoning, it would be sensible for me to say, "If my mom is good enough for me, then she ought to be good enough to be your mother too!"

Want to just add this term "Mother of God" bothers me , as IMO "Mother of Jesus" is accurate. The fact is Jesus became a baby with a mother at the moment of his birth after he emptied himself of his divine attributes (Phil 2.7) and became a man , like us (Hebrews).
He was divine (breath of God) or "Logos of God" long before Mary & it comes across as if Mary is eternal when the phrase "Mother of God" is used. I think it is inappropriate at best and certainly misleading.

Steve 7150, the original phrase was "God-bearer". Somehow this was later changed to "Mother of God". One might agree that Mary was the "God-bearer" in the sense that she bore One who, as the only-begotten Son of God was Deity in essence. However, since the Son of God upon birth became fully human, his mother didn't exactly bear a demi-God. Rather she bore a true human being whose identity was that of the pre-existing Son of God. Did that make her a "God-bearer"? The answer seems to rest upon the sense in which the term is meant.

Greetings,
I'd like to respond to each of the questions and objections to Marian doctrine and devotion raised above; however, I will need to confine myself to commenting on just the one following objection....

Steve wrote:
1. "Mary is the New Eve."

Whatever the church fathers may have thought to the contrary, Eve does not correspond in any particular to Mary, except that both were mothers.


First, the Scriptural interpretations of the Church Fathers ought not be easily disregarded, particularly when there is a common testimony from a number of Church Fathers (and, especially if this testimony is from both the East and the West). For, while no individual Church Father can claim inerrancy or divine inspiration, as do the divine Scriptures; nevertheless, the combined testimony of a number of Church Fathers carries real weight (since they were not only close to the Apostles in time-- some being taught by the Apostles-- but they were also learned and, for the most part, holy men). Thus, when men of this type come to a general agreement on the proper interpretation of the Scriptures, chances are that there is a solid foundation in the Scriptures themselves for this interpretation (and, thus, we do well to seriously attend to these interpretations of theirs, that we may gain greater insight into the true and deeper meaning of the holy Scriptures).

Therefore, that a number of Church Fathers, in both the East and the West, saw Mary as the New Eve is a sign that there is very likely real Scriptural support for such a claim.

Secondly, 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:

1. Eve was a virgin; Mary was a virgin

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

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

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

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


For example, Justin Martyr (from Ephesus, the city where the Apostle John is reported to have lived) stated the following:
"Christ became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience that proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to Thy word.' (Lk. 1:38). And by her has He been born, to Whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by Whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him." (Dialogue, 100)

Irenaeus, who could trace his "spiritual pedigree" back to the Apostle John (and who was just one generation removed from John), wrote similarly:
"The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. The knot which the virgin Eve tied by her unbelief, the Virgin Mary opened by her belief." (Against Heresies, 3.22.3)
And,
"If the former [Eve] disobeyed God, the latter [Mary] was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin." (Against Heresies, 5.19.1)

Tertullian, in the East, echoes the Scriptural insights of the Fathers of the West:
"For it was while Eve was yet a virgin that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other effaced by believing." (On the Flesh of Christ, 17)

Though coming a little bit later, the great scholar of Scripture, Jerome, building on the teachings of the previous Fathers, also clearly saw the connection between Eve and Mary so that he could summarize the teachings of the Fathers in one short phrase: "Death by Eve, life by Mary." (Ep. xxii. 21, ad Eustoch.)

Examples of similar Patristic readings of the Scriptures could be multiplied (Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Ephrem, Epiphanius, Peter Chrysologus, Jerome, Fulgentius, and others all make similar connections between Eve and Mary). But, let the ones given be enough to show that this (a) this teaching of Mary being a Second Eve was a common teaching among the Fathers of the Church-- or, as one author put it, this teaching was the "great rudimental teaching of Antiquity concerning her" ("Mary-The Second Eve" by John Henry Newman-- the 19th century scholar and convert to Catholicism (from the evangelical branch of the Anglican Communion)); (b) this teaching of theirs was based on the holy Scriptures.

It should thus be clear that, unless one is willing to hold the position that all of these Fathers erred on this point (a position that would be, at best, awkward), one must conclude that this manner of reading the Scriptures is not an extremist (or "twisted") way of reading Scripture; but, rather, this way of reading Scripture is simply the "Christian way" of reading the Scriptures (for it was the way in which the earliest Christians read the Scriptures).

This means, among many other things, that Dr. Scott Hahn, in his reading of the Scriptures in this manner, is in good company.
[Note: This assertion that Mary is a second Eve does not deny that the Church is also the Second Eve (those statements are, in different ways, both true); just as the assertion that Mary is the New Ark does not deny that, in another (and even more perfect) sense, Christ, can be called "the New Ark". We need to have flexible enough minds to both see the various meanings of such assertions, and the various senses of Scripture upon which such assertions are based.]

While I'd love to respond to more of the questions, objections, and difficulties given above, and to expound more concerning Blessed Mary, the humble and grace-filled woman who found favor with God to the point of meriting to become the Mother of the Incarnate Son of God (namely, Jesus Christ, Our Lord), let this response be enough.

With Prayers,
In Christ,
BrotherAlan

"And Mary said, 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.'" (Luke 1:46-47)

P.S.
Unfortunately, due to other obligations on my end at this point in time (and for the next several weeks or so), this is likely to be my closing statement on this particular post. For more information on the basis for Catholic doctrine on devotion to Mary and the Saints, see http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

And,
"If the former [Eve] disobeyed God, the latter [Mary] was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin." (Against Heresies, 5.19.1)




Paul said it was through Adam's disobedience that sin came into the world and death came to every man, Eve was deceived.
Even if you accept this typology between Eve and Mary , it does'nt make Mary a Queen or Holy or mother to all Christians and as i said the "Word of God" was eternal , Mary was the mother of Jesus, not God. Jesus was'nt even called Jesus until the Angel told Mary the new name of her son. In Phil 2.7 "the Word of God" divested himself of his divine attributes so that Jesus could be born as a man. Jesus did all his miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit, so Mary is not the mother of God she is the mother of Jesus.
She deserves respect,honor and appreciation, but she is not Holy or divine and IMHO focusing on her to much will take away our focus from God the Father & his Son.