Mary's Virginity And Sinlessness

[Jake Huether]

Mary was present at the Lambs Supper in spirit.

But I suppose this can't be proven using Scripture... so what's the use? Just thought I'd through that out and see what happens.

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack,

Here is another installment as promised. I'm going to be brief because I just wrote a long reply and accidentally pressed something that refreshed the page and it erased everything I wrote so I'm kind of discouraged.
Anyway.. what were we talking about again...

That article you linked to, David Guzik's study guide to Rev 12, was pretty good. Thanks for posting that. I must say, however, that I disagree with Mr. Guzik's conclusions for a number of reasons. First I will point out what I consider to be the fundamental flaw of his approach.
Mr. Guzik's conclusion is that the woman represents Israel, and while I too believe there is a sense where this is true, he says that this is the exclusive sense. The problem I have with this is that it assumes an either/or mentality which is foreign to the semitic mentality and to the literary genre. This is a very common pitfall in the history of the interpretation of this passage so I don't hold it against him. If he encounters a passage that seems to exlude the ecclesiological sense (woman as the Church) he says, "therefore it can't be the Church". If he comes to a passage that seems hard to reconcile with the Marian sense he says, "therefore it can't be Mary". But with this mentality it can't be Israel either for several reasons, for example OT Israel can never be said to have given birth to both Christ and the sons of God who are Christ's members. One does not become a son of God in Christ through Judaism or the Synagogue, but by Baptism. And by becoming a member of Christ, one by no means became a member of Israel. Paul went to great lengths making this point. The old law is impotent compared to the Law of Grace. And there is neither Jew or Greek, etc.. Also saying the woman is only Israel makes the the Old better than the New..
Anyway, there are unresolved tensions when one absolutizes any of the dimensions of this symbol. The semitic mind would not have any problem with this symbol and would not have a problem with it's different layers of meaning.

Here are some foundational categories for understanding the symbolism here, which will break us out of this either/or dichotomy. I will quote from scholarly sources so you know I'm not just making this up.
Three things to be familiar with are "fusion imagery", "polyvalent symbolism" and the concept of "corporate personality".
[quote][u]fusion imagery[/u]:
For example, the living creatures he sees in chapter 4 are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel and the seraphim seen in Isaiah. The priest-elders he sees in that chapter are most likely numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus--a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book, in chapter 21, where the heavenly city of New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs of Israel.

[u]polyvalent symbolism[/u]:
symbols which have more than one referent--are also part of Revelation's imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (Rev. 17:10).[/quote]
Corporate personality is the more important concept to discuss with regard to this passage.
[quote]"The commingling of the collective and the individual is proper to the Hebrew mentality, in particular with regard to visions of the future... One can readily grant that modern thought would not have devised such a mode of expression... It is a rich and fruitful concept which the Old Testament provides us with, and its proper milieu is the Hebrew mentality itself." - J. Coppens, [i]Le Protevangile[/i]

"Corporate personality allows that the whole group, including its past, present and future members might function as a single individual through any one of those members conceived as representative of it." - W. Robinson, [i]The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality[/i][/quote]
Various aspects of this conception are:
[quote]a. The unity of its extension both into the past and into the future.
b. Characteristic "realism", which distinguishes it from "personification", and makes the group a real entity actualized in its members. It is neither a literary personification nor merely an ideal.
c. Fluidity of reference, facilitating rapid and unmarked transitions from the one to the many and from the many to the one. Thus... it is easy to understand how the nation can be represented by some outstanding figure belonging to it.
- From [i]The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality[/i][/quote]
Corporate personality is a more specific category. An even more basic concept which enters into semitic thought especially in prophetic and apocalyptic writings is "totality conception". Totality conception means that the Hebrew thinks in totalities. In the individual he sees the whole species manifesting itself. Hence, he can think of the individual and of the species at one and the same time, and the same word or concept can be used to express both.
Consider the "law of participation" in regard to this way of thinking.
[quote]The law of participation means "that things, beings and phenomena can be at once themselves and something other than themselves. This identification permits the primitive mind to think at the same time of the individual in the collective and the collective in the individual." - [i]"The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality"[/i]

"It is a fact that the primitive thinks in a concrete, synthetic way and not in an abstract, analytical manner as we are accustomed to. He is not a friend of many distinctions. He does identify himself with his tribe, not in a materialistic way, but in a way that reminds us of the corporate personality of the Hebrews." - W. Koppers, [i]Primitive Man and his World Picture[/i][/quote]
Brief examples:
[quote]
"And Laban overtook Jacob" (Gen 31:25)
"How fair are your tents, O Jacob" (Num 24:5)
"Is not Esau Jacob's brither? says the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert" (Mal 1:2)
Jacob's name is changed to Israel (Gen 32:28), and the entire people goes by the name of Israel. Judah stands for the Patriarch and also for the tribe which sprang from him, etc..
"Blessed be the Lord the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Gen 9:26)
"He [Ishmael] shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and ever man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Gen 16:12)
"Judah your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down before you... The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs." (Gen 49:8,10)
These indicate the se of the Greek word "sperma" (seed, offspring-- as in Rev 12), designating simultaneously an individual and a collective.
Abraham's offspring in Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 22:18; 24:7, etc.. is a collective, which St. Paul without difficulty speaks of as an individual (Gal 3:16).
The "son of man" in Ps 8:5 is mankind in general, understood to the tenor of the psalm; yet the same passage is understood of the individual Christ Himself in Heb 2:6-8.
St. Paul's diverse use of the word "Christ" is in line with this. Sometimes he is referring to the personal Christ (Rom 5:6), but very frequently to the collective Christ (1 Cor 12:12; Rom 12:4; Col 3:10; etc.).

Symbolism can see the nation represented in a typical individual:
"Go, take to yourself a harlot wife and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord... Go again, love a woman who is beloved of a paramour and is an adulteress; even as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods." (Hosea 1:2; 3:1)

In Daniel (which is very close in style to Revelation) there are images which intermingle and fluctuate between individual and collective. This is an example of "totality conception", for in each case the collective is being identified with its foremost representative, the king. Not only does the collective manifest itself in the "typical character" but in a concrete typical individual who embodies the collective in himself.

Thus, under the image of the golden head of the statue (Dan 2:36-38) collective Babylon is not personified, but represented concetely in Nabuchadnezzar who is the typical embodiment of everything Babylonian. The people of the saints of the most high are not personified (Dan 7:27), but portrayed in their supreme representative, the Messiah, under the figure of the son of man. (Dan 7:13)

"In certain instances and in special circumstances, the personality of the people is entirely concentrated in the person of an individual. Above all, in the king, the chief, the representative of the people, and then especially when he takes the place of the people in such a culminating act as religious cult. Then he is not only a representative in the modern sense of the word, but the entire people is in him and [i]he is the people[/i]. - S. Mowinckei[/quote]
The same concrete manner of portraying a collective runs thoughout the Apocalypse.
[quote]John writes to the seven Churches (Ap. 2-3). Why just seven? Why omit important centers along the same commercial route, such as Hierapolis, Tralles, Magnesia? Because seven symbolizes totality [and I would add, covenant]. John writes to all the Churches, the whole Church [evident from the plural 'churches' at the end of each letter, and from the constant use of seven in the Apocalypse as the universal (Catholic ) number]. But the collective Church is not personified. Rather, it is portrayed concetely in seven individual representative Churches, and both the collective and the individual are signified by the image of the seven lamp-stands [hence the letters are intended for the individual Churches as well as for the entire Church]. - J. Bonsirven, [i]Apoc.[/i]

"The harlot is another collective. She is "the great city which has dominion over the kings of hte earth" (17:18); not merely pagan Rome, but the sum-total of all such world-centers inimical to God, taken collectively.
The beast with the seven heads is another example. It is the image of collective Antichrist, which is portrayed concretely in the individual, personal Antichrist. The seven heads, symbolize the totality of world powers inimical to God. There again, under one image, a collectivity is portrayed in an individal world-power, that of the pagan Roman empire contemporary with the Seer... Coming to chapter twelve of the Apocalypse, two similar instances are at hand. Several times it has been shown that the male offspring of the woman represents both an individual and a collective. The male offspring is Christ, the Messiah, as embodying in Himself the entire mystical Christ. In the personal Christ as the typical individual, the entire mystic Christ finds its perfect expression. The same holds good for the symbol of the dragon. It is identified with Satan, yet Satan as embodying in himself all the rebellious hordes of hell, bent on domination or destruction."

"The peculiarity of apocalyptic images is that they fluctuate in their meaning between an individual and a collective; Semitic totality conception is prone, moreover, to size up the individual in its representative capacity, and to portray concretely the collective in a typical person or individual [who embodies the collective]." - Bernard Le Frois[/quote]

I'm not making assertions or drawing conclusions at this point (although the obvious implications are quite interesting). I've just wanted to introduce a concept into the discussion before getting into more specific exegetical matters.

Edited March 16, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Mar 16 2004, 09:14 AM'] Mary was present at the Lambs Supper in spirit.

But I suppose this can't be proven using Scripture... so what's the use?  Just thought I'd through that out and see what happens. [/quote]
Actually Mary is the Bride at the Lamb's Supper. Obviously the Church is Bride, but Mary is the preeminent member, the archtype, mother, and perfection of the Church. She is the representative member and the personification of the Church.
Just as I believe the primary sense of the "woman" image used by John is Mary and that the Church is also contained in this image through totality conception and corporate personality, I also believe that Mary is implied in a secondary sense in the image of the Bride, and that this image is sometimes used in an individual sense which alludes to the Marian sense. Eg. "The Spirit and the Bride say 'come'."
And I believe this is substantiated by correlaries with John's Gospel, particularly his very nuanced and rich account of Jesus and Mary at the wedding feast at Cana, which is a type of the Lamb's Supper in Revelation. Also Mary at the foot of the Cross. Also the unity of the "woman" throughout Scripture.... man this is kind of frustrating because there is so much to say and so little space.
Anyway, Gen 3:15 -> Cana -> Calvary -> Rev 12 -> Song of Songs, all fit together through allusions and parallels and provide a framework suggestive of the "woman", who is the New Eve, the Mother of All the Living, who became Mother of the Church at the foot of the Cross and who is shown in the battle with the adversary in Rev 12, etc, etc.. and "who is this who comes forth as the dawn, fair as the moon, radiant as the sun, terrible as an army poised for battle" and other things suggestive of the Bride of the Canticles give the image of Mary presented especially in Luke and John as not only Mother and New Eve, but Virgin and Bride and also presents her in relation to the Banquent motif in Scripture which is fulfilled in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. There are also numerous typologies in the OT, such as in the Psalms and prophets which are suggestive of Our Lady's role at the Wedding Feast.

Anyway, I hope we don't get off track because I would like to eventually develop some conclusions and come to some understanding with lumberjack on the issue of Revelation 12.

God bless us all, every one.

peace.

Edited March 16, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[the lumberjack]

first off brother, I want to say that iron does truly sharpen iron and I am thankful to be able to have these discussions with you...God bless.

[quote]I will at least say that verse 17 is irrelevant to this discussion anyway because it's not central to the Marian sense.[/quote]

if you say that this chapter is reffering to Mary, and yet say that one verse DOES NOT apply to the Marian sense, then how can the chapter apply at all if verse 17 is making reference to the same woman of the whole chapter?

[quote]Also the Greek word there is loipos which almost always means "the rest" or "the others" and not remnant. Its just saying that the adversary started attacking "the rest of the woman's offspring", those other than the male child who rules... I will admit that in apocalyptic literature the word loipos sometimes carries the connotation of a remnant, hence the translation is conceivable, but it would still be the irregular, second choice in translation and I think since the common usage of loipos fits the context there is no need to use "remnant". But I also don't think it's that big of a deal and doesn't really affect the issues at hand so if you would argue in favor of remnant I won't hold you back.

Also Mary is more than a mere vessel for God. She is truly His Mother, that really says a lot when you think about it. Anyway, I will elucidate the text further to show more where I am coming from... too sleepy right now..
[/quote]

if it doesn't mean remnant, which it probly is reffering to the rest of Israel (and possibly the church...but MAYBE ,and as you can see, thats a BIG maybe, not), then why would it say, the rest of her seed? Mary was a Jew, born a Jew, under the law, lived the life of a Jew, under the law, and died a Jew...

but it was JESUS who talked to Jews, and Samaritans, and the like, reaching out to the people of the world. Christ came to the earth and establish His church thru His apostles, who then took the message to the world and started churches...and it was then that the outreach started to the world...Mary had nothing to do with it. She may have given birth to the Messiah, but she took no message to the gentiles of Collose (SP?), Ephesus, Phillipi, or any of the other places that churches were established in praise of the Almight Living God we serve, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ...

that is why I call her blessed, but not the queen of the church or the queen of anything...she was a Jew that lived a Jewish life, and was saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah, not Jesus her son...who did give her up as His mother on the cross.

"WOMAN (not mother), behold your son..."

[quote]I disagree. The three main players in the drama are a woman, a dragon and a male child. The male child is an individual, the dragon is an individual, it seems natural to understand the woman as an individual.[/quote]

wait, I thought you said that the woman represented 3 things...not just one...? and I agree that the woman is an individual...the nation of Israel...

[quote]The twelve stars represent the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel as well as the Apostles who were made the foundation of Christ's everlasting kingdom, these were the twelve Apostles which are the foundation of the New Israel of God.[/quote]

I'll give you the first 12, which in turn is the second 12...but the 12 apostles? they MIGHT be at the table of the 24 elders...because we really don't know who IS, but they aren't mentioned at all in Revelation...at least not in the sense of anything prophetic... so to say that the crown represents the 12 apostles, just because they are 12, is in itself a stretch... New Israel? we aren't a replacement Israel...if thats what you're saying...the Lord's children are still His chosen, who He still has GREAT works to accomplish in and thru...

[quote]The crown symbolizes Queenship obviously. And the fact that her crown is this symbol of the 12 tribes and 12 Apostles indicates that she has authority, or reigns as queen over this kingdom. And you are correct that Joseph's dream is related. It confirms this interpretation because his dream of the sun, moon and stars symbolized the fact that he would be given great power and authority, when he became second in command of Pharoah's kingdom. So this image of Our Lady symbolizes that she has a great royal office and power in God's kingdom. Also consider that God has given authority to the Apostles and all that. We reign with Christ to some extent. Anyway, the fact that Mary is a queen doesn't take away from God and Jesus, it proclaims God's Awesomeness because He has lifted up the lowly and bestowed such unimaginable gifts upon those who love Him. First and foremost His Mama.[/quote]

I agree with you about the way kingdom's are set up...but the kingdom's you speak of are earthly kingdoms...God is God alone on the Throne. The Triune God. He has need of no queen. And Joseph's dream just points out the fact that the crown of 12 stars are the 12 tribes of Israel...

Mary was given no authority by Christ. She was never commissioned, or appointed to anything...she was never exhalted by Christ... He never called her anything she was not worthy of.

Matthew 12:47-50 and Mark 3:33-35 both concur...

[quote]47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.[/quote]

[quote]I can assure you that I have a host of reasons behind my position even just on the exegetical level (not getting into the fact that I'm Catholic and accept Tradition). I believe the Marian sense is obvious and intended by the author and that there is a strong case for this in the texts themselves. Please actually give arguments why it can't be Mary since she is obviously the woman who bore Christ.

And I agree, there is a sense where the woman is Israel, and the Daughter of Zion. Mary is the personification of Israel and the fulfillment of the Daughter of Zion so it's no big surprise that this image of Mary would include those dimensions.[/quote]

I agree when you say that Mary is the woman that bore Christ...but I don't agree with the statement of her being the one in this passage of scripture...she is LITERALLY the one that bore Christ...but she is not SYMBOLICALLY the one giving birth to the man child in Revelation 12. Isn't Christ "the Son of David" and "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah"? if so, then one would imagine that God is trying to say that out of Israel shall come the king...the messiah. and Mary was a Jew, right? of one of the tribes of Israel, right?

[quote]I'm not sure. But I know that the placement of the woman clothed with the sun is very significant. It would be nice if she was just listed, would make out debate simpler anyhow. But I'm sure God made the book of Revelation all cryptic and mysterious for a reason.
I do think there are other symbols of Mary in Rev, chapter 12 is just the clearest one.[/quote]

in my ever expanding and mind-draining search for wisdom...I come along text that is both mind-opening and baffling to my small mind. this is some more of it on this topic...which I hope you really like.

[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1079467267-2955.html"]http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1...67267-2955.html[/url]

I'll take a look at your other postS later...I got some stuff to do here.

God bless.

Edited March 16, 2004 by the lumberjack

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack.

thanks for the reply. I think if you read my more recent posts some of the points in your post will be answered. I will read the article in the link you gave later on (it's kind of long), and will try to write a worthy response to your post.

God bless.

P.S. This is fun!

[the lumberjack]

okay, and one more thing...props to my wife for bringing this back to me...I would have totally forgot about it.

now, we all can agree when the Bible says that the man "KNEW" the woman...and they "KNEW" one another...what its talking about...

so, holding to that, how can you think that Mary was still a virgin after Joseph "knew" her?

in Matthew 1:24-25

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 [b]And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son[/b]: and he called his name JESUS.

the definition of "know":
[quote]1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel

a) to become known

2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of

a) to understand

b) to know

[b]3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman[/b]

4) to become acquainted with, to know[/quote]

Joseph KNEW Mary...he didn't get acquainted with her...he didn't understand or perceive her...she didn't become known to him...he KNEW her...

love.

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack,

Here are a few quotes to help explain some of the more recent issues presented.
I intend to pick up where we left off on the Rev 12 discussion in the near future, I have not yet had time to read the article you gave but I look forward to it. I hope this information helps.

[quote]The title "Woman" is not a sign of disrespect, it is the opposite -- a title of dignity. It is a formal mode of speech equivalent to the English titles, "Lady" or "Madam."

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

"The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatara, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it" (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor's Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus' reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. 'Woman' (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)" (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, "In his reply, the use of 'Woman' does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)" (p. 1076).

The fact it is not a title of disrespect should be obvious from the fact that Jesus, as an obedient Son who fulfilled the Torah perfectly, would never have spoken irreverently to his mother. His perfect fulfillment of the Torah includes a perfect fulfillment of the command, "Honor your father and mother," which in the literal Hebrew is "Glorify your father and mother." This is why the corban custom was so wrong -- because it left one's parents scrounging for food and money and thus publicly humiliated, violating the command to glorify your father and mother by seeing that they are not publicly shamed by being reduced to begging. To publicly speak irreverently of his mother is something that Jesus would never have been able to countenance. Actually, the way Jesus is using the term -- at the two key junctures in John's Gospel where Mary appears -- is symbolic and emblematic of her role in redemptive history. Whereas Eve was the First Woman, Mary is the Second Woman, just as Adam was the First Man and Jesus was the Second Man (1 Cor. 15:47).[/quote]
Also consider these words of Our Lord before you give full assent to your theory:
"How ingeniously you get around the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said: Do your duty to your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death." (Mark 7:8-11).

This seems to apply too:
[quote]"As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you nursed!' But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" (Luke 11:27-28).

Anti-Catholics assume (1) that because there is a compliment in this passage and (2) that Mary is mentioned in the compliment and (3) that the compliment appears to be rebuffed that it is Mary who is being complimented and that Jesus is rebuffing the idea that Mary ought to be honored. This is a total misreading of the passage.

First, while there is certainly a compliment in the passage, Mary is not the one being complimented. The woman says two things to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore you" and "Blessed … are the breasts at which you nursed." The source of Mary's blessedness in this passage is the fact she had a Son as marvelous as Jesus. What the woman was a saying was, "Your mother is so lucky to have a Son like you!"

Who is that complimenting? If a woman came to you and said, "Your mother is so lucky to have a son like you"-or, if you are female-"Your mother is so lucky to have a daughter like you," who would she be complimenting? Your mother? No, she'd be complimenting you.

Thus, though there is a compliment in the passage, and though Mary is mentioned in the compliment, Mary is not the one being complimented-Jesus is.

Only an anti-Catholic agenda that is blindly bent on finding verses to use against the Catholic view of Mary at every possible opportunity would even think of twisting this verse's compliment of Jesus into an instance where Jesus chooses to publicly dishonor (publicly refuse to honor) his mother. Christ, as the one who fulfilled the Ten Commandments perfectly, perfectly fulfilled the command "Honor your father and mother," which would be better rendered "Glorify your father and mother," and which principally has in mind not letting one's parents be publicly shamed through one's actions or inaction (which is why the Pharisaical corban practice of denying them support in their old age violates the command; one's inaction through corban lets them be publicly shamed by being reduced to destitution).

Second, the Greek word here translated "rather" (menoun) does not have anything like the adversive force in Greek that "rather" does in English. It is simply an emphatic particle normally rendered "and." Thus, if Bibles had italics for emphasis, the passage would better be translated: "He said, '*And* blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" He is not denying what she said, he is emphatically adding something to what she said.

Jesus is not simply rebuffing the woman and rejecting her compliment; he is focusing her attention not just on his own special stature-which both she and he acknowledged-but also on her own obligation to fulfill the commandments of God-something a Messianic enthusiast might lose sight of. He wanted her response to him to be more than mere hero- or celebrity-worship; he wanted a true change of life in response to his preached message-the word of God. Thus he is not rejecting her compliment; he is rejecting any kind of mere hero-worship (the "Jesus Christ, Superstar" effect) that does not result in her changing her a life as a result of his message. He is far from rejecting the idea of his own exalted status or of the fact that his mother was very blessed to have a Son like him.

Anyone who has been using this passage to attack the Catholic view of Mary should seriously ask himself whether he cares more about finding verses against the Catholic position or about what Scripture really says and whether anti-Catholic prejudice has been blinding him to the real meaning of the Scriptures-here and elsewhere. [/quote]

[quote]A Dishonored Mother?

Many people seem to be under the impression that Jesus was not without sin, because they believe he did NOT keep all the commandments perfectly.
They insist that on several occasions he purposely dishonored his own mother in public, failing blatantly to keep the command, "honor your father and your mother."
But such blindness to the profound relationship between a mother and her son can only be explained by family therapists. Instead here is the true context of the Scriptural passages in question.

First we have:

John 2:3-5
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."

Was Jesus, in front of the servants, being disrespectful to his mother by addressing her as "woman" with a seemingly defiant question? That can hardly be the case, if he really did keep perfectly every single commandment. The words, "honor your father and your mother" lose in translation from the original Hebrew a deeper, more profound meaning which says, "give glory to your father and your mother." And this is exactly what Jesus is doing at Cana. As the consummate teacher, he recalls for us the words in Genesis prophesying his coming.

Genesis 3:14-15
The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this........I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

At Cana, Jesus reveals to all present that his mother is more than she appears; she is the "woman" prophesied in Genesis, Jesus being her seed. When he questions, "what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come," he is certainly prompting a specific response as he does throughout his ministry. And so she responds by instructing the servants, "do whatever he tells you," thus initiating Jesus' public ministry of miracles and confirming the enmity between the woman and the serpent. The word "enmity" literally means total and absolute opposition. Only a person who can never ever succumb to the temptation of the serpent can possibly be considered at enmity with the serpent. Genesis describes two persons who fulfill this prophesy, the woman and her seed.

Second we have:

Luke 11:27-28
As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

Some people interpret this passage as a rebuke to a compliment given to Jesus' mother. But the woman who cried out "Blessed is the womb that bore you....etc", was not paying any respects to Mary, but to Jesus himself, in essence saying, "Blessed is your mother for having such a wonderful son." Mary is blessed, she says, because Jesus is the blessing upon her.

This situation is analogous to an honor student being told, "Your mother is blessed to have a child such as you." The compliment in intended toward the student. But Jesus being, also the incarnation of perfect humility, graciously fields this compliment and redirects praise upon his own mother, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it." For he knew that his mother represented the epitome of hearing the word of God and keeping it. Instantly we are reminded of the annunciation.

Luke 1:38
And Mary said, "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word."

Finally, we have :

Mark 3:32-35
And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

On this occasion after it was announced, "Your mother and brothers are here," Jesus replies "Who are my mother and brothers?" is he taking pot shots at Mary in public, and dishonoring his mother? What an absurd accusation! No indeed, what he really is teaching is that he elevates his followers to status of family members, holding up his very own mother as the standard of relationship he intends there to be in his kingdom.

Do they who object to honoring Mary not preach a "personal relationship with Christ?" What do they mean if not a familial relationship? Therefore, what higher standard of unity is there than blood relative? Thus Jesus continues his teaching - "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" In essence he is saying to the crowd - YOU are my immediate family, that is the relationship I want in my kingdom.
And once again he connects for us, "Whoever does the will of God," is my mother! She who perfectly acquiesced in the will of God shows us the example of how to become members of the family of Jesus.

Never believe anything other than this. Jesus kept to perfection all of the commandments, especially this one, "Honor your father and your mother." [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

A few more things, and then hopefully we can get back to Rev 12 and all that.

[quote]Those who see in this phrase (Joseph did not know her until...) a hint that the marriage was later consummated overlooks a most significant fact: the very use of ‘know’ stands in the imperfect tense, not in the aorist, and therefore lays the stress on the duration of the period throughout which Joseph and Mary abstained from intercourse. The meaning is that Joseph had no carnal knowledge during the period which preceded the birth of her son. This interpretation suits the context perfectly, for the whole of Mt. 1:18-25 is concerned with the virginal conception of Jesus and its consequences for paternity. If the author had wished to imply that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage, it is more likely that he would have used here the Aorist. (John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament)

The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus. Even anti-Catholic protestant scholars admit this fact.

2 Sam. 6:23: "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until [heos, LXX] the day of her death."
Mt. 22:44: “'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, til [heos] I put thy enemies under thy feet'?”.
1 Tim. 4:13?: "Until [heos] I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching."

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.
But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.[/quote]
This has some good points:
[quote]The New Testament critic who is concerned only with literary forms and Greek particles and reconstructions from source traditions and the Fundamentalist who is concerned only with proof-texts and constantly changing private interpretations are both in the same boat. They cannot see the Gospels as stories of real people with real feelings. Their artificial reconstructions of Jesus and Mary are the by-products of arbitrary speculation of which they can never be certain. The image of Mary as the merciful mother, on the other hand, is the portrait given us in the Gospels - a portrait consistently interpreted as such by the Christian community for 20 centuries.

The second truth we must grasp in understanding Mary's appearances in the public ministry is that Jesus was Mary's Son. Again, much as it knows little of true motherhood, the modern world is becoming less and less familiar with the traditional relationship of child to parent. In almost every culture and society, children were taught not just to love and obey their parents but to show them reverence - and not just in their youth but throughout their lives. For the Israelites this duty of reverence was commanded by God in the Ten Commandments: "Honour thy father and mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." [Deuteronomy 5:16]. In Hebrew the word for "honour" was actually "glorify."

In their writings on the public ministry of Jesus as it relates to Mary, many Fundamentalists and Liberals seem to have no idea at all of this reverential bond between child and parent. Ignoring idioms, nuances and humorous figures of speech they assume quite naively that Jesus would break one of the Ten Commandments by disrespecting and even rebuking His mother. The words of Jesus Himself are sufficient to refute these misguided assumptions: "How ingeniously you get around the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said: Do your duty to your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death." (Mark 7:8-11).

Conveniently, the critics ignore or downplay the fact that for the first thirty years of His life, Jesus was subject to Mary and that the first miracle of Jesus' ministry was performed at the request of His mother. Again, at the end of His life, His main concern is His mother whom He turns over to the care of John. It is true indeed that Jesus often used rhetorical devices to emphasize a point He was making - and this of course can be said about passages such as Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28 where He was emphasizing the intimacy of His relationship with those who do His will. We should read these verses in the same interpretive spirit in which we read Jesus' words in Luke 14: 25-27: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." If we adopt the Fundamentalist mode of interpretation we would understand this latter passage literally - and a literal interpretation would be quite the opposite of what our Lord had in mind. But the Fundamentalist insists on literalism when it suits his agenda without taking into account the wisdom of historic interpretation.

All those who ignorantly attribute irreverence to Our Lord would do well to heed what Methodius said in 847 A.D.: "He Who said, Honor your father and your mother, that He might observe His own decree gave all grace and honor to His Mother."

Thirdly, the utterances of Jesus in His public ministry have to be considered in the context of His paramount focus on doing the divine will. Luke 2:49-51, Matthew 12:48-50, Mark 3:33-5, Luke 8:21, Luke 11:27-8 and John 2:4 are sometimes cited as instances of Jesus slighting and even rebuking Mary. Some have cited them in arguing that Mary is not given any position of special importance by her Son. Such allegations are, of course, arbitrary interpretations of these passages and must be judged both by a study of the passages themselves and in the light of Scripture as a whole.

We realize first that each one of these passages concern Mary's appearances in her Son's public ministry (except for the incident in which Jesus was away at the Temple for three days). Every one of the appearances is in one way or another a manifestation of Mary's merciful nature - whether it is concern for her Son or for others. Both mother and Son knew that Jesus' mission came first - it was Mary who said "Do whatever he tells you" - and had to be recognized as being of paramount importance. Nevertheless Mary could not but be merciful, could not but be a mother just as Jesus could not but do His Father's will.

In His preaching Jesus focused very specifically on the supreme importance of "doing the will of the Father." "My food is to do the will of him who sent me," He says. And in the Lord's Prayer he teaches us to pray, "Thy will be done." At Gethsemane He even says to the Father, "Not my will, but thine be done." The passages under consideration at the beginning of this section were meant to re-emphasize this fundamental theme of focusing on the will of the Father: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." "Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

The clearest evidence that no slight to Mary is intended is the fact that Jesus makes statements similar to the passages above about honor paid even to Him! "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say." (Luke 6:46). "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21). True: we must adore and honor our Lord and Savior. But the highest form of adoration and honor is to do His will.

How does the message of doing "the will of the Father" apply to Mary we might ask? On the one hand, there is no doubt from these verses - and from the historic Faith - that Mary's importance does not come simply from being the Mother of Jesus. On the other hand, these verses give us the ground rules for assessing the importance of any person in the eyes of God. And it is in relation to these "rules" that we understand the true importance of Mary and her place in salvation history. She is important and honored primarily for one thing: she did the will of the Father: she obeyed. "And blessed is she that believed." (Luke 2:45). This passage in fact tells us why the image of Mary as the new Eve is so appropriate: Mary's humble acceptance of the Father's invitation is the true reason for her greatness and it is her obedience which made possible the Incarnation. She became the mother of Jesus because she did the will of the Father and it is for doing His will that we honor her. It is curious that Fundamentalists who preach "faith without works" ignore, first, the fact that in the passages above Jesus is in fact calling us to the "work" of doing the "will of the Father" and, secondly, that Mary's life is the clearest example, after Jesus Himself, of "doing the will of the Father" in the Gospels. Truly she is the second Eve just as He is the second Adam.

Scripture tells us that just as "whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven" is brother, sister, and mother to Jesus, whoever does the Father's will is a child of Mary. In Revelation 12 we read about "the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelation 12:17). The new Eve whose obedience in doing the will of the Father made possible the redemption of humanity is now the mother of all those who strive to adhere to His will.

The salvific mission of the new Adam and the new Eve would have been in vain if the faithful do not focus on doing the will of the Father. The purpose of the Incarnation was to lead humanity to salvation and the path to salvation is doing the will of the Father.

The analysis of the Eastern Orthodox theologian John Breck is of importance here:

He replies with a rhetorical question, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" The answer is, "whoever does the will of God." The purpose of this exchange, however, is not to diminish the importance of those closest to Jesus. Rather, it is to reply to an obviously burning issue within St. Mark's own community: just who constitutes Jesus true "family"? Recalling Jesus' insistence on doing the will of God, Mark distinguishes Jesus physical family from his eschatological family, which can, of course, incorporate his own family members. As he did so often, Jesus here takes an earthly question and transforms it into an eternal truth: only those are genuine members of his family or body, who hear, receive, interiorize and act upon the Word that he, Jesus, embodies and proclaims. 16

Even the crudest literalist has to admit that in Luke 11:27 ("But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.") Jesus does not actually say that Mary is not blessed. And those who accept the inspiration of the Scriptures have to affirm that Mary is indeed "blessed" in so great a manner that she will be acclaimed by "all generations". Earlier in Luke we see the angel announcing "Blessed art thou among women" [Luke 1:28] and then Elizabeth "filled with the Holy Ghost" proclaiming: "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." (Luke 1:42). Mary herself says "Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:48). What is more the angel has already told Mary that "thou hast found favor with God." (Luke 1:30). Jesus then could not be contradicting what has already been affirmed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Protestant theologian Margaret E. Thrall gives one way of translating Luke 11:28 in her Greek Particles in the New Testament with particular attention to "rather" [menoun]: "What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself, but (menoun) in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness lies." 17

Similarly M. Galizzi notes "that the adversative 'rather' is not fully exact, because the Greek participle 'does not have adversative shadings' and is better translated 'even more', that is: 'even more blessed are they who hear.'"18[/quote]
God bless brother.

[phatcatholic]

lumberjack......................your reply?

[the lumberjack]

to the FIRST REALLY long quote...

ok, so he was being respectful to Mary from the cross....He still didn't call her Mother...just as it says, He called Mary Magdalene woman after He came out of the tomb...does that mean that Mary Magdalene was His mother as well?

the second really long quote...

[b]menounge {men-oon'-geh}[b] - rather as it is used in Luke 11:27-28, NOT (menoun), and we all know that even 1 letter in the greek makes a difference in what the word means...this is in the concordance...not my bible. and the only definition it has listed is:

[i]1) nay surely, nay rather[/i]

which would both indicate that Christ WAS saying what He was saying...and not the other.

I'll read the REEEEEALLLLLY LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG one later... its way too long for me to read at work...


and a real quick post to the last one...

seems like a little too many maybes and shoulda coulda's to be dancin around the verse like that...I see what the other verses are saying... but in 2 Sam. 6:23, if its saying that she didn' have kids from some point in time UNTIL the day she died, then why doesn't the verse in Matthew mean the same? "and he knew her not from the day she was pregnant UNTIL she had given birth to her first born..."

it also points out that thru the WHOLE passage, it talks of Jesus and the concept of His virginal birth...then why all the sudden would it switch to talking about Him being GOD'S first born....if He was "the only begotten son" of God? It is making reference to Mary, and the fact that He was the first born of her...stating that there were others...

love.

[Jericho923]

i want to trut the church and defend the doctrin but this is probably one point which i always avoid!!! ahhhh! i need faith

[Hananiah]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 19 2004, 01:26 PM'] seems like a little too many maybes and shoulda coulda's to be dancin around the verse like that...I see what the other verses are saying... but in 2 Sam. 6:23, if its saying that she didn' have kids from some point in time UNTIL the day she died, then why doesn't the verse in Matthew mean the same? "and he knew her not from the day she was pregnant UNTIL she had given birth to her first born..." [/quote]
The Greek preposition used in Matt 1:25 which is translated as "until" is [i]heos hou.[/i] It does not necessarily terminate the action of the main clause. All it means is that the action of the main clause continues up to the point when the "until" is reached. Whether or not the action continues after the until is reached can only be determined by context. Thus, all Matt 1:25 teaches is that Mary was a virgin up to the point of Jesus' birth. Whether she remained a virgin afterward is not specified.

The Septuagint and extra-Biblical Greek literature often use [i]heos hou[/i] in situations where the action of the main clause clearly continues after the "until" is reached. For example, [i]Jospeh and Aseneth[/i] speaks of a woman who cried "until the sun went down" and then kept crying afterward. Obviously, the action of the main claus (crying) did not terminate when the sun went down. [i]4 Maccabees[/i] speaks of a man who remained orthodox in his religion until he entered heaven. Obviously, he didn't cease being orthodox when he entered.

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack, please read both of my posts carefully. I can tell that you didn't read then entirely because your points are answered already in these posts.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

BUMP!

lumberjack isn't around these days, but this thread was really fun.

bumped for Apotheoun (sorry it jumps around like crazy, it was hard to stay on track. most of the arguments I had hoped to make were only being setup, never got around to tying it all together and presenting cogent arguments).

peace.

[Aloysius]

what ever happened to lumberjack?