I just read an article which was up to its eyeballs in Mariolatry. It was, in a way, refreshing to read such a rank, frank celebration of Mariolatry. Holds nothing back.
Catholics see a tensile link between the sanctity of Jesus and the sanctity of his mother. But this is one of the many instances in which Catholic piety travels in the opposite direction of Scripture.
In Scripture, pious parents sometimes beget impious kids, while impious parents sometimes beget pious kids. Although pious parents are more likely to beget pious kids, while impious parents are more likely to beget impious kids, there’s no direct correlation. Sin can overcome hereditary godliness while grace can overcome hereditary godlessness.
Mary was a pious Jew. But that was not a requirement of the Incarnation. Jesus’ mother could just as well have been another Jezebel or Athalia. A crackhead, whorehouse madam, or mom who drowns most of her newborns in the bathtub. An Incarnation is possible regardless of the mother’s character.
Jesus is holy in his own right. The exemplar of holiness. That’s one of his divine attributes.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteCan you provide a link to the article you read?
Thanks.
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7249&Itemid=121&ed=1
ReplyDeleteI've always thought that Matthew's specific inclusion of Tamar and Rahab and "the wife of Uriah" in his genealogy provided a strong scriptural counter to the IC of Mary, but Hagner's commentary seems to suggest that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with what other commentators say on this issue? (By the way, if you had to have just one exegetical commentary on Matthew, what would it be?)
Also, the writer of that blog, Arturo Vasquez, is a bit of a rogue Catholic as well, in a "traditionalist" direction. I've not read much of his work, but I get the impression he just holds his nose when it comes to what the Magisterium du jour has been saying on a lot of things. He has been befriended by Steven Wedgeworth and others for that reason.
"(By the way, if you had to have just one exegetical commentary on Matthew, what would it be?)"
ReplyDeleteFor the time being, either Nolland (2006) or France (2007).
Osborne has a major commentary due out early next year. But not having read it, I can't compare it to the competition as of yet.
Having been present when both my sons were born, I have this wild fantasy or imagination about Mary that goes something like this:
ReplyDelete"GOD", [yes, Mary is yelling at God now], "GOD" your Word says:::>
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
Why in the world did you choose me! This pain in childbearing really really hurts! At least, seeing I am so venerated and have the power to see into the future, why didn't you wait until moraphine was available before these very painful birthpains came?
"WHY GOD, OH GOD, WHY WHY WHY"""!!!!
And then, for the joy of a firstborn son to hold in her arms, knowing nothing of what was to happen to her own heart, holding Him, she forgot Who He Is and began nursing the little tike!
Not knowing:::>
Luk 2:35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."
Luk 2:48 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress."
Luk 23:27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him.
And finally, with biting irony, the mother of Jesus, at her own personal wits end, without and helpless hears this, submitting to the Will of God, once again:::>
Joh 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
Joh 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Anguish and sorrow of heart to the depths no man can know, so she too is treated just the same as all the rest.
Mary was a pious Jew. But that was not a requirement of the Incarnation. Jesus’ mother could just as well have been another Jezebel or Athalia. A crackhead, whorehouse madam, or mom who drowns most of her newborns in the bathtub. An Incarnation is possible regardless of the mother’s character.
ReplyDeleteI can see this. The mother of Jesus as the best woman ever makes sense. The mother of Jesus as the worst woman ever makes sense. But the mother of Jesus as a completely unremarkable woman? That makes no sense to me. God had a reason for bringing Jesus into the world through a virgin. You don't understand it. But that reason could well also imply she is sinless. Why not? Why does she need to be pure from sexual sin but not other sins?
Randy,
ReplyDeleteThe reason the mother of Christ had to be a Virgin was so there could be no doubt He is the Son of God.
Since, contrary to Roman Catholic Dogma, marital sex is not a sin, that clearly is not the issue.
RANDY SAID:
ReplyDelete"God had a reason for bringing Jesus into the world through a virgin. You don't understand it. But that reason could well also imply she is sinless."
If that's an implication, then where's the supporting argument?
In one of the first two files of noted Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum's "Life of the Messiah" he points out that all four of the women mentioned in Matthew's geneology of Jesus are somehow connected with sexual sin.
ReplyDeleteTamar and Rahab by prostitution. Uriah's wife in adultery. Even Ruth is a Moabitess which means she is a descendant of an incentuous race.
Here's a link to his lectures
http://deanbible.org/andromedaCS.php?q=f&f=%2FJewish+Life+of+Christ%2FAudio+Files
incentuous = incestuous
ReplyDeleteRandy wrote:
ReplyDelete"God had a reason for bringing Jesus into the world through a virgin. You don't understand it. But that reason could well also imply she is sinless. Why not?"
For a few reasons. First, nothing you or anybody else has cited suggests that she probably was sinless. Second, we probably have a few Biblical examples of her being referred to as a sinner in the gospels. Third, there was widespread agreement among the early patristic sources that Mary was a sinner, most likely reflecting apostolic teaching about the uniqueness of Jesus' sinlessness. On the latter two points, see here and here.
The reason the mother of Christ had to be a Virgin was so there could be no doubt He is the Son of God.
ReplyDeleteThis removes doubt? To remove doubt the sign must be verifiable. This isn't? You basically have Mary's wrod she is a virgin. The sign is not to remove doubt. It is somehow appropriate that Jesus be born of a virgin. That is the only way it makes sense as a sign.
So if she was a virgin but also a murderer how would that effect the sign? It would make it pretty useless a sign. She needed to be full of grace. So how far did God go? It it so hard to believe He would go all the way? To make her totally sinless right from the beginning?
Since, contrary to Roman Catholic Dogma, marital sex is not a sin, that clearly is not the issue.
This does not compute. What dogma are you talking about?
If that's an implication, then where's the supporting argument?
ReplyDeleteI would never pretend to supply the whole argument. There are books that do that. The question is whether it is wrong or even surprising that doctrine would develop in this way. Is it certain the church has just gone off its rocker or could they be simply understanding the virgin bith a little better?
The immaculate conception actually has very little to do with the veneration of Mary talked about in the article. I don't see the two related as closely as you do.
First, nothing you or anybody else has cited suggests that she probably was sinless.
ReplyDeleteThis is just your opinion. But protestants are not likely yo get it. I know I didn't as a protestant. Why did they use holy vessels? Why was the ark a big deal? I didn't really understand the concept of holiness so I would not see anything suggesting Mary was holy.
But what if the church as a whole knew better? Isn't it at least possible that implications they see might actually be valid?
Second, we probably have a few Biblical examples of her being referred to as a sinner in the gospels.
I would not say "referred to as a sinner". There are examples of her doing things we might view as a sin. They could also be innocent misunderstandings. Certainly those passages would be on the side of maybe she was a sinner.
Third, there was widespread agreement among the early patristic sources that Mary was a sinner, most likely reflecting apostolic teaching about the uniqueness of Jesus' sinlessness
There widespread agreement that sin is pretty much universal. Exceptions are not always talked about. You have to remember that the church took many centuries to arrive at the conclusion it did. So it was a process. The point is the Catholic church has a process for resolving these matters. So difference of opinion does not kill any chance for certainty the way it does for protestants.
RANDY SAID:
ReplyDelete"I would never pretend to supply the whole argument."
You haven't given any argument whatsoever.
"There are books that do that."
There are whole books that refute that.
"The question is whether it is wrong or even surprising that doctrine would develop in this way."
Idolatrous developments don't surprise me.
"Is it certain the church has just gone off its rocker or could they be simply understanding the virgin bith a little better?"
Actually, we see NT churches going off their rocker. Many of the NT letters are written to correct doctrinal deviations in churches founded and/or overseen by apostles.
"The immaculate conception actually has very little to do with the veneration of Mary talked about in the article. I don't see the two related as closely as you do."
I didn't closely relate them in my post. Go back to what I actually wrote.
Randy wrote:
ReplyDelete"This is just your opinion."
Then tell me where you made an argument that should lead us to the conclusion that Mary probably was sinless.
You write:
"Why did they use holy vessels? Why was the ark a big deal? I didn't really understand the concept of holiness so I would not see anything suggesting Mary was holy."
The appeals to the ark of the covenant and holiness are problematic, and I've addressed them already. See here.
You write:
"Isn't it at least possible that implications they see might actually be valid?"
The issue is probability, not possibility. It's possible that Joseph was sinless. So what?
You write:
"I would not say 'referred to as a sinner'."
The article I linked cites evidence in support of my conclusions. You should interact with that evidence rather than just telling us what your conclusion is without any supporting argumentation.
You write:
"Exceptions are not always talked about."
The early patristic sources frequently mention that Jesus is exempted. They don't exempt Mary, even though an exemption for her would be less obvious. How likely is it that they believed Mary was an exception, yet repeatedly failed to say so? And the early patristic sources don't just exempt Jesus. They also repeatedly say that He's the only exception, and they sometimes discuss Mary's sins in particular. I offered documentation in the articles I linked. You aren't interacting with any of it.
You write:
"You have to remember that the church took many centuries to arrive at the conclusion it did."
Yet, Pope Pius IX claimed, in Ineffabilis Deus, that it was a doctrine always held and understood by the church. Even if we were to disregard the Pope's comments, or interpret them in a less natural manner, why should we believe that the later development of the concept that Mary was sinless is correct? If you're going to appeal to church authority alone in order to argue for the probable (not just possible) nature of the correctness of the development, then you're shifting the discussion to another topic and acknowledging in the process that you can't make a case for the probability of the doctrine apart from an appeal to church authority. And we would then point you to what we've already written about Roman Catholicism's authority claims.
You write:
"So difference of opinion does not kill any chance for certainty the way it does for protestants."
First of all, there wasn't "difference of opinion" on these matters in the extant records of the earliest generations of church history. Rather, we have no record of anybody referring to Mary as sinless while a wide variety of sources deny her sinlessness directly or indirectly. Those sources represent a wide variety of backgrounds, personalities, locations, etc.
Secondly, probability is sufficient. We don't need certainty.
Third, if your alleged certainty depends on a probability judgment about Catholicism's authority, then you don't have certainty.