I. "Woman" in the Vocative
One argument that we hear from contemporary Roman apologists is that when Jesus said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee," he wasn't scolding her, he was actually identifying her as the New Eve.
John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
The more obvious explanation is that he is calling her "woman" rather "mother," to scold her. He was, in essence, denying her claim of maternal authority, by treating her as a stranger. Nevertheless, our friends in the Roman communion argue that this vocative case "woman" implies that Mary is the New Eve.
If that's so, there are at least least a few other New Eves:
1) Canaanite woman
Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
2) Woman sick for 18 years
Luke 13:12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
3) Samaritan Woman
John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
4) Woman Caught in Adultery (This passage is still in Rome's Bibles)
John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
5) Mary Magdalene
John 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
The better explanation is that the use of "woman" in the vocative is not a sign of being "new Eve," but rather is a way of addressing a woman one does not know. Compare the following uses by Peter and the angels (respectively):
Luke 22:57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
John 20:13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
It's perhaps not as gruff as in English (notice that not all the references above are negative, some are positive), but instead is a seemingly standard way of greeting a stranger.
Notice that in the garden, when Jesus says to Mary, "Woman ..." she thinks he's a stranger, but when he says to her, "Mary," she recognizes him.
John 20:15-16
Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?"
She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, "Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away."
Jesus saith unto her, "Mary."
She turned herself, and saith unto him, "Rabboni;" which is to say, "Master."
The non-acknowledgment of Mary at the wedding at Cana is similar to the non-acknowledgment of Mary's relation to Jesus, in Jesus' famous words to Mary from the cross:
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
But the argument from Woman in the vocative case, as opposed to something more affectionate, like "Mary," or "Mother," is also informed by the context. In this case, the context is Jesus saying "what I have to do with thee!"
II. What have I to do with thee? (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί" literally "what to me and to you")
This phrase, "τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί" (translated "what have I to do with thee") is really the more powerful of the two indicia that Jesus is scolding Mary. It is a Hebrew idiom that we see addressed to Jesus by the man possessed by the legion of demons:
Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
The corresponding Hebrew idiom is found (in several forms) in the following:
Judges 11:12 And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?
2 Samuel 16:10 And the king said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because the LORD hath said unto him, Curse David. Who shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done so?
2 Samuel 19:22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?
1 Kings 17:18 And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?
2 Kings 3:13 And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab.
2 Chronicles 35:21 But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.
Hosea 14:8 Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found.
As you can see, this idiom is one that is used to distance oneself from others. Notice that in David's case, he is distancing himself from his nephews, the sons of his sister, Zeruiah (see 1 Chronicles 2:15-16). It's not a scolding or rebuke in itself, but when Jesus applies it to Mary, it suggests that his "Woman," comment is part of a theme of distancing himself from her.
He was rebuking her presumption in requesting a miracle when Jesus' time was not yet ready. He was not somehow giving honor or praise by this remark.
TurretinFan
Monday, September 12, 2011
27 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
I would be more extreme than that that you have laid out, TF.
ReplyDeleteRemember this:
Gen 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.
Gen 12:2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
Gen 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
In light of the force of those Words and the value they convey upon the Elect, it seems from where I sit, Mary, at that time was putting a burden upon the Lord that was moving away from "the Righteous shall live by Faith" to something akin to this sharp word:
Mat 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you."
Mat 12:39 But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
If Jesus is scolding Mary here in John 2, then her immediate response to this scolding only serves to amplify her Christian virtue. What mother is going to respond to a rebuke from her son, made in public, with all his friends around, by saying what she said? “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5). Although her response is perfect either way, for it to follow after such a rebuke is grace through the roof! Dare I say, full of grace? :)
ReplyDeleteI think that if He was really trying to distance Himself from her – if this is the correct understanding of His verbal response – then He would not have proceeded to perform His first miracle at her instigation; He would not have approached the servants after her instruction to them. This seems confusing to me. But like I said. If He really was rebuking her, then this shows forth her trust in her Savior all the more. Her, “Do whatever He tells you,” becomes in this case an even greater highlight of her profound humility, and of her total confidence in Him: He’s got it all under control, and Mary knows it.
That's how I look at it with my Rome-colored glasses. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
There isn't any evidence that it is a term of endearment. It's the sort of thing a stranger says to a woman he doesn't know. In the context of a woman one does know, that *can* become a way of scolding.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether her response was virtuous or not, perhaps it was virtuous. Just because she wasn't a sinless goddess doesn't mean that everything she did was completely sinful.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether she was full of grace, only Stephen gets that distinction in the Bible.
Surely you've seen a parent scold their child for asking rudely for something at the dinner table, only to give them what they asked for in the end? The gift to the child is out of unmerited favor (grace), not on account of merit of the child.
The problem for your position isn't her response, it's His response. Jesus did not treat Mary as though she were a sinless goddess, but a flesh and blood woman.
Good morning, TurretinFan!
ReplyDeleteI don’t think we can entertain doubt as to whether Mary’s saying, “Do whatever He tells you,” is virtuous or not. She is the one who said, “let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38), and here in John we see her exhorting others to do the same. This is the epitome of discipleship and the reason why she is blessed.
I can recognize a scolding when I see one in real life because after the scolding takes place there is either repentance or impudence on the part of the one who was scolded. And the ensuing exchange helps us to recognize the rebuke itself and exposes the interior disposition of the one who was rebuked. And if the child, in your example, doesn’t receive the rebuke but continues in his obstinacy, then the parent does not honor the child’s unrepentant actions towards the same end without an even more severe rebuke, lest the child be affirmed in his rebellion.
But in Mary’s case, we don’t see an acknowledgement of a rebuke one way or the other. I see a pleasant exchange taking place between a mother and her perfect Son, Mary persisting in her same concern for the wedding party after the “rebuke,” and Jesus honoring her persistence. You’re asking me to see a, “You’re ugly,” type comment being thrown into the middle of an otherwise flattering exchange, and everyone pretending like it never happened. :) If there is a rebuke in this scene, I think Jesus comes away looking very powerful outwardly, but less godly inwardly; and Mary ends up looking more virtuous than she would otherwise.
In Christ,
Pete
Hi TF,
ReplyDeleteThe evidence I'm examining is the same 5 verses you put forward. There are three logical possibilities: (a) a term of contempt or scolding; (b) a term meaning New Eve; (c) a term of endearment or standard polite greeting.
Doing a simple substitution, you already showed "New Eve" doesn't work. I went one step further and showed a term of contempt or scolding doesn't work either, since there is no grounds for Jesus to be unhappy with the woman He's talking to. Since when does Jesus say "Great is thy Faith" or "You are loosed from thy infirmity" or similar talk if He's scolding them? Only the third option makes any sense when substituting it back into the 5 examples.
If Jesus is scolding Mary here in John 2, then her immediate response to this scolding only serves to amplify her Christian virtue.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if Jesus is scolding Mary here in John 2, then the Romish doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not true.
a) I put forward more than just five verses.
ReplyDeleteb) The semi-disjoint possibilities you provide are not "logical" possibilities. Nor do they exhaust the possibilities.
c) The argument that the term has a scolding tone is based on it being a greeting normally used for a stranger (though Mary is not a stranger), not on it being inherently negative. That you have missed this argument suggests to me that you should not be participating in this conversation.
d) And, of course, the "formal greeting" view dovetails nicely with the distancing use of "what have I to do with thee" as explained in the article.
e) That it is a term of endearment is not supported by the evidence. There's nothing about the context of the other usages that suggest that the term is a term of intimacy. Quite the contrary.
Thank you, TurretinFan.
ReplyDeleteI will consider your words. In the meantime, would you mind researching the expression used in Genesis 23:15 for me, please? I’ll try to do the same. I’m curious to see other instances in this exact form so that I can see it being distinguished as a separate phrase with its own distinct meaning. It is not clear to me that it is not of the same drift because of its having the “between” added in, and I’d like to see some more examples. One thing I am curious to see is whether “between” may simply become part of the expression when a specific object is in view.
If we keep replying to each other, we’re going to end up with only one word fitting per line on our screens!!! :)
I hope you have a blessed night!
In Christ,
Pete
Sorry for my broken link to Chrysostom’s homily. Here it is again: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200152.htm
ReplyDeleteIn Christ,
Pete
Pete,
ReplyDeletethis is just another spin now. It quite possibly could have been a situation in the family structure of that particular Jewish home where Joseph was dead by the time of the Wedding when Jesus was turning the water into wine, seeing the age differences between man and his wife among the Jews? Let's speculate some and say that Joseph was 25 or 30 years Mary's senior when she became pregnant with Jesus. And say she was 17 and he was 42 years old at that time? 30 years later would make Joseph 72 years old. Most likely being a very hard working man, rugged with age that kind of hard work brings upon you during your lifetime, he would probably have passed by then so it makes perfectly good sense why Mary, now a widow with sons and daughters, would say to her servants at the Wedding, and by so saying "... ‘Do whatever he tells you’ (Jn. 2:5)...", she was merely giving Jesus such honor as the oldest son.
Remember this description about Jesus?
Isa 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
It just might be too difficult for you to swallow, but remember Our Lord and Savior was just an ordinary joe growing up a Carpenter's son, with no form or majesty to draw people's attention to him because He wasn't a man with good looks seeing He had no celebrity like the well to do had then or now, those of high society, high profile, suave talking or good looking like the Pharisees and politicians had.
What you are doing, it seems to me, is taking this "ordinary" guy, Jesus and His family and making them an a prominent extraodinary family when Scripture does not.
Hi Natamllc!
ReplyDeleteI hope you had a blessed Lord’s Day!
You had written that Mary had “sons and daughters” besides Jesus.
I enjoy being able to say with Jerome, “We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it” (Against Helvidius).
In Christ,
Pete Holter
The problem is that Jerome's arguments weren't sound, but Helvidius' were. So, even though Jerome is a famous church father, and Helvidius isn't, we shouldn't just latch on to Jerome's name.
ReplyDeleteYou see, Jerome thought he was defending Mary's honor. His view was that "The truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean" and "Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" That's distorted view of sexual intercourse is the reason behind Jerome's opposition to the correct conclusions of Helvidius.
See more discussion of the ECFs (especially Jerome) and their distorted view of sexuality here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/10/natural-family-planning-and-traditional.html
I am sorry. I mistyped a close on an i tag. My final paragraph should look like this:
ReplyDeleteAlso, Reformed Christians view every good work as tainted by some impurity of sin. Our good works, they say, “are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment,” and they are not “in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight.” But God, “looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections” (Of Good Works). So according to the Reformed view, it is not just marital relations that are tainted by this “necessity of sin,” but everything we do is so tainted. Augustine is simply limiting to marital relations what the Reformed extend to everything.
Please ignore my previous comment (below). I seem to have lost my original comment that it was intended to correct. Here is the comment in full…
ReplyDeleteHey TurretinFan!
Thank you for the link. I will take a closer look at this collection later. I wish we could all just get together and just talk about this every day!!! If you ever end up in MD, let’s get together!
From what I’ve seen, I think that Jerome’s arguments in defense of Mary’s virginity are actually sound. I think his defense of virginity over marriage in general, again from what I’ve seen, is a little sloppy. But I think that Augustine did a great job of correcting this sloppiness, and that Augustine’s view of marital relations is most sound. The way that one interprets 1 Corinthians 7 is foundational to how one will view the issue. Even if you allow that marital sex can be entered into without the involvement of any disordered lust, virginity is rightly seen as superior in merit. Consequently, even if marital sex were not tainted by disordered lust, Jerome would still be rightly defending Mary’s honor by defending her choice to remain a virgin for the sake of the kingdom. In other words, his defense of the grace of God in Mary’s choice to remain a virgin does not depend on his overly harsh view of marital relations.
Also, Reformed Christians view every good work as tainted by some impurity of sin. Our good works, they say, “are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment,” and they are not “in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight.” But God, “looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections” (Of Good Works). So according to the Reformed view, it is not just marital relations that are tainted by this “necessity of sin,” but everything we do is so tainted. Augustine is simply limiting to marital relations what the Reformed extend to everything.
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Mr. Holter, I think your link(s) may be triggering a spam filter to filter out your comments. A work-around this is not to use links.
ReplyDeleteAh, thank you! Here is another try with the a-tag removed…
ReplyDeleteHey TurretinFan!
Thank you for the link. I will take a closer look at this collection later. I wish we could all just get together and just talk about this every day!!! If you ever end up in MD, let’s get together!
From what I’ve seen, I think that Jerome’s arguments in defense of Mary’s virginity are actually sound. I think his defense of virginity over marriage in general, again from what I’ve seen, is a little sloppy. But I think that Augustine did a great job of correcting this sloppiness, and that Augustine’s view of marital relations is most sound. The way that one interprets 1 Corinthians 7 is foundational to how one will view the issue. Even if you allow that marital sex can be entered into without the involvement of any disordered lust, virginity is rightly seen as superior in merit. Consequently, even if marital sex were not tainted by disordered lust, Jerome would still be rightly defending Mary’s honor by defending her choice to remain a virgin for the sake of the kingdom. In other words, his defense of the grace of God in Mary’s choice to remain a virgin does not depend on his overly harsh view of marital relations.
Also, Reformed Christians view every good work as tainted by some impurity of sin. Our good works, they say, “are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment,” and they are not “in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight.” But God, “looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections” (Of Good Works: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XVI.html ). So according to the Reformed view, it is not just marital relations that are tainted by this “necessity of sin,” but everything we do is so tainted. Augustine is simply limiting to marital relations what the Reformed extend to everything.
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Ah, thank you! Here is another try with the a tag removed…
ReplyDeleteAnd now, here is a third try with the link removed…
Hey, TurretinFan!
Thank you for the link. I will take a closer look at this collection later. I wish we could all just get together and just talk about this every day!!! If you ever end up in MD, let’s get together!
From what I’ve seen, I think that Jerome’s arguments in defense of Mary’s virginity are actually sound. I think his defense of virginity over marriage in general, again from what I’ve seen, is a little sloppy. But I think that Augustine did a great job of correcting this sloppiness, and that Augustine’s view of marital relations is most sound. The way that one interprets 1 Corinthians 7 is foundational to how one will view the issue. Even if you allow that marital sex can be entered into without the involvement of any disordered lust, virginity is rightly seen as superior in merit. Consequently, even if marital sex were not tainted by disordered lust, Jerome would still be rightly defending Mary’s honor by defending her choice to remain a virgin for the sake of the kingdom. In other words, his defense of the grace of God in Mary’s choice to remain a virgin does not depend on his overly harsh view of marital relations.
Also, Reformed Christians view every good work as tainted by some impurity of sin. Our good works, they say, “are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment,” and they are not “in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight.” But God, “looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections” (WCF, Of Good Works). So according to the Reformed view, it is not just marital relations that are tainted by this “necessity of sin,” but everything we do is so tainted. Augustine, as the more careful representative of Jerome’s view, is simply limiting to marital relations what the Reformed extend to everything.
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Peter,
ReplyDeleteWhy did you dance around what I said? Why not try and grasp what is being said about how ordinary Jesus Christ was when He came into the world and how ordinary He was as a child and young adult growing up until He began His public ministry delivering first hand the Faith to be delivered to the Saints; to those twelve disciples, knowing full well one of them would be used by the devil to betray Him?
I guess the reason is if you admit Isaiah's Word is the Word of God and the Spirit of Grace and Truth used him to write what he did that Jesus had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him then that reflects poorly on your view of Mary the virgin who felt the extraordinary pain and sorrow and suffering of child birth bringing that form of being she brought into the world to be the Son of Adam's race; the Son of God with a mission?
To even consider that Mary was just another ordinary Jewish girl living during a most difficult period of time in Israel, hand picked by God to be sure, to convey upon the world His Savior would be counter intuitive to the RC faith about her, now wouldn't it?
What? Mary being a young mom to the Son of God conflicted by her natural instincts as any young mother of her day to serve her husband, the carpenter? What? Mary being betrothed to an ordinary carpenter? What? Mary, finally, after the birth of Jesus, is coming together with the carpenter in holy matrimony and they produce other sons and daughters? And Mary, as any young Jewish wife is, is being stretched to the limits of her abilities to see them all raised up like all good Jewish daughters are when raising a house full of hungry unruly, untrained as yet, children? What? Mary being concerned about food and clothing for her husband and children and keeping the house cleaned and presentable for the time of guests showing up at inopportune times?
You need to get over it, Pete. Mary was an ordinary young Jewish mother with all the wishes and dreams and hopes for her husband's success and for her children being taken care of under the legal system of Rome and Rabbis!
Hi Natamllc!
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if anyone holds a dogmatic position on whether all the information in Isaiah 53:1-3 applies broadly to Jesus’ whole life, or if it is best limited to His time of suffering culminating in the crucifixion. My position is the latter.
There was something about Jesus that made people give up their lives to come follow Him at His word. The Gospels tell us that “all the land of Judaea” was going out to be baptized by John (Mark 1:5), and the Apostle John says “that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John” (John 4:1). He had crowds numbering to perhaps as much as 10,000 following Him around on more than one occasion (cf. Matthew 14:21 & 15:38). And the “the whole city was stirred up” by the entourage of His Triumphal Entry while the Pharisees complained that “the world has gone after Him” (Matthew 21:10 & John 12:19). Mary had relatives in Judea, and, when living in Nazareth, was known well enough to be invited to a wedding in a nearby town. She also gained notoriety from being brought into the midst of controversy during His public ministry (cf. Matthew 12:46-50 & Luke 11:27).
His conception drew the attention of Elizabeth and John the Baptist; His birth drew the shepherds from the field and Simeon and Anna in the temple; His infancy was attended by wise men from the east; and His youth drew admiration in Jerusalem for His knowledge of the Law. Jesus did grow up in Podunk, but Luke says that He “increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). I am sure that they are both completely beautiful in their glorified bodies, but I don’t know what they looked like on earth. Based on all the data, I personally think they were good looking; not because I am trying to contradict Isaiah, but because I think Isaiah is referring to Jesus’ crucifixion when speaking of his beauty.
There were some incredible events surrounding the lives of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph that the Scriptures relate to us prior to His public ministry. Although any day face to face with Jesus would be totally amazing, I am sure there was a lot of ordinariness that characterized their lives. What is extraordinary about the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), is their godliness and their submission to the will of God.
Thank you for corresponding with me.
In Christ,
Pete
Peter,
ReplyDeleteNice dancing, again, Pete, but it just doesn't cut it with me. There were a number of humans who fit the bill of godliness and submissiveness: Job, Enoch, Noah, Daniel, Simeon and Anna the Prophetess. All these folks at various stages from human history had recorded for us as being godly submitted people to the Holy Trinity. And still, we have these verses to contend with, too:
Heb 11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
Heb 11:40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
That perfection comes from Christ, not Mary!
And, yes, so there were some very extraordinary and supernatural goings on when Elizabeth and then Mary conceived and when Jesus was Twelve with a great ability to listen and ask questions confounding the teaching Elders in the Temple. Those were snapshots of His Glory. That wasn't the normal Jewish life Jesus submitted Himself too.
Well, I believe we have now about beaten that bush out of all her berries so the bears won't be by!
I protest against you Pete! And if Mary was able to protest, I imagine her protest would be the same? Stop making her an extraordinary woman of Faith! We simply call her blessed for being selected, predestined and foreordained to bear the Christ child, bringing the Son of God to full term and giving Him birth thereby fulfilling prophecy. Albeit she had to deliver Him in a stinking stable with an assortment of animal smells during the brutal cold nights of late fall before the winter's storms and snow! So? So?
Hello again, Natamllc!
ReplyDeleteThe only point I would make here is that the great magnitude of Mary’s blessedness is on account of her discipleship. Her being chosen to be the biological mother of Jesus is one of the “great things” God did for her, and, although all wrapped up together, it in itself brought with it a blessedness that is better seen as derivative of and subordinate to the greater blessedness she enjoyed as a believer.
“And Mary said, ‘Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word’ … And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry… ‘blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord’ ” (Luke 1:38, 41-42, 45).
“As He said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!’ But He said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’ ” (Luke 11:27-28)
The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord has made Mary an extraordinary woman of faith, not me. :)
I hope you have a good night sleep! I will pray for you: for the gift of the Catholic faith to be restored to your heart. Amen.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Which faith you thinking of, Pete?
ReplyDeleteIs it this Faith:
Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
...
Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
Or, is it this kind of faith, a faith that rejects that Faith once delivered to the Saints, Pete?:
1Ti 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, ????
It is apparent to me and you that we do not hold to the same kind of faith!
The Faith I have is from My Gracious Heavenly Father. It is His gift to me that opens my eyes to discern between good and evil.
Your kind of faith doesn't accomplish that. Your faith drives you to works righteousness and you know within your own heart and secretly that you are failing miserably keeping all the legal schemes you have to keep just to get out of here to purgatory, Pete. In fact, your hope is dashed already, that you will ever measure up to the level of perfection, to be designated a candidate for sainthood after you die; isn't that about right, Pete?
Greetings in the LORD, Natamllc.
ReplyDeleteI think I will leave this discussion now so that I don’t take the comments too far away from TurretinFan’s purpose. May God bless you and your loved ones!
By the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete Holter
"From what I’ve seen, I think that Jerome’s arguments in defense of Mary’s virginity are actually sound."
ReplyDeletePerhaps we'll review them some time.
"I think his defense of virginity over marriage in general, again from what I’ve seen, is a little sloppy."
It's seriously flawed, and it serves as one of the reasons for his attempts to defend Mary's virginity over against her marriage.
"But I think that Augustine did a great job of correcting this sloppiness, and that Augustine’s view of marital relations is most sound."
Interesting.
"The way that one interprets 1 Corinthians 7 is foundational to how one will view the issue."
That may be part of it.
"Even if you allow that marital sex can be entered into without the involvement of any disordered lust, virginity is rightly seen as superior in merit."
No, it is not. That was one of the problems with Jerome's viewpoint.
"Consequently, even if marital sex were not tainted by disordered lust, Jerome would still be rightly defending Mary’s honor by defending her choice to remain a virgin for the sake of the kingdom."
a) That wasn't her choice.
b) As a woman (in that day and age) it would not have been up to her to choose (it would have been her father's decision).
c) She was betrothed to Joseph. There's no honor in breaking that betrothal, particularly after God stopped Joseph from breaking it.
d) She continued to live with Joseph afterward and to hold themselves out as married. While, as a betrothed woman, she didn't really have a "choice," we could say she chose not to desert her husband.
"In other words, his defense of the grace of God in Mary’s choice to remain a virgin does not depend on his overly harsh view of marital relations."
His whole reason for thinking Mary remained a virgin was because of his unbiblical view of marital relations.
"Also, Reformed Christians view every good work as tainted by some impurity of sin. ... So according to the Reformed view, it is not just marital relations that are tainted by this “necessity of sin,” but everything we do is so tainted."
The reason that is not analogous is that we Reformed folks would say that this does not relate to the act as such, but to the heart of the person. Jerome is referring to the act, as such, being sinful.
There's no nice way to put this, but if you understand how procreation works, there's something that males have to do in for physical union to be possible, and people like Jerome seemed to think that this physical condition could be achieved only by lust.
While Augustine seems to have been more Biblical than Jerome on this, he was certainly influenced by the same ascetic influences that pushed Jerome to view all human procreation as inherently sinful.
"Augustine, as the more careful representative of Jerome’s view, is simply limiting to marital relations what the Reformed extend to everything."
No. That's not an accurate picture at all.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan, I am wondering, "are we sure you are not a redux of the early Church Fathers?" :)
ReplyDeleteDear NatAmLLC,
ReplyDeleteThat's very nice of you to say, but I'm a man with a far easier life than any of them had!
Praise be to God for his abundant mercies!
-TurretinFan