Posted on 06/16/2007 5:09:43 PM PDT by stfassisi
To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ,” said St. Jerome.[2] Could we develop this statement further and conclude: To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Mary, the Mother of Christ?
The Bible is over 95% male-oriented. Of 1,426 names in the Bible only 111 names are women’s. … Mary of Nazareth, however, is among the women most mentioned in the Bible, that is, in the New Testament. She is an exception to the rule and almost for that reason an exceptional woman.[3]
The factual data we gain from the Scriptures on Mary’s life are by no means copious[4]. As far as details about Mary’s person are concerned, we do not know much about her liking, knowledge, exterior etc. However, through the spiritual intervention of God in her life, she becomes a person in terms of her religious vocation. Her process of individuation is initiated by her reflection on who she is and her mission as handmaid of the Lord.[5]
It is not possible to establish an exact chronological point for identifying the date of Mary’s birth … Her presence in the midst of Israel – a presence so discreet as to pass almost unnoticed by the eyes of her contemporaries[6] …Only in the mystery of Christ is her mystery fully made clear.[7]
Mary of Nazareth, daughter of Joachim and Anna,[8] is first mentioned by name in the Gospel of Mathew.[9] She was an ordinary woman, and her name was common enough that other women of the same name in the gospel had to be distinguished by their relatives or their place of origin.[10]
From tradition we can assume that she grew up as a young Jewish girl in a small town in the Palestinian Galilee. “Since Mary was born into Judaism, she experienced the Hebrew Scriptures both in her prayer and her mode of life as a woman of Nazareth.”[11] Mary’s education as a girl included listening to the readings of the Torah and the Prophets in the synagogue. We cannot know for sure but it is quite possible that Mary knew how to read.[12]
Although women probably were seated separately from men during the synagogue services, they could have learned the prayers and listened attentively to the readings from the Sacred Scripture. … There is no reason to question that Mary was present in the synagogue when Jesus read from Isaiah 61. Would she not have reflected on such passages already, wondering about their Messianic implications?[13]
It might be helpful to recall that until the completion of her eleventh year a Jewish girl was a minor and from her 12th birthday on she was considered to be of age. This means that from that day on, Mary was expected to keep those parts of the Torah, which were binding on women. At the same time she also became eligible for marriage.
Like all good Jewish girls, she would have been docile, submissive, and obedient to her earthly parents’ wishes. Thus, when she was of marriageable age, about fourteen, and her parents promised her to a man many years her elder, she accepted their decision. In all actuality, she had no choice.[14]
Consequently, we can presume that it was around that time that Mary was betrothed to Joseph. The time of betrothal generally lasted a year, with the exception of widows.[15] We know that the Annunciation[16] occurred during the phase of her betrothal.
God had addressed Himself to women before as in the case of the mothers of Samuel and Samson. However to make a Covenant with humanity, He, hitherto addressed himself only to men: Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Now, “at the beginning of the New Covenant, which is to be eternal and irrevocable, there is a woman: the Virgin of Nazareth.”[17]
This takes place … within the concrete circumstances of the history of Israel, the people, who first received God’s promises. The divine messenger says to the Virgin: “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you” [18]. He does not call her by her proper earthly name: Miriyam (= Mary), but by this new name: ‘full of grace’. What does this name mean? Why does the archangel address the Virgin in this way? In the language of the Bible, ‘grace’ means a special gift, which according to the New Testament has its source precisely in the Trinitarian life of God himself, God who is love[19].[20]
The One who called her His most beloved is Love Himself. It might well be the core experience of her life when Mary learns that she is loved for who she is and not for what she can do. This awareness leads her to identify herself as the handmaid of the Lord[21] and urges her to embrace the mission entrusted to her.
Indeed at the Annunciation Mary entrusted herself to God completely, with ‘the full submission of intellect and will,’ manifesting ‘the obedience of faith’ to him who spoke to her through his messenger. She responded therefore with all her human and feminine ‘I’, and in this response of faith included both perfect cooperation with the ‘grace of God that precedes and assists’ and perfect openness to the action of the Holy Spirit, who ‘constantly brings faith to completion by his gifts’.[22]
Thus, we learn that Mary conceived her son through the power of the Holy Spirit[23]. Both Mathew’s and Luke’s New Testament Infancy Narratives indicate that Joseph and Mary were faithful observers of the law. According to Mathew, Mary was legally espoused to Joseph, even though she did not live with him[24] in accordance with the Jewish requirement of pre-conjugal virginity. Hence, when Mathew tells of Mary’s pregnancy before sharing the life of Joseph, he makes it clear that she had become suspect to infidelity[25]. All the more we have to appreciate Mary’s faith in the angel’s message, since she knew that her life was at stake.
Following the Annunciation we encounter Mary on her way in order to serve her relative Elizabeth[26]. The visitation has a tremendous effect on Zechariah’s house. Elizabeth prophesied[27], the baby was sanctified in her womb[28] and the mute man of the house would eventually be able to speak again.[29]
The Virgin makes no proud demands nor else does she seek to satisfy personal ambitions. Luke presents her to us wanting only to offer her humble service with total and trusting acceptance of the divine plan of salvation. This is the meaning of her response: ”Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word.”[30]
Mary’s Magnificat[31] harmonizes with Zechariah’s Benedictus[32] and reflects her deep roots in the Jewish tradition as well as in the Hebrew Scriptures. He has done great things for me: this is the discovery of all the richness and personal resources of femininity, all the eternal originality of the ‘woman’, just as God wanted her to be, a person for her own sake, who discovers herself ‘by means of a sincere gift of self’.[33] As a daughter of Israel, Mary sings in concord with such women as Miriam, sister of Moses or Hannah, mother of Samuel.
For St. Luke, Mary is the perfect example of awaiting the Messiah with a pure and humble spirit. Luke sees in Mary the Daughter of Zion who rejoices because God is with her, and who praises His greatness for pulling down the mighty and exalting the humble.[34]
The earliest reference to Jesus’ mother in any literature, and the only one in the Pauline letters and all of the epistles of the New Testament, appears in Galatians 4:4. There, Paul simply connotes that God’s son was ‘born of a woman, born under the law.’
The phrase, genomenon ek gynaikos, “born of a woman”, is a frequently used Jewish expression to designate a person’s human condition. It reflects ‘ādām yělûd ‘iššāh of Job 14:1 “a human being (that is) born of a woman " Paul does indirectly refer to her. But it is a reference to her simply as mother, in her maternal role of bearing Jesus and bringing him into the world.[35]
For the purpose of historical investigation, these phrases tell us only that Paul understands Jesus to have been born to a Jewish woman[36]. “The fact that he does not mention Mary’s name does not necessarily mean that he does not know it; but neither can it be assumed that he knows it and declines to use it.”[37]
It is significant that St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name, Mary, but calls her woman: it coincides with words of the Proto-evangelium in the Book of Genesis (3:15). She is that woman who is present in the central salvific event, which marks the fullness of time: this event is realized in her and through her.[38] To be born under the law means, for Jesus, that he was fully integrated into the human condition in both time and place through his roots in the Jewish people. Mathew presents us with Jesus’ genealogy.
But the uniform repetitions of male progenitors is interrupted four times in order to mention women: Rahab and Ruth, both of them foreigners, are there to show that the rest of the human race is invited to share in salvation along with Israel; Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah, and Bathsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah before becoming David’s wife, are there to remind us that the promise makes its way despite the weaknesses of a patriarch[39] and of a king[40] and, paradoxically, even derives support from them. These four women and the four irregular births that occur due to them prepare the reader for the mention of Mary and for the birth of Jesus, the extraordinary character of which will be brought out later in the narrative.[41]
Mathew’s gospel affirms the legitimacy of Jesus as a Jewish boy born of Jewish parents. He is the offspring of a legally recognized married couple. Thus, Joseph is the lawful father of Jesus who, in turn, has the responsibility of naming the child. On the other hand, Mary is the mother of this child in an extraordinary way similar to the other women mentioned in the genealogy: Rahab, Tamar, Ruth and Beersheba. Mary is the Virgin Mother[42] of the promised Messiah who is called Emmanuel, God with us!
Clearly then, Mary plays a role in God’s plan of saving His people, and indeed she was foreseen from the time of Isaiah as the virgin who would give birth to Emmanuel. Yet, in the Matthean infancy narrative she remains an instrument of God’s action and her personal attitudes are never mentioned. Once she has given birth to Jesus, she and the child become the object of Joseph’s care. Joseph is center of the drama. [43]”[44]
This becomes evident immediately after the birth of Jesus. When the violence is unleashed against the child and his family[45], Joseph takes initiative upon the Angel’s request, fleeing with the child and his mother to Egypt. Like Mathew, Luke locates Jesus in the history of the Jewish people. For Luke however, “Mary is the guarantor of his roots; and she is the sign of this newness.”[46] The birth took place in conditions of extreme poverty. Luke informs us that on the occasion of the census ordered by the Roman authorities, Mary went with Joseph to Bethlehem. Having found ‘no place in the inn’, she gave birth to her Son in a stable and ‘laid him in a manger.'[47]
We are reminded again that Jesus was born under the law when, in Luke 2:22-24, Mary and Joseph present Jesus in the Temple and ransom him for a pair of turtle doves as prescribed by Jewish law.[48]
Simeon’s words seem like a second Annunciation to Mary; for they tell her of the actual historical situation in which the Son is to accomplish his mission, namely, in misunderstanding and sorrow. … She will have to live her obedience of faith in suffering at the side of the suffering Savior, and that her motherhood will be mysterious and sorrowful.[49]
The Holy family lived in Nazareth. Not much is said about their family life; but we know that Jesus and Mary were both under the care of Joseph and, most likely, lived a normal Jewish family life.
More about Mary of Nazareth can be learned through the simple metaphors and parables in the language of Jesus in his home. … Often the woman, because of her skills in planning and experience, was in control over the critical aspects of household life. In her natural role of parenting, a woman normally would have nearly double the amount of pregnancies in order to bear the desired number of children to carry on the chores and responsibilities of the household[50].
Archeological discoveries in households attest to devotions of a religious nature at home, for example;
If the practice in Nazareth was close to Pharisaic norm, Joseph would ask the family when darkness fell on the eve of the Sabbath: ‘Have you tithed? … Light the Lamp’. Thus would they collaborate in keeping the commandments at home.[51]
Throughout the years that followed, up to Jesus’ public ministry, Mary was, for Jesus, what every Jewish mother was supposed to be for her child. “While Joseph was alive Mary apparently went with him to Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.”[52] It is during such a pilgrimage that the 12-year-old Jesus was lost for three days and Mary and Joseph went in search of him[53]. Luke’s Gospel recalls the anxiety of a mother who thought her son was lost and who of finding him, reproached him.
Here as well as upon the shepherds’ visit to the ‘babe lying in the manger', Mary as a woman of Israel and daughter of Zion remembers and ponders over the words and events of God. The word symballousa used of her in Luke means to turn over and over again in one’s mind and heart in order to face what is happening either through life’s experiences or God’s revelation.[54]
Not much is known about Mary during Jesus’ public life.
A Jewish woman faithful to the law did not participate in public life. Even her chin was covered by the veil, which she wore so that none of her traits were distinguished. The fact that in Mark’s Gospel Mary is searching for Jesus and is familiar with his whereabouts leads to an almost certain conclusion that she is then a widow and has possession of all that Joseph owned.[55]
In John’s Gospel we are told that Mary and Jesus were guests at the wedding feast in Cana. The way she interacts with the servants and initiates the preparations for Jesus’ first sign is another indication “that she was now the only survivor.”[56] Mary’s presence at the wedding feast reveals much about her. It can be summarized in her intuitive grasp of the situation, her concern over the possible embarrassment of the young couple and her willingness to call upon her son.
Mary is present at Cana in Galilee as the Mother of Jesus, and, in a significant way, she contributes to that beginning of the signs which reveal the messianic power of her Son. ... The Mother of Christ presents herself as the spokeswoman of her Son’s will, pointing out those things, which must be done so that the salvific power of the Messiah may be manifested. ... Her faith evokes his first sign and helps to kindle the faith of the disciples.[57]
The meaning of Mary at Cana is exposed fully when His Mother stands ‘near the cross of Jesus,’ and hears Him say: ‘Woman, there is your Son’[58].
The Gospel means more than that the dying Jesus is providing for His Mother’s care. … Mary on Calvary symbolizes … the new Israel, the new People of God, the mother of all men, Jew and Gentile.[59]
Both times, at the beginning and at the consummation of his public life, Jesus addresses her as ‘woman’.
The words of Jesus to His Mother, ‘Woman, how does this concern of yours involve me? My hour has not yet come,’ were an invitation to deepen her faith, to look beyond the failing wine to His messianic career. … It is striking that no sign is done to help Mary believe. The Mother of Jesus requires no miracle to strengthen her faith. At her Son’s word, before ‘this first of his signs’ she shows her faith.[60]
Mary’s last appearance is found in Acts 1:14. We see her in the midst of the Apostles in the Upper Room, prayerfully imploring the gift of the Holy Spirit.[61] For the church of that time, Mary is now a singular witness to the years of Jesus’ infancy and hidden life at Nazareth. Now she can release what, until now, she has kept pondering in her heart.
In summary,
Mary of Nazareth – whose name is written at times in the Hebraic form, Mariam – was a chaste young Jewish girl betrothed to a devout Jewish man, Joseph. The portrait of her in the New Testament is that of a prayerful Jewish woman with very human traits who aspired to follow the practices set by Jewish law and religion. The picture of Mary that emerges through the Gospels is at times powerful and detailed. She celebrates. She suffers. She observes. She prays. She treasures things in her heart and reflects on them. ... To understand what seems to be a rather casual first appearance of Mary in Scripture, we need to place Mathew 1:16 in the context of the whole of Mathew’s first chapter and pull in John 1:1-5.[62]
Mary was also of the House of David as a descendant of Nathan.
Careful that you don't deny that God entered the world through Mary.
My understanding is that Matthew gives the lineage of Joseph, the legal lineage, while Luke gives that of Mary.
The wording in Luke is, (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. As was supposed means according to the law, or, as we now call it, in-law.
Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt.1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heli's daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so according to law (Gr.nomizo). It does not say "begat" in the case of Heli. - E.W. Bullinger
So Luke's account is that of Mary, given through Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli.
GoLightly stated- Who was of Heli"... St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.
I must question that. How does the writer know they were brothers? How does he know Heli was older and died without a child? It sounds as if he is simply trying to make it fit. He does get to the fact that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, as stated in Luke.
We see genealogies of two lines of the Stepparents of Jesus, while there is none given for his maternal line.
The Matthew account is that of his step-father but the one in Luke is that of Mary given in a very male oriented way, through Joseph, son-in-law to Heli.
distancing Jesus from his Jewish roots must have been important to someone, somewhere along the line. A child is Jewish based on his mother, not his father.
I agree that in a mixed marriage the child is considered a Jew only through the mother being Jewish. I don't believe anyone was trying to distance Him from being Jewish however as the Messiah must be born from the tribe of Judah, the King line. His mother Mary was of Judah and Levi, making Him King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Elizabeth was married to a Priest. Were Levites allowed to marry outside of their line?
No, they weren't. Elizabeth was full blood Levite.
Diego1618 discussed this issue not long ago with me and stated:
Matthew shows the legal lineage (always down through the father) and the Jews saw Our Saviour as Joseph's son (John 6:42). This lineage is also used to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. Joseph's lineage had a curse (Jeconiah) (Matthew 1:1-12) and (Jeremiah 22:30) confirms this.
Luke's genealogy compliments the Matthew account because Mary's line had no curse. Her line came down through Nathan, not Soloman...but still through King David (Luke 3:31). According to the Law, if a daughter were the only heir she would inherit all her father's possessions, rights and inheritances...but only if she married within her tribe (Numbers 27:1-8). Mary had no brothers so she was able to transfer David's royal lineage and inheritance to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph an heir to Heli and thus the right to David's throne...which was then passed on to Our Saviour......
It's fairly clearly laid out but there is no mention of Joachim and Anna in this. That lineage is given in The Infancy Gospel of James.
Thank you both for your replies...Ping
Sorry - I should have said Luke, not Matthew
I am bothered by this emphasis, because it ignores that Mary’s role was very much the same as that of Noah, Abraham, and Moses. I think Luke makes this point. The angels brings the promise to Zachariah and he demands a sign. The Aengel appears directly to Mary and she agrees without hesitation. Mary was literally the first Christian. “Let it be unto my according to thy word.” Would that we all could answer thus.
Matthew names Heli as Mary’s father.
Sorry - I should have said Luke, not Matthew and then should have addressed this reply to the correct person - It's been a busy day and I'm old. What more can I say......Ping
Yes, that is what you are asserting, and to me this implies a rather low Christiology. Traditional Christianity has always taught that the Incarnation came at the annunciation, when the angel of the Lord came to Mary. I compare what he said to Mary with what the Lord said to Abram at the beginning of Genesis 12. Abraham simply obeyed and so did Mary. Did not Abraham become the Father of Israel at that moment?
Elizabeth was married to a Priest. Were Levites allowed to marry outside of their line?
I answered "No, they weren't. Elizabeth was full blood Levite." - I should have said that in order to be a Levitical priest you must be a full blood Levite.
Sorry.........Ping
“Abraham simply obeyed and so did Mary. Did not Abraham become the Father of Israel at that moment?”
In what way did he obey? Abraham showing his faith in the Lord, but the covenent didn’t go into effect until Abraham made a blood offering.
Genesis 15
8 But Abram said, “O Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?”
9 So the LORD said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”
10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. 11 Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.
12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram
The article mentions a couple of non-Jewish women in Joseph’s line, so wouldn’t that mean the seed had been lost in that line? The women would have had to have converted for their children to be Jewish, but the seed didn’t matter in the King line, because Kingship was passed down on the paternal side anyway & even adoption was an acceptable way for that to happen.
Mary was the first to know who Jesus was, the first to commit to him, body and soul. That is what I mean by Christian. She even learned , in a limited way, what would befall him through Simeon. (Lk 2:34-36.) Of course, the only one who knew all that his mission would entail, was Our Lord Himself. It has been speculated that the Incarnation itself might have been sufficient to save mankind, and by taking on flesh the Lord humbled himself to the condition of a slave, but of course that was not “the plan.” He had to suffer even the indignity of death.
wow.
Right, but the Kingship was a paternal line, not a maternal one. David was adopted into it.
I don't have the article in front of me but it could be that if they aren't "Jewish" they could still be Hebrew. Of the 12 tribes only one was Jewish - Judah.
I hope you are doing well - you sound terrific.
....Ping
If "the plan" didn't require blood of an innocent, there'd be little need for most of Mosaic Law or the OT, for that matter. Why bother putting blood on the door for the Angel to pass over the homes of the Jews? The blood of the lamb was for the people to learn an important symbol, a sign, something to watch for, not because the Angel needed it to know which homes to pass over.
In either Mary’s or Joseph’s line one of the forefather’s was disqualified from sitting on the Throne of David..that’s one of the reasons why (either Joseph’s or Mary’s) lineage is important as it overcame that legal barrier.....while the other parent’s lineage fulfilled a legal requirement.
1 Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers 2 Joseph is descended from King David. 3 The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad 4 Joseph and Miriam are married ( each descended from King David)
There are four things that are important here:
b'shem Yah'shua
and is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.
is in effect (Numbers 26,27,36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7 ).
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Y'shua.
Of the 12 tribes only one was Jewish - Judah.
Smacking myself on the forehead, DUH! LOL
I'm going great! The chemo wasn't as bad as I thought it was gonna be. Course, I'm gonna prolly be mostly brainless again for a few days after tomorrow.... not that most people would notice, cuz I'm pretty good at doing scatterpated on the best of days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.