The Jewishness of Mary

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]

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.

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]

It is also interesting to note that in the lineage of Christ we have women who were essentially outcasts: Tamar and Rahab, who were Canaanites, one who slept with her father-in-law (Judah) and the other, a prostitute; Ruth, a Moabite who married a man who was half-Canaanite (Rahab's son Boaz); and Bathsheba, who committed adultery.

Tamar was not a Canaanite...she was an Israelite. I think you are confusing the fact that Judah had sons by a Canaanite woman, Shua. Shua was the mother of Er, Onan and Shelah [Genesis 38:1-5]. Judah arranged a marriage between his son Er and Tamar. Judah was no longer living away from his brothers [38:1] when he found Tamar for his son. Judah had been the one to suggest selling Joseph [37:26-27] to the traders and his remorse, after lying to his father (Jacob) [37:31-32] may have been what drove him away. Nevertheless ....he did not stay away.

Tamar was subject to the Levirate Law [Deuteronomy 25:5-10][Genesis 38:8] and Tamar is the Hebrew word for "Date Palm". Other Hebrew women in scripture named Tamar are a daughter of David [2 Samuel 13:1] and a daughter of Absalom [2 Samuel 14:27].

Rahab was not the wife of Boaz. I believe you are referring to Rachab [Matthew 1:5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse.

If Salmon married Rahab....the Canaanite women, and Boaz was born a year or two later, Boaz would have been about 120 years old when he married Ruth. This would have been unlikely. Salmon married Rachab....an Israelite woman.

And....per my post #48, Ruth lived in Moab. She was an Israelite. When the Israelites were entering the promised land they had to defeat King Sihon of Amorites first: [Deuteronomy 2:32-36] Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took..From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us:

Previously....this King Sihon had taken most of Moab from the Moabites: [Numbers 21:26] For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon. If you look at a map of ancient Moab you will see that it existed along the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. From the River Jabbok in the north to the border with Edom at the southern end of the Dead Sea. When the Amorites took the land from the king of Moab they stopped at the river Arnon. The Amorites then controlled the plains of Moab (the fertile area) until the Israelites under Moses took it from them. The Israelites then controlled all of Moab from Arnon in the south to Jabbok in the north. The Israelites then brought in the Tribes of Rueben and Gad because they were cattle raising tribes [Numbers 32:1] Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle. If you check your Bible maps you will see that Gilead and Jazer were indeed on the Plains of Moab.....between the river Arnon and the river Jabbok.

When Naomi and Elimelech and their two sons went to Moab because of the famine in the land [Ruth 1:1] they went to this part of Moab.....the part controlled by their sister tribes of Rueben and Gad. They would have had no reason to go to the heathen part of Moab. In fact God made it pretty clear that He did not want the Israelites hanging out with the Moabites [Deuteronomy 23:3] An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever. This land was still called Moab such as we still call California by its name even though it was known by that same name under Mexican rule.

Ruth lived here....in the Israelite section of the Plains of Moab. She was either a Ruebenite....or a Gadite....but she was definitely an Israelite. I realize that the King James calls her a Moabitish women [Ruth 2:6] and it is a bad translation. Here is why. When the servant of Boaz says she came from the country of Moab it is meant....as the countryside of Moab. Here is the Hebrew word that the servant uses: Strong's #7704. sadeh (saw-deh')or saday {saw-dah'-ee}; from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flatcountry, field, ground, land, soil, X wild. ) i.e. the plains of Moab. If the Holy Spirit meant "The Kingdom of Moab" He would have inspired Samuel to write "Kingdom".

A lot has been made of the fact that Ruth converted (so to speak) for Naomi by saying this....the most famous lines in the Book of Ruth: [Ruth 1:15-17] And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

The Book of Ruth is probably one of the most mis- translated books of the Bible. The first line in the Book says this: [Ruth 1:1] Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. The reason the Holy Spirit inspired Samuel to write "Judges ruled" is so we would know this. The Hebrew word for Judge is the same word Ruth uses in verse 16. The Hebrew word is: Strong's #430. 'elohiym (el-o-heem')angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. So, when Ruth was telling Naomi she would go with her she was also telling Naomi that "Her Judges would be Ruth's Judges" also. In other words....Ruth would become a Jew like Naomi and leave her tribal family of either Gad or Rueben....whichever it was. In addition, Ruth calls on the name of The Lord in verse 17 and this is the Hebrew word she uses: Strong's #3068. Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw')(the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God. In [Exodus 6:3] Moses is being told by The Lord what his real name is: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. Samuel would not have recorded a heathen Moabite using the Covenant Name. It was given to the Children of Israel.....exclusively. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not even aware of God's name.

God was pretty serious about keeping this line of ruler ship pure down from Judah. After all... he killed Judah's sons to prevent a contamination of the line [Genesis 38:69-10] and then arranged a pregnancy with a young Israelite, Tamar. So what makes anyone think he would allow further contamination of non Israelite blood through the harlot Rahab? He didn't! The line down from Judah to David was pure [Genesis 49:10]. I know that some folks think that there was Gentile blood in the Kingly line down to our Messiah. It's not Biblical...it might be "touchy feely"...but it's not Biblical.

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.