Who is Mary of Nazareth?

What kind of woman was Mary of Nazareth? As is true of Jesus, we know nothing of Mary’s physical appearance or demeanor. But the historical sources give us a rather detailed picture of Mary’s character.

Several historical sources give us much biographical information about Mary and they may be fairly reliable documents, but in this article I want to ask what we can learn from the canonical Scriptures about Mary’s life and character.

It’s often heard that the Bible says very little about Mary, but a closer look at Scripture reveals something quite different. If we use even the most superficial of criteria (i.e.,number of words and verses), the New Testament says more about Mary than it does on topics everyone considers essential. For example, the very important parallelism between Adam and Christ in Paul’s epistles occupies only two passages with a total of thirteen verses (Rom 5:12-21, ten verses & I Cor. 15:21-23, three verses). Passages about Mary in the birth narrative of Luke’s Gospel alone occupy eighty-two verses. And this isn’t counting Matthew, Mark and John.

My personal experience as a non-Catholic Christian convinced me that I couldn’t find much about Mary because I wasn’t looking for it. Also, the Scriptures sometimes teach deep and rich truths in a very short space. For example, the topic of justification by faith occupies a very small portion of the New Testament—it’s only discussed directly in Romans, Galatians and James 2:14-26—but it has played an enormously important role in the history of the Christian faith. Thus, it is unwise to conclude that the amount of verses devoted to a topic in the Bible is directly linked to its importance. In any case, there’s more in the Bible about Mary than is often supposed.

A Woman for Our Times
Mary of Nazareth seems on the surface to be an ordinary Jewish woman whose life was indistinguishable from many others. She cooked, sewed and cleaned. She prayed, conversed and served the needs of her family. Yet what we see in the biblical stories of Jesus’ birth shows that Mary’s life was extraordinary. Her extraordinariness did not lie in herself; it was a divine gift. By the free choice of God the Father, she was predestined to be the mother of the Redeemer. By His mercy, the heavenly Father filled her soul with His grace and His presence. In divine providence, Mary became the Spouse of the Holy Spirit by receiving in her womb the Son of God. In the silence of her Son’s infant life, she contemplated the astounding truths of heaven.

This contrast between the ordinary and the extraordinary is important. The significance of Mary’s life was hidden from everyday view. Rarely could others around her see the remarkable power and meaning of her life, just as many could see nothing remarkable about the life of her Son. And Mary precedes us all in that same respect. Paul says our life is also hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:3,4). Our outward life may seem very ordinary, but the inner strength of our life is the same as Mary’s. The source of that strength is the One whom Mary bore—the Savior of Bethlehem.

We share so much with Mary. Like her, we are called to be disciples of her Son. When she and Joseph found Jesus in the temple, they both learned more of what being disciples meant. It means giving over to God the Father the things in our lives which are most precious to us. But discipleship is impossible without faith, and Mary’s example of faith calls us to the same commitment. When she said YES to God (Lk 1:38), she called us to faith in Christ by her example. Faith also means walking with God in the dark times when we can’t see where the road ahead is leading. Mary knew that experience by her hidden life. She won no awards and received no acclaim from the world in her day. Yet her hidden life was brimming with importance and power.

Though her life appeared insignificant, her greatest influence came through the suffering she would endure. Simeon’s words in Luke 2:35 call us to the same life as Mary’s—a life of blessing through suffering. And not just any suffering. Her suffering and ours must be united with and flow from the sufferings of Mary’s Son, Mary’s Lord and ours.

We must recognize that while we are like Mary in many ways, she is also unique. The Mother of Jesus became a unique channel of Christ’s bodily presence in the world. Through her body the Son of God, indeed God Himself, took His shape and form. Her eyes, her face, her stature, her blood, her DNA. Whatever natural makeup His body had, it came from this blessed virgin. We can never give to Jesus what Mary gave to Him. She cooperated in God’s plan of salvation in a unique way. We can never give the substance of our bodies to Jesus the way Mary did, but we can do what others around Mary did. We can welcome Jesus into our lives, our world, our businesses, our homes, our schools and our hearts. We can welcome both the Son of God into our lives, and His mother who is blessed above all women (Lk 1:42).

Imagine yourself to be Simeon and you see the salvation of Israel (Lk 2:30,31). Would it have been possible to hail the One who would redeem the world, and not also call His mother blessed among women? Don’t we call them happy, even blessed, who receive great gifts from God? Isn’t Mary then the most blessed person to have ever lived? She received in her own body the greatest gift that anyone has ever received.

Mary is an instrument of the presence of God. She is a tabernacle where the Son of God came to dwell in the midst of His people (cf. John 1:14). We can look at the experience and promise of God’s presence in the Old Testament among the people of Israel because it is there that we learn of God’s yearning to live among His people.

When the people of Israel were in the desert and saw the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night, they bowed down and worshiped the Lord who had come to visit them with His special, local presence (Ex 33: 9,10). The same experience happened at the birth of Jesus. Matthew tells us that the Magi "found the child with Mary his mother." Their response was like that of the ancient Israelites who encountered the presence of God directly. "They fell down and worshiped him" (Mt 2:11). The Magi didn’t simply feel God’s general presence around them. They came to a specific place where God had given His presence in a specific way. They worshiped an infant boy who was God’s presence made specific and local. They did not worship Mary just as the Israelites did not worship the tabernacle itself. But the Magi did honor Mary with their gifts because they recognized that she was the instrument of bringing God’s presence into the world.

Our goal as Christians is to find those places where God manifests His presence in our times, and to go there with the expectation of worshiping Him and of honoring those who are the instruments of His presence. God transforms and unifies His people by giving them His presence. And God’s presence, once it fills the hearts of God’s people, brings unity in their relationships with one another. I believe that if Christians recognized Mary as God’s chosen instrument of unity for Christians, we would see a level of spiritual life and unity among Christians unprecedented in the last four hundred years of western Christianity.

Mary’s Response and Ours
Mary’s response to God’s grace in her life helps us to understand that unity among Christians comes through faith and obedience. Mary is a sign, an indicator of how we must respond to God. What were Mary’s responses? The most justly famous is her response to God’s invitation through Gabriel, "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord. Be it done to me according to your word" (Lk 1:38). With this commitment she showed herself to be Jesus’ mother in both the natural and supernatural orders. It was a response prompted by grace and fulfilled by obedience. And obedience leads to praise. Mary praised her heavenly Father in the Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55) for the salvation that had dawned on the human race. Any parent knows the delight of having a child express thanks for favors done. Mary knew instinctively that the Father in heaven would be pleased with her song of thanksgiving. She wanted to give praise to Him because she wanted to delight His heart.

What moved Mary to obedience and praise? Wasn’t it her contemplative spirit? She constantly "treasured up these words" turning them over in her mind and heart again and again (Lk 2:19, 51). Mary knew, as Paul would later write, that the life of her Son, the Christ, was a mystery (see Col 1:24-2:3 esp. 2:2). Indeed, Christ’s life contained "the mystery that was hidden for ages and generations, but now has been revealed to the saints" (Col 1:26).

Mystery in the Bible is not a five dollar novel but a priceless revelation of the Father’s glory (cf. Jn 1:14-18). Paul calls it a mystery because it is at once revealed and concealed. Concealed to the spiritually obtuse; revealed to those with open hearts.

Since Mary’s life was inseparably bound to Jesus, her life becomes a mystery just like His. In fact, their lives are not two separate mysteries but one grand mystery—the mystery of salvation. Jesus’ life is the saving mystery and Mary was drawn into it by grace. That’s why Mary’s life is a sign of salvation, because her life is drawn into the mystery of her Son’s life. Salvation is to be drawn into the love and power of the Son of God. Christ humbled himself to share in our humanity that we might share His divinity. Mary is a harbinger of our future.

Our response to Mary is indicated by how others around her responded to her extraordinary life. Those responses strike me as compelling because I looked on Mary as little more than the virgin-mother for the first forty years of my life. Mary was simply a biblical fact. Even then I never plumbed the depths of her virginity or maternity. But the responses to Mary in the Bible compel us because they provide wisdom and guidance on how we should respond to God’s extraordinary work in her life. They compel us because they are responses to God’s grace. And what does our salvation depend on? On how we respond to God’s grace and salvation!

No better clue to our response can be found than Elizabeth’s, John the Baptist’s mother. Her spirit-filled words to Mary (cf Lk 1:41) should penetrate every Christian’s heart, "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Lk 1:42). We can scarcely imagine what it would be like for the mother of our Lord to come to our home as she carried God within her womb (Lk 1:43). We can and should be no less amazed than Elizabeth to have Mary in our lives.

Simeon provides a further indicator of the proper response to Mary. For Simeon, the baby in Mary’s arms was "the light of revelation for the Gentiles and the glory of Israel." The old prophet knew that this child was destined for "the falling and rising of many in Israel and a sign to be contradicted" (Lk 2:34). But Simeon also knew that Mary’s future life was so intimately bound to her Son’s that he promised her, under the direct inspiration of the Spirit, that "a sword will also pierce your soul" (Lk 2:35). The future sufferings of Jesus would be so profuse that they would overflow into Mary’s life. Her life would become a mirror of His life. Today, we can look upon Mary as a reflection of Jesus her Son. Mary is our window into the one and only Son of God who alone can unify people torn apart by misunderstanding and prejudice.

But perhaps our most important response to Mary is guided by that of Joseph. It is almost impossible to imagine the puzzlement and pain he must have felt when he learned that his espoused was pregnant (Mt 1:20). Yet Matthew’s account shows clearly how Joseph obediently played the role that divine providence had set for him. In the quiet background, Joseph took his place in the kingdom of God to perform God’s will no less than Mary. And his love for Mary and Jesus flowed from a truly just and holy heart (Mt 1:19). His love for his wife Mary was a perfect picture of Christ’s love for the Church (cf. Eph 5:29). It is the same love we are called to have for Jesus and Mary.

How odd, but your view strikes me as nothing more than rationalizations and falls way short of being any sort of proof.

The Bible we can point to as divinely inspired text from known apostles of Christ. For all these Marian doctrines, is their a person whom Catholics point to that this was divinely revealed too? From my limited knowledge, it just appears to be an evolving doctrine over the centuries that has just fairly recently (1800's) been accepted as official doctrine. Catholics point these as being accepted by the 'early church', whatever that means. To me the 'early church' was that of the apostles, not some 2nd to 4th century Church where much of this seem to have its roots from. It is nice that it is old, but there was a lot of bad doctrine created in the early centuries.

I find it hard to believe that old languages did not have words for brothers and sisters. The terms for brothers and sisters may be loosely used for other things, like is quite common in the black community today, but it is a leap to assume that was their usage. Basing entirely man made doctrines that rely on questionable interpretations of text to avoid conflict is not something I would be comfortable with. It appears that Joseph and Mary were married and had children. If Catholics want to believe otherwise, that’s fine. Just don’t let it get to the point where Mary is a divine figure, which I dare say there are some who do.

Catholics made up about Mary

We did not make anything up. Some of these things are not in recorded scripture, but our Church produced the scripture from the Holy Tradition, which always maintained these things -- they are the knowledge that the Apostles had.

My question was whether 1-4, or anything else in Catholic mariology contradicts scripture. I did not ask if anything is bypassed by scripture. Some is, and some isn't. From that perspective, let me explain 1-4.

1. Mary was conceived of a virgin. The Bible indicates only Jesus was born perfect and sinless.

You probably mean, Mary was conceived free from original sin. We do not teach that she was born of a virgin. She was conceived and born naturally from Joachim and Anna. The Bible does not say that only Jesus was born perfect and sinless, -- you made it up.

2. Mary remained a perpetual virgin.

The Bible allows one to conclude that Joseph and Mary had spousal relations, and it allows one to conclude that they did not. You are familiar, it seems, with the fact that the brothers of the Lord are just as likely to be His cousins, second cousins, and half brothers. It is not my problem that you consider it far fetched. Joseph is, of course, Jesus's adoptive father and to the outside world during His ministry Joseph wa sknown as His natural father also.

assumption of Mary or Mary being the co-redeemer

Both are biblical: Mary is described in heaven waging a battle in Apoc. 12. Mary is of course, a necessary, recorded in the Gospels, instrument of the Incarnation and therefore of salvation.

4. Mother of God/Heaven vs. Mother of Jesus. In my view,...

We are not discussing your views.

>> We can debate the meaning of the woman in Revelation 12 endlessly without coming to agreement on the point. Those who believe the woman is Covenant Israel have strong support from OT prophesy (Genesis 37). <<

Why is it that so many people interpret prophecies in such a way as to say, “No, it can’t mean A because it means B!”? The woman in Revelations is plainly the mother of Christ. That she is described in ways one might describe all of Israel is only a further glorification of her role as mother of Christ. And all of covenant Israel shares in the glory of her role. She is the ends to which the entirety of Old Testament history was directed: the bearing of Christ into the world.

As for a command, how’s this one:

“From age to age, all generations SHALL call me blessed.” Not, “will,” but “shall.” Ask a lawyer what “shall” means.

but our Church produced the scripture from the Holy Tradition, which always maintained these things -- they are the knowledge that the Apostles had.

Which is an assumption on Catholics part. There is nothing that shows the Apostles had any knowledge of today's Marian doctrines. To protestants there are enough apparent conflicts with the Bible not to accept Holy Traditions. You can choose to hold Holy Traditions equivalent to the Holy Bible and adjust your interpretations of the Bible to fit. Protestants choose to put the Holy Bible above Holy Traditions and discount traditions that don't seem to match up. We are never going to resolve these differences, and personally I believe time is better spent on other things. It is an interesting topic, but I don't see it as God's will that we get consumed over these differences. I appreciate your concern that you believe you must change Protestants, but I think your effort is misguided.

No one says that Mary herself was conceived of a virgin. Her parents are Joachim and Anne. I think you are getting the doctirne of the Immaculate Conception (Christ’s redemptive salvation applied outside of time) confused with basic biology.

Jesus was conceived by a virgin. Because the Bible says so. That’s the only one I’m aware of.

There is nothing that shows the Apostles had any knowledge of today's Marian doctrines

Why, there is sufficient scriptural evidence that St. Luke and St. John at least were firsthand familiar with the life of Our Lady; we know from scripture that she was with the other apostles as well at Pentecost. St. Justin Martyr (early 2c) offers the cornerstone of all orthodox mariology -- the symmetry between Mary and Eve -- which only works if Mary is completely free from sin. If the Holy Tradition did not supply that knowledge to St. Justin, he had no reason to invent it and risk someone proving him wrong.

We are never going to resolve these differences

Thousands of converts from Protestantism each Easter prove otherwise.

Immaculate conception means that Mary was conceived free from original sin. Before I am accused of overstating the case, the Immaculate Conception doctrine was formulated with such precision late, in 19c. to be precise.

The historical belief of the Catholic and Orthodox Church of the seven ecumentical councils, held unchanged today by the Orthodox is that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived and remained virgin following His birth and was free from all sin all her life. However, the historical Church did not specify with precision at what moment exactly Mary was free from all sin, because the concept of Original sin was not universally held with such precision as it is held now in the West, at that time. Once the concept of original sin — a sinful predisposition inherited from Adam and present from conception in all men — has been developed in the West, Immaculate Conception became a logically necessary refinement of the historical belief in sinlessless of Mary.

The practice of the Church — since the Pentecost till today — is that doctrines are formulated when a controversy about them arises but not sooner. The fact that a doctrine was proclaimed at a given time, say in 19c does not mean that the doctrine was something made up or innovated at that time. In fact, churches were dedicated to the immaculate conception in the West way before the 1st Vatican council, — it had been a belief of the Church all along in some inchoate form.

I never read a convincing Protestant conversion story. The template is always

— The Catholic Church does not teach from scripture
— I was told that rituals and rules save me
— Now I have a personal relationship with Jesus and read the Bible.

A well-informed Catholic will never say such dreck. Sure people leave: the Church is an early-medieval countercultural, terribly demanding institution, while Protestantism caters to the modern middle class with utter servility.

But my point was much simpler than that — you said that the Church cannot change people’s minds and the presence of informed converts demonstrates otherwise.

I never read a convincing Protestant conversion story.

Because it is not a big issue to Protestants. As far as who is 'well informed' and what is 'dreck', that is nothing but your biased opinion and only serves to be inflammatory. As far as me saying 'the Church cannot change people's minds', I never said that. I just don't see fights between denominations or Catholics vs. Protestants as being God's will. I view us all as brothers and sisters in Christ, and most of the differences we bicker over mean little to God.

Mother of God/Heaven vs. Mother of Jesus. In my view, Mother of God and other titles Catholics want to put on Mary, implies much more than what is in the Bible. Using the concept of trinity does not mean the terms God and Jesus are completely interchangeable. When you do, it establishes conflict.

Is the person Jesus God incarnate, or is he something less?

The people who originally rejected "Mother of God" (or its Greek equivalent, Theotokos), thought Jesus was something less than God incarnate. Do you agree with them?

Why certain people may have rejected term “Mother of God” hundreds of years ago is of no concern to me nor does it have any relevance to me. Jesus was the manifestation of God in the flesh, and that is who specifically the Bible calls Mary the mother of. The Bible does not refer to Mary as the Mother of God or the Queen of Heaven or any of the other Godlike titles Catholics like to give to Mary. God and the Son existed long before Mary, and to call Mary Mother of God needless confuses things.

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.