Veneration of Mary in Luke 11:27-28

August 15, 2013 | Annalex

[annalex]

Once a woman in the crowd surrounding Christ and His disciples cries out to Him:

Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. (Luke 11:27)

What is it? We have, clearly, an act of venerating Mary. Note that the Blessed Virgin is venerated properly: not on her own but as the mother of Christ. Yet the reason for venerating is indeed concerning: it is her physiological and physiologically unique relationship with Jesus that is emphasized. That is not yet paganism with its crude theories of gods giving birth to other gods, but it is lacking proper focus and Jesus corrects it:

Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:28)

The Virgin with the Child on her knees and a prophet pointing at the star. Catacomb of Priscilla, late 2nd c. Source

Note that there is no condemnation here, not even asking the woman to stop; the "yea rather" (μενουνγε) is not a negation. It is used other times in the New Testament without a hint of negation. In Philippians 3:8 "αλλα μενουνγε και ηγουμαι παντα ζημιαν ειναι", "Furthermore I count all things to be but loss" (Textus Receptus 1550/1894, Byzantine/Majority Text 2000 has here "αλλα μεν ουν και ηγουμαι…" which is the same word morphology spelled separately and colliding affirmative "γε" with the following "και"). Romans 9:20 "μενουνγε ω ανθρωπε συ τις ει ο ανταποκρινομενος τω θεω" and Romans 10:18 "μενουνγε εις πασαν την γην εξηλθεν ο φθογγος αυτων" use the word reinforcing the subsequent statement. Some translations obscure this linguistic fact: in King James for example, the same word is rendered correctly, "yea rather" in Luke 11:28, wholly incongruously, "nay but" in Romans 9:20, but in Romans 10:18 the translation is again correct, "Yes verily". NRSV has both correct and elegant translations for all three. (See The Holy Mother and the "ΜΕΝΟΥΝΓΕ")

Having gotten past this linguistic hurdle, we can understand clearly what this passage, Luke 11:27-28, does: it establishes veneration of saints based not on their blood relation to Christ but on their obedience to God. It is in that sense that we venerate Our Lady: given that Christ is the Word of God personified, she heard and kept both Him in person as her Child and His teaching, figuratively. In Mary the essence of sainthood is seen in the flesh as well as in the mind. We could say that by the late second century at the latest, when we find evidence of the veneration of both the prophets and the Mother of God in the catacombs, the two reasons to venerate a saint: his martyrdom as in the case of Polycarp, or his obedience to the Word, as in Mary, -- unite into a single practice.

[CynicalBear]

Well, here’s another question. Did God die on that cross?

[CynicalBear]

>> This is why I, too, explain the Holy Scripture in the light of the Church teachings<<

So please “explain the Holy Scripture” as it pertains to the assumption of Mary.

[metmom]

Well, here’s another question. Did God die on that cross?

Well, if the argument goes.....Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore Mary is the mother of God.

Then one could make the argument that ....

Jesus died on the cross. Jesus is God. Therefore, God died on the cross.

[annalex]

Thank you for interesting questions.

Yes, your understanding of the Catholic reasoning is correct. Except that we can separate man from God in Jesus when we examine a particular verse, such as for example when Jesus asks a question, while as God He does not need to ask in order to know.

how is it that God had to give Jesus, who is already God “not the Spirit by measure”?

The Catena Aurea lists not one but three answers all in consensus:

CHRYS. By Spirit here is meant the operation of the Holy Spirit. He wishes to show that all of us have received the operation of the Spirit by measure, but that Christ contains within Himself the whole operation of the Spirit. How then shall He be suspected, Who said nothing, but what is from God, and the Spirit? For He makes no mention yet of God the Word, but rests His doctrine on the authority of the Father and the Spirit. For men knew that there was God, and knew that there was the Spirit, (although they had not right belief about His nature;) but that there was the Son they did not know.

AUG. Having said of the Son, God gives not the Spirit by measure to Him; he adds, The Father loves the Son, and farther adds, and has given all things into His hand; in order to show that the Father loves the Son, in a peculiar sense. For the Father loves John, and Paul, and yet has not given all things into their hands. But the Father loves the Son, as the Son, not as a master his servant: as an only, not as an adopted, Son. Wherefore He has given all things into His hand; so that, as great as the Father is, so great is the Son; let us not think then that, because He has deigned to send the Son, any one inferior to the Father has been sent.

THEOPHYL. The Father then has given all things to the Son in respect of His divinity; of right, not of grace. Or; He has given all things into His hand, in respect of His humanity: inasmuch as He is made Lord of all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth.

Did God die on that cross?

The entire Second Person of the Holy Trinity Jesus Christ died, yes. God died on the Cross.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“He was not created by Mary. In fact no child is created by his mother, but rather by God. Jesus was given certain personal aspects by Mary, as any child receives his personality partly from his mother. Jesus certainly did not receive His divinity from Mary, for Mary could not give what she did not possess.”

---

Then you should not have said that she was the mother of a “Divine person,” or made the point that she is not the mother of the Trinity because she was not the mother of the Father and Holy Spirit (though your religion does call her the “spouse” of the Father) since to say so makes her the mother of the eternal Son of God, and not rather the human body of the Son of God. To say that she was the mother of both His divinity and humanity is to make the second member of the trinity a created being. This is, truly, a heresy for you to speak, though no doubt caused by your confused language.

Furthermore, this nonsense about Mary giving birth to a “dead body” or the like. It is quite clear that Mary did not create the Word of God, who was rather incarnated in flesh, and yet always existed and is only the “son of Mary” in his human nature, not His divine, as you concede.

[CynicalBear]

>>but that Christ contains within Himself the whole operation of the Spirit.<<

No, no, no. Here’s the verse again.

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

Note that word giveth. So God gave Jesus the Spirit without measure. In order for your logic to hold Jesus could then not have been eternally coexistent with the Father.

>> The Father loves the Son, and farther adds, and has given all things into His hand; in order to show that the Father loves the Son, in a peculiar sense.<<

So here again. Jesus was not coeternal and equal with the Father ey? At some point the Father is greater than the Son in order to have given Him. Is that what you believe? >> The Father then has given all things to the Son in respect of His divinity; of right, not of grace.<<

Well, that’s three for three. The second person of the trinity had to be given the Spirit by the first person of the trinity.

I thought Catholics believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coeternal and equal. How then is it that the second person of the trinity needs to be given something by the first person of the trinity.?

>> God died on the Cross.<<

So Catholics believe that God can die!!! Wow.

I’m going to save that post. The second person of the trinity is secondary to the first person of the trinity and God can die. Amazing beliefs to say the least.

[metmom]

Gamecock.......

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Amazing beliefs to say the least.” <<

.
Just when you thought that you had them figgerd out, anallex comes through!

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Well, here’s another question. Did God die on that cross?”

---

Certainly, as Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, we most conclude that God died on the cross. But death in this sense is merely the separation of the soul from the body, and is not the destruction of any thing such as Christ’s divinity, or the destruction of the sinner’s souls who go to hell, though they do not lose their existence but suffer eternally.

Christ is “given” the Spirit without measure insomuch that Christ, as truly God, chose to subject Himself totally to the Father and live the perfect human life. While He is God, and “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Php 2:6-8)

Thus there is no contradiction with Christ, who is God, who yet subjects Himself to the Father and performs miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, and this without measure as any of the Prophets of old.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “in Luke 1:43 she is called “the mother of my Lord”, which is the biblical word for God throughout the Bible.” <<

.
No, that is not correct.

The convention in English Bibles is that when the reference is to YHVH, then it is rendered “LORD,” but Lord is not a reference to God, but simply equivalent to “master” or “leader.”

[CynicalBear]

>>Certainly, as Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, we most conclude that God died on the cross.<<

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

---

The word “immortal” is aphthartos, which means undecaying or incorruptible. In other words, eternal, which Christ is. Though Christ died as a man, certainly His divine nature did not cease to exist. And even the body itself did not see the corruption of decay.

Psa_16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

[annalex]

To say that she was the mother of both His divinity and humanity is to make the second member of the trinity a created being

No, that Mary is the Mother of God does not make her creator of God. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[annalex]

Caww asked me not to ping him/her. You should have the consideration not to include Caww in your posts to me.

Note especially St. Augustine and Theophilactus who makes the distinction clear: "Wherefore He has given all things into His hand; so that, as great as the Father is, so great is the Son", and "The Father then has given all things to the Son in respect of His divinity; of right, not of grace". No different than when a royal heir is born, he has the royal quality already, at birth (I am speaking of a human king and prince), not at the death of the living monarch, and so Christ had the operation of the Spirit eternally, not from a certain point onward.

I thought Catholics believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coeternal and equal.

Coeternal, yes. However the Father begets the Son and through Him he spirates the Holy Spirit, so there are still relations between the Persons of the Holy Trinity that distinguish them. Are you familiar with the Nicene Creed in any form?

I would advise you and any Protestant not to get too deep into the mystical aspect of the Holy Trinity. You religion is based on crudity of thought. Do not go there before you become Catholic and gain the indwelling of the Holy Ghost yourself.

[annalex]

But death in this sense is merely the separation of the soul from the body, and is not the destruction of any thing such as Christ’s divinity

Any death, your and mine also is "merely" separation of soul from the body; this is why we pray to saints.

Thank you for your support on this point though: indeed for God to redeem is He indeed took human form and Christ died wholly, the entire Divine Person.

[annalex]

when the reference is to YHVH, then it is rendered “LORD,” but Lord is not a reference to God, but simply equivalent to “master” or “leader.”

Luke's Gospel is written in Greek, where no similar distinction can be made.

η μητηρ του κυριου(Luke 1:43)

Searching for κυριος in the Septuagint yields:

και εφυτευσεν κυριος ο θεος παραδεισον (Genesis 2:8), and in that vein a couple of hundred references in Genesis alone.

And how do you imagine Elizabeth had her niece's baby for a "leader"?

[metmom]

Caww asked me not to ping him/her. You should have the consideration not to include Caww in your posts to me.

What????

She doesn't want YOU pinging her so WE need to stop including her in our pings?????

Grow up. Quit your blame-shifting.

Man up and remove her name from your ping list. If you can copy and paste, you can simply highlight and delete.

[Elsie]

bump

[editor-surveyor]

None of the gospels were ORIGINALLY written in Greek. Yeshua didn’t address his own in any but their own native language.

Anyway, the convention was upheld by the english translators, regardless of what language they translated from. Had the reference been to “God,” it would have been rendered LORD. Elizabeth clearly refered to her Messiah,which would not have been taken as equivalent to God by a Hebrew.

These are not difficult concepts to those familiar with the word.