Reflections on Mary’s office in the Gospels. Sixth chapter of the book The Bible and Jehovah’s Witnesses
a) Mary is a mother
“You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus” (Lk 1:31).
The Virgin of Nazareth, betrothed to Joseph, whose name was Mary, appears for the first time in salvation history at the moment when she begins to be a mother. The Bible tells us nothing of her earlier history, although some information has reached us through tradition and the apocryphal gospels. Everything that came before disappears before the extraordinary fact that Mary, blessed among women, has been chosen to carry in her womb the Son of the Most High (Lk 1:32).
The “Gnostics” of the first centuries regarded Christ’s body as having fallen from heaven, formed directly by the hands of God. The “Docetists” spoke of Christ’s humanity as mere appearance. But that is not the teaching of the Gospels. Saint Paul speaks of Jesus as “born of woman” (Gal 4:4), born of the line of David (Rom 1:3). The angel told Mary that she would conceive in her own womb and give birth to a son (Lk 1:31). Mary’s motherhood, as far as she herself is concerned, is no different from the motherhood of any other woman. It differs—as we shall see later—in the absence of a male principle.
b) Mary is Mother of God
No one can think that God (the eternal one, the uncreated one, the creator of all that exists) has a mother from whom he received life and existence. We cannot imagine God depending on another being.
But Jesus, the son of Mary, who received human life from her, is at the same time the Son of God, equal in all things to the Father. The Son of God is truly the son of Mary. The son of Mary is truly the Son of God. That is the mystery of the Incarnation of a God who wished to become man.
Jesus, the son of Mary, is one unique and indivisible Person who has taken human nature to himself. His actions, both human and divine, belong to the same “I”. With equal truth he can say: “I am the eternal Son of God, who existed before Abraham existed” or “I am the son of Mary, born in Bethlehem”.
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and cried out with a loud voice: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the child in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord. And Mary said: My soul magnifies the Lord” (Lk 1:41-46).
We could note in this text:
-Elizabeth proclaims this blessing “filled with the Holy Spirit”. We could interpret this by saying that Elizabeth’s words are a true act of faith.
-Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, unites Mary and the child she bears in her womb in one single blessing.
-Mary’s greeting brings joy and salvation to Elizabeth and to the child she is carrying.
-Mary has believed the word of the Lord, that is, the word addressed to her by Gabriel, sent by God (Lk 1:26).
-The word “Lord” is repeated three times.
The Lord who has spoken to Mary is God. The Lord whose greatness Mary proclaims is God. For this same reason, “the mother of my Lord” may be translated: “the mother of my God”.
The New World Translation [or “Witnesses’ Bible”] says:
“Elizabeth was filled with holy spirit, and she loudly called out and said: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. So how is it that this privilege is mine, to have the mother of my Lord come to me? For look! as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped with great gladness. Happy too is she who believed, because there will be a complete fulfillment of those things spoken to her from Jehovah. And Mary said: My soul magnifies Jehovah…”
In the Greek text, the word “Lord” all three times is Kyrios. It is not correct for one and the same word, in the same context, to be translated differently.
c) Mary is a virgin mother
Max Thurian, a Protestant theologian of the Taizé community and later a Catholic priest, writes these words in his work “Mary, Mother of the Lord and Figure of the Church”:
The clear precision of Saint Matthew (1:18-25) and Saint Luke (1:27, 34-35), and the apparently more coherent version of Saint John (1:13), oblige authentic Christian faith to confess Mary’s virginity before the birth of Christ. The denial of this virginity frequently proceeds from non-theological motives, and Protestant theologians who have sometimes called into question Mary’s virginity in the conception of Jesus can hardly invoke the Reformation’s traditional fidelity to Sacred Scripture. For, being unfaithful to the sacred text on this point, how can they reproach theologians of other Churches for their unfaithfulness on other points?
Isaiah (7:14) had announced:
“Behold: the virgin is with child and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel (which means God-with-us).”
We do not know to what extent the prophet was conscious of the scope of these words, nor what his hearers may have understood. We do know that in Judaism the idea of a virginal birth of the Messiah is not found. Nor did Mary have plans in this direction, as follows from the fact that she was betrothed to Joseph and from the very question she addressed to the angel at the Annunciation: “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” Precisely for this reason Isaiah’s words shine with greater splendor, and Matthew notes their fulfillment (1:22-23): “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.”
The Christian Church’s recognition of Mary’s virginal motherhood, however, is not based on the veiled words of a prophecy, but on the unequivocal words of the heavenly messenger sent to the virgin: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Lk 1:35). This is confirmed in the parallel message transmitted by Matthew: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20).
Shortly before this Matthew himself had said (1:18): “The birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way: when Mary his mother had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.”
Only the intransigent stance of Jews, of Ebionites or of Cerinthus; only the destructive zeal of liberal theology; only the pansexualist obsession of our days could cast doubt on, or openly deny, the clarity of these testimonies regarding the virginal conception of Jesus. Against all of them, the unwavering faith of the Church, throughout twenty centuries, has maintained and taught the virginal conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb; therefore, Mary’s virginal motherhood.
Why does Joseph—being righteous—wish to leave her? Not because he doubts her fidelity in the betrothal, but because, knowing through Mary’s confidences the consecration with which God has distinguished her, he wishes to respect that divine election.
Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
The Gospel, which speaks so clearly of the virginal conception of Jesus, is not as explicit when it deals with Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ: her perpetual virginity. Nor should this surprise us, for Christ is truly the protagonist of the Gospel, so that Mary remains in the background.
Having explicitly affirmed the virginal birth of Jesus, the Gospel is not so directly interested in what later happened with Mary.
We can nevertheless affirm that the constant faith of the Christian Church affirms Mary’s perpetual virginity. Very frequently we find in the Liturgy this expression: “ever-Virgin Mary”. We can also affirm that the reasons usually adduced to deny Mary’s permanent virginity have no real consistency.
The texts usually adduced are these:
-Mt 1:25: “Joseph did not know her until she had borne her son”
This would be a literal translation of the Greek. We must keep in mind:
a) “To know” is a frequent biblical expression referring to sexual relations.
b) The Greek particle “until” (= heos) indicates that until then he had not known her; it says nothing about what may have happened later. Gen 8 may serve as an example: “Noah sent out a raven to see whether the waters had subsided; the raven did not return until the waters had dried up from the earth.” This does not mean that it returned afterwards; simply that it did not serve him as a messenger, and therefore he had to release a dove. 2 Sam 6:23: “Michal, daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death.” The expression is equivalent to saying that she had no more children.
Accordingly, a correct translation would be:
“Without his having had relations with her, she gave birth to a son.”
The New World Translation says: “But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son.”
-Lk 2:7: “The time came for her to give birth, and she gave birth to her firstborn son.”
The argument is made: if he was the firstborn son (the first), it means that later she had others.
The expression “firstborn son” means that he is the first to be born. It says nothing about whether others are born later or not.
We can confirm this with these reflections:
The firstborn son had to be offered to the Lord forty days after birth, as prescribed in the Law of Moses (Lk 2:22-24). It is evident that forty days after childbirth a mother cannot know whether she will have more children or not; she only knows that before this one no other has been born, and for that reason he is the firstborn.
Both in Mosaic legislation and in any other legislation, the “rights of the firstborn” apply as much to an only son as to the first among many brothers.
d) The brothers of Jesus
The New Testament often speaks of the brothers of Jesus, citing four names in particular: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. The texts are these:
Mt 12:46; 13:55
Mk 3:31; 6:3
Lk 8:19
Jn 2:12; 7:3-5
Acts 1:14
1 Cor 9:5.
Faced with these texts we can make the following reflections:
-these “brothers of Jesus” are never called “sons of Mary”,
-of some of them we are told who their mother was: “At the foot of the cross were, together with the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph” (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40). John calls this Mary “Mary of Clopas” (Jn 19:25). From the first centuries (already John Chrysostom) Clopas has been identified with Alphaeus. Matthew (10:3) says that James was the son of Alphaeus. Their parents, then, are neither Joseph nor Mary the mother of Jesus. Jude was the brother of James (Lk 6:16; Jude 1). According to these data, James, Joseph, and Jude (three of the so-called “brothers of Jesus”) are sons of Alphaeus and of Mary of Clopas.
-If any of them had been Mary’s son, why does Jesus at the moment of death ask John to take charge of his mother?
-The word “brother”, both in the language of the Bible and in our family language, has very diverse meanings:
those born of the same parents,
those who belong to the same religion,
those who are from the same country,
all men…
Let us look at some examples from the Bible:
-Abraham was Lot’s blood uncle, Lot being born of a brother (Gen 11:27; 12:5). Nevertheless, he calls him brother (Gen 14:16).
-Bethuel is the father of Laban and Rebekah (Gen 28:2). Laban is the father of Rachel (Gen 29:10), and Rebekah is the mother of Jacob (28:5). Therefore Jacob is Laban’s blood nephew and Rachel’s first cousin. Nevertheless, we read: Laban, brother of Rebekah (= blood brother) (28:5). Jacob, brother of Laban (= nephew) (29:11-12,15).
There is, therefore, no serious reason that obliges us to abandon the traditional faith of the Church regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity.
e) Conceived without sin and assumed into heaven
Jehovah’s Witnesses say:
The Bible itself says: “Now through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so death spread to all mankind because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). Does this include Mary? The Bible reports that, in conformity with the requirement of the Law of Moses, forty days after Jesus’ birth Mary offered in the temple of Jerusalem an offering for sin for purification from uncleanness. She too had inherited sin and imperfection from Adam (Lk 2:22-24; Lev 12:1-8).
The Bible itself says: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of heaven; nor does corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus said that “God is spirit”. When Jesus rose, he became spirit again, now “a life-giving spirit”. The angels are spirits (Jn 4:24; 1 Cor 15:45; Heb 1:13-14). Where is the biblical basis for saying that someone would attain heavenly life in a body that requires the physical environment of the earth to sustain itself?
When we speak of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, without original sin, and of her glorious Assumption body and soul into heaven, we are speaking of two privileges that God granted to Mary. That is, we know the universal law of sin that affects all human beings by the mere fact of belonging to the human race; and we know that all human beings will rise at the end of time (1 Cor 15:12-28; 1 Thess 4:15-18). That is the universal law affecting all human beings. Nevertheless, we believe that God granted Mary the privilege of excepting her from the general law: she was conceived without sin, and was assumed into heaven immediately after death.
We also know that the general law requires the participation of a man for the generation of a new life. And Mary was excepted from this general law, conceiving Jesus in a virginal manner.
The Catholic Church considers these to be two exceptional privileges of God in favor of Mary. The expressions usually used are: “by a singular privilege of God”, “in view of the merits of Christ”.
The question is asked: “what biblical basis does it have?” In the background lies the idea that only the Bible is a source of revelation.
In chapter 1 (“Approach to the Bible”), we tried to show—following the Second Vatican Council—that the Bible must be understood in the context of the living tradition of the Church. If we tried to remain with the Bible alone as the norm of faith, we would reach the absurdity of having to renounce the Bible itself, since none of its pages tells us which books are inspired by God. From the living tradition of the Church we have received that treasure which is Sacred Scripture.
The privilege of the Immaculate Conception is found in the living tradition of the Church. And it is in perfect harmony with the exceptional name that Mary receives from the mouth of the angel: “full of grace” (Lk 1:28). Full of grace because God poured out in her, in superabundant fashion, all his love, to the point that in her there was never found the slightest shadow of sin, not even at the moment of her conception. By that fullness of grace, her kinswoman Elizabeth can say to her: “blessed are you among all women”. And, uniting mother and son in one same blessing, she adds: “and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk 1:42).
Mary’s victory over sin—as a privilege and anticipation of the merits of Christ—also makes her victorious over the consequences of sin, especially over death, through the resurrection and Assumption into heaven. This privilege too is not explicitly taught in the pages of the Bible; but it is not in contradiction with them; rather, it is in perfect harmony with what the Gospel says about Mary. And this has been, from the earliest times, the living tradition of the Church.
