The Secret Thoughts of Many: Part 3
15 minutes
Part 3: The Hiddenness of Mary
Three Considerations
There remains before us three distinct but related questions: 1) Why are the truths about Mary hidden in Scripture, 2) What response can be made to passages that on their face seem to contradict these truths, and 3) By what authority can the Church determine which theological developments express true doctrine?
Regarding 2 above, let us further subdivide it: There are passages in Scripture that a) seem to contradict the basis of traditional Marian doctrine, or b) seem at odds with the spirit of those teachings. Now answering “a” objections is not especially difficult, but it is tedious, as it requires the kind of exegetical and lexical asides which, though necessary to determine the literal sense of Scripture, tend also to detract from the main argument, and threaten to “kill the spirit by the letter” (2 Corinthians 3:6). This long essay is meant to be a holistic meditation on Mary in relation to Christ, not an apologetics essay where the totality and weight of truth is lost in the reductionism of proof-texting. For that reason, I’ll simply link to a few places where the relevant proof texts and analysis can be found.
Along those lines, we have first to consider those passages that seem to deny Mary’s perpetual virginity by speaking of Jesus being Mary’s “firstborn” (as if there was a second,) of Mary and Joseph not having relations “until” Jesus was born, and of various “brothers and sisters” of Jesus. This article does a fairly good job of showing that the use of the Greek heos hou (until/until then) does not always require a change of state (Matthew 1:25; Acts 25:21), and it also shows by comparing Scriptures that at least some of the men listed as “brothers of Jesus” were not actually Mary’s children. This article contains a more extensive section on the Biblical use of the term “firstborn,” and includes a reference to an ancient Jewish tomb of a woman who died in childbirth (and thus had no other children) but whose only child is referred to as “firstborn,” despite there being no “second born,” etc., (thus demonstrating that ancient Jews used “firstborn” in the legal/Mosaic sense regardless of any subsequent children.) As I mentioned in Part 1, it is not ultimately possible to have certainty about this matter from “Scripture alone” if by that phrase we mean by pure exegesis. Still I think it’s significant that a surface reading of certain passages can give the impression that Mary had other children, while a deeper analysis renders that reading far less tenable.
And what about “b” passages that seem to downplay Marian devotion, or even to rebuke Mary? Let’s take a more careful look at those, and see if they can possibly mean what some people think they mean:
“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God, and keep it!” (Luke 11:27-28; emphasis mine)
and:
But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matt 12:48-50)
and:
When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:3-4)
Let’s start with Luke 11:27-28. According to some people, in this passage a woman (maybe a proto-Catholic!) is falling prey to the natural human feeling that she ought to venerate the very body of the woman who gave birth to and suckled Christ. Our Lord, perhaps foreseeing the coming error of “Mariolatry,” takes this moment to nip it in the bud. “No, dear lady,” He seems to say, “my mother is not especially blessed because she’s my physical mother. She doesn’t merit unique attention over that. It’s the fact that she hears the word of God, and keeps it.” That last sentence is of course true, but is it the whole truth?
Consider that the very same Gospel includes effusive praise for Mary, and specifically refers to her as “blessed”. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth tells us that she is blessed among all women, while Mary (again under divine inspiration) says that all generations will call her blessed. Are we then to conclude that Luke, who is also writing under divine inspiration, means to portray Jesus as correcting the Holy Spirit’s earlier statements? Obviously, that cannot be the case. Truth cannot contradict truth. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity cannot correct the Third. We were specifically told in those passages that Mary is especially blessed, and that, in comparison to other women, because she both believed (1:45) and carries (1:42) the Lord. It therefore makes no sense to read Jesus as actually contradicting or even correcting the woman’s sentiment in Luke 8. Yet I’ll concede that here, and in the passage I cited below it (Matthew 12:48-50) He does seem to be redirecting His interlocutor. Are there other examples of Jesus redirecting His listeners, even when they speak the truth? I’ll return to this question in a moment.
Turning to John 2, Protestants can be forgiven for mistaking Christ’s words here for a rebuke; several of the Church Fathers read it that way as well. Yet, once again, careful reading – reading in light of all the data – will not sustain that interpretation. Even if you prefer the “O woman, how does this concern of yours affect me?” translation, the statement cannot be read as a rebuke when we consider what Jesus says next: “My hour has not yet come.” When Jesus refers to His “hour,” (see Matthew 26:18, for example) He is speaking of the hour of His passion and death. But the wedding happens at the beginning of His public ministry, three years before His passion and death. There’s more going on here than what’s obvious on the surface. To grasp it, we need to go back about eighteen years.
When He was twelve, Our Lord stayed behind in Jerusalem. For a period of three days, He was lost to His parents. When they finally found him, they were naturally perplexed and distressed. Here is the full dialog:
And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. (Luke 2:48-51)
Let’s look at this passage closely. Notice that Jesus went missing for three days (v. 46,) causing His mother intense distress. When she tells Him as much, His response appears almost rude. Instead of offering her comfort, He challenges her to look deeper. Doesn’t she already know where she should find Him? Doesn’t she know that all is as it must be, and that all will be well?
What we see here is not an example of the Child Jesus being sassy to His mother. (Again, we have to interpret Jesus’ behavior in light of what we know of His identity.) Instead, the whole incident, the three days He went missing, the terrible anxiety Mary and Joseph endured, their agonized search for Him, has a very serious purpose. Christ was teaching His mother, forming her in her unique mission, preparing her for that terrible moment, His “hour,” when her “own heart will be pierced as well.” Someday he’ll go “missing” for another three days, and then she’ll experience a pain of loss, an anxiety, a psychological torment to which losing the Child Jesus pales in comparison. That is why we’re told that Mary “kept all these things in her heart.” She is always learning. He is teaching her.
Fast forward to the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and we see that Mary now has a very clear sense of Christ’s mission. Though up until now He has never performed a (public) miracle, she does not hesitate to ask Him for one. Now either Christ told her that His ministry would involve miracles, or (more impressively) He did not tell her, and she simply knew that being God, He could and would perform them if He wanted to, and as the Prophets said He would. Either way, Christ cannot possibly be saying, “The hour of my miracles hasn’t come,” for this would make no sense given the plethora of miracles He’s about to perform in the coming days, and which we know are an essential part of His public ministry.
Instead, we see here evidence of a dialog between Mary and Jesus about something bigger: His mission, and hers. Can it be an accident that John later places her at the foot of the Cross to be formally given the mission to be a mother of His spiritual brothers? Can we fail to notice that water being turned into wine at a wedding images the Church, and that the water and blood (His bride, the Church) that later poured from His side signifies Eve’s birth from the side of the New Adam? In light of these considerations, the real conversation, the subtext of the interaction between Jesus and Mary at the Wedding of Cana becomes much more interesting. Looking at all of Scripture, I read it as being something like the following:
Mary: Son, I see a chance for you to show forth your love. Behold, here is a little need which is a big need.
Jesus: Woman, your work of giving birth to my brothers, of petitioning the Holy Spirit to pour out my power upon them, begins at the foot of the Cross. But my hour has not yet come. Are you so eager to begin?
Mary: I am the handmaid of the Lord, and I surrender to your will, whatever it is. But I also know that every holy desire of the human heart comes from the depths of your Divine heart. And I know the secret of that beautiful heart, and how it cannot turn away from any good thing asked in faith. Let it begin, then, if that is your will.
Now I can just imagine the fury of those readers who think that I am “adding” to Scripture with this little meta-dialog. But I am not adding to Scripture. I am following the example of the saints and Fathers who, when meditating on Scripture, placed themselves in the scene, and reflected on it in light of all of their knowledge about all the Scriptures. I am not imitating the reductionist methods of those who read every passage in isolation, and who think that by doing so they are “sticking to the text,” even though neither the Apostles nor the Fathers of the Church read the Bible in that narrow way. In Part 2 I detailed how Christ insisted that people read Scripture, including the Mosaic Law, in light of heart of God, and of the whole tradition of Israel. And this brings up another point:
Some passages about Mary – and about Christ – give a false impression when read in isolation, or only at surface level. “Why do you call me good? Only God is good?” says Christ to the Rich Young Man. “Is it not written, you are gods?” says Christ to an unreceptive audience who asks Him directly about His divinity. Through suffering, Christ was “made perfect” and “learned obedience,” and so on. In another place, Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I.” And no Christian who knows Scripture and basic Christian doctrine is misled by these, or many other passages, which, read in isolation, seem to contradict important truths. Even “Bible Christians” are operating within a doctrinal tradition that gives them context, a reason to look beyond the surface, and to explore different senses of terms, when that is what the situation calls for.
Turning to Mary then, we should not be surprised that certain passages can be quoted in isolation to suggest she’s not that important, even while other passages, in the very same Gospels, tell us that she is. But to emphasize the former and ignore the latter makes no sense, even considered on purely exegetical grounds. It makes even less sense in light of the broader interpretive context provided by actual Christian belief, as evidenced by Mary’s exalted place in the writings of the most important Church Fathers. Still, in Scripture Christ always had His reasons for exercising discretion when someone was either not ready or not properly disposed to learn the whole truth. A reasonable person might then ask, “If other passages emphasize Mary’s holiness and special role, why does Christ seem to redirect those inclined to reverence Mary, and why doesn’t Scripture make other Marian doctrines (her perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her assumption) abundantly obvious? Again, why is Mary so hidden in Scripture?”
This question brings me to my central thesis: The full truth about Mary was hidden that the thoughts of many hearts might in time be revealed. The natal Apostolic truth about Mary was that she was the holy Woman at enmity with the Devil who by her faith un-loosed the knot of Eve’s disobedience, and became the mother of all those living in Christ. Some implications of that truth were unpacked over the course of the first three or four centuries while the young Church was still hammering out its basic doctrinal formulations and concepts. These truths are secondary to the Christological truths in two senses; they are less foundational than the former, and they depend logically on a proper understanding of the former. Marian doctrines are tied to Christ’s identity, and explicating them depended on a more thorough understanding of the Incarnation.
Notice also that historically Marian doctrines formed a halo of orthodoxy around proper Christology. For example, those who denied the ancient Marian title of theotokos (God-bearer/Mother of God) were forced to deny that Christ is truly God and truly man, or that He is One Divine Person, while those who affirmed that title were far less likely to fall for Christological heresies like Nestorianism, or Arianism. Those who insisted on her perpetual virginity and her sinlessness did so because these things emphasized and secured the holiness, divinity, humanity, and divine parenthood of her Son, and the goodness of the Blessed Trinity. As a mother’s womb protects and encloses her child, so, in the piety of the Fathers and faithful masses, did Mary’s holiness protect that of her Son. And many truths about Mary could not be fully grasped until the Church first worked out truths about the Incarnation, creation, the Fall, Original Sin, grace, and so on.
The Church’s natural conservatism about the Deposit of the Faith entailed that it generally did not engage in deep theological speculation until foundational truths were attacked by those numerous heresies with which She’s been incessantly wracked from the beginning. Responding to these attacks required increasingly deep dives into the Apostolic Doctrine. As Christology became more refined, the Church’s greatest thinkers in the East and the West found not only the true doctrine about Christ, but also corresponding truths about the Woman. By the piercing of the Church’s heart, the secret thoughts of many, both the truly pious, and the impious, were gradually revealed.
As to why Christ, on several occasions, might have wanted to redirect His listeners from Marian thoughts, I suggest the reasons are similar to His reasons for sometimes concealing the full truth about His own divinity. Some truths are too big or too holy to be revealed all at once, or to the wrong person at the wrong time. Surely God becoming man was earth-shattering enough for the first generation of converts. Christ revealed only slowly who He really was, and exactly what His identity and mission entailed. Witness the horror and disgust with which many of His own disciples turned away from Him when He promised the Eucharist (John 6:66.) It is with good reason that Christ said, “Don’t give dogs what is holy, nor cast your pearls before swine, or they will turn, and tear you to pieces.” That is why it took centuries for the Church to work out the specifics of Trinitarian, Incarnational, and sacramental theology – and the full canon of Scripture – though all of these things were materially present from the beginning. Should I be disturbed if some of the Marian teachings had – by the times of Athanasius, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine – only the status of holy opinions widely shared by the most influential, orthodox thinkers and saints? I don’t think so.
Given the constant Christological controversies that rocked the Church for the first five centuries, it makes sense that fully worked-out Marian teaching would have to wait. Given how mystical the Marian teachings are, it makes sense to me that Scripture only gives us their basic ingredients, their doctrinal seeds, leaving their full explication to time, to Christian piety, and to doctrinal development under the indwelling influence of the Holy Spirit. But where in the Church does the authority exist to finally confirm what piety and doctrinal development have purported to discover? This brings us to the question of divine guidance and authority within the Church.
Christ promised that He would be with the Apostles “until the close of the age,” (meaning not that He would stop being with them after the close of the age, but I digress!) He also promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church “into all truth” (John 16:13.) He also promised that the Church He established would never be destroyed in all those ages, and that whatever it bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Matt 16:18; 18:18) He built that Church on a “foundation of Apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20) and made the Church “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15.) Regarding the Apostles, He said, “Whoever hears you hears me, and whoever rejects you rejects me,” (Luke 10:16.) In other words, Christ established an authoritative, apostolic Church. To be an Apostle is literally “to be sent,” and the Apostles themselves appointed other worthy men to carry on their offices, laying their hands on them, and instructing these to appoint still others (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Timothy 2:2.) The Apostles themselves established the offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, and this structure was universally understood to be a permanent part of the governing and teaching structure of the Church. If I wanted to make this portion of the essay very long, I could quote numerous, forceful passages from Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna – all of whom knew and were instructed by the Apostles themselves – and from Irenaeus (the student of Polycarp,) which would make it abundantly clear that all the Fathers of the Church believed in apostolic succession. Suffice to say that Christ did not establish a flimsy Church, destined to fall away immediately, but one which could continue to discern and authoritatively declare His voice throughout the ages.
As for the prophetic part of that foundation, it continues also in the Christian faithful as a whole, all of whom (provided they are in a state of grace) receive wisdom and insight according to their measure. The Church calls this dispersed, prophetic voice the sensus fidelium, "the supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals” (CCC 92.) That is why it is highly relevant that belief in Mary’s sinlessness and bodily assumption – not as novel teachings but as the properly understood Apostolic teaching – became virtually universal in the East and the West. Consider the fact that even the far-flung Eastern Churches like the Syriac Church, confess the very same thing, though not under much influence of the Roman or Greek worlds. While it is true that much of this development was hidden from our eyes, the result can hardly be an accident. The Church has constantly been wracked by heresies and schism, and by arguments over small points of doctrine, but the Assumption is one thing that the most pious in every corner of the Church came to agree upon. (Heck, even some of the Protestant founders believed in it!) It was on the basis of this extraordinary agreement – not on the basis of the Transitus Mariae documents, or other apocrypha – that Pope Pius XII, after long ages of careful discernment, finally recognized this doctrine as true dogma.
But Catholics and Orthodox who take a purely passive approach to their faith, along with Christians who are cut off by their tradition from the historical conversation of doctrinal discernment, come upon these doctrines as novelties and surprises. To the skeptic who asks, “Where are you even getting this from?” the proper response is, “Where have you been all this time?” The assumption (no pun intended) that the individual believer can just pick up the Bible and find Christian truth without the guidance of apostolic tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15) is not only at odds with the entire sweep of Christian history, it is directly contradicted by Scripture itself (Acts 8:31; 2 Peter 1:20, 3:16.)
There is much more that we could say about this, but it would take us far afield. Suffice to say that the Church is a living thing whose full nature and teaching have unfolded and flowered over time, and it will continue to do so until the end of time. When trying to understand a living thing, it’s a mistake to look only at its primitive form, just as it’s a mistake to vivisect it into little pieces. As Gandalf said, “He who breaks a thing to discover what it is has left that path of wisdom.” And yet it is precisely this reductionist, “piecemealing” quality that is typical of our age. It may be that a boiled-down, “just the facts ma’am” approach to truth is useful when one is forced to sift an isolated fact from a cacophony of claims, yet it is considerably less useful at the level of synthesis. For that, we need a sense of the whole of which the single facts are mere constituents.
The average Catholic confronted suddenly with the question, “Where does it say in Scripture that Mary was sinless?” is like a high school biology teacher suddenly confronted with the question, “How do you know the earth is very old?” But even if that biologist is an expert in his own field, and even if he also has a strong grasp of geology, of chemistry, and of the science of radiometric dating, it is no small thing to “sum up” the case for the age of the earth, for truth is a multifaceted unity. Likewise, the doctrine of the Assumption – like the fully worked out doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, or the hypostatic union – is a fruit of doctrinal development and Christian spiritual discernment over the sweep of history. But if someone insists on the “boiled down” version, here it is:
Mary is the woman at enmity with the Devil, whose offspring conquered that serpent. As Eve was full of grace before she listened to a fallen angel and disobeyed, so Mary was kecharitomene (Luke 1:28) when she listened to an angel, and obeyed. As the Fall was Adam’s sin, though Eve played an essential but subordinate role, so Redemption is Christ’s work in which Mary plays an essential but subordinate role. As Eve became the mother of all living in the flesh, so Mary became the mother of all those living in Christ. And since she was not under the Devil’s power, she did not merit death and corruption. Since, like Enoch and Elijah, she disappeared from the earth and was not to be found, the Church discerned over time that she must also have been taken up bodily into Heaven. This was highly appropriate given her particular cooperation with Christ in our salvation, and given her imaging of the Church itself. The gradual discernment of these facts came through the mass of the faithful from the East to the West, and the authority to recognize their truth and to declare them certain rests with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
That is the best short summary I can give of the essentials of Marian doctrine. As to why she has this quality of hiddenness, I discern at least three reasons: 1) Because the full truth about Mary, like the fully explicated doctrine of Christ’s divine humanity, or the Blessed Trinity, was too much to unpack all at once; 2) Because Mary, like Christ, is a “sign of contradiction,” and therefore a Christian’s attitudes towards her (and the opinions he must defend to either affirm or deny her doctrines) are an indication of orthodoxy and of good faith; and 3) Because Mary herself is supremely humble, and is zealous only for the exaltation of her Son, never herself. She was happy to be nothing at all but the handmaid of the Lord; yet the Lord exalts the humble.
Marian Prophecy and Typology: A Postscript
In this section, I’ve included Marian material that is both instructive and fascinating, but which is better appreciated after one has a larger sense of how Catholics and Orthodox read Scripture.
Since Mary is the Woman of Genesis 3:15, and since she is – now and forever – the Mother of the Eternal Word of God – she naturally shows up prophetically in the Old Testament, or under various types; that is, in signs and figures that reach their fulfillment in the New. I have heretofore omitted these, since they took the Fathers some time to tease out, and since their value as “proof texts” greatly increases once we have the doctrinal context that gives them meaning. Reading the Scriptures the way the Apostles and Fathers often read them – that is, with a prophetic/spiritual/allegorical sense built on top of the literal sense – we actually find a great deal that seems to refer to her. There are many examples; here are a few:
1) In the first long quote from Irenaeus (in Part 2,) we find a reference to the line from the Psalms, “And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.” Here the second century Father references Psalm 45. The first half (lines 1-7) clearly refers prophetically to Christ, but the Psalm continues:
daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor;
at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.
Hear, O daughter, consider, and incline your ear;
forget your people and your father’s house;
and the king will desire your beauty.
Since he is your lord, bow to him;
the people of Tyre will sue your favor with gifts,
the richest of the people with all kinds of wealth.
The princess is decked in her chamber with gold-woven robes;
in many-colored robes she is led to the king,
with her virgin companions, her escort, in her train.
With joy and gladness they are led along
as they enter the palace of the king.
Instead of your fathers shall be your sons;
you will make them princes in all the earth.
I will cause your name to be celebrated in all generations;
therefore the peoples will praise you for ever and ever.
It’s almost unnecessary for me to editorialize here. Though this Psalm, like all others, has a literal and historical sense, the prophetic sense is shot through with forward references to Mary. The woman in this passage is desired by the King for her beauty, is robed in gold (as the women in Revelation 12 is robed in the sun,) she is a virgin, and will make her sons princes over all the Earth, and her name will be celebrated from all generations (as all generation will call Mary blessed.) Even the line “instead of father shall be your sons,” suggests that her mode of generating children is something more than physical. These are spiritual sons, whom she will make princes.
2) Another way Mary is referenced typologically in Scripture is as a kind of living Ark of the Covenant. Remember that the Ark was composed of the finest materials, and it carried the Word of God, the manna from Heaven, and the Rod of Aaron (Hebrews 9:4.) When it was completed, God overshadowed it (Ex 40:34-35; Nm 9:18, 22), as the Holy Spirit did Mary. Yet the parallels don’t stop there. Compare Luke’s account of Mary going to visit Elizabeth with the account in 2 Samuel of the Ark going to the hill country of Judea: The Ark/Mary go to the hill country; David dances before the Ark/John the Baptist leaps for joy at Mary’s voice; David asks “How can the Ark come to me?”/ Elizabeth asks, “How is it granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”; the Ark stays with Obed-dom for three months/Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months. In my opinion, these parallels are downright eerie. It almost looks as if the Holy Spirit set it up this way.
3) Also interesting is the way the Woman in Revelation 12 is introduced. Recalling that chapter and verse notations are not actually part of Scripture, but were added later for reference, consider what happens when we start with the end of Revelation 11, and read on:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. (Revelation 11:19-12:3)
Again, the chapter and verse notations are artificial. It would appear that the “ark of his covenant” is the woman clothed with the sun (or “robed in gold” (Ps. 45) if you prefer.)
Finally, it’s interesting that the Ark, though a vessel of supreme holiness, and one which normally would have been carefully preserved, mysteriously went missing from the Earth. You know who else mysteriously went missing from the Earth without leaving any bodily relics?
In any event, these are only a few of many typological/prophetic references to Mary. By themselves, they are easy to miss. Taken in the context of the salvation history, and of Mary’s important role in it, they are striking. It is almost as if Mary was a great mystery, hidden in the silent, pondering heart of the Church, and content to remain in humble obscurity, until her mysteries could be revealed.
Conclusion to the Conclusion:
If you have read this far, then I thank you for following me on this long journey into the hidden heart of the Church to rediscover the Woman from whose holy flesh the saving flesh of God was made. Let me end this essay with one of my favorite Marian quotes from the Church Fathers:
“The virginity of Mary, her giving birth, and also the death of the Lord, were hidden from the prince of this world: – three mysteries loudly proclaimed, but wrought in the silence of God.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, 19:1, St. Ignatius of Antioch – Bishop, Martyr, and Disciple of St. John the Evangelist, 107 A.D.)