(Yes, I finally did get to this. I’m a bit shocked myself, actually. 
)
Mary is the Mother of God. To say anything less is a denial of the dual nature of Christ – fully God and fully man. What then are the implications of this?
Aside from Christ himself, it is not too much to say that Mary was the purest person to ever walk the earth; she had to be! God did not wake up one day, decide the time was right to send Christ into the world, and pick the most righteous woman who happened to be alive. No, He had been preparing Mary’s lineage for centuries, as we see in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. She was hand-chosen by Him to bear the Son of God.
According to tradition, Mary’s parents presented her to the Lord at the age of three, and she lived in the Temple at Jerusalem until she was fourteen, during which time she “grew deeply devout, [and] in everything was submissive to God,”1 a true maidservant of the Lord (Luke 1:46). Clearly God’s hand was on Mary throughout her life. Noah was chosen by God because he was the most righteous person of his day (Genesis 6:8-9). Is it too much to say the same of Mary?
Several times during the Annunciation and Mary’s subsequent visit Elizabeth, Mary is referred to as “blessed” or “favored”, most notably by the Archangel Gabriel:
[T]he angel said to her, ‘Rejoice highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!… ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ’” (Luke 1:28, 30)
Later, Mary prophesies and says:
“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.’” (Luke 1:46-48, emphasis mine)
Today, when we say someone is “blessed”, we typically think in terms of temporal things, whether they be material goods or a stroke of luck or whatever. It’s all too easy to brush this verse off with a shrug and say, “Yeah, Mary was blessed to give birth to Christ, but why do I care?”
We should care a whole lot! By choosing to give birth to Christ, Mary is the vessel through which our salvation is made available to us! In the same way Eve chose to disobey God in the Garden and bring sin into the world, an exercise of free will was necessary to remove that sin. With Mary’s “yes”, Christ was made flesh and our salvation provided. Without it, there is no Incarnation, and no salvation. Without Mary, we could very well still be waiting for the Messiah.
How can we then say that Mary is not deserving of our eternal gratitude?
(To be continued…)
1 “The Law of God”, pg 227. Archpreist Seraphim Slobodskoy, translated from Russian by Holy Trinity Monastery
7 responses so far ↓
Crystal Spirit // June 16, 2006 at 12:46 pm
“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, O Virgin Theotokos. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb for thou hast born the saviour of our souls.”
Very nicely done. *applauds*
Whitney // June 16, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Interesting, very interesting. Still don’t agree with the whole mariology thing, but interesting, very interesting.
JM // June 21, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Well put, but I still have trouble with a good deal of your argument: I’ll just address a few issues in the order that I saw them.
1) Why is it that Mary *had* to be the most perfect person other than Christ? It makes sense that the Son of God would be born of a righteous woman, but for a Man who would live His life fraternizing with sinners and Who would ultimately die an ignominious death among criminals, is it necessary to be born of a woman who is essentially perfect? I suppose what I’m trying to say, is that I don’t see why Jesus, whose very nature was FULLY human, had to be born of perfection.
Also, in Matthew 1, the first verse states that it is the lineage of Jesus–NOT of Mary. Using your argument, one could also make the case that God had spent centuries preparing the way for Eleazar. And in Luke 3, Mary is not even mentioned.
2) You mention that “Noah was chosen by God because he was the most righteous person of his day. Is it too much to say the same of Mary?” No, it’s not–that’s precisely the point. And it’s the point which you refuted in the previous paragraph by saying that, “God did not…pick the most righteous woman who happened to be alive.”
3) I’m confused on how you refute the response of “yes, Mary is blessed because she gave birth to Christ” by saying that Mary had free will and chose to give birth to Christ.
4) “Mary is the vessel through which our salvation is made available to us.” In a sense, this is true (in that our Savior was born of Mary), but I think that in your subsequent remarks you may be giving her–well, too much credit. To me, it sounds as though Mary is the only vessel through which salvation could have been made available, and therefore her “yes” definitively provided salvation to the world. But do you really think that had Mary declined, God’s plan of salvation would have been thwarted? Could He not have chosen another? If not, could God really be good–a God who would base the salvation of mankind off the decision of one person? (here, you may bring up the fact that through one man, all mankind became sinful. If you want to bring that up, go ahead and I’ll try to work through that.) But if God IS good AND Mary was the only possibility–then did Mary really have free will?
Anyhoo, I’m just a Christian who has always been fascinated by the wisespread magnification of Mary, and I just really want to know how other people justify it. I hope I don’t come across as brusque or anything–I’m just genuinely interested in this topic.
That’s all for now ^_^
davidketter // June 24, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Aside from Christ himself, it is not too much to say that Mary was the purest person to ever walk the earth.
Actually, it is. What your tradionalist theologians never seem to have caught onto is that Christ wouldn’t have inherited original sin from Mary even though she was born into it. Whether the Orthodox accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, I don’t know, but if you do – there’s no need for it, much more any indication of it in Scripture.
As far as choosing to give birth to Christ…let’s consider the implications here. (1) Abortion was condemned and not really even medically practical in the years leading up to the first century A.D. (2) Suicide was condemned and no devout Jewish woman would condemn herself to Hell. (3) She received a call from God Himself and I don’t think He would even so much as allow her the opportunity to reject. For instance, God did not give Job the choice of choosing His will or not, but it was the attitude that Job took in it for which he was later rewarded. The only thing Mary chose was to be subservient to His will (“I am the Lord’s servant, may it be done to me as you have said.”).
Without Mary, we could still very well be waiting for the Messiah.
Again, I must object…God didn’t ask questions…He decreed it. No human – however righteous they may be (filthy rags…), is going to tell the King of the Universe “NO!”
Grace and Peace,
David Ketter
JM // July 5, 2006 at 10:39 am
“3) She recieved a call from God Humself and I don’t think He would even so much as *allow* her the opportunity to reject.”
David, I have to disagree with you here. When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, didn’t He allow them to make the choice? (and if not, isn’t He an evil God?) When God told Noah to build the ark, wouldn’t He have allowed him to disobey? When God calls people all throughout the Bible to obey Him, doesn’t he give them a choice? If not, (I return to the issue again), there is no free will–which means that there is also no possibility of love, emotion, sin or redemption.
Also, your example of Job cannot be used to support your point: you are quite right that God never gave Job the initial choice of whether or not to suffer, but then–God never asked (and He did ask Mary). (Not to mention the fact that after the initial suffering, Job had a constant choice of whether or not to hold fast to his faith in God).
“No human…is going to tell the King of the Universe “NO!”
contradictions: Adam and Eve told Him “no.” Moses told Him “no” over and over until he was convinced otherwise (but not forced, mind you). Christians tell Him “no” every time they willfully sin. Once again, the free will issue…
A last point: in objecting to “Without Mary, we could still very well be waiting for the Messiah” you say that Mary had no choice. I also disagree with the idea that we could still be waiting for Christ, because redemption was clearly God’s plan–but did it have to come through Mary? Why could God not have chose to ask another had Mary objected?
That’s all for now ^_^
David Ketter // July 16, 2006 at 12:03 pm
When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, didn’t He allow them to make the choice? (and if not, isn’t He an evil God?)
I’ll answer the second part first. This is a not-so-subtle attack on Calvinism and the doctrine of predestinarianism (note that I do not say predestination…) and I, as a non-Calvinist, do not appreciate that. There are few other strains of Christianity that hold the sovereignty of God in such respect as they do. Who are we, indeed, to judge God?
In the first part, dealing with Adam and Eve…all that occurred here is to the greater work of His glory. You have to understand that the relationship of Adam and Eve (and their children, had they not sinned) would have simply remained that of Creature to Creator, Subject to King. Through the atoning blood of Jesus and the redeeming adoption of the Father, we have a new relationship that was previously unattainable – even to Adam and Eve in the Garden – Sonship. Yes, God allowed that choice, but God also *knew* that they would break the relationship in eternity past…which is the very reason *WHY* in taking His Counsel determined to humble Himself in the form of man and redeem His Creation, but taking their relationship to a whole new level as well.
When God told Noah to build the ark, wouldn’t He have allowed him to disobey?
In the case of Noah, and also in the case of Mary, where the entire existence of mankind – creation – is at stake, God will either not allow disobedience or He calls only those who will not disobey in those instances – and, not surprisingly, God forms their character.
If not, there is no free will – which means that there is no possibility of love, emotion, sin, or redemption
That is the worst argument for Arminianism there is – and I’ve used it before, too…suffice it to say I’m neither Calvinist or Arminian. For now, let’s just say I’m Christian. The flaw of this argument is that it goes from human perspective, not a divine one. GOD is really the only one who absolutely must have free will – He’s King, that’s what happens. Do I believe that we are predestinated in everything that happens? Absolutely NOT…but anarchic free will is not a gift – that’s a curse. The “freedom” man has is slavery to sin. Thus the Laws of Noah, that we may know of our bondage.
contradictions…
Allow me to clarify what I’m TRYING to say for a moment… On something of such great importance – other events where there was no such “choice” – the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, etc – there is no way God is going to allow something to thwart His will. For instance, the Father has set a date for the Rapture and NOTHING on earth is going to change that date…His Word will come to pass because He decreed it.
but did it have to come through Mary? Why could God not have chose to ask another had Mary objected?
It hasn’t been established that Mary was asked. Gabriel didn’t show up and say, “If it’s alright with you…” and go on and continue with his announcment, he told her what was going to happen, end of story. As for what God can or cannot do, He could have done anything He wanted but God keeps His promises and that includes the promise that Messiah would be King of Israel and the son of David. Through Mary, there is the undiluted Davidic royal blood. Through Joseph come the legal inheritance of the Kingship. Jehoichin’s blood descendants were cursed – that they could never have the throne. However, one must inherit the titles from that royal line…this was an unique and unexpected (in terms of human perspective) development…something that would never happen again.
Emilia la Brillante // December 1, 2006 at 10:24 pm
” Without Mary, we could very well still be waiting for the Messiah. ”
“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,” Galatians 4:4a.