Mary is the Mother of God

Answering the Challenges of James McCarthy and Eric Svendsen

by MARIO DERKSEN


Protestants do not like to refer to Mary as the Mother of God. They believe it elevates
Mary too !"h. They say Mary is only the Mother of #es!s. In his anti$%atholi" book
The Gospel According to Rome& James McCarthy notes'

The (ible...never "alls Mary the Mother of God for a very si)le reason'
God has no other. As soeone has ri*htly said& +!st as %hrist,s h!an
nat!re had
no father& so -is divine nat!re had no other. ./0
There is soe tr!th in this stateent. (y "allin* Mary the Mother of God& 1e ake it
"lear that #es!s is f!lly divine& and this first of all elevates #es!s2 The fa"t alone that
God has "hosen a 1oan to be the Mother of -is only Son& 1ho is divine& already
elevates Mary to a stat!s that no h!an bein* "o!ld trans*ress by si)ly veneratin* her
3of "o!rse 1e ay not adore her24. After all& #es!s dre1 -is h!anity fro Mary.
%hrist 1as Mary,s real son5 -e 1as her child2
#es!s %hrist is God. 6oen 1ho bear )eo)le are "alled others. If the )erson a 1oan
bears is God& then& "onse7!ently& the 1oan is the other of God. It,s that si)le. Mr.
M"%arthy "lais that #es!s, divine nat!re had no other. This is tr!e& of "o!rse& b!t the
%h!r"h does not tea"h other1ise. 6e say that Mary is the Mother of God5 others are
not others of nat!res& b!t of )ersons& and #es!s 1as a divine )erson 1ho took on a
h!an nat!re. 6e ay e8)lain it this 1ay' 96as yo!r other the other of yo!r
h!an nat!re: No& she 1as the other of you. It is a )erson 1ho is "on"eived and born&
not a nature .only0. 6hat )erson 1as born of Mary: A divine Person only ; not a
h!an )erson ; b!t a divine Person 1ho took on h!an nat!re. The one born of Mary
<shall be "alled the son of God, 3=k /'>?4& and <God sent his son& ade of a 1oan,
3Gal @'@49 3Karl Keatin*& Catholicism and Fundamentalism .San Aran"is"o' I*nati!s&
/BCC0& ). DEE4.
So if 1e do believe that #es!s is God& and that ever sin"e -e be"ae in"arnate -e has
had a h!an and a divine nat!re !nited in one )erson $$naely& a divine )erson$$& 1hi"h
any Protestants do believe& then 1e !st "on"l!de that Mary is the Mother of God.
There is no 1ay o!t. Even Martin =!ther !sed and defended the title FMother of God.G
.>0
(eyond all that& 1e "an )rove Mary bein* the Mother of God very si)ly by !sin*
ded!"tive lo*i". =et !s say that aHMary& bH#es!s& and "HGod5 the sybol $$$$I
re)resents 9*ives birth to.9 O!r syllo*is then looks like this'

a $$$$I b
b H "
Therefore& a $$$$I "

Translation for the philosophically challenged
a bears b 31e all a*ree4
b is c 31e all a*ree4
therefore& a bears c
The entire iss!e& then& is )roven by si)le ded!"tive lo*i". Protestants try to hold fast to
their belief that Mary is not the Mother of God a*ainst so!nd reasonin*.
=ately& an evan*eli"al by the nae of Eric Svendsen has ade a fresh atte)t to
dis"redit all eviden"e for the divine otherhood of Mary.
Svendsen ar*!es that the titles 9God$bearer9 and 9Mother of God9 are not the sae and
i)ly soethin* different. %atholi"s& so he says& are 1ron* to e7!ate theoto!os 1ith
meter theou& 9God$bearer9 1ith 9Mother of God.9 Mr. Svendsen "lais that neither the
%o!n"il of %hal"edon nor that of E)hes!s !sed the title 9Mother of God9 b!t erely the
title 9God$bearer9 3theoto!os in Greek4. 6e 1ill have to disa))oint Mr. Svendsen 1ith
the fa"ts'

Council of Ephesus (431)
%anon /' 9If anyone does not "onfess that God is tr!ly Ean!el& and that on this
a""o!nt the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 3for a""ordin* to the flesh she *ave
birth to the 6ord of God be"oe flesh by birth4& let hi be anathea.9 3DenJin*er
K//>& e)hasis added4
Council of Chalcedon (451)
96e all tea"h that 1ith one a""ord 1e "onfess one and the sae Son& o!r =ord #es!s
%hrist& ... indeed born of the Aather before the a*es a""ordin* to divine nat!re& b!t in the
last days the sae born of the vir*in Mary& Mother of God a""ordin* to h!an
nat!re....9 3DenJin*er K/@C5 e)hasis added4
6ell& if the t1o "o!n"ils had been in the late DLth "ent!ry& I 1o!ld a*ree 1ith Svendsen
that 9God$bearer9 differs fro 9Mother of God&9 sin"e no1adays soeone 1ho erely
9bears9 soeone else is& alas& not ne"essarily his other. Mnfort!nately there is s!"h a
thin* as s!rro*ate otherhood no1& after all. However, the %hristians of the ?th
"ent!ry did not kno1 that it 1as theoreti"ally )ossible to bear soeone and yet not to be
this )ersonNs other. That 1o!ld have been !nthinkable. It is an affront a*ainst )ro)er
order and orality. And for this reason I re+e"t Mr. SvendsenNs assertion that 9God$
bearer9 in the ?th "ent!ry differs fro 9Mother of God.9 A!rtherore& in the Oth
"ent!ry& 1e have the Se"ond %o!n"il of %onstantino)le e8"lai'
Second Council of Constantinople (553)
%anon O' 9If anyone says that the holy *lorio!s ever$vir*in Mary is falsely b!t not tr!ly
the Mother of God...let s!"h a one be anathea9 3DenJin*er KD/C5 e)hasis added4
And all of this ha))ened /&LLL years before the Reforation. It says a lot if the
%hristians of the Oth "ent!ry 1ere f!ll$blooded %atholi"s.
-o1ever& for the sake of ar*!ent& I 1ill *rant Svendsen this differen"e bet1een God$
bearer and God$other and ar*!e that Mary is not erely the God$bearer b!t also the
very Mother of God. In his /BBE book Evangelical Answers& he raises fo!r 7!estions'
Airst& is it .the title 9Mother of God90 a le*itiate title sin"e the ori*inal intent for the
title "han*ed fro one that !)held the deity of %hrist to one that honors Mary: Se"ond&
is the title based on so!nd lo*i": Third& does the title leave the distin"tion bet1een the
nat!res of %hrist inta"t: And fo!rth& does the title i)ly an on*oin* relationshi): .@0
6e 1ill ans1er all fo!r of SvendsenNs "on"erns'
/.4 It is si)ly not tr!e that the 9)!r)ose9 of the title has "han*ed. Obvio!sly& the title
9Mother of God9 affirs the divinity of %hrist 1hile it a!toati"ally "onfers soe
di*nity !)on Mary as 1ell. (!t this is not d!e to soe later 9"han*e of )!r)ose9 of the
title b!t rather d!e to the nat!re of the reality the title e8)resses. Of "o!rse it *lorifies
Mary. (!t not be"a!se of the !se of the title& b!t be"a!se of 1ho Mary is. Mary is the
Mother of God& 1hether 1e !se that title or not. The *lory that she )ossess does not
"oe fro !s& "onferred by soe title& b!t fro God by akin* her 1ho she has
ade her2 The title erely re"o*niJes and e8)resses this in"redible reality.
D.4 Mr. Svendsen reasons that if 1e a""e)t the lo*i"al syllo*is )resented above 3If
#es!s is God and Mary is the Mother of #es!s& then Mary is the Mother of God4& then 1e
!st also a""e)t his syllo*is& 1hi"h *oes as follo1s'
/st )reise' God is a Trinity.
Dnd )reise' Mary is the Mother of God.
%on"l!sion' Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.
This "on"l!sion& of "o!rse& is hereti"al. Mary is not the other of the Tri!ne God& that
is& of Aather& Son and -oly Ghost& b!t of the Son only. Svendsen tries to for"e the
%atholi" to this hereti"al "on"l!sion& ho1ever& by eans of this lo*i"al syllo*is. (!t is
this so!nd lo*i": Svendsen says that 9if one is able to "onfir "oth )reises& then no
"har*e of !nso!ndness "an )revail a*ainst the "on"l!sion9 3Evangelical Answers& /EC4.
This stateent needs i)ortant 7!alifi"ation& ho1ever. 6hat is issin* is that there
!st be an inferential link bet1een the )reises and the "on"l!sion. Other1ise& the
ar*!ent is invalid& even tho!*h both )reises be tr!e and the "on"l!sion as 1ell. =et
e ill!strate. The follo1in* ar*!ent is invalid& and therefore !nso!nd& even tho!*h
both )reises are tr!e and the "on"l!sion as 1ell'
/st )reise' Po)e Pi!s PI rei*ned fro /BDD$/B>B.
Dnd )reise' Abraha =in"oln 1as assassinated.
%on"l!sion' There are D@ ho!rs in one day.
Of "o!rse& this is an e8treely obvio!s e8a)le5 b!t thin*s *et to!*her 1hen 1e have
falla"ies of e7!ivo"ation& 1hi"h ake )reises and "on"l!sion seem related& even
tho!*h they are not. Aor instan"e& the follo1in* is an ar*!ent that "ontains a falla"y of
e7!ivo"ation 3this is still a very obvio!s e8a)le4'
/st )reise' Any la1 "an be re)ealed.
Dnd )reise' The la1 of *ravity is a la1.
%on"l!sion' The la1 of *ravity "an be re)ealed.
Of "o!rse& the "on"l!sion is false. (!t 1hy: (e"a!se the 1ord 9la19 is !sed differently
in the first )reise than in the se"ond. And I "lai the sae for Eri" SvendsenNs !se of
the 1ord 9God9 in his syllo*is that if Mary is the Mother of God and God is a Trinity&
then Mary is the Mother of the Trinity. 6hile both )reises are tr!e& they are not tr!e in
the e8a"t sae sense. The )roble here lies in the ystery of the Most -oly Trinity.
6hile the Trinity "onsists of Aather& Son and -oly S)irit& !ndivided& yet distin"t& ea"h
of these )ersons is f!lly God -iself& though not vice versa 3this is 1here the
e7!ivo"ation of 9God9 "oes in4. Th!s& 1hile #es!s is not a Trinity& -e is nevertheless
f!lly divine and of one s!bstan"e 1ith the Aather& !ndivided. Sin"e Mary bore #es!s&
1ho is f!lly God& Mary is the Mother of God. No other "on"l!sion is )ossible. #es!s is
f!lly God& tho!*h the f!ll God is not only #es!s. Mysterio!s: -ard to !nderstand: It
"ertainly is. (!t then a*ain& the "reation of the 1orld is not any less ysterio!s.
>.4 Svendsen "ontin!es' 9The third ob+e"tion to the title <Mother of God, is that it does
not )ro)erly distin*!ish bet1een the nat!res of %hrist9 3Evangelical Answers& /CL4. (!t
this stateent reveals that Mr. Svendsen is !ninfored abo!t an i)ortant ontolo*i"al
distin"tion& naely that of nat!re and )erson. The title 9Mother of God9 does not refer
to either the h!an nat!re nor the divine nat!re of #es!s. It refers to -is )ersonhood&
1hi"h is divine only. A*ain& others are others of persons& not natures5 hen"e
9Mother of God9 "an hardly refer to the divine nat!re. It refers instead to the divine
)erson.
On )a*e /EB Svendsen a"kno1led*es the fa"t that others are others of )ersons and
not of nat!res 3stran*ely eno!*h& he denies the sae on )a*e D/E4& b!t then he *oes on
to say' 9The instant one says that Mary is the other of God& one has violated that
distin"tion .of nat!re and )erson05 for then one is affirin* that Mary is the other of
deity b!t not of h!anity. In other 1ords& <God, is erely des"ri)tive of one of #es!s,
nat!res9 3i"id#& /EB4. %hristian history disa*rees& ho1ever. Mary is not the other of
9the God$nat!re of #es!s&9 as Svendsen 1o!ld have it& b!t of the divine )erson of #es!s.
#es!s is only one )erson 3if -e 1ere t1o )ersons& 1e 1o!ld have t1o 9#es!ses94& and
-e is a divine )erson. -e is not a h!an )erson& as the Se"ond %o!n"il of
%onstantino)le tea"hes. -e is a divine )erson 1ith a h!an and a divine nat!re5 this is
"alled the 9hy)ostati" !nion.9 Sin"e others bear )ersons& not nat!res& as Svendsen
"on"edes& Mary is the Mother of God. -ere 1e see ho1 easily the re+e"tion of a title of
Mary leads into "hristolo*i"al heresy& that is& false beliefs abo!t #es!s.
Svendsen& like the hereti" Nestori!s& instead endorses the title 9Mother of %hrist&9 or
Christoto!os& a title that 1as deliberately re+e"ted by the Se"ond %o!n"il of
%onstantino)le as not "onveyin* the "o)letely a""!rate tr!th of #es!s, divinity and
Mary,s )art in the In"arnation. -ere is 1hat Svendsen hiself says. Make s!re yo!,re
seated' 96as she .Mary0 in any 1ay res)onsible for )rod!"in* deity: If not& then is it
not ore a""!rate . . . to "all her <other of an,: And is it not even ore a""!rate . . .
to "all her <other of %hrist, 3a blanket ter en"o)assin* both nat!res4: This is
e8a"tly 1hat Nestori!s atte)ted to do by introd!"in* the ter Christo!os .sic0 . . . &
literally& <%hrist$bearin* one,9 3i"id#& /C/4.
Aside fro the fa"t that Nestori!s a"t!ally !sed the ter Christoto!os and not
Christo!os 3"f. #ohn =a!8& Church $istory .Ro"kford' TAN (ooks& /BCB0& ). /?>4& of
"o!rse Mary 1as not res)onsible for 9)rod!"in*9 deity. God 1as not )rod!"ed. #es!s
already e8isted before -is "on"e)tion in Mary,s 1ob. And the effi"ient "a!se of the
In"arnation of #es!s is God -iself. 6hy "o!ld 1e not "all Mary the 9other of an9:
(e"a!se #es!s 1as not a h!an )erson& only a divine )erson. A*ain& the title 9Mother of
God9 has nothin* to do 1ith the nat!res of #es!s& only 1ith -is )ersonhood& 1hi"h
ha))ened to be divineQonly. The Protestant denial of Marian do"trines and their
different as)e"ts al1ays res!lts in a diinishin* of "hristolo*i"al do"trine and that of
the In"arnation and hy)ostati" !nion. To "all Mary only 9Mother of %hrist9 does not in
itself s!ffi"e to ake "lear that %hrist is tr!e God$$in fa"t& even an Arian& 1ho denies
that %hrist is divine& "o!ld then "all Mary the 9Mother of %hrist.9 (!t by "allin* her
1hat she tr!ly is& naely& 9Mother of God&9 no one 1ho denies %hristNs divinity "an "all
her by that title. On"e a*ain& *ivin* the (lessed Rir*in Mary nothin* less than her ost
)ro)er title is 1hat *!arantees orthodo8y abo!t the )erson of #es!s %hrist2
@.4 In his last )oint& Svendsen ar*!es that 9Mother of God9 i)lies an on$*oin*
relationshi). This is tr!e Q alost red!ndantly tr!e. That,s )re"isely 1hat the
In"arnation eans& after all' on$*oin* relationshi) Q 1ith all of h!anity& b!t
es)e"ially and ore si*nifi"antly 3fro an ontolo*i"al )oint$of$vie1 at least4& 1ith the
(lessed Rir*in Mary. Set Svendsen "lais that even if 1e a*ree that Mary 1as the
Mother of God& she "ertainly is not the Mother of God any lon*er 3Evangelical
Answers& /C/4. 6hat "o!ld that ean& tho!*h: 9Not a other anyore9: %nce a
mother& always a mother' Mothers "annot be others 9for a 1hile only.9 If Mary 1as
#es!s, other 1hen #es!s 1as born& then she al1ays reains -is other2 A other
loves& "ares& hel)s& inter"edes& )rote"ts& s!ffers 1ith& et". This is 1hat it eans to be a
other. And #es!s "hose to have one' Mary. Is this sho"kin*: Ses& it "ertainly is& b!t
not be"a!se %atholi"s 9dare to attrib!te s!"h a s)e"ial role to Mary&9 b!t be"a!se this is
1hat the In"arnation eans and i)lies. This is the sho"k of the In"arnation& a
st!blin* blo"k to all 1ho do not kno1 1ho #es!s really is. Protestants are sho"ked
abo!t 1hat %atholi"s tea"h abo!t Mary be"a!se they are a"t!ally "onf!sed abo!t 1ho
#es!s %hrist is$$as Svendsen has 1onderf!lly deonstrated2
-e "ontin!es' 9It is evident fro any Ne1 Testaent )assa*es that #es!s effe"tively
severed all biolo*i"al ties 1ith Mary9 3i"id#4. -onestly& ho1 "o!ld one ever try to sever
fro a biolo*i"al tie: To e this sees i)ossible. My other 1ill al1ays reain y
other& no atter 1hat I do. If #es!s had indeed not fostered any biolo*i"al ties 1ith
-is other b!t instead denied the& ho1 "oe -e 1as so "on"erned abo!t her 1ell$
bein* at the foot of the %ross 3"f. #ohn /B'DO$DE4: To say #es!s 1anted to 9sever9 fro
biolo*i"al ties is to say #es!s 1anted to deny -is o1n In"arnation2 This is blas)hey2
Protestants 1ill have to !nderstand that #es!s did not si)ly "oe to earth in a h!an
veil and ha))ened to be born into this 1orld thro!*h the )assive 9vessel9 of Mary& 1ho
had nothin* to do 1ith -i. #es!s had in fa"t dra1n flesh fro Mary& that is& -e looked
like her. Aro )!re reason& Mr. Svendsen,s ar*!ent is "o)letely !ntenable. The
-oly Rir*in Mary 1as not si)ly an 9o)enin*9 thro!*h 1hi"h %hrist had to "oe into
the 1orld& sin"e -e "o!ld have "oe in any 1ay -e "o!ld have "hosen& even as an ad!lt
si)ly "oin* o!t of the desert2 No& #es!s %hrist dei*ned to be"oe the real Son of the
(lessed Rir*in Mary$$1ith all this eans and i)lies2
In order to s!))ort his ar*!ent fro S"ri)t!re& Svendsen refers to Matthe1 /D'@O$?L
and the )arallel a""o!nt in Mark >'>/$>?' 9And his other and his brothers "ae5 and
standin* o!tside they sent to hi and "alled hi. And a "ro1d 1as sittin* abo!t hi5
and they said to hi& <So!r other and yo!r brothers are o!tside& askin* for yo!., And
he re)lied& <6ho are y other and y brothers:, And lookin* aro!nd on those 1ho
sat abo!t hi& he said& <-ere are y other and y brothers2 6hoever does the 1ill of
God is y brother& and sister& and other.,9
Is #es!s tryin* to tell )eo)le here Mary is not -is other: This 1o!ld be abs!rd&
be"a!se both Testaents "onfir that she is 3e*. Isaiah E'/@& =!ke /'>/4. In fa"t& if this
)assa*e )roved Mary 1as not #es!s, other& as Svendsen 1o!ld have it& it 1o!ld )rove
too !"h& for it 1o!ld )rove that Mary is not the other of #es!s, humanity even&
1hi"h is 1hat Protestants insist on. So 1hat do 1e do 1ith this )assa*e: Airst& let !s
note that the )assa*e 1as not 1ritten in order to dis"!ss 1hether Mary sho!ld be "alled
Mother of God or 1hether she had an on*oin* relationshi) 1ith #es!s. If 1e read Mark
in "onte8t& 1e see that #es!s had +!st ret!rned hoe 3Mark >'DL4& and -is other and
relatives 1ere 1aitin* to see -i. #es!s never denied that Mary 1as -is other or the
others -is relatives. -e did not say& after all& 9No& these aren,t y tr!e relatives9 or&
9No& Mary is not y Mother 3anyore4.9 Rather& #es!s 1anted to ake the )oint that&
yes& 1hile they 1ere "ertainly -is )hysi"al other and relatives& one "an +!st as 1ell
belon* to #es!s, faily in a s)irit!al bond& by doin* -is 1ill. Obvio!sly& the s)irit!al
bond is ore i)ortant than the erely )hysi"al one. (!t Mary& bein* the *reat and
h!ble servant of God that she 1as& had both a )hysi"al and a s)irit!al bond 1ith
%hrist.
In fa"t& it is a))ro)riate here to "ontrast this )assa*e 1ith Mark /L'/E$/C' 9As he .#es!s0
1as settin* o!t on a +o!rney& a an ran !)& knelt do1n before hi& and asked hi&
NGood tea"her& 1hat !st I do to inherit eternal life:N #es!s ans1ered hi& N6hy do yo!
"all e *ood: No one is *ood b!t God alone....N9 Protestants and %atholi"s a*ree that
this res)onse of #es!s is neither a denial of -is *oodness nor a denial of -is divinity.
Rather& #es!s s)eaks in this stran*e 1ay to ake the ri"h an realiJe that #es!s "an be
tr!ly *ood only if -e is God2 In the sae 1ay& neither Matthe1 /D'@O$?L nor Mark
>'>/$>? s!**est that Mary is not the Mother of God. Rather& it sho1s that the -oly
Rir*in 1as "hosen the Mother of God be"a!se of her )erfe"t obedien"e& 1hi"h& of
"o!rse& s)rin*s fro her sinlessness& 1hi"h %hristNs rede)tive Sa"rifi"e ade )ossible
before It 1as ever offered. Th!s& the %atholi" )osition is vindi"ated be"a!se #es!sN
stateent sho1s that Mary 1as )erfe"tly obedient& and be"ae the Mother of God for
that very reason.
Svendsen asks' 9-o1 does #es!s res)ond: Does he sin*le her .Mary0 o!t& ake his 1ay
over to her& and )oint to her as %o$Rede)tress& 1ho is 1orthy of honor& )raise and
veneration:9 3i"id#& /CD4. The ans1er& obvio!sly& is no. (!t 1hy not: Svendsen
"on"l!des that 9#es!s says that no one has s)e"ial relations 1ith hi by virt!e of
biolo*i"al ties9 3i"id#4. (!t this is not the "ase. -e no1here says that. The reason #es!s
does not "all attention to Mary for all to venerate her and e8!lt her is si)ly that the
ri*ht tie had not yet "oe. It 1o!ldn,t have ade sense. #es!s had not even told
anyone yet that -e 1as the Messiah. 6hy& then& 1o!ld -e tell anyone that -is other
is the "o$rede)tri8 and ediatri8 of all *ra"es: They 1o!ld not have !nderstood
anythin*. 6hat *ra"es: 6hat rede)tion: #es!s& !"h rather& e)hasiJed at this )oint
-is s)irit!al faily& soethin* "ertainly a lot ore fittin* at this )oint. -e kne1 that
later& after everyone had fo!nd o!t -e 1as the Messiah& 1hi"h -e had not yet stated
be"a!se -e 1anted the to see -is 1orks and believe on a""o!nt of the& %hrist kne1
that everyone 1o!ld also attrib!te a s)e"ial role to -is other. %hrist kne1 that -is
follo1ers 1o!ld see that she 1as the one 1ho h!bly said yes to God at the
Ann!n"iation& 1ho 1o!ld follo1 -i all the 1ay to the foot of the %ross 1hen alost
all of -is A)ostles had forsaken -i. -e kne1 that )eo)le 1o!ld re"o*niJe& 1ith
EliJabeth,s voi"e& that she is the 9Mother of y =ord9 3=!ke /'@>4 and that 9all
*enerations shall "all e blessed9 3=!ke /'@C4. Svendsen,s atta"k& then& is !nfo!nded.
Ne8t& he s1it"hes to the %ana event& 1here Mary inter"edes for the )eo)le and be*s
#es!s to 1ork a ira"le be"a!se they had r!n o!t of 1ine. Not s!r)risin*ly& Mr.
Svendsen )i"ks on #es!s, res)onse& 9O 1oan& 1hat have yo! to do 1ith e: My ho!r
has not yet "oe9 3#ohn D'@4. -e says that #es!s "alled her 91oan9 to ake "lear that
she had no s)e"ial relation to -i. (!t this is nonsense5 as if yo!r o1n other did not
have any s)e"ial relationshi) 1ith yo!2 In fa"t& if #es!s had eant to "onvey& 9Get
a1ay& yo!,re nothin* s)e"ial&9 -e 1o!ld have sinned& be"a!se the =a1 says& 9-onor
yo!r father and other.9 No& the reason #es!s "alled her 91oan9 1as to sho1 the
s)e"ial )la"e she had in the history of the t1o "ovenants. =ook at Genesis >'/?& #ohn
/B'DO$DE and Revelation /D'/ ; ea"h tie& the ter 91oan9 is !sed. It 1o!ld be
abs!rd to s!**est that the ter does not refer to an e8traordinary 1oan in those
instan"es. In ea"h e8a)le& O!r =ady is entioned as soeho1 intiately asso"iated
1ith the destiny of her Son& 1ith the )lan of salvation' in Genesis >'/?& she is the
1oan 1ho is to brin* forth the Messiah5 in #ohn D'@& thro!*h her inter"ession& %hrist
brin*s abo!t -is first )!bli" ira"le even tho!*h -e 1as not ready for it yet5 in #ohn
/B'DO$DE& she is *iven the s)irit!al aternity of the 1hole h!an faily5 and in
Revelation /D'/& she is )i"t!red as "ro1ned in heaven. #es!s "alls -is other 91oan9
in order to s!btly )oint to all this.
Svendsen )ro"eeds& sayin* that the )hrase 96hat do I have to do 1ith yo!:9 a))ears as
a distan"in* of #es!s to1ards Mary. This is tr!e. (!t no1 the 7!estion a))ears& 1hy:
6hy is #es!s rea"tin* s!r)rised: It is si*nifi"ant to note here that #es!s "o!)les -is
s!r)rise 96hat do I have to do 1ith yo!:9 iediately 1ith an e8)lanation' 9My ho!r
has not yet "oe.9 This obvio!sly indi"ates that as soon as the ho!r is there& #es!s 1ill
"ertainly honor Mary,s every re7!est. Set& the ho!r had not yet "oe and so #es!s 1as
s!r)rised. The (lessed Mother& a))arently kno1in* 1hat her Son 1o!ld do& si)ly said
to the servants' 9Do 1hatever he tells yo!.9 This is hardly the kind of rea"tion to "oe
after a reb!ff. So& 1e !st disa*ree 1ith Svendsen,s "on"l!sion that 9#es!s is reb!kin*
Mary in this )assa*e9 3i"id#& /C>4. Svendsen says that the "onstr!"tion 96hat do I have
to do 1ith yo!&9 ti emoi !ai soi in Greek& is !sed as a reb!ke 1herever it a))ears
else1here in S"ri)t!re 3e*. #!d*es //'/D& / Kin*s /E'/C& =!ke C'DC4. (!t Svendsen is
readin* too !"h into the te8t. =et !s look at =!ke C'DC to see 1hether this "o!ld be
"lassified as a reb!ke' 96hen he .the an )ossessed by deons0 sa1 #es!s& he "ried o!t
and fell do1n before hi& and said 1ith a lo!d voi"e& <6hat have yo! to do 1ith e&
#es!s& Son of the Most -i*h God: I besee"h yo!& do not torent e.,9 %ertainly #es!s
1o!ld not allo1 -iself to be reb!ked by deons2 It sees ore likely that the
deons& s)eakin* thro!*h their vi"ti& 1ere s!r)rised to see the Son of God in front of
the$$and then 1ere for"ed to )ay -i hoa*e 3they "egged -i not to torent
the242 So it is not tr!e that the "onstr!"tion ti emoi !ai soi is ne"essarily al1ays a
reb!ke5 soeties it is a s!r)rise& and this is the "ase at the arria*e of %ana in #ohn D.
Mr. Svendsen *oes on to ake his "ase a*ainst honorin* the (lessed Rir*in as Mother
of God 1ith =!ke //'DE$DC' 9A 1oan in the "ro1d raised her voi"e and said to hi&
<(lessed is the 1ob that bore yo!& and the breasts that yo! s!"ked2, (!t he said&
<(lessed rather are those 1ho hear the 1ord of God and kee) it2,9 Svendsen says that
#es!s ade it "rystal "lear here that he detests soeone honorin* -is other and sho1s
that no honor is d!e her 3i"id#& /C@$C?4. Is that the "ase: No. It is s!r)risin* that
Svendsen does not deal 1ith the %atholi" inter)retation of this )assa*e in his book& as
he !s!ally tries to ref!te the %atholi" )osition on a *iven s!b+e"t. Set here he doesn,t
even bother to ention ho1 a %atholi" res)onds to his a""!sation.
The res)onse is fairly si)le' #es!s 1as not sayin* Mary is not blessed5 rather& -e 1as
sayin* that the tr!e reason for her blessedness lies not so !"h in her biolo*i"al ties
1ith -i b!t in the fa"t that she heard the 1ord of God and obeyed it$$and besides& 1e
kno1 that Mary 1as blessed as St. Gabriel the Ar"han*el already had told her& 9tho!
hast fo!nd *ra"e 1ith God9 3=!ke /'>L4 and she herself later e8"laied& 9behold fro
hen"eforth all *enerations shall "all e blessed9 3=!ke /'@C4.
(esides& 1e !st be "aref!l to )ro)erly translate the 1ord rendered here as 9rather.9
The Greek ter is menoun. The Protestant 324 theolo*ian Mar*aret E. Thrall& 1ho "an
hardly be a""!sed of %atholi" bias& s!**ests the follo1in* inter)retation of =!ke /'DC'
96hat yo! have said is tr!e as far as it *oes. (!t the blessedness of Mary does not
"onsist si)ly in the fa"t of her relationshi) to1ards yself& b!t 3menoun4 in the fa"t
that she shares in the blessedness of those 1ho hear the 1ord of God and kee) it& and it
is in this that tr!e blessedness lies9 3Thrall& Gree! (articles in the )ew Testament
.Grand Ra)ids' Eerdans& /BOD0& >?4.
#aes %ardinal Gibbons *ives a bea!tif!l renderin* of the )assa*e in 7!estion' 9She
.Mary0 is blessed indeed in bein* the "hosen instr!ent of My in"arnation& b!t ore
blessed in kee)in* My 1ord. =et others be "oforted in kno1in* that tho!*h they
"annot share 1ith My Mother in the )rivile*e of her aternity& they "an )arti"i)ate 1ith
her in the blessed re1ard of the 1ho hear My 1ord and kee) it9 3Gibbons& The Faith
of %ur Fathers .Ro"kford' TAN (ooks& /BCL0& /@E$@C4.
This 1ay& the )assa*e akes )erfe"t sense and does not fly in the fa"e of other
s"ri)t!ral )ortions& as 1o!ld have been the "ase had 1e a""e)ted Mr. Svendsen,s
inter)retation. Also& let e all!de a se"ond tie to Mark /L'/E$/C' 9As he .#es!s0 1as
settin* o!t on a +o!rney& a an ran !)& knelt do1n before hi& and asked hi& NGood
tea"her& 1hat !st I do to inherit eternal life:N #es!s ans1ered hi& N6hy do yo! "all e
*ood: No one is *ood b!t God alone....N9 Protestants and %atholi"s a*ree that this
res)onse of #es!s is neither a denial of -is *oodness nor a denial of -is divinity.
Rather& #es!s s)eaks in this stran*e 1ay to ake the ri"h an realiJe that #es!s "an be
*ood only if he is God2 In the sae 1ay& #es!s )oints o!t in =!ke //'DE$DC that Mary is
blessed "ecause she heard the 6ord of God and obeyed it $$ )erfe"tly. The tea"hin*
here& then& is 1hat 1e "o!ld be if 1e 1ere sinless and )erfe"t follo1ers of %hrist& and&
ore realisti"ally& 1hat 1e can be ea"h tie 1e obey GodNs holy 1ill.
Ainally& 1e ove on to #ohn /B'DO$DE' 96hen #es!s sa1 his other& and the dis"i)le
1ho he loved standin* near& he said to his other& <6oan& behold& yo!r son2, Then
he said to the dis"i)le& <(ehold& yo!r other2, And fro that ho!r the dis"i)le took her
to his o1n hoe.9 The %atholi" inter)retation of this )assa*e has al1ays been that #es!s
ade Mary the other of all %hristians at this )oint. Svendsen disa*rees' 9The )lain
sense of the )assa*e is that #es!s is here )rovidin* Mary 1ith a eans of "ontin!ed
s!))ort9 3Evangelical Answers& /C?4. -e,s ri*ht. Of "o!rse #es!s 1as doin* that. (!t he
1asn,t only doin* that. It 1o!ld be abs!rd to think that 1hereas all the other 1ords
%hrist !ttered on the %ross 1ere related to -is Mission& to -is Rede)tive 6ork&
soeho1 those -e s)oke to -is other 1ere an e8"e)tion. The )assa*e has a ri"her and
dee)er eanin* 31hi"h is the "ase thro!*ho!t St. #ohn,s ysti"al Gos)el4& and this "an
only be f!lly kno1n and a))re"iated thro!*h Sa"red Tradition& 1hi"h has al1ays held
that #es!s ade Mary the other of all the faithf!l at the foot of the %ross& 1here St.
#ohn re)resented the entire body of the faithf!l& the %h!r"h& as Mary 1as *iven hi as
his other.
Mr. Svendsen has to realiJe& in )ra"ti"e& that %atholi"s do not )!r)ort to *et all their
tea"hin*s fro S"ri)t!re b!t fro the De)osit of Aaith entr!sted to the A)ostles.
Therefore& he "annot "lai that the %atholi" inter)retation is not "learly visible fro the
S"ri)t!res Q the %h!r"h has never "laied it needs to be.
Aside fro 1hat Mr. M"%arthy or Mr. Svendsen i*ht think& the early %hristian
theolo*ians "alled the (lessed Rir*in Mary the Mother of God and affired that Mary
bore God& not erely a h!an nat!re of God'
Irenae!s of =yons 1rote& FThe Rir*in Mary& bein* obedient to his 1ord& re"eived fro
an an*el the *lad tidin*s that she would bear God.G .@0
St. -i))olyt!s testifies'
To all *enerations they .the )ro)hets0 have )i"t!red forth the *randest
s!b+e"ts for "onte)lation and for a"tion. Th!s& too& they )rea"hed of the
advent
of God in the flesh to the 1orld& -is advent by the s)otless and God-
bearing
theoto!os" Mary in the 1ay of birth and *ro1th& and the anner of -is
life and
"onversation 1ith en& and -is anifestation by ba)tis& and the ne1
birth that
1as to be to all en& and the re*eneration by the laver .of ba)tis0. .?0
Gre*ory the 6onder1orker tells !s that F=!ke& in the ins)ired Gos)el narratives&
delivers a testiony not to #ose)h only& b!t also to Mary the Mother of God& and
*ives this a""o!nt 1ith referen"e to the very faily and ho!se of DavidG .O0 and that
F.i0t is o!r d!ty to )resent to God& like sa"rifi"es& all the festivals and hynal
"elebrations5 and first of all& .the feast of0 The Ann!n"iation to the holy Mother of
God& to 1it& the sal!tation ade to her by the an*el& <-ail& f!ll of *ra"e2,G .E0
Peter of Ale8andria says'
.T0hey .those en*a*ed in the )!bli" trans)ort servi"e0 "ae to the "h!r"h
of the ost blessed Mother of God& and Ever$Rir*in Mary& 1hi"h& as
1e be*an
to say& he had "onstr!"ted in the 1estern 7!arter& in a s!b!rb& for a
"eetery of the
artyrs.... .C0
The early %hristians& then& "learly affir Mary,s divine otherhood& that is& that she
1as tr!ly the Mother of God. The %atholi" %h!r"h has ke)t this tea"hin* thro!*h its
Sa"red Tradition for D&LLL years.
#ootnotes
3/4 M"%arthy& Gospel According to Rome& /BL$B/
3D4 Keatin*& Catholicism& DEE
3>4 #aroslav Pelikan& ed.& *uther+s ,or!s 3St. =o!is' %on"ordia4& D@'/LE
3@4 Svendsen& Evangelical Answers& /EO
3@4 Against $eresies& ?'/B'/ 3AD /CB4
3?4 -iscourse on the End of the ,orld& / 3AD D/E4
3O4 Four $omilies& / 3AD DOD4
3E4 ibid.& D
3C4 The Genuine Acts of (eter of Ale.andria 3AD >L?4