Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Some insights on Mariology from Martin Miguens

Unlike many Latter-day Saints, I have a strong interest in Mariology (the theology of the person and work of the Mother of Jesus). Perhaps it is due to being a graduate of a Catholic seminary and interacting with much of Catholic theology and apologetics on Rome’s Marian dogmas. Furthermore, I have noticed that there is little serious discussion of Mary from Latter-day Saints, perhaps due to Rome’s Mariolatry. However, Mary is an important topic in both the New Testament and theology. I offer the following excerpts from an interesting study of Mary by Martin Miguens, Mary: “The Servant of the Lord” (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1978), a work that various Catholic apologists have appealed to (e.g. Scott Hahn; Art Sippo):

It is the commonly accepted view that the “surname” kecharitomene has to be connected with the phrase, “you have found grace in the sight of the Lord,” so that it becomes a sort of expression and explanation of the surname. Thus the surname under discussion certainly connotes the concept of choice and election by God: Mary has been graced with the privilege of God’s choice, election, and commission for the pursuit of this plans; she becomes “the one who has been graced” with God’s election. The contents of the kecharitomene are illustrated by certain concepts in the calling of the Servant who becomes “the chosen one” (bahir; LXX, ho eklektos: Is 42:1; 45:4; 43:20), whom God evaluates in these terms: “You are previous in my sight, you are valuable; and I love you” (Is 43:4); in other words, he is “my chosen one in whom my soul delights” (42:1). Cyrus too, was loved by God (48:14). (pp. 43-44)

The evangelist understands that the reason why Mary is to be “called blessed” is her maternity. Only Mary’s maternity is contemplated. Such is certainly the case with Elisabeth, who declares Mary blessed among women at the same time that she declares in the same sentence (kai) the “fruit of her womb” blessed also; the surprise of Elisabeth is that “the mother of My Lord” should pay a visit to her; Mary is “blessed” because she believed in the realisation of what the Lord “has said to her,” which is nothing but the preceding message of her calling. The case is not different with Luke and his community. Whatever the syntactic relation between v. 48 and 49, the logical connection is obvious: all generations will call Mary blessed “because the Powerful one has done great things to me.” The context does not suggest any concept with which to link the great things or wonders of God done “to my” except Mary’s maternity, in which God showed himself to be “the powerful one” who intervened through “the power of the Most High” (1:35). The point is relevant because it proves that the real foundation of Mary’s “blessedness” in the eyes of Luke and his community (and of Elisabeth) is her maternity: she begins to be declared blessed “from now one,” from the very first moment that her maternity because known to others.” (P. 58)

[On Elizabeth calling Mary the “mother of my Lord”] The passage of Mk 12:36f (Lk 20:41) is evidence in New Testament times the statement “Yahweh said to my lord” (etc., Ps 110:1) was understood in a messianic sense: the entire sentence describes the royal enthronement of the Messiah king. The whole atmosphere refers us to the conceptual world of the Old Testament where the king himself is often addressed as “my lord” (1 Kings 1:13-47); the title applies also to all persons of some distinction. On the other hand, if it was believed that David called the Messiah “my lord” (Ps 110:1), everybody else in the Israelite community could follow his example. In other words, in Elisabeth’s praise the term “my lord” is a respectful and courtly description of the Messiah; it is, in practical terms, a messianic title related to the royal dignity of “the son of David” title to whom the “throne” of Davidic given, who will “be king over the house of Jacob,” and whose “kingdom” will have no end—this is in fact “the fruit of Mary’s womb” according to the terms of the narrative coming just before Elisabeth’s salutation (Lk 1:32). Mary, “the mother of my lord,” is, therefore, the mother of the Messiah, namely, of the most glorious and honourable king of biblical history and, above all, of “the horn of salvation raised in the house of David, as God had spoken through the prophets of old” (1:69ff): the king who is in the fulfilment of biblical hope and expectation. In this perspective,  of an evidently royal projection of the Messiah, the definition of Mary as “the mother of my lord” has a genuinely biblical flavour and sinks its roots into the purest religious and historical traditions of the Old Testament. (pp. 61-62)

[On John 2:4; cf. the JST] The foregoing observations [from pp. 109-113 examining the phrase “what to you and to me?”] constitute the parameters conditioning and, to a certain extent, determining the meaning of Jesus’ answer to Mary in v. 4. The answer is the real subject of debate, particularly because of the expression ti moi kai soi. Grammatically the answer itself contains two sentences that can be punctuated and, therefore, related in different ways. The first sentence, the one here transliterated from the Greek, is certainly interrogative as the ti at the beginning serves to prove. The only questionable point here is whether the vocative “woman” (gynai) marks the end of this connections are possible, but the problem itself is not tremendously important. The sense does not change in either alternative. The second sentence “my hour [time] is not yet come” can be considered interrogative or not. Here the meaning of the entire answer can change according to either alternative. A question formulation such as “is my hour not yet come?” suggests that the hour is indeed here, which entails both that the “hour” or time is the time to start (v. 11 “the beginning of miracles”) performing miracles, as well as that Jesus does not refuse his mother’s request. This, in turn, suggests very strongly (though not necessarily) that the first question of Jesus’ answer also is favourable to Mary’s proposal. An interrogative punctuation in the second part is perfectly possible and legitimate; it cannot be discarded. Still we retain the other punctuation---without question mark—that turns the sentence into a statement, both because it is the one generally admitted and because, implying the less favourable sense, it does not render the entire problem any easier.

The answer of Jesus in v. 4 is introduced by the sentence “and [kai] Jesus says to her.” In our discussions the point in the introduction is there is no adversative particle as, for instance, “but” (de); we have just an “and.” The author of the fourth gospel is able to use de in dialogue introductions very idiomatically with some through slight adversative force (1:38; 4:32; 6:10, 20, 7; 41; 9:15, 16, 17, 36, 38, etc). Moreover, in conflicting or polemic answers the verb mostly used by the evangelist in the introduction is apokrinesthai (to answer), whereas in our dialogue in all three instances (vv. 3, 4,5) we have legein (to say, to tell). Admittedly, on this matter an absolute rule would not be easy to establish in John. The least one can say, however, is that the introduction to Jesus’ answer in Jn 2:4 does not give any support to a negative (refusal) understanding of the answer itself. In this connection, the waiters, that follows immediately after the answer, no adversative particle is present—indeed, no conjunction, not even a kai (and) that someone might wish to construct as an adversative waw. The implication is, again, that the text provides no support to the concept that Mary’s action, is in disagreement with Jesus’ answer . . .[after an analysis of similar NT constructions on pp. 114-127] It is not to apply the results of our survey to Jn 2:4 where Jesus answers Mary’s request by ti emoi kai soi?, “what to me and to you?” If the expression is taken as a refusal or rebuke of the type “mind your business,” it is in sharp, intolerable conflict with the entire interlocking and dynamics of the narrative. It conflicts, in the first place, with the real outcome of the entire narrative, since in fact, Jesus performed the miracle; it conflicts with the fact that Jesus used the opportunity to make this the start of his miracles, to “reveal his glory,” and to confirm the faith of his disciples; it is in conflict quantity and excellent quality of the wine provided by Jesus; it is in conflict, above all, with the obvious willingness displayed by Jesus in performing the miracle as well as with the interest he took in the whole matter. The concept of refusal or rebuke clashes even more violently, if possible, with the instructions of Mary to the waiters immediately after Jesus’ answer ti emoi kai soi?, instructions which, as pointed out above, set in motion the entire process that develops fro them; it clashes with the obvious immediacy and forward drive of the unfolding action; it is certainly clashes, and very violently so, with the expectation of Mary when she made her request that, as a matter of fact, is answered even beyond her expectations (abundance, quality of wine). Such an understanding clashes even with the literary presentation of hid dialogue and immediate result (Mary’s instructions) where every adversative particle, that could indicate a change of direction, is conspicuously omitted. On the other hand, there is no single element in the narrative that can give any support to the understanding of the idiomatic phrase as a refusal or rebuke.

On the contrary, a reconciliatory, agreeing meaning of the idiom squares perfectly with all the details in the narrative and brings all the aspects mentioned above together into a powerful unit. The context has a powerful—indeed, the decisive—voice in this matter. All the details and aspects of the episode so naturally brought into a tight cohesion by the agreeing understanding become as many supporting proofs in favour of such understanding. The biblical background disclosed above is evidence that the agreeing is certainly possible and, according to the circumstances, necessary: the latter alternative applies to our case.


The correct translation, therefore, of Jesus’ answer ti emoi kai soi? To Mary’s request in Jn 2:4 is this: “what difficulty [problem] is there to me and to you?” On account of the interrogative formulation, the answer is an emphatic statement and affirmation the meaning of which is as follows: there is absolutely no problem or difficulty to me and to you in this affair, i.e. in Mary’s proposal or request. The inference being that Jesus wholeheartedly agrees with Mary’s proposal. She understands this and tells the waiters to be ready. The entire action follows very smoothly and the miracle is performed with all splendour and generosity—which is a confirmation of Jesus’ agreeing intentions. (pp. 113-14, 127-29)