Luke 11:27-28 versus Marian Devotion

While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!" (Luke 11:27-28 NRSV)

This passage from the Gospel of Luke has long been used by opponents of the over-exaltation of Mary one finds within Roman Catholicism, and, to a lesser degree, Eastern Orthodoxy. In this passage, just as Jesus did in other texts (e.g., Matt 12:46-50), Jesus shows that he is establishing an eschatological family where the members are tied to one another, not biologically but spiritually, and does so by rebuking a woman who is giving Mary praise based on her biological motherhood. The NEB is correct in the following comment about the meaning of the woman’s comments in Luke 11:27:

Both the reference to the womb and the breasts form a figure of speech called metonymy. In this case the parts are mentioned instead of the whole; the meaning is "Blessed is your mother!" The warnings seem to have sparked a little nervousness that brought forth this response. In the culture a mother was valued for the accomplishments of her son. So this amounts to a compliment to Jesus.

Instead, the true mother/brother/sister of Jesus are those who do his words; as we read in Luke 8:21, for instance:

But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." (NRSV)

Some Catholic apologists have tried to get around the plain meaning of this passage by focusing on the particle μενουν (rather/on the contrary). As Mario Lopez wrote:

What does Luke 11:27-28 say about Mary? Does it downplay her role? I will let a Protestant, Margaret Thrall, a Protestant scholar, explains what Jesus means:

“What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself, but (menoun) in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness,”.(Margaret Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 35.”

While I have not read Thrall’s book on Greek particles (if anyone wants to get me a copy, I won’t complain!) However, to say that this is an abuse of the particle as well as the exegetical meaning of Luke 11:27-28 is the nice way of summing up this “response.” Note the following scholarly comments on the particle:

μενουν

Combined Particle (μεν + ουν)

1. Rather, on the contrary.

G.K. Beale, Daniel J. Brendsel, and William A. Ross, An Interpretive Lexicon of the New Testament: Prepositions, Adverbs, Particles, Relative Pronouns, and Conjunctions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2014), 64

BDAG:

4814  μενοῦν

• μενοῦν (also μὲν οὖν) Lk 11:28 (for negative s. οὐ μὲν οὖν) and μενοῦνγε (also μενοῦν γε), particles used esp. in answers, to emphasize or correct (B-D-F §450, 4; Rob. 1151f), even—contrary to earlier Gk. usage—at the beginning of a clause (Phryn. 342 Lob. [322 R.]) rather, on the contrary (Soph., Aj. 1363; Pla., Crito 44b; X., Cyr. 8, 3, 37) Lk 11:28 v.l. Indeed Ro 10:18. ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε more than that Phil 3:8. μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ … ; on the contrary, who are you … ? (or, who in the world are you to [take issue with God]?) Ro 9:20.—M-M.

Louw-Nida:

89.128  μενοῦν ; μενοῦνγε: relatively emphatic markers of contrast - 'but, on the contrary, on the other hand.' μενοῦν: μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες 'on the contrary, those who hear the word of God and keep it are happy' or '... fortunate' Lk 11.28.

That a “low Mariology” was read out of this passage in the earliest Patristic literature can be seen in the following comments from Tertullian:

And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour—even because they listened to the word (of God)—He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours—for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s “womb and paps,” but designating those as more “blessed who hear the word of God.” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, chapter VII)

For more on Patristic Mariology and Mary, see, for example, my article:

Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception

Latter-day Saints and others (e.g., Evangelical Protestants) are correct, both biblically and historically, in rejecting the over-exaltation of Mary one finds within Roman Catholicism.

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians 5:26

The definite article (lit. ‘the washing in [the] water’) may well indicate a specific event, and the readers are scarcely likely to have taken this as anything other than a reference to their experience of baptism. In 1 Cor 6:11 washing and sanctifying occur together as metaphors of salvation, with an allusion to baptism highly probable. But here, the explicit mention o water suggests not simply an extended metaphor for salvation but a direct reference to water baptism, not to baptism by the Spirit . . . the language of ‘the washing with water’ is likely to have a secondary connotation the notion of the bridal bath. This would reflect both Jewish marital customs with their prenuptial bath and the marital imagery of Ezek 16:8-14 which stands behind this passage. In Ezek 16:9 Yahweh, in entering his marriage covenant with Jerusalem, is said to have bathed her with water and washed off the blood from her. (Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians [Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1990], 375)

D&C 76, Joseph Smith, and Emanuel Swedenborg

I have recently been "spammed" by an ex-Mormon on twitter who engaged in a hit-and-run by claiming that Joseph Smith got the theology behind D&C 76 from Emanuel Swedenborg but immediately retreated when they realised I have read Emanuel Swedenborg's works (they were relying upon secondhand information, probably from D. Michael Quinn or Jeremy Runnells).

A really good article refuting this claim would be an article by J.B. Haws. It was entitled:

Joseph Smith, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Section 76: Importance of the Bible in Latter-day Revelation

Enjoy!

Ryan Larsen on the Alleged Handwriting of Abraham

Ryan Larsen of the Mormon Puzzle Pieces Blog has an interesting post:

Regarding the Alleged Handwriting of Abraham

For those of us who try to keep up with the Book of Abraham debate, this is an important piece about an area critics tend to focus a lot of attention upon.

James White and the Intercessory Work of Christ

I have discussed how the intercessory work of Christ poses a lot of problems to Reformed soteriology, especially the nature of the atonement (Penal Substitution [e.g., Calvinism's inconsistent view on the death and intercession of Christ]). In light of note, note the following which James White wrote in 1990 in a work attempting to refute the Roman Catholic dogmas relating to the Mass (it should be noted that there was no discussion of the intercession of Christ in The Roman Catholic Controversy [1996]):

Christ's Intercessory Work

Before looking specifically at the extent of the atonement (whether limited or universal), it is important to understand the relationship between the atonement of Christ and His intercessory work. We shall also see that there is a close relationship between the work of Christ as Priest and the work of Christ as Intercessor. In fact, we will see that the former is the basis of, and the substance of, the latter.

The intercessory work of Christ is explicitly discussed in Hebrews 7:24-25:

"But He, on the other hand, because He abides forever, holds His priesthood unchangeably, hence, He is also able to save completely those who come unto God by Him, as He lives forever to make intercession on their behalf."

Here the writer of Hebrews asserts that Christ is able to save "to the uttermost" those who come unto God through Him. And why does Christ have this ability? Because of his ministry of intercession before the Father. But we have alleged above that is at the death of Christ that saves, not any further works after his. Is this a contradiction? Only if the intercession of Christ is an action or operation that is distinct from His death. But it is just here that we need to recognize that the work of Christ as intercessor is not disconnected from His work as Priest in the offering of Himself. Paul brought out the "priestly" aspect of Christ's work clearly in Ephesians 5:2:

" . . . and walk in love, just as also Christ loved and delivered Himself up in our behalf, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."

The terms "offering" and "sacrifice" come straight from the Levitical concepts of sacrifice and law. The writer of Hebrews also uses this kind of language in describing the work of Christ:

"But when Christ appeared as high priest of the good things to come, (He entered) through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation, neither did he enter the holy place once or all through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:11-12)

On what basis does Christ enter into the Holy Place? Not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood. He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father. Jesus does not implore the Father to be merciful to men without grounds for that mercy, does he? Would the Son ask the Father to compromise His holiness and justice by simply overlooking sin? Surely not! Rather, the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the Father that in His death He has taken away the sins of God's people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father. He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. Note as well that the extent of the intercessory work of Christ is identical to the extent of the atonement of Christ; that is, Christ intercedes for the same people for whom He died. Christ did not intercede for people for whom He did not die, for He would have no basis upon which to intercede; nor does He not intercede for anyone for whom He died, for this would involve an inconsistency in Christ. All those for whom Christ died will be the objects of His intercession. And, since we know that none for whom the Son intercedes will ever be lost (for if this could happen, then there would be a contradiction in the Godhead, the Son willing to save someone, the Father refusing), it is demonstrated against that all for whom Christ died will be brought into their salvation. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw, sections 2209-2236 of the Kindle edition)

D&C 76 and our eternal subjection to God the Father

Today, as part of my daily Scripture reading, I read D&C 76, alongside D&C 93, is my favourite section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This revelation shows us that, notwithstanding the promise of robust deification in Latter-day Saint theology, we will always be subjected to, and never independent of, God the Father:

And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshipping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever. (D&C 76:21)

These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever. (D&C 76:62)

And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things--where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever. Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever. (D&C 76:92-93)

Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever. (D&C 76:108)

And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever. (D&C 76:110)

And to God and the Lamb be glory, and honor, and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (D&C 76:119)

Anti-Mormons playing the "bigot card"

Robert Bowman recently wrote the following about me:

This show of disrespect reflects Boylan’s general disdain for evangelicals, especially evangelicals critical of Mormonism (and is plainly expressed in the rest of his article).

It is odd to see a conservative Reformed Evangelical have the same approach to critics like modern SJWs and play the "bigot" card.

Oh, I have no problem with Evangelical Protestants (some are good personal friends of mine). What I have an issue with is Evangelical Protestant theology. Admittedly, I have a low view of Robert Bowman and some of his ilk (just as I am sure he has a low view of me [actually, I know he has a very low view of me]), but there is a difference between disliking Evangelicals and disliking Evangelical theology. For instance, Bobby Gilpin (a Reformed Baptist and critic of the Church) and I strongly disagree with one another theologically, and I have written some articles in response to Bobby (e.g., this one on the role of Joseph Smith in LDS theology), but we are actually on friendly terms with one another. But in Bowman's twisted little world, I hate Evangelicals, so he will probably claim I am lying (just like he falsely claimed I lied about my use of David Bokovoy in a previous "response" he wrote to me).

To give a parallel—both Bowman and I are former Roman Catholics. I am sure Bowman will agree with me that, for instance, Rome’s Mariology is simply false (e.g., Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption; the movement to make the fifth Marian doctrine as a dogma, etc). I hardly would accuse Bowman of disliking Catholics however based on such.

Perhaps someone should purchase Bowman a Logic 101 volume so he can learn the difference between disagreeing with a particular theology and hating adherents thereof (unless this is simple Bowmanian projection--perhaps he hates Mormons, not just strongly disagrees with LDS theology?)