Before I get to that ... Scripture has a good deal to say about Mary, arguably all the way back to Genesis 3:15. Not to mention Isaiah 7:14. She's also a significant character in the gospels, most notably the narratives of Jesus' birth and childhood in Matthew 1 and Luke 1-2; the wedding at Cana in John 2; a discussion that ensues when Jesus' mother and siblings ask to see him in Matthew 12, Mark 3 and Luke 9; and her Son's crucifixion according to John 19. She is also mentioned in Matthew 13, where local knowledge of Jesus' family connections was held against Him, and in Acts 1, when she and Jesus' (half-) brothers joined with the apostles in prayer and supplication.
Tradition, pious and otherwise, is rife with rumors about Mary. Interestingly, the current pope has been walking back what seemed like Roman Catholicism's inevitable march toward establishing Mary in its dogma as co-redemptrix. Other biographical data about her, such as her mother's name and how (or whether) her earthly life ended, are strictly a matter of legend, not divine revelation. But I have some idle speculation of my own. I think, and this is just my opinion, the diverging genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 can be explained as one of them (I think Luke 3) tracing Jesus' paternity through Mary. It does mention Jesus being "as was supposed" the son of Joseph, but I would argue the next name on the list (Heli) is actually Mary's father and so the line that branches off from David via his son Nathan is His physical bloodline, via human paternity. Meanwhile, Matthew's genealogy, which runs all the way down the line of kings of Judah and ends by asserting that "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary," can't be thus understood – but if read as a legal argument for Jesus' claim on the throne of Israel, through Joseph's recognition of Him as his Son, it would comport with Matthew's apparent purpose.
I might as well choose this point to stake out my opinion, with an appeal to Christian freedom, that those brothers mentioned in Matthew 13 and Acts 1 were related to Jesus on Joseph's side (i.e. via a wife prior to Mary) and that His mother was semper virgo. I also think the scene at the foot of the cross where Jesus declares John to be her son suggests that she had no other sons who were obligated to support her. No questions or counterarguments will be taken at this time, thank you. ART: "Christ on the Cross with the Magdalen, the Virgin Mary and Saint John the Evangelist" by Eustache Le Sueur, †1655, public domain.
Rejoice, you heirs of heaven:
The woman's Seed has come!
Pure robes to you are given,
A heritage, a home.
You eager friends and maidens,
Behold His rich array,
His Bride with jewels laden
To feast with Him today!
The earth brings forth its flower
As summoned by the Lord,
And bears fruit by the power
Of living, active word;
And so, before the nations
His righteous banner stands,
His endless adoration
Resounding from all lands.
For when the hour was urgent,
Yea, heavily with child,
And heaven's foe, insurgent,
The age's prince was styled,
God sent His Son through Mary
To bear the law's reproof:
Salvation did not tarry;
His off'ring is enough.
Now let our souls enlarge Him
And praise Him for all time,
For God saw fit to charge Him
With all our race's crime.
He who is strong and glorious
Has so stretched forth His powers
That all His work victorious
Is reckoned now as ours.
All generations, hearken:
This news of life is yours!
Now as the ages darken,
The light of mercy pours
And Christ, the tempest stilling,
His own bears on His arm,
Their hunger richly filling
And shielding them from harm.
We are the Savior's mothers,
His sisters and His Bride,
Through flesh and blood His brothers,
Bathed at His streaming side.
Hence with the maid who bore Him
And called God's Son her own,
Soon we shall rise before Him
And gaze upon His throne.
No comments:
Post a Comment