CHAPTER 2
THE MOTHER OF OUR LORD
The effect of the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus on the status of women appropriately begins with a consideration of Mary His mother, since in a very real sense she represents the turning point in the history of women.
EVENTS RELATED TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS
Every pious Jewish woman hoped that she might be the mother of the Messiah, and in Mary this hope was realized. Two evangelists, Matthew and Luke, record the genealogy of Christ, Matthew prefacing his account to the beginning of Christ’s life, and Luke his account to the beginning of the Lord’s ministry.1 Differences in the two genealogies, involving a number of problems not easily solved, are at once apparent. Plummer says:
The difference between the two genealogies was from very early times felt to be a difficulty . . . and it is probable that so obvious a solution, as that one was the pedigree of Joseph and the other the pedigree of Mary, would have been very soon advocated, if there had been any reason (excepting the difficulty) for adopting it. But this solution is not suggested by anyone until Annius of Viterbo propounded it, c. A.D. 1490. . . . If we were in possession of all the facts, we might find that both pedigrees are in accordance with them.2
Despite these difficulties, certain facts relevant to this discussion are clear; namely, in these genealogies are seen principles of subordination and exaltation of women. Subordination is evident in the legal position accorded to Mary. Matthew’s intention for including the genealogy in his Gospel was “to show that in Jesus, as the heir of David and of Abraham, were fulfilled the promises made to them: the pedigree itself is intended to illustrate this, rather than to prove it, and it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that it is quite artificial.”3 However, in order to demonstrate Jesus’ right to be the heir of David and Abraham, Matthew has to stress Joseph as the husband of Mary so that he may show the fact that as Joseph “recognized his wife’s son in a legal sense his own, Jesus was legally the heir of David.”4 Luke, of course, entirely omits Mary’s name; and while he is careful to avoid the impression that Jesus might be merely the natural son of Joseph, he also disallows the possibility of slighting Jesus’ kingly claims by avoiding linking Him solely to His mother.5 Thus, the subordination of women is evident again in Mary’s having to be linked with the name of her husband in order to give legal status to her Son.
On the other hand, a singular exaltation of women is seen in Matthew’s genealogy because he includes the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab and Ruth, and Bathsheba.6 This becomes especially significant in a list as selective as Matthew’s. God accepts these women as worthy of mention by name, extends His forgiveness to them, and receives them into the very line of the Messiah. This styling of the genealogy illustrates another way in which the world was prepared for the teachings of Him who came in the fullness of time.
Turning from the genealogies, one thing should be noted in the annunciation—the angel’s proclamation that Mary was “highly favoured.”7 The verb used, charitoō (Gk.), is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Eph 1:6, from which passage “and the analogy of verbs ending in oō, kecharitōmenē must mean ‘endued with grace.’”8 Great grace was bestowed upon Mary, but it was no greater than that which is bestowed upon every believer, whether male or female, in every generation.
When Mary returned to Nazareth after visiting Elizabeth, Joseph, finding her with child, “was minded to put her away privily.”9 Although Joseph was only espoused to Mary, this was entirely in order, for “from the moment of her betrothal a woman was treated as if she were actually married. The union could not be dissolved, except by regular divorce; breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery.”10 Making a public example of her “alludes to the law of the woman suspected of adultery set forth in the Book of Numbers V, 11–31.”11 But, of course, the appearance of the angel to Joseph solved his dilemma.12
All of these instances demonstrate two things:
One further observation must be made: her blessedness is not only related to her Son but is also related to motherhood. No man could have been the mother of Jesus, and yet this obvious truth is often overlooked. Mary is not only the mother of our Lord; she is the Mother of our Lord. The Mother could only be a woman; yet the incarnation was in a man.
MARY’S PUBLIC ENCOUNTERS WITH JESUS
Four times the general silence that surrounds Jesus’ relationships with His mother is broken. The first is the time when He went to Jerusalem for the Passover at the age of 12.13 When Joseph and Mary missed the boy on the homeward journey and returned to find Him in the temple, Jesus plainly told them that He must be about His Father’s business. This strange and unexpected reply clearly indicated that in connection with the work given to Him by His Father, there must be no interference from His mother. And yet the Gospel writer adds that Jesus was subject to His parents. Here is an illustration of the principle, later penned by the apostle Paul, that obedience “in the Lord” is expected of children toward their parents.14 As mothers, women are expected to fill a place of authority and leadership in relating to their children but without compromising the spiritual responsibilities of those children.
The second incident, the scene at the wedding in Cana, illustrates the same principle.15 Here Mary appears without Joseph; indeed, this and “all the later notices of the Lord’s Mother . . . confirm the supposition that he [Joseph] died before the Ministry began.”16 When the wine was used up, Mary appealed to Jesus for help, and He replied, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” There is no doubt that “Woman” is an address of respect,17 but “what have I to do with thee,” wherever used, “marks some divergence between the thoughts and ways of the persons so brought together.”18 In this passage it “serves to show that the actions of the Son of God, now that He has entered on His divine work, are no longer dependent in any way on the suggestion of a woman, even though that woman be His Mother. . . . The time of silent discipline and obedience . . . was over.”19
Anxiety must have prompted the third incident when Mary sought Jesus amid a crowd of people to whom He was ministering. When told that His mother and brothers were asking for Him, Jesus replied: “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”20 Swete summarizes well the significance of this remark:
This relative renunciation of kinship appears at the outset of the Ministry (Jo. ii. 4) and continues to the end (Jo. xix. 26), and a similar attitude is urged upon the disciples (Mc. x. 29). But it is a relative attitude only (Mt. x. 37), and is perfectly consistent with tender care for kinsmen, as the saying on the Cross shews. . . . The bond which unites the family of God is obedience to the Divine Will.21
Again the incident illustrates the principle that supernatural relations transcend natural ones.22
Nevertheless, natural relationships and responsibilities are not obliterated, and the fourth encounter illustrates that. At the cross Mary is committed into John’s keeping. “The Oriental, even the Jewish, mother would have been prostrate, with dishevelled hair and garments; Mary is found ‘standing’ (John 19:25). There is no mention of words, not even of tears. Silently and quietly at the direction of her Son she leaves the cross, though we know that a sword was at the time piercing her through and through.”23
As far as the Gospel records are concerned, no other encounters of Mary with her Son are recorded. There is not even any record of a post-resurrection appearance to Mary, and however significant or embarrassing this may be in other respects, it is not important to this subject because our Lord did appear to other women after His resurrection. The importance is discussed in what follows.
MARY’S POSITION AND SIGNIFICANCE
A summary of what has been said concerning Mary is in order, partly to justify why so much space has been devoted to her. The incidents involving her introduce and illustrate a number of themes that are further developed throughout the New Testament:
These themes are all illustrated by Mary’s position in the Gospels. Since most of these are related to the home, one concludes that Mary is significant as a model of ideal Christian womanhood. There is certainly a dearth of material concerning Mary in the inspired text. Although this has been taken by some to be “a deliberate design on the part of the evangelists to reduce the mother to relative insignificance in the presence of her Divine Son,”24 one feels that the truer explanation is that “this slightness of texture is itself a note of genuine portraiture; for the reason that Mary was of a retiring nature, unobtrusive, reticent, perhaps even shrinking from observation, so that the impress of her personality was confined to the sweet sanctities of the home circle.”25 Or, as Walpole puts it, “we see in the little that is told of her what a true woman ought to be.”26
Finally, what were Mary’s position and significance in the early church? The only other reference to her in the New Testament occurs in her mention among those gathered in the upper room before Pentecost.27 After this her name disappears from the record, and even in the one instance she is not mentioned as any sort of fount of information concerning the Savior, nor does she take any place of leadership with or among the disciples. Ramsay has suggested that Mary or someone very close to her supplied Luke with the facts for his Gospel; if this suggestion be true, then she did contribute, though not in any public way, to the life of the early church.28
QUESTIONS
ENDNOTES
1. Matt 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38.
2. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 103.
3. F. M. Bernard, “Genealogies of Jesus Christ,” A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), 1:637.
4. Ibid.
5. This is true whether one understands the genealogy to be that of Joseph or of Mary; if the former, Jesus is linked to Joseph and the case is the same as in Matthew; if the latter, Jesus is linked to His grandfather Heli through Mary but without mentioning her name, for the Jews said, “Genus matris non vacatur genus” (Baba bathra, 110a). Roman Catholics generally hold the latter view (cf. A. J. Maas, “Virgin Mary,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907–12), 15:464E. For a Protestant who holds it, cf. F. Codet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890), 1:195–204.
6. Matt 1:3,5–6.
7. Luke 1:28.
8. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 22. The verb form is passive, indicating that Mary was the recipient of God’s grace, not, as in Roman Catholic teaching (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854), that Mary was “full of grace” in the sense of being sinless. The Latin Vulgate, from which the Catholic dogma was derived (rather than from the original Greek text), inaccurately translated the verb in Luke 1:28 with gratia plena (“full of grace”). The Greek phrase for this expression (plērēs charitos, “full of grace”) appears twice in the New Testament—in John 1:14, referring to Jesus, and in Acts 6:8, describing Stephen.
9. Matt 1:19.
10. Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (London: Religious Tract Society, 1876), 148.
11. David Werner Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce (London: D. Nutt, 1897), 35n.
12. Matt 1:20.
13. Luke 2:41–52.
14. Eph 6:1; see also Exod 20:12; Prov 1:7–9.
15. John 2:1–12.
16. Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1913), 112. Swete adds, “The Arabic Historia Josephi (cc. 14, 15) places his death in our Lord’s eighteenth year, when Joseph had reached the age of 111.”
17. Cf. John 4:21; 19:26; 20:13,15; Homer, Iliad, III, 204; Xenophon, Cyropaedia, V, i, 6.
18. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (London: John Murray, 1908), 1:82.
19. Ibid.
20. Mark 3:34–35.
21. Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 69–71.
22. Cf. the incident in Luke 11:27–28.
23. G. H. S. Walpole, “Woman,” A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings, Alexander Selbie, and John C. Lambert (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908), 2:835.
24. Walter F. Adeney, Women of the New Testament (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1901), 1.
25. James Hastings, ed., The Greater Men and Women of the Bible, vol. 5 (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1915), 5.
26. Walpole, “Woman,” A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 2:835.
27. Acts 1:14.
28. W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1898), 88. He says that the intermediary “is more likely to have been a woman than a man. There is a womanly spirit in the whole narrative, which seems inconsistent with the transmission from man to man.”