Mary Mother of God, Year A:
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on the second reading for the feast of Mary, Mother of God, which is Galatians 4:4-7, and show how it provides biblical evidence for the belief that Mary is the Mother of God. We also go outside the readings for this feast and look at the key biblical passage that the Church has looked to throughout history for biblical support of Mary’s divine motherhood: Luke 1:43.
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday
Speaker 1:
This is the Sunday Catholic Word, a production of Catholic Answers. The only podcast to look at the Sunday Mass readings from an apologetics perspective.
Karlo Broussard:
Hey, hey, hey everyone. Welcome to the Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending the faith. In other words, what’s the Liturgy of the Word got to do with apologetics? This is the podcast to answer that question.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast. In this episode, we’re going to do some biblical apologetics that’s relevant for this upcoming Sunday’s feast day, Mary, Mother of God. Now, our focus won’t be on the Gospel itself, but rather on the second reading from Galatians 4:4-7. And also, we’re going to go outside the readings for this feast and look at the key biblical passage that the churches looked to throughout history for biblical support of Mary’s divine motherhood, and that is Luke 1:43.
Obviously the feast day gives us an opportunity to do this, but let’s start with the second reading for the Liturgy of the Word for Mary, Mother of God. And that comes from Galatians 4:4-7. Here’s what Paul writes, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent a Son born of a woman born under the law, to ransom those under the law so that we might receive adoption. As proof that you are children, God sent the Spirit of the Son into our hearts crying, ‘Abba Father.’ So you are no longer a slave, but a child. And if a child, then also an heir through God.”
The key here is that God’s Son is said to be, “born of a woman.” Now there are two things to unpack here. First, assuming that we accept early Conciliar Christology, like that of the Council of Nicaea, God’s Son, the Word, is divine and thus is properly called God.
Second, any woman who gives birth to a person is a mother to the person to whom she gives birth. So those are the two things we need to unpack here. Now with these two things in place, we can reason as follows. Premise one, any woman who gives birth to a person is a mother to the person to whom she gives birth. Premise two, Mary gave birth to God’s Son. Conclusion one, therefore Mary is the Mother of God’s Son.
Premise three, God’s Son is divine, and thus is properly called God. Conclusion two. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
Now with the argument laid out like this, it becomes clear if the person wants to deny Mary as the Mother of God, such a person would have to deny either premise one, in which case a mother is someone who does not give birth to a person. Absurd.
Premise two, in which case Mary didn’t give birth to God’s Son, contrary to scripture. Or premise three, in which case God’s Son is not divine. And so these are things we can’t deny. Common sense tells us that we can’t deny premise one. The very definition of a biological mother is someone who gives birth to a person. That’s clear. No Christian can deny premise two without denying an essential truth of the Bible, a truth that Paul makes explicit in this text. “God sent His Son, born of a woman.”
And finally with regard to premise three, no Christian can deny the divinity of God’s Son, the Word. Remember John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” At the heart of Christianity is the claim that Jesus is God. Not only that He’s His Son, but that He’s His Son by nature. Implying that He is equal to the Father in the very divine essence and the divine essay, the very existence or infinite reality that God is. So in conclusion here at Galatians 4:4-7 provides a biblical basis for belief that Mary is indeed the Mother of God. Hence, the reason why it’s the second reading for this great feast day, Mary, Mother of God.
Now, let’s turn to the classic text that’s used to support Mary, Mother of God, and that is Luke 1:43. Obviously we’re going outside the boundaries of the Liturgy of the Word for this feast day, but I think this feast day provides for us an opportunity to reflect upon Luke 1:43 because it is essential to our conversations with our Protestant brothers and sisters concerning Mary’s divine motherhood, being Mother of God. Now, it’s important to note at the outset here that the catechism of the Catholic church actually appeals to Luke 1:43 as biblical support for the dogma of Mary, Mother of God in paragraphs 448, 495 and 2677.
There, Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit exclaims to Mary who just arrived in her presence, “Why is this granted me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Since Elizabeth was a good Jew, and Jews normally use the word Lord in the place of the Tetragrammaton, God’s name Yahweh, Elizabeth is calling Mary the Mother of God. Therefore, it would seem that we have a possible biblical foundation for the dogma of Mary, Mother of God. Hence, the reason why the catechism and Christians throughout the tradition have always appealed to Luke 1:43 as biblical support for Mary, Mother of God.
But, there’s a counter here. There are actually many comebacks that a minority within the Protestant community have to the belief Mary is the Mother of God. But there’s really only one counter-argument made to this passage in Luke 1:43 for a scriptural justification of Mary as the Mother of God. It targets the assumption that Lord is intended by Elizabeth to refer to Almighty God. Because if you noticed in the common argument that we present as Catholics appealing to Luke 1:43, we’re assuming that when Mary says, “Whom am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me,” that she’s using the title Lord as a divine title in reference to Almighty God.
But some Protestants challenge that assumption. So for example, Protestant Bible scholar Walter L. Liefeld argues that we shouldn’t interpret this as a reference to Mary, Mother of God. His alternative interpretation as it is for others is that Elizabeth was referring to Jesus as her Messiah. Here’s what he writes. By the way, this is coming from his chapter on Luke in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Matthew, Mark, Luke, volume eight, page 834. He writes this, “Nowhere in the New Testament is Mary called Mother of God. Deity is not confined to the person of Jesus. We may say Jesus is God, but not all of God is Jesus. She was however, the mother of Jesus, the Messiah and Lord.” And the evidence he gives here is the fact that Luke frequently uses Lord as a title, 95 out of 166 occurrences in the synoptics.
Not everyone is charged with a divine meaning, and Liefeld argues Jesus is called Lord elsewhere in Luke and birth narrative in a non divine way in Luke 2:11. “For to you is born this day in the city of David, a savior who is Christ the Lord.” So how do we respond to this counter-argument that Lord is being used here most likely in a non divine way, which would undercut the Catholic argument here and appealing to Luke 1:43 for Mary, Mother of God? Well, immediately in responding to the subjection just very briefly, notice Liefeld appeals to Luke 2:11, and says that Lord is being used there in a non divine way. Well, it’s actually not clear whether it’s being used in a divine or a non divine way. There’s nothing in the text that suggests either interpretation. Liefeld simply asserts its non divine use here without argumentation. Given the ambiguity, we can dismiss this text as evidence for Liefeld’s interpretation or conclusion.
Now the second response is that it’s not the word itself, but how it’s being used, namely the parallels that Luke is drawing with the Ark of the Covenant. There’s no doubt that the Greek word translated Lord [foreign language 00:09:02] can be used and is used in a non divine way in the New Testament. Just one example, 1 Corinthians 8:5 there. And even by Luke in Luke 12:36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, some have said that it’s being used in a non divine way and it’s reasonable to conclude that.
However, it’s not the word by itself that indicates that Mary is the Mother of God. It’s how Luke sees Elizabeth using it. There are several details in the text that indicate that Luke is drawing a parallel between Mary and the Old Testament, Ark of the Covenant. This has been pointed out by many apologists. It’s very well articulated I might say, by my colleague and good friend Tim Staples in his book, Behold Your Mother, check it out. He gives a litany of all the parallels. I’m just going to share a few with you to give you a sample. So take Elizabeth’s words themselves. They almost perfectly mirror David’s words in 2 Samuel 6:9, when he says, in the presence of the Ark, “How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?” Almost verbatim.
Other parallels include John the Baptist leaping for joy in the presence of Mary in Luke 1:44. And David “making merry” before the Ark in 2 Samuel 6:5. According to Luke 1:39, Mary remains with Elizabeth for three months, very similar to how the Ark remain in the house of Obed-edom for the same amount of time according to 2 Samuel 6:11. There’s clear parallels being drawn here between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, since Luke is paralleling Elizabeth’s mother of my Lord cry with David’s the Ark of the Lord cry, it stands to reason that Luke intends for us to take Elizabeth’s cry as a reference to Almighty God. Lord, in the phrase Ark of the Lord, was not a reference to the Messiah, the Ark was the Ark of Almighty God. Therefore, we have good reason to interpret Luke 1:43 as a reference to Mary being the Mother of God, contrary to Liefeld’s claim.
Now, someone might object here. “Well, if you’re going to take some parallels with the Ark of the Covenant, well then you need to take all of them. Otherwise, you’re just cherry-picking and being arbitrary in your selection.” Protestant apologist James White poses this challenge at the use of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant for support of Mary’s sinlessness. Often we as apologist, we appeal to Mary and the Ark of the Covenant to support Mary’s sinlessness. And Mr. White poses a challenge to that, to the appeal to the parallels for Mary’s sinlessness. But since it’s directed at Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, the counter-argument can be utilized for whatever inferences a Catholic might make from Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant, such as Mary, Mother of God, in this case in Luke 1:43.
Here’s how White argues. He argues that if we draw parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, then we’ll be pushed to affirm absurdity. So here’s a quote from his book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, page 205. He writes this, “Must Mary have been stolen by God’s enemies for a time so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing?” Referencing 2 Samuel 6:14-15. The point being, “Hey, the Ark was stolen by God’s enemies for a time. If you’re going to make all these parallels between the Ark and Mary, then you’re going to have to say that Mary was stolen by God’s enemies for a period of time.” He goes on to write this, “Who was Mary’s Uzzah?” Referencing 2 Samuel 6:3-8.
Remember the guy named Uzzah touched the Ark, he dropped dead. Anybody touching Mary ain’t dropping dead? No. Hence, the absurdity, the implication being… He goes on in reference to Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid. Madrid draws a further parallel. He’s referring to a work that Madrid had whenever he wrote and articulating these parallels. So he’s critiquing Madrid. Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the Ark was with Obed-edom, and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What then is the parallel with David’s action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the Ark had taken six steps? Referencing 2 Samuel 6:13.
White charges that the use of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant is violating the rules of scriptural interpretation, since he perceives it as picking and choosing “those aspects of Mary’s life, a Catholic wishes to parallel in the Ark, and those which he does not.” You get the gist of the argument, right?
So how do we respond to this? Well, our response as I point out in my book, Meeting the Protestant Response – How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments. In this comeback, there’s a hidden premise, and the premise is false. The hidden premise is this, some parallels require all parallels. But why is this false? Why do I think it’s false? Well, the New Testament authors themselves don’t honor the principle contained in this hidden premise. Consider the first two verses of Hosea 11. “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt, I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me. They kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.” Notice how Matthew takes the phrase, “Out of Egypt, I called my son,” in the first statement as a prefigurement of baby Jesus’s return from the flight to Egypt in Matthew 2:15.
Yet Matthew did not intend the latter part of the passage to refer to Jesus. Jesus didn’t go away from God, sacrificed through the Baals and burnt incense to their images. And there are numerous examples of this in the New Testament’s use of the Old. Whenever prophetic foreshadowing is in play, some elements foreshadow, and some don’t. There are continuities and discontinuities. That’s just the nature of prophetic foreshadowing. And the New Testament authors often pick and chose some, and did not pick and choose others. So if the New Testament authors employ this type of hermeneutic when relating the Old Testament to the New, and the New to the Old, well then it’s legitimate for us Catholics to do the same, to draw some parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant and not to draw other parallels.
By the way, one final thought, it is not us who are drawing the parallels to the Ark of the Covenant. It is Luke who is clearly drawing the parallels, and it is Luke inspired by the Holy Spirit who is picking and choosing some parallels, and not picking and choosing other parallels. So my friends when dealing with Christians who deny Mary as the Mother of God, we have Galatians 4:4-7 and Luke 1:43 to share with them as biblical evidence for the dogma.
Well, that does it, my friends, for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. Thank you so much for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. I hope that you have a great feast of Mary, Mother of God. God bless you.
Speaker 1:
Thank you for listening to the Sunday Catholic Word. Find more great shows by visiting catholicanswerspodcasts.com, or just search for Catholic Answers wherever you listen to podcasts.