What Did Mary Know and When Did She Know It?
Posted by Steven D. Greydanus on Thursday Dec 24th,
2015 at 12:52 PM
Your ultimate resource on the “Mary, Did You Know?”
controversy!
[Original
text by Greydanus in black. Feedback and
response in blue.]
It’s the most wonderful time of the
year!
’Tis the season of social media
memes of Saint Nicholas punching Arius in the face, outrage over the latest
corporate disses to the season, and another round of controversy over the
lyrics of “Mary, Did You Know?”
I kid, I kid. I shared a Saint
Nicholas punching Arius meme myself this year (although the zeal some seem to
have for theological punching does give me pause). As for “Mary, Did You
Know?”, I have no brief one way or the other. I’m not a fan or a non-fan; I
can’t even say I’ve so much as heard the song one time.
Out of curiosity, I did Google the
lyrics. I understand the controversy. The song is typically Protestant in
sensibility, without the Marian piety of Catholic hymnody and spirituality,
emphasizing Mary’s ordinariness rather than her extraordinariness.
That’s not necessarily a problem —
Mary was both ordinary and extraordinary, as was her Son — but the song rubs
many Catholics the wrong way less because of any particular line than the
general feeling that it seems to be essentially asking, “Hey, Mary, did you
know your Son wasn’t just some random kid?” On the most hostile reading, some
have even accused the song of heresy, though that’s clearly a bridge too far.
Obviously, the idea that Mary was
simply in the dark about her Son’s identity and mission is obviously a
nonstarter. Among other things, Mary knew not only
1.what she heard from Gabriel at
the Annunciation (Luke 1:26–38), but also
2.what the angel told Joseph in his
dream, presumably (Matthew 1:18–25);
3.what Elizabeth told Mary by the
Holy Spirit at the Visitation (Luke 1:39–56);
4.what Gabriel told Zechariah about
his own son John, presumably (Luke 1:5–23);
5.what the shepherds told Mary at
the Nativity they heard from the heavenly host (Luke 2:8–20); and
6.what Simeon and Anna told Mary at
the Presentation in the Temple (Luke 2:22–38).
That’s before Jesus was two months
old, before we even get to the Magi and Joseph’s dreams that save Jesus from
Herod and bring the Holy Family to live in Nazareth. Yes, the idea
that Mary was in the dark in a “nonstarter.”
She obviously knew something
of the nature and mission of her child.
We are also told that Mary was
overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and are twice told that she “kept all these
things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19, 51). She thought about them
long and deeply — and her Magnificat shows that she had deep insight into what
God was doing in her. Yes, her Magnificat reveals that she knew very well that
God was doing “great things” for her and through her for the good of the world.
On the other hand, nothing in
divine revelation or Catholic tradition obliges us to believe that the Virgin
Mary could have given a precise account of Trinitarian theology, the Hypostatic
Union, and so forth, [such terminology and
understanding didn’t even come to humanity until the 3rd Century,
with the theologian/philosopher Tertullian] much less that she had
complete and exact foreknowledge of his entire ministry, including his passion,
death and resurrection. (She did know, via Simeon, that “a sword” would pierce
through her own soul.)
We do know that Mary and Jesus
weren’t always on exactly the same page; their exchange at the finding in the
Temple shows that much. Good and true insight from a reading of Scripture.
Avoiding both extremes, then, I see
no reason why we can’t wonder, within limits, what Mary knew and when she knew
it. Since the lyrics of “Mary, Did You Know?” are mostly posed as questions
rather than declarations, I’m generally inclined to give it the benefit of the
doubt. This doesn’t mean I’m a huge fan of the song — obviously I’m not — but I
don’t see a reason to consider it offensive either.
But let’s look a bit more closely
at what the song actually asks. The first line asks: Mary, did you know that your Baby Boy would
one day walk on water? Later lines ask
similar questions:
Mary, did you know that your Baby
Boy will give sight to a blind man?
Mary, did you know that your Baby
Boy will calm the storm with His hand?
Is there any reason to suppose that
Mary had specific foreknowledge of miracles like Jesus’ walking on water and
calming of the storm? I see no reason to make a point of contention over this.
We might possibly put giving sight
to the blind in a different category, along with the miracles referenced in
these lines:
The blind will see
The deaf will hear
The dead will live again.
The lame will leap
The dumb will speak
The praises of The Lamb.
This is a paraphrase of Isaiah
35:5–6 (though Isaiah doesn’t mention the dead living again). Isaiah also
speaks about “opening the eyes that are blind” in chapter 42, which begins,
“Behold my servant, whom “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom
my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to
the nations…”
When Jesus began his ministry, he
read from Isaiah 61, which, as Luke renders it from the Septuagint, says,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news
to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the
captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
(Luke 4:18–19)
The Jewish people of Jesus’ day
looked forward to the coming of the kingdom of God, when all would be set
right. The oppressed would be liberated, the blind would see, the dead would
live again, and the Lord would rule over all the nations, which would turn from
their idols to serve the God of Israel. The Jews were, specifically, expecting a military and
political messiah who would be strong and powerful, able to cast out the
enemies of Israel. As we know, they’re
still waiting for such a messiah today.
Did Mary have reason to believe
that her Son would usher in the kingdom of God? The song asks this too: Mary, did you know that your Baby Boy would
one day rule the nations?
Here the answer is clearer. At the
Annunciation Mary was told of her Son:
“He will be great, and will be
called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne
of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob for
ever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
(Luke 1:32–33)
This seems clear enough — even
before Mary learned from the shepherds that the angels had acclaimed her son
“Christ the Lord,” and from Simeon that not only was Jesus “set for the fall
and rising of many in Israel,” but also that in him God had prepared “a light
for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel.”
All of this is clearly messianic,
kingdom-of-God language. To be the Son of the Most High, to reign forever in a
kingdom without end, is to be the Messiah and to usher in the kingdom of God. But—and this is
important—the Jews did not expect God
himself to be the Messiah. And so,
talk of Jesus as “the Christ, the Messiah” does not necessarily mean that Mary (or any other Jew at the time) knew
Jesus to be God himself. Today we equate “Messiah/Christ” with
“God.” Such a thought at the time of
Mary would have been quite foreign.
This, in turn, might be reason
enough for Mary to link passages like Isaiah 35 and 61 to her Son, and to
suspect that the promise of the blind seeing and the lame walking would indeed
be fulfilled in him. Again, in the time of the birth of Christ, the prophesied
messiah who heals was not equated with God
himself. On a side note, “healing”
and “the kingdom” are meshed together in the words and public ministry of
Jesus. Never, in the whole of the Gospel
of Luke, does Jesus speak about “the kingdom” without also speaking about
“healing.” The two are clearly related,
but this wasn’t brought out so clearly and firmly until Jesus was in his 30s.
But that’s not all Mary knew.
Things are clearer still when we
come to the second line of the song:
Mary, did you know that your Baby
Boy would save our sons and daughters?
Here the answer is definitely yes.
Mary knew her Son would bring salvation.
To begin with, Joseph knew. The
angel told him in his dream that he would “save his people from their sins.”
Presumably Joseph told Mary about his dream (at least, I can’t think why he
wouldn’t, or how else the story would be likely to have survived for Matthew to
hear it). Regardless
of whether or not Joseph told her, Mary knew that Jesus would “save his people
from their sins” simply on the basis of Jesus’ name, which means “God saves.” This was a further expectation of the Jews of
the Messiah—that he would “save the people from their sins.” But, again, was Mary equating in her mind and
heart “the Messiah” and “God himself?”
Again, Jews were not expecting the Messiah to be God himself—not even
the Messiah who saves the people from their sins.
Mary also heard from the shepherds
that her Son had been acclaimed “Savior” as well as “Christ the Lord” by a
multitude of the heavenly host. From Simeon she heard “mine eyes have seen thy
salvation.” See
above.
Did Mary know that Jesus would be
her own Savior?
Did you know that your Baby Boy has
come to make you new?
This Child that you delivered will
soon deliver you.
Catholics believe that Mary was
preserved from all sin from the first moment of her conception. This — and not the virginal conception of Jesus —
is the Immaculate Conception. But we also believe that Jesus is Mary’s Savior,
and that the Immaculate Conception is not an exception to Christ’s work of
redemption, but its greatest fruit. (N.b. The line “This Child that you
delivered will soon deliver you” does not contradict the Immaculate Conception;
see the combox for more.) Yes, Catholics believe that Mary’s Immaculate Conception
is a sign of her having been “saved” by Christ even before he came in the flesh.
Did Mary understand that her Son
would be her own Savior? Certainly she connected what God was doing in her with
her own salvation. At the Visitation, responding to Elizabeth’s joyful greeting
and hailing her as “the mother of my Lord,” Mary sings in the Magnificat:
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my
Savior,
for he has regarded the low estate
of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all
generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great
things for me,
and holy is his name.
Clearly,
she (and all good Jews) knew God to be her one and only Savior. And she saw her “lowliness” and the child in
her womb as the means of her own (and
others’) salvation. But her Magnificat
doesn’t reveal that she knew God himself
to be the means of salvation. There is an unwarranted leap in the argument
that says: God is the Savior; Jesus saves; therefore, Jesus is God. Obviously, I believe firmly that Jesus is the
Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity.
But, from the standpoint of logical argument, the question is open: Is
Jesus the one who saves (i.e., God), or the means of salvation? (As we know, he is both. But did Mary know that?)
Perhaps the most important and
mysterious question is what Mary understood regarding Jesus’ divinity.
Did you know that your Baby Boy has
walked where angels trod?
When you kiss your little Baby you
kissed the face of God?
Mary, did you know that your Baby
Boy is Lord of all creation?
Did you know that your Baby Boy is
heaven’s perfect Lamb?
The sleeping Child you're holding
is the Great I Am.
At the Annunciation Mary was told —
twice — that he would be “the Son of the Most High,” “the Son of God.” By
itself, though, this doesn’t settle the question. “Son of God” in the Old
Testament had many meanings, one of them including “messiah” or “Davidic king.” Very true. There were many “sons of God” and “sons of
god” running around at the time, both Jewish and non-Jewish. It’s not a unique title.
Gabriel does develop the idea of
Jesus’ divine Sonship in another direction: Mary’s Son will be called “Son of
God” precisely because he will be conceived by the Holy Spirit, without the
involvement of a human father. That’s still not an affirmation of Jesus’
eternal, divine Sonship, but it gets us closer.
Two things to keep in mind here. First, the Jewish monotheistic view of God
was such that the idea of a “Second Person of a Trinity” would’ve been
nonsensical; God was God—one and only.
And, second, at this time in history, the idea of a human mother and a
divine father (or vice versa) wasn’t new; just consider all the Greek, Roman,
and Egyptian gods and their half-human, half-divine children (e.g., Pharaoh,
Apollo, Achilles, Helen, Hercules, etc).
Likewise, the eternity of Jesus’ reign is not ordinary messiah-language,
but doesn’t automatically make Jesus God.
The Davidic line was supposed to be forever,
but that didn’t make King David divine either.
After Gabriel’s words to Mary, the
next most important are those spoken by Elizabeth under the Holy Spirit:
Blessed are you among women, and
blessed is the fruit of your womb!
And why is this granted me, that
the mother of my Lord should come to me?
“Mother of my Lord” is widely
understood to anticipate Mary’s title Theotokos
or Mother of God. The Greek “μήτηρ τοῦ Κυρίου μου” means, literally,
“mother of the Lord of me.” “Mother” is
in the sense of a human mother. And
“Lord” [τοῦ Κυρίου] is the standard word in Greek for “Lord” (this is akin to
Spanish-speakers today using “Señor” in reference to both the Lord God and the
male head of a household). The Greek
“Θεοτόκος” [Theotokos] means, “God-bearer.”
“Mother of my Lord” and “God-bearer” are not synonymous; not in English
nor Greek. While it may not be
impossible to interpret “my Lord” here as a reference to Jesus’ messianic
status and human kingship, I see no reason to limit Elizabeth’s insight in this
way if we wish to take seriously not only the inspiration of sacred scripture,
but also the Holy Spirit on Elizabeth herself.
According to the inspired words of Sacred
Scripture (and not our human assumptions and the benefit of hindsight),
Elizabeth’s insight is precisely that Mary is “μήτηρ τοῦ Κυρίου μου” [mother of
my Lord]. Clearly, Elizabeth’s words
show that that she understands the infant in Mary’s womb to be singularly
unique (after all, an unborn baby as a “Lord”?). Elizabeth’s words anticipate Mary’s eventual title of “Mother of God.” And that’s just it: the words anticipate. The “reason to limit Elizabeth’s insight” is
because she is a limited human being. For
all human beings there is a limit to our wisdom; we are not the omniscient God,
even with the generous help of the Holy Spirit.
Elizabeth anticipates.
And if Elizabeth had an intimation
of Mary as Theotokos, surely Mary did also.
This is a factually false statement, in
comparison to Sacred Scripture.
Elizabeth had an intimation of Mary as “μήτηρ τοῦ Κυρίου μου” [mother of
my Lord], not of Mary as “Θεοτόκος” [Theotokos, or “God-bearer”]. These two descriptions of Mary are not
synonymous; nor is “Θεοτόκος” ever heard on the lips of Elizabeth in Scripture. Mary knew she was “μήτηρ τοῦ Κυρίου μου,”
mother of [the] Lord, which is not to
say she knew herself as “Θεοτόκος,” the bearer of God. Of course, this is not to say that Mary didn’t
know her child was to be unique in the world.
The circumstances of the child’s conception, birth, and youth indicate
as much; Mary knew Jesus was unique, but how so?
The divinity of Christ is a
mystery, and exactly how Mary understood or would have articulated that mystery
is a question the New Testament doesn’t fully answer. Absolutely correct. The New Testament does not fully answer the
question of Mary’s understanding. It
remains a question. Although, it’s clear
that she grows in understanding (and far surpassed our own understanding today
of Jesus as God). On some level,
though, I think we have to say Mary knew who Jesus was. On some level, clearly. But on what level?
She carried him for nine months,
and she alone knew beyond any possibility of doubt that there was no human
father. True,
and she knew as much even at the annunciation by Gabriel.
Her Fiat, her “Yes” to God, was a
moment of singular grace. Without Mary’s “Yes,” the Incarnation would not have
taken place. Mary would not unwillingly become the mother of God, nor would
Mary’s Fiat have been meaningful if she hadn’t understood what she was
consenting to. On
the contrary, if Mary’s fiat was based on full
knowledge and understanding of who her child was, then her fiat would have
been precisely emptied of its
meaning. Her “yes” to God was, indeed, a
moment of singular grace. But her fiat
is a statement of perfect faith in
the unknown Will of God, not a
statement of perfect confidence in her
own understanding of the Will and Plan of God—even if her understanding was
a grace from God. If we say “yes” to
something—the details and outcome of which we already know perfectly, no faith
is required. The “yes,” therefore, is
not especially outstanding or meaningful.
On an
important side note, this is why we don’t say Jesus “had faith” (even though
some hymns mention “the faith of Jesus;” they’re theology incorrect). Jesus the Son of God knew and understood fully what the Will and Plan of God the Father
was; he knew the Cross would come. But
because he knew, that doesn’t mean
his “yes” to the Father’s Will was meaningless; in just means he didn’t act in faith; rather, he acted in love.
In spite of his knowledge of the
truth, he acted in love. And so, with
Jesus’ “yes,” we celebrate the triumph of
love. With Mary’s “yes,” we
celebrate the triumph of faith and hope. Mary didn’t know fully what she was
consenting to, nor did she know fully (to begin with) who the child in her womb
was—that’s why her fiat is a triumph
of faith and hope. And that’s why we
celebrate and venerate her.
When Mary said “Yes,” she knew what
it meant. See
the comment above. She knew that
she had been chosen for an ineffable privilege [Yes,
very definitely. That’s why in her
Magnificat she recognizes herself as “blessed,” and knows that generations will
sing of her blessedness]; she also knew, I suspect, that she was
consenting to unsupportable sorrow. God
did not foist that on her either; when Simeon told her of the sword that would
pierce her soul, I doubt he was telling her anything she didn’t already know. The notion that
Mary knew of her future suffering even before Simeon told her goes directly contrary
to what is revealed in Sacred Scripture.
When Simeon speaks, Mary and Joseph are “θαυμάζοντες” [Greek translated
as “amazed” in the NABRE]. The word “θαυμάζοντες”
means “to wonder, to marvel, to be awestruck,” and especially has the
connotation of “beginning to speculate.”
Scripture reveals that Mary and Joseph are struck with information and
wisdom about Jesus (and Mary) which they need to digest. The author of the article makes an
unwarranted and even false claim when he says, “I doubt [Simeon] was telling
[Mary] anything she didn’t already know.”
The revelation of Scripture, and a reading of the Greek, says otherwise.
Of
course, this is not to deflate the good and just veneration of our Blessed
Mother. On the contrary, her perfect
fiat—given in faith and hope in an unknown plan—is the very reason we venerate
her. It’s the kind of faith and hope we
want to emulate.
She knew. [.
. . something of the nature of her son, very definitely.] She knew everything that others had told
her. And she had perfect faith and hope
given her by God. She most definitely
knew that the birth of her son would be world-changing. But did she grasp that Jesus was God himself? Scripture leaves that question open;
although, it would be safe to say that, in time, she came to know her son Jesus as the Son of God. Perhaps this was at the foot of the Cross, or
at Pentecost, or when she was assumed in Heaven. Whenever it was, she came to know.
The
point of the homily, however, is not to answer a theological question about
Mary; the point is to ask ourselves if we
really know who Jesus is? If we
really do, then why don’t we give him more attention, more love, more of our
faith and hope? If we really know who Jesus
is, then why can our celebrations of Mass be so uninspired and flat? If we really know who Jesus is, then why are
we not amazed at the very thought that we—limited and faulty human beings—can
speak directly with God himself? Do we
really know who Jesus is?
