Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Marian Reflections IV: The New Eve (Part I)

Marian Reflections IV: The New Eve (Part I)

Last updated on: April 1, 2016 at 2:28 pm by Henry Karlson

Marian Reflections IV: The New Eve (Part I) 2016-04-01T14:28:47-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Head of Virgin Mary
By Римский мастер первой половины XIII века [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

We have begun to examine some of the reasons why Mary, the Mother of God, has a special place in salvation history as well as to why she should hold a special place in our hearts. Jesus, the incarnate Logos, the God-man, has established her to be our spiritual mother, the mother of our salvation. For that reason alone we should respect her, honor her, praise her, and follow her as we would with our earthly mother. When we do so, we should discover that she directs us away from attaching ourselves exclusively to her as she points us to move beyond her and toward her son, Jesus. By honoring and following her, we find ourselves going with her to Jesus and not away from him. This is why we do not find ourselves in opposition to or in conflict with the will of God, because she has united herself perfectly to God’s will and will only direct and guide us to follow that will as well.

And yet, some could ask, if all that we have said is true, if Mary has been given a special place in salvation history, and we should honor her as our spiritual mother, why do we not find more indications of this in the Gospels? Or, more importantly, why does Jesus seem to be indifferent to his mother and her wishes in at least three different occasions in the Gospel narratives? Are we making more out of Mary and her place in salvation history than God intended?

The first occasion which some people bring up and use to question the honor Mary is to be given comes from the time when Jesus was twelve and found at the Temple. It seems that every year, during the Passover Feast, Jesus and his extended family would go to Jerusalem to celebrate the festival. That year, once the feast was over, his family left the city to go home. Joseph and Mary thought Jesus had left with them, probably with the belief he was being watched over by someone else in the family. When Mary and Joseph realized what happened, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for him and eventually finding him at the Temple. They questioned him as to what he was doing, and his response some think indicate that he had little to no regard for his earthly parents:

And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them (Lk 2:48 – 50 RSV).

The next incident which is brought up is the Wedding in Cana. Here, some suggest Jesus showed disregard for his mother by the way he addresses her: not as mother, but as “woman”:

Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:2-5 RSV).

Finally, in words which appear to reject all familial relationships, Jesus seems to redefine his family, and in doing so, undermines his mother’s significance:

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. 12:46 -50 RSV).

The true meaning of these verses, filled with the paradoxical wisdom Christ typically used to teach his disciples, is missed when the texts are read with the agenda to use them as an excuse to ignore Mary’s honored place in the Christian faith.[1] The words certainly were written down and placed in the Gospels to teach us something, but as with all Scripture, we must be careful when reading them, because the meaning of a particular text tends to require much work to properly understand. It is easy to do a simple cursory reading and take the most simplistic, most “literal,” interpretation out of that reading and think such an interpretation is what God intended. This is what most of us do when we first read Scripture. But the more we work with Scripture, the more we read it, the more we see Scripture was not intended to be read in this fashion – for if we did, we would end up believing several contradictory things at once.[2] What matters is not the letter, but the spirit, the message of the text.

The Gospel writers certainly were able to speak to their own particular audience in a way which their contemporaries could more readily understand the point than we do today. This is because when we read the texts centuries later, we can easily read them without understanding all the nuances of the text, and the way certain words could and were used differently from the way we would use them. We want to read them with the way we would use the words today, and if we find Jesus does not do so, if we are not careful, we will end up thinking this was because Jesus was being controversial, when in reality, he was not (or, likewise, the reverse, and miss when he was being controversial). We must not, therefore, expect Jesus to follow the same customs as our society, and think if and when he does not, he was being intentionally counter-cultural. This is why we must be especially careful when reading these three texts.

We should not read the first as giving any kind of indication that Jesus was showing disrespect to his earthly parents. To read into his actions such a disregard for them is to say Jesus did not fulfill the Mosaic Law, which would contradict Jesus’ own words where he said he came not to repudiate the Law but to fulfill it (cf. Matt. 5:17). The Mosaic Law was clear: he was to honor his mother and father (cf. Ex. 20:12). If we interpret his actions as someone dishonoring them, he would have sinned, which of course, he never did (cf. 2Cor. 5:21).

Then, how exactly, are we to understand the point of Jesus’ words? Jesus was the son of Mary. But he was also the legal son of Joseph, that is, Joseph had become his legal guardian, and so represented his father on earth. But Jesus was also the Son of God, the Son of the Father. As such, Jesus fulfilled the law, not only by showing respect to his earthly parents, but also by giving God the Father his proper due. The honor and respect he gave to his earthly parents was what was proper to them. We can say that he gave to them a relative level of veneration or honor, relative to the glory which God had given to them, so that Mary, being the Mother of God, had a higher form of veneration due to her than Joseph, but even it was not absolute. Only God, God the Father, was to be honored with an absolute form of worship. To fulfill the Mosaic Law, Jesus had to respect both parties, his earthly parents and his heavenly Father, but between his earthly parents and God the Father, the kind of honor he gave to his parents, even to Mary his mother, paled in comparison to the glory and honor he gave to God the Father. And Joseph was also honored, for he had been given a special role, a unique role, in that he was to be the earthly reflection of divine fatherhood for Jesus (which, as Sergius Bulgakov explained, is why it was appropriate for Joseph to have been a real father with children in a previous marriage).[3]

Therefore, at the Temple, Jesus was giving us an indication of his two natures, with a special emphasis on the fact that he was the Son of God. He was, in this fashion, affirming familial relationships by honoring God the Father. Having achieved that aim, he returned home with Mary and Joseph, his mother and step-father, affirming his proper respect for them as well. Nothing in it indicated any disrespect for Mary or her position in salvation history, but rather, we find the reverse to be true, because he certainly followed after her, respecting her earthly authority as his mother, after she found him in the Temple.

The next text which we brought up was from the Wedding at Cana. How are we to understand Jesus’s reaction to Mary? If she is to be treated as his mother, and respected by him because she was his mother, why does he seem not to show her any respect, and merely refers to her as “woman”? There are many answers which can be given to this question; two complementary ones stand out as important to our discussion here.

The first is to understand that the title, woman, was used as a sign of respect, not disrespect; the connotations of its use in Jesus’ time differs from the social mores expected from us using modern English. While we might think it rude for someone to say to their mother, “Woman, why do you ask that of me?” the word which Jesus used, γύναι, can be translated in a more respectful tone (the word does not necessarily have to be translated as woman) to indicate more the connotation of the time. Thus, we could see he was saying “Lady,” or even “Ma’am,” the latter of which many use, respectfully, to address their mothers when their mothers are asking them to do something.

But there is another, deeper, more theological answer as to why the “woman” was used. We must remember that Jesus asked Mary why she was so concerned, that is, why the lack of wine concern both of them together.[4] Jesus was responding to Mary in a way to suggest that Mary’s concerns were his concerns, that her life and mission and his were intertwined together. His use of the word, woman, was used to reinforce this, and not to show her any disrespect. She is called woman, because he is later to be seen and called simply man, that is, he is the new or second Adam (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1Cor. 15:45). He is the new man and he has designated her and declared her to be the woman who works in and with him, the new or second Eve. He is man and she is woman! At the expulsion of the first Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, God prophetically stated that the woman, that is the New Woman, the New Eve, would squash the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The concern of Jesus is the salvation of the world, but that salvation is accomplished with his New Eve, Mary, as the prophecy indicated. Jesus was asking Mary what her desire had to do with their mutual mission, the salvation of the world, affirming her place in salvation history as not just any woman, but the woman, the second Eve who has her place beside him.

More to Come

[1] If we wanted, we could find other examples of where it seems Jesus undermined the value of family relationships, such as when he said:

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:35-7).

At first glance, this seems to be a very harsh declaration, but the more we examine it and its meaning, the more we know Jesus was not telling his disciples to deny the value of their families, but to deny making their family an idol by putting it in front of them as a way to interfere with following Christ. If any of his disciples found the demands placed upon them by their families interfered with their following of Christ, such as if their families told them to deny Christ, they were to follow Christ over their families. We find this is exactly what many early martyrs, especially virgin martyrs, did. Nonetheless, Jesus did not deny the relative respect that people were to have for their families. He, after all, could be seen working with families, promoting marriage such as at the Wedding of Cana, helping parents heal their children, children their parents, and also in and through the way he gave positive representations of families in his parables, such as we find with the parable of the prodigal son. If he repudiated family life altogether, he would have not done or said anything to encourage family life itself. What he said, therefore, was merely a reminder of the limit of the value of family. To love and obey God is the first of all commandments, and if any other obligation sought to undermine that love, such secondary obligations could therefore be dispensed.

[2] For example, we would believe God does not change (cf. Mal. 3:6) and yet changed his mind (cf. Ex. 32:14). Since the literal interpretation of both propositions cannot both be true, we must discern the true meaning behind them so that they can be harmonized together. The solution here is to understand, as we have discussed before, why God appears to change in our relationship with him is because we encounter him in time, but for God, all of he does is of his own, perfect, eternal act.

[3] We will discuss Marys’ perpetual virginity and with it, the realization that Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” could be, and should be, seen as the children of Joseph later. Nonetheless, the point that Joseph is best seen as having children of his own is stated quite well in Bulgakov’s work, The Friend of the Bridegroom. See Sergius Bulgakov, The Friend of the Bridegroom. trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2003), 177- 188 for Bulgakov’s perspective on Joseph and his relationship to, and difference from, John the Baptist, including Bulgakov’s criticism of some Catholics who want Joseph to be a virgin like Mary.

[4] That he was to perform the miracle shows that there was a legitimate concern, which the church interprets eucharistically: the transformation from water to wine demonstrates Jesus’ power to change the very substance of what was before him; but more importantly, the wine is significant, because wine is used as an image of his blood, and so this event, with its use of wine, suggests that his own wedding feast will be established by the shedding of his blood and his ability to keep on giving it to us and having it not run out.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

Eve

Interpretation

Mary

Theological Reflection

Previous Post

March 31, 2016

There Is No Charity Without Justice

Next Post

April 2, 2016 Marian Reflections IV: The New Eve (Part II)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz