|
Catholic Answers has some interesting ways of grabbing your
attention. By placing the beginning paragraph or two of the lead
article of their monthly magazine, This Rock, on the very cover
of the work, they draw your attention into reading the rest of
the article. True to form, the December, 1991 edition sported Pat
Madrid's article, "Ark of the New Covenant" with
the interesting lead in, "His face stiffened, and his eyes
narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been
calm as he `shared the gospel' with me, but when I mentioned my
belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception, his attitude
changed." Using a "real-life" backdrop for the
presentation of some particular topic is another fine writing
tool used by the folks at Catholic Answers. As you continue to
read about this encounter, you discover that our author, Pat
Madrid, is going to provide Biblical support for his belief in
the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He writes of his encounter
with the Protestant pastor,
After we'd examined the biblical evidence for the doctrine, the
anti-Marianism he'd shown became muted, but it was clear that,
at least emotionally if not biblically, Mary was a stumbling
block for him. Like most Christians (Catholic and Protestant)
the minister was unaware of the biblical support for the
Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception. But sometimes
even knowledge of these passages isn't enough. Many former
Evangelicals who have converted to the Catholic Church relate
how hard it was for them to put aside prejudices and embrace
Marian doctrines even after they'd thoroughly satisfied
themselves through prayer and Scripture study that such
teachings were indeed biblical.
Such words indicated to me that I was going to have the
opportunity of seeing solid, Biblical argumentation for the
concept of the Immaculate Conception in what followed.
Unfortunately, what was presented as "biblical
evidence" turned out to be much less than convincing.
Before examining Mr. Madrid's attempt to substantiate the
Immaculate Conception of Mary, let's set one thing straight. Mr.
Madrid speaks of "anti-Marianism" in the above
quotation. From the Roman position, the Protestant's refusal to
accept the Roman Catholic teachings on Mary is
"anti-Marianism." Yet, is this a valid statement on Mr.
Madrid's part? I certainly do not believe so. Rejection of
non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not
make one "anti-Mary." Indeed, one might well assert
that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she who
was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding
her against idolatrous worship, etc. I am sure that if Mary was
aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her
intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct
violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed
and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely
shielded Mary from such knowledge. So, one might well turn the
charge of "anti-Marianism" against those who propagate
such items of belief as these:
Prayer to Our Lady: Hail Mary, etc. My Queen! My Mother! I
give thee all myself, and, to show my devotion to thee, I
consecrate to thee my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my
entire self. Wherefore, O loving Mother, as I am thine own,
keep me, defend me, as thy property and possession.
The above prayer provides a promised indulgence of 500 days
for a month's recitation. In another publication we find the
promise of the Virgin Mary concerning the "Brown Scapular of
Our Lady of Mount Carmel." The scapular is said to be a
"gift to you from your heavenly mother," and is said to
be an "assurance of salvation." Mary's own promise,
supposedly given July 16th, 1251, is that "Whosoever dies
clothed in this (scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire."
The following prayer, titled "The Morning Offering," is
included:
O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary (here kiss
your Scapular as a sign of your consecration; partial indulgence
also), I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the
altars throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my
every thought, word and action of this day. O my Jesus, I
desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can and I
offer them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she
may best apply them in the interests of Thy most Sacred Heart.
Precious Blood of Jesus, save us! Immaculate Heart of Mary,
pray for us! Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
This is surely the true "anti-Marianism," for Mary
would never desire that anyone consecrate themselves to
her. She would recognize that any such action takes away from the
sole glory of Jesus Christ, and, as He is her Savior and Lord as
well, she would never seek to be placed in competition with Him,
even if those so doing denied that such a competition was the end
result of their teachings. Now, I recognize that some of the
sentiments expressed in the above quotations are not considered
to be items that must be believed by Roman Catholics. Apologists
such as Mr. Madrid are quick to point out the difference between
true Catholic doctrine and devotional beliefs. But in passing let
us note that if the Roman Church allows her people to believe
these things, she must either not have any concern for truth (if
these beliefs are not true), or she must believe them true as
well, and simply lack the courage to say so directly and openly.
One cannot imagine the Apostle Paul allowing believers in the
churches to pray to someone other than God and, when asked about
this practice, saying, "Well, it's not really something that
you have to believe to be saved--they are not being hurt by the
practice, so it's a matter of individual choice." So,
denying the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning Mary is not
"anti-Marianism." It is
"anti-Marian-distortionism" if anything at all.
Before providing what the "Bible has to say in favor of
the Catholic position" regarding Mary's Immaculate
Conception, Mr. Madrid takes the time to review some common
objections to the doctrine from the Protestant perspective. He
asserts that Mary was indeed saved from sin, but in a
"different and more glorious way than the rest of us
are." The merits of Christ were applied to her, he says,
prior to her birth, in an anticipatory way, so that she was born
without sin. By citing the examples of babies who are aborted, or
people born with mental deficiencies, Mr. Madrid thinks to show
that Paul's universal statements of sinfulness (Romans 3 and 5)
admit of exceptions. Without taking the time to discuss the fall,
sin, etc., we note in passing that we would not wish to put Mary
in the same category as aborted children and those born with
mental problems. But, Mr. Madrid is right about one thing--the
Bible does not explicitly say that Mary sinned. Of course, it
doesn't explicitly say that 99.9% of all of humanity, by name,
has sinned. It doesn't need to. I think the reason that it does
not address Mary's situation is quite simple--neither Luke, nor
any other Biblical writer, had the foggiest idea of the concept
of the Immaculate Conception, so it does not enter into their
writings. Mr. Madrid, however, should be aware of the danger of
this kind of exegesis. He is an expert on Mormonism, and must
realize that there is no explicit statement that "Jesus is
not the spirit-brother of Lucifer" (an LDS belief that he
and I would both reject). As we shall see, Pat Madrid is forced
to utilize "interpretive methods" that leave the door
open for any kind of teaching--whether LDS, Jehovah's Witness,
Moonie, or any other. But, I'm getting ahead of myself....
In introducing the Biblical evidence for the Immaculate
Conception, Mr. Madrid says the following:
Now let's consider what the Bible has to say in favor of the
Catholic position. It's important to recognize that neither the
words "Immaculate Conception" nor the precise formula adopted by
the Church to enunciate this truth are found in the Bible. This
doesn't mean the doctrine isn't biblical, only that the truth of
the Immaculate Conception, like the truths of the Trinity and
Jesus' hypostatic union (that Jesus was incarnated as God and
man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures,
divine and human, in one divine person), is mentioned either in
other words or only indirectly.
Pat makes a good point. One does not need to find the phrase
"Immaculate Conception" in the Bible for it to be
Biblical anymore than one has to find the term
"Trinity" in the Bible for it to be Biblical. We agree
on this point. However, knowing that Pat, like myself, works
extensively with Mormons, and that he is familiar with Jehovah's
Witnesses as well (Mark Brumley is the expert on the Witnesses at
Catholic Answers), I am certain that he is well aware that the
depth and breadth of Biblical evidence for both the Trinity, and
the hypostatic union, is light years beyond that of the
Immaculate Conception. Layer after layer of Biblical data can be
presented, in context, for the Trinity--one could fill this
entire publication with evidence of monotheism, the existence of
the three Persons, and the equality of those Persons (the three
foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity). One could dig into
linguistics, for example, and show how theotetos, that is,
"deity," at Colossians 2:9, clearly demonstrates that
Jesus is God in human flesh. One could examine John's usage of ego
eimi, "I Am," and see how this, too, shows the
deity of Christ. One can note the many instances of "triadic
formulae" throughout the New Testament, where the Father,
Son, and Spirit are placed together in divine settings (Ephesians
4:4-5, 2 Corinthians 13:14). Given that Mr. Madrid parallels the
Immaculate Conception with the Trinity and the hypostatic union,
then, do we find him presenting the same kind of Biblical
evidence for the doctrine? No, we do not. In fact, Pat managed to
get the specifically exegetical material (in opposition to
typological evidence, material that depends upon
"types" rather than direct assertion or teaching) into
one paragraph of fifteen lines. Here it is:
Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel
Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or
"highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state.
In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The
original import of this phrase is lost in English translation.
Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives
(best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages
would have say (sic), "You are tall among men" or "You are
wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the
wealthiest." Elizabeth's words mean Mary was the holiest of all
women.
That's it. That's the entirety of the specific, exegetical
evidence of the doctrine, according to Pat Madrid. Yes, he goes
on to present lots of "typological" attempts to find
Mary in various Old Testament stories. We shall examine them
later. But, with reference to specific, direct teaching, this is
all that is offered, and all that is said in defense of the
interpretation put forward. Obviously, then, the Immaculate
Conception does not qualify to be included in the
Trinity/hypostatic union category of Biblical teachings that are
not mentioned directly by name, for the evidence presented is,
quite simply, paltry when compared to the direct, obvious
evidence for the Trinity and the hypostatic union.
Does Mr. Madrid's interpretation stand up to scrutiny? It most
certainly does not. Let us begin with the first assertion. Luke
1:28 says,
The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly
favored! The Lord is with you" (NIV).
Mr. Madrid's sole comment on this passage is, "This is a
recognition of her sinless state." How does Pat know this?
He doesn't say. But Pat's boss, the head of Catholic Answers,
Karl Keating, at least attempted a fuller discussion in his book,
Catholicism and Fundamentalism. In speaking of the Greek
term, kecaritomene, he alleged:
The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys,
something the older translation conveys, which is that this
grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after
all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek
indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect
not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed
must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete as
possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the
whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been
in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her
existence to have been called "full of grace" or to have been
filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds... (p. 269).
Perhaps Pat just didn't have the room to put all that into his
article. Or, we could hope, he didn't include it, because he
recognizes that the above quotation goes so far beyond anything a
serious exegete of the passage in Greek could possibly say that
it rivals the attempts made by Mormons to substantiate the
concept of men being exalted to the status of a God by citing
Romans 8:17. This can be seen by examining the term in question,
the perfect passive participle kecaritwmenh. Does the term
carry an entire doctrine, unknown in the rest of the New
Testament, unheard of by the first three centuries of the
Christian Church, in itself? Or are modern Roman Catholic
interpreters reading into this term a tremendous amount of
material that was never intended by Luke?
First, let's look at the lexical meaning of the root of the
term, that being the Greek word caritow. Bauer's A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the
usage of caritow at Luke 1:28, "favored one (in the
sight of God)." No lexical source that we have found gives
as a meaning of caritow "sinlessness." The term
refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is,
God's grace. The only other occurrence of caritow is at
Ephesians 1:6, "...to the praise of his glorious grace,
which he has freely given us in the One he loves" (NIV). If
the bare term caritow means "sinlessness," then
it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have
been sinless as well.
However, if we look at Mr. Keating's presentation, it seems
clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the
lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it
takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene.
Note that Keating alleges that the "Greek indicates a
perfection of grace." He seems to be playing on the perfect
tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is
aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a
participle to the idea that the Greek "indicates a
perfection of grace." First, participles primarily derive
their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this
case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in
what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman
Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology
on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal
in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of
the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect,
one that emphatically states that something *is* (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but
most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor
given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34
("Come, you who are blessed by my Father..."), 1
Thessalonians 1:4 ("For we know, brothers loved by
God..."), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ("But we ought
always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord...")
emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would
argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the
righteous have a "perfection of blessedness that indicates
that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a
perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but
extensively" (to borrow from Mr. Keating's presentation).
The application of Keating's thoughts to any of the above
passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when
Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary "must have
been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her
existence to have been called `full of grace' or to have been
filled with divine favor in a singular way," he is, in point
of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his
own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is
simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious
interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore,
Madrid's statement, "This is a recognition of her sinless
state," falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary
as "highly favored," for, as he himself said, "Do
not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God."
The second passage cited by Madrid is also found in Luke 1,
this time, the 42nd verse, which reads,
In a loud voice she exclaimed, "Blessed are you among women, and
blessed is the child you will bear!" (NIV)
Madrid is quite correct to point out that Hebrew and Aramaic
do not have superlative forms, and that the phrase "blessed
among women" (euloghmenh su en gunaixin) should be
translated as a superlative. I would suggest something like,
"you are most blessed of all women." However, as it
often the case, truth can be used in a sleight-of-hand trick, and
that is what we have here. While all the discussion of the
superlative force is true, Mr. Madrid goes on to slip in a wholly
unwarranted conclusion, right on the heels of his proper
discussion of the superlative force of the passage. Note that he
concludes his paragraph with the sentence, "Elizabeth's
words mean Mary was the holiest of all women." Where did that
come from? To substantiate such a statement, Mr. Madrid would
have to prove to us that eulogeo does not actually mean
"blessed" here (as all lexical sources say it does),
but actually means "holy" instead. But Mr. Madrid
doesn't even attempt to do this. He just makes the bald
assertion, and leaves it at that--without a bit of commentary.
Does Elizabeth's words tell us that Mary was the holiest of
all women? Well, you certainly wouldn't get that idea from simply
reading the passage. There is nothing in the word eulogemene
that speaks of sinlessness or holiness. If Mr. Madrid attempts to
use the form of the term in the passage to come up with the
Immaculate Conception idea, does it follow that all the righteous
in Matthew 25:34 were immaculately conceived as well, since the
same term is used of them? It seems that would prove too much.
But, it's the only route open to the Roman apologist, who, of
course, has attempted to prove too much already by even citing
this passage and asserting that being "blessed among
women" means "the holiest of all women."
Remember that Pat began his article by mentioning the
"biblical evidence for the doctrine" of the Immaculate
Conception. However, we have found no evidence in what has been
presented. Yet, the article did not end with the one paragraph
cited earlier. Instead, we find a whole section dedicated to the
discussion of "types" of Mary in the Old Testament. To
give the reader a sense of what kind of interpretation the Roman
Catholic is forced to utilize to find "biblical
evidence" for the Immaculate Conception, we provide the
first example from Mr. Madrid's article:
Mary's Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where
God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any
blemish or stain or sin or imperfection. This is borne out by
the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations
and saying they were "very good." Out of pristine matter the
Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being,
forming him from the "womb" of the Earth. The immaculate
elements from which the first Adam received his substance
foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam
(Romans 5:14) took his human substance.
How does one deal with interpretation such as this?
Personally, I don't see Mary foreshadowed in creation, do
you? I don't recall any emphasis in the original text upon the
"immaculate" elements of the earth, nor upon the idea
that Adam was formed in the "womb" of the immaculate
earth. Are we to believe that Moses had these ideas in mind, or
is it just a result of inspiration? I have no problem with the
types that are directly presented to us in Scripture--Paul uses
such an allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. But I also realize that
there is no end to the "types" that one can find in
Scripture, nor any controls upon how far you can take such a
method.
An examination of the types Mr. Madrid presents shows us the
danger of this kind of interpretation. Forced by lack of direct
evidence to rely upon a lesser source of information, Madrid
points to Genesis 3:5 and the "proto-evangelon":
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will
strike his heel (Genesis 3:15, NIV).
After identifying the "seed of the woman" as Mary,
Madrid says,
If Mary was not completely sinless this prophesy becomes
untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary's
Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity
between the woman and Satan. Such enmity would have been
impossible if Mary were tainted by sin....
We are forced to ask, where does the passage even address a complete
enmity between the woman and Satan? Upon what basis can
Mr. Madrid insert into this passage some concept of Immaculate
Conception? Is there not enmity between believers and the world?
Does that make us sinless? Does the fact that we still have sin
in our lives mean that not enmity exists at all? Hardly.
The greatest effort in typological interpretation by Mr.
Madrid comes in his attempt to parallel the Ark of the Covenant
and Mary. The first parallel he draws has to do with the fact
that God took such great pains to make sure the Ark was properly
constructed. He says,
God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly
possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the
written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the
ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she
would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.
Does this kind of interpretation bear the weight of
investigation? While we admit the force such things carry with
those who already accept these doctrine, we point out that there
is no way to test the interpretation. We can easily point out
absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed--for example,
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? Who was Mary's Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)? Madrid draws a
further parallel between the three months the ark was with
Obededom 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 (2 Samuel 6:13)? See, Mr. Madrid feels free to
pick and choose what aspects of Mary's life he wishes to parallel
in the ark, and which he does not--there are no rules in this
kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any
conclusion. Pat seems to recognize at least some of this, for he
says,
Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary's Immaculate
Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible
nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original
sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is
silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence
supports the Catholic teaching.
We are left wondering at Mr. Madrid's definition of
"biblical evidence," but we are glad to see that he
recognizes that all that has come before does not
"prove" the Immaculate Conception. One will believe
that doctrine only if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church
is infallible and has an authority that does not need Scriptural
basis. It seems that, sadly, Mr. Madrid accepts Rome's claims.
There is one other item that needs to be addressed in this
article. Madrid says,
The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-
17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep God's
commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17). The ark
symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost
on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between
the Old Testament's description of the ark and the New
Testament's discussion of Mary's role.
We are forced to wonder again as to how Mr. Madrid is defining
the phrase "early Christians." If we take
"early" to mean "prior to the year 400," we
find that he has no basis for his statements. It is plain for all
to see that the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception is
missing from the earliest patristic sources--indeed, Mary does
not enter into the picture for quite some time, entering first
because of the Christological controversies, and only later,
under the impulse of asceticism and monasticism, as a central
figure in her own right. But, for the first four centuries, the
"Virgin Mother" for Christians was not Mary, but the
Church. The woman in Revelation 12 was not Mary, but the Church
as well (see Hippolytus, _On Christ and Antichrist_, 61, in ANF,
V:217). Indeed, one will find controversies brewing over the
concept of the Immaculate Conception a thousand years later, when
the Dominicans and the Franciscans were at each other's throats
over the issue. At the time, the "infallible authority"
remained silent, following a middle course between the two sides.
As late as the nineteenth century we find the Roman Catholic
bishop Milner saying,
The Church does not decide the controversy concerning the
Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and several other disputed
points, because she sees nothing clear and certain concerning
them either in the written or unwritten Word, and therefore
leaves her children to form their own opinions concerning them
(cited in Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, p. 182).
So even tradition fails our Roman Catholic apologist in
attempting to find a basis for the Immaculate Conception. The
simple fact is that this doctrine is a very late development, a
part of Roman Catholic teaching, officially, for less than 150
years. It has no Biblical basis, nor does it have foundation in
the early writings of the Church. It was a hotly debated topic
for centuries, and no "infallible Pope" dared schism by
exercising his infallibility to end the argument until the
nineteenth century. It is one of many Marian doctrines that, as a
whole, not only greatly detract from the true, Biblical
presentation of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, but which
promote clearly false concepts in the minds of faithful Catholics
everywhere. Given the results of our review, it seems clear that
Pat Madrid's "examination" of the "biblical
evidence" for the doctrine with the Calvary Chapel pastor
took a very short period of time.
The above article has been sent to Mr. Madrid for comment. He
was offered a full column in the publication in which the article
appears for comment/defense. He declined the offer.
|
