A couple of months ago I had a discussion on the Biblical Horizons blog here. Both sides seemed to be talking past each other. I thought about it again today, and I think I can succinctly phrase my chief concern.
"It was a very bright day, for both the sun and the moon were shining."
I suppose no none would be silly enough to actually write this, but if they were, they would not communicate so much the brightness of the day, as the dimness of the sun.
Statements like (and I'm not quoting you) "God blessed Mary and Joseph with Jesus, but continued to bless them, increasing their honor with more children." makes the same mistake as the above quote. It does not so much honor Mary and childbearing, as minimize the honor which is Christ Himself.
Similarly, consider the following (rather silly) statement "Though Aristotle had many great writings, though he nearly single handedly founded the study of Rhetoric, literary criticism, metaphysics, science, astronomy, and many other disciplines; the honor in these hardly deserves mention next to his greatest honor: he was the tutor of Alexander the Great." Though this statement superficially purports to praise Aristotle, in fact, it is (rather clearly) over the top praise of Alexander the Great.
But if we change it slightly, substituting Mary for Aristotle, and Jesus for Alexander the Great, it is no longer excessive, but a fitting praise for Jesus. And Orthodox praise of Mary, in which the praise of her as ever-virgin plays a large part, has become such praise of Christ. As such, we must be very careful that in correcting errors they have made, we do not make them say something like "Aristotle is chiefly to be honored for tutoring Alexander, but aside from this he has many other great accomplishments, including the founding of the disciplines of..." which, though more fitting praise of Alexander, is nearly blasphemous when made praise of Christ.
And my concern with what you have written about Mary here, though it is in many ways admirable, is that it falls into these two traps. In the first place, while attempting to honor childbearing, it in fact dims Christ; and while attempting to correct Orthodox errors, in fact, treats Christ as just another man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"It does not so much honor Mary and childbearing, as minimize the honor which is Christ Himself."
ReplyDeleteAnd this is what Jesus does, He humbles himself. He minimizes his own honor. To say otherwise, to say that He seizes honor or clings to honor that he has in fact given away is to dishonor Him.
The Bible is clear, despite your hermeneutic acrobats, that Jesus has brothers. But even in your bizarre view of honor and your argument here resolves nothing. Jesus Himself does the exact same thing you're objecting to in John 19.26.
What you say here seems to imply that by creating the stars God dishonors the moon.
You aren't interacting with my point, at all.
ReplyDelete"And this is what Jesus does, He humbles himself. He minimizes his own honor."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what I said. I didn't say the honor which is due Christ, but the honor which is Christ. Look at the statements about Aristotle below. Both of them praise Aristotle for the honor which is Alexander.
"The Bible is clear, despite your hermeneutic acrobats, that Jesus has brothers."
I suppose if I'd denied it, you'd have a point.
"Jesus Himself does the exact same thing you're objecting to in John 19.26."
Jesus says "you've had some honor by being related to me, have more by being related to John"? No he doesn't.
"What you say here seems to imply that by creating the stars God dishonors the moon."
No. What I'm saying is all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. And that (as everyone believes!) the first statement about Aristotle praises Alexander much more than the second.
So you don't deny that Jesus has brothers, you just deny that Mary was honored with them. Zat right?
ReplyDeleteYes. To say they add to the honor which is Christ is like saying the moon brightens the day. Any honor in childbearing is a reflection of the honor of bearing God, for any goodness in man is a reflection of the goodness in God.
ReplyDeleteHonor is not a substance nor is it a zero sum game.
ReplyDeleteHonor is acting in beneficence toward someone.
I don't know about that, I do know you think it is fitting to say "Mary is chiefly to be honored as the mother of God, but aside from this she has many other great honors, including being the mother of many other faithful children." But this statement treats Christ like a creature.
ReplyDeleteI think in your attempt to honor Mary you make her inhuman. Do you think she received these children from God and shrugged them off? Did she not feel honored to train up faithful servants? Was that duty beneath her?
ReplyDeleteBehold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Blessed is the woman who fills a quiver with them!
Is this true of all women but Mary? Was she grateful for anything? When Joseph brought her a flower was she honored or was it nothing to her? Did she say, "I've been blessed to bear the messiah into the world, nothing you can do honor me."
Sounds monstrous to me.
As a side note, I'm glad, whenever we see each other, that we never pull out these arguments we have over the internet. We'll be up in a week so I'll see ya soon.
Have I been unclear? I'm not concerned about giving honor to Mary. I'm concerned about giving honor to Christ.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're right that I'm not resolving the problem correctly, but you haven't even acknowledged that there's a problem here. The way you talk about Mary dishonors Christ. Look at the two quotes. Which honors Christ as the One in whom all treasures are hidden; which sets him alongside other goods as comparable to them?
ReplyDeleteMatt: In making this an issue you commit that error you're trying to avoid. The wisest way to speak of Christ's brothers is by imitating scripture and saying neither more nor less than what is there. I feel pretty confident in saying that scripture does not deprive Christ of due honor when speaking of them. It is wrong to believe that the Honor that is Christ and the honor which child-bearing bestows is mutually exclusive. The difference between Christ and your sun/moon analogy (or even the Aristotle analogy) is that neither of those were divine or miraculous honors. Comparison of Divine Honor and earthly honors is sticky, if not impossible.
ReplyDeleteRemy: There is a problem with your first point. Yes, Christ humbled Himself, but by no means does that imply less honor is required from us (and this included/includes Mary).
KTE: Could I say that my claim is that we must watch our language carefully as it is very easy to treat the earthly honor of children as somehow comparable to the divine honor of a Divine Son? Thus the problem with the statement about the sun and the moon, when applied to Christ and his siblings, is that it treats them as comparable with Christ; and the problem with the second statement about Aristotle (when applied to Christ) is that it treats Christ as comparable with his brothers?
ReplyDeleteMatt: You could (and I think we're agreeing now, but just for the fun of it..) because what must be made is a distinction between two completely separate 'honors' here. One is 'common', if you will. The honor of bearing children is the same type of honor as being granted long life. The honor of being the Theotokos is something completely new and unique, so I stand by my statement: the easiest way to not give inappropriate honor is by sticking with scripture. It's nice and succinct, at least.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of Mary actually having more children is well worked-over and I'm not sure where I stand. If she did, then it would not be wrong to ascribe her that first kind of 'honor' as well as the honor of being Theotokos. Being two separate things, one would not mar the other.
beautiful blog..pls visit mine and be a follower.. thanks and God bless..
ReplyDeletehttp://forlots.blogspot.com/