Exegetical analysis of Genesis

Make an exegetical analysis of Gen 1:1-2:3.Discuss the problem of the delimitation of this narrative.Describe the authorship and the historical context which produced this narrative.  Analyze its structure and make necessary remarks on it.Comment on the important verses of this narrative. Bring out the theological function and meaning of this narrative.

1.      Author and his time (Historical Context)

1.1  Four Sources

Pentateuch is said to have come from a combination of four sources J, E, D, P.

1)      ‘J’ (Yahwist) Source was the earliest source originated between10^thand9^th century B.C.E. in the south.

2)      Since the north was destroyed they were in need of its own version of the national epic, as ‘J’ explicitly focused on the South. So between 900-850 B.C.E. anElohist writer completed this work in north.

3)      Since the bulk of this northern legislation and customs  is  found  in  the  book  of Deuteronomy,  scholars  have  designated  it  the Deuteronomist source or D and that was effaced in 722 B.C.E.

4)      P is yet another source which would have been written during Babylonian exile in 587-539 B.C.E

1.2  The author of Genesis 1-2:3

Though the combination of the four sources J, E, D, and P are said to have formed the Pentateuch, genesis 1-2:3 belongs to priestly source. The authors are the priestly groups who have written passage during the time of Babylonian exile.

1.3  The time of Priestly Source

Priestly author is said to be the author of this narrative. During Babylonian exile in 587 - 539 B.C.E., as the Jerusalem Temple was demolished, the focus of Israel’s identity thus shifted from a national identity to an identity as a religious community. The priest took up the responsibility to keep up the traditions and thus enacted liturgical laws and rules for the community. The intent of the priestly source is to preserve the older radiations and to emphasize Israel’s new identity as a religious community. The author gives the message of hope in the exile, by writing genesis (1-2:3) their message was the message of hope in the exile.

1.4  Situation of Exile

During the Babylonian exile, the people of Israel had two important crises which marked a vital influence for the priestly authors to write genesis 1-2:3.  The crises are as follows:

a)      Identity  Crisis

The people of Israel during exile had no temple and no kings. Hence, their life was in chaos.

b)     TheologicalCrisis

It deals with the question about the power of the God Yahweh. Because, during exile in Babylon the people thought that they were defeated by other people and this defeat was the consequence of the fight between marduck and Yahweh.

·         People thought that the reason for their exile was Yahweh, who was weaker compared with God of marduck so, people raised a question about the powerfulness of theirGod, Yahweh.

·         It was at the time (the crisis) the priestly group wrote this message of hope and to have full confidence and trust in their God Yahweh.

2.      Delimitation

The author of this chapter is commonly called the Priestly writer. As regards the beginning of the first story of creation, there is no problem. With regard to its end, debate continues in the scholarly forum. Since the beginnings of the historical criticism, Gen 2:4a is indicated as the end of the first story of creation. The second part of Gen 2:4 is considered to be the beginning of the second story of creation, which ends in Gen 3:24. However, the entire verse 2:4 should be kept intact without separation, because this verse has a toledot formula whose essential function is always to be an introduction. Hence, the first story of creation ends in Gen 2:3 and the entire verse 2:4 begins the second story of creation.

3.      The Structure

      1:1       - Title Verse God created the heavens and the earth (1:1)

      1:2       - Introduction: disorder and turmoil

      1:3-31  - Creation in six days

§      day 1         Work 1 day and night (1:3-5)

§      day 2         Work 2 sky and sea (1:6-8)

§      day 3         Work 3 dry land (I :9-10)

§      Work 4 plants (l: 11-13)

§      day 4         Work 5 sun and moon (1:14-19) RULE

§      day 5         Work 6 birds and fish (1 :20-23)

§      day 6         Work 7 animals on the land (I:24-25)

§      Work 8 the human being (l: 26-31) RULE

      2: 1-3   - Conclusion: order and peace

4.      Remarks on the Structure

1)      The expression “the heavens and the earth” and the verb “created” (bara‘) appear in both the title and the closing verses.

2)      The body of the text (verses 3-31) deals with the six workdays of the week. Here, two parts can clearly be distinguished, The first three days describe the creation of the basic structure (verses 3-13) and the subsequent three days describe the fittings that will fill this basic structure (verses 14- 31).  Consequently it seems as if the body of the creation narrative is very rigidly structured.

Basic Structure		Its Fittings
Day 1 - work 1 - day and night                        - Time Day 2 - work 2 - sky and sea-    Space Day 3- work 3- dry land           Work 4 plants	1:3-5 1:6-8 1:11-13 1:9-10	Day 4 - work 5- sun and moon Day 5- work 6 - birds and fish Day 6 - work 7 - animals on the land           Work 8 the human being	1:14-19  1:20-23  1:24-25 1:26-31

3)      Stereotypical Constructions:Each creative act begins with an introductory formula: “And God said:  “Let there be.” (Verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 20, 24 and 26), Then, except for the fifth day, there - follows the effect: “And it was so” -verses 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 24 and 30)

a.       Moreover, with the exception of the second day, each creative act is evaluated (“And God saw that it was good”- verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25 and 31= seven times).

b.      Finally, at the end of every day, there is a concluding formula (“And there was evening and there was morning” - verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31).

4)      God speaks ten times (1:3, 6, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, and 29). The verb “create” is used seven times. (1:1, 21, 27, 2:3, 4) God“creates” fish and the birds and humankind. Otherwise he generally “makes”. God thrice “separates” (1:4, 6-7, and 14-15): he separates light from darkness, the waters which are above the firmament from the waters which are under the firmament, and day from the night. Thrice God creates beings “according to their species”: the plants (1:11-12), the fish and the birds (1:20-21), and the animals (1:24-25). There are three blessings: one for the fish and the birds, one for the first human couple, and one for the Sabbath (1:22, 28; 2:3). The divine name Elohim is repeated 35 times.

5)      There are two main parts in the narrative just as there are two main kinds of works, in the first part; God creates the conditions of life. He separates and gives names (1:2-19).In the second part, he creates living beings and blesses them (1:21-31). Each section finishes with the mention of a certain “power”. The universe, in the first part of the narrative, is ruled by the heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon, and the stars (1:18). In the second part, God gives humankind power and authority over all the living beings which fill the universe, the fish, the birds and all the animals (1:28). In both parts, vegetation is mentioned. God creates the plants and the trees on the third day (1: 11-13) and gives instructions about the food for all living beings on the sixth day (1:29-30).

5.      Literary Problems

1)      After the first work of creation, the text concludes in verse 5, “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” Likewise, after the second, work of creation, we read in verse 8: “And there was evening and there was morning, the second day” however, after (the third act of creation (verses 9 and 10) one would expect to find a similar formula as a conclusion of the third day (“And there was evening and there was morning, the third day”). This is missing, however.

2)      At the production of the fifth work of creation (verses 14-15) we read, for example, “And God said ‘Let there be lights (…).’And it was so.” Thus, one concludes that at the end of verse 15there are the lights. Yet the text in verse 16 goes on: “God made the two great lights.” If the lightsalready appeared at God’s command, why then, according to verse 16, does God still have to make them?

3)      God’s creation is indicated by means of different verbs

·         God “said”      - amaro(verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 14~15, 20, 24 and 26)

·         God “separated”         - badal (verses 4 and 7)2

·         God “called”               - qarah (verses 5, 8 and 10),

·         God “made”                - asah (verses 7, 16 and 25),

·         God “set”                    - natan (verse 17),

·         God “created”                         - barah (verses21 and27)

·         God “blessed”             - barak (verses22 and28)

The different kinds of verbs reveal two differing concepts of creation:

a.       Wortbericht - In the stereotypical parts, God creates by means of his will to create. God speaks and things appear.

b.      Tatbericht - In the variations, God must himself act: God separates, names, makes, creates places and blesses.

6.      Comments

1)      Verse 2 does not yet form part of the actual creation. It is, instead, an opening in which the disorder and turmoil that precedes God’s intervention is evoked. This verse has Genesis 2:1-3 asits counterpart. The seventh day is characterized by complete and perfect order and peace. In contrast to this order and peace, Genesis 1:2 emphasizes the chaos and turmoil. This is evident from the construction of the verse, where, in three parts, the chaotic and disordered state of the primal situationis brought out: “... the earth was a formless void/ and darknesscovered the face of the deep,/while a spirit of God (mighty wind) swept over theface of the waters.”

2)      there is a theological problem in 1:1-3. It seems that something existed “before God created, namely an earth was formless and void, as well as darkness and water. How can we reconcile this sentence withthe idea of God’s creating “out of nothing” (creation ex nihilo, see 2 Mac 7:28). But in the languageof the Bible and of the Ancient Near East, it was impossible to speak of “nothing”or to describe “nothing”. The writers of the Bible did not know the philosophical language of the Greeks.

3)      God’s first creature is light (1:3). Light is not a creature like all the other creatures. It should benoticed that God does not “create” or “make” the light. Hejust says: “Let there be light.”God asspeaker is another key metaphor for God’s creative activity (Pss 33:6,9; 148:5; 2 Cor 4:6). Thecentrality of the word means that the creation is not an accident,but a deliberate act of the divine will; it expresses what God intends. The word bespeaks transcendence, expressing the separateness of God from the created order.

4)      On the fourth day, God creates the heavenly bodies (1:14-19):the sun, the moon and the stars. The tasks of separating and ruling are notably; also divine roles, here delegated to these heavenlybodies. The involvement of the nonhuman in the continuing ordering of the world achieves prominence. Moreover, the human beings who receive a special authority in 1:28 have no powerupon the heavenly bodies. It should be noted that the sun and the moon are not named. It seems highly probable the writer wanted to avoid naming these two heavenly bodies because in other religions, especially in Mesopotamia, they were important divinities: Shamesh - the sun, and Sin –the moon. The bible makes these divinities merely creatures; they are not Gods and they even lacka special name.

5)      The fact that the sea monsters (tanninim) are specifically mentioned may polemize theories of a divine chaos monster in other creation stories, ascribing their creation to God; imagery associated with this myth occurs in some poetic texts (Is 27: 1; 51 :9; Ps 74: 13; Ps 148:7; Job7: 12).

6)      On the sixth day God creates the animals and the first human couple. The creation of humankindrequires specialkind.

a.       Whatis the meaning of the expression “image and likeness of God”? We could see in this expression democratization of the royal ideology known in Mesopotamia and in Egypt. According to these cultures, only the king is God’s real image. But for the Bible, every humanbeing, male or female, and not only the king, is an image of God.

b.      What is the meaning of the two verbs: “to dominate and to rule”? It must be understood in terms of care-giving, even nurturing, not exploitation. As the image of God, human beings shouldrelate to the nonhuman as God relates to them.

7)      The creation of humankind is followed by some instructions about food (1:29-30). A striking element of these instructions is that every living being is a vegetarian. Only after the flood will it be possible to eat meat (Gen 9:1-3). This means that the world of Gen 1 is absolutely peaceful. Blood is never shed, there is no violence, and all living beings live in security and without fear. This chapter describes in fact an ideal world.

8)      On the seventh day, God stops working and rests. What is the meaning of this “rest” or “absence of work”?

a.       In several narratives about the origins of the world in Ancient Near Eastern parallels (Enumaelish and the Atrahasis Epic), it is said that the divinity, after having created or organized the universe, builds a temple which will be his residence in the cosmos. Now, in Gen 1, God does not build a temple. There is no sacred place, but only sacred time: Sabbath, a holy day, blessed and hollowed by God himself (2:2).This is surely the highest point of narrative. God is present in the world in different ways.

b.      In Mesopotamia, the 7^th, 14^th, 19^th, 21^st, 28^th, days of each month were regarded by some as unlucky. It seems likely that the Israelite Sabbath was introduced as a deliberate counter-blast to this lunar-regulated cycle. The Sabbath was quite independent of the phases of the moon, and far from being unlucky, was blessed and sanctified by the creator.

7.      Theological Function and Meaning

7.1  It is not a Historically Reliable Account.

The creation poem in Genesis 1:1-2:4 is not ahistorically reliable account of the originof the world. The text does not pretendto be scientifically reliableand should not be readthat way.Thisnarrativeis not a scientific explanationof how the world came into existence. It is rather a contemplationof the world as God’s work and a faith’s reflection aboutthe different forms of his presencein the world.

7.2  God is a Mighty Creator.

The author or editor responsible for the text of Genesis 1:1-2:4as it now stands composed his creation narrative in the context of the Babylonian exile (587-537 BC). The northern kingdom of Israel had already been absorbed into the Assyrian empire in the eighth century BC after it was invaded by the Assyrians. Now, the southern kingdom of Judah had lost the war against Assyria’s successor, Babylon. The capital, Jerusalem, and the central temple were destroyed, bringing a definitive end to the royal dynasty of David. In addition, the Judean elite were taken into captivity in Babylon. This disastrous turn of events for Judah gave the (exiled) Israelites theimpression that Marduk, the Babylonian supreme deity, was more powerful than YHWH, Israel’sGod. Indeed, not only had Israel lost the battle, but YHWH, as Israel’s God, came out of the conflictas the big loser. Against this background of disillusionment and doubt, the creation poem in the firstchapter of the book of Genesis proclaims God as a mighty creator. Moreover, Israel’s God is not only professed to be the creator ofIsrael, but of the entire universe: everything owes its existence to God.

7.3  God is Trustworthy.

The way in which the author/editor of the creation narrative hasorganized his material shows that he also wanted to use his text to testify to a trustworthy God. Godspeaks and acts according to his word. God practices what he preaches. He means what he Says, sayswhat he means and also does what he says. The author wants to-underscore the trustworthiness ‘ofIsrael’s God with this story. And this was more than necessary for the Israelites in exile. In otherwords, for the author/editor of Genesis 1:1-2:4, creation is an essential witness to God’s faithfulness.

7.4  The Seventh Day is a Day ofRest.

The whole poem culminates in the seventh day, theday of God’s rest. For the Jews; this is the Sabbath. And although Genesis 2:1.3 does not refer to the Sabbath by name, this still clearly resounds through the Hebrew text: “And on the seventh day Godfinished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.” For the Israelite exiles, the Sabbath was something new to hold on to. The destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC Meant that the exiles needed to find an alternative for thedemolished temple. Furthermore, while in a strange and faraway land, they wanted to save and protectthe Israelite religion. Therefore, the creation narrative’s emphasis on the Sabbath is designed to both legitimize and explain. It seeks to legitimize why people should observe the seventh day of the week as a day of rest, namely because God also took a rest on the seventh day from the work that he had been doing. And at the same time, it seeks to give an explanation for the establishment of the Sabbath as a religious institution. Indeed, in all likelihood, the origin of the Sabbath can be found in an ancient agricultural practice that sought to ensure that people and animals could rest at the end of a working week. This profane custom, a remnant of which one still encounters in a legal text in the book of Exodus (“For six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your oxand your donkey may have relief, and your home-born slave and the resident alien may be refreshed.”

 Exodus 23:12), was perhaps later fleshed out in a religious wayto become a day of rest to the glory of God. As an etiology-a story that seeks to explain the origin of something-the creation narrativetraces the origin of the Sabbath back to God himself.

7.5  From Chaos to Order.

Accordingto the first creationnarrative,the act of creationwasnocreatio ex nihilo. It was a transformation of chaos and disorder into order and Cosmos. Herein too.Liesa hidden message for the exiled Israelites. They lived in Babylonian chaos. The narrator, however, points out that God, even in the worst chaos, can bring order. And the order that God brings about is qualified: it is good.

7.6  Human Beings are Special.

From the structure of Genesis 1:1-2:4, we can see that thehuman being occupies a special place in creation. At the sametime, this emphasis on the human beingconceals a polemic against other visions of creation known to the author of the creation narrative. In the Babylonian creation narrative-the EnumaElish-, with which the author was undoubtedly familiar; the humanbeing is created from the blood of a rebelliousGod and made to serve the Gods. Incomplete contrast to the Ancient Babylonian idea in which the human person is little more than a slaveto the Gods, the biblical author sees the human being as the crown of Creation. The creation of thehuman being comes at the end of the poem. The whole universe is ordered and the scene seems to be set for the human being to make his appearance.

The author of Genesis makes it clear, in various ways, that the human being is the highpoint of creation.

  i.      The paragraph in which the creation of the human being is recounted is much more expansive than the account of the other works of creation. Moreover, with regard to the creation of the human being, the divine command so characteristic of all the other paragraphs, “Let there be,”is missing. The creation of the human being begins in another way: “Let us make human kind…”

ii.      With respect to the creation of the humanbeing, it is striking that the creation of the plants andland animals evidently issues from the land itself: “The earth brought forth vegetation” (Genesis 1: 12); “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind” (Genesis 1:24). Humankind,by contrast, comes directly from God.

iii.      In verse 28, God addresses the human beings directly: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Just as Godrules over Creation, so too, human beings are commissioned to rule over Creation.”Having dominion” does not mean the same thing as misuse. Dominion, here, has to do with “authority.” Real authority, in the, true sense of the word, is put at the service of the other and contributes to the development of the World.

iv.      The fourth and final point is that while the creation of plants and animals talks about variouskinds, this is not mentioned with regard to the human being. Indeed, it is said that humankind out court is made “in our image, according to our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). In saying this, theauthor undoubtedly wants to emphasize the equality within humanity. The fact that this equality is more of an ideal than a reality makes the central argument of Genesis 1 clear: the creation narrative describes an ideal wor1d: Not “how it was,” but “how it should be” is the focus.

 Fr. Albert Leo, CPPS

Precious Blood Missionaries

Marian Dogmas

Explain the Dogmatic expression Immaculate ever Virgin Mother of God assumed into the Glory of Heaven along with the Christological background and Implications.

Introduction

Marian Dogmas are theological understanding of Mary. Dogmas are Church proposed Truths, contained in Divine Revelation.

            There are four Marian dogmas.  They are Mary Mother of God, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of our Lady.  Mary Mother of God can be understood better in the light of other Marian Dogmas.  The perfect obedience and responses to the word of God made her the Mother of God.  All other Marian Dogmas have their importance and relevance derived from the Divine Motherhood of Mary as it forms the basis and the foundation.

The person and the mission of Mary can be understood well only in relation to Jesus Christ, the Trinity and the Church.  Mary’s importance lies in her relation to Christ.  Jesus Christ is born of a woman (Gal 4:4); Mary is this woman (CCC 422).  Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary (CCC 484 – 512).  Mary is all Holly and Sinless.  She is the virginal Mother.  Mary is closely related to the Trinity.  She was expressing the presence of Trinity during her earthly existence.  Mary in and through her life exhibited the power of Trinity especially of the Holy Spirit.  To understand this we need Marian dogmas.  She also becomes very important in relation to church.  She is not only the Mother of Christ but also Mother of the Church.  She is the mode of faith, hope and charity for all Christian faithful.  Marian dogmas shed light in our understanding of the person and mission of Mary.

I.  MARIAN DOGMAS

1. Divine Motherhood [Ephesus (431)

Mary is the mother of the Son of God who became Incarnate

Mary is known as the ‘Theotokos’.  The Greek expression ‘Theotokos’ has its origin in two Greek terms namely, ‘Theos’ meaning God and ‘Titkein’ meaning ‘to give birth to’.  Therefore Mary is called the birth giver of God.  Mary is the ‘Thetokos’, the one who gave birth to God.

1.1 Scripture

The scriptural texts explicitly attributing the title Mother of God to Mary is found in the Gospel of (Luke 1:43), Elizabeth upon seeing Mary addresses her as the Mother of God. Similar idea is also carried in the Gospel of John, the Word made Flesh (Jn 1:14).  This text needs to be understood in relation to Gal 4:4-5.  The Word became Flesh in the womb of a woman.  Other New Testament references include, Mark 3:31-35, 6:3; Mt 12:46-50; Lk 1:43; 3:23; 4:22; 8:19-21; Acts 1:14; Jn 1:14; 6:42.

A.  The Old Testament references to Mary

The Old Testament references are Genesis 3:15, Is 7:14 and Mic 5:14.  In Gen 3:15 in the immediate context the women may refers to Eve.  In the general context it refers to the humanity and in the messianic context it refers to Mother Mary.  However this text needs to be understood in relation to Boots: of Revelation chapter 12.  This text explains that through the co-operation of the woman the humanity that has lost its original status is restored back to its original position.  Is 7:14, in its remote context refers to Mary.  The people expected a messiah who is anointed by God.  They must have expected a messiah but not the one as the second person of the Trinity.  Only after the Christ event one could understand that it refers to Mary and Jesus.  In its remote context Is 7:14 refers to Mary.  After the death of Christ the Jewish Christian attributed Mich 5:1-4 to the origin and birth of Jesus.  There is a common thread of understanding that flows through all the three readings.  In Gen 3:15, prophesy of a child is given.  In-Is.7:14, the women are already pregnant and in Micah 5:3 the women is going to give birth to a child.

B. Tradition

The title Mother of God seems to have first been used in liturgical and devotional practice by Christians in Egypt.  It appears in an ancient prayer which dates back to the third century.  There was some controversy about the use of this title since the pagan goddess; ‘Isis’ was referred to as Mother of God.  But there are radical differences between the myths about divine births to pagan goddesses and the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ incarnation in Mary.  The Gospels portray Jesus as conceived by Mary in Spirit while pagan myths portray the conception of gods in passion and removed from the mysterious destiny of the Incarnation.  The title Mother of God was also used in the Alexandrian creedal formula.

Origen is the first one to use the term ‘Theotokos’.  The title ‘Theotokos’ was formally used by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431.  This dogma is an offshoot of the Christological dogma.  There were many differences of opinion among the early church fathers, regarding the natures of Christ.  The Alexandrian school represented by Cyril of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, Origin and others emphasized on the oneness of the divine and the human natures of Jesus.  They were of the opinion Mary is the Mother of Jesus in whom both divine and human elements are fused together.  They gave more allegorical and spiritual explanation to the Bible. 

The Antiochan School emphasized on the distinction between the human and divine natures of Jesus.  They held the view that Mary is the mother of human Jesus.  The question of the divine motherhood became controversial in the dispute with Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople in 428.  Nestorius held the view that Mary is the ‘Christotokos.’  She is the Mother of Christ.  He maintained that Mary cannot be called the Mother of God, because what Mary conceived in the womb was not God the Son, what she conceived in her womb was only the temple in which that Son would dwell, namely, the human flesh, the human nature of the Word.  For Nestorius, Mary is the Mother of Christ’s human nature, but she is not the Mother of God.  But against such opinion Cyril of Alexandria strongly upheld the traditional view that Christ born of Mary was the same person, the eternal God the son, who lived with the Farther before time began.  Therefore she is the Mother of God. 

The dispute between Nestorius and Cyril was judged at the Council of Ephesus in 431.  The Council upheld Cyril’s view and condemned Nestorius.  It was affirmed in the council that in Jesus both human and divine natures are hypostatically united, and no one can become mother of any particular nature.  Mary is mother of Jesus in whom both human and divine natures are fused together.  Therefore Mary is the mother of God.  This decision was further explicated by the council of Chalcedon in 451.  Mary’s Divine Motherhood was not the object of an independent or exclusive dogmatic declaration.  The dogma of Divine Motherhood is an integral part of the Christological dogma.  This does not diminish its definitive and binding character.  The dogma of Divine Motherhood is generally accepted by all Christian denominations.

2. Perpetual Virginity (Baptismal Formula: Since 3^rd Cent.)

Mary is virgin before, during and after giving birth of Jesus

The virginity of Mary was not officially declared a dogma by any church council.  But three councils make an explicit mention of Mary as the Virgin Mother.  It is a strong belief of people down through the centuries.  The virginity of Mary is affirmed due to the intervention of the Holy Spirit.  Her conception was an extraordinary sign.  The one who is to be born is Son of God.  So he requires a worthy body.  The body touched by the Holy Spirit cannot be touched or maligned by any human persons.  The perpetual virginity of Mary shows that Mary is totally reserved for her son.  The mission of Mary was to sustain Jesus his death.  The virginity of Mary is to be understood in its totality.  She was a virgin at mind, heart and body.

2.1 The Old Testament understanding of the Virginity

            In Gen 1:28, the command of God is to ‘be fruitful and to multiply’.  In the Old Testament tradition virginity had no values.  The status of a virgin was equal to that of a barren woman.  Virginity in the Old Testament is a symbol of crisis and condemnation.  Prophet Jeremiah condemned virginity who considered it as a curse (Jer 16:1-9).  The daughter of Jephthah mourned for her virginity (Jud 1:37).

2.2 The New Testament and Virginity of Mary

            Based on Scripture (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27 and 1:35) and the ancient creeds, Catholics believed that Jesus, the Son of God, was conceived through the Holy Spirit and delivered of Mary.  It is the strong belief of the faithful that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life.  Virginal conception is a visible sign of God’s participation in the coming of Jesus.  The virginity of Mary was expressed based on three aspects.  Ante Partum, In Partu, and Post Partum.

®    Ante Partum (Before the Birth of Jesus)

Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus.  The best sources of information of Mary’s virginity prior to the birth of Jesus are the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Usually dated around 80 A.D. Virginity is strongly supported by the words of Mary herself.  She strongly testifies to the Angel Gabriel that she is a virgin (Lk 1:34).  Joseph also expresses the similar option for he had no pre-marital affair with Mary.  Upholding the virginity of Mary the Dutch Catechism says, “Conception is a free gift from God.  Since it is a gift God can give is the way he wants.”  According to Hans Hung “The virginity of Mary is the biological expression of the idea that Jesus was born from the Holy Spirit.”  Biblically speaking the virginity of Mary is the result of the experience of the early Christian community reflecting over the paschal event.  The resurrection experience opened new vistas of understanding of the disciples regarding the divinity of Christ.  Christ who is divine must also be born under extraordinary circumstances.  The Gospels written from the retrospective perspective attributes perpetual virginity to Mary.

®    In Partu (at the birth of Jesus)

Lk 1:35 speaks of the holiness of Mary and the child.  Something to be holy must be uncontaminated (Lev 12:5-7, Eze 16:6-9).  The boy born is uncontaminated by any blood elements.  Here mention is made about the physical aspect of the virginity of Mary.  The Protogospel of James dated around 150 AD, affirms the virginity of Mary at the Birth of Jesus.      

®    Post Partum (After the birth of Jesus)

Jesus was the first born child of Mary.  And it is strongly believed that Jesus was also the only child of Mary.  Some Scholars of Mariology are of the opinion that the several passages in the Bible that refer to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, can be interpreted as cousin of Jesus and others hold the view that they are children of Joseph’s prior marriage.  The Catholic tradition is that Mary had no child other than Jesus.  The brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible refer to the extended family of Jesus, such as cousins.  It can also refer to the larger company of believers and disciples.  According to R.E. Brown “Once overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, Mary could not allow herself to have intercourse with a man.”  According to Pope Paul the VI “Mary was called to be at the same time a virgin, a wife and a mother.”

            The council of Constantinople (381) and council of Chalcedon (451) speak of the birth of Jesus of Virgin Mary.  The council of Constantinople (553) speaks of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.  Though not an Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649 convened by Pope Martin - I also issued an important statement affirming Mary’s lifelong virginity.  Vatican – II reiterated the teaching about Mary, the Ever – Virgin, by stating that Chris’s birth did not diminish Mary’s virginal interiority but sanctified it (LG 57).  The Catechism of the Catholic Church maintains that Jesus Christ was Mary’s only child.  The so-called ‘brothers and sisters’ are close relations (CCC 499 – 507).

2.3 Views on the virginity of Mary

      Valentinian: It is the sub-division of the Gnosticism.  This group affirms the virginal conception as well as the virginal birth.  For them May is the Way and not the Mother.  Mary is the way though which Jesus came.  She is the way through which Jesus passed through.  Jesus did not assume anything from Mary.

      Tertullian: He denied the virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus.

      Origin: He affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.

      Ephraim: He opined that Jesus was formed in Mary’s womb like a pearl, pearl while forming itself would not harm the shell in no way.  Without affecting the container it grows, matures and becomes the most valuable object.

            The dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is not merely a reference to a historical fact.  This historical fact has a deeper meaning.  It has a deeper spiritual dimension. It speaks of the radical “character of her – God Relatedness.”  The life of Mary exists only for and in and through God.  Further, it speaks of the uniqueness of the Christ event.  This exhibits Mary’s character as type of the Church: Following the example of Mary, the Church remains the virgin faithful to her spouse.  The Church is the Spouse of Christ (Eph 5:21-33; 2 Cor 11:2) and “Bride of the Lamb” (Rev 21:9).

3. Immaculate Conception (Pius IX) December 8, 1854)

Mary was conceived without original sin in the womb of St. Ann

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was promulgated by Pius IX on the 8^th of December 1854 by the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus. The scripture is totally silent on the immaculate conception of Mary.  The only indirect reference to the same is found in the Gospel of Luke 1:28.  Mary is addressed as ‘Full of Grace.’  The proto-gospel of James extensively speaks about the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

            In the Eastern Church in the 8^th Century, the feast of the conception of Anne was celebrated on December 8.  It is the Mary’s conception in the womb of Anne.  In the 9^th century West adopted the same.  But it was called the conception of Holy Virgin Mary.  Mary is believed to be holy and spotless at conception.  During the medieval period the Church underwent lot of crisis so this feast was not celebrated worthily by the faithful.  Again in the 13 century the feast reappeared.  In the 14^th century this feast has a very clear-liturgical articulation.  Pope Sixtus – IV (1471 – 1484) approved a Holy Mass and an office for the Feast of the Conception of Mary.  Proper prayers for mass and office of reading in relation to the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Pope was approved.  In 1708 it was raised by Pope Clement XI to status of a feast with proper prayers and preface.  Alphonse Maria Ligori opined that the solemn liturgical celebration and consent of the faithful were just enough to promulgate a doctrine.  On 8^th December 1854, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared as a dogma by Pope Pius IX by the constitution Ineffabilis Dues.

3.1 Views on Immaculate Conception of Mary

      John Chrysostom: Mary might have committed actual sins. Origen, Hypolitus, Eusebeus, Jerome:  They were of the opinion that Mary was without sins and stain.  She was Immaculate, innocent and integral.

      Augustine: Mary might have been conceived with Original sin like any other human being.  But she would have been freed from it immediately.  She must have been cleansed from Sin in view of her divine maternity.  How and when Mary was cleansed of her original sins is not known Mary was purified from her original sin after her conception.

      Don Scotus: “God exercised His Salvific action on Mary in a unique and more perfect way.”

      Pelagiansism: Each human being by his nature is good.  They have a very optimistic idea about the human nature.  Human nature ensures a permanent capacity of sinlessness for human beings are made after the image of God.  Mary is a perfect example for Pelagius.  But Pelagius was vehemently attacked by St. Augustine.  St. Augustine strongly held the view that any sexual intercourse leads to transmission of original sin, so each human being when they are born, born with the stain of original sin.  According to Augustine Mary was born with the original sin but the grace of God at some time freed her from the clutches of original sin.

4. Assumption (Pius XII, November 1, 1950)

“Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life, on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory.”

            It was promulgated a dogma on 1^st of November 1950 by Pope Pius XII by the decree Munificentissimus Deus.  Mary questions were raised regarding the destiny of the Mother of God.  In the 3^rd century in the Eastern Church they celebrated the Dormition of Virgin Mary.  There was a belief in the East Mary was undergoing a deep sleep.  She did not encounter any death.  During the 13^th century there was a demand to make it a dogma.  The major argument supporting this claim was that the people down through the centuries were praying to Mary.  They prayed to Mary using the phrase “under Your Protection.” This indicated that Mary was enjoying eternal bliss with God.  Gregory of Nazianzes reports about a virgin martyr Justina praying in these words… “O Mother, come and help me.”  Such prayers were addressed to Mary under the impression that Mary was enjoying eternal bless with God.  Christians made use of the similar terminology used by the pagans to pray to their goddesses, to pray to Blessed Virgin Mary.  Though there are many church historians who have written extensively about Marry, they do not speak about the tomb of Mary.

4.1 Views on Assumption of Mary

      Epiphanus: He has written extensively about Mary but does not speak about the tomb of the destiny of Mary.

      Jerome: Though he knew well the geographical territory of Jerusalem, does not speak about the tomb of Mary. In the 6^th century, at Jerusalem on the 15^th of August, the Church celebrated, the Dormition of Mary.  It was celebrated in the Marian church built by empress Eudossia.  Later this feast was given different names like, Transition of Mary, Translation of Mary, Dormition of Mary, and Resurrection of Mary.  The apocryphal writing ‘Passing of Mary’ explains that Mary was taken to heaven with body and soul by Jesus Himself.  A distinction needs to be made between Ascension and Assumption.  Jesus Christ, Son of God and Risen Lord, ascended into heaven.  It is a sign of divine power.  Mary, on the contrary, was elevated or assumed into heaven by the power and grace of God.  The dogma states that “Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life, on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory.”  The Assumption had been a part of the Church’s spiritual and doctrinal patrimony for centuries.  It had been part of theological reflection but also of the liturgy and was part of the sense of the faithful. 

      Pseudo Augustine: The flesh of Jesus was formed of Mary and hence her body escaped mortal corruption. In addition Mary did not share the condemnation of Eve.

This dogma has no direct basis in scripture.  It was declared “Divinely Revealed,” meaning that it is contained implicitly in divine Revelation.  It may be understood as the logical conclusion of Mary’s vocation on earth and the way she lived her life in union with God and her mission.  The assumption’ may be seen as a consequence of Divine Motherhood.  Being through, with and for her son on earth, it would be seen fitting for Mary to be through, with and for her son in heaven, too.  She was on earth the generous associate of her Son (LG 61).  The assumption tells us that this association continues in heaven.  Mary is indissolubly linked to her son on earth and in heaven (LG 56).  The Assumption of Mary is a promise of immortality for all human beings.  The Assumption highlights the unity of body and soul, their respective dignity and fulfillment.  There is no explicit reference to Immaculate Conception and Assumption in Scripture.  Elements of the two dogmas are implicitly contained in the Bible.

4.3 Scriptural support for the Dogma of Mary’s Assumption

Like the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception the dogma of the Assumption is not explicitly stated in the Bible.  The scriptural texts used in the encyclical to explain to the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption include; Arise, O Lord in to thy resting place; thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.  (Ps 131:8). The woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12).  I will glorify the place of my feet (Is 61:13).

            Who is this that cometh up from the desert flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved? (Cant 8:50).  Mary was often compared to the bride in canticles by many commentators.  Mary was also compared to the Covenant; since she contained the eternal Word in her Womb.  The woman of the Apocalypse appeared as ‘a great sign in the heavens’.  Mary is called ‘Woman’ I John’s Gospel.  At her Assumption, she is said to enter into ‘heavenly glory’.  Revelation 12 could be a poetic description of these facts, the bodily resurrection won by Jesus and His Mother on earth, the link between Jesus’ bodily Resurrection and Mary’s share I it was assumed to be equally close.  All the explanations given above are only an indirect indication towards the Assumption of Mary.  However the Catholic Church strongly believes in a wonderful position enjoyed by Mary as she co-operated with God to fulfill His plan for the human race in a most magnificent manner. Mary was part of the society, but she became sinless because of the merit of Jesus Christ.

Christological background and Implications

(Fr. Joseph Francis. ITS, September 2011, Pages 279-296)

II. MARY AND CHRISTOLOGY

We do not deify Mary nor worship her.  Some modern Catholics also seem to think that devotion to Mary takes us away from Jesus.  Nothing can be further from the truth than this.  One cannot separate Mary from Jesus.  Some Protestants even think that assigning any intercessory role to Mary takes away from the unique role of Mediator assigned to Jesus (I Tim 2:5).  It is, they say, a belittling of Jesus.  It looks as if there is one more mediator more or less powerful.  Is this true?  CCC 487 categorically states that what we believe about Mary is based on what we believe about Jesus Christ.  Any honour paid to Mary constantly and without fail points to Jesus.  All that we say about Mary reflects on what we believe about Jesus.  She is what she is because she is the mother of Jesus.  Her intercessory role is as a member of the Communion of Saints.  We could even concede that she is the topmost or the premier member of the communion of Saints.  Yet, her intercessory role is definitely subordinate to and in connection with Jesus from his conception in her womb till his death on the cross.

            CCC 967 – 70 point out to how Mary is our mother in the order of Grace i.e., her cooperation under Christ in the great work of Salvation.

            It is observed that any error in Christology has a corresponding error in Mariology.  Therefore the basis of Mariology is Christology (CCC 465 – 466).  Perhaps a simple example would clarify this: Nestorians erred in Christology.  They spoke of Jesus Christ as if he were two persons i.e., a Divine Person and a human person.  The consequence for Mariology would be that Mary would then be mother only of a supposed human person and she cannot be called the Mother of God. On the other hand a denial of the true humanity of Jesus Christ as the Docetists and Gnostics did would also belittle her genuine motherhood.  It is obvious that if Jesus’ human body were to be only a phantom (ghostly) body, there would be no need of a human mother for that.

            All the dogmas of the Church regarding Mary are based on the fact that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, true God and true man e.g., Mary is the Immaculate Conception since it is fitting that God’s Son should be born of a sinless woman.  Mary’s assumption is also fitting since the temple that bore the Saviour of the world should not be destroyed!  This is the traditional argument based on the “it is fitting” tag.  However, CCC 966 presents these two in a slightly different manner with a fresh and welcome thought: the Immaculate Conception was granted to Mary so that she may be more like her Son who was sinless.  Similarly, her Assumption is also presented as one which makes her to be configured and conformed to her Son.  He, the new Adam and she, the new Eve are perfect counterparts to the sinful first parents.  Consequently if he is to be considered as the king of the universe, she is also to be the queen of the universe.  She participates in the resurrection of Jesus her Son and anticipates the resurrection of all Christians.  This is how Mary is the eschatological icon kept in front of us to contemplate, admire and long for because that is what we ourselves would one day be granted in our measure and in time.

Conclusion

            We call Mary Mother of God by which we indirectly accept the fact that Jesus is not only true man but also true God.  We acknowledge implicitly that the Person in him is the Divine person.

            We cannot however deny that veneration to Mary differs essentially from adoration given to God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.  It also differs in degree from veneration of all other saints.  Formerly they used to call it hyper – dulia i.e., the highest veneration.  The number concludes with a short enumeration of devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary such as the rosary which is called Biblical prayer and is a summary of the whole Gospel.

            We give Mary her honoured place which is to be one with the Church!  She is the perfect exemplar of the Church.  She shows what each one of us should be if we claim to be Christians, the true disciples of Jesus!  Mary is not apart from us but one of us and having a special and privileged role in connection with our life in the Spirit.  She accompanies us in our life journey encouraging us to go forward, assisting us with her intercessory prayer joined to our own and setting for us an example of humility, obedience to the Word of God and an unflinching trust in God!

  Fr. Albert Leo, CPPS

Precious Blood Missionaries