Evangelical Confusion about Roman Catholicism, Part 3: Should Evangelicals Rethink Their View of the Virgin Mary?

By Mike Stallard

[Seminary Dean, Professor of Systematic Theology, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

One of the most strident issues dividing many modern evangelicals from Roman Catholicism is Marian devotion. It appears from the evangelical perspective that the reverence given to the Virgin Mary is so extravagant at times in Roman Catholicism that it borders on idolatry. The first time I visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem[1] (allegedly the site of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus) the sense of iconic overdose invaded my mind as I witnessed what seemed to be a shrine to the Virgin Mary as much as a memorial dedicated to Christ. Biblical Protestants regularly voice their disappointment with this state of affairs when they go on trips to the Holy Land.

The theological issues about Mary in contemporary discussions take on added meaning in light of the defection of major evangelical leaders such as Francis Beckwith to the Roman Catholic Church.[2] Beckwith continues to claim the moniker evangelical for his doctrinal position while being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. This raises the question as to what degree an individual can be an evangelical Catholic or a Catholic evangelical. Since evangelicals have not been known for any strong embrace of the Virgin Mary, the tension that such an attempt would surface must be explored. Consequently, several areas in the debate over Mary which have major theological significance need to be addressed. Before we begin the analysis, however, we must say something positive about Mary from an evangelical perspective. Contrary to popular opinion, evangelicals do practice a high view of Mary, even if it is not the same as the Catholic portrait of the famous woman.

Evangelical Respect For Mary

Recent works by self-professed evangelicals have attempted to invigorate the notion that the Virgin Mary should be highly respected by evangelicals.[3] However, evangelicals have actually shown great respect for the biblical version of Mary in most of their sermons and writings. What they usually reject are extra-biblical embellishments about Mary’s life, especially the ones that seem to move toward an almost superstitious worship of her. Nonetheless, there are things about Mary that evangelicals can and do champion without reservation.

Virgin Birth

There have been no greater defenders of the doctrine of the virgin birth than modern, Bible-believing evangelicals. J. Gresham Machen, one of the conservative founders of Westminster Seminary, wrote what is for many modern evangelicals the classic monograph on the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin (The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930).[4] James Orr, writing in The Fundamentals (1910-1915), defended the doctrine of the virgin birth against attacks coming from modernistic thinking during the days of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy.[5] He argued that the virgin birth was clearly taught in the Bible. Jesus was born without a human father and with the Holy Spirit performing a miracle. Gabriel told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Such a statement is taken at face value among biblical evangelicals. The doctrine of the virgin birth was also seen as a truth the modernists were attacking because of disbelief in supernatural miracles. There is no backing down from belief in this miracle by conservative evangelicals. In this specific teaching, there is agreement with Roman Catholics and the highest respect for the role that the Virgin Mary plays in the redemptive plan of God.

The Magnificat

The Magnificat, also called the Song of Mary, refers to the statement of reaction that Mary gives to Elizabeth’s Spirit-filled pronouncement about the baby that Mary was carrying in her womb (Luke 1:46-55). This song reveals several things about the Virgin. First, it shows that Mary, universally assumed to be a young teenager, was well versed in Scripture, especially the wisdom literature. Her song is filled with allusions and quotations of OT passages.[6] It is possible to suggest that her song is Spirit-led and that such allusions demonstrate direct revelation to her that was outside of her own knowledge base. However, it is more reasonable to see her as expressing Jewish traditions that she had internalized. She reacts to the angel in a reasonable manner and with great obedience toward God in keeping with popular and biblical Messianic expectations (Luke 1:28-38). Some commentators have proposed the connection of the entire occasion with the prayer of Hannah (1 Sam 1), a story all Jewish women probably knew well and embraced as an example of humble service toward God and his wonderful blessing.[7] As Machen long ago observed,

The author of such a hymn must have lived in the atmosphere of the Old Testament, and must have been familiar from earliest childhood with its language. Only so could elements derived from so many sources have been incorporated without artificiality in a single poem. The synthesis must have been made in life, long before it was made in literary form.[8]

Although there has been considerable debate about the detailed exegesis of this song, biblical evangelicals have seen in it and continue to detect in it a window into the strong spiritual character of the Virgin Mary.

A second observation about Mary based upon the Magnificat and its biblical context is the humility that she shows. Her acceptance of the angel’s pronouncement had already set the stage for such a demonstration. She acknowledges the greatness of God. He is to be exalted while she is a bondslave rejoicing in her own deliverance from “God my Savior.” He is the God who does great things and exalts those who are humble. Mary’s song in the end shows that its presenter was indeed a woman of deep piety with a proper respect for the God of her fathers.[9] It would be fair to assert that this would be an evangelical consensus.

Mother Of God

One of the areas where evangelicals can cautiously voice some positive statements about the Virgin Mary is the phrase “mother of God” used to describe her. This is, however, difficult in light of the developments within Roman Catholicism that expand the phrase far beyond any biblical teaching and out of harmony with the teaching of the early church.[10] Such developments take us into a discussion of Mary as Mediatrix which will be dealt with later. For now, note the following statement from a sanctioned Catholic catechism: “After the Assumption she could no longer merit grace for others, but she can still intercede and by her prayers exercise in glory a role comparable to that of other saints in heaven but immeasurably more effective because she is the Mother of God with whom she pleads.”[11] Such an elevation of Mary seems to be unwarranted, especially since in Protestant thinking, it is impossible for anyone other than Christ to “merit grace for others” (Acts 4:12).

To be fair, evangelicals must know that the phrase “Mother of God,” even within Catholic theology, does not mean that God had a birth or beginning with Mary as his mother. The phrase, which first appears at the Council of Ephesus (431), says nothing directly about a divine or eternal nature for Mary. Instead, it carries the notion of her giving birth in the incarnation of Jesus. Justification for this can be found in the statement by Elizabeth when she encountered the pregnant Mary: “How has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). The term mother of my Lord is essentially the same idea. Consequently, evangelicals can wholly embrace Mary’s role as the “Mother of God” unless the context of its usage adds some form of worship or deification of Mary.

Full Of Grace

One of the most famous phrases about Mary stemming from Roman Catholicism is “Hail Mary, full of grace.” This statement is used as part of the incantation of prayer involving the rosary. The statement comes from a translation of Luke 1:28. In the Douay-Reims Catholic translation, Gabriel says to Mary, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee” (emphasis added). The translation “full of grace” accurately renders the Latin Vulgate phrase gratia plena. Evangelicals generally reject this translation, but are especially grieved by any Catholic attempt to use the phrase “full of grace” to emphasize the sinlessness of Mary. The Catholic doctrine and use of the phrase can be seen in a prayer by Pope Benedict XVI: “Show yourself, O Mary, as Mother of all, and give us Christ, the Hope of the world…O Virgin Immaculate, full of grace! Amen!”[12] The conjoining of the word Immaculate and the phrase full of grace shows the Catholic sentiment. As McKnight notes, “This leads to the Catholic conclusion that she who is full of grace cannot and did not sin.”[13]

Most modern translations (including recent Catholic translations) opt for the phrase “favored one” instead of “full of grace.” This better understanding flows from the passive participle form of the original Greek word χαριτόω. However, one must note that the evangelical preference for this understanding does not denigrate the person of the Virgin Mary. Instead, it accurately reflects God’s special revelation about her in his Word. Consequently, evangelicals have no difficulty in seeing her as highly favored as the woman chosen by God to carry the Christ child. All generations have called her blessed or favored in fulfillment of her song’s affirmation in Luke 1:48.

The high and balanced view of Mary that Protestants have is summarized well by Boettner:

As evangelical Protestants we honor Mary, the mother of our Lord, with the honor the Scriptures give her as “blessed among women.” No other member of the human race has received such a high honor as was conferred upon Mary in that she was chosen to be the mother of the Saviour of the world. She was truly a woman of virtue, and of extraordinary faith. She fulfilled admirably the office assigned to her. She was the chosen vessel to bring the Bread of Life to a sin-cursed world .… We honor Mary, and all generations shall called her “blessed,” because she believed the word of God and accepted the message of the angel Gabriel. But we do not deify her, nor worship her, nor pray to her, and we are bound to protest strongly when Christ is dethroned and Mary is elevated to that place which belongs to Him alone.[14]

In other words, Mary is viewed by evangelicals with the highest esteem without the extravagant claims that seem to deify her and without idolatrous worship.

Areas Of Disagreement About Mary

Hints have already been given suggesting many of the problems evangelicals have with Catholic dogma about the Virgin Mary. These naturally lead to the conclusion that evangelicals do not have to rethink their views about the Virgin. With this in mind, there are several areas of Catholic teaching that are related, namely, the Immaculate Conception, the sinlessness of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and the Assumption, areas which need to be analyzed.

Immaculate Conception And Sinlessness Of Mary

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially announced to be the formal teaching of the Catholic Church by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Its basic meaning is that based upon the merits of Christ, God supernaturally acted so that the Virgin Mary from the very moment of conception was “exempt[ed] from the stain of original sin.”[15] It must be noted how strong this is. The teaching is not that Mary had the same experience of the removal of original sin upon her soul that normal Catholics receive at baptism. The stance is that original sin never entered into the life of Mary at any time beginning with the conception of her within her mother.

While acknowledging that the doctrine is not explicitly taught in Scripture, the Catholic position is that the Immaculate Conception can be deduced from a couple of passages and then supported by the Church Fathers. Two key biblical texts are Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28.[16] In the first text, God tells the serpent that there is enmity between the woman and the serpent and that “he [the woman’s seed] shall bruise you [the serpent] on the head ….” The Vulgate actually translates the verse as “she shall bruise you on the head,” a theological interpretation meant to be predictive of the work of the future Virgin.[17] Textual considerations make it impossible to hold such a translation since the only grounds of support is a theological position already held. The second text is Luke 1:28 and its phrase “full of grace.”

This mistranslation, discussed earlier, is used in some Catholic presentations in the following way: “The salutation of the angel Gabriel … Hail, full of grace … indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”[18] Thus, in Catholic thinking the doctrine is virtually a natural consequence of the grace granted to her as the mother of the Lord.

Many church fathers are marshaled in support of this notion. While there is some ambivalence in the way that some church fathers treat the subject, those who speak favorably of the Immaculate Conception connect this doctrine to its logical counterpart, the sinlessness of Mary. Augustine serves as an example:

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer?[19]

Augustine viewed Mary as above all other good people in the pantheon of heroes of the faith. Only Mary could be seen in a sinless light. In support of this notion, the Jesuit Hardon summarizes the official Catholic approach:

Long before Pius IX, the Council of Trent said that Mary “by a special privilege of God” was exempt from all sin, even venial ones, during her whole life. Like the Immaculate Conception, which it presupposes, Mary’s personal sinlessness follows from the Church’s constant belief in her spotless purity and is founded on her dignity as the Mother of God….Was the Blessed Virgin free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic Tradition, while distinguishing it from the impeccability enjoyed by Christ….He could not sin because he was God, and God is infinitely holy. Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.[20]

Hardon’s reference to Pius IX remembers the official pronouncement of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. The Council of Trent began in 1545. Hardon sees a clear connection between the Immaculate Conception and the view that Mary was sinless. The doctrine that Mary was sinless actually requires something like the Immaculate Conception to bring that quality into existence in Mary’s experience. Further, the actual state of Mary’s impeccability is a kind of eschatological preview for the world—Mary existing in a form that mirrors the future beatific vision of God and the pre-fall paradise. One could easily imagine a leap to a belief in the Assumption of Mary in light of such teaching.

Since the Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception is meager and questionable, what motivation exists for the doctrine? It seems to follow a desire to preserve the sinless integrity of Christ himself.[21] If Mary could be preserved from the stain of sin by a miraculous conception and birth, sin could not be passed on to him in a miraculous virgin conception and birth. The perfect one would then give birth to the Perfect One.

What can the biblical evangelical say to these claims of Immaculate Conception and sinlessness for the Virgin Mary? First, the biblical evidence goes counter to the Roman Catholic claim. This observation is more than the fact that the Bible is silent on the issue and does not teach the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary. The Bible actually contradicts the Catholic perspective. The Bible says that all are sinners (Rom 3:23), sin passed upon all men except for Christ (Rom 5:12), and that all those in Adam die (1 Cor 15:22). No one is righteous (Rom 3:10) and only God is good (Luke 18:19). If only God is good, Mary must be deified if she is to be placed in the category of sinlessness.

Another key passage that contravenes the Catholic position is the Magnificat itself. Mary begins her song: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my savior” (Luke 1:46-47). It is true that the context suggests that the national restoration of Israel and the overcoming of the nation’s enemies are in view as found in Luke 1:68-74. However, this national restoration is also tied to the granting of forgiveness of their sins (Luke 1:77). In light of this contextual truth, it is necessary to hold that the phrase God my savior in the Song of Mary includes the Virgin’s acknowledgement of her own sinful condition. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the ongoing sinlessness of Mary cannot be reconciled with this clear biblical teaching.

In addition to these exegetical and theological discussions, there is the logical question about why there was a need to have an Immaculate Conception to ensure a Christ born without sin. McKnight notes,

The New Testament never connects Jesus’ “sinlessness” to the virginal conception. The connection between Jesus’ sinlessness and the virginal conception is connection made by Christian theologians, but the writers of the New Testament didn’t make that connection. And this leads me to these questions: If God can by a sheer act of grace and purity transform Mary in her mother’s womb into a sinless creature, why could we not believe that God would simply have performed a miracle with Jesus in the womb of Mary? Or, is the immaculate conception necessary?[22]

Looking at the issue from a different direction, one can see the problem of regression that is set up. Would not Mary’s mother need to be immaculately conceived or some similar miracle performed so that Mary could be without sin? But then Mary’s mother would need to have her mother in the same state and so on. The simpler solution is to see God doing a miracle in the womb of Mary, directly preventing sin from being transferred to the Christ child. This is all that is necessary and it is something God can do. According to the Bible, we can say with confidence that He has chosen to act in the virgin in this miraculous way. No other miracle is mentioned and none is necessary.

Perpetual Virginity

Related somewhat to the issue of sinlessness is the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This relationship is established by emphasizing the notion of purity, something that would be true in a sexual sense for a virgin. The formal catechism at the Vatican website clearly affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary: “The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth ‘did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it.’ And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as … the ‘Ever-virgin’.”[23] McKnight makes the reasonable claim that this view “arose alongside a commitment to celibacy as the noblest form of the spiritual life.”[24]

The biblical evangelical response starts with Matthew 1:24-25—“And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus” (emphasis added). The text seems fairly clear that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until after Jesus was born. What is also implied is that he did have relations with her after the birth of Jesus.

Another textual consideration is the mention of the siblings of Christ in a few passages. In Matthew 13:54-56, the Bible says,

And coming into His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?”

What is interesting is the specificity of the text. Specific names of four brothers and the mentioning of a plural number of sisters without names are given. Furthermore, these names of siblings are cited right after Joseph (the carpenter’s son) and Mary are highlighted. The best exegetical conclusion is that the passage is teaching that many were wondering about Jesus in light of his immediate family, including brothers and sisters who were born after him.

Some respond to this common evangelical view by asserting that these siblings were Joseph’s by an earlier wife.[25] The most common Catholic response is that the terms for brothers and sisters are the general terms which can refer to cousins and close relatives without being immediate family. The Vatican Catechism teaches the following:

Against this doctrine [perpetual virginity of Mary] the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus," are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.[26]

This approach misses the point of Matthew 13:54-56 entirely. The crowd’s questions were about his human father as they knew things (Joseph), his mother Mary, and his siblings. How could Jesus be this miracle worker and come from that carpenter’s household? The Catholic view strains at the simple presentation of the text in order to justify a traditional understanding that is non-textual.[27]

Assumption Of Mary

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven. The doctrine was officially proclaimed in 1950 by Pius XII. What is meant by this belief is that the Virgin Mary’s body (and soul) was caught up to heaven at the end of her life. While it is sometimes a bit confusing whether Mary is thought to have died at all, the general presentation is that she did die (or least had the appearance of dying) and was laid in a tomb. There is some debate about whether she died in Ephesus or in Jerusalem. However, her body did not decay and she was brought directly to heaven in an early resurrection. John of Damascus (d. 777) preached that after burial in Gethsemene, her body was assumed into heaven after three days.[28] There is a tradition that she died in the presence of all of the apostles. Then, when they opened the tomb after three days, her body was not there, just as in the case of Christ.[29] Catholic teaching views this as a theological necessity. Hardon states it this way: “the physicomoral relationship of Mary with her Son required special participation in his resurrection before the general resurrection of mankind.”[30] A number of other reasons have been given for believing this doctrine such as the participation of Mary in Christ’s redeeming work.[31]

What can an evangelical say to this? It is entirely tradition and not Scripture’s teaching. That does not make it automatically wrong. McKnight comments, “As Protestants we go to the Bible first, but we find nothing about Mary’s death or her assumption in the Bible. Does that mean Mary wasn’t ‘assumed’ into heaven? Obviously not. None of us believes that everything was recorded in the Bible, so we are left to examine the evidence and make up our own minds.”[32] After all, two humans we know of in Scripture (Enoch and Elijah) were assumed into heaven without dying.

However, there is a lack of ease on the part of most evangelicals about this Catholic dogma. The reasons for that stem from the connection of this doctrine to the other beliefs that we have already discussed. The evangelical caution comes from the package of beliefs about Mary that elevate her in ways that lead to worship of her and attach her in an unseemly, superstitious, and unnecessary way to Christ’s specific work. Boettner captures the essence of this concern:

The doctrine of the assumption of Mary is merely one of the so-called “logical conclusions” that the Roman theologians have drawn to support their system. Since Mary was sinless it is illogical, we are told, to assume that her body remained in the grave. But the answer is: If Mary was sinless, why did she have to die at all? Death is the penalty for sin. And where there is no sin there can be no penalty….Either Mary was sinless and did not die, or she did have sin, she died, and her body remains in the grave.[33]

Only Jesus died without sin as a substitute. In this light, it is hard for evangelicals to accept the Catholic teaching on the Assumption of Mary. In fact, the concern is sharpened since the only reason to have a sinless Mary die may be in connection with her part in God’s process of redemption.

Co-Redeemer With Christ And Focal Point Of Worship

The title Co-Redeemer (Co-Redemptrix) for Mary refers to the “unique participation of Mary, Mother of Jesus, in the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, the divine Redeemer.”[34] It is not generally viewed by Catholics as a full participation of Mary with Christ but as a role of support and sympathizing of Mary with her Son that aided his work. An ancient way of talking about the relationship that may give a basis for this is found in Irenaeus (late second century). Irenaeus taught that Christ was the Second Adam, undoing the first Adam’s sin. This much follows the biblical teaching (e.g., Rom 5). Beyond that he drew the analogy that Mary was in essence the Second Eve:

Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin. … By disobeying, she became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. … The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosed by her faith.[35]

It is doubtful that Irenaeus had in mind any of the later Catholic developments. He simply sees Mary’s faithful act of receiving God’s work in her as a necessary step in God’s program of redemption. However, the seed is laid for such an evolution of this doctrine that makes it much more.

What is at stake here is the biblical teaching that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). We must be fair to Roman Catholic treatments of the topic which often declare that Jesus is the only mediator, but he had a helper in Mary. Biblical evangelicals will still view this with skepticism. Why? Again, it is because it is part of a web of beliefs that seem to elevate Mary inordinately above all other humans and almost on a plane (if not exactly on a plane) equal with Christ. Her role of Mediatrix, the primary person to pray to for help with intercession to Jesus, is similar as is the use of statues and other images of Mary in such a major way. The impression of this entire portrait of Mary is that the Virgin is being worshipped and adored in ways that should be reserved only for Christ himself.

Conclusion

Evangelicals do not need to rethink their view of the Virgin Mary if that means to find some common ground with Roman Catholicism. Have some evangelicals overreacted to Catholic missteps and given the impression that Mary is to be denigrated? Perhaps this is so, but for the most part evangelicals have not strayed into this territory. The Roman Catholic position on Mary is what is being rejected, not Mary herself. From the vantage point of the Catholic portrait of the virgin, they would naturally see the evangelical approach as effacing the memory of her. Nonetheless, the divide should continue. The ecumenical impulse should be avoided. We should love across the boundaries, barriers that are necessary for the sake of truth. Along the way, evangelicals should indeed embrace the significance of the Virgin Mary. She is a real person who lived and died in the world. Her obedience to God’s plan for her life was amazing and exciting, an example to all who would live godly. However, the Mary that we respect is not the one presented as the composite of layers of superstitious tradition, but the holy Mary described in Holy Scripture. In this way, evangelicals can rejoice and concur that it is this Mary whom all generations call “blessed.”

Notes

1. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is shared by several Christian groups and is not exclusively the property of the Roman Catholic Church. It was built in the early fourth century during the time of Constantine.
2. This article is the third in a four-part series on the relationship of evangelicals and Roman Catholics. The first is “Evangelical Confusion about Roman Catholicism,” JMAT 12 (Fall 2008): 5-27. In this article I describe the move of Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society, to the Roman Catholic faith. I also define evangelicalism, summarize areas where evangelicals and Catholics agree, and show that significant areas of disagreement exist in their view of history, ultimate authority, Bible and canon, and justification. Concerning justification I deal with the Catholic view of water baptism and communion which can never be harmonized with true, biblical evangelicalism. In the end, I conclude that there can be no major reconciliation of the two camps on the most important issue of all—how a person receives forgiveness from God. A second article is “Evangelical Confusion about Roman Catholicism, Part 2: Further Differences between Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism,” JMAT 13 (Spring 2009): 1-29. In this article, I deal with apostolic succession, penance, marriage, ordination, sainthood, worship, assurance of salvation, and purgatory. An anticipated fourth article will deal with Roman Catholicism, evangelicalism, and the New Perspective on Paul. Here I hope to interact with the ecumenical impulse that seems to drive some of the discussions and what the New Perspective means to the conservative evangelical who does not want any theological rapprochement with Rome.
3. Two recent works of note which have received some attention are Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006) and Scot McKnight, The Real Mary: Why Evangelical Christians Can Embrace the Mother of Jesus (Brewster, MA: Paraclete, 2007). Both Perry and McKnight seem to write from the perspective of the less conservative side of evangelicalism. However, some insights which they have, especially McKnight, are reasonable and appropriate. McKnight makes this strong claim about Perry’s work: “His book illustrates that for many the Cold War between Catholics and Protestants over Mary has come to an end” (116). I think this is overstatement and diminishes too much the serious differences. See also Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1998) for a study of how Mary has been understood throughout the eras of church history.
4. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1930).
5. James Orr, “The Virgin Birth of Christ” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1958), 269-77.
6. For example, Psalm 98:1, 103:17, 107:9, 118:15, and Job 5:11 appear to be used by Mary’s song. She also shows an awareness of the promises to Abraham.
7. Robert Stein, Luke, New American Commentary Series (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 91.
8. Machen, Virgin Birth, 84.
9. McKnight argues that evangelical interpretations of the Song of Mary have missed the point just as Catholics have, albeit in a different direction. He sees in the Magnificat evidence that Mary was tenacious more than tender, a bold protester more than a passive bondslave. He believes the central idea of the song can be found in the phrase “He has brought down rulers from their thrones” (The Real Mary, 18-19). While this concept is interesting and helpful for showing part of Mary’s thinking, I would suggest that it is a bit overstated. We do need to see a greater focus on political deliverance in the minds of the Jews in the first century. However, the song seems to have more in it than that, and I am not convinced that McKnight’s thrust gives a balanced picture.
10. I have chosen for this presentation not to deal with the debate in the early church about the title for Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer) or Christotokos (Christ-bearer).
11. John A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 167.
12. Pope Benedict XVI, “Tribute of the Holy Father to the Statue of Mary Immaculate Conception,” 8 December 2006, <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20061208_piazza-spagna_en.html> (accessed 24 January 2009).
13. McKnight, Real Jesus, 121.
14. Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 155.
15. Pius IX, quoted in Fredrick Holwick, “Immaculate Conception,” Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm> (accessed 24 January 2009).
16. Ibid.
17. I once witnessed in the chapel of a nursing home a large, family-sized Roman Catholic Bible with a full-page picture of the Virgin Mary holding the Christ child with her foot on the head of the serpent. This picture was opposite the page containing Genesis 3:15. Most modern Catholic translations avoid this Vulgate error, knowing that there are no legitimate textual grounds for promoting it.
18. “Immaculate Conception,” Catholic Encyclopedia.
19. Augustine, On Nature and Grace, Against Pelagius, 42. See Philip Schaff, Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings, vol. 5 of Nicene andPost-Nicene Fathers, CD-ROM (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 135. Boettner declares that Augustine was on the other side of the issue citing several examples, perhaps showing that there is some ambivalence within Augustine on the matter (Roman Catholicism, 160).
20. Hardon, Catholic Catechism, 159. In speaking of the “official” Catholic position, it must be noted that various orders within the Roman Catholic Church have disagreed on the point of Mary’s sinlessness.
21. McKnight discusses this motivation in good fashion (Real Mary, 130-31).
22. Ibid., 131.
23. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1.2.2.3.2.II.499, <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm> (accessed 25 January 2009).
24. McKnight, Real Mary, 126.
25. A. Lukyn Williams and W. J. Deane, St. Matthew, vol II of The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph Exell (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, n.d.), 14.
26. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 500, <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#490>.
27. One area that is beyond this current presentation is the Catholic Church’s teaching of the analogy between the perpetual virginity of Mary and the purity of the Church itself. This being so, part of the Church’s self-identity is caught up in maintaining this portrait of Mary. For example, see Pope Paul II’s message “A Witness to Spousal Love for the Church,” General Audience, 23 November 1994, <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father.john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19941123en.html (accessed 23 January 2009).
28. John of Damascus, On the Assumption, Sermon 2, <http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/ Jodorm2.htm> (accessed 26 January 2009).
29. McKnight, Real Mary, 131.
30. Hardon, Catholic Catechism, 155.
31. Ibid.
32. McKnight, Real Mary, 133.
33. Boettner, Roman Catholicism, 164.Mark Miravalle, “Mary Co-Redemptrix: A Response to Seven Objections,” Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, <http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part3.php> (accessed 26 January 2009).
34. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 3.22.