Irish Biblical Association

*********************************************************************************************

Introduction

A little autobiography: Methodist family… Theology in predominantly Anglican Cambridge when history reigned supreme!

Imbibed sola scriptura implicitly/unconsciously, and despite generally liberal background, found biblical criticism very challenging – Bultmann and ?possibility of knowing anything about the historical Jesus; especially questions re the Birth-narratives.

[Worth noting in passing that belief in the so-called ‘virgin-birth’ (strictly the virginal conception) has become a mark of Bible-believing Protestantism in reaction to ‘liberal’ biblical criticism: confess that once deeply perturbed, as indeed were the Church Fathers, by stories that look like Greek myths (human mother impregnated by divine father > son of Zeus, not true incarnation) … + Emmanuel prophecy to be read in Isaiah’s time + parthenos in Greek vs. Hebrew.]

Methodist/Protestant context: Mary only at Christmas – not even the Feast of Annunciation because generally no saints’ days or festivals apart from the Nativity, Holy Week/Easter, Pentecost and Trinity Sunday (in Methodism, Epiphany eclipsed by annual Covenant). Methodists now a bit more aware of the liturgical year than back in the immediate post-war years! – but still no Annunciation!

Fundamentally exploring here the methodological question about scripture and its interpretation for now/the future, but using a case-study: Mary. Case-study could take over – there is so much ground here to cover. So I shall start by making it clear what this lecture is not about …

I. What this lecture is not about

· Not a history of Mariology, though some outline of essentials necessary because we must understand there is a history: Mariology developed, partly by a process of speculative story-telling; partly in response to the development of virginity as a major ethical ideal – ‘aetiological symbol’ for contemporary ideology; partly by assimilation of features from the popular and imperial religion of pre-Christian Roman Empire – enculturation or syncretism?

(i) Many features of developed Mariology derive from a late 2^nd century apocryphal work, rather than scripture: Protevangelium of James – some aspects further developed in later apocryphal works.

‘Speculative story-telling’: Nativity traditions found here familiar features depicted in art but not in scripture, e.g. Mary riding ass + cave. Also age of Mary at nativity = 16. Apologetic motif in narratives about virginity: Joseph an old widower who becomes the ward of ‘the virgin of the Lord’, proofs before priests that neither he nor she had intercourse + story of Salome to show still virgin after birth of Jesus.

Purity of Mary becomes important motif – sanctuary at home until 3, then in Temple till 12 (i.e. as pre-menstrual girl). She and other virgins spin the veil of the Temple , and annunciation happens while she is doing this – featured in icons of the Annunciation.

Little basis in history – some features impossible in a Jewish context, such as girl living a dedicated life in the Temple, and entering the Holy of Holies, where fed by an angel; ‘undefiled daughters of Hebrews’ somewhat parallel to vestal virgins; but cf. dedication of child in I Samuel.

That alerts us to the scriptural influence: Anna modelled on Hannah – typical Biblical miraculous birth to barren couple. Development of Matthew and Luke, whose stories re-told and elaborated, but by someone who was mixed up about Palestinian geography and Jewish customs.

(ii) Ideology of virginity, Mary as model >developments in 4^th century … Could be another whole lecture! Athanasius’ First Letter to Virgins: ‘his portrait of the ideal virgin, Mary the mother of Jesus, is of a girl who lives with her parents, is obedient to them, and goes with them to Church’ (Brakke) – just like the virgins in Alexandria in his time! ‘She did not desire to be seen by people; rather she prayed that God would be her judge. Nor did she have an eagerness to leave her house, nor was she at all acquainted with the streets; rather she remained in her house being calm… She spent the excess of her manual labour on the poor. And she did not acquire an eagerness to look out of the window, rather to look at the scriptures. And she would pray to God privately, taking care about these two things: that she not let evil thoughts dwell in her heart, and also that she not acquire curiosity or learn hardness of heart …’ Moderate voice, no slander, no weariness or envy, made daily progress, good works, ate and drank just what she needed, with no greed or desire, fasting as good as feasting, etc. (Brakke, pp. 277ff) Mary remains a virgin so as to be a pattern for everyone. ‘…recognise yourselves in her as in a mirror.

Already in the development of apocryphal stories just explored, motif of virginal purity. Similar date (end 2^nd century) Paul and Thekla – story depends on an ideology of celibacy: Paul’s preaching ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; blessed are those who have kept the flesh chaste, for they shall become a Temple of God; blessed are the continent, for God shall speak with them; blessed are those who have kept aloof from this world, for they shall be pleasing to God; blessed are those who have wives as not having them, for they shall experience God; blessed are those who have fear of God, for they shall become angels of God.’ Thekla breaks off engagement and challenges whole basis of society by refusing marriage, follows Paul, performs various miracles, etc.

Peter Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity: permanent renunciation only for very few early in Christian practice – dominant practice was renunciation after producing heirs or temporarily for ritual or other reasons. Yet Galen (end 2^nd century) re Christians ‘Their contempt for death is patent to us every day, and likewise their restraint from intercourse’. Huge development in 4^th century, beginnings of monastic movement; Brown studies various different motives and attitudes > cf. Elizabeth Clark, Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity.

4^th century popularity of Thekla + emergence of cult of Virgin Mary alongside one another: Protevangelium provided model of domestic and ecclesiastical ‘enclosure’ for women. For Athanasius and Ambrose perpetual virginity of truly human Mary important for model of permanent virginity: = bridge between fallen state and transformation.

(a) 431 = big date in development of Mariology: Council declared Mary Theotokos, variously translated as ‘Bearer/Birth-giver/Mother of God’, and deposed and excommunicated Nestorius. Controversy about the nature of Christ, but debate focussed by question whether Mary could be described as ‘Theotokos’. After that decision, veneration of Mary increased, + Apocryphal writings gained in popularity; not long after 431, great mosaics in S. Maria Maggiore in Rome … Focus drawn to Mary. Traces of Marian cult earlier confined to marginalized groups, but situation different after Ephesus !

Hilda Graef: ‘The crowds which had been roaming the streets of Ephesus went wild with enthusiasm when they were told the verdict. They accompanied Cyril and his bishops to their lodgings with torchlights and shouts of “Praised be the Theotokos! Long live Cyril!” It sounds like a Christian echo of the “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” which, almost 400 years ago, had been shouted in the streets of the same city when the preaching of Paul had threatened the livelihood of the worshippers of the pagan goddess. (Acts 19.28ff.) And perhaps there is a connection between the two: for the veneration of a mother-figure is a deep-rooted human instinct, and so it is not improbable that, in the hearts of many simple people, the Theotokos should have taken the place of Diana.’

(b)

Egypt

– origin of Marian icons. Background in cult of Isis (NB. continuity traced in Kamil – almost subconscious): Theotokos first in

Egypt

where Isis = Mother of God/Horos + Great Virgin. First icons of Mary have the look of Isis (Mathews and Muller in Vassilaki (ed.)). Coptic images of the Virgin breast-feeding the child have a background in a long Egyptian traditian of depicting goddesses in this way, associated particularly with the birth of the Pharoah/royalty (Bolman in Vassilaki)

(c) Constantinople: Limberis, Divine Heiress, ‘Constantine succeeded in making Christianity a Greco-Roman civic religion’; in Constantinople ‘all the aspects of religious culture that the Christians had successfully eschewed for three centuries were suddenly merged with Christian belief’ > a century later, imperial panegyric > Mary’s assumption of duties of patron deities: protector of city, provider, guarantor of fertility, virgin and mother fits the Greek assumptions of what was needed for fertility, great conflation of symbols - Athena, Demeter, Rhea (mother of the gods), Cybele, Tyche > Akathistos hymn, anticipated by Proclus (who had triggered the controversy by preaching about the Theotokos, and provoking Nestorius’ reaction). Possible in Constantinople because new foundation dominated by imperial need for civic religion reinforcing loyalty. John Chrysostom warned against turning Mary into a goddess – one element in dispute with emperor’s wife.

Interesting discussion possible re syncretism with dying paganism, baptising old religion into Christ or enculturation + theological question re providence! But enough to demonstrate that instinctive Protestant reaction against idolatry reflects the reality of historical development: Marian piety looked like the worship of a goddess, or of a human assumed/exalted to the divine (ancient euhemerism), and could have originated there, depending on assessment of cultural influences.

But lecture not about origins, nor development in the 4^th century, nor the Reformation reaction against veneration of the saints including Mary, nor the promulgation of the Marian dogmas in modern times, which non-Roman Catholics (Orthodox as well as Protestant) find difficult to accept though for different reasons … Not a history of Mariology.

· Not about the impact of feminism on Mariology: challenge to the veneration of Mary – the impossible ideal: virgin and mother at the same time; model oppressive to women in patriarchal societies – Marina Warner as alternative and more readable history than Hilda Graef, but also profound critique; Schussler Fiorenza. Nor conversely about recent resurgence of interest in Mary among women, Catholic and Protestant, because she is at least the one feminine symbol in a predominantly patriarchal tradition … Beattie, Boss, Gaventa, Azarello

· Not about rival exegeses of scriptural texts – i.e. the little historical evidence that is there, and the tendency to read it either to favour tradition (Roman Catholic) or dispute the tradition (Protestant). My reaction to John McHugh and the milking of the text + first meeting with notion that the woman in Revelation = Mary > astonishment! But Protestant and historico-critical critique of Catholic exegesis is long-standing and not to be repeated here! Personally, as a linguist and historian shaped by Protestantism, remain unsympathetic to the attempts to turn Jesus’ brothers into cousins or step-sons + toning down harshness of Jesus to mother in Mark + Cana/John – should read Greek in its natural sense, and mothers do find it difficult to let go their sons … But not my purpose to engage in these exegetical disputes …

II. What this lecture is about

· How doctrine is deduced from texts of scripture which do not actually spell it out – historico-critics would say that we find the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture by hindsight: so what about Mary?

· How we read ourselves into the text, or allow the text to address us directly (lectio divina) – relevance vs. history: beyond factual reference to meanings > reclamation of Patristic typological readings

The idea is that Mary provides an example for an exploration of how scripture points beyond itself, so that it is not what is definitely in scripture that matters, but what scripture might potentially effect for us – for scripture is fundamentally about transformation. We will take the second of those themes first.

Ref. Limerick and ways of reading the Bible: hermeneutical model, derived from ancient rhetorical practice:

The object of rhetoric in the ancient world was to achieve persuasion or conviction (that is, pistis, usually translated ‘faith’ in a New Testament context!) Three things were required for this:

· The ethos of the author/speaker. The author’s character and life-style had to be such as to inspire trust in his integrity and authority – in other words, should carry conviction.

· The logos. The argument, narrative, discourse of the speech/text had to be logical, reasonable, convincing.

· The pathos of the audience. If the readers/hearers were not swayed by the author and the argument - if there was no response, then the whole thing was ineffective and unconvincing.

Conviction depended on the dynamic interplay of author/orator, text/speech and reader/audience. These three elements were interacting, cf. emphasis on authorial intention, the text itself, reader reception – they need to work together, as in fig. 1.

But in the case of scripture, we can see a series of different dynamic triangles. The author may be identified, say, as Paul, writing a letter to his converts in Corinth (fig.2);

But if that is the case, ‘we’ are not the intended readers, and there is no way in which exactly that original situation can be recreated. Alternatively we may identify the author as the Holy Spirit, ourselves as believers in the context of liturgy - part of the church universal over time and space, and the material as an extract from the timeless, canonical ‘Word of God’ (fig. 3).

This is a different ‘reading genre’ with a very different dynamic, and it never exists in a ‘pure’ sense; for we carry over the previous dynamic triangle, knowing that the text was shaped by human history and by particular circumstances, and that we are too – we do not read Holy Scripture now in the same way as believers in the Middle Ages. Scripture is the divine Word in human words – it is incarnational, and the point of scripture is transformation: it is meant to carry conviction and change people’s lives. In every generation and in different cultures particularities somehow carry the eternal Word of God. Somehow we need to keep both dynamic triangles in play, and the concern of the ‘modern’ scholar, to be ‘objective’, and the concern of the believer, ‘subjectively’ to hear the Word of God, are both valid and true to the nature of scripture.

So our model necessitates the recognised involvement of the reader when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. The reader cannot simply make the text mean anything he likes – he/she must respect the ‘otherness’ of the text. On the other hand, we can discern a legitimate place for the believer approaching the texts for insight and spiritual transformation; for it is new insight that the believer seeks from the texts – a mirror reflecting back his/her own prejudices is a danger, but not necessarily the outcome: rather the text stands over against the reader, challenging and calling into a new future. Always the reader interacts with author and text, and ideally is changed by the process - for the point of scripture is transformation.

When Arthur was a teenager, the Roman Catholic convent just down the road from where we live invited all the neighbours to a post-Christmas carol service. I took Arthur in his outsize buggy. He loves music and singing. We were shown into the convent chapel, and I was quite sensitive to his presence, especially since many people there didn’t know him, and it’s impossible to keep him quiet. As we sang carols I became deeply conscious of the huge statue of Mary towering over me in the chapel. By the time I’d pushed the buggy back up the block this prayer-poem had formed in my mind:

There was a ‘given-ness’ about that poem. It played a crucial role in enabling me to accept my own broken-ness as a mother. The Pieta became a healing presence, as exemplar, as image and ‘type’ of the suffering of women down the centuries – for women have so often suffered through their sons and their husbands, lost in violence or war, lost at sea or down mines, lost or maimed… On holiday in Brittany I was captured by the great carved Calvaries depicting Mary with the women at the deposition of Christ’s body. I was intrigued by Simeon’s words to Mary in the Temple : “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in

Israel

, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also)...” Mary’s pierced heart was implicated in the Passion, and that began to shape my understanding.

This unexpected journeying with Mary continued – indeed, it became a literal journey in 1991 when Jean Vanier invited me to join the Faith and Light anniversary pilgrimage to Lourdes . As I’m sure you know, the Lourdes story is of Bernadette, a simple local girl – indeed, maybe she was a person with slight learning disabilities – of how she met with our Lady more than once, was shown a new spring of water, and heard the Lady say that she was the Immaculate Conception, and that here was a place for sinners to find penitence, to wash and drink. I soon discovered that Lourdes is really about purification, about the removal of stigma, about holy waters bringing atonement and absolution. And through those days I experienced inner healing, purification and reconciliation as I re-trod my own path in Mary’s company.

Above and behind the grotto with the holy spring and the basilicas built over it, there’s a hill. A steep path, unsuitable for wheelchairs, climbs up and over it, and along it have been placed the Stations of the Cross, great life-size tableaux set on the hillside. Following the Stations is not part of Methodist tradition. But on Good Friday afternoon I had an opportunity to climb the hill alone, following the Stations in my own extempore way.

Panting from the climb, I suddenly found myself meeting Mary, and in identity with her, met my innocent suffering son and felt again the pain of the sword piercing the mother’s heart. Further on, with the women of Jerusalem I brought my child to the suffering, struggling Christ as he stumbled carrying the cross, and begged a blessing. By then my vision was blurred with tears, and when I reached the top of the hill, I couldn’t gaze at the Calvary , for the afternoon sun behind it was dazzling and blinding. Lining up the cross against the blaze I could discern dark silhouettes. It was as though I was literally experiencing the paradox whereby the Gospel of St. John calls the hour of glory that moment of Christ’s exposure to the darkness of the world’s sin and suffering.

But then I followed the path around behind, and was amazed how, looking the other way, having passed behind the cross, Calvary became illuminated, bright and clear – and the tears were dried and the sound of cowbells floated up from the meadow below… Two days later on Easter morning I was preaching at an Anglican eucharist in one of the Basilicas, preaching at the feet of a statue of Mary, preaching about transformation, exploring those words from II Corinthians:

We all, with unveiled face, at once beholding and reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from glory to glory… For it is the God who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So, with Mary and Arthur, I’ve walked into deeper understanding of how the cross lies at the heart of Christian theology. God, the Son, took upon himself all the suffering and sins and gone-wrong-ness of this otherwise beautiful creation. He entered the very depths of the darkness of our world, not so as to wave them away with a magic wand, but so as to transform them from inside. In a strange kind of way, it is when we live at the extremes, at the limits of human endurance, that Christian theology makes sense.

Now why do I share this? Fundamentally because my research into the biblical exegesis of the Fathers has shown how important was this kind of ‘typology’. In the work of specialists, typology is usually associated with prophecy, with the fulfilment of patterns of events: as Moses rescued from Pharoah, so Christ from the devil; the crossing of the Red Sea anticipates Baptism; Passover anticipates eucharist, etc. But for the early Fathers scripture also provided ‘types’ of the Christian life, exemplars to follow, patterns which gave meaning to people’s experience. My unexpected personal experience with Mary falls into that kind of category. This is one way in which scripture points beyond itself. There is future meaning not just past meaning, as we discover ourselves in its stories and characters.

II. Mary as model of discipleship – deeply traditional, and again involves reading ourselves into scripture; different contexts bring out different elements.

Noted above how Mary depicted as model for consecrated virgins in 4^th century. Luther recognised that Mary = model of one receptive of God’s grace through no merit of her own. Jean Vanier speaks of Mary as the model of all those who live ordinary lives, simple and hidden, fulfilling everyday tasks, in communion with Jesus; as always close to the most weak, the littlest, persons who are sick or have disabilities, as she was close to Christ on the cross. NB different contexts bring out different insights.

‘Walking Madonna’ – Salisbury Cathedral Close: Mary strides forth to bring Christ into the world > powerful type of the believer for our time (vs. passivity invoked in the past):

Let me borrow a few sentences from Verna Harrison’s work on Gregory of Nyssa.:

Notice that an essential feature of Mary’s virginity and also that of the Christian soul is receptivity to God. Her purity and integrity open a place within her where God can enter, where Christ can be formed, and from which he can come forth. In the language of the Song of Songs, God is the bridegroom as well as the offspring… [Mary’s] receptivity is intrinsic to her creaturehood; like all human persons, as Gregory understands them, she lives by participation in God and is not the source of her own life… For Gregory the virginal soul, like Mary receives the entrance of God and brings forth Christ, though spiritually, not physically.

Just as Mary gives birth to Christ in the world, so Christians are called to do likewise.

Thus even Theotokos turns out to have typological potential in relation to the call of the disciple. Picked up in Erasmus:

O Virgin Mother, may your Son grant us that in imitation of your most holy life we may conceive the Lord Jesus in our innermost soul and once conceived may we never lose him. (quoted by Boff p. 172)

What if we focus on the picture of her espousal of an upside-down world in the Magnificat? Then we see the liberational challenge she holds out to those who would follow her. Tina Beattie is a Catholic convert for whom Mary has become an inspiration. From “the background of an evangelical Protestant upbringing, from experience of living in a Third World country, from her own experience of motherhood”[1] she writes of Rediscovering Mary – and in her writing Mary becomes a figure of great courage, providing a liberating vision of a new world, challenging a world of violence and exploitation, teaching her son to be a dangerous subversive. Once I saw a poster in Birmingham : “Asylum seekers, Jesus, Mary and Joseph?”

For Tina Beattie, Mary is identified in that way with the poor, the victim and the refugee in the dark process of giving birth in a stable and fleeing to

Egypt

“When God chose Mary, he did not choose her because she was submissive and meek and obedient. He chose her because she was a woman of extraordinary determination and perseverance, a woman of loving resistance and struggle. Her son would learn by her example.”

‘Walking Madonna’ is a symbol of how Mary is a ‘type of the believer’ – called to bring Christ into the world and turn it upside down! (cf. Boff)

Doctrinal deduction from scripture

If Trinity, why not Theotokos? Mariology always related to Christology > logic of incarnation ….

Cyril’s homily on Theotokos Quasten calls 'the most famous Marian sermon of antiquity'. It consists largely of an incantation of honorific epithets - here is some of it:

through whom the Cross is called precious and is worshipped throughout the world

through whom all creation, held back from idolmania, comes to knowledge of truth

through whom the only-begotten Son of God gave light to those in darkness and the shadow of death

– initial reaction as Protestant: taken place of Christ as Mediator because Christ Pantocrator/ Judge/ homoousios no longer felt to be alongside as human being. Nevertheless, true that she enables salvation through Christ: Christ/Adam, Mary/Eve = very ancient development from Paul. Limberis – contrasts Cyril and Proclus: Cyril’s ultimately based in scripture and association of Theotokos with Christology, whereas Proclus treats the Virgin Theotokos independently and assimilates to images drawn from popular religion! Rhetoric of neither suits our style, and homilies often reflect pagan hymns to the gods (cf. Cunningham and Allen), but fundamentally such deductions consonant with scripture, as long as Mariology and Christology held together. Mary essential to salvation – new Eve tradition. Logic of incarnation – Christology impoverished by Protestant neglect of Mary (David Yeago in Braaten and Jenson).

· Called (like Jeremiah et al): ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you …’ > preparation /purity ensured in advance. Predestined in accordance with scripture, and appropriately ready for destined role, but not determined or fated in advance: she had to accept and agree to receive …

· Synergism: accepts and receives (vs. submits!) – so enabling presence and action of God through her, as prophets /other human beings responding to God’s call > model for disciples

· Special relation with Holy Spirit > body = Temple of Holy Spirit – as other believers according to Paul – already used to curb sexual licence in I Corinthians, but strong tradition, in scripture and despite ascetic movement, affirming the creation, and so the body, as created by God – purity of Mary anticipates new creation. Virginity as developed within Christianity not anti-materialist but eschatological …

· Anticipates eschatological transformation, but still human: cf. icon of the Dormition = more acceptable (for me) representation of Mary’s end than depictions of her Assumption as Queen of heaven; early stories of assumption date from 4^th century and imply her death! Anticipation of human transformation, body and soul, for new creation. But must admit - even physical translation to heaven without death is anticipated in scriptural narratives of Enoch and Elijah.

These points indicate how developing traditions re Mary – in Apocrypha and in traditional iconography – can be treated as deductions from scripture of a doctrinal kind. Stories of dedication to Temple // to Samuel – though NB historically impossible for a woman, nevertheless important symbolic meaning; icon of entering Holy of Holies = symbol of her replacing Temple as Presence of God overshadows her.

Behr-Sigel: ‘Mary brings to God the willing agreement of all humanity’ (MWC p. 77). In her Dormition, ‘believers are called upon to contemplate the glorification of all creatures at the end of time when all things will be accomplished’; Mary here anticipates the end for which all mankind was created, and ‘we participate through faith in this end while still groaning in the labor pains of the new creation’s birth’ (MWC p. 198). So Mary is ‘the image and personification of the spirit-bearing Church, the womb of the new humanity.’ ‘She is the archetype and the guide of those men and women who aspire to give birth to Christ in their hearts’ (MWC p. 207). Behr-Sigel concludes that ‘in the Orthodox vision Mary is not seen mainly as the model for women or as the archetype of womanhood in the banal or sociological meaning of the term’. Rather the ‘signification of Mary is both unique and universal, both cosmic and eschatological’. ‘It is of no small consequence, however, that this new creation, having Mary as its human root, has a woman’s face’ (MWC p. 210). Mary is a figure of the Church, of the Body of Christ, of which men and women both are members (DST p. 112).

Behr-Sigel celebrates the contribution of women to the life of the Church over the centuries, and the priesthood of the whole people of God (MWC p. 8): together men and women ‘have the vocation of being the kings and priests of the creation, of being the celebrants of the cosmic liturgy’ (MWC p.42). She insists that Orthodox women are conscious of participating in the royal priesthood of the laity, knowing that they are called to holiness, to deification not only in the life of the world to come but also here and now (MWC p. 135). For Orthodoxy Christ alone is the High Priest and all priesthood derives from him; as members of the Body of Christ all participate in the priestly offering of worship (MWC p. 140). She quotes ‘an Orthodox spiritual master’ on the subject of the offertory prayer:

At this moment, we pray for the whole creation; consecrating all men and women as well as the whole world to God. We carry out the office of priest so that our priesthood might be the ministerial priesthood delegated by the Church or the “royal priesthood” that scriptures attribute to all believers. (MWC p. 168)

So it is that Behr-Sigel moves to the view that the priesthood of the Church could properly be represented by a man or a woman. But I suspect she might have gone further. For in the Orthodox Feasts and their ikons there is much that appears to place Mary in a priestly role. Many show her in the orans (praying) position: at the Ascension she is there orans at the centre of the group of the Apostles; in the Deesis she leads the saints of the New Covenant in intercession, as John Baptist leads those of the Old Covenant. Leading the Church in intercession is surely a priestly role. Could it not further be said that this priestly role is expressed symbolically in the feast and icon of her presentation in the Temple, Mary becoming typologically the archetypal high priest who enters the Holy of Holies? The Orthodox hymnography of these Feasts celebrates Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, the place of God’s presence, the Temple of the Holy Spirit and the Tabernacle of the Word of God. So she mediates God to the world in Christ, as the living Temple. She is all-holy, her purity from contamination making possible the incarnation, and so our purification. Again we may speak of a priestly role. The early apocryphal accounts of her death-bed scene mention the fact that she blessed the apostles: that too is priestly act. In the preface to the original French edition of Behr-Sigel’s book, Anthony Bloom wrote:

Twice Mary had a properly priestly ministry: once when she carried her son who was destined to be sacrificed to the Lord, and once when, at the foot of the cross, she completed the offering by uniting her will, in heroic abandoning of self, to the will of the heavenly Father and to that of the Son of God who by her had become the Son of Man and the sacrificial Lamb.

If it can be acknowledged that Mary has a priestly ministry, then through that typology priesthood can surely not be withheld from women, particularly when it is set in the broader context of Mary’s role as ‘type’ of the Church.

If this argument has the potential to be convincing with respect to the Orthodox tradition, so too with respect to Roman Catholicism, as is argued by John Wijngaards in The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church. He traces the notion of Mary’s priesthood within tradition, citing medieval precedents. He indicates that only recent Roman theology excludes this: it is a recent development to contrast the apostolic-petrine tradition with the marian tradition > the position of Pope John Paul II:

The fact that the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the Universe.[2]

There would appear to be some justification for regarding this as contrary to earlier tradition which honoured Mary as the priest par excellence.

As a Methodist minister, a person ordained to represent the priesthood of all believers at the eucharist, I have found the model of Mary, the ‘type’ and ‘representative’ of the whole Church, deeply meaningful.

If we deduce all kinds of meaningful doctrines about Mary from the doctrine of the incarnation and from a broader set of biblical assumptions, why not this too?

Conclusion

· Example of developments beyond scripture, but which can nevertheless be said to be consonant with what scripture points to – may not establish certain claimed historical/literal facts, but can support common symbolic truth for believers – challenge to Protestants.

· Could provide example of how delicate balance between what is possible and what not can be reached, through honest ecumenical dialogue about the implications of scripture: Protestants as well as Orthodox may welcome the carefully guarded statement of Vatican II, which goes a long way to meeting their anxieties about idolatry and displacing Christ.

· Could point to future possibilities if doors not closed in advance by inherited prejudices – challenges offered not just to Protestants but to Orthodox and Roman Catholics about the place of women in the Church.

[1] Published in my book, Face to Face. A Narrative Essay in the Theology of Suffering, 2^nd edit. T & T Clark, 1990.

[2] From his Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone, quoted by Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet (London: SCM Press 1994), p. 163.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reconciliation with God and a Wide-Open Heart for Paul: The Meaning of the Christian Theology and Practice of Reconciliation According to 2 Corinthians 5:11-7:4

Reconciliation with God and a Wide-Open Heart for Paul: The Meaning of the Christian Theology and Practice of Reconciliation According to 2 Corinthians 5:11-7:4

Reconciliation to God has long enjoyed a central place in Christian theologies. Biblical and systematic theologians saw in reconciliation the key concept that holds together the many facts of the Christian message. However, what the different authors mean when they use the word reconciliation as the centre of their theology varies greatly. In this paper we shall first give an overview of the occurrences of this terminology in the Bible. Then we shall focus on the oldest extant Christian text which makes use of the concept of reconciliation to God in 2 Cor 5:18-21. In a third part we shall discuss the grammar of Paul’s understanding of reconciliation to God and focus on the question whether God is in need of reconciliation. This focus continues to be central to the fourth part in which we study the relationship between reconciliation and ‘not counting trespasses’.

When New Testament exegetes speak about reconciliation, they generally restrict their statements to the places where cognates of the Greek words diallassō/katallassō and diallagē/katallagē are used[1]. We shall begin our contribution by giving an overview of the places where this terminology is used in the Bible taking into consideration the variations in use and meaning.

The verb diallassō is used in the Septuagint to refer to reconciliation between human persons[2]. Judg 19:3 LXX A uses diallassō with reference to a Levite and his concubine while B has epistrephō instead. In 1 Kings 29:4 LXX diallassō is used with regard to a potential reconciliation between David and King Saul. 1 Esdr 4:31 points to the intended reconciliation between the Persian King Darius and one of his concubines by the name of Apame. The cognate noun is used twice in the Septuagint, namely in Sir 22:22 and in 27:21 when speaking about reconciliation between friends.

In the Septuagint, the occurrences of katallassō and katallagē are almost exclusively limited to 2 Maccabees[3]:

1:5 May he hear your prayers and be reconciled to you, and may he not forsake you in time of evil.

5:20 Therefore the place itself shared in the misfortunes that befell the nation and afterward participated in its benefits; and what was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was restored again in all its glory when the great Lord became reconciled (katallagē).

7:33 And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants

8:29 When they had done this, they made common supplication and besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants.

The verb katallassō is found in 2 Macc 1:5, 7:33 and 8:29 . The noun katallagē occurs in 2 Macc 5:20. In all these places katallassō and katallagē are used to describe divine – human reconciliation. The relationship between God and those to whom God is reconciled is presented as a Lord – slave relationship. God is referred to as “the great Lord” ( 5:20 ), “the living Lord” ( 7:33 ) and “the merciful Lord” ( 8:29 ). The people are “his slaves” ( 7:33 ; 8:29 ; see also 1:5: “to you”). The verb katallassō is used once in the active (1:5) and twice in the passive ( 7:33 and 8:29 ; cf. 5:20 [4]). The agent of reconciliation is not explicitly mentioned. This is the source of the opposing interpretations of the theology of reconciliation present in 2 Maccabees. The majority of New Testament exegetes assumes that the people who are the beneficiaries of reconciliation are also the implicit agents of reconciliation. They supply the missing agent as ‘by the appeasing activity of humans’. Support for this interpretation is found in the fact that in two reconciliation texts prayer is mentioned in the immediate context: “May he hear your prayers and be reconciled to you” (2 Macc 1:5) and “When they had done this, they made common supplication and besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants” (2 Macc 8:29)[5]. Others, however, insist that there is nothing in the text that requires us to assume that God is reconciled by people’s initiative. None of the texts explicitly states that people reconcile God. Rather reconciliation statements in 2 Maccabees either explicitly state (1:5) or leave open the possibility ( 5:20 ; 7:33 and 8:29 ) that God is the agent of reconciliation. It is not the prayer of humans that brings about reconciliation, but exclusively God’s mercy (cf. “the merciful God” in 8:29 )[6]. The latter interpretation is more in line with the understanding of God in the Bible in general.

Studying reconciliation terminology in 2 Maccabees we gained a number of important insights. 1. This book is evidence to the rare religious use of katallassō/katallagē. 2. katallassō/katallagē is used within the hierarchical relationship of Lord and slave. It is thus not restricted to equal to equal relationships of friendship. 3. The need for reconciliation is linked to the wrath of God ( 5:20 and 7:33 ). 4. The state of irreconciliation is one of evil and calamities for the people (“time of evil” in 1,5; “misfortunes” in 5:20 ; “to rebuke and discipline us” in 7:33 ). Reconciliation thus first and foremost means the cessation of the God-inflicted calamities. 5. 2 Maccabees expresses neither the agent nor the means of reconciliation. In extra-Biblical Greek literature it is common for texts to focus on agents, means and even mediators of reconciliation. In this light their absence emphasizes God’s initiative and agency in reconciliation. God accomplishes reconciliation by God’s own initiative. 6. The exact semantic nuances of katallassō/katallagē in the literary contexts of 2 Maccabees require further study. It has been pointed out that katallassō/katallagē is never used in the Septuagint to translate the root kpr for which cognates of the hilask-stem are used.

In the Second Testament there is only one single instance of diallassō/diallagē terminology. In Mt 5:24 Jesus says: “So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister {Gk [your brother]} has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, {Gk [your brother]} and then come and offer your gift”. This is an instance of the interpersonal use of the terminology. This text speaks about a precondition for offering one’s gift to God. The offended party (“if you remember that your brother or sister {Gk [your brother]} has something against you”) is required to take the initiative to bring about reconciliation. The verb is in the passive, but no agent is expressed. This leaves open how reconciliation is to come about precisely (except for the fact that the initiative is to come from the offended party). Only the result is seen as important for the permission to bring one’s gifts to the altar.

Similarly the only instance in the Second Testament where katallassō/katallagē is used in the interpersonal meaning. A wife who separates from her husband is told that she should remain unmarried “or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor 7:11 ). Again we hear nothing about the specifics of the process of reconciliation. As the passive voice indicates, here again only the result of achieved reconciliation counts for Paul.

The majority of the Second Testament occurrences of katallassō/katallagē terminology belongs to the religious use:

2 Cor 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, {Or [God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself]} not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Rom 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead!

The verb occurs five times (Rom 5:10 [bis]; 2 Cor 5:18.19.20) and the noun four times (Rom 5:11 ; 11:15 ; 2 Cor 5:18.19). The verb is twice in the active (2 Cor 5:18.19) and thrice in the passive (2 Cor 5:20 ; Rom 5:10 [bis]). God is the subject, Christ the one through or in whom reconciliation is achieved (2 Cor 5:18-19; cf Rom 5:10: “through the death of his son”) and beneficiaries of reconciliation are “we” (2 Cor 5:18 ) or the kosmos (2 Cor 5:19 ; Rom 11:15 ). The one to whom “we” or “the world” are reconciled is God. While it is clear that reconciliation is God’s initiative and God’s doing, the role of those who are expressed as direct objects of reconciliation is not clear. We could expect an answer to this question in 2 Cor 5:20 where Paul beseeches his addressees using an imperative: katallagēte tō(i) theō(i) and in Rom 5:11 where he uses the verb lambanō with reconciliation. Both times the original language is somewhat ambiguous as to the precise activity that is referred to. Does katallagēte tō(i) theō(i) mean “be reconciled to God”, “let yourselves be reconcilied to God” or “reconcile yourselves to God”? Does Paul expect of his addressees that they will passively allow God to reconcile them or does he implore them to actively reconcile themselves with God? Similarly in Rom 5:11 the question is whether elabomen means “we [passively] received” or “we [actively] accepted”.

The noun katallagē is used in Rom 5:11 and 11:15 not to refer to the reconciliation event in the past cross event, but to the moment when this past event reaches the person in the present. In Rom 5:11 Paul indicates this by using the titles “our Lord Jesus Christ” when he speaks about the one through whom we received/accepted reconciliation. In 11:15 Paul claims that the fact that his own people rejected the message about Jesus is the katallagē kosmou, the reconciliation of the world. This can hardly mean anything but that the past reconciliation event reaches the Gentiles. In 2 Cor 5:18-19 it is more difficult to determine precisely what Paul means by katallagē when he speaks of “ministry of reconciliation” and “word of reconciliation”. Here everything depends on the kinds of genitives that are used. We suggest that Paul speaks about a ministry and a word the content of which is katallagē, namely the past reconciliation event[7].

Finally we also have to note the double compound apokatallassō in Eph 2:16 and Col 1:20-22:

Eph 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body {Or [reconcile both of us in one body for God]} through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. {Or [in him], or [in himself]} .

Col 1:20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. 21 And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled {Other ancient authorities read [you have now been reconciled]} in his fleshly body {Gk [in the body of his flesh]} through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him.

In Eph 2:16 and Col 1:21 -22 Christ is the subject of reconciliation (in Col 1:20 it is God). Similar to Rom 5:10 reconciliation is brought about through the death or the cross. The more open formulation of 2 Cor 5:18-19 with its reference to Christ[8] is now left behind for the more clearly defined reference to the cross or the death (Eph 2:16 ; Col 1:22 ; but note “through him” in Col 1:20 ). The verb is always in the active. The beneficiaries of reconciliation are the Jews and the Greeks (“both groups in Eph 2:16 ). all things ( Col 1:20 ) and those who were once estranged. The reconciliation statements in Eph 2:16 and Col 1:20-22 contain the nuance of reconciling conflicting parties to one another and in/through this to God (vgl. “in one body” in Eph 2:16 ; “in his fleshly body” in Col 1:22 ). In Col 1:21-22 the one to whom people are reconciled is not expressed. This could mean that the idea is that they are reconciled to one another.

Our analysis of the reconciliation terminology in the Second Testament has led to a number of important insights: 1. Except for Mt 5:24 all the uses of reconciliation terminology are found in the Pauline corpus. 2. The religious use is only found in the Pauline corpus. 3. Paul knows the interpersonal and the religious use of katallassō. 4. 2 Cor 5:18-20 is the earliest Christian use of katallassō/katallagē with a religious meaning. 5. The language of Lord and slave is absent in the Pauline use of katallassō/katallagē. In Rom 5:10 Paul uses the word “enemy” which implicitly refers to “friend”. 6. In Rom 5:9 Paul refers to “wrath” in the immediate context of the reconciliation statements, but there “wrath” is connected with future salvation, not with past reconciliation through the death of the Son of God. 7. The state of irreconciliation is referred to in the words for trespasses and sin in 2 Cor 5:19b.21a (and “living for oneself” in 5:15 ). In Romans 5 Paul refers to it by means of the word “enemy”. The focus, however, is on God’s or Christ’s love (Rom 5:5 and 2 Cor 5:14 ), not on rebuke or punishment. 8. The Pauline reconciliation texts also differ from the other biblical reconciliation texts in so far as they explicitly mention the one through whom and in whom God reconciles. In the earliest text Paul uses “through Christ” and “in Christ” without specifying whether he means the entire Christ event or one aspect, e.g. his death on the cross and/or his resurrection. In Rom 5:10 Paul clearly refers to the death on the cross (“through the death of his Son”, similar in Eph 2:16 and Col 1:22 ). The use of “in Christ” in 2 Cor 5:19 moves in the direction of making Christ the agent of reconciliation. From here it is only a small step to make Christ the subject of reconciliation statements as is the case in the Deutero-Paulines (Eph 2:16 and Col 1:22 ). 9. It is also unique in the Pauline corpus that besides the mediation or agency of Christ, there is also the ministry/word of reconciliation entrusted to Paul (and the apostles) (5:18c.19c)[9]. The latter is only mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5. According to 2 Cor 5:18-20 the gift or establishment of the ministry/word of reconciliation has its origin in the reconciliation event itself. This ministry consists in proclaiming the reconciliation event and inviting people to receive or accept it. It is open to discussion whether “proclaiming the reconciliation event” happens by word alone or also in Paul’s entire apostolic existence. 10. The exact semantic nuance of katallassō/katallagē in the literary contexts of the Proto- and Deutero-Pauline texts requires further study. Is its semantic domain to be strictly separated from the hilask-stem which expresses expiation of sins?

2. The katallassō/katallagē Statements in the Context of the Theo-Centric Section 5:18-21

After this overview of reconciliation statements in the Bible we now focus our attention on 2 Cor 5:14-21, the locus classicus of the Pauline theology of reconciliation. The subsection 2 Cor 5:14-17 can be called Christo-centric. Christ is referred to, albeit in different ways in almost every clause. In 5:18a the phrase “but all this is from God” (ta de panta ek tou theou) not only introduces the theo-centric subsection 5:18 -21, but also adds a theo-centric dimension to 5:14 -17. 5:18a thus provides a key to reading 5:14 -17 telling us that God the Reconciler is the one who is the origin (cf. ek) of Christ’s inclusive vicarious death for all and of being a new creation and the new way of knowing Christ that goes along with it. The Christo-centric statements of 5:14 -17 are present in 5:18 -19 in the phrases “through Christ” and “in Christ” and in 5:20 in the phrase “for Christ (hyper Christou) [bis]”. 5,21 refers to Christ without mentioning this title, but rather calling him “the one who did not know sin”.

In the theo-centric subsection 5:18 -21 almost every clause refers to God (theos), mostly as subject. In 5:18-19 God is presented as the subject and the indirect object of reconciliation (cf. 5:20 ). God does not count trespasses against the world. God also entrusts to Paul (and the apostles) the ministry of reconciliation or, in other words, establishes the word of reconciliation. God is also presented as the one who beseeches the Corinthians through Paul (and the apostles). In 5:21 , God is introduced as the one who made Christ who knew no sin to be sin. Here Paul also uses the phrase “justice/righteousness of God”. In fact the theocentric focus continues in 6:1-2. Here we hear about the “grace of God”. God is also presented as the one with whom Paul (and the apostles) works together. Moreover Paul gives a direct quote of what God says (6:2 quoting Isa 49:8 LXX), namely: “At the acceptable time I heard you, and on the day of salvation I helped you”.