2007 Annual Conference - Talks
Prof Reimund Bieringer, Reconciliation with God and a Wide-Open Heart for Paul...
Prof Frances Young, Wrestling Jacob - How Might Patristic Interpretation be Appropriated for Today?
Prof Reimund Bieringer, Mary of Magdala and Jesus of Nazareth...
*********************************************************************************************
Beyond Scripture? The Case of Mary...
Prof Frances Young
Public Lecture Friday 20 April 2007
Title brings together two important theological journeys of my life:
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!
Wilderness years > call to ordination – important step was discovery of Mary
>Patron of the Ecumenical Society of the Virgin Mary
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 …
· 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?
So cannot escape a brief discussion of these three factors in the development:
(i) Many features of developed Mariology derive from a late 2nd 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
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 4th 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 2nd 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 2nd century) re Christians ‘Their contempt for death is patent to us every day, and likewise their restraint from intercourse’. Huge development in 4th century, beginnings of monastic movement; Brown studies various different motives and attitudes > cf. Elizabeth Clark, Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity.
4th 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.
(iii) Assimilation of pagan motifs:
(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
Hilda Graef: ‘The crowds which had
been roaming the streets of
Ø
(b)
(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
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 4th 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 …
·
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.
Reading ourselves into the text
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

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).

So back to Mary as an example:
I. Autobiographical – first meeting with Mary
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:
Mary, my child’s lovely.
Is yours lovely too?
Little hands, little feet,
Curly hair, smiles sweet.
Mary, my child’s broken.
Is your broken too?
Crushed by affliction,
Hurt by rejection,
Disfigured, stricken,
Silent submission.
Mary, my heart’s bursting.
Is yours bursting too?
Bursting with labour, travail and pain.
Bursting with agony, ecstasy, gain.
Bursting with sympathy, anger, compassion.
Bursting with praising Love’s transfiguration.
Mary, my heart’s joyful.
Is yours joyful too? [1]
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
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
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
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
II. Mary as model of discipleship – deeply traditional, and again involves reading ourselves into scripture; different contexts bring out different elements.
‘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):
‘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)
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:
Mary is
the sacred treasury of all the world
the unquenchable light
the garland of virginity
the mirror of orthodoxy
the indestructable temple
the container of the uncontainable
mother and virgin.
Moreover,
she is the one
through whom the Trinity is sanctified
through whom the Cross is called precious and is worshipped throughout
the world
through whom heaven rejoices
through whom angels and archangels are glad
through whom demons are made to flee
through whom the tempting devil falls from heaven
through whom the fallen creature is received into the heavens
through whom all creation, held back from idolmania, comes
to knowledge of truth
through whom holy baptism came for those who believe
through whom came the oil of gladness
through whom churches were founded in all the world
through whom the Gentiles came to repentance
through whom the only-begotten Son of God gave light to those in darkness
and the shadow of death
through whom the prophets prophesied
through whom the apostles preached salvation to the Gentiles
through whom the dead are raised
through whom kings rule through the Holy Trinity
The Virgin Mother - O marvel!
– 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 4th 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?
What does this case tell us?
· 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, 2nd 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click here to return to top of the page
Click here to return to the IBA Home page
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
Prof Reimund Bieringer
Saturday 21 April 2007, 9:30 a.m.
pro manuscripto
for private use only
please do not cite
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
Reimund
Bieringer, Catholic
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’.
1.
Reconciliation Terminology in the Bible
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
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.
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
The
verb katallassō is found in 2 Macc 1:5,
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 (
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
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
The
majority of the Second Testament occurrences of katallassō/katallagē
terminology belongs to the religious use:
2
Cor
Rom
Rom
The
verb occurs five times (Rom
The
noun katallagē is used in Rom 5:11 and
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
In
Eph
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
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
In
the theo-centric subsection
5:14a
For the love of Christ
is the driving force in our (= Paul’s) lives,
5:14b
since we reached the conviction,
5:14c
that one died for
all.
5:15a
And he died for all
5:15b
in order that those who live no longer live for themselves
5:15c
but for the one who for
them died and was raised.
5:16a
Therefore from now on we (= Paul) know no one according to the flesh;
5:16b
although we knew Christ
according to the flesh,
5:16c
but we know [him]
now no longer [according to the flesh].
5:17a1
Therefore:
5:17b
if anyone [is] in Christ,
5:17a2
[he or she is] a new creation;
5:17c
the old things passed away,
5:17e
come have new things.
5:18a
But all this [is] from God
5:18b
who reconciled us (= you
and me) through Christ
to himself
5:18c
and who gave us (= to
Paul) the ministry of reconciliation;
5:19a
that is: God in Christ
was reconciling the world to himself
5:19b
by (= God) not counting
to them their trespasses,
5:19c
and he entrusted to us
(= to the apostles) the word of reconciliation.
5:20a
For Christ,
therefore, we (= the apostles/Paul) are ambassadors,
5:20b
as if God was exhorting
through us (= the apostles/Paul);
5:20c
we (= Paul) beseech you (= the Corinthians) for Christ:
5:21a
He (= God) made the
one who did not know sin [to be] sin for us (= all humanity),
5:21b
in order that we become the justice of God in him.
(Translation:
Reimund Bieringer)
2 Corinthians
5:18-21 presents a characterization of God. God is primarily presented in
relationship to the world and to “us” in the perspective of the situation
caused by human transgression and sin. It is assumed that human transgression
and sin led to enmity and estrangement between God and the world/humans. God’s
reaction to this situation is described as not counting trespasses against
humans, as reconciling them to himself and as making it possible that they can
become “justice/righteousness of God”. God’s attitude in all this can be
summarized with the help of a phrase from 5:21a hyper hēmōn,
for our sake, for our benefit. Here God is described as being in relationship
with Christ. Reconciliation is achieved “through Christ” and “in
Christ”. Opening the possibility of becoming “justice/righteousness of
God” is realized by making Christ to be sin for us. The only action of God
that is not brought about in or through Christ is “not counting their
trespasses to them” (5:19b)[10].
In addition to
Christ, God also relates to Paul and the apostles in dealing with the situation
brought about by human sin. The way Paul and the apostles are involved in this
activity is described as giving the ministry of reconciliation (
In the
narrative world of
In the
narrative world of
3.
The Grammar of Reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:18-20: Who is Reconciled to Whom?
Analyzing
the syntax of reconciliation statements in Greek we need to distinguish between
instances where two and instances where three parties are involved. In the first
case texts speak about reconciliation directly between two estranged parties. In
the latter case, reconciliation happens by the mediation of a third party
according to the model “C reconciles A and B with one another”. In 2 Cor
5:18-19 Paul uses the syntax of two party reconciliation, but incorporates some
aspects of the third party mediation.
The
syntax of two party reconciliation fundamentally allows for five patterns in
constructions with active or passive forms of katallassō:
1a.
A reconciles A to B
e.g., God reconciles himself to human persons
1b.
A is reconciled to B (by A) = A reconciles himself to B
2a.
A reconciles B to A
e.g., God reconciles human persons to himself
2b.
B is reconciled to A by A
3a.
B reconciles B to A
e.g., Human persons reconcile themselves to God
3b.
B is reconciled to A (by B) = B reconciles himself to A
4a.
B reconciles A to B
e.g., Human persons reconcile God to themselves
4b A
is reconciled to B (by B)
5. A
and B reconcile with one another, e.g. God and human persons reconcile with one
another.
In
the biblical texts, katallassō is frequently used in the passive
voice without indication of the agent (B is reconciled to A). Consequently the
focus is on the resulting state of reconciliation, but it remains unclear who
the reconciling agent is. There are two instances of the religious use of katallassō
in Greek literature, one in Sophocles’ Ajax and the other in Plato’s Symposion[11].
Both times the syntactic pattern is “human persons are reconciled to the
god/gods”. The agent could be “human persons” (pattern 3b; in this case
the passive corresponds to a reflexive[12])
or god/gods (pattern 2b). The occurrences of katallassō in 2
Maccabees follow the syntactic pattern “God is reconciled to human persons”.
Here again the agent could be “human persons” (pattern 4b) or God (pattern
1b, in this case the passive corresponds to a reflexive). Consequently some
scholars understand 2 Maccabees to imply that “human persons reconcile God to
themselves” with their prayers and offerings (pattern 4)[13].
Others, however, do not give the prayers such an important function and stress
that according to 2 Maccabees God reconciles himself to human persons (pattern
1b) solely by virtue of his mercy[14].
In 2 Macc 1:5 (“May
he hear your prayers and reconcile to you,”),
the only occurrence of kastallassō in the active voice, the direct
object is not expressed. However, here the implied object can hardly be anything
but “himself”. This suggests that where 2 Maccabees uses katallassō
in the passive voice, the implied agent is also God and the meaning is reflexive
(pattern 1).
In 2
Cor 5:18-19 Paul uses active forms of katallassō according to
pattern 2a when he says: God reconciled/was reconciling us/the world to himself[15].
This is the only place where in the extant Greek literature pattern 2a is used
unambiguously when speaking about divine-human reconciliation[16].
But is the theology of reconciliation expressed here also unparalleled? The
answer to this question depends on one’s interpretation of the reconciliation
statements in Plato’s Symposion or in 2 Maccabees as analyzed above. If
one understands 2 Maccabees to be speaking about human persons reconciling God
to themselves, then Paul’s grammar of reconciliation is indeed unique in the
Bible[17].
But if one reads the syntax in 2 Maccabees to refer to God reconciling himself
to human persons, both this view and Paul’s have in common that God, not
humans, takes the initiative in bringing about reconciliation[18].
There remains, however, a difference in the syntax of reconciliation. Paul does
not say, as does Maccabees, that God reconciles himself to the world, but that
he reconciles the world to himself[19].
This
unavoidably leads to the question whether God is in need of reconciliation. On
the basis of the specific syntax of Paul’s reconciliation statements in 2 Cor
5:18-19 and Rom 5:10, the majority of scholars concludes that in Paul’s view,
God is not in need of reconciliation. This is usually interpreted as evidence
for an understanding of God that is purified from any anthropomorphic emotions.
This position goes along with a position that has a particular disdain for any
theology that ascribes wrath to God. However, not everyone will agree with such
a view.
If it is
correct that 2 Cor 5:18-19 does not speak about God’s need to be reconciled,
this could mean one of two things, namely one that there is no such need for
God. However, it might also mean that Paul is simply not focusing on that issue
in 2 Cor 5:18-19. Other scholars do not share this presupposition and assume
that even the particular syntactic form of the reconciliation statements in 2
Cor 5:18-19 presupposes that God is in need of reconciliation. According to
Dupont, God reconciles human persons by transferring them out of the reach of
his wrath into the sphere of his mercy[20].
Dupont bases his interpretation on “change” as the fundamental meaning of katallassō[21]. According to him,
Paul’s specific grammar of reconciliation does not refer to a change of
subjective emotional dispositions, but to a change of an objective (juridical)
status or sphere of peace. The question is, however, what is the basis of
Dupont’s assumption that God was in a sphere of wrath. The reconciliation
statements as such are not focusing on what is needed on God’s side. They
concentrate on the side of human beings.
There are a
number of parallels from the interpersonal sphere which show that, when
reconciliation is at stake, the conflict is not always reciprocal. Nor is it
totally unusual that the person who is not estranged from the other is the one
who tries to bring about reconciliation. In Judg 19:1-3 LXX A we are told that
the concubine was angry at the Levite and left him. Nothing is said about any
estrangement of the Levite from the concubine. He rather travels to see her to
speak to her heart in order to reconcile her to himself. Similarly in Mt 5:23-24
Jesus speaks of a situation where the person who brings the offering to the
altar has nothing against his brother, rather his brother has something against
him. Jesus exhorts him: “first be reconciled to your brother”. The task
given here to the person implies “reconcile your brother to yourself”, even
though the imperative passive seems to be chosen to focus exclusively on the
result (“see to it that reconciliation will be a reality”) and not on the
process how one gets there. At any rate, the person who is not having anything
against his brother is here told to bring about reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians
Paul presents himself as someone who does not have anything against the
Corinthians, but who takes the initiative to reconcile the Corinthians to
himself, even though he does not apply reconciliation terminology to his
relationship with the community. This is particularly clear in 2 Cor 6:11-13:
“We have spoken frankly to you Corinthians; our heart is wide open to you.
There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. In
return – I speak as to children – open wide your hearts also”. Without
using katallassō or diallassō, Paul here makes an
attempt to reconcile the Corinthians to himself.
On the basis of
these observations it is not so unusual, and in the light of his relations with
the Corinthians it is even to be expected that Paul would use a similar
structure when addressing the issue of the divine-human relationship. In a
context where it is very important for Paul to present himself as having no need
of being reconciled, it does not come as a surprise that in Paul’s theology of
reconciliation God needs no reconciliation[22].
4.
Reconciliation and ‘Not Counting Trespasses’
The participial
clause “not counting their trespasses against them” in 2 Cor 5:19b is
another place where interpreters have found proof of God’s need for
reconciliation. They are convinced that before the reconciliation event, God
counted the trespasses against human persons and that Jesus’ death on the
cross is what enabled God to stop counting trespasses. They arrive at this
conclusion on the basis of a number of exegetical choices. First they assume
that not counting trespasses is an action that chronologically follows upon
God’s reconciling action[23].
But the participial construction in 5:19b can also express an action that
preceded the reconciling action or that is simultaneous. From a logical
perspective it could express the instrument of the reconciling action
(“by”), the way or manner in which the reconciling action was realized, but
also the reason why the reconciling action was possible. In the history of
interpretation “not counting their trespasses against them” was understood
frequently as precondition for reconciliation. Some saw it as an expression of
forgiveness without which no reconciliation is possible or which is a
consequence of reconciliation[24].
Others understood it as an expression of the justification of the sinner which
reconciliation presupposes. A third group interprets 5:19b as an expression of
expiation which is seen as being a necessary precondition for reconciliation.
It is important
to note that 5:19b does not contain the expression “no longer” but
“not”. In the immediate context in 5:15 and 16 Paul uses explicitly the
adverbs mêketi and ouketi (no longer). We do not see any reason
why he could not have used the adverb mêketi (no longer) instead of mê
(not), had he intended to convey this idea. In relation to the periphrastic
imperfect ên … katallassōn (“was … reconciling”), the
present participle logizomenos (counting) seems more likely to express an
ongoing action that preceded the reconciling action[25].
This would imply that God never ever counted their trespasses against them. In 1
Cor 13:5 Paul had stated that love “does not count evil”. It is clear in the
context that this is a statement that applies unconditionally and is not limited
in time. If this is true of love, could it be any less true of the God of love
(2 Cor 13:11)? Both in 1 Cor 13:5 and in Rom 4:3.5.8[26]
Paul uses the verb logizomai in the sense of unconditional or grace-ful
counting. The counting or not counting happens purely because of grace and
mercy, not because of any merit or duty. It is therefore highly unlikely that in
2 Cor 5:19b the condition for not counting trespasses is Jesus’ death on the
cross. The participial clause “not counting their trespasses against them”
tells us why God was able to reconcile the world to himself. Because God was not
resentful, God did not take the human trespasses as a reason to reject human
persons. For this understanding of 5:19b it is, however, essential not to
assimilate the meaning of “not counting their trespasses against them” too
quickly to forgiveness or other well-known concepts.
We
are convinced that with “not counting trespasses” Paul tries to hold a
middle ground between forgiving and forgetting. “Not counting trespasses”
requires an acknowledgement that something went wrong. It acknowledges that
there is no need to do as if it never happened (problem with forgetting or
blotting out). It remains aware of the wrong, but is not resentful, i.e., does
not allow it to harm oneself and the relationship any longer (the continued
awareness of the wrong is stronger here than in forgiveness). Whoever does not
count trespasses gives up the right of retribution of any kind. Finally not
counting trespasses is offered freely, not based on merit or on the expectation
of getting anything in return (as in forgiveness). God’s action in not
counting trespasses is a radical effective action, not a juridical fiction. Many
readers found this statement too radical and tried to get around it by
understanding it not in an effective but in an imputative way. It is important
to note that “not counting their trespasses against them” is seen as a
deliberate act of God. It is not the same as forgetting or forgiving them. It
rather refers to a conscious decision not allow oneself to be determined by
trespasses and not to allow them to have power over oneself and the
relationship. Here we see clear evidence that, even though Paul does not talk
about God needing reconciliation, in his view God is potentially affected by
human sin even if Paul is convinced that God did not allow human sin to be a
determining force. Even in the event of sin, God remains God and does not allow
sin and its consequences to gain the upper hand.
5. Reconciliation
With God and Reconciliation With Paul (
In my analysis of 2 Cor
|
|
6:1 |
|
uJpeVr Cristou' ou\n presbeuvomen |
|
|
wJ" tou' qeou' parakalou'nto" di=
hJmw'n |
sunergou'nte" deV kaiV parakalou'men |
|
deovmeqa uJpeVr Cristou': |
|
|
katallavghte tw'/ qew'/. |
mhV eij" kenoVn thVn cavrin tou' qeou'
devxasqai uJma'" |
In 6:1 the message of God reconciling us/the world to himself is taken up
in the expression “the grace of God”. The imperative katallavghte is
rephrased as mhV eij" kenoVn devxasqai. The urgency of this appeal (
In this perspective it is noteworthy that the appeals Paul addresses to
the Corinthians (see in Korivnqioi in
Along the same lines we, of course, need to ask also why Paul appeals to
the Corinthians to reconcile themselves to God in
There are also interesting structural parallels between the relationship
with God and the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians. Like God, Paul
took the initiative and did everything possible on his part to restore the
relationship. Both in their relationship with God and with Paul, the Corinthians
are challenged to reciprocate, to do their part in the relationship.
By way of conclusion it seems important that Paul does not use
katallavssw to describe the reconciliation with the Corinthians. Nevertheless
the appeals in
Conclusion
When
Paul speaks about “reconciliation to God” in 2 Cor 5:18-20 his focus is on
the human side. In what he explicitly says, the emphasis is on the human need
for reconciliation. Nothing is said about a need of God to be reconciled.
Because of this one-sided understanding, even Paul’s grammar of reconciliation
is somewhat unusual. The participial clause “not counting to them their
trespasses” in 5:19b is extremely important in this context. Far from
justifying a view that would claim that God was reconciled by the death of Jesus
on the cross and therefore ready to stop counting trespasses against the world,
we tried to demonstrate in this paper that God never counted trespasses against
the world and therefore was able to take the initiative in reconciliation.
[1]
This was first proposed by Ernst Käsemann, Some Thoughts on the Theme
'The Doctrine of Reconciliation in the New Testament', in J.M. Robinson
(ed.), The Future of Our Religious Past. FS R. Bultmann,
[2]
Only three of the ten LXX uses of diallassō have the meaning
“to reconcile”. Elsewhere it occurs in the meaning “to change”.
[3]
There are only one two exceptions, namely Jer 31:39 where the verb is used
in the meaning “to change”, and Isa 9:3 where the noun is translated by
Brenton as “restitution”.
[4]
2 Macc
[5]
See Cilliers Breytenbach, art. Versöhnung, in Theologisches
Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament 2005) 1777-1780, p. 1778: sees in 2
Macc 1:5;
[6]
Jacques Dupont, La réconciliation dans la théologie de saint Paul,
in EstBib 11 (1952) 255-302, p. 264 : “Ni pour Josèphe ni
pour le IIe Livre des Maccabées, Dieu n’est réconcilié par l’homme,
mais, librement et de lui-même, il se réconcilie avec l’homme par pure
miséricorde”.
[7]
For a detailed discussion see Reimund Bieringer, Paul's Understanding of Diakonia in 2 Corinthians
5,18, in Reimund Bieringer & Jan Lambrecht (eds.), Studies in 2
Corinthians (BETL, 112), Leuven: University Press - Peeters, 1994, pp.
413-428, pp. 423-424.
[8]
It is possible that what is
meant here is also Jesus’ death on the cross, but even then it remains
significant that the reference to Christ is broader and leaves more freedom
to the reader to imagine or speculate what might be meant.
[9]
This was stressed by
Cilliers Breytenbach, art. Versöhnung, p. 1779. According to him Paul here
casts himself in the role of the presbeutēs or diallaktēs, the peace negotiator known from
extra-Biblical texts. More research is needed to see also the differences
between this Hellenistic institution and Paul’s understanding.
[10]
See below, p. ???.
[11]
Sophocles, Ajax,
743-744, I: LSJ: “that he may be reconciled to them after his anger”; Ceslas Spicq, Notes
de lexicographie néo-testamentaire (OBO, 22/1), Fribourg – Göttingen,
1978, vol. 1, p. 409, n. 3: “
[12]
Cf. Spicq’s translation “se réconcilier” (see previous footnote).
[13]
I.H. Marshall, The Meaning of Reconciliation, in R.A. Guelich (ed.), Unity
and Diversity in New Testament Theology. FS G.E. Ladd,
[14]
Jacques Dupont, La réconciliation dans la théologie de saint Paul,
in EstBib 11 (1952) 255-302, pp. 263-264 : “L’idée n’est
aucunement que Dieu ‘serait réconcilié’ par l’action des hommes, que
les prières le rendraient réconcilié. Le contexte n’invite pas à
entendre le verbe dans ce sens purement passif ; il faut le comprendre
au sens réfléchi. Les prières invitent Dieu à modifier ses /
dispositions, mais on sait qu’il ne les modifiera qu’en raison de sa miséricorde”.
(…)“Ni pour Josèphe ni pour le IIe Livre des Maccabées, Dieu n’est réconcilié
par l’homme, mais, librement et de lui-même, il se réconcilie avec
l’homme par pure miséricorde. ‘Se réconcilier’ signifie, quand il
s’agit de Dieu, mettre fin à sa colère, renoncer à ses griefs contre
l’homme pécheur et lui rendre sa bienveillance” (p. 263-264).
[15]
In Rom
[16]
We only know of one instance of pattern 1a in the interpersonal use of an allassō-compound,
namely Judg 19:3 LXX A (“to
reconcile (diallaxai) her to himself”). The translation of
Judg 19:3 by Brenton is based on LXX B: “2 And his concubine departed from him, and went away from
him to the house of her father to Bethleem Juda, and she was there four
months. 3 And her husband rose up, and went after her to speak kindly to
her, to recover (epistrepsai)
her to himself”.
[17]
[18]
Dupont, Réconciliation, p. 264: “Il serait erroné d’opposer le
vocabulaire de Paul à celui du IIe Livre des Maccabées”.
[19]
Dupont “”acknowledges this difference, but ascribes less importance to
it than other authors (see ibid.,
pp. 264-265).
[20]
“Dieu réconcilie les hommes en les transférant en quelque sorte hors de
la portée de sa colère en les plaçant dans sa paix” (ibid., p.
278). See also p. 279.
[21]
Ibid., p. 256: “L’idée fondamentale de ces verbes paraît être celle de
changement”.
[22]
In 2 Corinthians Paul
frequently uses allusions to biblical themes and he casts himself in a role
close to that of God. We only refer to 2 Cor 11:1-3 where Paul compares his
love to the Corinthians and his opposition to the opponents to God’s love
for
[23]
Murray J. Harris, The Second
Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC),
[24]
Harris, The Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, p. 444: “perhaps the closest Paul or any NT writer
comes to defining forgiveness”.
[25]
For a detailed discussion of
the syntactic structure of 2 Cor
[26]
See Ps 31:2 LXX to which Paul
refers in Rom 4:8: “Blessed the man against whom the Lord does not count
sin at all”.
[27]
Even though it is not exactly the same, we might also point to 11:2
(NJB): “The
jealousy that I feel for you is … God's own jealousy”
where Paul identifies (or compares) his own jealousy with that of God.
[28]
Kim, 2 Cor. 5:11-21, p. 383.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click here to return to top of the page
Click here to return to the IBA Home page
Wrestling Jacob - How Might Patristic Interpretation be Appropriated for Today?
Prof Frances Young
Saturday 21 April 2007, 11:15 a.m.
Biblical
studies are witnessing renewed interest in the history of interpretation, after
the period of dominance of the historico-critical method. This paper will
explore the ways in which this one episode in scripture has been interpreted in
the past, especially the patristic period, and discuss how far it is
possible to appropriate for today the approaches discovered. Inevitably the
Christological interpretation of the Old Testament and the importance of
typology will figure large in the discussion. But most important will
be questions about how we could 'read ourselves' into the text as they did, and
so be theologically illuminated and morally challenged.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click here to return to top of the page
Click here to return to the IBA Home page
Mary of Magdala and Jesus of Nazareth: A Special Relationship in the Light of the Gospels
Prof Reimund Bieringer
Saturday 21 April 2007, 2:30 p.m.
pro manuscripto
for private use only
please do not cite
Mary of Magdala
and Jesus of
A Special
Relationship in the Light of John 20:17
Reimund
Bieringer,
Catholic
The
relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene continues to stimulate our
imagination. Mary was the most prominent of the women who followed Jesus. The
Gospels tell us that she was present at the crucial moments between the
crucifixion and the resurrection. She was a follower, a disciple of Jesus. Mary
Magdalene was to the group of female followers what Peter was to the group of
twelve men. But was she a converted prostitute? Was she the intimate companion
of Jesus? Was she his wife and the mother of his child(ren)? The texts of the
New Testament appear to assume a special personal relationship between Jesus and
Mary Magdalene. But was there more to it? The most important New Testament text
in this respect is John 20:1-18, where Mary Magdalene all by herself meets the
risen Christ in a scene that has a very personal feel to it. Central to this
meeting, particularly in the Western tradition, is the prohibition issued by the
risen Christ, which is rendered in the Latin translations as Noli
me tangere. Since the 9th century, this scene has been depicted
in Western art under the title of Noli me
tangere, becoming a classic icon of the West. This essay, written for the
exhibition catalogue, explores the New Testament background of the Noli
me tangere motif in art, also paying attention to what we can learn about
the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
‘Do
not hold on to me’:
The
meaning of mhV mou a{ptou
(mê mou haptou) in recent
interpretations
When the
Noli me tangere motif in art was
developed, the
In an
attempt to understand the precise meaning of Jesus’ words, the first question
must relate to what it is that prompts Jesus to issue such a prohibition. The
text itself does not indicate any plausible reason. According to
If we
try to understand the text as it is recorded in the Gospel of John, we may also
wonder whether it is an expression of movement in the context that has given
rise to the prohibition issued by Jesus. In
This
brings us to the following question: what are the possible meanings of mhV mou a{ptou?
In order to answer this question, we must study the meaning of the verb a{ptomai
(haptomai) and the question what kind of touching it was that Jesus
had in mind. We must also consider more closely the significance of the verb
form (present imperative) in
The many
interpretations, both textual and iconographic, to which John
Other
scholars base their interpretation on the address: ‘Rabbouni’. According to
them, by using this form of address which was usual for the disciples before
Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene reveals that she sees no discontinuity between
the person who is standing before her and the earthly Jesus. By addressing Jesus
as ‘Rabbouni’ and by the desire for contact that is expressed by the verb a{ptomai,
Mary Magdalene supposedly attempts to communicate with the risen Christ as she
was accustomed to doing during his earthly life.
Within
this interpretation a number of variations are possible regarding the specific
meaning of the verb that is used. Firstly, it is claimed that Mary Magdalene
wishes to embrace Jesus after she has recognised him in order to welcome him
back following several days of absence and to express her affection. Secondly,
there is one author who asserts that the verb here may even have the connotation
of ‘to cleave unto’ and is an allusion to Genesis 2:24 where the idea of
‘to cleave unto’ refers to a marital relationship. A third interpretation
posits that Mary Magdalene wishes to hold on to Jesus in an attempt not to lose
him again. In this argument, reference is sometimes made to Song of Songs 3:4:
‘I held him (krate/w,
krateô),
and would not let him go until I brought him into my mother’s house, and into
the chamber of her that conceived me.’ Certain scholars in the past have made
use of Luke 7:36-50, which focuses on touching, to put forward a fourth thesis
regarding the interpretation of John 20:17: ‘She stood behind him at his feet,
weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her
hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.
Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, ‘If this
man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who
is touching (a3ptetai) him
– that she is a sinner.’ (Luke 7:38-39). The exegetical and liturgical
identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinner of Luke 7:36-50, now almost
universally accepted as incorrect, allowed connections to made between the
prohibition of John 20:17 and the act of touching in Luke 7:36-38. In other
words, the interpretation of Mary Magdalene as a converted prostitute[4]
meant that sexual overtones were attributed to mhV mou a{ptou
in John 20:17 (cf. the Latin translation Noli
me tangere), in spite of the conversion of Mary Magdalene and her rejection
of her past and despite of the fact that mhV mou a{ptou
is now used the context of a resurrection appearance. These connotations were
notably absent from the tradition of the Orthodox Church, where Mary Magdalene
was never seen as a converted prostitute.
Finally,
John 20:17 is interpreted with the help of Matthew 28:9-10, which describes Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary meeting the risen Jesus. After Jesus has greeted
them, they go to him, take hold of his feet and worship him. Taking hold of his
feet is neither about verifying the physical reality of the risen Jesus, nor is
it an attempt to continue the relationship with the earthly Jesus. It is more an
expression of humility and adoration. But the differences between Matthew
28:9-10 and John
Following
this overview of the interpretations of the prohibition in John 20:17, it seems
appropriate to explore the linguistic background. The verb a{ptomai means ‘to touch’ in the general sense, i.e., the contact itself,
without any explanation of the kind of contact. Where the use of a{ptomai does refer to a particular type of contact, this is made clear by the
context. The fourth gospel uses a{ptomai
only in
This
question about the meaning of a{ptomai
is closely related to the question of the object of a{ptomai.
In John 20:17, the object is expressed by the personal pronoun of the first
person singular (mou, or ‘me’), which refers to Jesus in this context. The contact that
is refused therefore relates to the whole person, not just to the hands or the
feet, for example. It is possible that Mary Magdalene wants to touch the feet of
Christ and that he forbids it with the words: ‘Touch me not.’ The use of a
personal pronoun referring to the whole body does therefore not give any
indication of what part of the body Mary Magdalene wants to touch. ‘Touch me
not’ does, in fact, seem to express a general prohibition on touching,
regardless of what part of the body Mary Magdalene is trying to touch.
The
meaning of mhV mou a{ptou
is also connected to the mood and tense of the verb, namely the present
imperative. Greek distinguishes between the present imperative and the aorist
imperative. According to the grammar books, the present imperative has the
meaning: stop the action that has already begun. The aorist imperative does not
specify whether the action has begun or not. This difference is the reason why
most modern exegetes translate the present imperative mhV mou a{ptou
in John
An
analysis of the negative imperatives (prohibitions) in the Gospel of John also
reveals that only one negative imperative in the present tense unambiguously
indicates the prohibition of an action that has already begun. This is John
2:16, in which Jesus commands those in the temple to stop making his Father’s
house a marketplace.[8]
In the other places where the present imperative is used by John, we found no
difference between the present imperative and the aorist imperative.[9]
It therefore seems unlikely that the present imperative in John
After we
have investigated what intention Mary Magdalene might have had with the action
described by a{ptomai,
we must also consider what reason Jesus might have had for his prohibition of
the (intended) action. The fundamental question is whether the reason is to be
found in Mary Magdalene or in Jesus. If the reason lies with Jesus, then it
could be a reason that has always been valid (including during his earthly life
as well), a reason that is connected to the particular state of Jesus between
resurrection and ascension, and a reason that is linked to the divine sphere in
which Jesus resides after the resurrection. In the first case, the avoidance of
a touch with sexual overtones and the prohibition addressed to Mary Magdalene
convey the idea that their relationship cannot be consummated in a marriage. If
the prohibition in John
Some
authors see the reason for the prohibition expressed by mhV mou a{ptou
not with Jesus, but with Mary Magdalene. If the prohibition is connected to the
fact that Jesus has not yet ascended to his Father, then they believe that the
issue of touching comes down to the fact that Judaism traditionally forbids the
touching of corpses. The command is therefore intended to prevent Mary Magdalene
becoming unclean. If the prohibition is to be seen in the light of the
completely different state of the risen Christ brought about by the resurrection
(and ascension to the Father), then the prohibition is motivated by the
inadequacy of Mary’s ability to perceive, as she is unable to recognise the
Lord as the one who is with the Father. Another possibility is that the
prohibition of
This
overview may suffice to illustrate the very wide variety of interpretations of
John 20:17. These are partly to be explained by the ambiguity of a number of
central aspects in the original text. They are at least partly also the result
of a lack of careful linguistic analysis and study of the literary context. In
the past readers have been too quick to import new meanings based on supposed
parallels. To avoid this problem, the rest of this essay will concentrate
primarily on the context of the New Testament, particularly that of the Gospel
of John.
‘Do
not touch me’:
The
meaning of mhV mou a{ptou
in the context of the New Testament
The
prohibition issued by the risen Christ in John 20:17 (whatever it might
precisely mean) is unique in the New Testament, but it is not the only unique
element in the Johannine resurrection appearance narrative. In order to
understand John 20:17 better, it is necessary first to situate the resurrection
in John 20:11-18 in its New Testament context.
According
to the oldest Gospel (Mark 16:1-8), when the sabbath was over, three women
bought spices to anoint Jesus and they went to the tomb very early in the
morning. Among the three women Mary Magdalene is mentioned first.[10]
They found the stone rolled back and in the tomb they saw a young man who told
them the news of the resurrection and gave them a message for ‘his disciples
and Peter’ (16:7). Verses 9-20 of Mark 16 are now generally seen as a later
addition to the Gospel, because they are missing from the earliest and most
reliable manuscripts. This means that the original Gospel of Mark contained
nothing about Jesus’ appearance after the resurrection. There is, therefore,
no place in this Gospel for a Noli me tangere scene.[11]
In
Matthew’s version of the story (28:1-10), a lot of elements are different.
Instead of three women, Matthew speaks about two women who go to the tomb. Mary
Magdalene is still named first. There is no reference to spices or to the
anointing of the body. Their intention was rather to go and see the tomb.
Outside (not in tomb) they met an angel who told them that Jesus was risen and
he gave them a message for ‘his disciples’ (28:7). According to Matthew, the
women did as they were asked. As they went to tell his disciples, Jesus met
them. They ‘took hold of his feet, and worshiped him’ (28:9). To the great
surprise of the reader who is familiar with John, Jesus allowed his feet to be
taken hold of and offered no resistance. Jesus gave them the same message for
his ‘brothers’ that the angel had already given to the women.
The
narrative of the discovery of the empty tomb in the Gospel of Luke (24:1-12) is
close to Mark in many respects, but it also differs substantially from it. Luke
names the three women and also adds ‘other women that were with them’
(24:10). As in Mark, the women took spices to the tomb, and they also entered
the tomb. There they met two men who told them that Jesus had risen. Luke is the
only synoptic gospel in which the women are not immediately made into messengers
for the male disciples and in which no resurrection appearance is announced. The
women believed the two men and ‘told all this to the
eleven and to all the rest’ (24:9), even though they had not been given this
task. But the ‘apostles’ did not believe the women. Later, when Jesus
appeared to the eleven and their companions (24:36-49), Jesus explicitly invited
them: ‘Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and
see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have’
(24:39).
According
to the Gospel of John (20:1-18), Mary Magdalene went alone to the tomb. No
reason is given for her decision to visit the tomb. Instead of entering the
tomb, she ran to Peter ‘and to the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved’
and they came to investigate. Only after they had returned home (
The
comparison of the stories of the resurrection in the four gospels demonstrates
that the focus in John 20:1-18 is on the encounter between Mary Magdalene and
the man she recognises as ‘Rabbouni’. The big difference is that, unlike the
synoptic gospels, the Gospel of John does not have the news of the resurrection
immediately announced by messengers (a young man, an angel, two men). Whilst the
readers are informed about the resurrection in the parenthesis of 20:9, in the
story itself it is not clear at that point what had happened to the body of
Jesus. The tension is increased by the fact that Mary repeats three times that
she does not know where they have taken her Lord: ‘They have taken away my
Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him’ (20:13; cf. 20:2 and 15).
Even in the scene where she recognises Jesus, it remains unclear whether Mary
Magdalene understands that Jesus is risen from the dead. Only when she announces
to the disciples that she has seen the Lord (
‘Do
not seek companionship in me’:
The
meaning of mhV mou a{ptou
in the Johannine context
The
comparison of John 20:1-18 with what the synoptic gospels have to say about the
empty tomb and the risen Christ makes clear the unique character of the story as
told by John. In no other place in the resurrection appearances does the risen
Christ refuse contact or touch. This passage should, therefore, be understood in
its Johannine context. The whole Gospel should be used to come to a deeper
understanding of John 20:17. The Greek verb that John
But we
should not be misled by these lexical data. Without using verbs of touch, the
fourth evangelist still attaches a great deal of importance to companionship and
closeness. The fourth gospel often emphasises that Jesus is with God and that
the Son is on the lap of the Father (
The
passage describing the encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene also has many
parallels in the Gospel of John. Many elements of the story are prepared and
announced earlier in the gospel. In
We also
note important parallels between John 20:14-18 and the call of the first
disciples in
The big
difference between the two passages is that Jesus invites the two disciples in
In
14:2-3, Jesus proclaims: ‘… I go to prepare a place for you 3 And if I go
and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so
that where I am, there you may be also.’ According to the logic of the fourth
gospel and based on the statement in 14:2-3, Mary Magdalene, as soon as she sees
Jesus, must expect that he has come again to take her to himself. After
recognising him, it is therefore completely logical that she would take a step
towards Jesus. By opposing this move and motivating the prohibition with the
words, ‘I have not yet ascended to the Father’, Jesus is telling Mary that
he cannot yet take her to himself, because he has not gone away to prepare a
place for her. In the message that Mary must bring to the ‘brothers’ (‘to
my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’), the promise of
togetherness that is given in 14:3 (‘so that where I am, there you may be
also’) has not yet come to fruition, but is implicitly promised once again for
the time after Jesus has ascended to the Father. When Jesus appears to the
disciples that same evening, they do not have the same reaction as Mary
Magdalene, because she had informed them of the fact that Jesus had not yet
ascended to the Father (see
This
means that the narratives of the appearances of the risen Christ to Mary
Magdalene (
Conclusion
This
contextual study of the meaning of mhV
mou a{ptou in John
The
command ‘Do not come closer to me’ has nothing to do with any shortcoming in
Mary Magdalene (as a disciple or as a woman). In the fourth gospel, the
prohibition simply indicates a transition from the time when the disciples were
close to the earthly Jesus and the time when the disciples may have only the
closeness of each other in the believing community under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. In this scene, Jesus diverts Mary Magdalene’s attention from
himself to the believing community of disciples. In John 20:11-18, the focus is
not on the mhV mou a{ptou
of John
The
almost exclusive emphasis on the Noli me
tangere in Western art is not justified. Representations of the Noli me tangere motif should be accompanied by representations of
Mary Magdalene on her way to the ‘brothers’ or of her passing on the message
to them. Regrettably Western art rarely depicts Mary Magdalene in the scenes
following her encounter with the risen Christ. Instead the emphasis is on the Noli
me tangere motif. Thus Western art inadvertently says more about the image
of women operative in the surrounding contemporary cultures than it does about
Mary Magdalene in John 20:11-18.
[1]
A similar addition can be found in the Old Syriac translation Vetus
Syra, which dates back to the 3rd or 4th century.
[2]
The Scripture quotations in this article are taken from the New Revised
Standard Version.
[3]
This is also confirmed by the fact that Mary Magdalene first believed the
person she met to be the gardener (see
[4]
The identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-50
did not necessarily have to mean that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute before
she met Jesus, because ‘sinner’ can refer to other sins than sexual
sins. But during the history of interpretation, the sinful woman in Luke
7:36-50 was usually interpreted as being a prostitute.
[5]
See also Matthew 28:10, where the risen Christ does not oppose the women
taking hold of his feet.
[6]
For a positive interpretation of the perception of the body in the Gospel of
John, see Luise Schottroff, The
Samaritan Woman and the Notion of Sexuality in the Fourth Gospel, in
Fernando F. Segovia (ed.), "What is John?" (SBL Symposim
Series, 7), vol. 2: Literary and Social
[7]
But see Harold W. Attridge, ‘Don’t be touching me’: recent feminist
scholarship on Mary Magdalene, in Amy-Jill Levine (ed.), A Feminist
Companion to John (Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early
Christian Writings, 5), vol. 2, London - New York: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003, p. 142, n. 6: ‘Whether Jesus issues a
prohibition of a possible or actual embrace, he rejects it and so manifests
a negative stance toward contact’.
[8]
However, this is rarely reflected in Bible translations. See, e.g., the King
James Version: ‘make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise’
and the Revised Standard Version: ‘you
shall not make my Father's house a house of trade’.
Exceptions are the New American Bible
and the New Revised Standard Version:
‘Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace’.
[9]
The use of the present imperative and the aorist imperative is distributed
fairly evenly throughout the NT and the Gospel of John (697 occurrences,
with 58 of them in John; and 692 occurrences, with 74 of them in John). The
situation is, however, very different with regard to negative imperatives
(prohibitions). The negative present imperative is used 137 times in the NT,
16 of which are in the fourth Gospel. The fourth Gospel does not include one
single example of the negative aorist imperative and the whole NT contains
only six uses (these statistics are based on GRAMCORD). According to the
grammar of Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf § 335, in some cases the difference of
aspect (durative – non-durative) between the present imperative and the
aorist imperative has been lost. They believe that the aorist imperative
comes across more forcefully than the present imperative.
[10]
For a survey of Mary Magdalene in the New Testament, see Reimund Bieringer, Mary
Magdalene in the Four Gospels, in The Bible Today 43 (2005)
34-41.
[11]
In the longer ending ofo Mark, which was probably added to the Gospel in the
second century and which appears to be a harmonising summary of the accounts
of the resurrection in the other three Gospels, it does say that Jesus
appeared first to Mary Magdalene (16:9), but this is all that is said about
the encounter.
[12]
Cf. the explanatory parenthesis in John 20:9: ‘For as yet they did not
understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.’
[13]
In Mark 16:7 the message is given by the young man; in Matthew 28:7 by the
angel; but in Matthew 28:10 and John 20:17, it is given by Jesus himself.
[14]
Cf. Bianca Lataire, The Son on the Father's Lap: The Meaning of eij"
toVn kovlpon in John
[15]
According to some scholars this shift from ‘what’ to ‘whom’
illustrates the transformation from impersonal to personal religious
searching, as intended by the fourth Gospel.
[16]
In
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Click here to return to top of the page
Click here to return to the IBA Home page