Luther’s Odd Take on Mary & Jesus in the Temple at 12

And James Swan’s Unwarranted Conclusion from Luther’s Sermon, That He Was Accusing Her of Sin

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

Martin Luther’s words will be in blue.

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant James Swan wrote an article entitled, “Luther: Mary Sinned” (2-16-06). He drew from Martin Luther’s second sermon on the First Sunday After Epiphany (1525), on Luke 2:41-52 (from Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 1, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000). What he cites from it, however, doesn’t support his contention that Luther was claiming that Mary sinned:

32. . . .  you can see here how they err and falter, not only in this that they seek Christ and know not where to find him until they accidentally come to the temple, but also that they could not understand these words with which he censured their ignorance and is compelled to say to them: “Knew ye not, that I must be in the things of my Father?” 

39. To this we should reply as is taught in this Gospel: Be they called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or any other name, even though they were Mary, Joseph and all the saints it does not follow that they could not have erred and made mistakes. For here you learn that the mother of Christ though she possessed great intelligence and enlightenment, showed great ignorance in that she did not know where to find Christ, and in consequence was censured by him because she did not know what she should have known.

46. . . .  And although she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit; yet he permitted her at times to err, even in the important matters of faith.

Why Swan concluded this is a deep, unfathomable mystery, since, first of all, mere ignorance in and of itself is not a sin (Acts 3:17; 17:30). Only obstinate or intransigent ignorance is (Eph 4:18). Luther in the above excerpts was discussing lack of knowledge, or ignorance. He stated in section 33: “God led her in such a way that he concealed much from her and daily permitted many things to happen which she had not known beforehand.”

Secondly, in the same sermon, Luther stated not just once, but twice, that he was not accusing Mary of sin (my italics):

13. Yea, though it may not be a matter of open sin, the devil can make sin of that which is no sin, and so move and terrify the heart that it will plague itself with the thought: . . . 

22. . . . So here, the mother of Christ was forced to contend, even till the third day, with a heavy heart, which accused her as if she had lost the Son of God, a sin the like of which no one else on earth had committed, and she had to fear only the Most High; and yet truly there was no such sin, nor wrath, nor disfavor.

Luther in section 5 also stated that Mary was “greatly blessed with all grace and was a beautiful temple of the holy God.” And in section 33: “he guided and sustained her by his grace, although he had endowed her with many far greater gifts than others.”

Swan wants to constantly lecture Catholics about context in Luther’s writings (saying that we continually neglect it), yet he completely botches that aspect in his vapid analysis in this article? It’s laughable.

Luther does, however, accuse the Blessed Virgin Mary of an unseemly doubt and lack of faith, and I contend that this is absurd and completely unfounded, based on what we know from Luke 2. He projects onto her (and onto St. Paul elsewhere in his writings) the gargantuan and existential struggles with faith that he himself experienced, and this is completely unfounded and based on nothing but his own well-documented internal psychological turmoil and wrestling with recurring depression. Let’s take a look at the biblical passage in play:

Luke 2:42-50 (RSV) And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; [43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, [44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; [45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; [47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. [48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” [49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.

I don’t think this is much of a big deal at all. Mary and Joseph were simply perplexed. So they asked, “why have you treated us so?” They didn’t understand. And I’m sure they would have been the first to admit that they wouldn’t always fully understand God the Son. They were simply worried about the whereabouts of their son. If parents didn’t worry in some strong sense about their children, when there was sufficient cause, I submit that they would be negligent, irresponsible parents. The passage doesn’t show Mary as a sinner, but rather, as a very human, normal, concerned parent, as all parents should be. We wouldn’t expect anything less of the Immaculate Mother of God.

Any parent — and I think, anyone, period, to a lesser extent — would immediately understand the emotional dynamics of the story, and Mary being sinless or Jesus being God doesn’t make the reaction any different (just as Jesus felt agonized anxiety in Gethsemane). Mary was a human being with emotions, just like the rest of us, and she experienced the especially intense and excruciating feelings of a mother looking for her “lost” child. I think once one realizes this, her recorded reaction is seen to be extraordinarily mild. Sin isn’t within a universe’s distance to it. This is ultra-normal parental emotions: as far from sin as the east is to the west. Thus, Luther wrote in ection 6:

For let us think for a moment, how she must have felt and grieved. Every father and mother can easily understand the misery and sorrow caused by the unavoidable separation from a dear child, when they know only that the child is lost. And even if the separation should last only an hour, how great are not the sorrow and lamentation, and how many tears are not shed, without consolation, without strength to eat, drink, sleep or rest, and with such misery that they would prefer to die. How much greater the suffering, if this condition were to continue for a day and a night, or even longer, when each hour must seem like a hundred years!

Nor does it necessarily follow at all that Jesus’ usual provocative and rhetorical (indeed, even “socratic”) questioning is implying sin on Mary’s part. He was simply challenging them to realize that He was anticipating His mission to come. Jesus was routinely misunderstood by almost everyone, including (quite often, before Pentecost) His own disciples (Mk 4:13; 6:52; 9:32; Lk 9:45; Jn 12:16). We should fully expect this, since He was the incarnate God, after all, Whose “ways” and “thoughts” are “higher” than ours, “as the heavens are higher than the earth” (Is 55:9).

It’s foolish to rush in and assume it’s because they were rebuked for sin: whether Mary is involved or anyone else. It’s mere rash speculation. This is an attempt to tear down the usual understanding of biblical passages by using a hyper-rationalistic, theologically liberal approach: truth be told. It’s an attitude of relentless skepticism, which is counter to a robust Christian faith. These are the sorts of questions that skeptical, Spirit-deprived atheists cynically ask about biblical texts (I know: I have dealt with such questions at great length).

But there is a further factor to consider, that classic Protestant commentaries (on Luke 2:44) have brought up: