![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/06\/MaryAnnunciation2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nProtestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, who runs the\u00a0Tribalblogue<\/em> site, again accuses the Blessed Virgin Mary of sin in his article, How Much The Conclusion Of Luke 2 Contradicts Roman Catholic Mariology<\/a> (5-17-22). He has done this several times now. This is my reply. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Luke 2:34-35<\/strong> (RSV) and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, \u201cBehold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against [35] (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Protestants typically overlook or underestimate the closing verses of Luke 2 when addressing Catholic Mariology. There are several problems for the Catholic view of Mary in those verses, and the cumulative effect is highly significant.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve discussed these issues in Luke 2 many times, but my comments are scattered across various posts over the years. I want to gather some of those comments in one place and supplement them with some other points: . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n A reference to being pierced by a sword just after a reference to people rising or falling probably implies that Mary will be among those who fall. Being pierced by a sword isn\u2019t something we\u2019d normally associate with rising. It\u2019s reminiscent of what we see elsewhere in Luke, in the reference to falling<\/i>\u00a0by the sword in 21:24. The individuals in Luke 21 are guilty and are being judged accordingly, and the same is likely true of Mary in Luke 2. The episode that occurred when Jesus was twelve years old follows shortly after 2:35, and it\u2019s the first example we\u2019re given of the fulfillment of Simeon\u2019s comment. What Simeon said is better fulfilled by Mary\u2019s conflicts with Jesus later in Luke 2 and elsewhere than by any alternative I\u2019m aware of. For example, if the sword of 2:35 was meant to refer to Mary\u2019s suffering in the context of the cross, why doesn\u2019t Luke even mention Mary\u2019s presence at the crucifixion (as John does)?\u00a0Luke 2:48-50\u00a0probably illustrates the sword of division within families that Jesus refers to elsewhere (Matthew 10:34-36). Mary isn\u2019t adversely affected by the sword to the extent that an unbeliever would be, but she is adversely affected by it to some extent.<\/span><\/p>\n If this is such a standard or straightforward interpretation of this text, how odd that the classic Protestant commentaries<\/a> scarcely ever (if ever) assert such a thing. It seems to be largely a myth that originated between Jason Engwer\u2019s ears. Actual Protestant Bible scholars quite agree with the Catholic \u201ctake\u201d on the passage. This is not even a source of division as regards Mary:<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Luke 2:42-50 <\/strong>And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;\u00a0[43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,\u00a0[44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day\u2019s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances;\u00a0[45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him.\u00a0[46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions;\u00a0[47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.\u00a0[48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, \u201cSon, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.\u201d\u00a0[49] And he said to them, \u201cHow is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father\u2019s house?\u201d [50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2013 There are a few problems with how Mary addresses Jesus in\u00a0Luke 2:48. Whatever alternative interpretation a Catholic or somebody else may propose for one or more of those problems, we need to keep the cumulative effect in view and ask how likely it is that Mary isn\u2019t being portrayed as sinful in\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0of the contexts involved. Keep in mind that Luke and Mary could have used different language if she was sinless and Luke wanted her to be perceived that way.<\/span><\/p>\n And they also could have \u2014 and did! \u2014 use exactly the language we have, existing side-by-side with the fact of Mary\u2019s sinlessness. We can do \u201ccoulda-woulda-shoulda\u201d pseudo-exegesis and theology all day. It may sometimes be interesting to speculate upon, but it never proves<\/em> anything. It\u2019s just a variation of the perennially weak \u201cargument from silence\u201d fallacy.<\/p>\n \u2013 First of all, as James Edwards notes, \u201cShe addresses him not as\u00a0pais<\/i>\u00a0(v. 43, \u2018boy, young man\u2019), but with a more juvenile and subservient term,\u00a0teknon<\/i>\u00a0(v. 48; \u2018child,\u2019 NIV \u2018Son\u2019).\u201d (The Gospel According To Luke<\/em> [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2015], 95) <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, since He was twelve years old at the time . . .<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know Greek and don\u2019t know much about the accuracy of Edwards\u2019 distinction between the terms. I don\u2019t recall having seen anybody else differentiate between the terms the way Edwards does, which makes me doubt that he\u2019s right. <\/span><\/p>\n Good for Jason. He\u2019s actually thinking it through<\/em> a bit . . .<\/p>\n But the fact that two different terms are used is significant, even if Edwards is wrong about what each term suggests. Given Luke\u2019s high regard for Jesus and Mary\u2019s more inconsistent interactions with him and her negative reaction to him in\u00a0Luke 2:48-50\u00a0in particular, the difference between her terminology and Luke\u2019s within the same account is noteworthy. <\/span><\/p>\n How does one distinguish between Mary\u2019s terminology and Luke\u2019s, when in fact, Luke is reporting (and translating into Greek) what her terminology was<\/em>?<\/p>\n The different terminology\u00a0may<\/i>\u00a0imply a negative reaction to Jesus on Mary\u2019s part, whether because of the term itself, because of the larger context, or because of both.<\/span><\/p>\n According to Thayer\u2019s Greek Lexicon<\/em><\/a>, teknon<\/em> in this passage meant \u201cspecifically, a male child,\u00a0a son<\/span>:\u00a0Matthew 21:28<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 21:21<\/a>;\u00a0Revelation 12:5<\/a>; in the vocative, in kindly address<\/strong>,\u00a0Matthew 21:28<\/a>;\u00a0Luke 2:48<\/a>;\u00a0Luke 15:31<\/a>.\u201d [my bolding] \u201cKindly\u201d doesn\u2019t exactly fit with Jason\u2019s eisegesis of \u201cnegative reaction\u201d<\/span> does it?<\/p>\n Luke 15:31, which Thayer sees as a parallel to Luke 2:48, is part of the parable of the prodigal son, applies teknon<\/em> to the prodigal son\u2019s brother. Both appear to be fairly grown up, since they can possibly \u2014 or actually do<\/em> \u2014 inherit property (2:12). Kittel\u2019s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em> defines teknon<\/em> as simply \u201c\u2018child\u2019 (or \u2018son\u2019) in the sense of progeny . . .\u201d (p. 760 in the one-volume edition). Kittel doesn\u2019t see some big or significant difference between teknon<\/em> and pais<\/em>, as Edwards above does, since it defines the latter almost identically: \u201d \u2018child\u2019 (usually \u2018boy\u2019 but also \u2018girl\u2019), and with reference to descent \u2018son\u2019 . . .\u201d (p. 759). Teknon<\/em> is also used to describe \u201cchildren of God\u201d (i.e., all Christian believers) in John 1:12 (cf. Rom 9:8; Gal 4:28).<\/p>\n This looks like a distinction without much or any difference to me. We use the word \u201cchildren\u201d in English to refer to adult children, too; as I just did in writing about Father\u2019s Day: saying I had \u201cfour children and two grandchildren.\u201d And again, we must remember that Jesus was twelve<\/em> in this incident.\u00a0Moreover, if Mary had \u201cmore juvenile\u201d in mind, Kittel notes three words for \u201csmall child\u201d that could have been used: paidion<\/em>, paidarion<\/em>, and teknion<\/em>. So it\u2019s much ado about nothing, and even Jason suspects this; hence his tentativeness. I would advise him \u2014 as a fellow Christian apologist \u2014 to refrain from making a dumb and irrelevant argument<\/em> in the first<\/em> place.<\/p>\n \u2013 Secondly, the question Mary goes on to ask is problematic. A group of Catholic and Lutheran scholars commented that \u201cMary\u2019s complaining question in v. 48 seems to be a reproach to Jesus\u201d (Raymond Brown, et al., edd., Mary In The New Testament<\/em> [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], 160). Darrell Bock writes:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cMary, speaking for both parents, wants to know why he [Jesus] has done such a seemingly insensitive thing. Jesus\u2019 reply in the next verse addresses both of them as well. The form of Mary\u2019s question may have OT roots (Gen. 20:9;\u00a012:18;\u00a026:10;\u00a0Exod. 14:11;\u00a0Num. 23:11;\u00a0Judg. 15:11). This is the language of complaint\u2026.Bovon 1989: 159 notes that the idiom suggests the questioner\u2019s [Mary\u2019s] belief that an error has been made.\u201d (Luke<\/em>, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], 268 and n. 18 on 268)<\/span><\/p>\n \u2013 The comment Mary makes after her question is likewise inappropriate. She refers to how she and Joseph have been looking for Jesus \u201canxiously\u201d (RSV, NASB), \u201cin great distress\u201d (ESV), \u201cin great anxiety\u201d (NRSV), etc. If you ask somebody why he treated you in a particular way, then follow the question by a comment about how worried you\u2019ve been, that typically implies that you think he wronged you in some manner.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t think \u201cwhy have you treated us so?\u201d is necessarily (wholly apart from theology and viewed logically and grammatically) an accusation of sinfulness on Jesus\u2019 part at all. Mary and Joseph were simply (undeniably) perplexed, but it doesn\u2019t follow that they were therefore accusing Jesus of sin. After all, all Christians believe that God is sinless, yet we are often perplexed by His words or actions or lack of answers to prayers, etc. None of that automatically means that we accuse God of sin.<\/p>\n We\u2019re simply\u00a0confused<\/em>\u00a0and lacking answers and full knowledge, while we accept certain mysteries in faith and the fact that God\u2019s ways are much higher than ours. So they asked, \u201cwhy have you treated us so?\u201d They didn\u2019t\u00a0understand<\/em>. And I\u2019m sure they would have been the first to admit that they\u00a0wouldn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0always fully understand God the Son.<\/p>\n The 1953\u00a0Catholic Commentary<\/em>, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, noted:<\/p>\n Mary and Joseph are also amazed. . . but Lk gives the reason in 48b:\u00a0<\/i>Jesus has never behaved so to Mary before. It is to be remembered that with her, as with others, Jesus had conducted himself as a normal child; his divinity was to her, as to us, an object of faith and not vision. . . .\u00a051b\u00a0<\/i>also throws light on the point. \u2018They learnt only gradually what his Messiahship involved\u00a0(cf.\u00a0<\/i>2:34\u201335) and this is one stage in the process. From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recognized that she and Joseph had not understood\u2019 (Plummer ICC on 2:51).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Pope St. John Paul II offers further explanation:<\/p>\n Several early Fathers of the Church, who were not yet convinced of her perfect holiness, attributed imperfections or moral defects to Mary. Some recent authors have taken the same position. However, the Gospel texts cited to justify these opinions provide no basis at all for attributing a sin or even a moral imperfection to the Mother of the Redeemer.<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019s reply to his mother at the age of 12: \u201cHow is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father\u2019s house?\u201d (Lk 2:49), has sometimes been interpreted as a veiled rebuke. A careful reading of the episode, however, shows that Jesus did not rebuke his mother and Joseph for seeking him, since they were responsible for looking after him.<\/p>\n Coming upon Jesus after an anxious search, Mary asked him only the \u201cwhy\u201d of his behaviour: \u201cSon, why have you treated us so?\u201d (Lk 2:48). And Jesus answers with another \u201cwhy\u201d, refraining from any rebuke and referring to the mystery of his divine sonship. (\u201cMary Was Free from All Personal Sin,\u201d<\/a>\u00a06-26-96)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mary and Joseph were simply worried about the whereabouts of their son. If parents didn\u2019t <\/em>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\u2019t show Mary as a sinner, but rather, as a very human, normal, concerned parent, as all parents should be. We wouldn\u2019t expect anything less of the Immaculate Mother of God.<\/p>\n \u2013 Jesus\u2019 response in verse 49 questions Mary and Joseph\u2019s behavior in two contexts, their looking for him and their not knowing what he would be doing. That sort of questioning of people\u2019s behavior would normally imply that you think they\u2019re wrong.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t necessarily follow at all that Jesus\u2019 usual provocative and rhetorical (indeed, even \u201csocratic\u201d) questioning is implying sin on Mary\u2019s part. He was simply challenging them to realize that He was anticipating His mission to come.<\/p>\n \u2013 Luke goes on in verse 50 to refer to Mary and Joseph\u2019s ignorance of what Jesus meant. That sort of comment usually has a negative implication about the ignorant person (Luke 8:10,\u00a09:45<\/a>,\u00a018:34,\u00a0Acts 7:25,\u00a028:26), and it\u2019s especially likely to imply something negative when it comes so soon after a context like we see in verses 35 and 48-49.<\/span><\/p>\n This is sheer nonsense. They simply didn\u2019t \u201cunderstand\u201d at first. How is that necessarily<\/em> a sin<\/em>? Jesus was routinely misunderstood by almost everyone<\/em>, including (quite often, before Pentecost) His own disciples (Mk 4:13; 6:52; 9:32; Lk 9:45; Jn 12:16). Even Jason says that other scriptural references to misunderstanding \u201cusually\u201d<\/span> had a \u201cnegative implication\u201d<\/span>. But \u201cusually\u201d is not always<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u2013 Mary\u2019s silence after verse 49 is further evidence that she and Joseph were being rebuked by Jesus. His first question to them (\u201cWhy is it that you were looking for me?\u201d) is something Mary had to have known the answer to, and Jesus goes on to ask a second question, yet Luke doesn\u2019t refer to any response on her part. He mentions that Mary and Joseph didn\u2019t understand what Jesus said, but no response is mentioned. If Mary was sinless and had the other characteristics Catholicism attributes to her, and Jesus was asking her questions without rebuking her, why wouldn\u2019t she answer?<\/span><\/p>\n There is no general necessity to always answer a question. One might be struck by the question, or pondering it, since it was challenging, or not able to express their feelings instantaneously. It\u2019s foolish to rush right in and assume its because they were rebuked for sin: whether Mary is involved or anyone else<\/em>. It\u2019s mere rash speculation. Jason is looking for sin<\/em> in Mary, so as to shoot down Catholic beliefs, and biblical teaching, and therefore he \u201cfinds\u201d it under every rock. Slander can be \u201cfound\u201d too, if one looks hard enough for it and is intent on doing so.<\/p>\n And if she did answer, why did Luke mention her ignorance of what Jesus\u2019 second question meant, but not mention her response?<\/span><\/p>\n Because that\u2019s what he chose to write! I see no huge significance and insinuations here, that Mary had committed a sin. One can second-guess absolutely everything<\/em> if they so choose. Jason constantly does this in his anti-Catholic polemics. It\u2019s more silly than anything else. Failing to produce positive<\/em> proof for what he argues, he then tries to tear down the usual understanding of biblical passages. This is the hyper-rationalistic theologically liberal approach: truth be told. It\u2019s an attitude of relentless skepticism, which is counter to a robust Christian faith.<\/p>\n Luke leaves the reader with the impression that there was no response, and that\u2019s best explained if no response was given. The lack of response makes the most sense if she was being rebuked and knew it.<\/span><\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t follow, either. Such a response can also be to a challenging question, or one meant to help one grow and expand in knowledge. We need not go straight to the \u201crebuke of sin\u201d explanation, as if there is no other plausible one. Jason simply sees what he wants<\/strong> to see<\/em>. And that is, of course, eisegesis (reading into<\/em> Scripture what isn\u2019t<\/em> there), not exegesis (reading out<\/em> of Scripture what is<\/em> there).<\/p>\n \u2013 The fact that Luke keeps referring to Mary and Joseph together \u2013 \u201chis parents\u201d, \u201cthey\u201d, \u201cthem\u201d, and \u201cyour father and I\u201d several times in 2:43-51 \u2013 undermines any appeal to Mary\u2019s (real or imagined) uniqueness as a counterargument. Catholics make many claims about Mary that they don\u2019t make about Joseph. But the two are largely placed in the same category in this passage. Any appeal to her alleged sinlessness in\u00a0Luke 1:28<\/a>, her unique relationship with Jesus, how well we allegedly should expect a mother to understand her son, etc. has to address the grouping of her with Joseph in this context. The sort of unusual interpretation a Catholic would have to appeal to in order to reconcile the material in Luke\u2019s gospel under consideration in this post with a Catholic view of Mary becomes even more problematic when it has to be applied to two individuals (Mary and Joseph), not just one. Both being His parents, and both having looked for Him . . .\u00a0 This is just stupid<\/em>; asinine<\/em>! There are no more descriptive words for it. These are the sorts of questions that godless atheists ask about biblical texts. I know: I dealt with them almost all the time over the last year. They argue and contend in a certain way, and Jason\u2019s method is highly reminiscent of theirs. Everything (i.e., when dealing with Catholic distinctives) is questioning and skepticism and cynicism, rather than open-minded and open-hearted faith and any semblance of objective reasoning or willingness to learn.<\/p>\n By Jason\u2019s simplistic \u201creasoning\u201d here, Jesus\u2019 disciples must have been equal to Him<\/em>, too, since the Gospels mention \u201cJesus and his disciples\u201d together<\/em> three times (Mt 9:10; Mk 2:15; Jn 3:22)!<\/p>\n \u2013 Francois Bovon makes a good point about a contrast within the passage. \u201cJesus\u2019 parents (2:48) do not share the wonderment of the crowd [in verse 47]. They are indignant that Jesus has left them, and are not at all impressed by their son\u2019s wisdom. The logic of the story prevents one from taking their side.\u201d (Luke 1 [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2002], n. 41 on 113) As Edwards mentions in his commentary cited above, \u201cHer reproach [in verse 48] expresses less concern for Jesus than for what he has done to\u00a0them<\/i>.\u201d (95) She is\u00a0later<\/i>\u00a0referred to as treasuring \u201call these things\u201d in her heart (verse 51),\u00a0after<\/i>\u00a0Jesus has rebuked her, but there\u2019s an\u00a0initial<\/i>\u00a0contrast between the positive nature of what Jesus was doing and how others reacted to him in verse 47, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, how Mary and Joseph reacted in verses 48-50.<\/span><\/p>\n This ain\u2019t rocket science. The crowd were not His parents<\/strong><\/em>: those who had taken personal care of Him for twelve years. That more than adequately explains the different reaction. The crowd wasn\u2019t \u201clooking<\/em> for Him\u201d as parents. They were simply listening to His teaching, and were rightly \u201camazed at his understanding and his answers.\u201d In contrast, Joseph and Mary were searching for Jesus for three days<\/em><\/strong>, not knowing where He was.<\/p>\n Any parent \u2014 and I think, anyone, period, to a lesser extent \u2014 would immediately understand the emotional dynamics of that, and Mary being sinless or Jesus being God doesn\u2019t 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 \u201clost\u201d child. I think once one realizes this, her recorded reaction is seen to be extraordinarily mild<\/em>. Sin isn\u2019t within a universe\u2019s distance to it. This is ultra-normal parental emotions: as far from sin as the east is to the west.<\/p>\n The rest of his article (two long paragraphs) is so asinine and blasphemous, I don\u2019t have the patience or fortitude to continue responding to it. It\u2019s mostly reiteration, anyway, and I have expressed what I wanted to communicate.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n