Posted on 04/29/2017 8:02:13 AM PDT by NYer
As we pray for the success of Pope Francis’ trip to Egypt this weekend, a perfect prayer to use is the oldest known Marian prayer, which in fact, traces back to the pope’s host country.
The oldest known Marian prayer is found on an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating from around the year 250. Today known in the Church as the Sub tuum praesidium, the prayer is believed to have been part of the Coptic Vespers liturgy during the Christmas season.
The original prayer was written in Greek and according to Roseanne Sullivan, “The prayer is addressed to Our Lady using the Greek word Θεοτόκος, which is an adjectival form of Θεοφόρος (Theotokos, or God-bearer) and is more properly translated as ‘she whose offspring is God.'” This helps to prove that the early Christians were already familiar with the word “Theotokos” well before the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus ratified its usage.
Below can be found the original Greek text from the papyrus, along with an English translation as listed on the New Liturgical Movement website:
| On the papyrus, we can read: .ΠΟ ΕΥCΠΑ ΚΑΤΑΦΕ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ …ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC MONH …HEΥΛΟΓ |
And an English translation could be: Under your mercy we take refuge, Mother of God! Our prayers, do not despise in necessities, but from the danger deliver us, only pure, only blessed. |
More commonly the prayer is translated:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
Several centuries later a Latin prayer was developed and is more widely known in the Roman Catholic Church:
| Latin Text Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta |
English Text We fly to Thy protection, O Holy Mother of God; Do not despise our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O Glorious and Blessed Virgin. Amen. |
The prayer is currently part of the Byzantine, Roman and Ambrosian rites in the Catholic Church and is used specifically as a Marian antiphon after the conclusion of Compline outside of Lent (in the older form of the Roman breviary). It is also a common prayer that has stood the test of time and is a favorite of many Christians, and is the root of the popular devotional prayer, the Memorare.
Not in the earliest centuries -- the first two, at least.
Do not confuse prayers about, and concerning the dead with prayers addressed TO those same.
Are there Jewish sources to back that up? Referencing a handful of articles written in German doesn't quite cut the mustard.
Your arguments are exceeding flimsy. 'Tis a pity you can't see it. Then again, it appears to me you don't want to see it, since the aim is to justify and protect theological developments -- or else -- one would need contemplate that the Latin Church is not the center of OTC®, and over the centuries (along with most any other ekklesia) has allowed various ill-founded theological considerations to become part-and-parcel of their own theological outlooks.
when you limit it to referencing Exodus 3:15, alone.
For wider meanings, the greater truth of the matter, try this; http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Adonai/adonai.html
But it is affecting the meanings --- as if Elizabeth was declaring the child to be God -- when the word she is attributed to using can also be reasonably enough interpreted (from common Hebrew usage) to hold back from that "paraphrasing".
The words used for "Lord" and for "God" do not translate uniformly across the board to make such assertion as you have.
At the Council of Ephesus, if what was aimed for would have been to refer to Mary unabashedly quote-unquote "Mother of God", then they could have/would have coined a phrase more explicitly declaring that very thing.
Instead, by adopting a term which indicated "birth-giver" or else "bearer" they bumped up against that as close as they could without going all the way.
Why the reticence on their part -- if one could now both rely upon such things, while ignoring that crucial element?
May I suggest that although it was being recognized that Mary was mother of Jesus, and that Jesus was surely enough Emmanuel (God among us), Jesus was not the Father (His own) but was instead Son of God, and in that manner and way was himself God -- in the flesh, in human form?
How limited Jesus may have been, in comparison to the One eternal God had been the basis for debate. That's understandable enough, for should one contemplate that The Father (God is a Spirit, as it is written) hungers, thirsts, requites sleep, etc? Jesus, in form of a man, did appear to require such things...yet as Jesus is attributed to having said--- nothing of the Father was kept from himself.
I'm wondering if you're going to address Luke 11:27. Sure seems that Jesus was dismayed by the early displays of mariology.
I only use the chapter/verses for reference. If one understands the context of the passage chapter/verse are meaningless.
Regarding #593, I'm familiar with the CE, as well as strong arguments for the opposite position.
It's not just an opposite position....the CE denies any Scriptural support for the IC.
#596: I am familiar with the role of wine in ancient Jewish wedding ceremonies. I do not see what aspect of that disputes Mary’s awareness of Jesus’ miraculous capability as implicit in her drawing the shortage of wine to His attention, or in His follow-up response, or hers: “Do whatever he tells you.”
#598: I took the comment to refer to Jerome’s original rendering, my point being that Mariology was not Jerome’s motivation. The variant translation behind Jerome’s rendering was known to ancient Jewish authors such as Philo and Josephus (and also to Moses Maimonides in the Middle Ages) as well as Christian authors as early as Tertullian and Cyprian; Jerome was wrestling with a genuine translation issue inherited from the available manuscripts. Post-Reformation commentators are of course divided on the rendering, and Catholics debate the proper translation as much as Protestants. Both of the alternate popular translations have been considered as compatible with Catholic doctrine for some centuries. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, writing in the early 18th century, summed up: “he will crush your head: some question whether this refers to Mary, and not rather to Jesus, since the Septuagint translates it, He shall crush your head. But in the Vulgate, which alone was approved by the Council of Trent, we find She. Thus too St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and a great many others understood it. Be that as it may, it is certain that either the Son through the Mother, or the Mother through the Son, has conquered Lucifer.”
#599: What is the difference between asking for prayers from the living and the dead, if God is “not the God of the dead but of the living”?--I do not see it. And I have not been arguing that Paul recommends praying to the dead; I have been arguing that it is consistent with his other teachings (my main point in what you are responding to being that he does not see asking for prayers from other Christians as violating Christ being the only mediator) and that he does not forbid it. Nor does the rest of Scripture forbid it, so I do not see where some Protestants see Scriptural authority to forbid it (and not all Protestants do--C.S. Lewis did not)--it seems to me that this prohibition is merely a human tradition that has emerged since the 16th century. But if we are to discuss what Paul does have to say that is relevant to the topic, among other things, the practice was accepted among Jews of Paul’s time, as attested in 2 Maccabees, which Paul quotes; Paul does pray *for* the dead in 2 Timothy 1:16-18; and he alludes to the practice of praying *to* the dead during the worship service in Hebrews 12:22-24, where he says that Christians have come to an “assembly” of angels and “the spirits of righteous men made perfect”. John likewise speaks of the angels and elders in heaven holding bowls containing “the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8, 8:3-5).
#600: As I prefaced above, do not be surprised if I have taken many days to reply, for as I have mentioned throughout the thread, my time available to reply is extremely limited. I quoted Steve Ray because he explicitly engages in detail with William Webster, whom you relied upon extensively as a reference. If your concern is with truth foremost, I should think you’d want to read his reply, if for no other reason than to refute it. In any case, I took the time to read Webster, and plan to read and reflect upon him further as time permits. Upon my first reading of the links you sent, I saw some of the same holes in his arguments that Ray points out, including that Webster is selective in his quotations and that he does not cite any instance of a Church Father denying the primacy of Peter or the Roman see but he merely disputes how this primacy was interpreted (the latter point which Webster conceded in his discussions with Ray). Moreover, I do not see how making all the early bishops co-equal in authority, as Webster would have it, helps Protestant groups which claim no historic descent through the laying of hands from any of the early bishops, Roman or otherwise; rather, if his argument held, I would see it as a refutation of modern Catholicism and Protestantism alike.
Dismissing German scholars and archaeological evidence a priori is arbitrary. Arnold Goldberg is one of the most influential international experts on ancient Judaism to emerge in the past few decades, not some obscure figure. And archaeology is essential for understanding the historical context of ancient literary documents.
Regarding Jesus’ instruction to call no man “father”, John does precisely what you are saying Jesus forbids in 1 John 2:13-14, just as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 4:15, suggesting that the Apostles did not interpret Jesus’ teaching to exclude legitimate usage of the term to refer to one’s spiritual ancestors.
#601: Yes, there are Jewish sources to back it up. The most obvious is 2 Maccabees, which you do not need to refer to German sources to access.
#602: Yes, “Lord” can mean different things in different contexts; but what other meaning of “Lord” could Elizabeth mean here, with her exultations about Mary and her child being “blessed” and herself being “favored”?--and in addition to using the term “Lord”, the passage alludes to the Ark of the Covenant (compare the text of 2 Samuel with Luke 1:26ff and especially 2 Samuel 6:9 with Luke 1:43). Regarding the Council of Ephesus, Cyril was explicit in his writings about why Mary should be called Theotokos rather than Christotokos as Nestorius would’ve had it; he and the council intended it to mean that Mary was the Mother of God (as Θεοτόκος can indeed be translated, as well as by “God-bearer”) and not merely the Mother of Christ as if the incarnate Christ were some being separate from the eternal Logos, contra Gnosticism. Note that this is not affirming that Mary gave birth to the eternal Godhead as such, which would of course be impossible--this is not what Catholics mean by “Mother of God”; rather, it simply affirms that she gave birth to the Logos’ incarnate nature. As to how Christ as the eternal Son of God/Logos relates to Christ as the Incarnate Logos, which is certainly a profound topic worthy of a more extended discussion than time permits, I would recommend St. Augustine’s On the Trinity for an extended commentary on the relevant Scriptures.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will probably be out for the rest of the holiday, so I apologize in advance if any reply is necessarily delayed. Please enjoy your weekend, and God bless you in your spiritual walk.
I was addressing Luke 11:27 and 11:28 together in the post you’re replying to. The contrast here is between being blessed for physical reasons and being blessed for spiritual reasons; this not a denial that Mary is blessed in the latter sense. Indeed, the Holy Spirit via both Elizabeth and Mary had previously proclaimed that Mary was blessed, and Jesus is not contradicting that here.
”It's not just an opposite position....the CE denies any Scriptural support for the IC.”: That would be an opposite position, and it is a debatable position the CE is taking there; I have seen solid scholars argue both sides of the issue. But your statement was not merely that some commentators today dispute the Vulgate translation of Genesis 3:15; you claimed that the Catholic Church “have been doing it for millennia, even changing the wording in Genesis to support Mariology Mythology”; and I pointed out that this is not historically why Genesis 3:15 has been rendered in different ways--Jerome’s rationale for rendering the Vulgate the way he did was based on comparing variations in ancient manuscript traditions, not because he was changing Scripture to support Mariological assumptions.
But you expect me to read one, that at first glance is clearly jumbo-size? One which would necessitate that I myself, in addressing your own comments to me, must be compelled to do the same (write up a HUMONGOUS post/comment) regarding multiple instances of subject matter, all of which have individual aspects to them which can be crucial, and upon which the "whole thing" as it were, often turns?
I thought I'd seen every forum debate tactic there was, but this a new one. It divorces the conversation first; from your own initial comments which I had replied to, and then, since you never bother to quote what I said to you in reply, renders my own comments something which one must make more than the usual effort to find, leaving everyone unable to be able to use the forum feature (to: whichever number comment) at bottom of each comment. For example: To 599 is hotlink to a comment of mine which you've given some amount of reply in comment #605. I'll get back to that portion, later.
I'm going to bust this stuff back up. It will take a lot of effort, but will break it up into more manageable pieces. Please see to it when you reply (if you do) that individual comments are addressed individually. Can you do that? Some days I wonder why I even bother. Which reminds me...it's no wonder so many simply turn away altogether.
Doing so while lumping this all in one big post compels ME to need go back through everything, reconstructing what had said -- which will lead to many long posts. Gee, thanks! Like I don't have anything else I'd rather be doing on Sunday morning, you know, like go to church maybe? Is that part of your strategy, too? Post to me long and complex commentary, FIRST THING on Sunday mornings, so your own reply may not find a rebuttal until way later in the day? This is the second time you've done so, and I don't appreciate it -- but will be getting back to you, to refute your latest assortment of shallow assertions. Which reminds me of something yet else. As habit, you present argument of assertion, with nothing much to back it, continually directing others to go search out the matter in order to establish your own arguments -- which would compel others to spend their own time searching for, and fetching the info to display it here if they cared to show the how and why of it all did not do what you say it did. You won't even hotlink to a passage of scripture! But I will, and bring the passages themselves, for I must, in order to show everyone how those simply do not do what you assert that they do.
Do me a favor. No more first thing Sunday morning hit-and-run postings, which you then end with pious sounding "and God bless you in your spiritual walk" -- as if you actually cared that I (and others on this forum) do anything other than convert (or be kept held continually still captive) to Romanism.
Say what one will about Jehovah's witnesses, and door-to-door Mormons, but at least they don't ring the bell, and leave tracts on the front porch at 5AM --Sunday mornings!
Your reasoning is quite faulty here: “And he got David’s DNA specifically from Mary, since Scripture calls Mary Jesus’ mother.” Mary IS the Mother of Jesus because she gestated HIM in HER UTERUS / womb. Where God took a gamete to make Jesus is not a thing you can know! But your desperate need to have Mary be the source of DNA for JESUS causes you to make assertions that you absolutely cannot prove! That is quite Catholic of you. For all you or I know GOD took a gamete from DAVID and made Jesus’s embryonic life of the body. Since humans can now do it, why are CATHOLICS so desperate to make GOD conform to their lust for raising Mary to demigoddess status?
Immaculate Conception. No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
Can you understand that entry, and if not just say so and many here will try to help you with it.
Other than aligning with Catholic preconceptions about Mary, why would you conclude being "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit is superior to being "filled" by the Holy Spirit? Isn't it just as plausible to assume that these are synonyms for being controlled by the Holy Spirit?
nor did he have the indwelling Holy Spirit in the sense Christians did after the Resurrection.
First, let me accept your argument that the nature of the indwelling of the Spirit is different before and after Resurrection. Of course, at the time that Jesus made the statement about John the Baptist, the Resurrection hadn't happened yet. So, Mary wouldn't have had that indwelling either, at least if I'm following your argument.
We have the words of Jesus telling us that He had to leave for the Holy Spirit to come but we also have Old Testament examples of the Spirit filling saints. It seems more selective and perhaps temporary but present nonetheless. Like so many other aspects of the Gospel, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit expanded dramatically with the Incarnation but was present before to some degree.
On a related note, St. John Chrysostom made this point regarding the verse we are discussing (Matthew 11:11): "That the abundance of this praise might not beget a wrong inclination in the Jews to set John above Christ, he corrects this, saying, 'He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.'"
With due respect to Chrysostom, if people actually listened to John the Baptist, such a warning would be unnecessary. John was clear that the Messiah was greater than him. Is this really different than what Mariolatry does?
I was addressing Luke 11:27 and 11:28 together in the post you’re replying to. The contrast here is between being blessed for physical reasons and being blessed for spiritual reasons; this not a denial that Mary is blessed in the latter sense. Indeed, the Holy Spirit via both Elizabeth and Mary had previously proclaimed that Mary was blessed, and Jesus is not contradicting that here.
It does make the point that those who "hear the Word of God and keep it" are at least on equal footing with Mary. Mary was a wonderful servant of God but Jesus is saying that those who "hear the Word of God and keep it" are too. In a sense, Mary isn't that special.
#611: You have mistaken the opinion of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s editors for an official Catholic doctrine. But bringing that topic back to #610, even by the interpretation of Genesis 3:15 you favor, Jesus would be the “seed” of Eve, which does not support a neo-Nestorian view denying Jesus’ descent from Eve through Mary. Jesus is descended from Eve through David, but neither Scripture nor Occam’s Razor support the notion pulled from thin air that God took a gamete from David. The Bible calls Mary the mother of Jesus, not the incubator of David’s gamete. And if you think God taking Mary’s ovum would be adulterous, proposing that God took David’s sperm instead would hardly solve your problem. Your position leaves no non-adulterous way for Jesus to be the Son of David, and represents an un-Biblical, ad hoc redefining of the word “mother”.
Being “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit pertains to the Spirit’s activity in causing Mary to become pregnant with the Son of God (Luke 1:34-35). John is “filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth” (Luke 1:15), which pertains to his prophetic gift (cf., Luke 1:76), exercised even from his mother’s womb when he leaps at the sound of Mary’s voice and his mother becomes filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesies.
The “overshadowed” phrase (ἐπισκιάσει) also echoes the language used in the Septuagint of the Shekinah glory, one of several parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the subtext of Luke 1 (cf. 2 Samuel 6:9 and Luke 1:43 for example). It is one of a long list of things we are told about Mary in Luke 1. A partial list of the qualities Luke attributes to Mary in addition to being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit:
So while John is identified as quite special in Luke 1, the chapter ascribes a number of special qualities to Mary that are not ascribed to him. To sum up the essential difference, John prepares the way for the Lord, but Mary carries the Lord Himself, and as befitting this role, she is blessed above all women by being made “full of grace” even before she begins carrying Him. What is said about John elsewhere needs to be read consistently with this, however we end up interpreting it.
This brings us to your question about the indwelling Spirit versus the Spirit filling the OT saints and how that relates to what I am saying about Mary, which is a very good question. The question could be put this way in light of what I elaborated above: if Mary is full of grace etc. before Jesus is born, does this imply she had the indwelling Spirit already (and to broaden the question, what about John and the OT saints)? Now as you indicate, we agree that the NT teaches there was a difference between the presence of the Holy Spirit before and after the Resurrection. For Catholic exegesis, a key verse on the indwelling Spirit is Romans 5:5: “And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” Here the Holy Spirit is linked to agape love aka charity, which Paul identifies as the greatest of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 13. Catholic theologians relate this to John’s teaching on God as love (1 John 4:8) and to Jesus’ teaching on love of God as the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37): it is the outpouring of the Spirit that conveys the grace to fulfill the commandment to love God, by virtue of God--who is love--pouring His own supernatural love into our hearts in the form of the Holy Spirit, so that what our sinful nature prevents us from doing on our own, God’s own Spirit empowers us to do.
Now does Mary already have this indwelling Spirit before the Resurrection? I am not aware that the Catholic Church has an official position on this expressed in so many words, so I will state my reply accordingly and tentatively. St. Thomas Aquinas does touch on the broader question in relation to the OT saints when he takes up the topic of the mission of the Holy Spirit, and also in his commentary on Romans (which unfortunately I do not see online). He draws a distinction between the Spirit’s invisible mission before Christ came and its visible mission after Christ’s baptism; and he also indicates that there can be an increase of grace with respect to some particular virtue (for instance someone might have a specific gift of the Holy Spirit such as prophecy but be lacking in some other gift). He notes of Christ in contrast to both the OT and NT saints, “To Christ the invisible mission was sent at the first moment of His conception; but not afterwards, since from the beginning of His conception He was filled with all wisdom and grace.” (Note that Aquinas here is talking about wisdom in terms of divinely-infused wisdom and not humanly-acquired wisdom, as Christ did grow in the latter per Luke 2:52, a topic Aquinas takes up under another question). Now this state of being full of grace is true of Christ by His very nature by virtue of being God in the flesh. But what then of Mary, who is not God in the flesh and is only a human being by nature, but who is still declared by Gabriel to be “full of grace” even before Christ is conceived, who has received this fullness of grace as a gift by virtue of being “favored” by God? I believe Aquinas’ argument would imply that she has the fullness of the type of grace related to the Spirit’s invisible mission, but with respect to the Spirit’s visible mission, she will in obedience to her son wait to participate in this phase of the mission until her son sends the Spirit after His Resurrection. Indeed, we see her between the Ascension and Pentecost praying with the Apostles as they wait for God to baptize them with the Spirit (Acts 1:8, 1:14). Note that Christ had already given the Apostles the Spirit in the specific sense of the gift of being able to forgive sins, illustrating Aquinas’ point about degrees of grace (John 20:23, about which Aquinas says this: “Chrysostom himself says that the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples, not for all tasks in general, but for a specific task, that is, to forgive sin. Augustine and Gregory say that the Holy Spirit has two precepts of love: love of God and of neighbor. Therefore, the Holy Spirit was given the first time on earth to indicate the precept of the love of neighbor; and the Spirit was given the second time from heaven to indicate the precept of the love of God.”).
With respect to Matthew 11:11, recall that Jesus often had to repeat His teachings more than once before they sunk in even when He was teaching His own disciples; so it would not be inconsistent if he reinforced things John had already taught, particularly if his audience included listeners with varying familiarity with John’s teachings.
Finally with respect to your last point, other believers can be equal to Mary in the general sense of hearing the Word of God and keeping it and being blessed, but there are also degrees of understanding and obeying the Word of God. Hence Paul advises the Corinthians to eagerly desire the greater gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31), and he prays for the Ephesians “that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:16-19) Likewise, the Parables of the Sower and the Talents teach that some reap greater harvests than others, even among the saved. When James and John asked to sit at Christ’s right and left, Jesus indicated that those places had been reserved (Matthew 20:23). When John later saw heaven, he saw this: “Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” (Revelation 11:19-12:1)
So much for attempted brevity!--evidently not one of my spiritual gifts today :-) Off to work now.
God is not an adulterer, therefore HE would not use the genetic material of a woman already betrothed to Joseph. As for 'my problem', it is Catholicism which creates dogma replete with heresies and even blasphemies. HOW God accomplished the fabrication of the embryonic Jesus is beyond you or me to know at this time. So any assertion from you or me as if fact would be erroneous. So this lack of facts is not 'my problem', it is an indication that Rome fashions 'tradition' to fit the dogma they hold to, sometimes even irrationally hold to.
By the way, poster, 'born of a woman' does not require ANY genetic material from that woman and the child so born has as his/her mother the woman in whose womb the child gestated. Peddle the Romish dictates to someone less familiar with the science and the Bible.
* * *
Strong's Concordance
ginomai: to come into being, to happen, to become
Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Short Definition: I come into being, am born
Definition: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.
HELPS Word-studies
1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).
1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).
M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from a prim. root gen-
Definition
to come into being, to happen, to become
NASB Translation
accomplished (1), appeared (3), arise (1), arises (2), arose (6), arrived (3), became (53), become (83), becomes (8), becoming (2), been (12), been brought (1), been done (1), been made (2), been...came (1), began (1), behaved (1), being (2), come into being (1), being carried (1), being done (2), being made (2), born (5), breaking* (1), came (45), came into being (2), came to pass (2), come (16), comes (1), comes to pass (1), coming (1), dawn (1), decided* (1), developing (1), done (20), drawing (1), during (1), elapsed (1), existed* (1), falling (1), feeling (1), fell (6), finished (1), followed (1), formed (3), found (2), get (4), give (1), got (1), granted (1), grown* (1), had (1), happen (6), happened (46), happening (5), happens (3), has (3), join* (1), joined (3), made (15), occur (3), occurred (18), performed (4), prove (7), proved (6), proving (1), put (1), reached (2), realized (1), results (2), show (1), spent (1), split (1), spoken (1), starting (1), take place (16), taken (2), taken place (5), takes place (1), taking place (3), there arose (1), thundered* (1), took place (7), turned (1), turns (3), would (1).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1096: γίνομαι
γίνομαι (in Ionic prose writings and in common Greek from Aristotle, on for Attic γίγνομαι); (imperfect ἐγινόμην); future γενήσομαι; 2 aorist ἐγενόμην (often in 3 person singular optative γένοιτο; (participle γεναμενος, Luke 24:22 Tdf. edition 7)), and, with no difference in significance, 1 aorist passive ἐγενήθην, rejected by the Atticists (cf. Lob. ad Phryn., p. 108f; (Thomas Magister, Ritschl edition, p. 75, 6f)), not rare in later Greek, common in the Sept. (Acts 4:4; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 15:10, etc.), imperative γενηθήτω (Matthew 6:10; Matthew 15:28, etc.); perfect γεγένημαι and γέγονα, 3 person plural γέγοναν L T Tr WH in Romans 16:7 and Revelation 21:6 (cf. (Tdf. Proleg., p. 124; WHs Appendix, p. 166; Sophocles Lexicon, p. 37f; Curtius, Das Verbum, 2:187); Winers Grammar, 36 and 76f (73f); Mullach, p. 16; Buttmann, 43 (37f)), (participle γεγονώς); pluperfect 3 person singular ἐγεγόνει (John 6:17 (not Tdf.); Acts 4:22 (where L T Tr WH γεγόνει, cf. Winers Grammar, § 12, 9; Buttmann, 33 (29); Tdf.s note on the passage)); to become, and
1. to become, i. e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being: absolutely, John 1:15, 30 (ἔμπροσθεν μου γέγονεν); John 8:58 (πρίν Ἀβραάμ γενέσθαι); 1 Corinthians 15:37 (τό σῶμα τό γενησόμενον); ἐκ τίνος, to be born, Romans 1:3 (ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ); Galatians 4:4 (ἐκ γυναικός); Matthew 21:19 (μηκέτι ἐκ σου καρπός γένηται, come from); of the origin of all things, Hebrews 11:3; διά τίνος, John 1:3, 10. to rise, arise, come on, appear, of occurrences in nature or in life: as γίνεται βροντή, John 12:29; ἀστραπή, Revelation 8:5; σεισμός, Rev. (); ; γαλήνη, Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24; λαῖλαψ, Mark 4:37; γογγυσμός, Acts 6:1; ζήτησις, John 3:25 (followed by ἐκ of origin; στάσις καί ζήτησις), Acts 15:2 (Griesbach questions ζήτησις, Rec. reads συζήτησις); πόλεμος, Revelation 12:7; ἡ βασιλεία (or αἱ βασιλεῖαι) κτλ., Revelation 11:15; Revelation 12:10; χαρά, Acts 8:8, and in many other examples Here belong also the phrases γίνεται ἡμέρα it becomes day, day comes on, Luke 4:42; Luke 6:13; Luke 22:66; Acts 12:18; Acts 16:35; Acts 23:12; Acts 27:29, 33, 39; γίνεσθαι ὀψέ evening comes, Mark 11:19, equivalent to γίνεσθαι ὀψία, Matthew 8:16; Matthew 14:15, 23; Matthew 16:2 (T brackets WH reject the passage); ; Mark 14:17; John 6:16, etc.; πρωΐα, Matthew 27:1; John 21:4; νύξ, Acts 27:27 (cf. under the word ἐπιγίνομαι 2); σκοτία, John 6:17 (not Tdf.). Hence,
2. to become equivalent to to come to pass, happen, of events;
a. universally: Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:6, 20, 34; Luke 1:20; Luke 12:54; Luke 21:28; John 1:28; John 13:19, etc.; τοῦτο γέγονεν, ἵνα etc. this hath come to pass that etc., Matthew 1:22; Matthew 21:4; Matthew 26:56; τά γενόμενα or γινόμενα, Matthew 18:31; Matthew 27:54; Matthew 28:11; Luke 23:48; (cf. τά γενόμενα ἀγαθά, Hebrews 9:11 L WH text Tr marginal reading); τό γενόμενον, Luke 23:47; τό γεγονός, Mark 5:14; Luke 24:12 (T omits; L Tr brackets; WH reject the verse); Acts 4:21; τό ῤῆμα τό γεγονός, Luke 2:15; τά μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι, Luke 21:36; Acts 26:22; τήν ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι, 2 Timothy 2:18; θανάτου γενομένου a death having taken place (German nacherfolgtemTode), Hebrews 9:15. μή γένοιτο, a formula especially frequent in Paul (and in Epictetus, cf. Schweigh. Index Graec. in Epictetus, p. 392), "Far be it! God forbid!" (cf. Morison, Exposition of Romans 3, p. 31f): Luke 20:16; Romans 3:4, 6, 31; Romans 6:2, 15; Romans 7:7, 13; Romans 9:14; Romans 11:1, 11; 1 Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; Galatans 3:21 (equivalent to חָלִילָה, Joshua 22:29, etc.); cf. Sturz, De dial. Maced. etc., p. 204f; τί γέγονεν, ὅτι etc. what has come to pass, that etc. equivalent to for what reason, why? John 14:22 (τί ἐγένετο, ὅτι ... Ecclesiastes 7:11 (10); τί ἐστιν, ὡς etc., Euripides, Troad. 889).
b. Very common in the first three Gospels, especially that of Luke, and in the Acts, is the phrase καί ἐγένετο (וַיְהִי followed by וְ); cf. Winers Grammar, § 65, 4 e. (also § 44, 3 c.), and especially Buttmann, § 141, 6. (a.) καί ἐγένετο καί with a finite verb: Mark 2:15 ((Tr text καί γίνεται), T WH καί γίνεται (followed by the accusative and infinitive)); Luke 2:15 (R G L brackets Tr brackets); (WH brackets καί); followed by καί ἰδού, Matthew 9:10 (T omits καί before ἰδού; Luke 24:4. (b.) much more often καί is not repeated: Matthew 7:28; Mark 4:4; Luke 1:23; 2:( T WH), ; . (g.) καί ἐγένετο followed by the accusative with an infinitive: Mark 2:23 (Winer's Grammar, 578 (537) note); Luke 6:1, 6 (R G ἐγένετο δέ καί).
c. In like manner ἐγένετο δέ (a.) followed by καί with a finite verb: Luke 5:1; Luke 9:28 (WH text omits; L brackets καί, ; R G T, L Tr marginal reading brackets καί); Acts 5:7. (b.) ἐγένετο δέ followed by a finite verb without καί: Luke 1:8; Luke 2:1, 6; ( R G L); (WH Tr text omit ἐγένετο); . γ. ἐγένετο δέ followed by the accusative with an infinitive: Luke 3:21; (Luke 6:1, 6 L T Tr WH, T Tr WH); ; Acts 4:5; Acts 9:3 (without δέ), ; R G; ; (); (). (d.) ἐγένετο δέ (ὡς δέ ἐγένετο) followed by τοῦ with an infinitive: Acts 10:25 (Rec. omits τοῦ), cf. Meyer at the passage and Winers Grammar, 328 (307); (Buttmann, 270 (232)).
d. with the dative of person to occur or happen to one, befall one: followed by an infinitive, Acts 20:16; ἐάν γένηται (namely, αὐτῷ) εὑρεῖν αὐτό, if it happen to him, Matthew 18:13; ἐμοί δέ μή γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι far be it from me to glory, Galatians 6:14 (Genesis 44:7, 17; 1 Kings 20:3 (); Alciphron, epistles 1, 26); followed by the accusative with an infinitive it happened to me, that etc.: Acts 11:26 L T Tr WH (but the accusative implied); (cf. Winers Grammar, 323 (303); Buttmann, 305 (262)); with adverbs, go, fare (German ergehen): εὖ, Ephesians 6:3 (μή γένοιτο σοι οὕτω κακῶς, Aelian v. h. 9, 36). with specification of the thing befalling one: τί γέγονεν (L T Tr text WH ἐγένετο) αὐτῷ, Acts 7:40 (from Exodus 32:1); ἐγένετο (L T Tr WH ἐγίνετο) πάσῃ ψυχή φόβος fear came upon, Acts 2:43. — Mark 4:11; Mark 9:21; Luke 19:9; John 5:14; John 15:7; Romans 11:25; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 1:8 (G L T Tr WH omit the dative); 2 Timothy 3:11; 1 Peter 4:12; with the ellipsis of ἡμῖν, John 1:17. ἐγένετο (αὐτῷ) γνώμη a purpose occurred to him, he determined, Acts 20:3 (Buttmann, 268 (230), but T Tr WH read ἐγένετο γνώμης; see below, 5 e. (a.)). followed by prepositions: ἐπ' αὐτῇ upon (German bei oran) her, Mark 5:33 (R G L brackets); εἰς τινα, Acts 28:6.
3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage: of men appearing in public, Mark 1:4; John 1:6 (on which two passages compare Winers Grammar, 350 (328); Buttmann, 308f (264f)); 2 Peter 2:1; γεγόνασι, have arisen and now exist, 1 John 2:18.
4. to be made, done, finished: τά ἔργα, Hebrews 4:3; διά χειρῶν, of things fabricated, Acts 19:26; of miracles to be performed, wrought: διά τῶν χειρῶν τίνος, Mark 6:2; διά τίνος, Acts 2:43; Acts 4:16, 30; Acts 12:9; ὑπό τίνος, Luke 9:7 (R L (but the latter brackets ὑπ' αὐτοῦ)); Luke 13:17; Luke 23:8; γενόμενα εἰς τήν Καφαρναούμ done unto (on) Capernaum i. e. for its benefit (Winers Grammar, 416 (388); (cf. Buttmann, 333 (286))), Luke 4:23 (Rec. ἐν τῇ Καφαρναούμ) of commands, decisions, purposes, requests, etc. to be done, executed: Matthew 6:10; Matthew 21:21; Matthew 26:42; Mark 11:23; Luke 14:22; Luke 23:24; Acts 21:14; γενήσεται ὁ λόγος will be accomplished the saying, 1 Corinthians 15:54. joined to nouns implying a certain action: ἡ ἀπώλεια γέγονε, Mark 14:4; ἀπογραφή, Luke 2:2; ἐπαγγελία γενομένη ὑπό Θεοῦ given by God, Acts 26:6; ἀνάκρισις, Acts 25:26; νόμου μετάθεσις, Hebrews 7:12; ἄφεσις, Hebrews 9:22. of institutions, laws, etc. to be established, enacted: τό σάββατον ἐγένετο, the institution of the Sabbath, Mark 2:27; ὁ νόμος, Galatians 3:17; οὗ γέγονεν οὕτως hath not been so ordained, Matthew 19:8. of feasts, marriages, entertainments, to be kept, celebrated: τό πάσχα, Matthew 26:2 (equivalent to נַעֲשֶׂה, 2 Kings 23:22); τό σάββατον, Mark 6:2; τά ἐγκαίνια, John 10:22; (γενεσίοις γενομένοις (cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 9 b.; R G γενεσίων ἀγομένων), Matthew 14:6) (τά Ὀλυμπια, Xenophon, Hell. 7, 4, 28; Ἰσθμια, 4, 5, 1); γάμος, John 2:1. οὕτως γένηται ἐν ἐμοί so done with me, in my case, 1 Corinthians 9:15.
5. to become, be made, "in passages where it is specified who or what a person or thing is or has been rendered, as respects quality, condition, place, rank, character" (Wahl, Clavis Apocr. V. T., p. 101).
a. with a predicate added, expressed by a substantive or an adjective: οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται, Matthew 4:3; Luke 4:3; ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον, John 2:9; ἀρχιερεύς γενόμενος, Hebrews 6:20; διάκονος, Colossians 1:25; ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, John 1:14; ἀνήρ, 1 Corinthians 13:11, and many other examples; χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις grace ceases to have the nature of grace, can no longer be called grace, Romans 11:6; ἄκαρπος γίνεται, Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19; — in Matthew 17:2; Luke 8:17; John 5:6, and many other places. contextually, to show oneself, prove oneself: Luke 10:36; Luke 19:17; Luke 24:19; Romans 11:34; Romans 16:2; 2 Corinthians 1:18 Rec.; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:7; Hebrews 11:6, etc.; especially in exhortations: γίνεσθε, Matthew 10:16; Matthew 24:44; Luke 6:36; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:15; μή γίνου, John 20:27; μή γίνεσθε, Matthew 6:16; Ephesians 5:7, 17; 1 Corinthians 10:7; μή γινώμεθα, Galatians 5:26; hence, used declaratively, equivalent to to be found, shown: Luke 13:2 (that it was shown by their fate that they were sinners); Romans 3:4; 2 Corinthians 7:14; — γίνομαι τίνι τίς to show oneself (to be) someone to one: 1 Corinthians 9:20, 22.
b. with an interrogative pronoun as predicate: τί ὁ Πέτρος ἐγένετο what had become of Peter, Acts 12:18 (cf. use of τί ἐγένετο in Act. Phil. in Hell. § 23, Tdf. Acta apost. apocr., p. 104).
c. γίνεσθαι ὡς or ὡσεί τινα to become as or like to one: Matthew 10:25; Matthew 18:3; Matthew 28:4; Mark 9:26; Luke 22:44 (L brackets WH reject the passage); Romans 9:29 (from Isaiah 1:9); 1 Corinthians 4:13; Galatians 4:12.
d. γινεσθα εἰς τί to become i. e. be changed into something, come to be, issue in, something (German zuetwaswerden): ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλήν γωνίας, Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7 — all after Psalm 117:22 (). Luke 13:19 (εἰς δένδρον μέγα); John 16:20; Acts 5:36; Romans 11:9 (from Psalm 68: (69) 23); 1 Thessalonians 3:5; Revelation 8:11; Revelation 16:19, etc. (equivalent to לְ הָיָה; but the expression is also classic; cf. Winers Grammar, § 29, 3 a.; Buttmann, 150 (131)).
e. γίνεσθαι with Cases; (a.) with the genitive to become the property of anyone, to come into the power of a person or thing (cf. Winers Grammar, § 30, 5; especially Buttmann, 162 (142)): Luke 20:14 (L marginal reading ἔσται), 33; Revelation 11:15; (γνώμης, Acts 20:3 T Tr WH (cf. ἐλπίδος μεγάλης γίνεσθαι Plutarch, Phocylides, 23, 4)); προφητεία ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται no one can explain prophecy by his own mental power (it is not a matter of subjective interpretation), but to explain it one needs the same illumination of the Holy Spirit in which it originated, for etc. 2 Peter 1:20. γενέσθαι with a genitive indicating one's age (to be) so many years old: Luke 2:42; 1 Timothy 5:9. (b.) with the dative (cf. W 210f (198)): γίνεσθαι ἀνδρί to become a man's wife, Romans 7:3f (לְאִישׁ הָיָה, Leviticus 22:12; Ruth 1:12, etc.).
f. joined to prepositions with their substantives; ἐν τίνι, to come or pass into a certain state (cf. Buttmann, 330 (284)): ἐν ἀγωνία, Luke 22:44 (L brackets WH reject the passage); ἐν ἐκστάσει, Acts 22:17; ἐν πνεύματι, Revelation 1:10; Revelation 4:2; ἐν δόξῃ (R. V. came with (in) glory), 2 Corinthians 3:7; ἐν παραβάσει, 1 Timothy 2:14; ἐν ἑαυτῷ, to come to himself, recover reason, Acts 12:11 (also in Greek writings; cf. Hermann ad Vig., p. 749); ἐν Χριστῷ, to be brought to the fellowship of Christ, to become a Christian, Romans 16:7; ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων, to become like men, Philippians 2:7; ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας (R. V. were we found using) flattering speech, 1 Thessalonians 2:5. ἐπάνω τίνος to be placed over a thing, Luke 19:19. μετά τίνος or σύν τίνι to become one's companion, associate with him: Mark 16:10; Acts 7:38; Acts 20:18; ὑπό τινα to be made subject to one, Galatians 4:4. (Cf. h. below.) g. with specification of the terminus of motion or the place of rest: εἰς with the accusative of place, to come to some place, arrive at something, Acts 20:16; Acts 21:17; Acts 25:15; ὡς ἐγένετο ... εἰς τά ὦτα μου when the voice came into my ears, Luke 1:44; εἰς with the accusative of person, of evils coming upon one, Revelation 16:2 R G; of blessings, Galatians 3:14; 1 Thessalonians 1:5 (Lachmann πρός; Acts 26:6 L T Tr WH); γενέσθαι ἐπί τοῦ τόπου, Luke 22:40; ἐπί τῆς γῆς, John 6:21 (Tdf. ἐπί τήν γῆν); ὧδε, John 6:25 (ἐκεῖ, Xenophon, an. 6, 3 (5), 20; (cf. Buttmann, 71)); ἐπί with the accusative of place, Luke 24:22; Acts 21:35; (John 6:21 Tdf.); ἐγένετο διωγμός ἐπί τήν ἐκκλησίαν, Acts 8:1; ἐγένετο φόβος or θάμβος ἐπί πάντας, Luke 1:65; Luke 4:36; Acts 5:5, 11; (ἔκστασις, Acts 10:10 (Rec. ἐπέπεσεν)); ἕλκος κακόν καί πονηρόν ἐπί τούς ἀνθρώπους, Revelation 16:2 L T Tr WH; ἐγένετο ... ῤῆμα ἐπί τινα, λόγος or φωνή πρός τινα (came to): Luke 3:2; John 10:35; Acts 7:31 (Rec.); (Genesis 15:1, 4; Jeremiah 1:2, 11; Jeremiah 13:8; Ezekiel 6:1; Hosea 1:1); (ἐπαγγελία, Acts 13:32; Acts 26:6 Rec.); κατά with the accusative of place, Luke 10:32 (Tr WH omit); Acts 27:7, (Xenophon, Cyril 7, 1, 15); κατά with the genitive: τό γενόμενον ῤῆμα καθ' ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας the matter the report of which spread throughout all Judaea, Acts 10:37; πρός τινα, 2 John 1:12 (Rec. ἐλθεῖν); 1 Corinthians 2:3; σύν τίνι, to be joined to one as an associate, Luke 2:13 (Xenophon, Cyril 5, 3, 8); ἐγγύς γίνεσθαι, Ephesians 2:13; τίνος, John 6:19; (h.) (with ἐκ of the source (see above): Mark 1:11 (Tdf. omits ἐγένετο); (T Tr marginal reading WH); Luke 3:22; Luke 9:35; Acts 19:34); γίνεσθαι ἐκ μέσου, to be taken out of the way, 2 Thessalonians 2:7; γενέσθαι ὁμοθυμαδόν, of many come together in one place, Acts 15:25 cf. Acts 2:1 (but only in R G; γενομένοις ὁμοθυμαδόν in may mean either having become of one mind, or possibly having come together with one accord. On the alleged use of γίνομαι in the N. T. as interchangeable with εἰμί see Fritzschior. Opuscc., p. 284 note. Compare: ἀπογίνομαι, διαγίνομαι, ἐπιγίνομαι, παραγίνομαι, συμγίνομαι παραγίνομαι, προγίνομαι.)
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
be brought to pass, happen
A prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.) -- arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
Forms and Transliterations
γεγενημένοις γεγενημενον γεγενημένον γεγενημένων γεγενησθαι γεγενήσθαι γεγενῆσθαι γεγένησθε γεγένηται γεγονα γέγονα γεγοναμεν γεγόναμεν γεγοναν γέγοναν γεγονας γέγονας γεγονασι γεγόνασι γεγόνασί γεγόνασιν γεγονατε γεγόνατε γέγονε γεγονει γεγόνει γεγονεν γέγονεν γεγονεναι γεγονέναι γεγονος γεγονός γεγονὸς γεγονότα γεγονοτας γεγονότας γεγονοτες γεγονότες γεγονοτι γεγονότι γεγονυια γεγονυία γεγονυῖα γεγονυίας γεγονως γεγονώς γεγονὼς γενεσθαι γενέσθαι γένεσθαι γενέσθε γένεσθε γενεσθω γενέσθω γενέσθωσαν γένη γενηθεντας γενηθέντας γενηθεντες γενηθέντες γενηθέντος γενηθεντων γενηθέντων γένηθη γενηθηναι γενηθήναι γενηθήναί γενηθῆναι γενηθητε γενήθητε γενηθητω γενηθήτω γενηθήτωσαν γενηθωμεν γενηθῶμεν γενησεσθε γενήσεσθε γενησεται γενήσεται γενησθε γένησθε γενησομενον γενησόμενον γενησομένων γενησονται γενήσονται γενηται γενηταί γένηται γένηταί γενοίμην γένοιντο γενοιτο γένοιτο γένοιτό γενομενα γενόμενα γενομεναι γενόμεναι γενομένας γενομένη γενομενην γενομένην γενομενης γενομένης γενομενοι γενόμενοι γενόμενοί γενομενοις γενομένοις γενομενον γενόμενον γενομενος γενόμενος γενομενου γενομένου γενομένους γενομένω γενομενων γενομένων γενού γενωμαι γένωμαι γένωμαί γενωμεθα γενώμεθα γενωνται γένωνται γένωνταί γινεσθαι γίνεσθαι γινεσθε γίνεσθε γίνεσθέ γινεσθω γινέσθω γινέσθωσαν γινεται γίνεται γίνη γίνομαι γινομενα γινόμενα γινομεναι γινόμεναι γινομέναις γινομενας γινομένας γινομενη γινομένη γινομένῃ γινομενης γινομένης γινομενοι γινόμενοι γινομενοις γινομένοις γινομενον γινόμενον γινόμενος γινομενου γινομένου γινομένω γινομενων γινομένων γίνονται γινου γίνου γινωμεθα γινώμεθα γινωνται γίνωνται εγεγονει εγεγόνει ἐγεγόνει εγενεσθε εγένεσθε ἐγένεσθε ΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ εγενέτο εγένετο εγένετό ἐγένετο εγενήθε εγενηθη εγενήθη εγένηθη ἐγενήθη εγενηθημεν εγενήθημεν εγένηθημεν ἐγενήθημεν εγενηθην εγενήθην ἐγενήθην εγενήθης εγενηθησαν εγενήθησαν εγενήθησάν ἐγενήθησαν ἐγενήθησάν εγενηθητε εγενήθητε εγενήθητέ ἐγενήθητε εγενόμεθα εγενομην εγενόμην ἐγενόμην εγενοντο εγένοντο εγένοντό ἐγένοντο εγενου εγένου ἐγένου εγινετο εγίνετο ἐγίνετο εγίνοντο εγίνοντό εγίνου οἵτινες προσγεγενημένων
egegonei egegónei egenesthe egénesthe egenethe egenēthē egenḗthe egenḗthē egenethemen egenēthēmen egenḗthemen egenḗthēmen egenethen egenēthēn egenḗthen egenḗthēn egenethesan egenēthēsan egenḗthesan egenḗthesán egenḗthēsan egenḗthēsán egenethete egenēthēte egenḗthete egenḗthēte EGENETO egéneto egenomen egenomēn egenómen egenómēn egenonto egénonto egenou egénou egineto egíneto gegenemenon gegeneménon gegenēmenon gegenēménon gegenesthai gegenêsthai gegenēsthai gegenē̂sthai gegona gégona gegonamen gegónamen gegonan gégonan gegonas gégonas gegonasin gegónasin gegonate gegónate gegonei gegónei gegonen gégonen gegonenai gegonénai gegonos gegonós gegonòs gegonōs gegonṑs gegonotas gegonótas gegonotes gegonótes gegonoti gegonóti gegonuia gegonyîa genesesthe genēsesthe genḗsesthe genesetai genēsetai genḗsetai genesomenon genesómenon genēsomenon genēsómenon genesontai genēsontai genḗsontai genesthai genésthai genesthe genēsthe génesthe génēsthe genestho genesthō genéstho genésthō genetai genētai génetai génetaí génētai génētaí genethenai genethênai genēthēnai genēthē̂nai genethentas genethéntas genēthentas genēthéntas genethentes genethéntes genēthentes genēthéntes genethenton genethénton genēthentōn genēthéntōn genethete genēthēte genḗthete genḗthēte genetheto genethḗto genēthētō genēthḗtō genethomen genethômen genēthōmen genēthō̂men genoito génoito génoitó genomai genōmai génomai génōmai genomena genómena genomenai genómenai genomenen genomenēn genoménen genoménēn genomenes genomenēs genoménes genoménēs genomenoi genómenoi genomenois genoménois genomenon genomenōn genoménon genoménōn genómenon genomenos genómenos genomenou genoménou genometha genōmetha genṓmetha genontai genōntai génontai génōntai ginesthai gínesthai ginesthe gínesthe ginestho ginesthō ginéstho ginésthō ginetai gínetai ginomena ginómena ginomenai ginómenai ginomenas ginoménas ginomene ginomenē ginoméne ginoménē ginoménei ginoménēi ginomenes ginomenēs ginoménes ginoménēs ginomenoi ginómenoi ginomenois ginoménois ginomenon ginomenōn ginoménon ginoménōn ginómenon ginomenou ginoménou ginometha ginōmetha ginṓmetha ginontai ginōntai gínontai gínōntai ginou gínou oitines
Of all the last-worders I’ve encountered at FR, you take the prize!
I agree that both John and Mary had special roles and were equipped to fill them. I see no Biblical evidence that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in John and Mary is different in nature than what is available to believers today. I have no doubt that these two resisted the Holy Spirit to a far lesser degree than almost all believers throughout time but the indwelling process appears to be the same.
I would disagree that the nature of the their indwelling (or that of the OT saints) was different than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit post-Resurrection. I think that they exhibited the indwelling of the Spirit in a way that was not common in believers of the age but was made widely available after the Resurrection. The Holy Spirit indwelt them in the same manner that He has always indwelt His saints.
Longer version (and please don’t feel compelled to reply to this long piece in point-by-point detail, but do feel free to comment on whatever strikes you as significant):
Thanks. I really wasn't going to do a point-by-point response.
So while John is identified as quite special in Luke 1, the chapter ascribes a number of special qualities to Mary that are not ascribed to him.
Protestants don't dispute the fact that Mary was special. It's the extra-biblical excesses of Catholics with which we have problems. I bring up Matthew 11:11 as caution to Catholics to "rein it in" a bit on the Mary adulation. The words of her own son don't seem to put Mary on the same pedestal. Luke 11:27-8 seems to caution balance in the Mary adulation that is frequently lacking in Catholic circles.
and as befitting this role, she is blessed above all women by being made “full of grace” even before she begins carrying Him. What is said about John elsewhere needs to be read consistently with this, however we end up interpreting it.
I strongly disagree with this. While you provided some specific examples of "full of grace", you haven't proven that it is different in nature than an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I am not obligated to read Scripture through the lens of your speculation. Particularly, when your speculation requires me to explain away an explicit statement of the Lord. That is the problem that I have with Catholic scholarship on this topic (and other uniquely Catholic positions). Far too often the scholarship is an exercise in eisegesis rather than exogesis. I can accept that Mary is blessed among all women because Scripture tells me so just as I can accept that John is the greatest born of woman because Scripture (through the direct statement of our Lord) tells me so. If the statement that John ranks higher on a spiritual scale than Mary offends you, then maybe it is because you have some incorrect preconceptions about Mary. Such an assessment of Mary is not to diminish her status but to correctly view it. Mary is a great saint.
A point I will make first about both of these two verses is that neither of them was originally written in a context of Catholic-Protestant debates about Mariology. Reading them in that context runs the risk of pulling them out of context. I will here focus on what they mean in context before discussing them in the context of Mariological debates.
Matthew 11:11:
The context of this verse is the question John had sent to Jesus from prison via his disciples back in 11:2: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” This is a puzzling question in light of the fact that John has already seen the Holy Spirit come down like a dove upon Jesus, has already heard heaven declare that “This is my Son”, and has already proclaimed Jesus to be the Lamb of God. So why is John asking a question he should already know the answer to? Early commentators on this passage puzzled over and debated this issue. The answer commentators such as St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom arrived at, after weighing several interpretations others had posed, was along these lines: John, who had been thrown in prison and was about to die soon, was concerned that after he died, others might lead his disciples astray from Jesus (which we know did happen to some of them historically). Some of them were at risk of “falling away” (Matthew 11:6). So he sent them to Jesus to see for themselves what the difference was between him and Christ, that they might believe based on their own experience rather than just his word. Jesus in response, rather than testifying on His own behalf, appealed to them to take report of “what you hear and see”, and cited the evidence of the miracles he was publicly performing and the fact that they were fulfillments of the Messianic prophecies he alludes to in this passage. After appealing to this evidence to reinforce their faith, Jesus exhorts them, “Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”
At this point, having addressed John’s disciples, Jesus turns his attention from them to the crowds who had overheard the conversation. The crowds have been wondering who Jesus is, we know from other passages, and some of them upon hearing John’s question might have gotten the misimpression that John is doubting whether Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus speaks to correct this misimpression. He appeals to their previous conviction that John was a prophet (“What did you go out to the desert to see?”) to reinforce that, yes, John is a prophet, and not just a prophet, but as he told you, he is the messenger preceding the Messiah that Malachi prophesied--and here Jesus is reinforcing John’s own teaching about who John was. John is therefore not just a prophet, but “more than a prophet”, in fact the last of the prophets to precede the Messiah. This is what makes him great among those “born of women”.
However, John’s message was not to proclaim himself, but to proclaim the one coming after him, whose sandals he was “not worthy to untie”. So, echoing John’s message that one greater than him was coming after him, Jesus goes on to add that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John. This is not only stressing that Jesus Himself is greater than John, but it’s also indicating that others in the kingdom of heaven are greater than John--by implication, Jesus’ followers are greater than John’s followers. The implicit message is that if his hearers believed John, they should be following Jesus now.
Having said that those in the kingdom of heaven are greater than John, Jesus uses the topic of the kingdom of heaven (“the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing”) to segue back to his point that John is the last of the prophets, the Elijah who was to come. He exhorts those who have ears to hear this to hear it. This brings the topic full circle back from John to the crowd themselves and their reaction to John and Jesus. He chastises His contemporaries for their unbelief and their fickleness, which was pleased neither with John the desert hermit who fasted on locusts and wild honey nor with Jesus who feasts with tax collectors and sinners. “But wisdom is justified by her children [‘by her works’ in some translations]”--John and Jesus’ actions justify their preaching regardless of the unwillingness of their contemporaries to believe.
In this context, the phrase “among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” is placing John among the greatest of the OT prophets who preceded Christ, but below those in the kingdom of heaven, i.e., below those following Christ. We can go deeper into this by considering more closely what the Lord means by the contrast between “born of women” and “in the kingdom of heaven”. Observe that this contrast is using language similar to that Jesus uses to Nicodemus when He contrasts being born of flesh and born of spirit: “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . .I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 3:3ff) Now of course there are different ways people interpret these verses, all of which I will not attempt to address here; but briefly I would argue that in the context of John, these verses are part of a running commentary on the difference between John’s baptism of repentance and Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit, following up on a distinction John drew in his own teaching as recorded in various places (“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”: Matthew 3:11, etc.). I would suggest that the contrast Jesus draws between those born of women and those in the kingdom of heaven is saying something similar, with the gist being that Christian baptism is superior to John’s because John could only baptize in water as a symbol for repentance, but Jesus and his disciples baptized in the Holy Spirit and not just water. (I also see this related to Paul’s distinction between circumcision in the flesh and circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, and a number of related things Paul teaches.) That’s along the lines of what I see Jesus getting at in these verses, in the context of following up on His answer to the question that John’s disciples posed to him. He’s affirming that John is great among the prophets of the Old Covenant under the Law, but he’s also emphasizing the superiority of the New Covenant under the Spirit.
I see this as the meaning of these verses in the broader context of the NT and the more immediate context of Matthew 11. Matthew 11:11 is not answering the question, “Is John the Baptist greater than Mary?” That is a question posed in Catholics-vs.-Protestant polemics, but it is not the question Jesus was answering. Jesus was answering the question, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” His answer was affirming that He was indeed the one who was to come; and beyond affirming this fact, he was exhorting his listeners to take the practical next step to stop doubting and follow him.
Now if we want to export this verse from its original context into the context of Catholic-Protestant debates and ask, does this verse imply that John the Baptist is greater than Mary, the simplest way for a Catholic to answer is, no, because as a follower of Jesus during His earthly lifetime and as a cofounder of the Church after the Resurrection (Acts 1:14), Mary was in the kingdom of heaven--and as the “one full of grace” who is to be called “blessed” by all generations, she is far from the least in the kingdom. (Nor incidentally do I think Jesus was denying that John the Baptist would enter the kingdom of heaven, which some early readers of this verse tried to argue by focusing on the second half of the verse out of context, a position St. Augustine refuted.)
Luke 11:27-28:
The context of this verse is a briefer passage, so it can be addressed more briefly. First let me quote it since it is brief: “As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.’”
The contrast here is between being blessed by virtue of giving birth to and nursing Jesus--that is, by virtue of physical relationship--and being blessed by virtue of hearing and obeying God--that is, being blessed spiritually. This is again parallel to the distinctions at play in the other verses previously discussed: between those born of women and those in the kingdom of heaven, between being born of flesh and born of spirit, between John’s baptism in water and Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit, between being circumcised in the flesh and circumcised in the heart by the Spirit, etc.
Again, Jesus’ comment in its original context is not framed in the context of a Catholic-Protestant debate. He is teaching the woman and his audience that being blessed is not merely a matter of physical relationships, but it is a matter of spiritual faith and obedience. This is another way of teaching something He has taught on numerous other occasions, such as the Sermon on the Mount where he contrasts the exterior righteousness of the Pharisees with the interior righteousness demanded of those in the kingdom of heaven, etc.
In no way does this imply that Mary is not blessed. Reading the verse that way would contradict the plain statements in Luke 1 that Mary is blessed. Jesus is correcting the woman in the audience as to *why* Mary or anybody else would be blessed. Mary is blessed because she heard the word of God and obeyed it: “Let it be done unto me according to your word”. Jesus is not denying the blessedness of she of whom the Holy Spirit said, “Blessed art thou among women.”
So I fail to see how these verses are problematic for Catholic exegesis. Rather, I see it as eisegesis to divorce these verses from their original context and read post-Reformation polemics into them, even when this requires reading Luke 11:27-28 as contradicting the multiple affirmations of Luke 1 that Mary is “blessed”. God is truth and does not contradict Himself, so any reading of Scripture that leads to an apparent contradiction is an incorrect reading requiring more thought.
As a final point, I would argue that Catholic Mariology is based on prolonged reflection upon Scripture and the traditions handed down from the Apostles rather than extra-Scriptural excesses. The apostle John took Mary into his care after the Crucifixion, and the traditions about Mary come partly from churches he oversaw. The early Church Fathers prayed and meditated over Scripture in light of what John and the other Apostles taught. It was reflecting on the Old Testament in light of John’s teaching and that of the other Apostles--especially Luke and Paul--that led to some of Mary’s earliest titles, such as the new Eve and the new Ark of the Covenant. It was reflecting on and defending what John taught about the Word made flesh that led the Church Fathers and Councils to insist against the Gnostics that Mary is the Mother of God. It was reflecting on what John taught about the Word made flesh in relation to the first chapter of Luke that led to reciting the Hail Mary and the Angelus. It was praying over the Psalms that led to the Rosary. The issue dividing Catholics and Protestants is not really reliance on Scripture, but what framework and methodology are used to interpret Scripture. And some Protestant groups disagree with Catholics about Mariology more than others, so I would not make a blanket statement about all Protestants on this. And I would add that it’s also important to also take the witness of the Middle Eastern, Greek-speaking, and North African churches into account for a full perspective on Mariology.
But that doesn't mean that the verses don't shed light on the topic.
Matthew 11:11:
Rather than seven long paragraphs to explain why the verse doesn't say what it says, I'll go with the idea that Jesus said what he meant: John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman.
Luke 11:27-28:
Rather than five paragraphs to explain why the verse doesn't say what it says, I'll go with the idea that Jesus said what he meant: a focus on Mary is misguided. BTW, I never said that Mary wasn't blessed - Scripture clearly said she was. Jesus' response equates Mary and those who follow God's Word. Apparently, no special status for Mary.
While Protestants might consider tradition, few will consider it as inspired as they would Scripture. Only a few Protestants find the Mariology tradition compelling. Using Acts 1:14 to claim that Mary is a co-founder of the Church seems a stretch. The focus of Acts is on the surviving Apostles (with the later inclusion of Paul). Mary's listing in Acts 1:14 doesn't give her any prominent role other than being there with the other women and Jesus' brothers and praying with the Apostles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.