Is St.Anne the Grandmother of God?

[linus]

Philthy:

All who we (true believers) were “in Adam” WAS crucified WITH CHRIST on the cross (Rom. 6; Col. 3:1-3; Eph. 2:6).

Really!? You mean the application of the eternal sacrifice was applied prior to my birth? Hmmm, that sounds familiar…

Nope! It is “applied” at the time of personal belief. The cross did not prevent me, nor you, nor Mary, from being born with “original sin.”

Anyhow, your statement in its intended context is confusing. My sin nature is not gone entirely - do you honestly believe yours is?

The phrase “sin nature” is not really in the Bible. It does speak of the “old man” (some translate it, “old-self”, Rom. 6:6). "My “old man” is all who I was in Adam. God has no program for all WHO I was in Adam except death. He does not have a program to rehabilitate the “old man”: “…knowing this that our old man was crucified with Him…” (Rom. 6:6).

Since my faith in Jesus Christ I am no longer IN ADAM, but IN CHRIST, raised to new life IN HIM. That’s why Paul asks the logical question, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin (i.e., our “old man,” all who we were in Adam - crucified with Christ) still live in it?" (Rom. 6:1-2). These are “identification truths” taught by Paul - i.e., Paul’s gospel.

Every true believer is now a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:1-4), being no longer “in Adam,” but “in Christ.” Can we sin? Certainly! Should we sin? Certainly not. But instead we are exhorted to “walk by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16; cf. Gal. 1:1). “The flesh” is not synonymous with the “old man,” or what you call the “sin nature.” Obviously it is not the true believer’s “nature” to walk in the flesh, or Paul would not exhort him not to. He would have no choice but to walk in the flesh, it being his “nature.”

And Christ explicitly tells us to “take up your Cross daily” Luke 9:23 Something is not right.

What is not right is your application of Christ’s words. Only the one time, once for all, literal sacrifice of Christ could forever take away sins. It was through Christ’s cross that the “old man” was once for all crucified. Jesus says to take up one’s cross in order to FOLLOW Him, not to literally crucify oneself. That would do no one any good. Taking up one’s cross is explained and defined, figuratively, by Christ in Matt. 16:24:

MAT 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” Men are full of self-serving, worldly ambitions. But Jesus says in the context of the Luke passage you quote: “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his soul?” (Lk. 9:25). One cannot seek the self-serving ambitions of this world system and follow Christ at the same time.

Really? I have not “committed” original sin - is it not forgiven me?

“Original sin” is not something you’re forgiven of, it’s something you’re redeemed from: death, judgment and condemnation through Adam.

I said: A sin-sacrifice does not “prevent” or “prohibit” one from original sin. In order to do that one must circumvent the normal birth process (Mary had a normal birth). You replied: Really? Where does Scripture state this?

The real question is where does Scripture say it does? Where does Scripture teach us that Mary was prevented from original sin through Christ’s cross???

No, he was born of a virgin to fulfill Scripture.

You really think the only reason Christ was born of a virgin was merely to fulfill Scripture?

Nope. The merits or the eternal sacrifice of Christ can be applied at any point in time: past, present or future. How else could Elijah be taken up into heaven?

Salvation has always been “through faith” in the living God. The means of salvation has always been the sin-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The effects of His sacrifice are eternal, but the sacrifice itself was accomplished in time. Jesus, 2000 years ago, took upon Himself the sins of the whole world, even Elijah’s. Elijah was a man of faith, and by faith he was saved before Christ and His sacrificial death actually purified him of his sins. Just as long after the cross, by faith, I am saved and I am purified of all my sins through the once for all time - in time sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,
L.
P.S. We’ve got to stop meeting like this Philthy! We’re off topic.

 

[steve99]

Tom:

Steve, please don’t give up on me

Hi Tom, I’m not giving up, and I hope I don’t come across as too dismissive of your points. I have tendancy to rush into print too rashly and then get into the wrong end of a discussion.
Still I learn a lot that way (to have a bit more humilty for one, though I’m slow on learning that one). You’ve given me a lot to respond to so it may be a few days before I come back on this.
I hope we are not getting too off-topic here though.
Blessings

 

[Tom]

steve99:

Hi Tom, I’m not giving up, and I hope I don’t come across as too dismissive of your points. I have tendancy to rush into print too rashly and then get into the wrong end of a discussion.Still I learn a lot that way (to have a bit more humilty for one, though I’m slow on learning that one). You’ve given me a lot to respond to so it may be a few days before I come back on this. I hope we are not getting too off-topic here though.
Blessings

No problem, actually no one ever “taught” me this, it was a question I asked myself when I was young and read and studied myself, it led me to the conclusion that Mary was indeed of the line of David, I really can’t think of a legitimate alternate explanation without doing Scriptural gymnastics and no real reason to be against the possibility. In my studies I discovered others (ECF) who believed the same. It wouldn’t shatter my faith if I were wrong, but with lack of evidence in opposition it’s the most logical explanation I can think of. I am certainly no scholar nor an expert on the subject. There are several references in the OT of the “seed” being carried on by the woman; of course it isn’t speaking of the literal “seed” but of the bloodline. Is there any reason I’m missing as to why it would be wrong for her to be of the house of David?
On a side note I’m going to be gone about a week also, so don’t think I gave up either.
Peace be with you

 

[Philthy]

linus:

Elijah was a man of faith, and by faith he was saved before Christ and His sacrificial death actually purified him of his sins. Just as long after the cross, by faith, I am saved and I am purified of all my sins through the once for all time - in time sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,
L.
P.S. We’ve got to stop meeting like this Philthy! We’re off topic.

I agree…that we are off topic…:yup:

Phil

 

[steve99]

Tom:

No problem, actually no one ever “taught” me this, it was a question I asked myself when I was young and read and studied myself, it led me to the conclusion that Mary was indeed of the line of David, I really can’t think of a legitimate alternate explanation without doing Scriptural gymnastics and no real reason to be against the possibility. In my studies I discovered others (ECF) who believed the same. It wouldn’t shatter my faith if I were wrong, but with lack of evidence in opposition it’s the most logical explanation I can think of. I am certainly no scholar nor an expert on the subject. There are several references in the OT of the “seed” being carried on by the woman; of course it isn’t speaking of the literal “seed” but of the bloodline. Is there any reason I’m missing as to why it would be wrong for her to be of the house of David?
On a side note I’m going to be gone about a week also, so don’t think I gave up either.
Peace be with you

Hi Tom,

Blessings and peace. I have found it very interesting and instructive to follow up the various points that have been made about Mary being of the House of David. I still think the case is unproven as I hope I show below.

First let me address a couple of side issues before I go on to the main question.

1.It is true that the point about Elizabeth being of Levitical descent is a weak argument. It is mentioned in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and I thought if its good enough for the distinguished authors of that tome to put forward then it’s good enough for me.

2.Luke 1:5 (Petergee’s point) – according to the JB translation (which I use) Elizabeth is a “descendant of Aaron”. I think this phrase implies “the” Aaron rather than any old Aaron.

3.Mary and Joseph are normally assumed to be poor because they made an offering of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Lk 2:23/24) which is the sacrifice of the poor. If they had well off it would have been a sheep or a goat.

Now to the main point of Mary’s descent from David. There seem to be three main arguments here:

1.The levitical requirement to marry within her own tribe.

2.The question of bloodline descent raised by several scripture texts (seed and according to the flesh)

3.Whether Matthew’s and Luke’s concentration on Jesus’ descent via Joseph, and silence on Mary’s, ancestry implies that there was no descent from David via Mary.

Contd.

 

[steve99]

Regarding 1: (levitical law). Three questions arise:

a)Was this law still operational in Jesus’ time. If as Petergee points out the Persians, Greeks, Romans and King Herod had confiscated all the land and given it to favourites, then was a law whose sole purpose was to protect tribal land inheritance still relevant and followed? I don’t know.

b)Even if it was how do we know that Mary was an only child? There is nothing in scripture to say that she was.

c)Even if Mary was an only child, and the levitical law was in operation how do we know she was of the House of David? All the law requires is that she marries into the tribe of Judah.

Regarding 2: (descent by bloodline). Here we have problems in meaning and in translation. For example you quote Jn 7,42 “Doth not the scripture say: That Christ cometh of the seed of David……”The JB says “Does not scripture say that the Christ must be descended from David……” The NJB, NRSV, NIV and Good News Bibles say something similar (descent from David). On the other had the King James, NAB and Young’s Literal use the term “seed”. But if several well accepted Bibles are using the term descent rather than “seed” we have to ask why, and what exactly the “seed of David” means in these terms. It seems reasonable to argue from the way it is translated in many Bibles that it is just a way of saying he descended from David, and Jesus is descended from David via Joseph.

On the other scripture – Romans 1,3 the JB translates this as “according to the human nature he took, was a descendant of David”. But even if we take the “according to the flesh” translation of say the NAB, my New Jerome Biblical Commentary explains – and I quote – “that kata sarka, ‘according to the flesh’, stands in contrast to kata pneuma hagiosynes, ‘ according to the Spirit’” (verse 4). So that Paul is contrasting Jesus human nature with his divine nature, not commenting on the nature of his descent from David (via bloodline or legal). Paul spends chapter 8 contrasting the “flesh” and the “spirit”

Regarding 3: I don’t accept your argument that it was so well known that it wasn’t necessary to mention it. It’s more likely that if it wasn’t mentioned it either wasn’t true or wasn’t relevant. The death of Jesus was well know but it was still mentioned in all four gospels. And don’t forget Luke seems to have been writing for gentiles who wouldn’t have known Mary’s background. Would he write “I have decided to write an ordered account for you Theophilus”, and leave out something crucial?

Both Matthew & Luke took trouble to trace Jesus descent from David via Joseph, so that must have been significant. So I still maintain that either Mary was probably not descended from David, or that if she was it wasn’t relevant because it was patriarchal descent that mattered.

As to the gospels being about Jesus not Mary, that is true, but both Matthew and Luke to the trouble to mention Jesus’ descent from Joseph but nothing about Mary’s ancestry.

We’ll probably not agree on this but as I said I have found it instructive to follow this up.

 

[Tom]

Steve, this is going to be short, as I’m caring for my wife after her surgery yesterday.

steve99:

It is true that the point about Elizabeth being of Levitical descent is a weak argument. It is mentioned in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and I thought if its good enough for the distinguished authors of that tome to put forward then it’s good enough for me.

I certainly can’t fault you for listening to “experts”, that’s why I included the ECF (Early Church Fathers). These men were much closer to the original Church, knew much more of the original teachings than 20th century writers, and didn’t need to “prove” the Church wrong. Since you obviously appreciate the ideas of others you would probably enjoy reading them. Again they are not Scripture, but they were fairly united with the idea of Mary being of Davidic descent. Certainly not proof, but arguably more attuned to the Tradition of the early Church than the commentators of the NJ Bible. I would like to point out that the Church doesn’t have an “official” teaching on this matter.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Yes, of course Sts. Anne and Joachim are Jesus’ grandmother and grandfather. I once had someone ask me a similar question: is Adam Jesus’ great-great-great etc. grandfather? Well, of course he was. Jesus is fully human (born of a Virgin) and fully God. To deny His human nature is to deny Him and the role He fulfilled in Scripture as the Paschal Lamb.

 

[threadkiller]

steve99:

Hi Tom,

Blessings and peace. I have found it very interesting and instructive to follow up the various points that have been made about Mary being of the House of David. I still think the case is unproven as I hope I show below.

First let me address a couple of side issues before I go on to the main question.

1.It is true that the point about Elizabeth being of Levitical descent is a weak argument. It is mentioned in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and I thought if its good enough for the distinguished authors of that tome to put forward then it’s good enough for me.

2.Luke 1:5 (Petergee’s point) – according to the JB translation (which I use) Elizabeth is a “descendant of Aaron”. I think this phrase implies “the” Aaron rather than any old Aaron.

3.Mary and Joseph are normally assumed to be poor because they made an offering of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Lk 2:23/24) which is the sacrifice of the poor. If they had well off it would have been a sheep or a goat.

Now to the main point of Mary’s descent from David. There seem to be three main arguments here:

1.The levitical requirement to marry within her own tribe.

2.The question of bloodline descent raised by several scripture texts (seed and according to the flesh)

3.Whether Matthew’s and Luke’s concentration on Jesus’ descent via Joseph, and silence on Mary’s, ancestry implies that there was no descent from David via Mary.

Contd.

I’m with you Steve. The Cathechism states only that Mary ia a daughter of Israel. I think Jesus is more of a blood relative to Moses than He is to David. Lk 1.5. I think Jesus is the Son of David by adoption the way we are sons and daughters of God by adoption and that His lineage comes from the tribe of Levi through Mary and from the House of David(Judah) through His adoption by Joseph. God addresses Moses in Deut. 18.19 " I will raise up for them a prophet(Jesus) LIKE YOU from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all I command him". Ex 2.1-10 relates the story of Moses birth and how he was adopted by the pharoah’s daughter. Maybe Jesus, like Moses, was a Levite who was adopted into a family of kings. Jesus is a priest on the order of Melchizedek according to Hebrews 6.20. Melchizedek was also a king.Gen.14.17-20. If Mary is a Levite than Jesus, as a Priest-King, would have lineage from both the tribe of priests and the tribe of kings. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. In the Old Testament only the Levites could handle the Ark . It stands to reason that St. Joachim and St. Anne, grandparents of our Lord,
would be Levites. St. Joseph, on the other hand, was not a Levite. He was a Judahite. Thus precluding any sexual relations with our Blessed Mother(The Ark). Just some thoughts.

 

[Tom]

Thanks for your thoughts.

threadkiller:

The Cathechism states only that Mary ia a daughter of Israel. I think Jesus is more of a blood relative to Moses than He is to David. Lk 1.5.

O.K., but, the CCC (nor any other official Church teaching) does not preclude Mary being of the Davidic line does it? If it does, I am absolutely wrong, if it doesn’t I’m free to believe as I do.

threadkiller:

I think Jesus is the Son of David by adoption the way we are sons and daughters of God by adoption and that His lineage comes from the tribe of Levi through Mary and from the House of David(Judah) through His adoption by Joseph.

And you are free to believe this, I just feel Scripture indicates otherwise.

threadkiller:

Genesis 3,15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

We’re talking about “her” seed. Mary being the new “Eve” this makes perfect sense doesn’t it? The seed being from Joseph??? Not so much.

 

[Tom]

Gen.14.17-20. If Mary is a Levite than Jesus, as a Priest-King, would have lineage from both the tribe of priests and the tribe of kings. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. In the Old Testament only the Levites could handle the Ark . It stands to reason that St. Joachim and St. Anne, grandparents of our Lord, would be Levites. St. Joseph, on the other hand, was not a Levite. He was a Judahite. Thus precluding any sexual relations with our Blessed Mother(The Ark). Just some thoughts.

If Mary is a Levite, how can Jesus be of “the seed of the flesh” of David? Certainly it isn’t thru Joseph, certainly it isn’t thru the Holy Ghost, so where exactly is Jesus a “seed of the flesh” of David, if not thru Mary? Or is Scripture wrong?

 

[The_Augustinian]

Let me try to go back to the original intent of this thread with a short meditation.

No one in this room was intended to be born. I don’t mean that our parents did not want us, but they didn’t intend us as individuals. They just wanted a child. How could they expect anything else? Only God truly knew us, and formed us in the womb.

When Gabriel appeared to the BVM, she had a choice. She decided, proactively, to give birth to the Savior of the World. Thus, in the fullest sense she is the Mother of God. Of course, she could not have chosen thus without the grace of God working within her, but she still acted of her own free will.

 

[threadkiller]

Tom:

If Mary is a Levite, how can Jesus be of “the seed of the flesh” of David? Certainly it isn’t thru Joseph, certainly it isn’t thru the Holy Ghost, so where exactly is Jesus a “seed of the flesh” of David, if not thru Mary? Or is Scripture wrong?

Your interpretation of Romans 1.3 is wrong I think, “…who was decended from David according to the flesh”. This verse speaks of Christ’s incarnation as a descendant of David, and yes He is a a Son of David thru Joseph. That is by adoption. Every Davidic king is an adopted son . David’s biological sons, who are adopted by God, 2 Kings 7.14, and. Jesus, God Himself who in His great humility allowed Himself to be adopted into the line of David through Joseph.
I think you have a problem with the concept of adoption. If Jesus can’'t be a true son of David by adoption, then how can we be true children of God by adoption? Rom. 8.15
Don’t forget. Jesus is also a priest. Heb 8.1. Priests come from the tribe of Levi. I think I’ve already given you solid scriptural evidence as to why I think Jesus might be a son of Levi as well, through Mary.
Your right though. These ideas are not teachings of the Church, but I think She allows us to speculate on such issues.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

## Probably not ##

 

[steve99]

threadkiller:

Your interpretation of Romans 1.3 is wrong I think, “…who was decended from David according to the flesh”. This verse speaks of Christ’s incarnation as a descendant of David, and yes He is a a Son of David thru Joseph. That is by adoption. Every Davidic king is an adopted son . David’s biological sons, who are adopted by God, 2 Kings 7.14, and. Jesus, God Himself who in His great humility allowed Himself to be adopted into the line of David through Joseph.
I think you have a problem with the concept of adoption. If Jesus can’'t be a true son of David by adoption, then how can we be true children of God by adoption? Rom. 8.15
Don’t forget. Jesus is also a priest. Heb 8.1. Priests come from the tribe of Levi. I think I’ve already given you solid scriptural evidence as to why I think Jesus might be a son of Levi as well, through Mary.
Your right though. These ideas are not teachings of the Church, but I think She allows us to speculate on such issues.

Although Jesus is a priest (High Priest) he is not of the tribe of Levi. He is of the tribe of Judah, though Joseph. He is a priest of the order of Melchizadek. The letter to the Hebrews makes this point specifically because Jesus is not from the priestly line of Levi (and of the house of Aaron).
One quote in favour of Mary being of the House of David - though not proof is Is 7:13-14 “Listen now, House of David:… The Lord himself therefore will give you a sign. It is this : the maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Emmanuel” - which although may be a short tem prophecy of a son for Ahaz, is also generally taken to be a long range prophecy of the Messiah. Centainly Matthew thought so (Mt1:23)

 

[Tom]

threadkiller:

Your interpretation of Romans 1.3 is wrong I think, “…who was decended from David according to the flesh”. This verse speaks of Christ’s incarnation as a descendant of David, and yes He is a a Son of David thru Joseph. That is by adoption.

Adoption is not by the seed of the flesh. The seed of the flesh is very specific. As Steve points out in Is 7, 13-14 the virgin who will be with child is of the house of David.
www.drbo.org:

Is 7,13 And he said: Hear ye therefore, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

www.drbo.org:

Gn 3,14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Jesus is by Gn from the seed of the woman. The seed of the flesh comes via Mary, not Joseph.
Just my opinion of course.

 

[Bishopite]

Nonie:

Hi!
I had a tough question from a friend who is not Catholic about the relationship of the relatives of Mary to God. His question was if Mary is the Mother of God then what is Marys relatives relationship to God, if they carry the same genetic strain as Mary. Would Marys Mother St.Anne be Gods Grandmother?Could God then have a cousins etc.? I told him that I thought Mary had been created in a special way without sin in grace. But this didn’t explain it very well to him and perhaps I am wrong. Can someone shed some light on this subject for me?
Thanks!!

Your friends creating a false assumption then using a false syllogistic argument with a false conclusion based on a false assumption.

Here is how he is incorrect:

Mary is the Mother of God (which he falsely assumes includes the Father and Holy Spirit).
St. Ann is the grandmother of St. Mary,
Therefore St. Ann is the grandmother of God (the Father and Holy Spirit).

He is assuming that the term “Mother of God” includes both the Father and the Holy Spirit, but it is only refering to Jesus the second “person” of the Holy Trinity. He misunderstands what the term “Mother of God” means in Catholic terminology. When Catholics say Mary is the “Mother of God” what we mean is that Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God, the second PERSON of the holy Trinity, 100% man and 100% God.
Mary isn’t the mother of a nature but of a **“person” **[Jesus]
Jesus’ two natures are so bound together that He is a man-God person with TWO NATURES called the hypostatic union.

So next time someone asks you how Mary can be the mother of God, because God doesn’t have a mother, tell them that Mary is the mother of God the second “person” of the holy Trinity and Mary ISN’T the mother of a “nature” but of a “person” and that “person” is Jesus Christ both God and man. And then inform your friend that the theotokos controversy, was an attack on who “Jesus” actually was, whether He was just a great man or God and if He wasn’t God then Mary wasn’t the Mother of God, but if He was and He is, then Mary is the Mother of God, the second person of the Trinity.

So, St. Ann is the grandmother of God the second “person” of the most holy Trinity. God the Father and the Holy Spirit don’t have mothers.

 

[steve99]

Tom:

Adoption is not by the seed of the flesh. The seed of the flesh is very specific. As Steve points out in Is 7, 13-14 the virgin who will be with child is of the house of David.

Jesus is by Gn from the seed of the woman. The seed of the flesh comes via Mary, not Joseph.
Just my opinion of course.

As I have pointed out before this depends very much on the translation. The NAB says “your offspring and hers” not seed. But Genesis is only saying that it will be the woman’s (Mary’s) child that will crush Satan. But it says nothing about the House of David.
In Judaeism lineage was from the male. So Jesus was of the House of David by Joseph as both Matthew & Luke point out several times. They make a point of it because it is so important.

 

[Tom]

steve99:

As I have pointed out before this depends very much on the translation. The NAB says “your offspring and hers” not seed. But Genesis is only saying that it will be the woman’s (Mary’s) child that will crush Satan. But it says nothing about the House of David.
In Judaeism lineage was from the male. So Jesus was of the House of David by Joseph as both Matthew & Luke point out several times. They make a point of it because it is so important.

Still in the context of the prophesy in Isaias chapter 7, it is referring to the house of David alone and specifically:
www.drbo.org:

Is 7,11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God either unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above. 12 And Achaz said: I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. 13 And he said: Hear ye therefore, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

This ties Gn in since Mary is the virgin.
www.drbo.org:

Gn 3, 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed

At Mass last night I noticed the commentary in our booklet for December 18, that is says Mary is of the house of David, I know that is just the authors opinion also, and the Early Church Fathers were also only giving their opinions, I simply agree with them, in any case it isn’t worth losing any sleep over and also is getting away from the subject of this thread. May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.
Tom