For Easter Sunday, I decided to post a story I wrote a few years ago. I also thought it would be cool to see what else other bloggers posted for the most important celebration in Christianity. What I found ranges from light reading through heavy articles on the historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

• What the Resurrection Means for Believers from Rebecca Writes
• He Is Risen by Revenge of Mr Dumpling
• The Greatest News Ever Heard by Billy Graham
• One Sunday morning long ago by Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping
• Easter Challenge by Tod Bolsinger of It Takes A Church…
• The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Fact by Benjamin B. Warfield
• The Risen Jesus by Benjamin B. Warfield
• The Resurrection of Christ by J. Gresham Machen
• Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
• The Resurrection of Christ and the Reality of the Gospel by Albert Mohler

The Commander was shouting as he burst in. “My Lord! My Lord! They have arrested your son!”

“I knew they would.” came the calm reply.

“But my Lord,” protested the Commander, “he has never done anything wrong!”

“I know.” The reply was as calm as before. “When I sent him among them, I knew that most of them would not want to hear what he had to say. This was their response.”

“If you knew this was going to happen, then why did you send him?”

“I sent him for those who would receive him.”

“But there are so few!” protested the Commander.

“They are enough. They are a beginning.” replied the Lord.

“Then your son’s mission is finished, my Lord. Let me go rescue him.”

“NO!” The answer was swift and final. “His mission is not yet finished. You are to return and watch. No more.”

The Commander saluted. “As you wish, my Lord.” Then with a bow he was gone.

A short while later he was back, even more agitated than before.

“Yes, Commander?” asked the Lord.

“They’ve held a trial, my Lord. He has been condemned to death!” The Commander was almost visibly shaking.

“So he has.” replied the Lord.

“But my Lord,” cried the Commander. “It was not even a fair trial! They held it in the middle of the night. They had false witnesses who told lies about him. And even though your son told the truth, they would not believe him. In fact, they based their sentencing on his own words! This was not justice, my Lord. This was…”

“Condemning him for their own faults.” interrupted the Lord.

“Yes, my Lord.” said the Commander.

“This was also part of his mission.”

“I, I don’t understand my Lord,” the Commander stammered.

“Then return and watch, Commander. That is your mission; to watch and learn.”

“As you wish, my Lord.” And once again, the Commander was gone.

“A murderer!” the Commander shouted.

“Excuse me, Commander?”

The Commander was almost beside himself. “A murderer, I said. They chose a murderer over your son!”

“Please elaborate, Commander.”

“After the trial, they took your son to the local governor for execution. After talking with your son, he realized that your son did not deserve to be put to death. So he decided to offer a choice to the crowd that was watching. He let them choose between freeing your son or the most rotten murderer in his prison. I was sure they would choose to free your son. But they chose to free the murderer instead. Please, my Lord, please let me rescue him!”

“No, Commander. That cannot be.”

“But why, my Lord?”

“His mission is still not finished, Commander. There is more for him to do.”

“How, my Lord? How can he complete his mission in the midst of such obvious hostility? Some of those people that called for his death were the same people that welcomed him into the city only one week ago! It’s almost as if…”

“As if they too want to blame him for their own faults and failures.”

“Yes, my Lord,” replied the Commander. “Is this also part of his misson?”

“It is, Commander. Now it is time for you to return and watch.”

“As you wish, my Lord. But I still do not understand.”

“You will, Commander. You will.”

The Commander was back. This time, the agitation was gone.

“Yes, Commander?” asked the Lord.

The Commander’s voice was shaking. “It’s over, my Lord. Your son is dead.”

“I know, Commander. I know.” The softness of the reply startled the Commander.

“My Lord, you’ve been crying!”

“Yes, Commander.”

“Did you know this would happen, my Lord?”

“Yes, Commander.”

“Then why did you send your son?”

“Because there was no other way, Commander. I sent my son to bring the people back to me.”

“But my Lord, how can he bring anyone back to you if he is dead?”

“Return and watch, Commander. Then you will understand.”

Three days later, the Commander finally understood.

Last week I started a parallel series to my series on Romanism and Ales Rarus. In this series, I’m comparing what the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church” (CCC) says about Mary to what the Bible says about her.

A Reply From Anonymous

Before I get back to the comparison, Ales Rarus has posted a reply from an anonymous writer.

1. Ed’s first point is that Mary cannot be the most perfect example of human faithfulness because: a) she’s no more faithful than Abraham; and b) she seems to have had doubts over the course of Christ’s life.

That’s a fair summary, with one exception…

In response, I would note that: a) Before God asked Abraham to be faithful, He promised Abraham a number of rewards for faithfulness. See Gen. 17.

Yes, God did make promises to Abraham. But Abraham did not live to see them fulfilled.

All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

(Heb. 11:13, NASB)

In fact, in the biggest test of his life, God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac — which would have ended the promised descendents via Isaac — without giving him any new promises.

Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” And He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

(Gen. 22:1-2, NASB)

Yet Abraham’s faith was so strong that he obeyed God without question.

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

(Heb. 11:17-19, NIV)

Anonymous continued with:

But He promised nothing to Mary directly, yet she was nevertheless willing to do his will.

On the contrary, Mary received a promise very similar to the one Abraham received in Genesis 17:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.”

(Luke 1:31-33, NASB)

In general, I think Anonymous missed the main point. The CCC teaches that Mary’s faith is superior to Abraham’s. Yet the Bible praises Abraham’s faith as being superior (Hebrews 11:11–19) but says very little about Mary’s faith.

Success? Or Failure?

And b) the doubts that Mary had were not, as Ed claims, evidence of a weak faith; they were tests of faith that Mary passed. Simeon warned Mary that “you yourself a sword will pierce,” Luke 2:35, and his prophecy came true in each of the instances Ed cites.

What are doubts, if not weak faith?

And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.

(Mark 16:14, NASB)

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

(Mark 16:14, NIV)

In some translations, “unbelief” is translated as “lack of faith” because the greek word απιστια (apistia) means both. From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

2. want of faith, unbelief: shown in withholding belief in the divine power, Mark 16:14, or in the power and promises of God, Rom. 4:20; Heb. 3:19; in the divine mission of Jesus, Matt. 13:58; Mark 6:6; by opposition to the gospel, 1 Tim. 1:13; with the added notion of obstinacy, Rom. 11:20, 23; Heb. 3:12. contextually, weakness of faith: Matt. 17:20 (where L T Tr WH oligopistian); Mark 9:24. (In Greek writings from Hesiod and Herodotus down.)*

Emphasis mine

If I had acted as Mary did — going with Jesus’ brothers to help bring Him home because they thought he was out of His mind — I would not consider that a high point of faith in my life especially when Jesus said, in essence, that they were not His mother and brothers because they were not doing “God’s Will.” Remember, this woman was told by an angel that Jesus was the “Son of the Most High” yet she at least entertained enough doubts about that fact to go help bring Jesus home. The Bible doesn’t say whether Mary also thought Jesus was out of His mind, but it is possible that she may have thought so as well. One thing is for certain, she did not oppose Jesus’ brothers, therefore her faith in Jesus was lacking.

As for a sword piercing Mary’s soul, yes, the scriptures do indicate that Mary would be tested. Compare that phrase in its context with Hebrews 4:12.

And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed — and a sword will pierce even your own soul — to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

(Luke 2:34-35, NASB)

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

(Heb. 4:12, NASB)

I had thought that the image of a sword piercing Mary’s soul was merely referring to the mental anguish she would suffer when Jesus was tortured and crucified, and that appears to be part of what Simeon was saying. Yet the word order of the NASB translation (which is the word order of the original Greek) indicates that Mary’s thoughts and intentions would also be tested. However, there is no indication or promise that she would always pass. And in the two instances I’ve cited, if (or more accurately, when) I’ve reacted to God as Mary did, my lack of faith in God are failures, not successes.

“Sinless New Eve”

And as for Mary being a “sinless New Eve”, Anonymous wrote:

2. Ed’s second point is that Mary cannot rightly be considered a sinless “New Eve” because: a) she calls God her Savior in Luke 1, and the sinless do not need a savior; and b) there is no explicit scriptural support for Mary as a sinless “New Eve.”

In response, I would note that: a) you can “save” people in two ways: getting them out of trouble, or keeping them from getting into it in the first place. Knocking someone out of the path of a speeding car saves that person just as much as providing medical care in the event that he is hit. God saved Mary from sin by keeping her from it; he saves us from sin by getting us out of it.

But what about the scripture passages that say all have sinned and the ones which state that only Jesus was without sin?

And b) Ed is right that there is no explicit scriptural support for calling Mary a sinless “New Eve.” But this is not a problem for Catholics, who don’t demand explicit scriptural support in the way that Protestants do. Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible in that it preached before the Bible was written, and it chose the Books that were to become part of the Bible (choosing the synoptic Gospels over the gnostic ones, etc.). For this reason, the Church can proclaim a doctrine without explicit scripural support, for the Bible is a creature of the Church, and not the other way round.

Emphasis mine

This is the heart of the matter. Is it legitimate for “the church” to proclaim a doctrine which has no scriptural support or not? The answer to that question is where I am headed with both this series and “Romanism and Ales Rarus”. But I am not yet ready to provide the answer. That will require its own post. For now, I am content to point out that the RCC teachings about Mary do not have “explicit scriptural support.”

Doggone it! This was just supposed to be a quick response before returning to the CCC. But, seeing as this post is already exceedingly long, that will have to wait for Part 3.

To be continued…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1

Before I get into this reply, I would like to note that Ales Rarus has won a Warnie award. Congratulations Funky!

After my last posting on Mary, Funky Dung posted a brief reply noting my essay and posting two articles from his archives. Neither article was a direct response, and no additional discussion took place in comments, so I can’t really identify where we might agree or disagree on what I last wrote.

The first posting from his archive discussed the issue of praying to the dead as a justification for praying to Mary. Since such a topic encompasses more than just Mary, I’m going to set that discussion aside for another day so I can focus on the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) view of Mary.

Not only did Funky post the two articles, he also posted a link to an online version of the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church” (CCC) — the official teachings of the RCC. Because the entire point of this discussion is the teachings of Romanism in comparison to the Bible, I’ve decided to go right to the source.

The CCC is a very long and scholarly document. It consists of 2,865 numbered paragraphs. Most paragraphs include multiple footnotes detailing the source of each teaching. So let’s take a look at what Romanism teaches about Mary and the source of those teachings.

Mary’s Faith

The first mention of Mary (based on the subject index) is paragraph 144:

144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

This paragraph is actually a summary statement containing no footnotes. The detailed explanation of Mary’s faith is offered in paragraphs 148-149:

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that “with God nothing will be impossible” and so giving her assent: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.”12 Elizabeth greeted her: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary’s faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God’s word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.

12 Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.
13 Lk 1:45.
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.

For the most part, these teachings match scripture. But there are differences. The idea that Mary’s faith never wavered doesn’t match Mark 3:21, 31-35.

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
…

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:21,31-35, NIV)

Notice that Mark specifies that his family went to collect Jesus because they thought He had lost it. But when they — including Mary — arrived to take Jesus home, He refused because they were opposing “God’s will.”

Furthermore, to claim that Mary’s faith was better than Abraham’s is severely overstating the case. If her faith truly was superior, then it should have been mentioned at least once in the theological books of the New Testament when faith is discussed. But after the book of Acts mentions that Mary and her sons were praying with the apostles in the upper room on the day of Pentacost, she is never mentioned again. If her faith was superior/perfect, then she should certainly have at least been mentioned with other heros of faith in Hebrews chapter 11.

On the contrary, Jesus himself caused her anxiety and confusion by obeying God’s will when He was 12 years old. (See the entire story in Luke 2:41-52.)

And when they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” And they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

(Luke 2:48-50, NASB)

Notice that Mary forgot that God was Jesus’ father and that Jesus’ rebuke went over her head. And anxiety is a sign of weak faith:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

(Phil. 4:6, NASB)

In short, the Bible never states that Mary’s faith was superior, perfect or unwavering. On the other hand, it definitely shows that Mary worried that Jesus was doing the wrong thing in at least two instances.

New Eve

Mary is next mentioned in paragraph 411:

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20.
306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.

Take a look at the footnotes again. The description of Jesus as the “New Adam” is well supported by scripture. However there is no scriptural support for calling Mary a “New Eve.” That doctrine is a pure invention of the RCC. It also places Mary on the same level as Jesus Christ as having some part in our salvation.

Not only that, the claim is made here that Mary was sinless for her entire life. Quite simply, the Bible never says that! In fact, it says the opposite:

And Mary said:
“My soul exalts the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

(Luke 1:46-47, NASB)

The sinless do not need a savior.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(Rom. 3:23, NASB) Emphasis mine

as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;”

(Rom. 3:10, NASB) Emphasis mine

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

(1John 1:10, NASB)

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

(Rom. 5:19, NASB) Emphasis mine

Did you catch that? One not Two.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

(2Cor. 5:21, NASB)

Again, Jesus is the only (singular) one without sin.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;

(1Pet. 2:21-22, NASB)

And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

(1John 3:5, NASB)

As you can see, there is plenty of scriptural support for Jesus being sinless. (This sampling only scratched the surface.) There is also plenty of scriptural support for all of humanity being sinners. (Again, I only scratched the surface.) There is a reference where Mary calls God her savior. And there is absolutely no scriptural support for the idea that Mary never sinned.

I’ve also already discussed that it was necessary for Mary to have a sin nature in Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply.

Without scriptural support, raising Mary (or anyone) to equivalence with Jesus amounts to blasphemy. It’s possible that later portions of the CCC may offer scriptural support. But the lack of such references right next to solid references for Jesus’ position makes such a possibility highly unlikely.

More To Come

Obviously, the CCC has much more to say about Mary. My copy of the CCC has 13 tabs marking spots which discuss Mary. I’ve only hit the first four.

To be continued…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

A Thought For Today…

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.

(1 John 3:2, NASB)

And now, from C.S. Lewis’ essay, “The Weight Of Glory”:

Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her. When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol; but it is the symbol Scripture invites me to use. We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects.

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you [saw] it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations — these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.

Emphasis in original. One typo fixed. British spellings retained.

From “The Weight Of Glory” by C.S. Lewis. Every christian should read this essay. Period.

Every person you meet today is either going to spend eternity with God or in torment. Does your conduct reflect that reality?