Defending the Faith: Mary Without Sin? Part 2: The New Eve

We continue the last part in our two part series on one of the longest fought issues out on the theological battlefield - is Mary sinless?

We tackled the All Argument that so many evangelicals tend to raise in Part 1. Today, we dig deeper into the Word and seek to discover if Mary is the culmination of what perfected grace should look like on Earth. And is it possible that God intended for her to be the perfected Eve - the New Eve.

The Evangelical Stance - Since we have seen numerous examples throughout the Bible that "all" does not always mean "all" in the absolute (and indeed, the original word used was more understood as "most" instead of the absolute "all"), we have identified exceptions to the "all". So we can discount Romans 3:10, 12, 23 as a justifiable argument. At this point, we must turn to the Word to see if any examples exist of Mary sinning. The evangelicals turn their sights on the wedding feast at Cana: "When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' And Jesus said to her, 'O woman, what have you to do with me?' " (John 2:3-4)

It is the belief, in our day and culture, because of Jesus' use of the word "woman", we understand it to be used disparagingly - as if Mary had hurt or upset Jesus' plans thereby doing something contrary to Jesus - thereby sinning and making her imperfect, just like you or I.

The Counter Argument - To answer this argument most effectively. We have to look back and build up to it. And to do that, we must look to Biblical typology - the predictive relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, or, the line(s) of parallel we can directly trace between people, events, or symbols in the Old Testament to their fulfilment or likeness in the New Testament. One of the most glaring and black-and-white is found first in Genesis 3:14b, 15b - 

 

    ^"The Lord God said to the serpent...

'I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your seed and her seed;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.' "

 

 

This verse (v. 15) is known throughout most of Christian theologies as the protoevangelium - which is understood more clearly as the "seed of woman" concept which gives Messianic and Marian interpretations and typological parallels to Jesus and Mary.

The word "enmity" means 'not under dominion' - in the case of v. 15, apart completely from the serpent, who is Satan. We read on that "she" is not from Satan's seed - a total opposition from it. It is also important to note that before the Fall in Genesis 3, who we now know as Adam and Eve were never referred to as that. In their pre-Fall perfected state, they were known only as Man and Woman. It is not until after the Fall when sin enters into the Garden that God renames Man as "Adam" in v. 17 and Woman as "Eve" in v. 20. Woman is translated by theologians to be understood as perfection in a pre-fall condition. Because Eve only received that new name after the Fall, it can be concluded that the "woman" mentioned in v. 15 will be like the first Woman (who we know by her post-fall condition name, Eve) before the Fall who was crated by God in perfection. 

Now, why is that important to understand? Because of the Biblical typology used in John's gospel. The first point of typology John uses is his parallel to the Creation Story in Genesis. John 1:1 begins with the words, "In the beginning..." as does Genesis 1:1. John 1:4-5 describes the light coming into the world as does Genesis 1:3. John also describes the dove descending just as it is described in Genesis 8. The similarities to each creation day continues throughout the first chapter of John. Four days are mentioned in the first chapter, when the wedding feast at Cana happens in chapter two, verse one begins with, "On the third day...." Four plus three equals seven. Seven days of creation. Is this a coincidence accidentally made by John or was it a purposeful example of Biblical typology used by John to clue in his Jewish readers to reveal the beginning of the new Creation Story that was to begin again with Jesus Christ's coming? We assert that it is most certainly the latter and not the former. 

We see the typology occurring in Genesis 3:15 where the author identifies the conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ. We now must ask who is the woman at enmity with the serpent that is Satan? John, because of his strong use of typology answers that question for us - with a little help from Luke.

John uses the parallels of the creation story in his opening chapter to show the parallel to his Jewish readers and the new creation story begins at the wedding feast. For as you had the old creation with the old Adam, you now have the new Adam who is identified typologically as Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:45, and following this typology, Christ calls Mary WOMAN. The exact word that is used in Genesis 3:15 to denote the perfection of the pre-fall condition. She is the new Eve. Jesus' seemingly (in today's culture) unapproving use of the word "woman" is meant not to berate but to distinguish her, as Luke does, as blessed among all other women. These are no more random coincidences that just magically parallel by happenstance than are the over 300 prophecies that Jesus himself fulfilled. These parallels, these examples are Biblical typology in action that point us to a deeper understanding of our faith.

As a post-script, how does Luke provide fodder for this assertion that Mary is without sin? In Luke 1:28, we read the angelic address of Mary given by Gabriel, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" In today's world, that doesn't mean too much, other than giving honor. But in the original Greek, it means so, so, so very much more. For an angel to say "Hail" to a lowly human is a very, very big deal. In fact, no where else in the entire Bible is anyone addressed in this way except for Jesus Christ himself. Gabriel is addressing Mary with the highest form of royalty and honor possible - truly, on the same level as Christ Himself. Then he says something even more profound and unique in this one verse out of all the others in the entire Bible. Gabriel address Mary not as Mary but as, "full of grace."

Why is this important? The original Greek word for "full of grace" used here is kekaritomene. Luke choses not only this word but the conjugation carefully and deliberately. When we read "full of grace" we are reading the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as Luke's "name" for Mary. This word literally means "she who has been graced". But most importantly, because of the conjugation used it means that in a completed sense. "Full of grace" is not just describing a simple past action. There is actually an entirely different conjugated tense for that. The tense used by Luke is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. "Full of grace" is Gabriel's name for Mary. So what does it tell us about Mary? It means she is different than most anyone who walks this earth because we know, according to Philippians 3:8-12, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense. But according to the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28, Jesus Christ himself in John 2:4, and the writer of Genesis 3:15, MARY IS. As Christians though we try hard, we sin, and when we sin we have a lack of grace or cooperation with it. Grace simply cannot be complete in our lives because we sin. These three passages give us great insight into the unique character and calling of Mary. Only Mary is given the name "full of grace" and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent sinless state of Mary was completed.

 

Read Mary Without Sin? Part 1: The "All" Argument here.

Defending the Faith: Mary Without Sin? Part 1: The "All" Argument

This next issue is one of the big ones that has been fought out on the theological battlefield for countless years...

The Evangelical Stance - There are two main verses that most all Protestants attack the belief that Mary was sinless with

1. "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23)
2. "There is no one righteous, not even one...all have turned away..." (Romans 3:10, 12)

In our modern day culture, this in and of itself is very absolute. The word "all" is 100% inclusive in our English language...or at least that's what many Protestant theologians would want us to believe. When one takes that word and adds in "not even one" as extra theological ammunition, it seems pretty cut and dry. Every one on earth are sinners and fall short of God's glory. You can't get much more black and white than that.
 
Or can you?

The Counter Argument - The first problem that arises with the argument of an imperfect Mary are in the exact verses that claim that she was imperfect. What does that mean? Let's break down each verse:

•  "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23)


• At first, this seems absolute - but we must ask ourselves, is it? Does all literally mean all in the absolute? Could this all include exceptions? And the answer is a resounding yes. How do we know? Firstly, it's common sense. If Paul means all (every single person on earth has sinned - and remember, Paul is only speaking of personal sin here ) have sinned, he believes that an 11 week old baby has sinned. He believes that a severely disabled person who is not in control of their decisions or faculties are sinful. He also believes that Jesus himself was a sinner.
  
  But is that what Paul means? Of course not. Can a baby that young sin? No. Can a severely disabled person sin? No. And here comes the wow factor - Christians believe that Jesus was 100% divine, yes. But he was also 100% human through and though. So per Paul's statement, that "all" would apply to Christ himself because of His 100% humanity. But of course we know that Jesus never sinned. So based on this, there are exceptions to Paul's "all". So knowing that there is one exception to the absolute "all", can there be others? Yes. Tons of them.
• Matthew 3:5 speaking about John baptizing in the River Jordan says that, "Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan..." Did literally all the inhabitants of all three of those countries and regions come to be baptized by John? No of course not. He couldn't ker-plunk 'em fast enough. And certainly the Pharisees of those areas who were solidly against his teachings would never have shown up to be baptized.
• In 1 Corinthians 15:22, Paul says that, "For as in Adam all die..." Does he literally mean all people die? No. Because we see in 2 Kings 2 and in Genesis 5:24 that, respectively, Elijah and Enoch both did not die but instead, we taken into heaven by God himself.
• In Romans 11:26 we read that, "all Israel will be saved." Is this literal? Of course not. There are those in Israel then and now who denounced and do not believe in Christ. So again, we see major exceptions to the "All" Argument.

And perhaps the biggest deconstruction of the "All" Argument is found in the original translation of Paul's letter to the Romans. Our English translates as "all" what the original Greek means as "most". And that, should put to bed the "All" Argument to bed once and for all as nothing more than a simple misunderstanding of a word that was used in Romans 3:23 and throughout other parts of the Bible as only a generic universality to stress a very important point.  


•  "There is no one righteous, not even one...all have turned away..." (Romans 3:10, 12)
• Again, we see Paul (though he is not using "all") using a style of generic universality for the purposes of proving his point. We can deconstruct this in the same way that we deconstructed the absoluteness of Romans 3:23. We can deconstruct it even more once we realize that Paul is actually quoting the Old Testament in this moment - Psalms 14:3 to be precise. This Psalm at is core is about the denunciation of Godlessness but it is written in the literary sense of universality and not absoluteness.

The question of, "Is Mary without sin", cannot be simply answered in once succinct blog post. It is much too in depth for that. So for today's post we have answered a very important foundational question that will pave the way to answering the ultimate question of her sinlessness - are there exceptions to the "All" Argument. And the answer, proven through multiple examples of Scripture is yes.

So if there are exceptions, could Mary actually be sinless. We will find out in Part II!