Sheed and the Com-Passion of the Virgin Mary

1. Sheed’s Approach to the Com-Passion of Mary
   • Sheed and the Remoteness of Jesus toward His Mother
     • In Scripture we see what Sheed refers to as “remoteness” between Jesus and His mother, especially at the time of that “strange” episode where the twelve-year-old Jesus is found in the Temple, and at the wedding feast in Cana.
       • “His mother said to him, ‘Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.’ And he said to them, ‘How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’” (Lk 2:48-49).
       • “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? My hour has not yet come’” (Jn 2:3-5).
     • Now, remoteness and love are incompatible. Consequently, either Jesus did not have a special filial love for His mother, or there is an explanation for this remoteness that is not readily apparent.
     • It is inconceivable that the Son of God would fail to love His mother; hence, we need to explain the apparent remoteness that He shows toward her.
   • Doctrine of the Com-Passion
     • Sheed writes: “The Church, in her doctrine of the com-passion of Our Lady, explains in marvelous combination both the apparent remoteness and the immeasurable love [of Jesus for His mother]” (320-3).
       • Note that Sheed is not saying his explanation of Jesus’ apparent remoteness toward His mother is the Church’s teaching, but only that the Church’s teaching of the Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix provides one way of explaining the apparent remoteness.
       • The title, “Co-Redemptrix”, tells us that the Virgin Mary had a unique sharing in her Son’s redemptive act.
         • But note that all of us are called to a real share in His Redemptive act, His Passion, though to a lesser degree. So much so that our salvation is dependent upon it:
           • “We are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:16-17).
         • Hence, St. Paul writes:
           • “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24).
   • Remoteness and the Virgin Mary’s Self-Denial
     • Sheed explains the apparent remoteness of Jesus toward her in this way:
       • “It does seem at least possible that for the increase of supernatural love, she denied herself not, of course any tiniest degree of His natural love, but some of the intimacies and consolations that normally flow from the natural relation of mother and son. . . . What else had she that she could deny herself?” (324-2).
     • In this, Sheed is implying two things about the Virgin Mary’s com-passion:
       • First, in her life, there was nothing the Virgin Mary could deny herself other than “some of the intimacies and consolations that normally flow from the natural relation of mother and son.”
         • Life is full of opportunities for self-denial, so it is hard to see how that would not be the case for the Virgin Mary. Hence, there seems to be no reason to limit the possibilities of self-denial for her.
           • “The life of man upon earth is a warfare, and his days are like the days of a hireling” (Job 7:1 DR).
       • Second, following from the first, the principal element of her share in the Passion of Christ consisted of the self-denial of these “intimacies and consolations.”
2. The Divine Pedagogy of Remoteness
   • A Pattern of Remoteness
     • Jesus’ apparent “remoteness” toward His mother has many parallels in the Gospels where Jesus is speaking in a similar manner to other people. Some examples follow below:
       • To the Canaanite woman: “But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ And he answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs’” (Mt 15:25-26)
       • To a man: “And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’” (Mk 10:17-18).
       • To the disciples: “And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?’” (Mk 4:39-40)
       • To Nicodemus: “Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can this be?’ Jesus answered him, ‘Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?’” (Jn 3:9-10)
       • To an individual in the crowd: “One of the multitude said to him, ‘Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.’ But he said to him, ‘Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?’” (Lk 12:13-14).
       • To Peter: “And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men’ (Mk 8:32-33)
       • To a man and the crowd: “‘And I begged your disciples to cast it out, but they could not.’ Jesus answered, ‘O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here’” (Lk 9:40-41).
       • To the Pharisees: “‘Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word’” Jn 8:53-55).
   • Remoteness or an Appeal to Self-Reflection
     • For every example listed above, one can see that Jesus’ apparently “remote” or “harsh” words can also be seen as a method that is used to draw a particular good out of the one to whom He is speaking, or to bring out the true motives of that person.
     • For example, the Canaanite woman, a pagan, responds to Him, after what looks like an insult, with an astonishing expression of faith and humility:
       • “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (Mt 15:27).
     • It seems to me that the apparent remoteness of Jesus toward His mother is more readily explained when understood as a means of drawing out some aspects of her faith, as will be shown later.

Review of Concepts and Principles

1. Person and Nature
   • Human Nature: Body and Soul
     • In order to explore God’s plan for man’s restoration more deeply, we need to get a better idea of who and what man is by considering the words person and nature as they apply to mankind.
     • We tend to think of man as being a composition of body and soul; the reality is that body and soul only form one aspect of man, his human nature. Man is what he is because he possesses human nature.
       • Similarly, a dog is what it is because of its canine nature, and a cat is what it is because of its feline nature. Everything that exists has a nature that determines what it is.
   • Personality
     • Another aspect of man is his ontological personality.
       • This is not to be confused with psychological personality, which has to do with characteristics such as temperament, emotions, and other such attributes.
     • Ontological personality is that which identifies a particular individual as a unique person.
     • Note that personality is distinct from nature. It does not exist in nature but alongside of nature.
   • Person, Nature and the Special Case of Jesus
     • Recall that in the Incarnation, the second person of the Blessed Trinity united an instance of human nature to His divine nature.
     • Hence, in Jesus, we have the unique situation of a single person having two natures.
   • Moral Attribution
     • Both person and nature are involved in the moral actions of man, but in different ways:
       • It is person that commands actions; it is nature (body and soul) that carries out the commands.
     • Note that if I carry out a sinful act, the sin is attributed to person, not nature. Though carried out by nature, it is person who commands the act; hence, the guilt of the act is attributed to the individual person.
     • Hence, person is the center of moral attribution for the act.
       • If the act is evil, it is person who incurs guilt, and if the act is good, it is person who attains merit.
2. Principle of Mutual Dependence in Providential Activity
   • In dealing with mankind, there is a principle that determines what God will do for man: “It is not part of His purpose to do for men what they can very well do themselves, but only what they cannot.” He leaves the rest for man to do (292-2).
     • This can be called the principle of mutual dependency in providential activity. It is stated superbly by St. Augustine with respect to our restoration:
       • “He who has created you without yourself, does not justify [i.e., make the restoration applicable to] you without yourself. Thus He created you without your knowledge, but only with your agreement and your will does He justify you” (Augustine, Sermo 169, II, 13; as quoted in Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” p. 252).
   • “Just as in the act of atonement the humanity of Christ gave all that humanity had to give and the divinity of the person supplied only what human nature could not give” (292-2).
     • St. Paul writes: “In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24).
   • The same principle applies in the matter of dispensing truth to man. “God supplies what man cannot [supply], but expects man to do the uttermost that he can” (292-2).
3. Man’s Will Is Free from Coercion
   • Free Will and the Purpose of Man
     • Because man is a rational being, he has an intellect and a free will. By God’s design, the human will is inviolable. This means our wills are absolutely free from coercion.
     • God Himself cannot coerce a man into doing something contrary to that man’s will.
     • The reason for the absolute freedom of man’s will is that man is made for the union of deification, and the union of deification is based on the theological virtue of charity.
       • “So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16).
     • Now, an act of charity is a moral act, and a necessary component of a moral act is the consent of the will. But man cannot give his consent to anything unless his will is absolutely free from coercion.
     • Consequently, in order for man to attain his purpose in life, the union of deification, his will must be absolutely free from coercion.
     • All of this is not to say that God does nothing to move our wills, for that is exactly the purpose of actual grace, which gives us the motives and strength to carry out the good works God desires of us.
     • However, He gives us this grace with the greatest reverence for our wills. We can easily resist the grace, and it we are not paying attention, we may not even notice the grace.
       • “Cum magna reverentia disponit” [He disposes with great reverence (Wis 12:18)] (De Concilio, The Knowledge of Mary, 72).
       • “Truly, you are a God who hides yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior” (Is 45:15).
4. The Measure of Honor and Offense
   • The Principle of Offense
     • Notice that an offense directed against a person holding no civil office (e.g., an ordinary neighbor) is considered to be of lesser degree than an offense directed against the mayor of a city, which is, in turn, considered to be of lesser degree than an offense directed against the governor of a state, which is, similarly, considered to be of lesser degree than an offense directed against the president of a country.
     • Consequently, we recognize the principle that offense is measured relative to the dignity of the office held by the person to whom the offense was directed.
   • The Principle of Honor
     • An honor bestowed by a person holding no civil office is valued less than an honor bestowed by the mayor of a city, which is, in turn, valued less than an honor bestowed by the governor of a state, which is, similarly, valued less than an honor bestowed by the president of a country.
     • Consequently, we easily recognize the principle that honor is measured relative to the dignity of the person who bestows the honor.

The Fall of Man

1. The Sin of Adam Flows to His Descendants
   • The Biological Unity of Mankind
     • In a certain sense, the entire human race was in Adam from the beginning, for Eve came from Adam’s side, and all of humanity has come from Adam and Eve through natural generation.
       • “[God] made from one [man] every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).
     • Because we were all in Adam from the beginning, it follows that Adam is the biological head of the entire human family, and in his state of innocence he was also the moral head of the entire human family.
   • The Sin of Adam
     • Adam sinned by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His sin damaged his nature, which is the nature he would pass on to his descendants.
     • Being the head of the human race, Adam was the “representative man.” The nature he possessed would be passed on to his descendants.
     • Because his nature was tainted by sin, the nature we receive from him is tainted by sin. Hence, in a certain sense, the entire human race sinned in Adam.
       • It is a personal sin for Adam; it is a sin “contracted” through generation for his descendants. We call this sin Original Sin.
       • It should be noted that both Adam and Eve sinned, but Scripture refers to Original Sin as the sin of Adam, because he is the biological head of the human race.
       • It would be proper to speak of their distinctive roles in this manner: Sin entered the world through Eve; condemnation came upon us through Adam.
         • “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (Sir 25:24).
         • “One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Rom 5:18).
   • Infinite Debt and Infinite Breach
     • Applying the principle of offense to the sin of Adam, we observe that God is an infinite being. As such, His dignity is necessarily infinite. Accordingly, Adam’s sin was an offense of infinite measure.
       • “A sin [involving grave matter] committed against God [i.e., a turning away from our last end] has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend the more grievous the offense” (Summa III, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2).
     • There are two principal effects that follow from this:
       • First: Because every mortal sin is an offense against divine justice, Adam’s sin incurred for himself an infinite debt to divine justice.
       • Second: Because mortal sin is an act in which the finite sinner separates himself from the God, who is infinite, Adam created an infinite breach between God and himself.
   • The State of Man after Adam’s Sin
     • As long as the infinite breach stood between God and man, heaven was closed to mankind, for finite man could not pay the infinite debt, and finite man could not close the infinite breach.
     • When God created Adam, there were two terminal options that lay before him: heaven and hell. Adam’s sin took the former option off the table; hence, the only terminal destination left for man, apart from an intervention by God, was hell.
       • “One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Rom 5:18).

Requirements for the Restoration of Man to Grace

1. Man’s Ultimate Purpose: Union with God
   • The Beatific Vision
     • Recall that the ultimate purpose of man is union with God via the Beatific Vision. We can call this the union of deification.
     • Adam was created in a union of sonship with the Father. That union was intended to grow into the transforming union in this life, resulting in the ultimate union with God that is the union of deification in the Beatific Vision of the life to come.
     • All three of these types of union were out of reach for the descendants of Adam, due to the infinite breach between God and man.
     • Finite man could do nothing to close the breach. If the breach were to be closed, it could only be closed by an infinite person.
     • Though union with God in the Beatific Vision was no longer a possibility, man did not lose his purpose when Adam sinned.
       • The eternal disposition of God is that “[He] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).
     • Consequently, God’s intervention was assured, for it would be contrary to God’s wisdom to desire that all men be saved and at the same time to fail to do for man what man could not do on his own to bring about his restoration to grace so as to be able to enter into the union of deification.
   • The First Requirement for the Restoration of Man
     • It follows that the restoration of man required the action of an infinite person. In this we have the first of four requirements for the restoration of the human race.
2. The Principle of Minimal Intervention
   • The Law of God’s Wisdom
     • “To act wisely . . . is to act for a reasonable motive. To act . . . without a reason or motive is to act without intelligence, and could never be supposed of God, who is intelligence itself. Now, to intervene by an extraordinary display of power, in order to produce an effect which could be obtained with the forces already existing in creation, would be to act without a reason – in fact, against reason, as it would be letting forces and energies go to waste. God, therefore, . . . cannot intervene by an extraordinary effort of his action to produce an effect otherwise obtainable from the forces already in existence” (De Concilio, The Knowledge of Mary, 74).
   • The Limits of Intervention
     • “It is the law of the wisdom of God never to do a thing by an extraordinary intervention of His power whenever that same effect can be obtained by the natural development of the forces already existing in creation” (De Concilio, The Knowledge of Mary, 74).
     • Clearly, God’s intervention in the restoration of man was assured. But His intervention could only happen according to the law of His wisdom.
   • Summary Statement of the Principle of Minimal Intervention
     • It follows from what was stated above that if God were to intervene in the affairs of creation in a manner that went beyond what was necessary, He would be engaging in an action that had no motive. This would be contrary to His wisdom.
     • Accordingly, the principle of minimal intervention states that God’s intervention in the affairs of creation will necessarily be done in a minimal manner. In other words, there is no superfluity in the interventions of God.
   • The Second Requirement for the Restoration of Man
     • It follows that the restoration of man would necessarily be done according to the principle of minimal intervention. In this we have the second of four requirements for the restoration of the human race.
3. A Problem of Moral Restitution
   • Man’s Restoration Contingent on Man’s Restitution
     • Man’s indebted state following Adam’s sin is analogous to that of a man who has taken or damaged another person’s property. The natural law obliges him to make restitution.
       • This law finds privileged expression in the seventh commandment.
     • God Himself can suffer no loss, for He is immutable. But there was an element of disorder introduced into the context of reality, and that moral loss is reflected in creation:
       • “And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you” (Gen 3:17).
     • Because the loss was caused through human personality and human nature, the natural law requires restitution through human personality and human nature, to the extent that is possible.
   • The Third Requirement for Restoration
     • It follows that the restoration of man requires the active participation of human nature and human personality to the extent such participation is possible. In this we have the third of four requirements for the restoration of the human race.
4. A Human Person Willed Separation from God on Behalf of the Human Race
   • Adam’s Choice of Separation
     • When Adam sinned, he made a freely willed choice to break the bond of sonship with God.
     • This choice, made by a human person on behalf of the human race, could not be reversed by God without the consent of the human race. There are two reasons for this, one general and one particular.
       • First: The general reason is found is God’s reverence for the freedom of man’s will. If God were to redeem man without man’s consent, He would necessarily violate the free will of the human race that had been expressed by Adam as head of the race.
       • Second: The particular reason is that the restoration of man would be a restoration to the union of sonship with God. This is a supernatural union, and supernatural unions (marriage, for example) can only be entered into with the express consent of those partaking of the union.
         • “It is the law of the wisdom of God not to effect any other union [apart from the necessary Inion of existence] with his rational creatures, except and upon the express condition of their voluntary and free consent” (De Concilio, The Knowledge of Mary, 71).
         • “He who has created you without yourself [i.e., without your consent], does not justify you without yourself. Thus He created you without your knowledge, but only with your agreement and your will does He justify you” (Augustine, Sermo 169, II, 13; Summa I-II, q.3, a. 3, as quoted in Ott, 252)
         • “Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman, through an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept each other in order to establish marriage” (CCL 1057, #2).
         • Order of unions: natural union (of existence), union of sonship, transforming union (confirmation in grace), union of deification.
   • The Fourth Requirement for the Restoration of Man
     • It follows that the restoration of man required the consent of a human person having the moral authority to speak on behalf of all human persons. In this we have the fourth of four requirements for the restoration of the human race.

Summary of the Requirements for Restoration

1. The Requirements Could Be Known by Philosophy
   • As we summarize these four requirements for restoration, it should be noted that if a philosopher was provided with the initial conditions of man’s situation, a philosopher could reason to them without the aid of divine revelation.
2. The Three Necessities for the Restoration of the Human Race
   • An Infinite Person:
     • The infinite debt to justice would have to be paid before the infinite breach between God and man could be healed.
     • Hence, the infinite debt could only be paid by an infinite person who would be capable of infinite moral actions.
   • Minimal Intervention: Natural Forces Must Have Their Role
     • The wisdom of God precludes an “extraordinary intervention of [God’s] power whenever that same effect can be obtained by the natural development of the forces already existing in creation” (De Concilio).
     • It follows that the restoration of man would necessarily be done according to the principle of minimal intervention.
   • Restitution by Mankind: Active Participation by Human Personality and Human Nature
     • The natural law, written by God into the conscience of man, obliges him to make restitution when he has unjustly caused the loss or damage of that which rightly belongs to another.
     • Therefore, human personality and human nature must actively participate in the restoration of man, to the extent such participation is possible.
   • Consent of Mankind: The Inviolable Human Will and the Union of Sonship
     • A supernatural union requires the express consent of the parties involved. Hence, the restoration of man requires the consent of a human person who could speak on behalf of all human persons.
     • Consequently, it was necessary that a human person in a position of moral headship over the human race so as to be able to consent to the restoration of man in lieu of the consent of individual human persons.

The Plan of Restoration

1. God Is under No Compulsion
   • God Was Not Bound to Restore Man to Grace
     • There are three things to keep in mind regarding God’s action in the restoration of man:
       • First, God was under no compulsion to bring about man’s restoration.
         • Having chosen self over God in Adam, man would not be treated unjustly if God “abandoned” man to go his own way, for it is actually man who abandoned God.
       • Second, if God were to choose to intervene and restore man to grace, he could do so in a variety of ways that are known only to God.
         • According to the wisdom of God, we expect that He would bring about man’s restoration in the most perfect manner.
       • Third, once God has set the requirements for man’s restoration, the requirements become necessities, but they are contingent necessities.
         • They don’t bind God; rather, God binds restoration to the fulfillment of these requirements.
   • The Plan of Restoration
     • Before the creation of the world, God had pre-ordained both the restoration of the race and the means by which the restoration would take place. His plan of intervention was announced almost immediately after Adam sinned. He 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” (Gen 3:15).
2. Fulfilling the Requirements for Restoration
   • Considering the Man and the Woman of Genesis 3:15
     • We are going to apply the requirements for restoration to the woman and the seed in Genesis 3:15 as though we do not know who they are, so as to consider God’s plan without any preconceived notions.
   • The First Requirement: The Moral Action of an Infinite person
     • As noted above, man’s restoration required an infinite moral action. Consequently, either the woman or the seed had to be an infinite person (i.e., God) so as to produce an infinite moral act.
   • The Second Requirement: The Use of Natural Forces to the Extent Possible
     • However, only one of the persons mentioned in Genesis 3:15 must be infinite. Applying the principle of minimal intervention, one of the two must be finite so that natural forces are used to the extent it is possible to use them.
   • The Third Requirement for the Restoration of Man
     • In Genesis 3:15, we can see that both the woman and the seed are necessary because they will both be at enmity with the Devil.
       • Such enmity is beyond human personality and human nature in the natural order; hence, it could only be brought by divine intervention.
       • If it were not necessary for both the woman and the seed to be at enmity with the Devil, then God’s intervention to “infuse” enmity with the Devil on the part of the finite person would be superfluous and, therefore, contrary to His wisdom.
     • Because one of the two persons mentioned must be finite, human personality and human nature will actively participate in the act of restitution that will bring about man’s restoration.
   • The Fourth Requirement for the Restoration of Man
     • Also, as noted above, the purpose of man’s restoration was to bring the human race back into the union of sonship with God. Since a union of persons can only come about through mutual consent, it is necessary that a finite person give explicit consent to the union.
       • This is analogous to marriage. Both the bride and the groom must give explicit consent that is witnessed as a condition for the validity of the marriage.
     • Because the union involved the human race, it is necessary that the consenting person be a human person having the moral authority to speak for all human persons, as Adam did when he sinned.
     • In Adam, the human race had chosen to separate itself from God. The restoration of man required that Adam’s choice be overturned by a higher moral authority, a moral authority who could overrule Adam’s choice.
3. Identification and Roles
   • The Infinite Person
     • We know that man was restored by the Passion and Death of Jesus. Accordingly, He is the “seed” in Genesis 3:15.
     • In Jesus, we have the infinite person needed for the morally good act of infinite value, and we have finite human nature, via the Incarnation, so that His moral act of infinite value can be executed through human nature.
       • Recall that person is the center of moral attribution.
   • A Human Person with Moral Authority Greater Than Adam’s
     • The woman of Genesis 3:15 is clearly the mother of Jesus. Of the two, only she can provide a human person’s consent to the restoration of man, for Jesus is not a human person.
       • The Council of Ephesus formally declared in 431 that Jesus is a divine person only; He is not a human person.
       • Jesus, being a divine person only, could not speak for the human persons that make up the human race, for that would be a case of God speaking to God, in which case there is no consent coming from a human person. This would be a violation of human will.
     • In order for the woman to be able to speak for all human persons, she must have a level of moral authority that supersedes that of Adam’s at the time of his sin.
     • Her moral authority comes from the fact that she is the mother of the head of the Mystical Body of Christ, and all the members of His Mystical Body are her spiritual children and thus inferior to her in terms of moral authority.
       • “Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members” (“Mystici Corporis Christi,” 110, quoted in “Mariology,” 408).
       • “When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’” (Jn 19:26).
   • What They Lacked
     • From what has been said above, we can see that there is necessarily something lacking in the man that the woman could provide, and there was necessarily something lacking in the woman that the man could provide.
       • If this were not the case, the restoration of man would not require both the man and the woman.
     • Jesus could not give consent to man’s restoration because he lacked human personality.
     • His mother could not pay the infinite debt because she lacked divinity.
     • But together, human personality (the woman’s) and human nature (the man’s) could and did bring about the restoration of man.
4. Singular Correspondence between Jesus and the Virgin Mary
   • Bless´ed and Blessed (Blest)
     • There is a correspondence (not an identity) between the blessedness of Jesus and the blessedness of the Virgin Mary. To see this correspondence properly, we need to consider the four ways in which the word we spell “b-l-e-s-s-e-d” is used in Scripture. We pronounce the word two different ways, “blest” and “bless´ed,” and each is used in two ways:
     • Regarding the word “bless´ed”:
       • First, it is used to refer to one who is confirmed in a state of holiness:
         • The Bless´ed Trinity (of course, rather than being merely “confirmed” in holiness, the Bless´ed Trinity is the source of holiness).
           • “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Bless´ed One?” (Mk 14:61 NAB).
         • The bless´ed in heaven (e.g., saints and angels)
           • “And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Bless´ed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.’ ‘Bless´ed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!’” (Rev 14:13).
       • Second, bless´ed is used as an expression of praise that acknowledges the holiness of one who is confirmed in holiness:
         • The Divine Praises: Bless´ed be God, Bless´ed be His holy name, Bless´ed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man . . . (acknowledgements of God’s holiness).
         • At the Offertory: Bless´ed be God forever.
         • At the Sanctus: Bless´ed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.
           • “Bless´ed be the LORD forever!” (Ps 89:52).
     • Regarding the word “blessed”, which is sometimes spelled “blest”:
       • First, it is used as a reference to one who has received a favor:
         • “But blessed are your eyes [i.e., the eyes of the Apostles], for they see, and your ears, for they hear” (Mt 13:16).
         • “Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes; truly, I say to you, he will gird himself and have them sit at table, and he will come and serve them” (Lk 12:37).
       • Second, it is used as an expression to acknowledge that one has received a favor.
         • “Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (Jdg 5:24).
           • Note: Jael is blessed because she was given the opportunity to kill Sisera, the general of the Canaanite army, which was oppressing Israel. It was by the Lord’s favor that Sisera was given up to the hands of the Israelites (Jdg 4:7, 9). The account says nothing about Jael’s holiness or lack thereof; it only speaks of the favor she received.
   • Regarding the Correspondence in Bless´edness
     • At the time of the Visitation, when the Virgin Mary entered the home of Elizabeth, a mere days after the Annunciation of the Lord, she “exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Bless´ed are you among women, and bless´ed is the fruit of your womb!’ (Lk 1:42).
       • The use of bless´ed in this verse cannot be other than an expression pointing to the holiness of the two subjects, Jesus and He mother. In the case of Jesus, only one meaning of the word is possible, for Elizabeth is not stating or acknowledging that Jesus received a favor; indeed, He is the favor! As the Son of God, He is necessarily in a confirmed state of holiness.
       • Furthermore, because the word is used in the “same breath” in speaking of the two subjects, the word necessarily has the same meaning for both.
     • During Jesus’ public ministry, “a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed [i.e., blest] is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!’ But he said, ‘Blessed [bless´ed] rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’” (Lk 11:27-28).
       • Note that in this passage we have “blessed/bless´ed” used twice and the context does not immediately reveal if Luke means “blessed” (favored) or “bless´ed” (confirmed in holiness) in his first use of the word.
       • The passage’s second use of the word clearly has the meaning of “bless´ed,” for Jesus is stating that a person’s blessedness/bless´edness is the result of that person’s actions of hearing and keeping, rather than being due to the reception of a favor, so the meaning of the second use of the word is definitively bless´ed (confirmed in holiness).
       • The Greek word “men” (“???”), translated here as rather and in other translations as “on the contrary,” typically indicates affirmation or concession, and is then followed by a contrasting clause, thus, indicating agreement in one sense and disagreement, of sorts, in another sense, and that is precisely what we have in this verse.
       • Accordingly, we have Jesus affirming, or at least conceding, to the first use of “blessed,” and then providing a contrast to that use of “blessed” with the second occurrence of “blessed.” In effect, He is saying, “what you said is true and good, but what I am going to say is something even better.”
     • Bless´ed because She Hears the Word of God and Keeps It
       • It follows from what has been said above, that the woman in the crowd is saying that the mother of Jesus is either blessed or bless´ed because she is His mother. If we understand that she is saying the Virgin Mary is blessed (favored) because she is the mother of Jesus, then we have a point of agreement between what the woman says and Jesus’ response, but we have no point of disagreement, for at the time of the Annunciation the angel Gabriel said that she was favored (Lk 1:30), and Jesus, being the Son of God, could not disagree with the message God had entrusted to the angel (Lk 1:26), for He, as the second person in the Blessed Trinity, participated in the sending of the message!
       • Consequently, the woman in the crowd is not saying that the Virgin Mary is blessed (favored) due to her being the mother of Jesus. Rather, she must be saying that the Virgin Mary is bless´ed (confirmed in holiness) because she is the mother of Jesus, and in this we have both a point of agreement and a point of disagreement.
       • The point of agreement is that the Virgin Mary is bless´ed (confirmed in holiness), whereas the point of disagreement is the source of her bless´edness, for bless´edness does not lie in the mere fact of motherhood. Rather, as Jesus says, it lies in the hearing and keeping of the word of God (Lk 11:28).
       • Consequently, Jesus is saying that His mother is bless´ed (confirmed in holiness) and the source of her bless´edness is that she hears and keeps the word of God. This is precisely how Luke portrays her in his Gospel. As was established in the refutation of the third criticism, it is evident that Scripture portrays the Virgin Mary as a person who is the model for those who “hear the word of God and do it’” (Lk 8:21); there is no other human person to whom Scripture gives such a witness.
   • A Correspondence of Active Participation in the Restoration
     • “Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed’’ (Lk 2:34-35)
       • “Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog!” (Ps 22:20).
     • “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” (Gen 3:15).

To Be Continued

• Due to a severe “time crunch,” I have to put off publishing the second part of these notes until next week.