The Church celebrates the deaths of saints as births into eternity; in her veneration, the Church never celebrates their arrival into this world, but rather their departure into eternity. In addition to the birth of Jesus, however, the Church celebrates the birth of Mary, because she is his mother, and of John the Baptist, because he is his forerunner.
The first gospel to be written was Mark’s, and there are no references of Jesus' childhood in it: it begins with the work of the adult Jesus. After Mark’s Gospel, the Church wanted to know what happened before Jesus revealed himself to the people, and this meant talking about the two individuals who were very much part of Jesus' life: Mary, his mother, who conceived him, gave birth to him, and accompanied him throughout his life until his end on the cross, and John the Baptist who was his forerunner and initiator of his public life.
MARY
Our Protestant brothers and sisters do not care to know about Jesus' mother and they have the same aversion towards her as the Muslims have towards the mother of Mohammed and the Buddhists towards the mother of Buddha. They can ignore the mothers of Buddha and Mohammed and still be good Buddhists and Muslims, because their names do not appear in any of the writings of these religions.
The same cannot be said about the mother of Jesus: her name appears several times in the four gospels. Mary was not only the mother of Jesus, she was also a disciple of her son because, together with the other women, she never deserted him and, after the death of her son, she never abandoned the disciples of Christ. An authentic Christian, therefore, is not one who can completely ignore the mother of Christ; it is not possible to love the child and ignore his mother.
With the same rigors with which Luke (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-4) wrote his gospel about the life of Jesus and the Acts of the Apostles about the early Church, we want to investigate what is known or is possible to know about Mary. It is certain that we do not have eyewitnesses to the facts that Luke had, we only have some documents that say very little about the mother of Jesus.
Mary in Saint Paul
The first writer of the New Testament, St. Paul, does not speak of Mary in any of his letters. We can allude to a number of reasons for this fact. Although many experts of St. Paul wish to exonerate the apostle of his patriarchal or macho mentality, there is just too much evidence that bears proof of this fact. Like the vast majority of men of his time, St. Paul reserves a secondary role to women.
Another reason for Paul not to mention the name of Jesus' mother is that his letters are doctrinal, not historical, since St. Paul, unlike the other apostles, was neither an eyewitness nor had Luke’s historical concern. A good Pharisee that he was, his concern was solely doctrinal.
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. Galatians 4:4-5 (year 40-50 AD)
In this single text where it is mentioned that Jesus did not come into the world like a meteorite or by any other physical miraculous means, but that he was born of a woman like all human beings, what is at stake, as in the whole perspective of the Galatians, is the opposition between the Law and grace. The name of the woman of whom Jesus was born is not mentioned since this is not the central theme of the letter or these verses.
Mary in Saint Mark
Then he (Jesus) went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’ Mark 3:20-21
The first very indirect and tangential mention by Mark of Mary, the mother of Jesus, takes place in this very controversial text. Because it literally says that Jesus' relatives thought he has gone crazy. From the other evangelists and by St. Mark himself, we know that Mary is always close to Jesus, attentive and concerned about her son, with what others say about him and acting like any other loving mother. Therefore, Mary seems to be included in the word family.
This does not seem likely to me for two reasons: in the gospels as a whole, we see that Mary is a woman who is very thoughtful about what she says and what she does, without any reactive behavior. She does not say nor do anything without deliberating in her heart and mind, and when she is confused and does not know what to say or do, she remains silent, guarding and pondering everything in her heart (Luke 2:16-21).
On the other hand, if "family" included the mother of Jesus, it would not make sense to say next, in another verse within the same chapter of Mark where she is most directly mentioned, "Mother and brothers of Jesus", that she and the brothers of the Lord had just arrived.
Jesus often takes advantage of a certain situation to present his doctrine. One of the examples of this is when Jesus' apostles forgot to buy bread. Since bread is fermented grain, Jesus took advantage of the cue to speak of the leaven of the Pharisees, (Matthew 16:5-12).
Clearly the apostles are led to think that Jesus is criticizing them indirectly for not having bought bread, but Jesus explicitly says that this cannot be the interpretation of what he said, since he who multiplied bread for thousands of people could have done the same for his disciples.
In the same way, Jesus is not disrespecting his mother, but only taking advantage of the situation to say that being his disciple is more important than being one of his relatives. In the case of his mother, she too was a disciple first, she heard the Word, put it into practice, and only then, and precisely because she put the Word into practice, she is a mother, that is, for having done God’s will. In Mary then, the discipleship precedes the motherhood. We too can become relatives of Jesus by following the path of Mary.
He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him. Mark 6:1-3
Finally, later on, Mark tells us the name of Jesus' mother from the mouth of the people of his village, in a tactical question full of contempt and humiliation. At that time in Israel, when you wanted to insult someone, all you had to do was to name the person after their mother and not their father. The expression "son of Mary" is highly derogatory, even if Joseph was already deceased.
Mark is a short gospel, with only 16 chapters and laconic about many other things; it also does not give us a good picture of the disciples' understanding of the Master. At least it does give us the name of the Lord's mother, Mary. If we want to know more about Mary, we have to turn to the other two synoptic gospels, which are more complete and focus more on Jesus' childhood and the circumstances of his birth.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was affected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” (Martin Luther, Sermon: On the Day of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, 1527)
The great Protestant reformers -- Luther, Calvin and Zwingli -- accept all Marian dogmas. The indifference, contempt and almost hatred of Mary that certain Protestants show today do not come from the reformers, but from the fanatics after them.
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, the solemnity which the Church celebrates on December 8th, already close to the Lord's Christmas, is another way to start over again. It is the substitution of the flood that destroyed the old, the sin, to begin again. In Mary, God gave up the destruction of the world. That is why Mary is a "non-destructive flood" because, little by little, with the Kingdom of her son, she will flood the world with the divine Grace that kills sin. Mary is therefore the new ark of Noah that saves humanity from sin, because she contains this Savior who is Christ her son.
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son… Hebrews 1:1-2
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman... Galatians 4:4
Mary is not the beginning of the story of Salvation: this began with Abraham and is continued from generation to generation by prophets, judges, kings, and other leaders of the chosen people. Mary is the culmination of this story, as the author of the letter to the Hebrews mentions above, in these last days, or as St. Paul says, in the fullness of time.
The story of Salvation is about people who hand over, from generation to generation, the seed of Goodness in the midst of a world that lives the story of Evil. However, this seed of goodness coexists within the same person with the evilness. Those who were bearers of the seed of goodness or of the testimony of goodness in this relay race were not perfect people as we well know from the Bible, where their flaws and sins are well documented, from Abraham, Moses, David to so many others who were, as St. Augustine would later say in defining man, "simul justus et peccator", at the same time righteous and sinful.
Mary is the last link in this chain of goodness, God put in Mary the final touches to eliminate all traces of evil in preparation for the Incarnation of His son. It is logical that if God were to take on human nature to speak to men, that he would not assume a human nature fallen into sin, he would not assume a human nature decadent of our parents' sin, but rather the human nature that He had created in the beginning. That is, he was going to take on the nature of Adam and Eve before the fall. That is why it is said that Mary is the new Eve and Christ the new Adam.
At the moment when the genetic material of Joaquim's half-cell united with the genetic material of Anna's half-cell to form a new genetic code, the DNA of Mary, God intervened in genetic engineering and replaced the genes spoiled or corrupted by the sin that has been transmitted from generation to generation since Adam and Eve, by the genes that Adam and Eve themselves possessed before they ruined human nature by sinning. In other words, He replaced the damaged pieces with the repaired and original pieces.
When the Angel Gabriel visits Mary, he recognizes in her the new Eve (Eva) by pronouncing this very name backwards as a greeting (Ave/Hail). Mary is the masterpiece of God's genetic engineering; Mary is God's recreation in virtue of his direct and intentional intervention in the history of mankind. Because Mary, in communion with the same God, will generate, produce the vaccine, that is Christ her son, against sin. Mary is not only the beginning of Salvation of the world, for in her Immaculate Conception as a preparation for Jesus coming, she is also the first to be saved.
Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. John 3:14-15
The son of Mary is the one who is going to replace the serpent erected in the desert by Moses, the Saviour of the Jewish people, to heal everyone from the bite of the ancient serpent who poisoned Eve, Adam, and their descendants from one generation to the next.
Nativity of Mary
We cannot acknowledge the blessings brought us by Jesus without acknowledging at the same time how highly God honored and enriched Mary in choosing her to be the Mother of God.”
(John Calvin," Comm. Sur l'Harm. Evang.", 20)
Nine months after the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Church celebrates the nativity of Our Lady on September 8th. From Isaac, Samuel, Samson, etc., in a biblical context of so many births under the same circumstances, according to tradition, Mary was also born to parents of advanced age and barren, named Joachim and Anna. In response to their perseverance and constancy in prayer, these parents were graced by God with the gift of a baby girl.
There are some who put them residing in Nazareth, but the most reliable tradition places them in Jerusalem, next to the pool of Bethesda where the pilgrims purified themselves before entering the temple. Today stands the Basilica of St. Anne, located very close to one of the main entrances of the Temple and the present Lion’s Gate in the wall of the Old City, in the Muslim Quarter.
The girl received the name Miriam which means seer, sovereign lady. It was most likely an Egyptian name because, as we know, Miriam was the name of Moses' sister. There are those who think that it derives from the Sanskrit name Marya which literally means purity, virtue, virginity; the Latin translation is Maria. Like Samuel, she was also offered to the Temple of Jerusalem at the age of three, and remained there until she was twelve years old, when she was given in marriage to Joseph.
As we know, the canonical evangelicals tell us nothing about the birth of Mary. The basis of tradition, however, is quite ancient since it comes from an apocryphal writing of the second century, the Protoevangelium of James, written around the year 150.
Mary's virginity at the service of her motherhood
I greatly esteem the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary perpetually chaste and immaculate. I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Corpus Reformatorum: Zwingli - principal leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland - Opera 2, 189)
Christ was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for the Sacred Scripture and the Jews have always called cousins brothers. (Martin Luther, Sermon, 1539)
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us, even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees... If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation: there where he is, we ought also to be and everything he has ought to be ours. So his mother is also our mother... (Martin Luther, Christmas Sermon of 1529)
Once again we see that the Protestant reformers venerated Mary then as much as the Catholics and the Orthodox, and even the Muslims, venerate her today. The problem arises, both for the Protestants and the Catholics, in the excessive emphasis placed on Mary's virginity, as if in her or in anyone else, virginity has a value in itself, both spiritually and physically.
I express myself in total disagreement with the exclusively feminine use of the name "Virgin", as the Church does in the celebration of the Saints Cecilia, Agnes, Felicity, Perpetual, Agatha, who are saints exclusively because they are virgins. The Church does not use the title Virgin for male saints such as Francisco of Fatima, Anthony of Lisbon, Domenico Savio and Luigi Gonzaga who were certainly also virgins.
If it is a human value, virginity cannot be an exclusively feminine value. There are no feminine values and masculine values, there are only human values. When too much emphasis is placed on female virginity, the importance of the hymen that women have and that men do not possess is exacerbated. The hymen is formed as a prophylactic means to close a woman's womb and protect her against infections. Throughout the history of mankind, in all cultures, some more so than others, it has been used by men as an instrument of vexation, domination, humiliation and shame against women.
The virginity of Our Lady, described as virgin before, during and after childbirth, certainly alludes to this instrument of domination of a patriarchal and chauvinistic history. Especially in the case of virginity during childbirth, it cannot refer to the hymen as if it were possible for a woman to give birth without tearing it.
If virginity is a value, it should be extended to the whole human race and not only to women, so it cannot be associated with the physical, but the spiritual. A married woman or man can be a virgin if they are pure and totally faithful to each other. On the other hand, if virginity is a spiritual human value, a woman or man can be a virgin even after they have lost their physical virginity.
In other words, if virginity is a value, it is always within the reach of a human being and is not something that can be lost. In fact, if it is a value, it is not acquired at birth, but conquered at hand with effort and dedication. The only thing that can be lost forever, in an irrecoverable way, is innocence or naivety, not virginity.
It is said that a person presented himself before God after his death and said: Look, Sir, my hands are clean and pure. I see, said the Lord, but they are empty... before they were dirty, but full of good works...
Virginity, both in the case of Mary as in another person, exists in function of motherhood. Virginity in itself is not a human value, but rather a preparation for a natural physical motherhood or for a spiritual motherhood such as that of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The same applies to men. A virginity that exists for itself and not at the service of a fruitful motherhood is spiritual barrenness, not virginity in the Christian spiritual sense.
I fear that the exaggerated exaltation of virginity is directly proportional to the negative view of sex. That is, those who most exalt the value of virginity, tend to view sex with more suspicion, developing a puritanical spirituality that looks at sex as ugly and dirty. Whoever does so, forgets that the sin of Adam and Eve was not sexual, that sex was created by God as a means of putting into practice his commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", (Genesis 9:7).
Conclusion
As a devotee of Mary whom I have as my heavenly Mother, I affirm that she was conceived without sin by virtue of God's special favor to her and to humanity; she conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit, was the mother of only one child born to her, but spiritual mother of all humanity and who, by virtue of this motherhood, remained a virgin because she was the lover of only one God, of only one husband, of the nascent Church and of all humanity.
JOHN THE BAPTIST
Jesus of Nazareth, disciple of John the Baptist
‘What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. (…) I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.’ Luke 7:24-26, 28
John the Baptist, the Lord's cousin according to tradition, is a figure intentionally ignored by the Church and by the evangelists themselves who do everything to take away his importance even though, being honest with themselves, they have to speak about him. The Church presents him as the precursor, especially in the season of Advent, as the one who prepares the way of the Lord, although little is said about how the way was prepared.
Was he only a precursor, or was he something more than that? He was the initiator of a movement that Jesus of Nazareth continued. In fact, some of Jesus' disciples were once John’s disciples. Today almost all biblicists agree that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist and while the evangelists, each in their own way, try to hide this fact, Jesus is not ashamed to say it as it is implied in the text mentioned above. About John, his Master (Teacher), Jesus has only positive words of veneration and esteem. However, as I put in bold, the evangelists add a phrase that not only neutralizes but almost nullifies what Jesus said when they mention that the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he (John).
At the beginning of Jesus’ public life, the people and Herod Antipas mistaken him, the disciple, with John the Master, which is perfectly normal. Every good disciple imitates the master until he leaves and becomes independent of him, later stating their differences or their nuances. Jesus seems to accept that they compare him to John, for it is a sign that he is a good disciple of his (Luke 9:7-9; Matthew 16:13-20).
In his lectures and book on Jesus, theologian Denis McBride looks at this subject in a brilliant way. John the Baptist is the name most cited in the gospels, more than that of any apostle, including Peter’s. When Peter raised his voice and set out the criteria for electing Judas' replacement, he said that it had to be someone who had been with them from the Baptism of John to the Resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:21-22).
That message spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced… (Acts 10:37) – The same Peter, in giving a summary of Jesus' ministry, begins by saying that it began where the ministry of John the Baptist ended. All four evangelists begin the story of Jesus where the story of John ends.
Mark opens his gospel with the ministry of John; John the Evangelist, by contrast, mentions him in the prologue as a witness to the Light who is Christ, and repeats this several times to make it clear that even though John precedes Jesus chronologically, Jesus as the Son of God existed before John. Luke and Matthew, when dealing with Jesus' childhood, are obliged to deal with John the Baptist's childhood as well.
It is therefore clear that John's ministry has to do with the hidden life of Jesus before his public life. It began before Jesus’ ministry, and even if Jesus takes John’s place after his death, as every disciple does in replacing the master, John's ministry does not end.
McBride says that there are still followers of John the Baptist in Iraq today, who believe that John was the Messiah and that Jesus was his first disciple. The argument they present as proof is that Jesus leaves his land to join John, to follow John and not the other way around. Jesus follows John and submits to his baptism, John does not follow Jesus.
Many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? (Mark 6:2) – This suggests that Jesus did not remain in Nazareth throughout his hidden life. The text suggests that, at some point in his life, Jesus left his trade as a carpenter, his mother, his land, to join the Baptist movement and it was as John’s disciple that he acquired all the wisdom that amazed his countrymen. The text also suggests that Jesus was away for a long time, not just spending a weekend with the Baptist, but staying in his company for several years.
The baptism of Jesus
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased. Mark 1:9-11
Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness.’ The he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ Matthew 3:13-17
And when all the people were baptized and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’ Luke 3:21-22
I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God. John 1:33-34
The episode of the baptism of the disciple Jesus by the master John was for the evangelists an embarrassing scandal. It is true that the reputation of the great John the Baptist left the evangelists perplexed and nervous because they wanted to prove to their readers in a blunt way, without escaping the reality of the facts, that Jesus was greater than John because it was he and not John who is the messiah, the long-awaited one of the nations.
Mark, the first to recognize him, admits that Jesus submitted to John's baptism without question. However, without describing the act of the baptism itself, he diverts our attention to the voice from above.
Matthew does not seem to accept this fact and places there an explanatory and justifiable dialogue between Jesus and John where it is seen that authority resides in Jesus.
Luke ignores the episode, referring to it after it happened, also diverting our attention to the voice from above.
John does not address the baptism of Jesus, he eliminates it completely, since even John the Baptist himself is not called the Baptist in this gospel, but only as John, a witness of Christ.
The disciples of John reported all these things to him. So John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’ Luke 7:18-19
The four gospels are unanimous in saying that John did not know the true identity of his disciple Jesus and died in prison without ever arriving at this knowledge. How is it possible that the baptism of Jesus took place as described in the gospels and later with John the Baptist in prison not knowing who is the one whom he himself baptized?
Apparently, we have an incongruity here; however, we must take into account that between the historical facts of Jesus and John, and their description in the written gospels, about 50 years of apostolic preaching had passed. In other words, it is very likely that the episode of the voice from above is the work of the evangelists to try to explain theologically the fact that Jesus submitted to the baptism of John and was part of his movement as a disciple.
We have seen how John the Evangelist removes the title of the Baptist from John, giving him the name of witness of Jesus instead. However, he is the only evangelist who places the two to develop their ministry at the same time, or better said, Jesus as a disciple working in the movement of the Baptist Master; John baptizing in Samaria, a territory not yet evangelized, and Jesus in Judea where John had already evangelized.
JESUS
The carpenter, the son of Mary, was born according to tradition in Bethlehem, during a journey that his parents Mary and Joseph had undertaken to register in the land of origin of their ancestors. It is not of this birth that we discuss here, but of the long years of preparation or "gestation" to be born or revealed to the world. If the gestation of the physical body of Jesus is the work of God and Mary, the gestation of his human formation is the work of his Master, John the Baptist.
As we have seen, Jesus has relatively many originalities compared to John. But he also has much in common with the master. Both Jesus and John, his master and forerunner, were charismatic laymen in line with the prophets of Israel who emerge in a time for a time, that is, they arise as the divine solution to a concrete human problem in a concrete time and situation. In line with the prophecy of Israel, the prophet is not an instituted or elected authority, but a charismatic moral authority that arises spontaneously or by divine will.
In this sense, and contrary to instituted authority, a prophet not only utters the voice of God, but he also incarnates the message with his life in dramatic gestures, like Isaiah who walked around naked among the people to show them what was about to happen to those who were going to be exiled. Similarly, the prophet Hosea married a prostitute so that his life would be an audiovisual of the people's infidelity to God.
In line with the prophets before them, Jesus and John are against the established authority, they do not submit to it, but criticize it for its lack of moral authority. And when these instituted authority present their credentials, revealing their roots, John says that the axe is already placed at the root of the trees; both John and Jesus show next that they are not interested in the roots, but in the fruits, for it is by the fruits, that is, by the works that one knows someone. And when these people say that they are so and so, that they are children of Abraham, both John and Jesus call them a brood of vipers, and say that God has the power to raise up children to Abraham from these stones, (Matthew 3:7-12).
In line with the previous prophets, Jesus and John are against the Temple and its priests, and they too repeat the refrain that runs through all the prophecies of Israel: I want mercy, not sacrifice, (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13).
Similarities and differences between Jesus and John
According to Denis McBride there are many similarities between the master John the Baptist, the initiator of the movement, and Jesus, his disciple. Both are prophets, they do not marry, they are not priests or doctors of the law, and they do not belong to any religious group as both are independent prophets who confront the religious status quo. They are religious authorities persecuted by civil authorities determined to erase their word and stop their action.
They believe that the story of Israel is about to end and that another kingdom is going to replace Israel. Both carry out their ministry far from sacred places. Both are open to every kind of people, even to those whom they criticize, they show preference to the poor and marginalized of society, for the publicans, shepherds, prostitutes...
Jesus is distinguished from John, by the image he has of God, as a loving and merciful Father. He brings salvation to the villages and towns where the people lives, he is not fixed in one place. He heals, exorcises, things that John never did. Unlike the ascetic John who lived isolated in the desert, Jesus lives with the people, eats and drinks and celebrates with the people; like the people in all things, except sin.
The power to forgive sins
(...) that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins – he then said to the paralytic – ‘Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.’ And he stood up and went to his home. When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings. Matthew 9:6-8
The power and the faculty to forgive sins in all religious traditions is reserved to priests. In Israel, as we know, there was only one place where sins can be forgiven: the Temple of Jerusalem. The forgiveness of sins had become, in the time of Jesus and John, a profitable business for the priestly caste.
Annas and Caiaphas owned large flocks and to make it easy to sell away their countless goats, they would declare defective and reject the goats and lambs that the people brought to the temple from their own flocks so that the people were left with no choice but to buy from them in order to have animals to offer to God as atonement for their sins.
Every day there were sacrifices in the temple, at least once in the morning and once in the afternoon. But on the feast days there were many more, especially at Passover. It is estimated that at the time Jesus died on the cross, more than 3,000 goats and lambs were sacrificed at the altar of the Temple.
Now John wore clothing of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him and all the region along the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Matthew 3:4-6
From one moment to the next, a layman appears who makes a bypass of the Temple of Jerusalem with a water ceremony that invoked bodily and spiritual cleanliness, purity so dear to the Jews, and who forgave sins without demanding money in return - with this the whole priestly caste felt threatened.
It would really have been John the Baptist who began this movement or, as the proverb suggests, "Libri ex libris fiunt", books come from books. Jesus was inspired by John the Baptist to start something that went way beyond John. Wouldn’t this same thing have happened to John, that is, wouldn’t he too have been inspired by something that already existed to bring this original and revolutionary forgiveness of sin, not only to Israel but to all religions as a whole, since all of them required sacrifice to appease the divine wrath?
It is certain that the question of whether the Baptist's movement was purely human or divinely inspired was raised. Jesus uses this doubt to defend himself before the Pharisees' insistent question about his authority to say what he was saying and do what he was doing. "Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?" (Mark 11:30). Jesus well knew that they thought it was from men, since only they themselves could forgive sins, but as there were many people there waiting for their answer, they responded to Jesus with a silence.
Qumran
If in the desert on the banks of the Dead Sea, right next door to where John and Jesus were baptizing, there was not a community of monks, the Essenes, who shared the same rites and the same ideas as the two prophets, occupying the same geographical space at the same historical time, we would be inclined to think that the ritual of forgiveness of sins was an original creation of John. But since this community exists two steps from the Jordan River, we are led to think that it had inspired John and Jesus.
So many monks of Qumran like John were critical of Jerusalem's sacrificial system. Both were apocalyptic and thought Israel was coming to the end of its days. Both emphasized the need to purify themselves with water; the Essenes in fact purified themselves several times a day.
The difference between these monks and John the Baptist is that the monks were elitists and segregationists, keeping salvation to themselves, while John probably abandoned this community to offer salvation to everyone. Jesus abandoned the Jordan to bring salvation to all of Israel, going from village to village, from house to house, and commanded his disciples to take the salvation to the entire world.
Here is the Lamb of God - John 1:29
This is the statement of John the Baptist that puts an end to the dispute between forgiveness through sacrifice and free forgiveness through baptism. Jesus declares that the sacrifice of others has no salvific power, what has saving power is the sacrifice itself.
The sacrifices of the Old Law of offering something external to oneself ended with Jesus and the sacrifices of the New Law of offering oneself began. On the cross, Jesus offers himself in an absolutely perfect sacrificial act. A non plus ultra or once and for all – because he is the priest, the temple, the altar and the lamb. The act of Jesus is perfect, unparalleled and unrepeatable because one cannot die twice.
Do this in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19) – The Church, from generation to generation, repeats, acts and updates the only sacrifice that takes away the sin of the world. Whether or not the people of Israel accepts this sacrifice for its redemption, the fact is that after the death of Jesus, the Temple, providentially or by irony of fate, was destroyed and to this day has not been rebuilt.
Conclusion
Mary gives birth to Jesus of Nazareth; John the Baptist prepares the way for the Mission in which Jesus discovers himself as the Son of God and the Saviour of Humanity.
Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC
No comments:
Post a Comment