Every year at ROPC we preach an “Advent series” during the Christmas season from the last Sunday in November until December 25th. Some Presbyterians are vexed by this and describe it as papist and a product of human tradition, but the Continental Reformed churches have upheld the value of the “evangelical feast days,” i.e. those days which historically commemorated significant events in redemptive history recorded in Scripture: Christmas, Good Friday, Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension, and Pentecost.[1] Our yearly Advent series focuses attention on biblical texts and themes related to the Lord’s Incarnation and first Advent. These are truths the Church ought to remember, meditate upon, and celebrate at all times, and there is no biblical warrant for spurning such celebration during the winter months of the year.[2]
This year our Advent studies will be divided into two parts. In the morning services each week, I will be preaching a series on biblical theology related to the typology of Eve, Mary, and God’s promise to bring salvation and blessing out of the barrenness of sin and judgment. In the evening services, Dane will be unpacking the doctrine of the Incarnation summarized in the Larger Catechism questions 36-42. It is hoped that these two series will complement one another, helping us all to better understand and appreciate both the poetry and the propositions by which God has made his salvation known.
I should say a few things about the morning series before it begins lest it be misunderstood. The Roman church has made much of Mary, and much of what they have said about her and the devotion arising from it is plainly unbiblical, even idolatrous. If Rome has said too much about the mother of our Lord, then many Protestants have said too little. It is not uncommon for evangelicals to shun ancient language that is creedal, thoroughly biblical, and ought to be uncontroversial--such as referring to Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God. This is an overreaction against Roman errors, but orthodoxy and piety are not well-served by steering into the ditch on the other side of the road.
The name Theotokos (God-Bearer) was used to refer to Mary by the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, long before the superstitious errors of Rome had grown to their present proportions.[3] If some think we ought to reject such language now given the misuse Rome makes of it, it should be noted this was not the position of our Reformed fathers even after the Council of Trent. Francis Turretin affirms:
“XI. Mary is rightly called the Mother of God (theotokos) in the concrete and specifically because she brought forth him who is also God, but not in the abstract and reduplicatively as God. Although this is not expressly stated in the Scriptures, still it is sufficiently intimated when she is called the mother of the Lord (Lk. 1:43) and the mother of Immanuel. If the blessed virgin brought nothing to the person of the Logos (Logou) absolutely considered, still she can be said to have brought something to the person of the incarnate Logos (Logou) economically considered, inasmuch as she gave the human nature which he took into the unity of person.
“XII. The title Mother of God given to the virgin was perverted by superstitious men into an occasion of idolatry… Although, I say, this most gross error either arose from or was increased by this occasion, it derogates nothing from the truth because the abuse and error of the papists ought not to take away the lawful use of this name.” --Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 2, 13.7.11–12, p. 320 (emp. added)
Even more recently, Geerhardus Vos wrote at the beginning of the 20th century:
“It must in fact be said: Mary gave birth to God (according to His human nature); that is to say, the subject, who is God, has undergone the process of being born by the Virgin Mary.” --Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 3, 61
We should lament both the idolatrous excess of Rome which terms Mary a Co-Mediatrix in God’s work of redemption to whom the Church may address prayers as well as the Protestant reactionary ambivalence toward a servant of God so greatly favored and used to bring salvation to earth. R. C. Sproul observed in a sermon:
“Because of… the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself.” --R. C. Sproul, “Mary’s Fiat” (Nov. 13, 2011) https://www.ligonier.org/learn/sermons/marys-fiat
In that same sermon, Sproul decries and denies any parallel that may be drawn between Mary and Eve in the history of redemption, and so further explanation is needed to justify what we hope to introduce and explore this year. Simply stated, Rome’s errors and superstitions regarding Mary became possible because her role in redemptive history is so significant. There are many parallels that may be drawn from the pages of Scripture between Mary and Eve as well as many other women, wives, and mothers in Israel that lived in between. These parallels are neither an exercise in cloud-watching nor a manifestation of covert Roman Catholicism; they are observations of biblical typology in unison with the historical Church. Just as it is unnecessary (and unwise) to reject the language of Theotokos because of misguided devotion to Mary, it is likewise unnecessary and unhelpful to deny the many obvious parallels and instances of foreshadowing throughout the Bible that connect creation, covenant, and the Incarnation of the Christ-Child in Mary’s womb.
This year we plan to introduce and explore the biblical theology of Christ’s Incarnation in four lessons. First, we will examine the theme of blessing from barrenness and observe how often the covenant is preserved and salvation comes through a child of promise born to a barren woman. This is not a coincidence, and it does not happen merely once or twice. Second, we will look at the parallels between Mary and Eve, the mother of the living. We will see how Gabriel describes the birth of Christ as a new creation and learn to better understand Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:15 that the woman will be saved through childbearing. Third, we will consider how women play a role throughout redemptive history in crushing the serpent’s head, typologically leading to the birth of Christ who is the true Serpent-Crusher and Dragon-Slayer. Fourth, we will study the doxology of redemption as we examine Mary’s Magnificat and the historical and covenantal preparation for it in Miriam’s Song (Exodus 15), Hannah’s Prayer (1 Sam. 2), and the Psalms.
I hope this series of studies will be profitable to us all. There are many ways they might be misunderstood. They should not lead us to devotion to Mary, nor are they designed as a feminist re-reading of redemption. Indeed, in view of the poisonous errors of both Mariolatry and feminism, my hope and prayer is that this series will provide a robust and biblical alternative to such human doctrines. May we find our true joy and satisfaction in Christ and in the work of redemption he has prepared, performed, and proclaimed in powerful and poetic ways. --JME
[1] Cf. Daniel Hyde, “Not Holy But Helpful: A Case for the ‘Evangelical Feast Days’ in the Reformed Tradition” MAJT (2015): 131-149.
[2] Cf. “Celebrating the Birth of Our Lord” https://joelellis.blogspot.com/2012/12/celebrating-birth-of-our-lord.html
[3] “Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.” --Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
