Benedict XVI would have, quite likely, received vigorous agreement from many of the magisterial reformers when he wrote, “True Marian devotion never obscures and diminishes faith and love for Jesus Christ, our Savior, the one Mediator between God and mankind” (Holiness is Always in Season). Certainly Luther and Calvin, among others, may have had concerns about other teachings the late pope held regarding the virgin mother, but they would have stoutly agreed that the principal reason Christians honor Mary is to see more clearly the God who received our human nature from her. Mary focuses our eyes on the fleshy, bounded, circumscribed and circumcised man who is, without qualification, one of us and who is also, fully and without qualification, God.
There in the humbling, constricting, and kenotic suffering of God, his embrace of our finitude and our death, is our salvation. This mighty work of God began in the womb of the virgin.
Such a Christo-centrism (and consequential cruci-centrism) spans the diversity of evangelical Reformation movements. Regrettably that cannot be said of later developments in Protestantism when, especially in the eighteenth century, attention drifted away from the object of our faith, Jesus Christ, to the caliber or quantity of one’s faith (e.g., do I feel it / have I done enough / how “much” faith do I have). In other words, the focus fell away from Christ, the God-man, and back to man. This reverted view, in part, produced the kind of Christianity which simply doesn’t know what to make of Mary other than to have her as a character in a Christmas play, a prop to trigger our emotions.
On the other hand, it is not controversial to suggest that there have been strains of Marian devotion which have taken attention away from Jesus, hence Pope Benedict’s use of the adjective, “true.” Curiously, both the excesses on the one hand and the sidelining of Mary on the other stem from losing attention – losing focus – on the singular object of our faith, Christ.
My goal here, then, is to highlight that the Christo-centrism of the magisterial reformers of the sixteenth century necessitated a proper appreciation for and honoring of Mary. This is not an “extra,” but central to the Gospel of our savior.
Don’t take my word for it. Here is a gathering of voices, a florilegium, for this feast of St. Mary the Virgin from several sixteenth-century reformers.
Martin Luther (1483-1546), “The Magnificat put into German and Explained”
This holy song of the most blessed mother of God… here she sings most sweetly of the fear of God and of what kind of Lord God is, and above all how God deals with those of high and low degree… This modest virgin deserves to be heard by princes and lords as she sings her sacred, pure, and salutary song. It is also appropriate that this canticle is sung daily in all churches at vespers and in a special and appropriate setting that sets it apart from other chants… When the Blessed Virgin herself experienced that God was working such great things in her despite her insignificance, lowliness, poverty, and despised condition, the Holy Spirit taught her this valuable insight and wisdom. God is the kind of Lord who does nothing but lower what is of high degree, briefly breaking what is whole and making whole what is broken…. We experience daily how all strive after that which is above them: honor, power, riches, knowledge, the good life, and everything that is lofty and great. Where such people are, everyone wants to hang around, run there, serve there gladly, be at their side, and share in their glory… On the other hand, no one wants to peer into the depths, where poverty, humiliation, want, lamentation, and fear are; from this all avert their eyes. Where such people are, everyone runs away, flees, shuns, and leaves them alone. No one thinks to help them, stand with them, or attempt to make something out of them…. Therefore, to God alone belongs the kind of seeing that looks into the depths… For this reason God cast the only and beloved Son into the depths of misery…
The tender mother of Christ does the same here, teaching us with her words and by the example of her experience how to know, love, and praise God. With a leaping and joyful spirit she boasts and praises God for regarding her, despite her low estate and her nothingness… God’s work and eyes reaches into the depths, while human eyes reach only into the heights… Therefore we must heed Mary’s last word, “God.” Mary does not say, “My soul makes itself great,” or “holds me in high regard.” She thought nothing of herself. God alone makes her great. She credits God with everything and gives all the glory to God, from whom she has received it.
John Calvin (1509-1564), Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke
“Behold the handmaid of the Lord.” The holy virgin does not allow herself to dispute any farther. And yet many things might unquestionably have obtruded themselves, to repress that faith, and even to draw off her attention from what was said to her by the angel. But she stops the entrance of opposing arguments, and compels herself to obey. This is the real proof of faith, when we restrain our minds, and, as it were, hold them captive, so that they dare not reply this or that to God. For boldness in disputing, on the other hand, is the mother of unbelief. This is a weighty expression, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord,” for she gives and devotes herself unreservedly to God, that he may freely dispose of her according to his pleasure. Unbelievers withdraw from his hand, and, as far as lies in their power, obstruct his work. But faith presents us before God, that we may be ready to yield obedience. But if the holy virgin was “the handmaid of the Lord,” because she yielded herself submissively to his authority, there cannot be worse obstinacy than to fly from him, and to refuse that obedience which he deserves and requires. In a word, as faith alone makes us obedient servants to God, and gives us up to his power, so unbelief makes us rebels and deserters… [We reject those who say we do] injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. No! What is most of all honorable to her we grant… We cheerfully acknowledge her as our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands.
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), Seventh Sermon on the Apostles’ Creed
God — that is the Sun of righteousness — took blood from the earth, that is, from the
body of the untouched virgin Mary, and by a wonderful means, in holiness and purity, brought to pass, that from her unspotted womb should be born and conceived the most holy Son of God.
The reasons why this conception of the Son of God in the womb of the holy virgin is most pure, are these. He that is conceived in the womb of a virgin, is God; but God is a consuming fire, which cannot take or permit any uncleanness in itself. Another cause is this. God came to cleanse our uncleanness, that is, the uncleanness of men. He truly ought to be exempt from all original spots, and be most holy in all points to the end that, being the only unspotted sacrifice offered up for the sins of the whole world, he might take all the sins of the world clean away. For that which is itself defiled cannot cleanse the defiled thing; rather, the spot or filthiness doubles its uncleanness by coming to that other unclean thing.
The second part of the [Creed’s] third article is: He was “born of the virgin Mary.” The Lord was born of Mary his mother, yet she was a virgin still. He is therefore very man, who is born of woman. Moreover his birth is pure. For he was born of the virgin, so that together, she was a mother and yet a virgin too. For Isaiah says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” Isaiah 7.14. A virgin, he says, shall both conceive and bring forth; so that she may nevertheless remain a virgin still. The birth of the Son of God, therefore, is most pure. Also his birth is a true birth, truly and indeed. For he takes flesh from the substance and womb of the virgin. In this signification also, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the Son of David. He could not be called David’s son, unless he had taken true human substance from Mary, a maid or daughter of the stock of David. That the apostle John might most properly signify and express this, he says, “The Word was made flesh,” John 1.14. And [in Hebrews], “Nowhere does he take on himself the angels, but the seed of Abraham.” Hebrews 2:16. And in the same place again, the writer affirms that the Lord “was made like his brethren in all things, sin excepted.” To the Philippians, the Apostle Paul says, “While he was equal with God, he made himself of no reputation, taking on himself the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in figure as a man,” Philippians 2:6-8. Again the Apostle John bears witness and says, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God.” 1 John 4:2-3. Luke, in his second chapter, has set forth at large the manner of his nativity. And I mean to speak of it elsewhere in full. Let us therefore confess that Jesus Christ was “conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the virgin Mary.”
Second Book of Homilies (1563), Homily on the Nativity
In that he forgave sins, in that he wrought miracles, in that he did cast out devils, in that he healed men with his only word, in that he knew the thoughts of men’s hearts, in that he had the seas at his command, in that he walked on the water, in that he rose from death to life, in that he ascended into heaven, and so forth – what other thing did he show therein, but that he was perfect God, co-equal with the Father as touching his deity? Therefore he says, The Father and I are all one, which is to be understood of his Godhead. For as touching his manhood, he says, The Father is greater then I am.
Where are now those Marcionites that deny Christ to have bene born in the flesh, or to have been perfect man? Where are now those Arians that deny Christ to have been perfect God, of equal substance with the Father?
If there be any such, we may easily reprove them with these testimonies of God’s word, and such other. Whereunto, I am most sure, they shall never be able to answer.
For the necessity of our salvation did require such a mediator & savior, as under one person should be a partaker of both natures. It was requisite he should be man, it was also requisite he should be God.
For as the transgression came by man, so was it meet the satisfaction should be made by man. And because death, according to St. Paul, is the just stipend and reward of sin, therefore to appease the wrath of God, and to satisfy his justice, it was expedient that our mediator should be such a one, as might take upon him the sins of mankind and sustain the due punishment thereof, namely death. Moreover, he came in flesh, and in the self same flesh ascended into heaven…
He became man, that we thereby might receive the greater comfort, as well in our prayers, as also in our adversity, considering with ourselves, that we have a mediator that is true man as we are, who also is touched with our infirmities and was tempted even in like sort as we are. For these and sundry other causes, it was most needful he should come, as he did, in the flesh.
The Rev. Calvin Lane, PhD is the Editor of Covenant: The Online Journal of The Living Church. The author of two books on the Reformation, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 2013 . In addition to serving as associate rector of St. George's Episcopal Church, Dayton, Ohio, Dr. Lane has taught for various seminaries and colleges, including as Affiliate Professor at Nashotah House. His service to the church includes a term on the General Board of Examining Chaplains (2018-2024).
