Essay 102 (12-24-05)

COULD MARY HAVE SAID NO?

But Mary is no less frightened and troubled, wondering what a strange greeting as that might mean. Then the angel tells her that even though a virgin she is to become a mother, by the inducement of the Holy Spirit, and that she shall give birth to the Son of God.

The angel does not say all that and then depart. He waits while Mary collects herself. He awaits her response. Is he not after her consent, her cooperation? And he might have been prepared to answer any objections she might have, as the angel of the Lord was in calling a very reluctant Moses.

Mary could have been ever so devout and obedient, and yet equivocated. After all, the angel had not delivered a mandate or a command. He only told her what was going to happen to her, provided she would accept the assignment. Isn't that implied? The God of heaven certainly did not want an unwilling participant in this drama of all dramas.

We can answer this by saying that God is sovereign, that he knew whom he had chosen to give birth to the Messiah, and that he knew she would respond the way she did. That must be the way it was. But was Mary not free to make the choice? Was it not possible that Gabriel might have had to return to heaven empty handed, telling God that Mary humbly insisted that she was not worthy of such a role, and with all his persuasion he could convince her otherwise. God would have to find someone else.

If we say that Mary was a free moral agent -- the term philosophers use -- and that she could have acted other than the way she did, then -- so it appears to me -- we have to concede that the above scenario was possible. While she humbly accepted the most monumental assignment ever vouchsafed to a woman, she could have said no. Right? If not, it was not a free moral act on her part, and it was not praiseworthy, for she was coerced by divine decree, and hardly more than a puppet on a string. For an act to be praiseworthy it must be done freely and willingly, and with some understanding of the risk involved. Socrates was right in defining courage as action in the face of known danger. Mary showed great courage, for she knew her life would be radically changed forever. She acted in the face of known danger. But only if she were free. She faced but two options, Yes or No. She chose yes, but she could have said no.

Or could she? It is the old conundrum of the sovereignty of God over against human responsibility which runs all through Scripture, and it remains a mystery that defies explanation. We see it in Judas, who freely chose -- or so we presume -- to betray his Lord. And yet well before the betrayal Jesus said to his disciples, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70), as if he were following a script. And does not an apostle tell us that the passion of Jesus, initiated by Judas, was according to "the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23)? What Judas did was in the script -- even before the foundation of the world -- so he could not have acted other than the way he did.

Here we have the mystery of predestination and foreknowledge on the one hand, and human responsibility and freewill on the other. In the same context Jesus says, "One of you will betray me" as if it were foreordained -- and "Woe be to the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (Mt. 26:21,24).

It was decreed that Judas would betray the Messiah -- he had to do it -- and yet he was damned for doing it! Both praise -- as in the case of Mary -- and blame -- as in the case of Judas -- infer free will and responsibility of action. Otherwise praise and blame have no meaning. We can't blame a person for doing what he could not avoid doing.

It is an impossible mystery. Judas saw his infamous act as his own evil deed, freely committed. He did not say that God made him do it. He nobly and boldly returned to the Jewish leaders and threw the thirty pieces of silver at their feet, confessing that he had betrayed innocent blood, as if in repentance. He went on to commit suicide, as if desperately regretful about the way things had gone. This may suggest, as some think, that Judas did not intend for Jesus to fall into the hands of his enemies. He intended rather to force the Lord's hand, cause him to exert his kingly power, overcome his enemies and usher in the kingdom. To say the least, Judas did not act the way we would expect a betrayer to act after his foul deed. But he appears to be acting freely, even if desperately.

If those acts of Judas following the betrayal were freely exercised, was not the betrayal itself?

The passion story reads as if all the characters were free moral agents. The Jewish leaders appear to be morally responsible for calling for Jesus' crucifixion, and this is why the apostles afterwards blame them for what they did: "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). When Jesus "humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Phillip. 2:8), we take it that it was a free moral act on his part.

And yet after his resurrection the Lord explained to two of his disciples that "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day (Lk. 24:46). It was all in the script -- according to the predestined will and foreknowledge of God -- and it could not have been otherwise.

Mary's role also, according to Matthew 1:23, was in keeping with what the prophet Isaiah had said, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated, 'God with us.'"

Whether it is in reference to Mary or Judas or ourselves -- Paul in Rom. 8:29 says our calling was predestined and according to the foreknowledge of God -- we are forced to face the problem of predestination and free will -- or the sovereignty of God and human responsibility.

The only answer I have is to accept the mystery, which is an act of faith. We can believe in God's predestination and foreknowledge and also believe that human kind is free to accept or reject. We can believe that Mary -- or Judas -- were predestined to make the choices they did, and also believe that they were morally responsible.

And so we can believe that Mary freely chose when she said to Gabriel, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." With heart and mind she resolved freely to be the mother of the Savior of the world. That is to her praise and to her glory.