MARY
835
MARY
bosom on seeing her Son expire on the cross (Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Cyril, etc.). By modern interpreters it is more commonly referred to the pangs of grief which she experienced on witnessing the sufferings of her Son.
In the tlight into Egypt, Mary and the babe had the support and protection of Joseph, as well as in their re- turn from thence in the following year, on the death of Herod the Great (B.C. 4). It appears to have been the intention of Joseph to settle at liethlehera at this time, as his home at Nazareth had been broken up for more than a year; but on finding how Herod's dominions had been disposed of, he changed his mind and returned to his old place of abode, thinking that the child's life would be safer in the tetrarchy of Antipas than in that of Archelaus. It is possible that Joseph might have been himself a native of Bethlehem, and that before this time he had only been a visitor at Nazareth, drawn thither by his betrothal and marriage. In that case, his fear of Archelaus would make him exchange his own native town for that of j\Iary.
4. Henceforward, until the beginning of our Lord's ministn,' — i. c. from B.C. 4 to A.D. 25 — we may picture Mary to ourselves as living in Nazareth, in a humble sphere of life, the wife of Joseph the carpenter, ponder- ing over the sayings of the angels, of the shepherds, of Simeon, and of those of her Son, as the latter " increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke ii, 52). Two circumstances alone, so far as we know, broke in on the otherwise even How of the still waters of her life. One of these was the temporary loss of her Son when he remained Ijehind in Jerusalem (A.D. 8) ; the other v/as the death of Joseph. The exact date of this last event -we cannot determine, but it was prob- ably not long after the other. See Joseph.
5. From the time at which our Lord's ministry com- menced, Mary is -withdrawn almost wholly from sight. Four times only, as detailed below, is the veil removed which, surely not without reason, is thrown over her. If to these we add two references to her, the first by her Nazarene fellovz-citizens (Matt, xiii, 54, 55; Mark vi, 1- 3), the second by a woman in the multitude (Luke xi, 27), we have specified every event kno^^^^ to us in her life. It is noticeable that, on every occasion of our Lord's addressing her, or speaking of her, there is a sound of reproof in his words, with the exception of the last words spoken to her from the cross.
(1.) The marriage at Cana in Galilee (John ii) took place in the few months which intervened between the baptism of Christ and the Passover of the year 26. Wlien Jesus was found by his mother and Joseph in the Temple in the year 8, we find him repudiating the name of '"father" as applied to Joseph. ^' Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." " How is it that ye sought me ? Wist ye not that I must be at [not Jo- .seph's anil yours, but] my Father's house?" (Luke ii,48, 49). Now, in like manner, at his first miracle, which in- augurates his ministrj', he solemnly withdraws himself from the authority of his earthly mother. This is Au- gustine's explanation of the "What have I to do with thee ? my hour is not yet come." It was his humanity, not his divinity, which came from !Mary. While, there- fore, he was acting in his divine character, he could not acknowledge her, nor does he acknowledge her again until he was hanging on the cross, when, in that nature which he took from her, he was about to submit to death (St. Aug. Comm. in Joan. Evany, tract viii, vol. iii, p. 1455 [Paris, 1845, edit. Migne]). That the words T/ f/(oi Ka\ crot;=^bl ip rt?3 imply reproof, is certain (comp. Matt, viii, 29; Mark i, 24 ; and Sept., Judg. xi, 12; 1 Kings xvii, 18; 2 Kings iii, 13), and such is the patristic explanation of them (see Iren. Adv. Hmr. iii, 18 ; Apnd Bihl. Pair. Max. tom. ii, part ii, p. 293 ; St. Chrysost. Jlom. in Joan. xxi). But the reproof is of a gentle kind (Trench, On the Miracles, p. 102 [London, 1856] ; Alford, Comm. ad loc. ; Wordsworth, Comm. ad loc). Mary seems to have understood it, and accord-
ingly to have drawn back, desiring the ser%'ants to pay attention to her divine Son (Olshausen, Comm. ad loc). The modern Komanist translation, " What is that to me and to thee ?" is not a mistake, because it is a wilful misrepresentation (Douay version ; Orsini, Life of Mary. etc.; see The Catholic Layman, p. 117 [Dublin, 1852]). Lightfoot supposes the marriage to have taken place in the house of Alph»us, Mary's brother-in-law, as his son Simon is called the Canaanite, or man of Cana. But this terra rather describes him as a former Zealot. See Zelotes. It is clear that Mary felt herself to be invested with some authority in the house. Jesus was naturally there as her Son, and the disciples as those whom he had called and adopted as his especial friends. As yet, the Lord had done no miracle ; and it has been questioned whether INIary, in drawing his attention to the failure of the wine, meant to invoke his miracidous powers, or merely to submit the fact to his judgment, that he might do what was best under the circumstances — either withdrawing from the feast with his disciples, or engaging the attention of the guests by his discourse. The better opinion, however, seems to be that she knew he was about now to enter on his public ministry, and that miracles would be wrought by him in proof of his divine mission ; and the early fathers do not scruple to say that a desire to gain eclat by the powers of her Son was one motive for her wish that he should supply the deficiency of the wine, and that by his reply he meant to condemn this feeling.