Jerusalem was also known in late antiquity as Girsu

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

At some point in time – was it late, during the Seleucid era? – certain major Judean cities became associated with, even absorbed into, central and southern Mesopotamia.

 

I am referring in particular to Lagash (var. Lakish), Eshnunna and Girsu.

 

The focus for the ‘history’ of this period of time, whoever was writing it, appears to have been Lagash, rather than the Girsu that was regarded, nonetheless, as being the very spiritual centre.  

 

But a host of place names ostensibly belonging to central and southern Mesopotamia do not appear actually to belong there. In fact, some of them – e.g. Lagash and Girsu – seem to “fall permanently off the political map”, according to Seth Richardson, as quoted in my article:

 

A new location proposed for Sumer

 

(3) A new location proposed for Sumer

 

According to this article, Sumer may be the Sumur(a) near the Mediterranean coast. And I as well, some time ago now, shifted Akkad well away from Mesopotamia, and also to the Mediterranean coast, identifying it there as the famous port city of Ugarit (Egyptian IKAT). See e.g. my article:

 

My road to Akkad

 

(3) My road to Akkad

 

Lagash/Lakish was now to be re-identified as Judah’s strong fort of Lachish, second only to Jerusalem itself. But it was not to be separated from Eshnunna/Ashnunna, which, with the changing of only one consonant, becomes Ashduddu, the Assyrian name for Ashdod (“the strong”) and another name for Lachish (not to be confused with the Philistine Ashdod, Assyrian Ashdudimmu: “Ashdod-by-the-Sea”):

 

As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash

 

(3) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash

 

If all this is correct, then Girsu (conventionally thought to be modern Tello in S. Iraq), the spiritual centre for Lagash/Eshnunna, must inevitably be Jerusalem itself:

 

Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello

 

(4) Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello

 

All of this is, of course, far distantly removed from central and southern Mesopotamia!

 

Ningirsu, the lord of Girsu, then simply becomes Yahweh, the Lord of Jerusalem:

 

Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu

 

(4) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu

 

A History Rise article rightly refers to Girsu as “the Sacred Heart of Lagash”:

The Archaeological Site of Girsu: the Sacred Heart of Lagash | History Rise

 

The Archaeological Site of Girsu: the Sacred Heart of Lagash

 

March 16, 2026 by History Rise

….

 

The archaeological site of Girsu, located in modern-day Iraq [sic], is one of the most significant remnants of ancient Sumerian [sic] civilization. It served as a religious and administrative center for the city-state of Lagash, which flourished around 2500 BCE [sic]. Girsu’s ruins offer invaluable insights into early urban development and religious practices in Mesopotamia [sic].

 

The Historical Significance of Girsu

 

Girsu was more than just a city; it was considered the spiritual heart of Lagash. The city was home to many temples dedicated to deities like Ningirsu, the warrior god and protector of Lagash. The prominence of Ningirsu’s temple highlights the importance of religion in governance and daily life in ancient Sumer.

 

Major Archaeological Discoveries

 

Excavations at Girsu have uncovered impressive artifacts, including statues, clay tablets, and the remains of monumental architecture. One of the most notable finds is the Stele of the Vultures, which depicts the victory of Lagash over its rival Umma. This artifact provides evidence of the political and military history of the region.

 

Temples and Religious Structures

 

The most famous structure at Girsu is the E-ninnu temple, dedicated to Ningirsu. Its ruins [sic] reveal complex construction techniques and religious symbolism. The temple complex was a center for rituals, offerings, and festivals that reinforced the divine authority of the ruling class.

 

The Role of Girsu in Sumerian Culture

 

Girsu played a vital role in shaping Sumerian culture through its religious, political, and artistic achievements. The city’s artifacts and inscriptions have helped historians understand the development of early writing, governance, and religious beliefs in Mesopotamia.

 

Preservation and Modern Significance

 

Today, Girsu is a UNESCO World Heritage site, recognized for its historical importance. Ongoing excavations continue to uncover new artifacts, shedding light on the ancient civilization that once thrived there. The site remains a symbol of humanity’s early achievements in urban planning and religious life.

[End of quote]

 

My advice: Say goodbye to the site of Tello and focus, instead, upon ancient Jerusalem, the real spiritual centre for the fort of Lakish (Lagash), i.e. Lachish (Ashdod).

 

 

Just a note on the Stele of the Vultures:

Stele of the Vultures - Ancient World Magazine

 

Currently on display at the Louvre Museum, the Stele of the Vultures originates from Tello (ancient Girsu) in Iraq and dates to the Early Dynastic III period, or roughly between 2600 and 2350 BC. The stele was erected to celebrate the victory of the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, ruled by Eanatum, over its rival Umma. While only fragments have survived, it originally must have been approximately 180 cm tall, 130 cm wide, and 11 cm thick. It was carved out of a single limestone slab.

 

There are different scenes on either side. The scenes on one side have been interpreted as historical or terrestrial, while the other side is thought to be mythological or divine. Both are connected to Eanatum, but only the historical side need interest us here, because it affords some interesting information with regards to the history of warfare. “Warfare”, in this context, refers to organized violence, and in particular the form of warfare practiced by Sumerian city-states.

 

The historical side of the stele is divided into four registers or panels, which we must presumably read from top to bottom. The top of the first panel depicts a large flock of vultures flying through the air while carrying severed heads and arms of the defeated soldiers of Umma in their beaks. Immediately below we see Sumerian soldiers from Lagash marching in formation, trampling the bodies of their fallen foes, emphasizing that this scene takes place immediately following the defeat of their opponent in battle. The soldiers march as a single unit, with the front rank defended by large, rectangular shields; spears poke out from between the shields. They are led by none other than King Eanatum himself. To the right of the advancing army, soldiers of Umma, shown in much smaller size, tumble or flee.

 

The second panel from the top depicts more soldiers marching, this time apparently without shields, and with their spears held aslant against their shoulders in one hand, and axes held up in the other. They follow a war-cart pulled by donkeys or onagers, driven by a figure holding a long spear overhead: this is again supposed to be Eanatum. The right portion of this panel is lost, but must have shown the enemy fighting or, perhaps more likely, fleeing. It’s not clear if the army here is supposed to be the same as the army depicted in the second panel.

 

The third panel, and the last that is more or less decently preserved, shows part of a seated figure, a naked priest performing a libation ritual, and a pile of corpses flanked by figures carrying baskets on their heads. The baskets probably contained earth, used to bury the pile of corpses.

 

Presumably the corpses consist of the fallen of Umma, but they may have included the bodies of dead soldiers from Lagash, too. A cow is tied to a post near the seated figure’s feet: no doubt the animal was to serve as a sacrifice. The seated figure is undoubtedly again Eanatum, keeping a watchful eye on the proceedings here.

 

It’s the panel with the soldiers marching in formation that has drawn the most interest from students of ancient warfare. The formation used by the soldiers of Lagash has drawn comparisons with later Graeco-Roman formations, most notably the Macedonian phalanx. But the peoples of the ancient Near East were apparently the first to deploy troops in formation. Aside from the Vulture stele, there are other pieces of evidence, including wooden models of soldiers marching in block formations from ancient Egypt.

[End of quote]

 

It behoves me now to fit this epic into a Judean context (Jerusalem, Lachish).

 

At the beginning of this article I had wondered if the geographical weirdness may have arisen “late, during the Seleucid era?” In this regard, it is interesting that a document supposedly as ancient as is the Stele of the Vultures (c. 2450 BC) should exhibit soldiers ostensibly employing “the Macedonian phalanx”.

 

The item has been seriously mis-dated.

I believe that this is a late recollection of King Hezekiah of Judah (Jerusalem/Lachish), as Eannatum of Lagash – Hezekiah victorious over Assyria, and also as Urukagina – Hezekiah during the siege of Jerusalem:

 

Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma

 

(5) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma

 

Lumma, here, may well be a reference to King Hezekiah as Lemuel:

 

“Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon

 

(5) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by

 

Hezekiah was Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina

“Uru-ka-gina, Uru-inim-gina, or Iri-ka-gina was King of the city-states of Lagash and Girsu …”.

 

Professor Finkelstein still minimising Israel’s great kings David and Solomon

 

 

“Finkelstein believes that the original city of Jerusalem must have constituted

a large tel mound located within the area today known as the Temple Mount.

It’s an interesting theory. But how much of it is “facts and data”?”

Brad Macdonald and Christopher Eames

 

Was David and Solomon’s Jerusalem a ‘Godforsaken’ Place?

What does archaeology tell us?

By Brad Macdonald and Christopher Eames

 

From the March-April 2024 Let the Stones Speak Magazine Issue

In a 2021 interview series hosted by the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, one of Israel’s most prominent archaeologists made some bold remarks about the Bible and its role in archaeology in Israel.

 

He explained that David and Solomon were simple, hill-country chieftains, and not the towering monarchs recorded in the Bible. He theorized that the story of David and Goliath was invented during the time of King Josiah (late seventh century b.c.e.) and was crafted to reflect his upcoming clash with Egypt’s Pharaoh Necho (Josiah was King David, Egypt was Goliath).

 

He also said King Solomon’s glorious reign was probably modeled by late biblical writers after an Assyrian king, maybe Sennacherib.

 

He also shared some bold and controversial views about biblical Jerusalem. He claimed that Judah and Jerusalem only turned from a “godforsaken” place to an important kingdom in the late eighth century b.c.e., when they were incorporated into the Assyrian economy. And he claimed that Judah only became a truly literate state—allowing for the composition of the Bible—when educated Israelites from the north fled into Judah from their own Assyrian destruction during the same century.

 

Many Jews, Christians, even Muslims would disagree with the views of Prof. Israel Finkelstein. And some might even get upset by these claims. But the more important question is, what does the evidence say?

 

In the first interview of the series, Professor Finkelstein emphasized how important it is to “speak facts and data” when talking about ancient Israel and Jerusalem.

 

And he is absolutely right. But here’s the context of that statement: “First and foremost, … the Bible does not mean to speak history. The Bible is all about theology, about ideology … and we scholars, researchers, need to speak facts and data” (emphasis added throughout).

 

Finkelstein clearly rejects the Bible as a historical source. But on what grounds? Where are the facts and data, the hard evidence—the science—proving that the Bible does not “speak history”?

 

Let’s examine Finkelstein’s claims specifically about biblical Jerusalem (Episode 15 of the series). Was Jerusalem a “godforsaken” place until the late eighth century b.c.e.? Is understanding Jerusalem of the united monarchy “a lost case,” as his interviewer concluded following Finkelstein’s comments? Is it correct for his interviewer to assert that “[e]xtensive archaeology has revealed nothing” about it?

 

Where Was Original Jerusalem?

 

The interview began with a discussion about the original location of Jerusalem. The majority opinion of scholars, archaeologists and historians is that early Jerusalem was situated in the area known today as the City of David, the ridge located south of the Temple Mount. According to the biblical text, David conquered this original city site ruled by the Canaanite Jebusites and made it his capital—and Solomon later expanded the city northward to include the temple construction.

 

According to Finkelstein, this understanding is flawed and there is “no way to clarify” where the ancient City of David really was. “We don’t really know what [these names] mean. We don’t really know what the Bible means when the Bible speaks about the City of David. There’s no place we can really pinpoint on the ridge to the south of the Temple Mount.”

 

Finkelstein believes the original city of Jerusalem was situated at the top of the Temple Mount hill, and that the city expanded southward down the ridge.

 

He gave several reasons for his theory. First, he said, the City of David does not look like a typical “tel” mound. Second, he pointed out the lack of Bronze Age remains in the area, particularly the southern part of the City of David. And third, he explained that city mounds are usually situated at the top of the highest ground. “The City of David ridge,” he explained, “is completely dominated on three sides by higher grounds,” and this would have given enemies a tactical advantage.

 

Because of these reasons, Finkelstein believes that the original city of Jerusalem must have constituted a large tel mound located within the area today known as the Temple Mount. It’s an interesting theory. But how much of it is “facts and data”?

 

Consider the claim that we cannot know what the Bible means when it speaks about the City of David. The Bible is actually quite specific in describing the location of the original Canaanite city, Jebus. First, it says explicitly that the original Jebusite fortress in Jerusalem, captured by David, was renamed the City of David. 2 Samuel 5:7 tells us “the same is the city of David.” Furthermore, this passage states that this fortress (metzudah in Hebrew) was located in a lower ridge location—“down” from the highest geographical features (verse 17).

 

The Bible also indicates that the site was atypically small and extremely well defensed geographically. In verses 6-8, the Canaanites boast that the city’s defense is so strong, even “the blind and the lame” could defend it. Finally, the Bible also reveals that the upper site of the future temple was part of an agricultural area outside and higher in elevation than the original city (1 Chronicles 21:18-19; 22:1).

 

Professor Finkelstein suggested that a settlement on the lower ridge would have been a strategic liability, but this view is not borne out historically. Jerusalem has been conquered numerous times. While the northern Temple Mount area is technically the highest point, this area is also a more-gradually sloped, broader area. Historically, this is the point where the city has typically been breached.

When the Romans invaded in 70 c.e., they attacked the city from north of the Temple Mount. The Babylonians attacked the same point when they conquered Jerusalem in 586 b.c.e. This was the point where Assyria’s King Sennacherib threatened Judah with his armies in the late eighth century b.c.e. (although an attack did not take place). This was also the location where part of the city wall was torn down by the attacking kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 14:13).

 

The ridge and small summit on which the City of David sits is actually an extremely difficult area to penetrate. The bedrock on the east and west sides of the ridge falls away sharply, creating narrow valleys that become a kill-zone for large forces.

 

Additionally, recent excavations of the Givati Parking Lot have revealed a massive man-made trench in the bedrock between the City of David and the Ophel mound. This moat undoubtedly served as a defensive feature protecting the city from invasion from the north. (For more information, read “The Moat of Ancient Jerusalem.”)

 

The fact that the City of David doesn’t fit the mold of a large “tel” mound, and that it has a comparatively lower elevation, may not accord with Finkelstein’s conceptualization of early Jerusalem—but it does fit with the historical accounts.

Now what about the purported lack of Bronze Age remains?

 

Where Is Bronze Age Jerusalem?

 

Archaeology in Israel and the ancient Near East is divided into several periods. The Bronze Age spans the third and second millenniums b.c.e. (put simply, Early Bronze, circa 3000–2000; Middle Bronze, 2000–1500; Late Bronze, 1500–1200 b.c.e.). Where are the remains of Jerusalem from the middle of the second millennium b.c.e.?

It is clear from Egyptian inscriptions, as Finkelstein highlighted, that Jerusalem was occupied in the Bronze Age—both the Middle and Late.

 

Where, then, are these remains on the City of David ridge? After all, as Finkelstein noted, in areas of the southern ridge there is bedrock under Iron Age remains, and we have “only a [Bronze Age] sherd here or a sherd there … we don’t have at all evidence, or almost none, for architecture, houses, any construction activity.” Due to the lack of Bronze Age remains in the City of David, Finkelstein concludes that Bronze Age Jerusalem “must have been located on the Temple Mount” (although, as he admits, this theory cannot be put to the test by excavation due to the religious and political situation).

 

Before getting into what has been found, consider what has not been found.

 

While the City of David isn’t as politically or religiously sensitive as the Temple Mount, it is still incredibly sensitive. Much of the area is situated in the densely populated Arab neighborhood of Silwan. This makes it difficult to conduct large-scale excavations that would expose large swathes of territory. Instead, archaeologists have to excavate smaller areas, building their picture slowly over time, in fits and spurts.

 

Next, recall that Jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt several times over the centuries. According to Eric Cline’s book Jerusalem Besieged, the city has been “besieged 23 times, attacked an additional 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.” This, too, explains the lack of Bronze Age evidence: Much of it was destroyed in these attacks.

 

Finally, despite the relatively small area that has been excavated, and all of the destructions that have occurred, there is archaeological evidence for Bronze Age occupation in the City of David.

 

Archaeological excavations around the Gihon Spring—situated in the lower, northeastern corner of the City of David—have revealed part of a truly massive fortification, one that dates to the Middle Bronze Age (circa 2000–1500 b.c.e.).

This fortification wrapped around and protected the vital Gihon Spring. Its walls are massive, up to 7 meters wide at their foundations—the widest walls of any Bronze Age site in all Israel.

 

The Gihon Spring, Jerusalem’s only water source, is located on the lower ridge of the City of David, partway down into the eastern Kidron Valley. The location of this spring, and the tunnels that link it to the City of David (not the Temple Mount), are some of the greatest proofs of the location of the original site of Jerusalem—built deliberately around and protecting the vital spring.

 

Professor Finkelstein recognizes this massive Middle Bronze Age fortification in the lower City of David.

 

However, he suggests that this giant structure was simply a standalone building, an outlying tower from the Temple Mount city-hub, built to protect the distant spring. (He also postulates that the underground network of ancient tunnels beneath the City of David leading to the Gihon Spring simply gave late writers the idea to craft a story about David conquering Jerusalem using them.)

 

Consider the facts: What is the most rational explanation? Why do these Bronze Age tunnels connected to the Gihon Spring lead into the City of David and not north, into the Temple Mount? This suggests the City of David was the central habitation at this time, not the Temple Mount.

 

Consider too: Is it difficult to believe that Middle Bronze Age structures such as these continued to be used in the Late Bronze Age? And what about other Canaanite-era walls discovered on the lower eastern slopes of the City of David, better sheltered from exposure and destruction?

 

The man who interviewed Professor Finkelstein questioned his theory of a Bronze Age Jerusalem centered on the Temple Mount. The interviewer identified certain difficulties with the theory, such as the exposed bedrock at the center of the Temple Mount site. In response, Finkelstein noted that erosion down to bedrock at an elevated point of the site is not unusual (again, structures are usually better-preserved in lower, more sheltered areas of a site). He also pointed out that we shouldn’t expect to find much on the Temple Mount anyway, given Herod’s clearing and rebuilding of the site for his temple.

 

How ironic. These are the same explanations for a lack of Bronze Age remains in much of the City of David—the exposed, eroded bedrock along the upper, southern part of the ridge, as well as repeat events of destruction and rebuilding. Here’s the key difference though: The only remnants we have of Bronze Age Jerusalem are in the City of David, not on the Temple Mount. Because something can be said to the question of Bronze Age remains on the Temple Mount: Sifting and various analyses have been done on the many tons of earth illegally bulldozed out of the Temple Mount foundations by the Islamic Waqf, along with other underground surveys of the Temple Mount. As affirmed by Dr. Hillel Geva and Dr. Alon De Groot, there is no evidence of tel stratification, and only 1 percent of the material remains discovered date prior to the Iron Age—rather damning evidence against this site as the location of a strong Bronze Age city tel.

….

David’s prophet Nathan may be the same as Gad

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

The different names could be explained by, for instance, Nathan being the prophet’s actual name, and Gad being his geographical home – perhaps Ramoth-gilead where Levites dwelt, Gad and Gilead being interchanged.

 

 

Given the similarities between the seer Nathan, the seer Gad, the Scriptures may possibly be describing here just the one person in the same way as, so I believe, David’s shrewd-wise counsellor, Jonadab, continues as the shrewd-wise counsellor Achitophel, thereby completing an absorbing tale of intrigue that had appeared to end too abruptly. Regarding this, see e.g. my article:

 

Absalom and Achitophel

 

(8) Absalom and Achitophel

 

Some similarities between Nathan and Gad are long contemporaneity with the reign of King David; serving the king as a truly wise counsellor; a fearless prophet or seer; a recorder of Davidic history.

 

It would be unlikely - so it seems to me - to have two such similar seers operating over that long a period of Davidic history.

 

The different names could be explained by, for instance, Nathan being the prophet’s actual name, and Gad being his geographical home – perhaps Ramoth-gilead where Levites dwelt, Gad and Gilead being interchanged. This would make him Nathan the Gadite, and it might even connect him to the later great prophet, Elijah, from Gilead.

 

A possible explanation of I Chronicles 29:29-30, then, wherein Samuel, Nathan and Gad appear as if being three distinct prophets:

 

The prophets Samuel, Nathan and Gad wrote history books about all the things that King David did. They wrote down everything that he did as king, from the beginning to the end. The books tell us how he ruled with great power. They tell us about the things that happened to him. They also tell us about the things that happened in Israel and in the other kingdoms in that region ...

 

would be that a waw consecutive is in play here, to be read as: “The prophets Samuel, Nathan, that is the Gadite, wrote history books about all that David did”.

 

According to the Topical Encyclopedia:

Topical Bible: Gad and Nathan

 

Gad was a prophet and seer during the reign of King David, playing a significant role in the spiritual and political life of Israel. He is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 22:5, where he advises David, who was then fleeing from King Saul, to leave the stronghold and go into the land of Judah. This counsel reflects Gad's role as a divine messenger, providing guidance to David during a tumultuous period.

 

Gad's most notable involvement is recorded in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, where he delivers God's message to David after the king's sinful census of Israel. The Lord, displeased with David's action, sends Gad to offer David a choice of three punishments: three years of famine, three months of fleeing from enemies, or three days of plague. David chooses to fall into the hands of the Lord, resulting in a devastating plague. Gad later instructs David to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, where the plague is halted. This site becomes the location for Solomon's Temple, underscoring Gad's influence on Israel's religious heritage.

 

Gad is also mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29, where he is noted as one of the authors of the records of King David's reign, alongside Samuel the seer and Nathan the prophet. This highlights Gad's role not only as a spiritual advisor but also as a chronicler of Israel's history.

Nathan

 

Nathan was a prominent prophet during the reigns of King David and King Solomon, known for his courage and faithfulness in delivering God's messages. He first appears in 2 Samuel 7, where he initially encourages David to build a house for the Lord. However, after receiving a divine revelation, Nathan returns to David with a message from God, promising that David's offspring will build the temple and that his kingdom will be established forever. This prophecy is foundational to the Davidic Covenant, which has significant theological implications for the messianic lineage.

 

Nathan's most famous encounter with David occurs in 2 Samuel 12, following David's adultery with Bathsheba and the arranged death of her husband, Uriah. Nathan confronts David with a parable about a rich man who unjustly takes a poor man's lamb, leading David to pronounce judgment on himself.

Nathan then reveals David's sin, prompting the king's repentance. This episode underscores Nathan's role as a fearless prophet who holds even the king accountable to God's standards.

 

Nathan also plays a crucial role in the succession of Solomon to the throne. In 1 Kings 1, as David's life nears its end, Nathan, along with Bathsheba, ensures that Solomon is anointed king, thwarting Adonijah's attempt to seize the throne. Nathan's actions demonstrate his commitment to God's will and the stability of the Davidic line.

 

Nathan is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29 as one of the authors of the records of King David's reign, alongside Samuel the seer and Gad the seer. This indicates his involvement in documenting the history and spiritual legacy of Israel during a pivotal era.

 

 

 

 

Saint Joseph the perfect icon of God the Father

 

“This is the theological foundation of the holy Patriarch’s greatness as virginal, messianic father of the Only-begotten of the Father: shadow and transparent icon of Him who wished to make Joseph unique partaker of his fatherhood in order to prepare the human nature of Christ for the holocaust of Calvary”.

 Jonathan Fleischmann

  

Today is the feast-day of Saint Joseph

 19^th March, 2026

  

The Vertex of Love

October 8, 2012 by Jonathan Fleischmann

 

When Mary was predestined in one and the same decree with

Jesus Christ by the design of God—before the creation of angels or

the universe, and before the existence of sin or evil—she was predestined to be the Spouse of the Holy Spirit … to hold within herself 

all the love of creation.

Love’s Mechanics

 

In the return of all created things to God the Father (cf. Jn 1, 1; 16, 28), “the equal and contrary reaction,” says St. Maximilian Kolbe, “proceeds inversely from that of creation.”  In creation, the saint goes on to say, the action of God “proceeds from the Father through the Son and the Spirit, while in the return, by means of the Spirit, the Son becomes incarnate in (the Virgin Mary’s) womb and through Him, love returns to the Father.” …. 

The Saint of Auschwitz goes on:

 

In the union of the Holy Spirit with her, not only does love bind these two beings, but the first of them (the Holy Spirit) is all the love of the Most Holy Trinity, while the second (the Blessed Virgin Mary) is all the love of creation, and thus in that union heaven is joined to earth, the whole heaven with the whole earth, the whole of Uncreated Love with the whole of created love: this is the vertex of love. ….

 

Love’s Equilibrium

The form of the diagram shown in Figure 1 is not found in the work of St. Maximilian. 

     Figure 1:  The return of all created things to God the Father.

 

However, it accurately represents the state of equal and opposite action and reaction, that occurs when two bodies make contact.  In this case, the “bodies” represent heaven and earth:  the uncreated and created orders, God and his creation.  The first point I would like to make is that the state of equal and opposite contact forces in Newtonian mechanics requires “force equilibrium.”  It may then seem very wrong to use an image like this one, because how can the state shown between God and his creation be in equilibrium?  Isn’t God’s act of love so much greater than the return of his creation that no “equilibrium” would be possible?  This would certainly be the case if it were not for Emmanuel, that is, God with us.  Jesus, who is truly man, and truly God, belongs to both the created and uncreated orders simultaneously.  In his person, Jesus is both the son of Mary, fully human and like us in all ways except sin, and the Eternal Son of God the Father, infinite and equal in all ways to the Triune God.

....

Thus, the love of Jesus, the Word Made Flesh who is God, is by itself enough to “balance” the love of God.  However, there is even more in the equation of love’s equilibrium than the love of the Son, infinite and sufficient in itself, though it is.  According to St. Maximilian, the perfect love of the Trinity meets an adequate response in the perfect love of the Immaculate, which is the name St. Maximilian gives to the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

 

How is it possible that Divine Love can find an adequate response in the love of a creature?  It is possible precisely because of the name that the Virgin Mary can claim for herself.  In 1854, the Blessed Virgin Mary proclaimed to St. Bernadette Soubirous: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” 

 

In the words of St. Maximilian, the Blessed Virgin is the created Immaculate Conception, as in the words of St. Bonaventure, the Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception. ….

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son, as the perfect and infinite love between the Father and the Son in the eternal interior life of the Blessed Trinity. Thus, the Holy Spirit is truly all the love of the Most Holy Trinity.  The Holy Spirit is also called the “Complement” of the Blessed Trinity, because he is the completion of the Trinity, not in “number” (quantitatively), but in essence (qualitatively).

 

When Mary was predestined in one and the same decree with Jesus Christ … by the design of God—before the creation of angels or the universe, and before the existence of sin or evil—she was predestined to be the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

So she was predestined to hold within herself all the love of creation.  Thus, St. Maximilian says that the Blessed Virgin Mary “inserted into the love of the Most Holy Trinity becomes, from the very first moment of her existence, always, forever, the Complement of the Most Holy Trinity.” We may paraphrase the thoughts of St. Maximilian Kolbe on the spousal relationship between the Holy Spirit, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the words of Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner:

 

In virtue of this spousal union formally denoted by the title, Complement, Mary is able to enter, as no other, into the order of the hypostatic union, her soul being wholly divinized, because by the grace of the Immaculate Conception, it has been ‘transubstantiated’ into the Holy Spirit. ….

 

It is for this reason that Mary—though she is a creature in both her person and her nature—is herself the created Immaculate Conception, and, therefore, all the love of creation. She can actually provide an adequate response to the love of the Holy Spirit, who is the uncreated Immaculate Conception, and, therefore, all the Love of God.  Thus, the equation of love’s equilibrium is balanced again.

 

Now that we have balanced the equation of love’s equilibrium twice over, we could certainly stop. However, there is reason to continue. St. Maximilian does not expressly mention St. Joseph in the context of these reflections. 

 

However, the diagram in Figure 1, based entirely on the saint’s own reflections, certainly suggests the presence of St. Joseph in the order of the response of creation to God the Father. The order of Father, Son, and, Holy Spirit, shown in the diagram, reflects the order of God’s loving act of creation.

 

This was initiated by the zeal of the Father, designed by the wisdom of the Son, and effected by the action of the Holy Spirit. This is the order referred to by St. Maximilian when he says that: “the equal and contrary reaction (i.e., the return of all creation to God) proceeds inversely from that of creation.” We see this reflection in the diagram, where the reaction “force” of love is inverted, and the order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the “action force,” is reversed to give the order of Holy Spirit, Son, and Father.

 

Notice, however, that in the return to God, it is creation that is reacting. Thus, the individuals reacting—while reflecting the Holy Spirit, Son, and Father to greater or lesser degrees—are all creatures.  We have Mary, who is the perfect similitude (St. Bonaventure), transparent icon (St. Maximilian), or even quasi-incarnation (St. Maximilian) of the Holy Spirit, but who is still a created person, with a created human nature. We have Jesus, who is the Word Incarnate, the same Person as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but who is still in possession of a created human nature. St. Maximilian stops here, but must we stop here? I would dare to say that the analogy we have carried out so far on the inspiration of St. Maximilian suggests an obvious completion. We have St. Joseph, who has been called the “perfect icon of God the Father” by more than one saint. …. In the words of Fr. Joachin Ferrer Arellano:

 

In the light of the Scotistic thesis on the Primacy of Christ, to take one example, one discovers (…) how the virginal marriage of Mary and Joseph was predestined “ante mundi constitutionem” (before the constitution of the world), as an essential part of the one decree of the Incarnation of the Word in the womb of the Immaculate “ante praevisa merita” (before any consideration of antecedent merit). Such is the saving plan, “the mystery hidden before the ages in God,” (cf. Eph 3:9) to be accomplished at the high point in the history of salvation. That high point is the fullness of time (cf. Gal 4:4) when God sent his Son into the most pure bosom of Holy Mary Ever Virgin, espoused to a man of the house of David (cf. Lk 1:26) in fulfillment of the prophecy of Nathan. 

 

God acted thus, that through the obedience of the Spouses of Nazareth the Son might be freely welcomed into history on behalf of all mankind in order to save it. This welcome took place in the virginal womb of Mary, the Daughter of Zion, and in the house of Joseph, in the family home established by the marriage of the two Spouses (Mary and Joseph), “sanctuary of love and cradle of life.” 

 

This is the theological foundation of the holy Patriarch’s greatness as virginal, messianic father of the Only-begotten of the Father: shadow and transparent icon of Him who wished to make Joseph unique partaker of his fatherhood in order to prepare the human nature of Christ for the holocaust of Calvary. In this way, He made Joseph Father and Lord of the Church gushing forth from Christ’s opened side and born of the sword of sorrow of the Woman. ….

 

In addition to being the transparent icon of God the Father, St. Joseph was the true, virginal husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ….  In fact, it can even be said that St. Joseph is the virginal father of Jesus Christ.  For, again in the words of Fr. Joachin Ferrer Arellano:

 

Although singular, unique, and not univocal with fatherhood as this is ordinarily understood and commonly found among men, the position more common and traditional among theologians upholds the truly real fatherhood of Joseph in relation to Jesus, based 1) on his marriage to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and 2) on the right of the husband over his wife. He, therefore, who is born virginally of Mary, by reason of his birth, intimately pertains in some manner to Joseph as father. … In view of the dignity of Joseph as husband of Mary, to whom belongs the fruit of his wife’s womb, one is not permitted to overlook … how the indivisible virginity of both spouses—not simply that of Mary, but also that of her husband, the son of David—is ordered to the virginal fatherhood of Joseph according to the Spirit, in virtue of the obedience of faith to the saving plan of God. This plan includes the messianic fatherhood of Joseph as son of David in relation to his virginal Son, constituted Son of David, the messianic King, because He was Son of Joseph. ….

 

In the return of all created things to God the Father, it is under the leadership, and in imitation of, St. Joseph, our patriarch, that the individual members of the Church must, by the merits gained for us through the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, be transubstantiated into Mary, who is the Virgo Ecclesia Facta (Virgin-Made-Church). ….

 

It is only by being transubstantiated into Mary, the created Immaculate Conception, that we can be united to God as she is uniquely united to God, being transubstantiated with her into the uncreated Immaculate Conception, who is the Holy Spirit. In virtue of this transubstantiation, we are possessed by the Immaculate, and we are thereby formed into a single community, or Church, sharing her personality. To St. Maximilian, this is the only way that we can be members of Christ’s Church, and thereby united to God. 

….

 

Taken from: http://www.hprweb.com/2012/10/the-vertex-of-love/