Mary, Eve, and The Church

[ctlw83]

Hey All,

I’ve been listening to the Staples vs. Gregg debate series and came across a question which there was not sufficient time for either apologist to cover due to the constraints of an hour-long format.

In the debate about Mary, the point was brought up by Gregg was that if Jesus is the new Adam, then it would follow that the Church, His bride, is the new Eve and not Mary.

While I don’t agree with Gregg’s position on Mary as a whole, I don’t know what a good defense against this argument would be. Granted, this can be a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” situation, which I have no problem with. But, again, what defense can we offer as Catholics, using the Bible and exgesis, in order to defend our position?

I know there is plenty of sacred Tradition on Mary which we can use but, a “Bible-only” protestant will not likely accept those arguments.

 

[josephback]

Mary is the new eve because her yes to God undid the first eves no.

A place to point to mary is revelation 12. Even from mere reason most will admit the child is jesus. Jesus mother is mary. In addition, given that the woman is mary, revelation 12 makes a veiled reference to the fall, when it calls the dragon “that serpent”. You won’t convince someone whose mind is closed, but others will listen.

 

[grannymh]

Hey All,

I’ve been listening to the Staples vs. Gregg debate series and came across a question which there was not sufficient time for either apologist to cover due to the constraints of an hour-long format.

In the debate about Mary, the point was brought up by Gregg was that if Jesus is the new Adam, then it would follow that the Church, His bride, is the new Eve and not Mary.

While I don’t agree with Gregg’s position on Mary as a whole, I don’t know what a good defense against this argument would be. Granted, this can be a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” situation, which I have no problem with. But, again, what defense can we offer as Catholics, using the Bible and exgesis, in order to defend our position?

I know there is plenty of sacred Tradition on Mary which we can use but, a “Bible-only” protestant will not likely accept those arguments.

We, you and me, are the Catholic Church on earth which is considered the Mystical Body of Christ. 1 Corinthians, 13: 12-31 as a start.

 

[ctlw83]

Thanks for your responses everyone. Just for the record, it is not that I was deeply doubting our Catholic faith on this. However, it was a point that raised some questions and I wanted to see what others might have to say on the situation.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Typology doesn’t have to be a perfect mirror in every trivial quality. Gregg misappropriates it. Paul explicitly says Jesus is the new Adam, but Jesus didn’t have an earthly bride like Adam. Typology is something in the OT that foreshadows something in the new based on the theology it represents. I don’t remember that debate anyway, but Mary and Eve are filled with parallels Gregg may not have addressed such as how an angel approached each and they made a decision that affected mankind.

 

[Usagi]

The parallel isn’t so much in the exact relationships as it is in the roles within salvation history.

The first Adam brought death and damnation by his sin. The first Eve could not have done that, because Adam and not she is the origin of the entire human race (including Eve herself). But Eve sinned first and set up the conditions for Adam’s sin.

Likewise, only the last Adam, Jesus, could have saved humanity, and by His obedience unto death He reversed the doom brought by the first Adam. That’s the most important parallel and the one that’s made explicit in Scripture. But God kindly also permitted a woman, Mary, to symbolically reverse the sin of Eve by an act of obedience that, while infinitely less in value than her Son’s, came first and paved the way for the Incarnation.

In another nice “bookend,” where the first Eve took her flesh from her Adam, the last Adam took his flesh from His “Eve,” His mother.

Usagi