The assumption of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter homer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is more proof.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman(Eve) he (God) said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

​
Numerous early works discuss the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain (below I list two first century examples). But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus clearly Mary was not under penalty of original sin. She was immaculate by God’s grace in anticipation of the redeeming death her Son would die on the cross. Thus the Church describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption”

The Ascension of Isaiah [A.D. 70]

“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain.’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11).

The Odes of Solomon [A.D. 80]

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (*Odes of Solomon *19).
 
Next, we see that sacred scripture tells us;

“And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, FULL OF GRACE, the LORD IS WITH THEE…”(Luke 1:28)** Note:** The translation “Full of Grace” instead of “Highly Favored” is far more acerate to the Greek., the Ancient Syriac, Arabic and Latin versions. It was also approved by the early Christian fathers.(for more on this see the [appendix](L'apologie chrétienne dans les jeux vidéos - On les appelle les easter eggs et ils sont partout, même dans les jeux PS4 OF GRACE))

Luke chapter one verse twenty eight indicates a unique abundance of grace (Gk.: “charis”), a supernatural, godlike state of soul, even before Christ’s redemption; which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. How can a soul enslaved by sin of any kind be full of the Divine Grace of God? The answer should be obvious, it CAN’T, God HATES ALL SIN.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice.” (Rom. i. 18)

“Therefore, ye men of understanding, hear me: far from God be wickedness, and iniquity from the Almighty.” (Job xxxiv. 10)

“I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”. (Ex. xx. 5)

“The Lord hateth all abomination of error, and they that fear him shall not love it…He hath commanded not man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin.” (Ecclus. xv. 13, 21)

“But to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike.” (Wis. xiv. 9)

Continued on next post.
 
Clearly, here we have Gabriel the angle of God declaring Mary free of all Sin.This is also verified by the angles next words “…the Lord is with thee”. St. Augustine in A.D. 415 wrote:

“We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” (,Nature and Grace,36:42,in NPNF1,V:135)
Next, we see that sacred scripture tells us;

“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for THOU HAST FOUND FAVOR WITH GOD. And, behold, THOU SHALT CONCEIVE IN THY WOMB, AND BRING FORTH A SON, AND SHALT CALL HIS NAME JESUS. HE SHALL BE GREAT, AND SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:”(Luke 1:30-32)

Again, we see the angle of the lord single Mary out as having “Found FAVOR With God”. Then he goes on to tell Mary she was to become the mother of God (“The mother of my Lord” Luke 1:43). Understanding god’s justifiable hatred for sin, would God chouse to spend nine months in a sin stained temple (womb)? To the Christian there is only one answer ***NO, ***there is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. as Jacob of Sarug in A.D. 521 tells us:

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”(ante,in CE)
 
What kind of son (Christ who was God was the perfect son) would allow his own mother to become a SLAVE to sin and the Devil, if he could preserve her from it? To the Christian there is only one answer, NONE.

“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb(Christ)And whence is this to me, that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?..And Mary said, MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD, And my *SPIRIT HATH REJOICED *(Note: this is in the past tense) IN GOD MY SAVIOUR. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED.”(Luke 1:41-43,46-48)

​
These four are incredible revelation of sacred scripture first, St. Elisabeth who was filled with the Holy Ghost declares Mary Special among all Women. This coincides with the angel’s greeting to Mary “…The Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”(Luke 1:28).

Second, Mary’s soul *magnifies the lord. *Can is soul which has sin or is sinful a glory (I.E. magnify) to god? Of course not as we have already seen GOD HATES sin, therefor Mary must have been exempt or preserved from sin.God is revealed as perfect interior holiness.
Code: 
            "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!" they (the Seraphim) cried one to the other.---(Is 6:3)
Third, Scripture declares that all generations shall praise Mary as blessed, this is very high praise indeed. As Ephraim, in A.D. 370 tells us;
Code: 
"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." (in  Hymns on the Nativity,15:23 NPNF2,XIII:254)
Continued on next post**
 
Fourth, Mary says “My spirit hath rejoiced in god my saviour” This is in the PAST TENSE meaning Mary was ALREADY SAVED, even before CHRIST WAS BORN. Some Fundamentalists’ will try to agrue, “Mary said her ‘my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior’ (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior. Since Mary was a sinner, she couldn’t have been immaculately conceived.”

It is this: Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, he cries out for help, and someone hears his plea, reaches down, and pulls him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit (cf. Psalm 40:2-3). Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is falling in, someone reaches out, holds her back, and prevents her from falling in. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: she was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting defiled in the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at the exact instant of her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain, and so she was saved in an even more immanent manner than we are. Fundamentalists will often try to use Romans 3:23, “all have sinned” to attack the concept of the Immaculate Conception, for the answer to this objection please see appendix B
 
Much my last few posts have been a cut and paste of an article that I did not think I could get a link to but there is one at the end of my last post. Here is the rest of the article;
 
PROOF FROM TRADITION;

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);

Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”);

Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);

Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (“Nom. viii de Natali Domini”);

Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).

In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).

Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.”);

it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);

she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);

when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).

The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . … flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).

Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.
 
St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the “conceptio carnis” was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, “Mari SS. Vita”, Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the “Revelations” of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.

From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary’s immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.
 
FULL OF GRACE;

​
Word Pictures in the New Testament, by the renowned Protestant Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, expounds Luke 1:28 as follows:


“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace ("charis"), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; (Plummer).[Robertson, Archibald T., *Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes, vol. 2, p.13]

​
It is certain that kecharitomene is directly concerned with the idea of “grace,” since, as Vine noted, it is derived from the root word charis, whose literal meaning is “grace.” Charis is translated by the King James Version, for example, 129 times (out of 150 total appearances) as “grace.”

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass & DeBrunner,* Greek Grammar of the New Testament*, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166; Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1968, sec. 1852:b. ) Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.
 
"ALL HAVE SINNED"

But what about Romans 3:23, “all HAVE sinned”? first, let’s look at this verse in its proper context. Let us look at the context in which this verse is written, who was St. Paul referring to? What was the purpose behind the verse? St. Paul was attempting to eradicate the division between the Jewish converts and those of the Gentiles. St. Paul was specifically talking to those Jews and Jewish converts who felt themselves spiritually better than the Gentiles. It is this error that St. Paul wishes to dispel “What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;”(3:9). St. Paul goes on to explain that even the Law states that they by themselves and are not righteous (3:10-18) he explains that those outside the law are just as equally accountable to God is those inside the law. “…So that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.” (3:19) St. Paul explains, observance of the Jewish law is not enough to bring righteousness, but knowledge the Law does bring consciousness of sin(3:20). And that we can achieve the righteousness of God apart from the Jewish law (3:21). This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew or gentile (3:22). For both Jew and gentile are in need a salvation “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”(3:23) but that true justification comes freely by God’s grace through the redemption of Christ Jesus (3:24-26) St. Paul teaches that those of Jewish dissent should not be “boasting” and explains On what principle justification is achieved, On that of observing the Jewish law? No, but on that of faith.(3:27)and that we as Christians maintain that a man is justified by faith in Christ apart from observing the Jewish law.(3:28) “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”(29-31)

Continued on next Post
 
So we see the true reason behind Romans chapter three verse twenty three was to promote Christian unity and not to denounce every single solitary human beings (including Christ’s mother Mary) as having sinned and offended God, as many Protestants attempt to distort the verse as meaning. Some Fundamentalists think this verse means more than that everyone is subject to original sin. The problem with this line of thinking should be obvious, the word “have” shows distinct action on the part of the person, therefore St. Paul could not have been referring to original sin in this verse. The Fundamentalists also think it means everyone commits actual sins. They conclude it means Mary must have sinned during her life, and that certainly would speak against an Immaculate Conception. But is the Fundamentalists’ reasoning solid? No.

Think about a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. If the child dies before ever committing an actual sin, because he isn’t mature enough to know what he is doing, what act of his brings him under their interpretation of Romans 3:23? None, of course.

This is indicated by Paul elsewhere in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11). Thus there is a time in people’s lives before they have sinned, meaning Paul’s statement earlier in Romans must be a general rather than an exceptionless principle.

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So Paul’s statement in Romans 3 must also include an exception for Jesus. But if it includes an exception for Jesus, the Second Adam, then it also includes an exception for Mary, the Second Eve.

Paul’s comment to the Christians in Rome thus would seem to have only one meaning. It refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to mankind as a whole (Note: the term ALL can be defined “the whole of.” The World Book Dictionary, copyright 1999] ). which means unborn babies (at a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” [Rom. 9:11]), young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out.
 
 
Praisehim wrote:

Mary was not sinless as Romans 3:23 states that ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. It doesn’t say except Mary.

Praisehim, you quote the verse correctly, but surely you see that “all” isn’t exactly accurate since Jesus himself did not sin (as you state later) and yet wouldn’t he be included in all of humanity?

*Jesus Christ was the ONLY sinless person born! *

Adam and Eve were also “born” or created sinless. They did sin later, but it is incorrect to say that no one else was ever created without sin. But this is more of an argument for the Immaculate Conception of Mary (the dogma that Mary was saved from sin at the moment of her conception) than the Assumption.

*No where in the Bible does it talk about the assumtion of Mary… so therefore it is not true. The Bible is the ultamate source of information that we need.
*
Praisehim, surely you can see that this is not completely true. Even if you amend your statement to read “the Bible is the ulitmate source of theological information that we need” you are still wrong because Paul talks about the traditions that he has handed down to the other disciples that aren’t written of in the New Testament.

I have little hope of you reading this response, however, since this thread seems to have a glut of very long posts. I hope someone else finds it useful.
 
Your questioning of the Assumption is actually a symptom of a larger issue you are struggling with: that of your inability to scripturally prove–or disprove–the Catholic Doctrine of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life by her Son, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

My brother in Christ, if you’re looking for a Biblical “proof text” explicitly supporting or denying the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, you won’t find one because one isn’t there.

This is no new argument you have stated here. Here’s the essence: Martin Luther’s theory of “sola scriptura” is false by definition because it’s unbiblical. John was referring to the OT and in 2Tim “profitable” does not mean “sufficient.” So, half-truth? Lie? Where? Something other than a yes or a no that is from The Evil One? I thought you weren’t supposed to follow a man? Luther’s Sola Scriptura theory is a BIG problem for the Godly, intellectually honest non-Catholic Christian seeker like you.

As Catholics we are free of this grave responsibility: we have the Holy Magisterium (Christ’s commanded Apostolic Teaching Authority, promised the unending protection against errors of faith and morals of the Holy Spirit).

If you as a Lutheran announced to your pastor that you no longer believed in “sola scriptura” because you couldn’t find any reference to it in the Bible, or that you did (or didn’t) want your new baby baptized, what would your pastor say? If you really believed this and insisted on spreading your belief, he’d eventually “invite you to join another denomination.” Right?

I tell you that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary you question Jesus’ Church about is a perfect example of the essential difference between the Catholic and Protestant ways of reading the Bible. Catholics seek the whole: we work on the puzzle using all the pieces we can find, whether in the box or not, but only from the source Jesus promised we could trust–his shepherds.

Protestants in some degree run a picture through a shredder then use the shreds–carefully–to build a picture that they and their friends agree on–even vote on. This is error that blocks the whole truth. God’s glory is far greater than even the Holy Scriptures can contain. Who can fit God into a Mankind-shaped box? How can one doubt the Assumption?

For the same reason that because denying the reality of God can’t change the reality of God, denying the intention of Jesus to literally love his Mother into eternity as Queen of Heaven, can’t change the reality of His Divine filial love. The mechanics of the Assumption are unimportant which is why the Church has not defined them de fide. Only Jesus’ fulfillment of His intention as The Crucified: “Man, behold your mother” is important. This is Jesus’ way of taking his love for his Mother to the furthest possible extreme He could while still allowing us to grasp it with our human minds.

How great a gift of God is that? Showing us Jesus’ ultimate love for His Mother. How can we thank Him enough for the Doctrine of the Assumption by which the God of Abraham’s Divine Truth is Proclaimed, from all time, to our time, until the end of time?

Big job. Need to start now.

I think Martin Luther put it best near the end of his life, when he said “the problem with sola scriptura is that there can be as many interpretations of scripture as there are heads.”

Please pray with me in the name of the Trinity as you read this right now :gopray2: Heavenly Father, May the Blessed Virgin Mary, given to us as our truest Mother by Christ upon the Cross, wreak her sweetest revenge upon all of us, her doubtful little ones, by taking our hands and gently leading us through the Holy Spirit, her Heavenly Spouse’s action, ever closer to you, Jesus Christ our Dear Lord, even as she waits to crush the serpent’s head by your Divine design. :amen:
 
40.png
jimmy:
kinsman

Lack of proof is not a proof that something is not true. That is the most absurd statement I have heard in a long time.

If you go home and there is a broken window and all of your stuff is missing, you would probably come to the conclusion that somone broke into your house and stole your stuff. You would not say, “since I did not see anyone and no one else did then it did not happen.”

Have you provided any proof that it did not exist?
If not then you must surrender to the traditition of the story unless you can somehow prove to yourself that tradition is wrong also.
Click to expand...
Jimmy, think about what you wrote above. If I go home and SEE the broken window, I KNOW my window is broken. I’m not going to deny it…the proof’s in front of me, I’m a witness!!!

You actually make the point I’ve constantly been stressing here. The Gospels give us eyewitness accounts of the death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Book of Acts gives us the historical account of the changed lives of those who witnessed this great event. The Epistles, especially Pauline, explain to us the eternal effects of believing, but not seeing, what Christ has done for us through His historical, death, burial and bodily resurrection.

In total contrast, the story of Mary’s Assumption is provided centuries after the alleged “fact,” void of Biblical support (i.e., divine), Apostolic support, historical support, eyewitness support. Yet you’re required to believe it - even though they don’t even know how she was Assumed, although the original story said she first died and went to Heaven and her body followed two days later.
Have you provided any proof that it did not exist? If not then you must surrender to the traditition of the story
Click to expand...
Now this is an absurd statement!!! That’s like saying I have to believe the Harry Potter stories because they’re in print and millions have read them.
 
40.png
praisehim:
Religion is man’s attempt to reach God, while Christianity is God’s attempt to reach man.
Click to expand...
1 Timothy 3:16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory
Click to expand...
.

If you are going to start with the “Christianity is not a religion” stuff, then be advised that St. Paul contradicts you. 😃

Justin
 
40.png
Jimmy:
Now here’s more proof - Genesis 3:16 To the woman(Eve) he (God) said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

Numerous early works discuss the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain (below I list two first century examples). But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus clearly Mary was not under penalty of original sin. She was immaculate by God’s grace in anticipation of the redeeming death her Son would die on the cross. Thus the Church describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption”
Click to expand...
Yeah right, they also claim that the woman in Revelation chapter 12 is Mary, yet the passage clearly states: "…and she was with child; and she cried out, BEING IN LABOR AND IN PAIN to give birth" (vs. 2). Now you can’t have it both ways, Jimmy – here’s a woman Rome claims to be Mary (in Heaven after her alleged Assumption, no less), filled with the pain of childbirth, which, based on your “proof” statement above, actually proves that this woman was not sinless. Either this woman is Mary, born with sin like the rest of us, or, it is not Mary and the passage does not support her alleged Assumption. Which is it???
 
Kinsman,

The vision of the woman clothed with the sun in Rev 12 should not be dismissed so easily. The book of Revelation is filled with imagery and like many passages of scripture it has several levels of meaning. Catholics believe, and with good reason, that the woman clothed with the sun describes Israel, the church, and also Mary. I probably don’t need to articulate the first two meanings listed because you seem to be only concerned with the one that applies to Mary.

It’s important to point out that the church does not use Rev 12 as a proof text for the Assumption. Instead, the church uses it as highly indicative and meaningful. The church does not make a specific claim of proof from scripture that Mary was assumed into heaven, but the church has good reason to proclaim this truth, and does point to scripture to support the teaching. Hopefully, this will become clearer as this post develops.

In the spirit of charity and for our own edification, it’s important that we attempt to see the complete picture of a teaching and why it is proclaimed. Most Protestants, particularly if they are anti-catholic, have difficulty doing this especially where it concerns the Blessed Virgin Mary. Catholics will do the same thing with certain Protestant positions as well. Hopefully, neither will happen here.

Catholic teachings on Mary cannot be isolated from one another to be appreciated in scripture. This holds true of Christian teachings as they apply to Jesus and also to the Trinity. You really need the whole picture. I like to view scripture as God’s love letters to his people. I also like to use other analogies as well. The totality of scripture is in some ways similar to a beautiful tapestry. Every thread forms part of a grand and beautiful picture. It is also similar to a magnificent symphony in that each note, instrument, beat, and crescendo draws us into the grand musical design of the composer. Adopting such views of scripture gives us more ways to appreciate God’s word. It helps us to see that which we would otherwise overlook. Everything is related in its meaning, its beauty, and to the truth that is God as brought to us in Jesus.

I hope you’re patient and that I haven’t annoyed you with this back drop. I have only done this because it is important to think in these terms when we read the word of God.

A summary of the scriptural connections for the Assumption of Mary begins with Genesis 3:15 which reads, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

In Rev 12 we see the dragon, “the ancient serpent” which is a clear reference to Genesis and the fall, pursuing the woman and making war on her off spring. The reference to “the woman” is very significant. It is used some eight or nine times in Genesis 3 subsequent to the fall, and is used some eight or nine times in Rev 12. The term “woman” is an identifier/title. This identifier/title is also used by Jesus when He addresses Mary at the marriage feast of Cana, and when He gives her to the disciple whom He loved at the foot of the cross.

cont. on next post
 
cont. from previous post.

The “woman” described in Rev 12 is not merely a symbol of Israel or the Church. We know this for several reasons. The first clue is at the end of Rev 11 in verse 19 where it says, “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.” The Ark of the Covenant is a reference to Mary and it immediately precedes Rev 12:1 that says, “AND A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;”

The connection between these verses is unmistakeable and the woman is described as having clothing, having feet, and having a crown on her head. These “physical attributes” have meaning. In the scene of Rev 12 we see individuals. We see Jesus, who rules with a rod of iron. We see Satan the ancient serpent, and we see “the woman.” All three are individuals and all three are mentioned in the prophecy in Genesis 3. This is one of the reasons why we know that the reference to the woman clothed with the sun includes Mary. Your point about the pangs of child birth more aptly applies to the additional meanings that refer to the church or even Israel, but that’s an entirely different matter.

The reference to the Ark is also indicative of Mary because we see the foreshadowing of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant in bearing Jesus in her womb with the OT Ark of the Covenant. This connection is readily seen by analyzing 2nd Sam chapter six and Luke chapter 1 to see the incredible scriptural parallels. The following are fascinating typological threads in the beautiful fabric of scripture.

2 Sam 6:2
And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God

Luke 1: 39
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah

2 Sam 6:9
And David…. said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”

Luke 1: 43.
(and Elizabeth said to Mary) “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

2 Sam 6:10
David took it [the Ark] aside to the house of Obededom the Gittite.

Luke 1: 40. and she[Mary]entered the house of Zechariah

2 Sam 6:15
So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting

Luke 1:42
and she [Elizabeth] exclaimed with a loud cry,

2 Sam 6: 16
As the ark of the Lord came into the city…Michal saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord;

Luke 1: 41
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb;

2 Sam 6:11.
And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obebedom the Gittite three months;

Luke 1:56
And Mary remained with her [Elizabeth] about three months

In the book of Exodus we have a description of the Ark and how carefully it was designed and constructed per God’s instructions to Moses. The Ark contained the Manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod (the symbol of the priesthood).
Mary carried the divine savior in her womb and she was also specially prepared.
Scripture tells us about God making us in our mother’s wombs. It says in Jer 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” And in Psalm 139:13-15 it says,
“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top