The "Woman" (Genesis 3:15)

  • Thread starter Thread starter sfp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sfp

Guest
Regarding the following exegesis:
The term “Woman,” which Jesus uses at the Wedding at Canaa and in John’s gospel at the foot of the cross (and in other places), refers to the prophetic woman of Genesis 3:15.

Makes sense to me. 👍

However, I’ve been challenged by the argument that Jesus also uses this same word when addressing Mary Magdeline when she sees Jesus for the first time after the resurrection (in the tomb).

Therefore, the question is asked by those who object to this exegesis…

Why is it reasonable to suggest that Jesus is referring to the prophetic “Woman” of Genesis 3:15 when speaking of His mother, when he uses the same term when speaking to Mary Magdeline? :cool:
 
With Mary Magdalene, in the next couple verses he calls her “Mary.” He calls her “woman” as a stranger in order to not reveal who he was or startle her. The angels are being formal. For Jesus to call His mother “woman” , however, would be a sin against the 4th Commandment unless there was a different reason (the prophecy).

Here it is in context:

John 20:11 But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping. Now as she was weeping, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. 13 They say to her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: Because they have taken away my Lord; and I know not where they have laid him. 14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16 Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master). 17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.
 
I once had a huge debate over this issue with some folks on the CARM forum. I wrote a number of pages on it, with all sorts of quotes from Protestant commentators and such. I’ll post up the more important things, they may be of some use.
 
It is not at all fallacious to interpret Genesis 3:15 as referring to Mary. In fact, it is one of the only exegetically sound things to do. Non-Catholics are very fond of stating that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, and I think we can all agree with this. I think we can agree even moreso that Jesus is the best interpreter of Scripture. With this principle in mind, we can turn to the gospel of John.

There are several things to note about this gospel in terms of interpreting this verse. The first is that the beginning St. John’s gospel is most certainly written to be a parallel of the creation account in Genesis. For example, both Genesis and St. John’s gospel begin with the phrase “In the beginning.” St. Jonh’s gospel immediately moves to a discussion of all things being created through Christ, whereas Genesis moves right into the account of creation. John speaks of light, so does Genesis. The parallel is not direct in the sense that they both describe the same events; rather, St. John’s gospel begins by presenting the ideas of Genesis in terms of their relationship to Christ. Whereas Genesis speaks merely of the beginning, St. John points out that Jesus was in the beginning. Genesis speaks merely of creation, whereas St. John speaks of Christ’s role in creation. Genesis speaks of the light by which we see naturally, whereas St. John speaks of the true light by which we see supernaturally. This is not merely a Catholic interpretation. The majority of Protestant commentators share this understanding.

In fact, as we move forward through the gospel, we see St. John doing similar things in paralleling the entire history of the world. He speaks, in order, of creation, then of the law (1:17), then of the prophets (1:23), then the coming of Christ (1:29). In verse 32, St. John speaks of the coming of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost), then he describes Christ calling the apostles, representing the building of Christ’s kingdom. The beginning chapter of St. John’s gospel brings us through the entire account from creation to the building of the Kingdom. Once again, this is not simply Catholic overzealousness. This information can easily be found in Protestant commentaries.

It is with this backdrop that we read St. John’s recordings of Christ referring to Mary as “woman.” Not only do we have Jesus referring to His mother with this term, but it is St. John, who paralleled the beginning of Genesis in his own gospel, who records it. Scripture interpreting Scripture tells us that it is not at all erroneous to view the woman in Genesis 3 as a prophecy of Mary.

In fact, how can we not? To do so is to deny the entire concept of the protoevangelium, the “first gospel,” the promise even from the very moment of Satan’s triumph that Christ would enter the world of a woman and thereby defeat Satan. The original poster showed nicely that there is indeed a parallel that makes perfect sense here. Clearly the offspring refers to Jesus, for whom else could or would crush the head of Satan? If our own understanding of this is not enough for us, we have St. Paul’s reference in Romans 16:20 to assure us that indeed, this is Jesus. And if this is Jesus, how could the woman not be Mary? Is not Mary the mother of Jesus? If we interpret the one who is to crush Satan’s head as Christ, then we must take the woman to be Mary. If it refers strictly to Eve, we have a problem insofar as that there was not enmity between her children and Satan. Indeed, Eve was the mother of Cain, between whom and Satan there was surely not enmity. Neither did enmity exist between his children and Satan.

The most significant thing about this verse, at least insofar as this discussion is concerned, is that it doesn’t really prove any Catholic doctrines about the Blessed Virgin at all. It is merely brought up to show that she does indeed have a significant place in the history of salvation, and that the Scriptures show her a certain amount of recognition, which we of course could hardly deny given the various good things said about her in the gospel of the blessed physician St. Luke. It seems as though the objections to the interpretations of this verse are raised only because it is a Catholic sounding sort of thing; here a Catholic puts some emphasis on the Mother of Christ, so it must be rejected. I must submit that it is strikingly clear that the woman in this verse refers as a prefigurement to Mary at least as much as the offspring is a prefigurement of Christ, and that to reject such an interpretation is an example of twisting the Scriptures for no reason other than to avoid a slight Catholic intonation. If we truly are wrong in our beliefs about Our Lady, we will never be able to be shown by taking such extreme tactics; it is an immediate turn off. We can listen to non-Catholic criticisms of our beliefs, but to approach the matter with the appearence of such a problematic attitude from the outset only eliminates all credibility that would otherwise be persuasive.
 
It can hardly be said that there was enmity between Eve and Satan. The Hebrew word used here is 'êybâh, and it connotes real, true hatred. It only appears 4 times in the Old Testament. One is here in Genesis 3:15, another is in Numbers 35:20-24, where it speaks of a person killing another out of enmity.

And if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled something at him, lying in wait, so that he died, or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. "But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules.

Ezekial uses the word twice:

Thus says the Lord GOD: Because the Philistines acted revengefully and took vengeance with malice of soul to destroy in never-ending enmity, therefore thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will stretch out my hand against the Philistines, and I will cut off the Cherethites and destroy the rest of the seacoast. (25:15-16)

The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir, and prophesy against it, and say to it, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, Mount Seir, and I will stretch out my hand against you, and I will make you a desolation and a waste.I will lay your cities waste, and you shall become a desolation, and you shall know that I am the LORD. Because you cherished perpetual enmity and gave over the people of Israel to the power of the sword at the time of their calamity, at the time of their final punishment, therefore, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; because you did not hate bloodshed, therefore blood shall pursue you. (35:1-6)

It is a strong word. It does not simply mean dislike, but true and deep hatred. It is used in reference to:


  1. *]Murder perpetrated out of a hatred so pure that it seeks death, a true premeditated hatred, as opposed to a mere flash of anger.
    *]The Philistines, who had “malice of soul” to destroy the Israelites. They sought revenge for Israel’s past victories against them, not merely land or power. Their attack was one of unmitigated hatred.
    *]The hatred stemming all the way back to the incident of Esau and Jacob, a hatred based merely on an age old grudge, one along the lines of a feud between clans.
    *]In all cases, a hatred worthy of death or destruction by the direct intervention of God.

    It can certainly not be said that such hatred existed between Eve and Satan. For this to be the case, Eve would have had to be completely opposed to sin. It would not be enough for her to have lived merely like you or I, loving God and seeking Him yet still allowing our selfishness to get the best of us at times. That would not be enmity. Even if we say that neither Eve nor anyone else could possibly be without sin and say that she would not have had to be free of all sins, it is still the case that she would at least have to be in a right relationship with God for it to be said that there was enmity between her and Satan. Mary could have been in a right relationship with God; in fact, I think it is fair to say that she was, given that she bore Him in her womb. Eve, on the other hand, was expelled from the garden the moment that God had finished telling her this. She was cursed, and she was outside of God’s presence. She was not in a right relationship. There was not 'êybâh between her and Satan. There are other Hebrew words that could be much more appropriately used to describe what was between Eve and Satan. In fact, Protestant commentators remark that God’s promise to place enmity between the woman and Satan is itself a prophecy of salvation, insofar as to have enmity with the enemy of God is to have friendship with God. In this prophetic sense the passage would refer to Mary, because this friendship with God was not yet restored to Eve, and therefore the prophecy had yet to be fulfilled until Mary gave birth to Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top