Follow
In Rome’s unwavering efforts to honor Mary with the accolades of immaculacy, the mantle of inviolable purity, the admiration of angels and the veneration of men, there is an unfortunate tendency to see Mary in every reference in the Bible. It would seem that there is not a verse in the Old Testament that does not prefigure her: she is the “land of Havilah” in Genesis 2:11. She is, at once, Noah’s Ark, the dove he released, and the olive branch it returned. She is Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, from which the Almonds of Jesus grew. She is Jesse’s Rod from which the branch of Jesus sprung (for “rod” in Latin is “virga,” which must refer to the Virgin), and she was present when the Spirit blew upon the seas at creation (for the Latin word for “seas” is “maria,” which must refer to Mary). She is the virgin soil from which Adam was made, and she is the cloud that led the Hebrews out of Egypt. She is Gideon’s fleece, the temple, the tabernacle, the ark, as well as the golden urn containing the manna within it. When David danced, he danced for her, and what Moses saw in the burning bush prefigured her—she was at the same time the flame and the unconsumed wood of the bush. She is even prefigured in the rotting manna, and Jesus is prefigured by the worms that fed on it.
There are, of course, dangers in finding Mary in everything, and in seeing everywhere a prefiguration of her. One of those dangers is the possibility that the reader, in finding yet another prefiguration, misses what the text is actually saying. When the Scriptures plainly identify a figure and its meaning, figures really can be revelatory. But when we determine that something, someone, or some place is a figure—yet the Scripture is silent to its meaning—we are left guessing at the intent of the figure and dangerously vulnerable to the meaning assigned by the expositor. A verse about an ant and a sluggard may in fact be about an ant and a sluggard, rather than about a key event in Jesus’ or Mary’s life. We miss this if we must find a figure in every verse of the Bible.
Among the most popular figures for Mary is that of the Ark of the Covenant. When Pope Pius IX proclaimed the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception, he identified her “as the ark and house of holiness… never stained with the least blemish” (Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854). When Pope Pius XII proclaimed the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into heaven, he referred to “the words of the psalmist: ‘Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified’ … preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven” (Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1950).
One reason the Ark is said to prefigure Mary is that the Ark contained the heavenly manna, the tablets of the law and Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, all three of which are said to be figures for Jesus. For nine months, Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If Jesus was in Mary, and if the bread, the law and Aaron’s Rod were all in the Ark, the connection must be very clear. Therefore what is said of Mary can be said of the Ark, and what is said of the Ark can be said of Mary. Steve Ray, writing at Catholic Answers explains:
Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God … in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, … in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life … In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest.
The Scriptures do indeed identify Jesus as the bread from heaven (John 6:31-41) and the Word of God made flesh (John 1:1,14). Although the Scriptures do not have Jesus prefigured in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, some church fathers and doctors did see him therein signified. John Cassian (c. 360 – 435) wrote that the Rod of Aaron signified “the saving standard of Jesus Christ our true High Priest, that ever buds with the freshness of immortal memory” (John Cassian, Conferences Part II, Conference XIV, Chapter X). Thomas Aquinas agreed: “There was also Aaron’s rod, to indicate the sacerdotal of Jesus Christ priest forever” (Summa Theologica, Vol 2, The First Part of the Second Part).
Although they are misguided, it is certainly understandable that many Roman Catholics have identified the Rod of Aaron Blossoming with Jesus. In Numbers 17:8, Aaron’s Rod miraculously blossomed to indicate that God had chosen Aaron and his seed to settle a dispute: “…and, behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds.” Isaiah 11:1 also refers to a rod that sprouts—this time from the stem of Jesse—and Paul identified Jesus as the fulfillment: “…Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse…” (Romans 15:12). If Jesus is the Rod of Jesse, certainly (they say) He must be the Rod of Aaron Blossoming as well.
But there is no consistent testimony in Roman Catholicism about whom is signified by what. St. Bonaventure, for example, said that “this rod, this royal rod, is the Virgin Mary, … The rod of Aaron prefigures the Virgin Mary. In the straightness of the rod is prefigured the integrity of Mary; in the flower, the beauty of her glorified body; and in the fruit, the beatitude of her soul” (Bonaventure, Mirror Of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Chapter XII). Elsewhere, Bonaventure wrote that the Ark of the Covenant signified Christ, and the manna in the golden urn signified his soul and divinity: “The ark placed in that house signifies Christ, for Christ is our servant and our life. In the ark was the golden urn and the manna. The holy ark is the sacred flesh; the golden urn is the precious soul of Christ; and the manna signifies His divinity” (Mirror Of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Chapter XIV).
On the one hand, the Ark signifies Mary because it contained objects that signified Jesus’ incarnation, but on the other hand, the Ark signifies Jesus incarnation because it contained objects that signified His soul and divinity.
On the one hand, Mary is prefigured by the Rod of Aaron because the straightness signified her integrity, the flower her glorification, and the almonds her beatitude, but on the other hand, Jesus is prefigured by the Rod of Aaron because it signifies His priestly ministry.
Which is it?
We need not concern ourselves with these vain speculations, for the Scripture tells us plainly what is signified by the Rod of Aaron Blossoming. Israel rebelled, and questioned Aaron’s Levitical privileges in the sanctuary. The Lord put down the rebellion by consuming the rebels and leaving behind only the 250 censers they had been using to offer up incense. Those 250 censers were used as covering plates for the altar as a sign against the rebellion:
“…To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the LORD…” (Numbers 16:40)
But the murmuring continued. To make plain His clear command, the Lord instructed the twelve tribes of Israel to gather rods, one from each tribe, and place the twelve rods before Him in the tabernacle (Numbers 17:4). The rod with Aaron’s name on it blossomed, and it, too, was a sign against the rebels:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron’s rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.” (Numbers 17:10)
The purpose of the Rod was to remind people that Aaron and his seed alone retained the Levitical privileges. This time the people got the message (Numbers 17:12-13). Like the plates made from the 250 censers, the blossoming of Aaron’s Rod was a sign to the rebels “that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the LORD” (Numbers 16:40), and that Aaron and his offspring alone “shall minister before the tabernacle of witness” (Numbers 18:2).
The significance of the Rod of Aaron Blossoming is not that it represents the functions of a priesthood—for the people had not been arguing whether there ought to be priests. Rather, they were arguing whether it was fair for the privileges to be limited to a single genetic line. God resolved that question for them with the 250 censers and Aaron’s Rod Blossoming.
The significance of the Rod of Aaron Blossoming, therefore, is that it represents a genetic lineage, “the seed of Aaron,” a genetic lineage that of necessity excludes Christ. The Scriptures testify that Jesus arose “not … after the order of Aaron … For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” (Hebrews 7:11,14). This is why the Scriptures never identify Aaron’s Rod Blossoming as a figure for Christ. Aaron’s Rod Blossoming necessarily excluded Him from ministering. This, indeed, is why another priesthood was necessary, a priesthood not after the order of Aaron’s seed (Hebrews 7:11).
There is therefore one place in the universe where something signifying the seed of Aaron could not possibly reside: in Mary’s womb. The Rod of Aaron Blossoming signifies the seed of Aaron, and the Scriptures testify emphatically that Jesus’ priesthood was of a different tribe, of which Moses said nothing regarding a priesthood. Therefore, the presence of Aaron’s Rod—signifying Aaron’s seed—within the Ark necessarily precludes the Ark as a figure for Mary in whom the seed of Aaron could never exist.
There was, of course, someone in Jesus’ day who was literally the seed of Aaron, and therefore was among those signified by the Rod of Aaron Blossoming: John the Baptist. John’s father, Zacharias, was a Levitical priest according to the course of Aaron’s son, Abijah (1 Chronicles 24:1, 5, 10); and John’s mother, Elisabeth, was also a “daughter of Aaron”:
“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” (Luke 1:5)
The Rod of Aaron Blossoming signifies Aaron and all his seed, and therefore it necessarily includes John the Baptist, and necessarily excludes Jesus, in its signification. To have the Ark signify Mary is to place Aaron and all his offspring, including John the Baptist, in Mary’s womb. Roman Catholics of course would never mean to say that John the Baptist was born of Mary. But if they insist that the Rod’s presence in the Ark makes the Ark signify Mary, they might as well—for something signifying the seed of Aaron has no business being in Mary’s womb.
There are, of course, better reasons for dwelling on the contents of the Ark. Among them is that, just as the plates made from the 250 censers were “a memorial unto the children of Israel” against their murmurings (Numbers 16:38-40), the tables of the Law, the urn of manna and the Rod of Aaron are all testimonies against the rebelliousness of the people of Israel.
- The tables of the law were laid up in the ark “for a witness against thee” to testify against “thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck” (Deuteronomy 31:19-27).
- The golden urn of manna was placed in the Ark after God “heard the murmurings of the children of Israel” (Exodus 16:12-34).
- The Rod of Aaron Blossoming was placed in the Ark “to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me” (Numbers 17:10).
What were these signs except a testimony and proof of God’s faithfulness even to a stiffnecked, rebellious people? Each time these offenses took place, the Lord would have been just and right to destroy many of the Israelites, if not the whole nation at once, but each time, He deferred His wrath for a later time so that He would be shown to be faithful, for He testifies of this very thing by the prophet Isaiah:
“For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off” ( Isaiah 48:9).
The anger was deferred until a time that another Man, not of Aaron’s line, and therefore not signified by Aaron’s Rod, would minister before Him and “remove the iniquity of that land in one day” (Zechariah 3:9). When Jesus came, it was the beginning of the end of the Aaronic line, and “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Hebrews 7:12). Thus did John the Baptist, who really was prefigured by Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, say “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). And thus did Jesus fulfill the prophecy, “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified,” for “he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19), having removed from the presence of God the testimony of our offense against us, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:14).
Therefore, the new covenant people are not known by their devotion to the Ark. Rather they are signified by an absence of a devotion to the Ark, as Jeremiah himself prophesied:
And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. (Jeremiah 3:16-17)
It says something, does it not, that God promised to send pastors according to “Mine own heart” to feed His people with knowledge and understanding, and “say no more, ‘The ark of the covenant of the LORD!’ ” Yet Rome’s pastors can scarcely speak of anything else.
To make Aaron’s Rod Blossoming prefigure Christ, and by that make the Ark prefigure Mary, obscures this lovely truth, and adds confusion and contradiction that accomplishes nothing but to hide the Word of God from His people, and to perpetuate a devotion to the Ark of the Covenant, a devotion that is, as it ought to be, foreign to the people of God.
Tim,
In response to the Manna issue, I am still waiting for you to address the question I put to you days ago on the Shew Bread being a type of the Blessed Sacrament.
I am disappointed by your lengthy article on Marian typology, especially in the Ark of the Covenant. Days ago I submitted a post dealing with this topic. Your article fails to address my assertion that the Ark of the Covenant imagery being applied to Mary was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the intent of both St. Luke and St. John. For the sake of readers new to the thread, I will re-submit it below before adding any further rebuttal to your piece. Here it is;
im
MARCH 20, 2014 AT 12:31 PM
Timothy, Thanks for getting back to me on the Ark of the Covenant.
Previous Catholic writers, Aquinas included, may or may not have known what we know today. I don’t think Aquinas read Greek but am not sure.
So I would rather address what St. Luke and St. John wrote on the Ark.
St. Luke the physician who is said to have learned directly from Mary, used some very specific Greek words in his Gospel when he wrote on Mary. Firstly, at the Annunciation, Gabriel used the very word used in the OT for the Shekinah overshadowing the Ark of the Covenant. ( The same word use in the scene with Ruth and Boaz too). Secondly, When Mary went on to visit her kinswoman, Elizabeth, the verb used to describe the greeting by Elizabeth was “anaphosim”. This the word used throughout scripture for the trumpet blast given when the Ark of the Covenant drew near. Thirdly, the term used for St. John leaping, dancing or skipping in Elizabeth’s womb is “skirtan”, which was also used in II Samuel VI to describe how David danced when the Ark came to him. David and Elizabeth both asked similar questions, ” How is it the Ark of the Lord/ Mother of the Lord, should come to me?’ Luke then goes on to say that Mary stayed for three months with Elizabeth during which time the barren Elizabeth gave birth. This echoes similar language used in II Samuel about the Ark staying for three month and the fruitfulness accompanying its stay.
Coincidence?
St. John, in Revelation 11-12 speaks of the the Heavens opening to reveal the Ark. He then immediately launches into the scene of the Woman. This Woman is the Woman of Gen 3:15. Mary is never called by name in his Gospel but only Woman.
Okay, that should more than establish that Luke and John believed the incorruptible chest that carried the Manna, the Rod of Aaron the priest and the Ten Commandments of Moses within, never to be touched by man, was a type and shadow of the sinless and ever Virgin Mary who was to carry the true Bread from Heaven and be the true High Priest and Lawgiver.
If I am mistaken, I had better be shown that Luke and John, both intimates of Our Lady, had something else in mind when they drew so heavily on OT imagery.
Okay, Tim, more to follow after readers have had a chance to digest what the Bible says about Mary being the Ark of the Covenant.
Ciao
Tim,
Your article is a wonderful example of what we Catholics find so maddening about the way Protestants read scripture.
Oh sure, Protestants kids are taught to do “sword drills” in order to draw up chapter and verse in a split second which leaves one with the impression that they know what they are quoting. The question is, do they?
No doubt Protestants read scripture. But do they meditate on scripture? I doubt it.
Your article, so chock full of what is obviously hysterical praise of a mere creature, a sinner, by over zealous, nay, drunken, devotees of what seems to be a goddess is intended to embarrass Catholics like myself.
Just the opposite it the effect however. We are left wondering why Protestants are so determined to misunderstand the obvious.
Mary carried the creator of the universe in her womb. God Almighty suckled at her breast. God the Son was under her authority. God the Father and Mary had the same Person as their Son. Mary pulled the thorns out of His head.
Do you people think you can over do the honor God gave this woman? Do you think it is your job to make sure she is kept in her place?
Do you people ever mediate on the Annunciation scene? How about, “Woman, behold your son, son behold your mother”?
I know you read the words on the pages of the Bible, but does any of it sink in?
As I mentioned in my post on the Perpetual Virginity, Protestants pay lip service to calling Mary blessed. Then they immediately insult her by saying that after being visited by an angel, conceiving the Son of God in the flesh miraculously, she then was so shallow as to not feel consecrated, set aside by God and went on to” enjoy a normal sex life with Joseph”.
How would any woman, no matter how coarse or simple minded, not be transformed by becoming the Mother of God?
How would she have “a normal sex life”? How would she later in life forget how she conceived her Son and start to think he was mad?
Sorry Tim, the praise heaped on Mary in your article doesn’t embarrass me. As a matter of fact, I am reminded of a saying, ” De Maria, nunquam satis”.
Hi, Jim,
Thanks for your thoughts. Those references weren’t intended to embarrass you. They were intended to show that Roman Catholics often find a figure of Mary in verses that say nothing of her. Protestants do the same thing, it is true (that is, they try to find a figure in what is a simple proposition). It is very unhelpful to look for a secret code in the Scriptures, or to assign meaning to an event that is not interpreted for us. One example I’ll give is that of Dane Ortlund, in Defiant Grace. He interpreted figuratively the 2-step healing of a blind man in Mark 8:22-26. It signified, to Ortlund, that the apostles understood the gospel at that point, but only fuzzily.
You may well laugh at that interpretation, and I join you. There was no indication in the passage that Jesus intended to figure for the apostles their step-wise eye-opening. If the passage can be interpreted as Ortlund takes it, why not interpret the fact that Jesus led the blind man out of town first? Why not interpret the significance of seeing “walking trees” in 8:24?
My point is that if the Scriptures nowhere interpret something as a figure, it is best to leave it as it is: a simple proposition. Otherwise, the expositor is simply assigning his own meaning to the Scripture, and then claiming his teaching as authoritative. Very dangerous. Jesus healed a blind man, but led him out of town first. Then it took two steps to heal him, and at the first step, the man’s vision was not yet completely healed—he could see, but not well. I’m satisfied with this series of events without trying to find some hidden meaning in them.
The interpretations I listed in the article were all from Church Fathers in the first six centuries. It suggests to me that the exegesis of the whole church was so wanting that it is a wonder that the church was preserved at all. Yet it surely was—not because of the questionable, misleading and dangerous hermeneutic, but quite in spite of it.
Indeed. And Jesus came to save sinners. He was certainly worthy of better meals, better sleeping quarters, better homage, better water and better company, and yet he continually received sinners and ate with them. It does not offend my sensibilities at all that he was conceived in one as well.
He did. And because He was incarnated, a man like us, His mother’s milk ended up in the latrine, as He Himself testified (Mark 17:18-19). Do you not understand that the milk that enters a Man cannot defile Him? Why does the milk itself need to originate from a sinless woman? It is no insult to Mary to say that her milk nourished Christ’s human nature, and passed naturally through Him and “goeth out into the draught.” Likewise it is no insult to Christ so say that He filled his diapers as is natural for human children to do. He was a man like us, but without sin.
Yes, and under Joseph’s, too (John 6:42). And under Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21).
Yes, and God the Son and Tim Kauffman both have the same Person as their Father. (Hebrews 2:11)
How do you know this?
Yes, “for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15).
Do you think it is yours?
She is blessed indeed. If what you say is true of her, though, then the angels rejoice more over me than they would over 99 Marys “which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7).
If the marriage bed is holy (Hebrews 13:4), then Mary’s sanctity would not be compromised by it. Surely you are not suggesting that the marriage bed can only be holy through abstinence, are you?
That is an interesting question, since Roman Catholicism denies that she was transformed. By Roman Catholic tradition, she was prepared in advance from conception for this very role. No transformation would be necessary. I, on the other hand, do not deny that she was left a different woman after the encounter with Gabriel. I just deny that she was transformed into a Roman Catholic.
If the marriage bed is holy, I don’t see how this question is relevant.
How could Peter forget His master? (Mark 14:30). How could John not remember that it was he himself who introduced Christ as the Lamb of God (Matthew 11:3). All this is easily explained by the fact that Jesus came to save sinners, including Mary.
I will note in closing (at least for now) that this tendency to see Mary as so holy that she cannot possibly doubt, sin or partake of the blessings of marriage, which God created to be enjoyed, or even die after normal course of men, is symptomatic of a reluctance to see God become Man. It is very anti-incarnational.
Hi Tim,
You wrote, “The interpretations I listed in the article were all from Church Fathers in the first six centuries.” Thanks for admitting the Church Fathers were Catholic!
Anyway, as for typology, you find some of the Marian types strained. Some of them are pretty right on though. Esther, the woman who was not under the curse of her people mediates for her people.
Judith cuts off the head of Holofernes, Jael crushes Sisera’s head. Types of the Woman of Gen 3:15.
Of course types aren’t ever 100%. The ram caught in the thorns that Abraham sacrificed is a type of Christ. Did Christ have horns?
I had written,”God the Father and Mary had the same Person as their Son.”
You responded with, “Yes, and God the Son and Tim Kauffman both have the same Person as their Father. (Hebrews 2:11)”
Tim, your analogy is pathetic. I will leave it for the readers to decide if it even comes close.
To my assertion that after bearing God in her womb, any woman on the planet would feel set aside for God and remained a virgin.
You quipped,”If the marriage bed is holy, I don’t see how this question is relevant.
I feel your retort deserves to be answered with, well Tim , the Church says the marriage bed is holy and shouldn’t be defiled with contraptions and potions designed for use in a brothel. We condemn contraception. You guys endorse it.
Your example of Peter is a bad as the one about you and Jesus having the same father. It doesn’t deserve a serious answer. I will let your sad attempt to rebut stand as is for all to read.
Sorry to be rude Tim, but C’mon!
Jim,
The reality that being spiritually related to Christ by faith is a stronger tie than being genetically related to Him did not originate with me. As Paul wrote, “the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Romans 4:13). Jesus is not ashamed to call me His brother (Hebrews 2:11). When Jesus “stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” (Matthew 12:49), He confirmed that being spiritually related is a more powerful connection even than a Son to a Mother. To this Scriptural truth, you responded, “Tim, your analogy is pathetic. I will leave it for the readers to decide if it even comes close.” I concur. Let it be said of me that I believed God’s word.
If the Church Fathers reject that the spiritual relationship to Christ by faith is stronger even than that between a Son and His mother (and many did), you may keep them, for they are rejecting the words of Jesus and His apostles. If I have to choose between the Scriptures and the teachings of the sub-apostolic era (and indeed I must), I have made my choice. I am not ashamed of it.
Warm regards,
Tim
Tim,
You wrote, “The reality that being spiritually related to Christ by faith is a stronger tie than being genetically related to Him… Jesus “stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” (Matthew 12:49), He confirmed that being spiritually related is a more powerful connection even than a Son to a Mother. To this Scriptural …”Add to this your comment about you ( you forgot to mention several billion other humans) and Jesus having the same Father is equal to God the Father and Mary having to same Son.
Let me ask you, which is a greater honor for the human race, (1) to have a human nature assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity or ( 2) being in a state of grace (a.k.a. Justified )?
I hope you chose #2. Having a human nature taken up into the Hypostatic Union is a greater honor. However, grace is needed to appreciate it. Even Christ needed grace in His human soul to appreciate the Incarnation.
Which is a greater honor for Mary; (1) to be the Mother of God in the flesh or (2) the Immaculate Conception, fullness of grace, state of justification, related to Christ spiritually,holiness? ( Yes Tim, I know you don’t believe in all of this. )
Because of Lk XI:27 , where the woman in the crowd cried out, ” Blessed is womb that bore thee and the paps that gave the suck” to which Jesus answered, “Indeed, but more so is hearing and keeping the word of God”, you will say #2, the spiritual connection is more blessed.
Stop here. Blessedness/happiness is not Greatness.
Blessedness/happiness is a disposition in the creature. Mary is happier/ more blessed due to being in a state of holiness/justification than being Christ’s mother. Agreed.
However, to be the mother of the Son of God is more sublime, more of an honor. To say otherwise is to say the disposition in the creature is greater than the Creator. And it is to make the effect (holiness ) greater than the cause ( God ).
I remember a story about a saint who asked Mary which gave her the most joy, being the Mother of God or her Immaculate Conception. Mary answered the Immaculate Conception, never being at enmity with God made her happier. Yet being the Mother of God was a greater honor.
Think about it; While Mary was producing Jesus in His human nature, the Father was producing Him in His divine nature. While the Second Person of the Trinity proceeds from the Father alone, the Third Person proceeds from the Father and the Son who are present in Mary’s womb. This why Mary is called the Sanctuary of the Holy Ghost. Due to her different relationships with the Persons of the Trinity, Mary is assumed into the inner life of the Godhead by bonds of consanguinity and affinity. This should make you dizzy trying to fathom the awesome dignity God heaped on Mary!!!
So, Tim, now do you understand why I found your wisecrack about you and Jesus having the same father left me absolutely dumbfounded as to how you could confuse the orders of sonship? Jesus is the ONE single son of God and Mary by nature ( one human, one divine). You are but one of a billion sons by grace only, by adoption.
In closing, although I didn’t directly Matt 12:49 here, I think you can guess how I would.
Ciao
Very helpful replies Tim. Thanks so much for making the errors of Rome so easy to understand when compared against Scripture.
Tim,
Sorry to post again before you have had a chance to respond but I can’t resist.
Was John the Baptist in Mary’s womb? You ask.
Was John the Baptist in Adam’s loins? Was John the Baptist in Eve’s womb? Was John the Baptist fallen due to Adam AND Eve’s disobedience?
Was John the Baptist justified/ in a state of grace? Yes? Then would he have been one of the Woman’s “other offspring”? Was the baptist a member of the New testament or Old Testament Church? Did he straddle both? Was he martyred under Herod ( the 7 headed red dragon of Rev 12 represents the 7 members of the red red Idumean dynasty that usurped the throne of David and sought to devour the Child Jesus and waged war on the Woman’s other offspring according to many scholars ).
If he was pre-Church, then we must ask did the O.T. saints also receive grace due to Christ’s Incarnation and Sacrifice?
Off course Tim, Mary had only ONE child and He was Jesus.
However, when she consented to the angel’s proposal, she consented to being the mother of the whole Christ. Later, on Calvary, she ratified this by becoming the mother of all Beloved Disciples who take her as their own.
I like how St. Ireneaus said it, “She who is the mother of a head only is the mother of a monster. Mary was mother of the whole Christ. head and body”.
So, was John the Baptist in Mary’s womb mystically? Maybe we should meditate on it before rashly committing ourselves.
I am reminded of another saying of the saints; When speaking of Mary, it is better to err by excess rather than defect.” Why? Because any error we make in Mariology will have Christological implications.
Have a great day!
Jim, Well her sex life must have been pretty good with Joseph, she had a bunch of Kids. Mary plays no predominant role in the church and is barely mentioned after the early Gospel accounts. She was a neat christian woman deserving of respect. But she didn’t die on a cross, and it was clear Jesus put her in her place during his ministry in a loving way. ” Woman what does this have to do with me” IOW stand back please. He didn’t call her mother because he was well into his ministry. I have done a study of Jesus relationship with his mother as his ministry too hold, and he will not allow her to have undo honor. Because he shres his honor with no other. She didn’t die on a cross. Need I say more. She was a sinner just like the rest of us. And there is no evidence of her being born without sin or being assumed into heaven. Only one remained sinless and qualifies for mediator and the bible is clear, its Jesus. Leave the fairy tale Jim and listen to what Tim is saying. these verses must be understood for what they mean.
Kevin, I wish I could say, “nice try” but I can’t.
You wrote,”She was a neat christian woman deserving of respect.” HA!
Was she ” neat”, Kevin? Why would you respect a silly ninny of a girl like the Protestant Mary would be? An air head who could forget miraculously conceiving God in the flesh doesn’t get my respect.
You forgot to address, ” Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother”.
Do you think dissing her by calling her “Woman”?
You say he dissed her at Cana. Well Kevin, if He did dismiss His mother in public, He broke the Mosaic Law which forbade one from remonstrating with a parent in public. If He was Law breaker, He needed a savior.
Over and over you have written elsewhere, ” Because he shares his honor with no other. ”
Wrong! He loves to share His honor and glory with us!
And He shares His mother too. You reject the gift offered to you from the cross! WOW!
“Jim, Well her sex life must have been pretty good with Joseph, she had a bunch of Kids.”
This is pornographic blasphemy, it really makes me cry.
It is completely disrespectful for any woman to be talked about this way.
Mary IS THE SPOUSE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, she conceived of the Holy Spirit. The mother of your savior is being dishonored. Inconceivable.
Debbie,
Tim’s objects to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity because he feigns to have a high regard for marriage. He implies Catholics think sex is dirty or something.
This is exposed for the nonsense it is jut by looking at the fact that we say, and they don’t, that marriage is a sacrament. As a matter of fact, Calvin said marriage was no more of a sacrament than shoe making of shaving. Luther permitted bigamy and even asserted that Christ committed adultery on three occasions.
We also believe, and they don’t, that had Adam not sinned, grace would have been transmitted generation to generation by the conjugal act.
Of course we could throw the issues of divorce and contraception into the mix just to show how little Protestantism thinks of marriage and the marital act. We say the act itself is as holy as the marriage and that it can be defiled by fornication and contraception.
Tim, to his credit has four beautiful children and I am sure he is a great husband and dad. But this is probably due to his Catholic roots. The only criticism ( and it is a big one ) I could make against Tim is that he is teaching his children to hate the Faith. He is depriving them of the Pearl of Great Price.
Pray for Tim, Debbie.
Ciao
OOPS! Debbie, I forgot. It was Kevin, and not Tim, who posted the phrase that you found so despicable.
I think we know enough about Kevin from another blog so this is par for the course. As for Tim, I think this issue has been lurking in the background all along. The Epistle of James stuff is just a ruse. So Tim and Kevin are bedfellows on this.
I am reminded of something a famous Catholic inquisitor from the time of the Deformation, John Eck O.P. said. He advised Catholic scholars to avoid public debates in front of crude or low minded listeners on two topics; The Eucharist and Mary’s Virginity. Fr. Eck said non-scholarly types would not be able to follow the subleties of the arguments and just make snickering remarks. This would cause them to sin gravely and we don’t want that to happen. So, for the good of their souls, confine arguments on these topics to theologians and
scholars.
Alas, Tim has already written on these topics. He even has a book called “Graven Bread” in which He attacks the Blessed Sacrament. I have been making reparation for him in my weekly Holy Hour.
On the contrary Mary having a bunch of children honored God. The fact that Mary as a mother and a wife had many children is pornographic blasphemy. Hardly Out of your mind. Can you explain how a wife having children is not anything else than a blessing of God. You have been brainwashed. The word for children is used and not nephew , this isn’t ambiguous. James is the brother of Jesus. Mathew 12:46 ” While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His MOTHER and BROTHERS were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.” Quit worshiping Mary. She is only mentioned as the mother of Jesus. And plays no prominent role in the NT church.
Jim said “He loves to share his honor and glory with us” in reference to Mary. Isaiah 48 ” My glory I share with no other.” Catholics will get what they rightfully deserve for worshiping Mary, hell. The Mary of the bible had a bunch of kids, and said about herself she was the BONDSLAVE of the Lord and called him her Lord and Savior. She would be embarrassed and humiliated being treated as the queen of everything. Thats how you know a true christian woman, one who is humble subservient to her husband and her Lord. I married one. Woman who fight for the liberation and exultation of Mary, aren’t following God.
Kevin, I have already posted on this but since you don’t bother to read before writing, I will answer your “James is the brother of Jesus. Mathew 12:46 ” by asking which James you are referring to, the son of Zebedee or the son of Alphaeus?
God doesn’t share his glory? Maybe you should take a sneaky peek at John 17.
Kevin,
You say, “Mary having a bunch of children honored God. ”
Absolutely Kevin. Mary has millions and millions of offspring ( Rev 12:17 )
You go on with, “Can you explain how a wife having children is not anything else than a blessing of God?”
Nothing at all Kevin as long the wife isn’t having those children with two different spouses at the same time. To do that would be a sin called adultery. ( Did you read my post on Mar 19, St. Joseph’s Day? )
You then get personal with me by snarling, “You have been brainwashed.”
Back atcha’ Kevin if you want to ratchet the discussion up. I will return the compliment by saying you are deceived by the evil one.
You insult me with,” Quit worshiping Mary.” I don’t worship Mary, Kevin. Not if you define “worship” as giving to a creature what belongs to God only. It just seems to you that I worship Mary because maybe you don’t adequately worship God. You praise God. I praise Mary. You sing to God. I sing to Mary. You kneel before God. I kneel before Mary. Oh, for sure, I praise and sing to and kneel before God too. But that is not the highest form of worship I give God. I, through a priest, offer sacrifice to God. You don’t.
I really hope you think about what I have written before posting AT me again with the same assertions I have already addressed.
Let me leave you with another gem ( or pearl before…? ) in answer to your denial that God wants to share all with us; “…born under a woman… that we may receive the adoption as sons” ( Gal 4 ) Or as the Fathers said, God became man that we may become god(like). If that ain’t sharing glory, was is it?
You have a great day!
I wanted to pass this along Tim.
No one does it better than Scott, and this just whets the appetite! Peace.
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/m.html
Thanks, Debbie,
I appreciate the link. I’ve been following Scott Hahn since the 1990s when he wrote Rome Sweet Home, and have read or listened most of his material on Mary. The information is helpful, though.
Thanks so much,
Tim
Debbie,
I’ll have more to say on this later, but I wanted to give you an idea of why I do not rush to embrace Dr. Hahn’s opinions on Mary. I long ago reviewed Reneé Laurentin’s theory on the hidden message in Luke, and found it wanting (about which, more later), but consider just this example from what you sent me. (Before I give the example, I will acknowledge for Dr. Hahn’s sake that the article was a transcription of an audio tape, and not his actual published words, so he gets the benefit of the doubt from me in some areas related to diction, grammar, spelling, etc…).
At the end of his section on Mary, Ark of the Covenant, he entertains a question from the audience, and the question is this: “Where do we find specific examples of Mary as Ark of the Covenant in the early Church?”
Hahn here defers to Bernard Capelle’s Marian Typology in the Fathers and the Liturgy:
Now here is Hippolytus in his own words explaining that the Ark of the Covenant was a figure of Jesus, not Mary, and the imperishable wood was a reference to His incorruptibility, not hers, to His body, not hers (parentheses in original):
Now here is a case where Hippolytus, in his own words, emphatically describes the ark, the tabernacle and the imperishable wood all in reference to Christ, but Capelle (and Hahn after him) takes Hippolytus as supporting an early identification of Mary as the Ark. No such representation is found in Hippolytus.
If one were to read Hippolytus uncarefully, one might read Mary as the Ark into his words, “At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without;”
But that reading would be a gross decontextualization. Not only does Hippolytus in the next sentence identify Jesus’ “own body” as the ark, but he also makes the point that the ark signified Jesus appearance “At that time” to show “His own body to the world.” These are references to Jesus’ incarnation and incorruptibility, not to Mary’s. I disagree with Hippolytus’ methodology, to be sure. That aside, I suspect that such an uncareful reading is exactly why Capelle was able to conclude that this teaching originated as early as Hippolytus. it clearly did not.
Thanks again for the link,
Tim
No one does it better than Scott, what talk? Tim this is there view of a theologian, Scott Hahn. My word.
Jim, Mary had biological children. Its clear in the language. The word for nephew was completely different. She and Joseph had normal relations and were blessed by God with many children. A good catholic family. The only time she is referred to in the Epistles is when Paul says “born of a woman”. He doesn’t say born of the queen. Mary considered herself a mere bondlave of the Lord. Jesus wasn’t rude to his mother. It was a jewish custom of separation. When he was in his ministry he basically went out of his way to downplay her. At the cross when He saw his mother with John. He said “Woman, behold our son.” He never called her his mother during his ministry. She had nothing to do with his calling.
“Tim this is there view of a theologian”
No, it is my opinion and he writes beautifully with modern language that most people can understand, especially protestants. He brings an inestimable view of Mary as the 2nd Eve with grace, indepth intelligence and detailed scrutiny. He speaks with love and respect and bears great fruit.
I do get to have an opinion and be passionate about good and evil, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, counsel, purity, forbearance and fear of the Lord. You can’t take those gifts away from me.
Peace.
Deb, you can like Scott Hahn thats your business. The guy talks continuously and says nothing for me. But thats my opinion. I read that piece he wrote on Mary you put up. Its always interesting to hear former Calvinist like him or Jason really try hard to buy in to the RC fictitious portrait of Mary. They try hard but they they seem unconvinced themselves. Im not trying to take anything away from you. You are free to believe and do what you want. The Marion ego gone wild is fascinating to me in the RC. That lady who has a show on the catholic channel thats all she talks about. Whats interesting is the Mary of the RC isn’t anything like the biblical Mary. I think Mary would be embarrassed if she knew, and she doesn’t, she hasn’t heard a prayer since the day she died.
Kevin,
In your futile attempt to stymie me you wrote, “The word for nephew was completely different. ” What are you referring to? Do you mean the disputed brother/kinsman controversy?
You drunkenly stagger on to write, “The only time she is referred to in the Epistles is when Paul says “born of a woman…”
So what? Neither Mark nor Paul ever mention the virgin birth. Are we to assume their silence is a denial of it?
You then bray, ” He never called her his mother during his ministry.”
Bingo! Kevin got something right! Jesus did not refer to Mary as” Mother” in His ministry. Kevin is one step closer to swimming the Tiber!
He called her “WOMAN”. Go back and read Gen 3:15. Then read Revelation 12. Then Kevin, take a moment of silence and think. Maybe even ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you a bit.
More to come…
Debbie, I want to, once again, tell you how moved I was when I read in one of your posts how Mary, with her own fingers, pulled the thorns out of Our Lord’s forehead on Good Friday.
Those few words you wrote spoke volumes.
If non-Catholics would just think about the mind boggling, soul elevating, heart warming implications of the Marian passages in the Bible! While they may be relatively few, each one is packed with dynamite.
You know, Debbie, I once read that St. Anselm, famous for his Substitutionary/Satisfaction theory of the Atonement, was once asked why he wrote so little on Mary.
The answer was that every time he sat down to write something, he would start thinking, then he would start musing, then he would just end up singing about her.
It is probably just a pious legend but I like it.
Ciao, Jim
Jim, that term does not mean kinsmen. Your lying. It means brother. Nice try. “So what” as far as her being mentioned in the epistles and early church. Hey dude you are calling her the queen of heaven. Where is this ten in reference to Mary. Correct, it does not exist, you win the trip to Hawaii. The only mention of the term “Queen of heaven” in scripture is in the OT with a pagan satan worshipping tribe. Just like the only mention of vestments in the bible is with paganism. queen of heaven has its roots in pagan religion and thats how it developed in the church. Mary called herself a sinner and a bond servant. You live in a world of “Pure Imagination” If you spent as much time defending the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement as you do the deity of Mary you wouldn’t be so confused. Debbie just needs a lot of esteem , thats why she is so into the importance of Mary. Mary would be embarrassed at the way RC worship her if she knew, and she doesn’t, because she hasn’t heard a prayer since she died. K
Kevin,
“Debbie just needs a lot of esteem , thats why she is so into the importance of Mary.”
Thanks, just what I needed to hear from a brother in Christ.
These wounds just make me stronger.
I’m giving you my other cheek.
Jim,
I could go on and on, but you might enjoy this beautiful reflection.
But Mary was of course once a baby. Bring a little of the latter to the former, and you can start to get a grip on the dogma: Mary had to have been a baby, an unborn baby, conceived at a moment in time. And in fourteen years Gabriel enters. But before that, there is a tradition–common sense, you know–that three-year old Mary was brought to the Temple by her parents, there to be consecrated to God. Eleven years later, Mary was told by the angel: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
When did the Holy Ghost begin to court the Blessed Virgin? At the Annunciation? No, that would be way too sudden. But whence the invitation to come thither? In the swaddling clothes? In the womb? “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Part of the principle is in that passage. Mary prophesied too, you know, more lovely than John. The Bride of the Holy Ghost was more lovely than John and Jeremiah. She was beautiful, always. From the moment of conception. That is why she alone nurses the baby Jesus at her bosom, and contains more than the cosmos in her womb. Theotokos.
Deb, I get it, when you prayed all those exorcism prayers on me, i said the same thing, these wounds only strengthen my faith. So we have had a year of strengthening each other’s faith. Iron sharpening iron the bible says. LOL
Kevin, I truly don’t think that I have ever met anyone who has as much anger in them as you.
In all sincerity, I’d love you to write a beautiful reflection (no bible quotes, no copies and pastes from anyone else) just your own prayerful words of praise to our Lord. A psalm if you will, like David, a song from your heart of joyful praise and thanksgiving.
You can send it to my email if you want or post it here, just so I can hear how much you Love our Lord. Something joyful, kind and good, gentle and loving to our God.
It would heal my heart and give me courage for the days to come. thx
Debbie, I like it. It is such a grace to have Mary as our queenly mother and motherly queen!
As for Tim appealing to Church Fathers saying Jesus was the Ark, so what? Wisdom in the OT can be seen as either Jesus or Mary. We are talking types, shadows of better things to come.
Don’t be cowed by Tim and Kevin. Neither of them have responded to the information I have posted TWICE now about St. Luke and St. John. Funny that Tim, who spurns Tradition and goes by Sola Scriptura, has trotted out Tradition and is ignoring my argument from ONLY the pages of the New Testament.
As for Kevin, he makes assertions but doesn’t even argue from the Bible. From the stuff he has posted here and on Jason’s blog, I think I pretty much have his number. I first met Kev when I was a little kid, about 6 years old. My big brother and I had to cut through the public school yard to get to our Catholic school on the other side. Some Protestant boys beat up my brother and called us “dirty Catholics”. I was so little and dumb I didn’t even know what they meant. I had to ask my mom what a dirty Catholic was when we got home. Ha! That was the first time I became aware that I was a Catholic. The incident didn’t make a saint out of me. But it did make me know what an anti-Catholic bigot looks and smells like.
I have run into Kevin again and again throughout my life. He is an ugly bully. We even have Kevin here in 96% Catholic Portugal. He stands outside of the shrine of Fatima on screaming hot days handing out free bottles of cold water to unsuspecting kids walking on pilgrimage from Lisbon in the merciless Portuguese sun. When the unsuspecting kid takes the free water from the” nice” American or English man, they go to open the bottle of free water and find a tract taped to it, The tract is full of Kevinish bile about Queen of Heaven being a Goddess, weeping over Catholics praying, etc. etc,
I grew up in the only Northern Klan state. Like I said, I have known Kevin’s ugly face my whole life. Just when you think he has gone the way of the dinosaur, up he pops.
Don’t let him get to you. Bullies are always cowards. And you have the Woman who crushes the serpent as your mother!
Ave Maria
Tim,
I am a little astonished at this point.
I have just spent quite a bit of time researching your last comment.
You are a sneaky devil. No place in ANY of the articles, let alone the one I gave is Hippolytus mentioned.
I’m just wrapping my mind around what you are actually doing, I am way too trusting of a soul ……… Very very clever.
I’m out of here. You scare me.
I stand on the Holy death of my Lord Jesus Christ for the downfall, destruction, and scourging of all enemies of the cross of Calvary and the eternal Salvation granted there.
Debbie,
Thanks for getting back to me. The link you sent me was for “16. Mary, Holy Mother.” On that page, there is a list of items on the left, of which one is entitled, “17. Mary, Ark of the Covenant.” As this particular article is relevant to our current discussion on Mary as the Ark, I read that one. At the bottom, under “Added notes,” there is a record of Scott Hahn’s answer to the question that was raised in the audience. In his answer, you can see he refers to “Hippolitus of Rome.” One correct rendering of that name is Hippolytus, but you’ll need to search for it under the spelling in quotes. At that point, he refers to Hippolytus’ affirmation of Mary as Ark of the Covenant.
Thanks for getting back to me. I’m not trying to be a “sneaky devil.” I merely researched Hahn’s assertions and found them to be false.
Tim
Peace Jim. I will no longer be on this site. Don’t waste your time. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. I knew it all sounded too slick.
Debbie,
I am grateful that you came by for a visit. If you do stop by again, please feel free to check out Hippolytus’ actual thoughts on the Ark of the Covenant. I do not ask that you trust me, Hahn or Hippolytus, You should be fact-checking all of us.
Warm regards,
Tim
Debbie, Tim has been kind to you and dint deserve to be treated like that. He stokes me as a caring upright man. And I believe you owe him an apology. K
No worries, Kevin. Debbie clearly intended for me to think more about Mary as a Holy Mother, and when I responded about the Ark of the Covenant, it was from Hahn’s statements that weren’t on the exact page she had in mind, so my response probably struck her as a non sequitur. Such is the nature of electronic communications.
I do hope to hear from Debbie again, but if not, I certainly enjoyed her brief visit with us. She’s very nice.
Tim
Debbie,
Just in case you circle back, I just posted something on Jason’s blog in answer to a question about the Woman of Rev 12.
I am quite pleased with myself ( Am I a Catholic Boasting in his works? Hmmm. Maybe! ) and think it is topical for this discussion as Kevin keeps insisting on Mary’s lowly estate.
Of course Mary calls herself a lowly handmaid and never a queen in the Bible Duh!. She is too humble for that.
We call her Queen!
Anyway, here is my post on May’s Queenship;
You can click around and find a series of lectures on an alternative view of the Fall called the Franciscan view. It starts with the concept that from eternity past God willed the Incarnation. Christ was to come even if the Fall had never happened.
If Christ came on account of the Fall, God is reacting to man’s sin.
Anyway, in this view, Rev 12 in a sense, is both before and after Gen 3:15. The devil rebelled because he had been shown that the Son was going to assume a human nature. As an angel, he did not want to bend his knee before a human nature. God went on to reveal His plan to include a human person, Mary, in the plan of the Incarnation. At that point Lucifer said his non serviam. He fought with Michael and was cast down to the earth. The devil then went in search of the woman, a human person. He did not search for the Adam ( who he thought was Christ ) as he knew he couldn’t be tempted into sin. This is where Genesis starts.
Remember, Revelation is an onion. It is in layers. It is future and at the same time has already happened.
Keep this in mind; The red dragon with seven heads and 10 horns that sought to kill the Child is the red Idumean/edomite dynasty of the 7 Herods and, at the time of the destruction of the Temple, the 10th Caesar. It has a purely historical interpretation. David Chilton goes into more detail than I can here.
Yet, the Dragon is also the “ancient serpent that deceived the world. A one to one equivalence between Gen 3 and Rev 12. is seen here.
We also know that the Offspring or Seed of the woman of Gen is the same man child of Revelation 12. Another equivalence.
Now, it is a rule that when interpreting scripture we can use either an allegorical or a literal approach. Agreed? What is not allowed is to mix the two systems at the same time.
So, the Serpent/Dragon is the literal person of Lucifer.
The Seed is the Man Child, the literal person of Jesus.
The Woman of the two passages must also be a literal person and not allegory.
The allegorical interpretation shows that the Woman of Rev is both Israel and the Church. The literal person of the Woman, however, can only be the person who gave birth to the literal person of Christ, Mary. This would not be the Church or Israel.
The word Revelation/Apocalypse means to draw back the bridal veil to reveal the bride. Revelation is about the dismantling of the OT church to reveal the Bride. It is about the marriage between the Lamb and His Church,
The Church is the new Davidic Kingdom. 16 times in the books of Kings and Chronicles, the office of Queen Mother is shown in the Southern Kingdom of Juda. ( The only woman called queen mother in the Northern Kingdom was Jezebel. And that title was only used by ambassadors from the South when greeting her. )
The Woman crowned with 12 stars, the Queen of Heaven, the New King David’s Mother, is…………????
Bend your knee ye knaves, as even King Solomon did in the presence of Bathsheba, the Queen Mother!!! Just as the Roman soldiers who mocked Jesus as King of the Jews putting a crown on Him, bending their knees and saying, “Chaire, Ave” as did Gabriel greet the Queen of Angels with a royal salutation, “Chaire/Ave” when he came into the presence of her majesty.
Amen!
And yes, Debbie, do read St. Hippolytus. He gave us the second Eucharistic prayer. He is one of ours.
So, Debbie, Tim and Kevin, have a nice day.
Jim,
Would you then say the birthpains of Revelation 12:2 (i.e., “And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.”) were literal birthpains? Given Mary’s alleged sinlessness, it seems rather incongruous, in my opinion, to have Mary travailing under the consequence of Eve’s sin. If Mary gave birth to Christ without pain, why would John have Mary bringing forth a child “in sorrow” (Genesis 3:16)?
Thanks as always for your participation,
Tim
Jim, I believe that Mary’s words were an proof of her humble state not something I said. Mary was the mother of Jesus, a model Christian, but she wasn’t God and di not consider herself a Queen. Because she experienced childbirth she was under the curse just as we. She thanked her God and savior in her beautiful prayer. And God blessed her with many chidden. She is my sister in Christ. and i will look forward to meeting her in heaven.
Tim and Kevin,
Interesting point Tim. I hear people call into catholic Answers with that question about once a month.
You know Tim, since you mentioned Hippolytus to Debbie, we should talk about something.
Hippolytus is the one who supposedly fixed Christ’s birthday on Dec.25th.
Today Christians are at pains in defending the historicity of Jesus. Enemies of the Faith claim that Christ never actually existed. He was never really born on Dec. 25th. The date was chosen after the time of crypto- pagan Constantine to syncretize the old religion of the Empire with the new stories coming out of Palestine.
The new Christ myth borrowed from Mithras, Horus, Dionysius and others to retell the story of a dying and rising corn god.
The tale was so fantastic. It claimed a virgin was impregnated by a god and gave birth to a god’s son. Then he was killed around the time of the equinox and then rose again to die again and again and again.
Oh, sure, there may have been some zealot in Palestine who was executed under the Romans. But nobody believed him to be a god. That took a few centuries to develop from various legends. Same with the various books that claimed to tell his story. Matthew, Judas, Thomas, Luke, Barnabas, were just a few of the pseudonyms used by the story tellers.
Christian apologists are working hard to explain that the early Christians would die before burning a pinch of incense to Caesar. The Christ they worshiped from the beginning fulfilled the Jewish scriptures not the oracles of the Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians. The pagan Christ stuff is all Horus manure.
After refuting the Christ/Mithras nonsense, you guys turn around and shoot yourselves in the foot by saying the Old Testament types of Mary are false. You say the Queen of Heaven is weeping for Tammuz rather than the Queen Mother of the Davidic Kingdom ( Rev 12 ). You accuse the same early Christians who followed Christ of incorporating Diana, Cybele, Lyda into the faith under the mask of Mary.
Ark of the Covenant, New Eve, Jael, Judith, the Song of Songs, etc. are from the Jewish Bible. Not from the Olympian myths or Babylonian pantheon.
You fellows can’t have your cake and eat it too. If Mary is Isis, Jesus is Horus. Undermine Mary, you undermine Jesus.
If Mary isn’t the Mother of God, Jesus isn’t God.
You can’t trash Marian devotion and remain followers of Christ. Not 100% anyway. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that if you discount the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, if you can’t defend the Virgin Birth of Christ.
You either accept all of what the Jewish and Christian scriptures say about both Jesus and Mary or you have no consistent argument against those who say Christianity is just a myth .
Thanks for writing, Jim. You said,
I do accept what the Scriptures say about both Jesus and Mary. I merely deny that they “say” what you claim.
If the apostolic teaching was that Mary was sinless, why did Origen have her doubting at the cross, and citing Romans 3:23 to support him? If Mary as the Ark of the Covenant was an apostolic teaching, why is it that the earliest evidence for it is from Hippolytus who said that Jesus, not Mary, is the Ark of the New Covenant. Even Hahn, when he appeals to Patriach Severus to support the Ark theory, has Severus seeing, “the Blessed Virgin signified by the Holy of Holies precisely because she contains the Ark of the Covenant made of incorruptible wood, etc.”. In other words, to support the Ark Theory, Hahn offers two men (Hippolytus and Severus) who appear to see Jesus as the Ark of the Covenant. This is provided as early “support” for the development of a dogma in which Mary, not Jesus, is the Ark of the Covenant. That seems to me to be a stretch, which is to put it as gently as I can.
I read John Paul II talk about the fact that there is no record of the resurrected Jesus appearing to Mary, and he takes that as evidence that He must have appeared to her. Then when the Scriptures plainly affirm that “he appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (Mark 16:9), John Paul II nonetheless reserves that privilege for Mary, His mother.
God Has spoken to us through His Son, and the written record of that is all we can know with certainty. I know with certainty that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection. John Paul wants me to waver from that certainty in favor of what he believes to be true on a hunch, nothing more. I have yet to see evidence that the apostolic church thought that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant. Scott Hahn wants me to believe that Hippolytus’ and Severus’ affirmation of Jesus as the Ark of the Covenant is in fact an affirmation of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. Again, that seems to me to be a stretch.
There is nothing that Rome cannot affirm as truth if the standard is that an apostolic denial can be taken as an affirmation and an apostolic affirmation can be taken as a denial. With that epistemology, there is no way Rome can defend the truth at all—for truth really can be anything.
Thanks so much for your participation here,
Tim
Tim, By the way, since you like the OT types so much, how do you feel about the Song of Solomon? The very first line is about Mary. It says, ” Let Him kiss me with the Kiss of His mouth”.
It doesn’t say, “Kiss me with His mouth”.
The Kiss between the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit.
So, “Let Him Kiss me with the Holy Spirit”.
Wow. Heady stuff, huh?
Tim, exactly, it puts a big wrench in their Mary was the sinless queen theory. She had pain in childbirth a consequence of the fall. Mary was a sinner just like you and me. K
Jim, from your response its clear your running with your head between your you know what. Tim’s response was excellent. You are hi tailing it like Debbie. Stomp your feet, throw up some spiritual declaration or prayer and run. The scripture is clear on Mary, and she is nothing like the Roman caricature.
Tim,
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” JOHN 1:29
FYI, not the Ark of the Covenant! Never is Jesus referred to as the Ark of the Covenant.
You are wrong on so many areas that I have prayed about the best way to even begin to address this.
You are very clever in your 1/16 lies (that’s all it takes to make something untrue) and your dismiss, divide, and aversion, tactics are too much for me.
But believe me, I do know the voice of my Master and it is not coming from you.
I wish you and your family well and my prayers of God’s healing grace showering down on you Tim.
Debbie,
I’m glad you came back. You may note that I have at no time identified the Ark as a figure for Jesus. (And you are right that the Scripture does not identify Jesus as the Ark). I have only shown that the early church fathers first identified it as a figure for Jesus, not for Mary. The Ark as a figure for Mary was a later manifestation in the Patristic writings. That was my only intention in providing those citations from the early church fathers and pointing out Hahn’s inconsistency in providing Hippolytus as a source for an early devotion to Mary as the Ark.
If you disagree with the identification of Jesus as the Ark, your disagreement is with Hippoytus and S. Bonaventure, not with me. That does rather leave a dilemma for a Roman Catholic, as there is no infallible church teaching identifying Mary as the Ark. You are left speculating based on conflicting testimonies of church fathers. It would be rather simpler for you, I think, if there were someone who would interpret this for you infallibly. But there is not.
What I do know from Scripture is that the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle and the Ark are all intended to signify God dwelling with His people (Exodus 25:8-22). But now His church is His temple (1 Peter 2:5) where God dwells with us (Ephesians 2:21-22), the curtain has been torn in two (Luke 23:45), and the Ark has disappeared, and “neither shall it come to mind” anymore. Whatever the significance they once held, the Scripture clearly shows that devotion to the Ark will cease among God’s people, “neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. … ” (Jeremiah 3:16-17).
Why has devotion to the Ark not ceased for you?
I wish you well, Debbie, and I’m glad you visited with us.
Tim
FYI for those who read this blog,
The Precious Blood poured out from the Lamb is the New Covenant, not Jesus Christ. It is all about His Most Precious Blood on so many levels.
What is a more proper, protective and grace filled ark than the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She literally still has the Precious Blood in her (see earlier thread about maternal Microchimerism), hence her perpetual virginity is paramount.
Understanding that the New Covenant is the Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus is a safeguard against not honoring Mary as truly the Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was full of grace because she was full of the Holy Trinity and the Precious Blood of the New Covenant.
Tim, Kevin is doing PR work for you over on Jason’s blog. He is saying you have Catholics “on the run” on Mary.
While I do think this is mostly just some of Kevin’s unctuous and embarrassing to read apple polishing ( He does it to Nick too although he loathes Nick’s position , ‘ Always kiss the hand you cannot bite’ ) he is bearing false witness. I am not “on the run” but actually feel I have you up a tree and have been yelping for you to come down.
I am still waiting for you to address my post on Ark of the Covenant as seen in Luke and John.
I don’t have access to Livius here. I think he refers to a St. Olympus who, in the three hundreds, applied Ark imagery to Mary. I may have it wrong but I am sure the name started with an O. I used to borrow the book from the Mt. Angel Seminary library when I lived in Oregon. I seem to remember a delightful part that had zeroes in on just what type of snake the devil disguised himself as.
Isn’t your ” Jesus is the Ark, not Mary” argument the same one as to who crushes the serpent’s head, Jesus or Mary? For you, it is an “either/or” proposition. For us, a “both/and”,
Anyway, it looks like we will have a sunny day here. Hope the same for you.
Hi, Jim,
You are right about Saint Methodius of Olympus. In his Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, ch. V, he wrote, addressing the Virgin Mother, “the ark of the covenant, which typified thee…” and “the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity…” and “…what sort of veneration is due to thee from us who are of creation the least, to thee who are indeed a queen, the living ark of God…”
The problem with these references is that so much of it is corrupted and may have been interpolated after the Council of Ephesus, and my even have been transferred from a ninth century monk of the same name (Methodius). As the introduction to his works suggests, “Tokens of corruption are not wanting, and there can be little doubt that Methodius the monkish artist and missionary of the ninth century has been often copied into the works of his earlier namesake” (p. 728).
By way of example, chapter 1 begins with a reference to Uzzah (spelled Uzziah, but clearly a reference to 2 Samuel 6): “Today the accomplishment of that ancient and true counsel is, in fact and deed, gloriously manifested to the world. Today, without any covering, and unveiled face, we see, as in a mirror, the glory of the Lord and the majesty of the divine ark itself. … No second time is an Uzziah invisibly punished, for daring to touch that what may not be touched; for God Himself invites, and who will stand hesitating with fear? He says: ‘Come to me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden.’ Who then will not run to Him? Let no Jew contradict the truth, looking at the type which went before the house of Obededom. The Lord has ‘manifestly come to His own.’ … The publican, when he touches the ark, comes away just; the harlot, when she approaches this, is remoulded, as it were, and becomes chaste; the leper, when he touches this, is restored without pain.”
Can there be any doubt that Methodius speaks of Jesus here? It is odd, to say the least, that Methodius says the days are gone when no man may touch the ark. In what way is this fulfilled in Mary, whom no man may touch?
Methodius does cause some problems because the manuscripts are suspect. Giving the entire manuscript the benefit of the doubt may lend itself to your “both/and” approach, but the scholarship on Methodius militates heavily against that approach. In any case, Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD) predated Methodius (died 311). I concur with you that by the 4th century, “Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant” was a dominant theme.
As always, it is great to hear from you,
Tim
Jim,
I lived in Albany, Oregon from 1977-1980. Our family occasionally visited Mt. Angel. Perhaps we met there once in passing?
I apologize if my articles are not sufficiently tailored to your interests. I have long rejected Renee Laurentin’s scholarship on Luke and the Ark. I will provide my thoughts on that at some point, just as I will provide my thoughts on Romans 4 at some point. And on Sola Ecclesia, and on the influence of Marian apparitions on Roman Catholic dogma, and on the centrality of the Eucharist, and on the significance of the showbread, etc…, etc…, etc… In the mean time, if it pleases you to say you have me up a tree, you may continue to do so. I don’t agree, but I won’t object. You will find that I rarely defend my reputation here. If I make a mistake or respond too hastily, I will happily admit it, correct it and move on. I am but a man of earth, earthy.
But I will continue to write when I can. I do take your comments and questions seriously, and I try to balance my time between writing and answering. Thanks for your patience.
You are always welcome here,
Tim
PS Tim, Speaking of Nick, I was interested in your tiff with him on Penal Substitution. What happened? Just when it was getting good, silence.
Is that because I distracted you with my Marian stuff? I will butt out for a while if it will give you time to go back to your slugfest with Nick. I really think that issue goes right to the heart of things. As for serpents’ heads, I think Nick was on the verge of cutting the snake off Calvinism’s head off.
Please take up where you guys left off. It was a cliff hanger.
Take care.
Tim, with your unique background i hope you can do an article rely drawing biblical distinctions between Rome and Christianity. Such as the localized worship of the bread. Or the biblical Mary and RC Mary etc.. And pertinent distinctions. Just a distinction.
Debbie, So I would imagine you would say that since Christ’s blood is the new covenant and his blood came from Mary, then When Christ was hung on the cross so was Mary and therefore since they had the same blood she has to be perfect too and also a sacrifice for sin, a mediator, a high Priest, co savior of the world. He is king, so she must be queen, right. He was perfect and so was she, right? How could Mary be a perpetual virgin when she was married. I mean Joseph had to wait a log time, right? Do you think her children were adopted? Why didn’t Jesus call her queen in his ministry? Why woman? Do you just conveniently rationalize those verses away? If Mary called Jesus her Lord and Savior and she had childbirth a sign of the fall, how do you say she was sinless?
Debbie,
In response to Kevin’s irreverent utterance,
” I mean Joseph had to wait a log time, right?”
On St. Joseph Day I posted some stuff on Mary’s “Most Chaste Spouse” that settles this question. Scroll around this blog and find it. It is dynamite.
As for Kevin’s, “Why didn’t Jesus call her queen in his ministry? Why woman?” just tell him to check out the biblical use of “Chaire”. She was called the Queen of Angels.
As for Woma, I have answered Kevin about 5 times on this. His strategy is to ask and re-ask the same question to wear you down.
Think about it Debbie, soldiers dying on battle fields cry for their mothers. They never curse them. Kevin says,however, that while dying, Jesus took time out to disrespect her and pretend He didn’t know her by calling her “woman”. Unbelievable ignorance on Kevin’s part, huh?
As for the blood, well, Jesus was Mary’s little sacrificial Lamb. Check out the scene with Simeon where she presents Him to God.
A few dats ago K. said Mary is crying in heaven because we pray to her.
I say St. Paul is crying over the way these Calvinists have perverted his words.
Ave Maria!
Tim, While in Oregon did you get to know Dave Hunt? You say you know Bill Webster, did you ever meet apostate priest Richard Bennett? I attend Sunday Mass at the Irish Dominican parish around the corner. Some of the priests served with Bennett in Trinidad where he hit his head and while recovering, lost his Faith and became apostate.
If you do know him, and Webster, you must have picked up on something. They are weird. Bennett is downright spooky, huh?
Webster hates his Catholic mother for her alcoholism.
I never met Bart Brewer. but I am sure you know who he was.
All strange dudes. Nutty. Kevin denies it but he has all the earmarks of these troubled ex Catholics, don’t you agree?
I can’t say why you left the Church and now spend your energy trying to destroy the Faith of others, but you are in bad company.
Ciao
Tim, One more thing, I am sure you hung out in Portland and knew Western Conservative Baptist Seminary on Mt Tabor at the end of Hawthorne street. I lived in the hood and hung out almost daily at their library. Lots of really nice people there. That is when I learned about Dispensationalism.
Anyway, I just want to affirm that the majority of Protestants, even those committed to the idea that Catholicism is wrong, would never say the uncharitable things ( Kevin ) I have seen on this and Jason S.’s blog, They were always respectful of me.
Did you know Pilgrim’s bookstore on Stark? I used to lurk in the aisles and evangelize there. Nice folks. Lots of great non-Catholic brothers in Christ in Oregon!
It has been fun reminiscing Tim, Take care.
Jim, wasn’t Jesus God’s sacrificial lamb? Mary is the mother of Jesu’s humanity, not his divinity. You will all stand before God in worshiping my Christian sister Mary. And it won’t go well. God is a jealous God. Ask yourself a question, if Jesus was the mother of God, why is she only called the mother of Jesus? Jesus existed with the father from the beginning. His attributes came from god, he was perfect. Mary didn’t kiss the Holy Spirit or marry the holy spirit. The Holy Spirit impregnated her. He was God and she was a sinful human being. Thats what the bible teaches. and saying she was the Ark is asinine. If it signified anyone it was Jesus. It didn’t only take the blood of Christ, it took the death of Christ to save men. Mary didn’t die on a cross because she was not worthy or qualified. There has been one sinless person who deserved to die on that cross in our place. Jesus Christ. Saying Mary was a sinner and the mother of many chideren who enjoyed the blessings of relations with her husband isn’t disrespectful. On the contrary. It is respectful, those were all a blessing form god. Tim is to nice to you guys. Your speculative and mystical fictitious nonsense about Mary is unproven. Provide us bible versus, or else take this circus on the road. LOL
I find it highly suspicious that Tim keeps writing about Marian Apparitions. No Catholic is required to believe in them:
They are not Dogma. They are considered “private revelations”, even if approved by the Church as authentic. We are only bound to believe in public revelation that came from Jesus Christ and has been passed down to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition – preserved by the Magisterium of the Church.
Debbie, What you say is correct. However, one doesn’t have to a Catholic to acknowledge that the miracles at Lourdes are verified by a medical panel and are for real.
The Tilma of Juan Diego defies explanation by Catholics and non Catholics alike.
As for Fatima, well Christopher West was here last Summer and gave a talk at Fatima on JPII, the Errors of Russia, and the Theology of the Body. Fatima is not new revelation. It is prophecy coming truer and truer every day.