A large part of my ministry is involved in teaching Bible survey to high school students. Last year, I expanded that ministry to teaching an adult Bible survey course. Along the way, I’ve been on the lookout for resources that accomplish some of the important tasks involved in teaching an overview and basic understanding of the Bible. In the past, I’ve recommended books like the Ryken Bible Handbook as helpful to anyone wanting a basic Bible textbook. I’ve also endorsed the ESV Literary Study Bible, which contributes much of the same material in a no-headings Biblical text format.
I’ve been on the lookout for a book that embodies my own approach to the Bible as a whole, resolves some of the important misconceptions and problems people bring to the Bible and, most importantly, containing a basic, readable, thematic overview of the Bible in approximately a hundred pages. Many of you will be surprised to hear that I’ve found an excellent book covering those areas and others in Mark Shea’s Making Senses Out of Scripture.
Yes, Shea is a Roman Catholic writer and apologist. He’s the senior content editor at Catholic Exchange, a well-known podcaster and a popular Catholic writer. If you need your Biblical resources laundered at the Reformation laundry, then you probably should pass. If, however, you can admit that some excellent Biblical scholarship resides among Roman Catholics, you’ll appreciate resources like Making Senses Out of Scripture.
The strongest suit of this book is the first 150 pages, where Shea introduces the concept of revelation, and then moves through the Biblical history in one of the most well-written, short format summaries I’ve ever read. Along the way, Shea pays attention to the covenants and themes of the Old Testament and their fulfillment in the New. This is practicing the Christ-centered approach to the entire Bible in a helpful, easy to follow way.
Shea uses outstanding illustrations to convey what we have in Biblical revelation and how that revelation interprets itself through the “key” of Jesus Christ. The Christ-centeredness of Shea’s summary builds off his understanding of the tensions and unanswered promises of the older Testament. He gives the proper emphasis to Christ as the interpretative answer to various themes raised in the Hebrew Bible.
For the Bible survey teacher who wants his/her students to have the “big picture,” Shea’s book does a good job in a brief and well-written effort. Other books, like The Drama of Scripture, give a book length Biblical overview with far more theological depth. Shea’s overview could be assigned on one day and discussed the next.
The second half of the book deals with the four “senses” of scripture commonly used in Catholic Biblical interpretation: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. This discussion, far from being a rehash of St. Thomas Aquinas, teaches the kind of broad and richly suggestive approach to the scriptures we often read in the New Testament itself, as well as in the early church fathers.
If I were to make a list of introductory and interpretative issues that I personally want to deal with in Bible survey, from how the Bible compares to science to how to interpret the boring parts, Shea has been immensely helpful. If you are prepared to read with an awareness of how Roman Catholics approach and use the Bible differently than Protestants, this book will be useful.
I would like to mention some points of interest to Protestants who may read this book.
1) Shea isn’t a bashful Catholic. He sojourned with evangelicals for a while and he knows where to address issues of evangelical weakness. Rarely is he off base about evangelicalism, though there is a tendency to resort to shorthand that can approach caricature. Still, I give him high marks for fairness. I wouldn’t recommend the book if it weren’t fair and helpful. Still, the book occasionally shows that misperceptions persist in Protestant-Catholic discussions.
2) Shea’s own story, contained in the introduction, features a Biblical authority crisis caused by his initial encounter with the Biblical claims of assertive Calvinism. The “lockup” that occurs between sovereign election and the universals of the Gospel drove him toward the Roman Catholic church.
It would be important to say that much of the Protestant world has found it possible to be Christian without resorting to Calvinism. The answer Shea endorses- that no person is left out of the meaning and purpose of Christ’s sufferings- is an answer millions of Protestants would affirm as well. The relentless logic of Calvinist Biblical interpretation does resolve what scripture refuses to resolve, but one doesn’t need to go to the Roman Church to survive that dilemma.
3) Two of Shea’s sections on covenant fulfillment will cause some Protestant disagreement in specifics and in principle (as Protestant Biblical interpretation often does on its own.)
The first is Shea’s section on Jesus as the second Adam, which is accompanied by an equal section on Mary as the new Eve. Shea says, without blinking, that the New Testament strongly emphasizes Mary as the icon of the new Eve.
I certainly believe there are parallels between Mary and Eve that can be drawn from within Catholic theology, but at no point in the New Testament is Mary held up as the bride of Jesus. For example, Mary’s presence at the wedding in Cana is never used to hint that she is the “bride” to the Messiah.
Even the frequently cited and errant identification of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary- an identification not universally held even among Catholic scholar- doesn’t lead to the conclusions of the woman being the bride of Christ. And none of the New Testament passages that explicitly speak of the “second” or “new” Adam ever mentions the “second” or the “new” Eve. That is a significant omission, especially if one is going to claim the New Testament routinely portrays Mary as the “bride” icon of Christ.
That the Roman interpretation of Eve as the mother of Christians and an icon of the church can be constructed or justified from Roman interpretations of scripture is obvious. But to say that Paul, Luke and the author of the fourth Gospel saw Mary as the new Eve goes outside of what scripture plainly says and into what tradition supplies.
The second section of some likely disagreement is the fulfillment of the covenant with Noah. Shea suggests that the heart of the Noahic covenant was the prohibition on eating blood. Of course, in the new covenant this prohibition is lifted for the Eucharistic celebration.
Discussions of the meanings of Eucharistic language in scripture has been going on for 500 years with no sign of much progress between differing interpretations. I won’t enter that discussion, though I have addressed the subject in two previous essays. (Here and here.) I will suggest that the primary meaning of the covenant with Noah is probably not the prohibition on eating blood, which is a preview of Levitical law, but the repetition of the covenant language of Genesis 1-2.
4) I agree with Shea in believing it is the light of Jesus Christ that illuminates the older Testament, but I would caution anyone who may tend to say that we can find all Christian beliefs TAUGHT in the Old Testament to know the difference between what is explicitly taught in a literal sense and what is construed, concluded, supported, hinted at, prefigured, implied or illustrated.
I’ll be a real Protestant here: the plain language of scripture (or the silence of scripture) should be held in higher regard than any other source of teaching. Many of us are prepared to articulate the place of tradition in our understanding of scripture, and to say that evangelicalism has too long erred in a kind of “nuda scriptura” mode. But it remains the case that our separation from our Roman friends seldom involves an acceptance of what scripture says, but an insistence that we much accept an approach to tradition that renders scripture too pliable.
I want to thank Mark Shea for penning a superb introduction to the Bible, and I recommend this book highly. We can all rejoice in the renewed emphasis on scripture since Vatican II. One can now hear more scripture in the average mass than in the average evangelical worship service.
Shea’s book is well-written, engaging, extraordinarily helpful at the most important points of a practical use of the Bible and a fine book that should help Protestants understand the Roman Catholic approach to the Bible.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Mmm. Beer.
LikeLike
Whoo! That was interesting!
There’s always that “filter” problem. What is said has to pass through the accumulated experiences, understandings of our lives. There is also the problem of defining terms. Holy Spirit, please help us to communicate and love all mankind, through Jesus Christ, Our Lord. Amen
LikeLike
I reckon so. Cyberspace does weird things to the human voice.
LikeLike
Honestly, Mark, sometime you and I need to have a beer because I think this conversation would go much better across a table.
LikeLike
Grrrr. Blockquotes OFF!
Boy, am I inept at this!
LikeLike
Oops. There was supposed to be a closed blockquote after “Catholic unity”.
LikeLike
Kevin:
My purpose in this thread was not to address “foundational issues”. That was done in my book By What Authority, which you read some time back.
My purpose here was to clarify for Michael what is and is not the dogmatic teaching of the Church regarding Mary. (It turns out the notion of Mary as the New Eve is not a dogmatic title like Theotokos, but that this hardly matters since the understanding of her in this vein is so kneaded into the liturgy, piety and theology of the Church, you might as well try to pull the yeast from the dough.)
That was basically my purpose here. I don’t claim to have any corner on the truth. Indeed, Pope John Paul made no such claim. He taught in Veritatis Splendor that we humans cannot possess the Truth since the Truth is a person. That Person founded a Church and gave it the authority to settle doctrinal matters when the need arose. He didn’t give it to Bryan, me–or you. So being the sort of person who gapes and grins and does as he is told, I tend to go with that Church, founded on the cornerstone of the apostles and built on Kepha. I say that, not in the interest of trying to heal any breach (not the purpose my posting here) but to tell you how I look at things.
Curiously, after berating me for my allegedly monolithic treatment of Protestants, you suddenly adopt completely monolithic voice and presume to speak for all Protestants:
Given that my archbishop is busily engage in ecumenical conversation with Anglicans who have essentially come to agreement with the Catholic communion about the Immaculate Conception, I’m not so sure that either of these propositions is true of “Protestant” (unqualified). Indeed, I would hesitate to say that, with the rise of the Emergents and their new found interest things Marian (or anything else that ticks off old school Evangelicals and Truly Reformed folk) that it’s particularly sound to say, without qualification, what constitutes a virtually irreparable breach between Catholic and Protestants (unqualifed). The terms are constantly changing. However, I’m certainly willing to grant that, yes, the Catholic communion does not always stand around waiting for approval from non-Catholics before adjudicating her internal affairs. Why this should matter so much to a non-Catholic is one of the great mysteries of the universe to me.
The matter of authority and matter of the identity and nature of the Church are inextricably linked. It is characteristic of the curiously monochromatic take on the Catholic Church among those who are still stuck in the 16th Century that they insist on speaking of “Rome” instead of the Catholic Church. Despite, once again, being told what I believe by you, I should point out that I do not, in fact, believe what you tell me I believe. I don’t think “Rome” is the primary visible expression of the Church on this earth. I think:
I also think:
But at the same time I think:
It is regrettable that motives have to be questioned now in a discussion where sharp disagreement occurs. I don’t appreciate Mark doing that but it seems to be par for the course in some of these discussions. For my part, until Mark’s latest response I hadn’t really planned on adding additional material to this discussion.
At any rate, what a miracle it is that two Catholics agree with one another regarding how we view the gospel! 🙂 Mark, I don’t doubt that you and Mr. Cross feel completely justified in how you look at history and the text of Scripture and really I’m not here to argue about our differences too much because the foundational issues at hand are simply not being addressed.
Your perspective does not in any way heal the breach between us in terms of restoring unity and continual rehashing of the point only makes the divide wider. Nor does your agreement with Mr. Cross mean that you two have a corner on the truth of this matter and failing to address the foundational differences between us regarding why we would look at this differently is where the real work is.
In reference to your comments about Protestants, my point was not merely about your discussion here at Michael’s site but really about how I’ve seen you address Protestants and Protestantism in general. So sorry to leave you with my impression of the matter. When did I ever say it was a matter of fact? Owning an opinion is difficult these days to be sure.
But my original purpose here was not to start a fight as Mark Shea claims. I wanted to make it clear–and I think I have–that the issue between Catholics and Protestants on the Marian doctrines is not the doctrines per se but the fact that the Roman communion has made these doctrines a part of the gospel quite without the help of the rest of Christendom. And, as such, we as Protestants disagree not so much about the doctrines themselves but that this unilateral action on the part of Rome is part and parcel why there is a virtually irreparable breach between us. Additionally, I also wanted to point out that Protestants are not always stuck in one mode of hermeneutical inquiry regarding Scripture.
Regarding whether or not the Roman Church is in the business of binding the consciences of Christians outside her fold–you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either Rome is the visible Church on earth and as such calls all to herself or she is not. It’s not really a matter of authority that is at issue here but the identity and nature of the Church herself. Do we really believe that Rome IS the primary visible expression of the Church on this earth–because Mark Shea does. Or can we see the Holy Spirit at work elsewhere in and among His own outside the walls of one historical communion who has grown a bit big for her britches. The Reformers didn’t have a big fight about this question for nothing and as such we shouldn’t pretend that the question is unimportant.
What the Marian doctrines show us is the working out of this doctrine of the Church as Rome sees it. My point in all of this is that this in and of itself is what continues to keep us apart.
LikeLike
Michael:
I’m not sure how much more there is to say on this matter. Kevin appears to mostly be looking for a fight since he is here to make a number of hasty and broad statements that indicate a lack of interest in what I’ve said combined with rather too much interest in whanging on Rome.
So, for instance:
1. Vatican I did not define either the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption. The former was defined in 1854 by Pius IX and the latter in 1950 by Pius XII. Those passionate about disputing the doctrines should know some of the elementary facts about them.
2. When Kevin declares,
“In fact, Shea and others go too far to claim the fourfold sense of interpreting Scripture as a Roman Catholic method. In reality, this was a method of interpreting the Scriptures that belonged to the whole Church and has been used by various people throughout the life of the Church and not just by Roman Catholics”
…I have no idea what he’s talking about. For it sounds very much as though he thinks he is refuting some outrageously claim by me that the four senses of Scripture are the private property of the Roman Catholic Church, a claim I never made. I do say that there is a real difference in the way many Protestants approach Scripture when it comes to the texts that the Father, both and East and West, regard as Marian, but that’s not because the Church hold a patent on the four sense. It’s because there *is* a real difference. Ezekiel 44(?) (can’t remember the chapter and verse, but it’s the passage about the gate to the temple) has, for instance, long been seen as a prophetic foreshadow of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and many Protestants open scoff at this, largely because they don’t seem to get how the early Fathers read a text like this.
But the basic thing here is that Bryan is right: What Kevin is trying to do is the equivalent of stealing bases or demanding “When did you stop beating your wife?” Specifically, he tries to order the discussion from the outset on this basis: “Assuming, of course, that I am right that the Marian doctrines are wholly unessential to the faith, let us now get on with the explanation of why any Catholic notion that they are both true and essential is wrong.”
I daresay that, given the premisses, the conversation is hardly going to be particularly illuminating about why the Church might happen to think that the Marian dogmas are neither unessential nor wrong. But, of course, I don’t grant the premisses and I don’t see what gives Kevin or any other individual Christian the authority to declare that they are the final arbiters of what is an is not essential to the Faith. Kevin, having read my By What Authority? knows why this is.
3. Kevin chastises me for referring to “Protestantism” as a monolith, saying, “I don’t know if Mark Shea means to do this or not, but I see him referring to Protestants and Protestantism a lot without really qualifying his comments with a note about the diversity of opinion within our circles on these and other issues as well as a recognition that there are more and less informed voices on our side about these things.”
Here are the sentences I wrote in the exchange above which mentioned Protestants:
The titles to which most Protestants react aren’t new.
I daresay the last two are a big enough hurdle for most Protestants…
In the East, it’s a whole ‘nother story, as Protestants wary of Rome, but attracted to apostolic churches, have sometimes discovered to their surprise.
But for Protestants who think they will flee what they regard as the excessive Marianism of Rome by going East, it can be a real jolt.
So it appears that the difficulty is a perceived mountain of Marianism built on a molehill of Scripture. Is that basically it? If so, I agree completely that this is a problem for a huge number of Protestants.
Mary did not become a big issue for Protestants until well after the Reformation.
They became issues for Protestants in the 17th Century.
The Church re-affirmed what she had affirmed for centuries before there were any Protestants and went on doing so. Protestants (some, not all) decided that various pieces (and, in not a few cases, everything) about Mary was “too much†and chucked it. Part of this is due, not to what Scripture says, but to the *way* in which Protestants tend to read Scripture vs. the way in which the ancient Church read Scripture.
But again, this brings us back to the point I’m trying to make, which is that the Church (shockingly for Protestants) does not ask “Is there a biblical basis for doctrine X?â€
You will find that Catholic doctrine is partly biblical and partly extrabiblical (just like Protestant doctrine).
As near as I can tell, the only sentence that does not either point to something which really *is* common to all Protestants or (rather laboriously) point out the obvious fact of Protestant diversity when I speak of something that is not common to all Protestantism is the penultimate quote. So, apparently by “a lot” Kevin means “once.”
For the record: Protestants are diverse. So diverse, in fact, that I have said more times than I can count that there is no such thing as Protestantism. There are only Protestantisms, as numerous as there are Protestants. This often generates another sort of offense among (some :)) Protestants, but that’s how it goes.
Finally, I was unaware of the fact that when the Church defines her teaching for the members of her flock, she is in fact binding the conscience of Mr. Johnson and all Christians everywhere. That, however, is all I can make of his strange remark that “Rome…determined for all Christians was a part of the gospel”. So far as I know, Rome simply defined for Catholics what was part of the gospel.
As far as I can tell, once you clear away Kevin’s attempt to steal bases, Bryan’s point stands essentially unrefuted. The basic difference between the Church’s choice to define the unbiblical term “homoousious” and the Church’s choice to define the Immaculate Conception is about 1500 years and that’s about it. Critics of both choices made exactly the same argument: the Scriptures never heard of or used the term, so by what authority does the Church bind the conscience of the believer to profess something the Scripture never said they had to profess? The answer to both sets of critics (and to the slightly earlier, but almost identical arguments of the Judaizers, who had the scriptures all on their side when it came to the question “How do you join the covenant people?” yet still lost the argument) is the same: “He who listens to you, listens to me and he who listens to me, listens to him who sent me.”
LikeLike
Kevin,
Thanks for your reply. The sticky point here, it seems to me, is in your test of a “clear historic and biblical trail”. First, as it stands, the phrase is rather vague. Clear to whom? All who call themselves Christians? The majority? Academics? How clear does it have to be to satisfy the ‘clear’ criterion? And can development (i.e. making explicit of what is implicit) count as a trail or must the trail be non-developmental? If development *cannot* count as a trail, then it seems that there is no trail to homoousious, since the concept of consubstantiality is not explicit in the New Testament. If, however, development *can* count as a trail, then we need a principled difference between a trail of development and an addition, in order to show that the Marian dogmas are additions and not developments. Second, your test presupposes that writers have recorded and history has then preserved all the information necessary for contemporary historians to reconstruct unbroken historical trails behind all genuine clarifications/developments back to the Apostolic era. What justifies that assumption? Third, your test (by requiring a “clear … biblical trail”) seems to presuppose that the gospel was written out in its entirety in the New Testament Scriptures. What justifies that assumption? Fourth, your test does not seem to pass its own test. Where is the clear historic and biblical trail from your requirement that genuine developments/clarifications have clear historic and biblical trails, to the early Church or to Scripture? If there is no such trail, that would suggest that your test itself is an addition, and not a genuine development/clarification, if we must follow your test. But if your test is an addition, then why should we accept it?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Of course a Catholic point of view is different than what I’ve outlined–hence the virtually impassable barrier to unity.
As for the difference between an apostolic view of the Trinity and what Nicea defined three hundred years later, a close study of the history will reveal that a clear historic and biblical trail exists between the Trinity in apostolic times until Nicea. No such clarity of the record exists for the Marian doctrines and it is not until the fourth century that we even see any evidence that groups of Christians were busy praying to Mary or elucidating Marian doctrine that Rome, some 1500 years later, determined for all Christians was a part of the gospel.
But at least we have here in your statement a clear admission that the Marian doctrines according to Rome are in fact for you and other Catholics a part of the gospel and an addition to it from our point of view. It is this fact that remains as one very large barrier to unity and until this issue is resolved it is difficult to do work elsewhere.
LikeLike
Kevin,
… because it represents a clear addition to the gospel ‘once for all delivered to the saints’.
From a Catholic point of view, that statement is question-begging. What is needed here is a principled distinction between an addition to the gospel and a clarification of the gospel. It is not probable that the Apostles used the term ‘homoousious’, but that does not mean that the Arians could justifiably accuse the bishops of the Council of Nicea (325) of constructing a “clear addition to the gospel”. For that reason, without a principled distinction between an addition and a clarification, any clarification could be wrongly dismissed as an addition. Therefore, it is not enough to assert that the Marian dogmas are “clear additions”. The principled distinction between an addition and a clarification must be made, and then it must be shown that [these Marian dogmas] are additions and not mere clarifications.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
I haven’t read Mark’s book (at least, not that one) so I can’t comment as to what he might have to say in the book itself.
However, it should be noted that the problem with the Marian doctrines are not that many in the Church have seen fit over the last two thousand years at one point or another to believe in them. In large part, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception for example are minor points of doctrine that both Protestants and Catholics have believed without resorting to making it an article of faith or a part of the gospel. The real problem is that these doctrines were proclaimed to be part of Roman Catholic dogma–essentially, part of the gospel itself–at Vatican I and as such this stance remains a huge barrier to any recognizable unity because it represents a clear addition to the gospel ‘once for all delivered to the saints’. And, of course, those of us acquainted with the history of the matter know that these doctrines were never a matter of that once delivered gospel message. It’s not a problem for me when people want to believe these things. It becomes a problem when it’s assumed that such things are a part of the gospel.
However, Roman Catholics are not the only ones who have engaged in interpreting the Bible in ways different from what is common today in modern evangelical circles (ie. grammatical/historical interpretation). In fact, Shea and others go too far to claim the fourfold sense of interpreting Scripture as a Roman Catholic method. In reality, this was a method of interpreting the Scriptures that belonged to the whole Church and has been used by various people throughout the life of the Church and not just by Roman Catholics. Indeed, the Apostles themselves and their earliest followers not only reinterpreted the Old Testament via the person and work of Christ, but they also continued a number of interpretive methods via their Jewish upbringing that most evangelicals AND Roman Catholics today would see as something out of the ordinary and quite possibly something other than the proper way to proceed in attempting to understand the Bible. Some Protestants today are also doing exceptional work on looking at the Bible differently than previous generations (cf. the late Stanley Grenz, James K.A. Smith, and Kevin J. Vanhoozer) and we shouldn’t assume that because something was practiced by the early Church we should automatically endorse it and do likewise.
Last, I think there should be some room to throw out some of our vocabulary regarding “Protestantism†as if there is some monolithic voice guiding what we understand about someone who is something other than Roman Catholic and that such a voice is woefully ignorant of the history of the matter. I don’t know if Mark Shea means to do this or not, but I see him referring to Protestants and Protestantism a lot without really qualifying his comments with a note about the diversity of opinion within our circles on these and other issues as well as a recognition that there are more and less informed voices on our side about these things. And of course, the same is true on the Roman Catholic side as well.
It’s like what he’s said about having to choose between Calvinism, Arminianism, and Roman Catholicism. In my view, and in the view of many, there are more choices than that.
LikeLike
Hi Michael:
I saw the conversation over at the Boar’s Head and thought I should offer a couple of small remarks.
He’s not arguing you’ve misread Scripture; he’s arguing that you’ve misread history. For many people, that a tradition is ancient “settles†it, or as near as makes no difference.
This is partly right and partly a mistaken read of what I was trying to say above. As a Catholic, I do, of course, agree that an ancient, widely attested tradition in the Church basically settles a lot for me. However, I don’t expect it to settle things for you and that’s not what I was trying to say. That said, I can see how I was unclear and helped create confusion. My point above was not “the immaculate conception and assumption are ancient traditions, so you should believe them.” Rather it was “the immaculate conception and assumption are ancient traditions, so I think it’s a mistake to speak of them as somehow constituting some sort of new post-Reformation overemphasis on Mary”. I was saying this since your point had been that the “balance of Marian emphasis within Catholicism, and particularly the Marian Dogmas defined since the Reformation, constitute a major barrier to reunion”.
Basically, my point is that, in terms of content, nothing has really changed about the Church’s Marian doctrines and devotions since the Reformation. All that’s really changed is the Protestant perception of Marian devotion as somehow becoming much more weighty. The dogmas added nothing new; they just restated what the Church in east and west had been saying since long before the Reformation.
Of course, this leaves out the question of *why* the Church thought it a good idea to underscore these ancient beliefs as integral to the Faith. That, too, is what my book will attempt to answer.
I would, of course, disagree with Mr. Winn that “the Church” erred doctrinally either in Scripture or in history. Where Mr. Winn perhaps sees “the Church” erring in Scripture (for instance, the cowardice of the apostles, or the failure of Peter at Antioch (Gal 2), or the squabbles of Paul and Barnabas) a Catholic sees not “the Church erring” but individuals sinning and erring. The Church has never posited a protection against such things. But impeccability is not infallibility, so that’s neither here nor there.
Meanwhile, if we grant that the Church can err in preserving true doctrine the logical and immediate conclusion is that we cannot know the New Testament actually preserves what our Lord revealed. For all we know, the Judaizers were in the right and the Council of Jerusalem (if it ever happened and was not a construct of the Pauline wing of the apostolic factionalism) was in error. Scripture won’t survive the acid bath of the dictatorship of relativism.
I understand the strong insistence on the universality of original sin. It was an insistence shared by Augustine, the Doctor of Original Sin (or the Doctor of Grace, if you like). He was absolutely on the same page as Mr. Winn insisting that “if we say we have not sinned, we lie and the truth is not in us.” And yet this same Augustine took it for granted–and knew his entire Christian audience took it for granted–that Mary was without sin. In much the same way, the authors of Scripture took it for granted that death was universal: that it is appointed unto man once to die–and yet took it for granted that Enoch and Elijah were exceptions without laborious listing those exceptions. Moral: the authors of Scripture are not statisticians or math majors. So I don’t think it at all a given that the authors of Scripture believed Mary was a sinner and I know that, with a couple of minor exceptions, neither did the Fathers. As I say, I don’t expect that to prove anything to a modern Protestant, but it does demonstrate that there’s nothing especially post-Reformational about the honor paid her as Immaculate and Assumed.
Mr. Blair writes:
Even so, this Protestant doesn’t believe those dogmas because they’re not commanded in scripture.
Neither are we commanded to have any particular view of abortion, of the Trinity, of the personhood of the Holy Spirit, of monogamy (both Luther and Melancthon, not to mention the Puritan John Milton) rightly said that the bare text of Scripture did not forbid a man to have more than one wife. Indeed, Scripture gives us no commands on how to validly contract a marriage at all (a fact famously spoofed by atheists).
The notion behind this is that the Bible is supposed to be a resource book for constructing Christian doctrines. It’s not and that’s not the way the early Church treated it. At the Council of Jerusalem, it is notable that the entire question of the relationship of Gentile believers to the Law was adjudicated without ever doing a Bible study. The Church debated the matters listened to the apostles and the (for us Catholics) first Pope promulgated the basic dogmatic teaching that we are saved by grace and not by works of the law without one scripture being quoted. Only when it was all done did the local bishop, James, then quote the Scripture. And the substance of what James says is this: “Amos agrees with us.”
Note that: for the early Church, Scripture is not on the judge’s bench. It’s in the witness box. The Church takes it for granted that they act with divine authority in adjudicating the matter: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”.
That’s breathtaking from a Protestant perspective, I know. But it’s clearly what is going on in Acts 15.
Mary did not have to be born without original sin for God to choose her to be the woman through whom Jesus came into the world.
I agree. However, the dogma was not defined to say that it was *necessary*, but that it was *fitting*.
The whole notion of her Assumption is not anywhere to be found in scripture, and whether it happened or not, it changes NOTHING in regard to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
Unless, of course, you happen to think, along with some Church Fathers and a greater and greater number of medieval theologians that its no accident that a figure of a cosmic Woman clothed with the Sun is probably more than coincidently a Marian figure since she gives bith to a male child who rules the nations with an iron scepter and is the mother of all who suffer for the name of Jesus. I think that’s more biblical evidence for the assumption of Mary than we have for the inspiration of Ecclesiastes. 🙂
But again, this brings us back to the point I’m trying to make, which is that the Church (shockingly for Protestants) does not ask “Is there a biblical basis for doctrine X?” The Church does not *base* its teachings on the Bible, because the Church does not look to the Bible as the Big Book of Doctrinal Source Material. Rather, the Church bases its teachings on apostolic tradition, both written and unwritten. You will find that Catholic doctrine is partly biblical and partly extrabiblical (just like Protestant doctrine). What you will not find is that any Catholic teaching is *anti*-biblical.
Nope. Not even the Immaculate Conception.
As for tradition, I’ll admit to not being the most well read, but it seems that the further back you go, the less you hear about these things. They don’t seem to have been that important to the earliest Christians.
Actually, as I pointed out, the sinlessness of Mary and her Assumption are already being celebrated in Feasts quite early. That’s how you tell what’s important to early Christians. The fact that they are not *controverted* doesn’t mean they are unimportant. Rather it simply means that they are so widely take for granted that nobody fights about it. You might as well say that abortion and infanticide was unimportant to early Christians. The reality, of course, is the practices were so universally abhorred that nobody talked about it. They just got on with adopting the infants the pagans exposed. In the same way, when (say) Jerome affirms the Perpetual Virginity of Mary contra Helvidius, he does so in the security of knowing that what he is saying is such common knowledge that everybody will agree with him.
So, as long as you don’t try to tell me that I can’t be a Christian unless I believe those things, I don’t care if you do or not. I will respectfully disagree and leave it at that.
The Church doesn’t say you can’t be a Christian unless you believe those things. She does say you can’t be a Catholic unless you believe those things. I merely note that, in the case of Marian dogma, when a person tries to *deny* what the Church has defined they tend to wind up adopting ideas which warp an orthodox understanding of Christ and/or the human person. That’s an important clue as to why the Church defined the doctrines: she was protecting something vital about Jesus and us. That’s what all Marian doctrines do.
The thing that really gets me about Mary is not so much Immaculate Conception or Assumption as the whole Redemptrix/Queen of Heaven thing. She is being elevated by men to a position not given her by God in His revelation.
Unless, of course, a woman who wears a crown of 12 stars is and who gives birth to a male child who rules the nations with an iron scepter is queenly and Marian imagery, which I think it is. And, of course, since scripture has given the title of king and queen to every believer, I think it’s a bit hard on Mary to leave her out of what every other Christian gets to enjoy. As to co-redemptrix, it’s an honorific which may (but not must) be used, basically emphasizing that Christ has chosen to come to us through humanity, not in spite of us. This pope actually prefers not to use it.
Re Genesis 3:15. If memory serves, the pronoun is neuter so some ancient translators took it to refer to Eve (and therefore to Mary since Eve foreshadows her) and others took it to refer to her Seed (meaning, ultimately,Christ). I think Jerome was the big influence here, since his Vulgate took it to mean the woman would crush the serpent’s head. I’m neither a Greek scholar or a Latinist, so I can’t speak to the intricacies of translation, but I think that’s basically the story.
LikeLike
Thank you Michael and Mark for this discussion.
As a revert to the Catholic Church, one of my main stumbling blocks has been Marian devotion. My main goal has been to develop my faith, and worship of God. Mary has been left of to the side in my prayer life, and I appreciate this type of discussion for aiding me to clarify my thoughts.
Keep up the good work.
Damien
LikeLike
Hi Michael:
I’m a bit confused and want to make sure I understand you. You said that the “balance of Marian emphasis within Catholicism, and particularly the Marian Dogmas defined since the Reformation, constitute a major barrier to reunion.” Then you appear to clarify that by “balance” you mean the “WEIGHT of Marian emphasis as compared to the direct statements of the New testament”. So it appears that the difficulty is a perceived mountain of Marianism built on a molehill of Scripture. Is that basically it? If so, I agree completely that this is a problem for a huge number of Protestants. And yes, the first book in the trilogy (“The Approach to Mary”) attempts to get at the roots of this problem by showing how the early Church read its Bible when it came to her (or anything, for that matter).
The difficulty with the modern Protestant position, ISTM, is that it is ahistorical. Mary did not become a big issue for Protestants until well after the Reformation. Fr. Peter Stravinskas documents this in Mary and the Fundamentalist Challenge. Even the dogmas you mention (basically Immaculate Conception and Assumption) were essentially settled issues in the Church long before the Reformation and the Reformers seem not to have been much troubled by them. They became issues for Protestants in the 17th Century. Meanwhile, the Feast of the Dormition (Assumption) had been celebrated since the fourth century (and the establishment of a Feast is like the tip of an iceberg: it means the subject of the feast was already widely agreed upon and not just the view of one eccentric Church Father). So it’s hardly cricket to say that this was a new weight of emphasis since the Reformation. Dittos with the sinlessness of Mary. Nothing new there, just a definition of the ancient faith of the Church.
So it appears to me that it was not the apostolic Churches that moved here (and, dogma or no, they all agree on the sinlessness of Mary (“All Holy” she is called in the Eastern Churchs) and her Assumption) but some Protestantisms that moved away from this ancient feature of the Faith and then declared that “Rome” was over-emphasizing something that all the apostolic Churches, east and west, basically agreed on.
One can quibble that the East has no dogma of Immaculate Conception or Assumption, but that is basically a minor historical accident compared to the huge thing east and western apostolic Churches agree on: the sinlessness and assumption of Mary. And, for the east, the lack of a dogma means very little because these features of the Faith are bound up in the *real* place these teachings are expressed: the liturgy. The East never had a struggle with Pelagianism and therefore never got around to defining original sin (which Protestantism takes for granted). Therefore the east never had to figure out how original sin could be true and yet Mary not be afflicted with it. They just held on to the more general affirmaton that in Adam we are all sinners and that the Theotokos is “All Holy” and without sin.
Anyway, my main point is this: There is no new post-Reformation over-emphasis on Mary. The Church re-affirmed what she had affirmed for centuries before there were any Protestants and went on doing so. Protestants (some, not all) decided that various pieces (and, in not a few cases, everything) about Mary was “too much” and chucked it. Part of this is due, not to what Scripture says, but to the *way* in which Protestants tend to read Scripture vs. the way in which the ancient Church read Scripture. Having read Making Senses, you have a taste of this. Behold Your Mother will focus on how this takes place when it comes to the early Church and Mary.
LikeLike
Just curious: when you point out a weighty Marian emphasis a barrier to reunion, does this necessarily present a barrier to communion?
Within the Catholic Church are those for whom the weight of Marian emphasis is higher than for others. I have no idea which group makes up the majority, but the weight of Marian emphasis varies by parish, order or prelature. That does not prevent communion, however.
Now, assuming that everything else (justification, authority) was held in agreement between Protestants and Catholics, is communion with Rome therefore possible for those who are not Marian devotees? I don’t see why not. It may well be that Mary is not as significant a hindrance as suggested. I tend to think of authority as a bigger issue (Scripture only vs. Scripture+Tradition+Magisterium).
LikeLike
As I’ve said a couple of times, I think many historically aware Protestants are aware of these kinds of connections and illuminations into scripture. (Read Spurgeon or Gill on the Song of Solomon, for example. Lots of allegorical interpretation.)
What I would say- and would defer to Mark Shea for comment here- is this:
The balance of Marian emphasis within Catholicism, and particularly the Marian Dogmas defined since the Reformation, constitute a major barrier to reunion.
NOTE: I did not say Marian emphasis was the issue. I think many Protestants are up for more of a Marian emphasis in a number of areas. It’s the WEIGHT of Marian emphasis as compared to the direct statements of the New testament. (And the fact that an ECF saw a particular Marian connection doesn’t solve this problem.)
I assume Mark wrote three upocoming books of Marian doctrines for the purpose of helping this situation.
LikeLike
Mary as the new Eve was certainly never part of my catechism in school. It might have been mentioned occasionally in liturgy during one of her feasts, but I think it only registered in college, perhaps in reading from St. Josemaria Escriva’s various books. I’m almost sure that it came about as a comparison between Eve’s tragic rebellion and Mary’s fiat, and of course with motherhood as a common denominator.
LikeLike
The saint was a second-century Gallican bishop.
On small but important point, particularly in light of the fact that Mary/Eve parallels are so often taken to be “Roman” ideas: namely Irenaeus was *stationed* in Gaul but he was, in fact, an eastern bishop. That’s why he knew Polycarp from Smyrna in Asia Minor. The idea of Mary as the New Eve come to us, in short, via a man whose mental outlook was formed in the Greek-speaking Christianity of Asia Minor, under the influence of Polycarp and (indirectly) John. Rome and, indeed, what would later be called “western” Christianity appears to have nothing to do with the source of Irenaeus’ ideas on this point. Indeed, Irenaeus would appear to be a major conduit by which this tradition reaches the west.
LikeLike
FWIW, I agree with Mark Shea. Mary as the New Eve is hardly dogmatic; I don’t even think it could be considered doctrine. It’s more like theological opinion or popular piety. But it is a profoundly Catholic and ancient way of thinking about salvation history.
Vatican II mentions the idea as if it’s taken for granted: “For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God’s messenger.” (Lumen gentium 63).
Ott doesn’t even discuss Mary as the New Eve in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, though he notes the Mary/Eve comparison/contrast motif in the ancient sources. The oldest he cites is that to which Mark alludes by mentioning St. Irenaeus: “In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.” (Adversus haereses III 4) The saint was a second-century Gallican bishop.
LikeLike
Just found your site and bookmarked it. What a great place read the respectful exchanges on the different theological views and your views on ministry. I have lived in parts of the country where a church group would come to my door to invite me to their service and end up insulting my faith. Such encounters generally ended with the use of the famous polysyllabic word that begins with “mother”…and generated more heat than light.
Will be back
LikeLike
This is the most pleasant, respectful discussion of doctrine/biblical interpretation I’ve ever read. I liked the comment – we can call eachother names now. Almost hard to believe at 2 am.
LikeLike
Ah! I was running acronyms in my brain: “Evangelical Confessing Free Methodist”? “Episcopal Congregationalist Foursquare”?
Right. The only dogmatic Marian teachings are the ones I listed. But, as I say, I don’t know how far that really gets you, since Mary is, so to speak, everywhere in the Church. Hopkins isn’t far off in comparing her to the air we breathe. You can’t go *anywhere* in the thinking of either Catholic or Orthodox theology without finding her kneaded into it so integrally that it becomes an exercise in futility trying to pick the Marian bits out. So while the perception of Mary as the New Eve is not something somebody is going to demand you confess as dogma, it’s still so bound up in the Church’s liturgical and hermaneutical tradition that it becomes part of the DNA anyway. In the end, I think you are asking, “Would a Protestant have to eat a big lump of Mary/Eve parallelism if he becomes Catholic?” and my answer is, “Nah! He’ll just inhale it with the incense at Mass.” It’s not dogma. But it is part of the warp and woof of a Catholic outlook. The Faith, as I finally discovered, is ultimately unintelligible apart from her. That was, perhaps, the biggest surprise for me when I research _Behold Your Mother_: how Everywhere she is in the life and teaching of the Church. And this, not due to the excessive enthusiasm of Mexican peasants, but due to the internal logic of the Catholic faith as it has always been practiced by Catholics (and Orthodox, I might add) from every nation, tongue and tribe. I came away from the project deeply persuaded that this Mary stuff really is apostolic in origin. It’s in the DNA of the Church.
LikeLike
ECF= Early Church Father.
So Confessing Mary as the New Eve isn’t a dogmatic teaching of the church?
LikeLike
Michael:
I wandered into the middle of this discussion cuz I happened to notice Michael had a question. I thought the question had to do with whether the idea of Mary as the New Eve was intended by the biblical authors or merely read in later by guys like Irenaeus. That was what I was trying to address. I only skimmed the conversation before that to ascertain if that was what you were talking about. I didn’t read the thread carefully, so I’m not really sure what your are addressing now.
For starters, I don’t know what an ECF is. I’m guessing it’s some form of non-Catholic. As to the long tradition of seeing in Mary the New Eve, I would only note that there *is* no infallible dogmatic demand of the Church that Catholics confess her as such. The tradition is, of course, embedded in the liturgy and hermaneutical tradition of the Church to such a degree that trying to avoid it is like trying to eat bread while picking out the yeast. But there is not dogmatic definition as such that Mary is the New Eve.
As to “more and more” Marian connections and titles being made, this too is something I’m unaware of, for the most part. The titles to which most Protestants react aren’t new. Indeed, as Pelikan points out “New Eve” is the oldest of titles we have for her in the patristic tradition. It is true that she periodically will be hailed by some new title if an apparition is approved by the Church (very rare) and popular piety will ring the changes on some old title to apply it to a new situation (such as, for instance, taking the ancient title “Mother of the Church” implied by Jesus in “Behold your Mother” and applying it to some modern situation (“Mother of the Unborn”). But again, such titles are expression of popular piety which nobody *has* to embrace. They merely illustrate the reality that the love of Christ extends to the least of these and that the family of God embraces them as well.
There are only four Marian dogmas (if you don’t count the Virgin Birth): Theotokos, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption. I daresay the last two are a big enough hurdle for most Protestants (though I have become persuaded that there is nothing anti-biblical about any of them). But much of the rest of the Church’s Marian tradition is (at least in the West) left in the realm of private piety.
In the East, it’s a whole ‘nother story, as Protestants wary of Rome, but attracted to apostolic churches, have sometimes discovered to their surprise. Here in the West, Marian devotion tends to get expressed in stuff like Rosaries, private devotions, home art, that sort of thing. In the East, Marian devotion is deeply bound up in the liturgy, where you will not escape it. Mind, I don’t think it needs escaping and have come to see the wisdom of the Church in holding fast to Marian devotion. But for Protestants who think they will flee what they regard as the excessive Marianism of Rome by going East, it can be a real jolt.
LikeLike
Mark/Jason:
Remember that I am writing as one who assumes that “separated brethren” means we would like to not be separated, if possible.
I’m not seeing how an ECF seeing a particular connection gets to it being necessary for me to confess it in order to be a good Christian in communion with the church.
As I said, I can picture a lot of people seeing the connection based on the way they read scripture (and I mean RCs, Protestants, ECFs, contemporary scholars, etc.) What I can’t see is how that gets to be an infallible, necessary interpretation so that I must believe Mary is the new Eve in the way Jesus is the second Adam.
The union possible around Theotokos and the kind of language Athanasius used about Mary seems to be made impossible as more and more Marian connection and titles are made necessary.
In other words, what I might see devotionally or poetically can’t always be insisted on confessionally, and that’s what this one feels like to me.
LikeLike
I won’t speak for Mark, but I believe he believes it is in consciousness of the authors mentioned when they write what they write.
Hi Michael:
I would say that Mary/Eve/Bride/Church/Woman/Mother parallels are deliberately being implied by John, which is why a guy like Irenaeus immediately talks about Mary as the New Eve and takes it for granted that his audience gets this. I think it was a pretty typical mode of discourse for the communities formed in the Johannine tradition and, since they were formed in the *Johannine* tradition and known to be so by the other Churches, the soundness of the parallels was accepted without any controversy by the other Church as John’s gospel spread.
I could be wrong, of course, but my sense *as a writer* is that John is way too careful and subtle a writer not to have intended us to see those parallels, given the way he constructed his gospel. In short, I don’t think Irenaeus is engaged in reading a Rorshach blot when he sees Mary as the New Eve. I think he’s seeing something that he knows perfectly well John is driving at. The fact that this understanding of Mary is utterly uncontroversial in the same early Church that could rip itself to pieces over homoousious v. homoiousious strongly suggests that Irenaeus didn’t just come up with this by himself, but that it was part of the ordinary discourse of the average believer, and that almost certainly means it is already very old (ie., apostolic) by the time Irenaeus happens to mention it.
While I’m here, let me clear up one small misunderstanding, by the way. If I somehow came out sounding as though I suggest that the heart of the Noahic covenant was the prohibition on eating blood, it was certainly not my intent. I would agree with you (and indeed said) that the covenant with Noah recapitulates the covenant with Adam. I would also say that at the *heart* of the covenant with Noah is, as with all the other covenants, Christ toward whom all the covenants point. My notation about the prohibition on blood was not meant to suggest that the prohibition was at the heart, but that, like all the covenants, the prohibition was a paradoxical sign pointing to the redemptive blood of Christ. A subtle but real distinction.
Thanks again for your kind review!
LikeLike
Let me commend the conversation between Jason and myself as an example of the kind of dialog I am willing to sponsor at this blog. Catholics have complained that in the name of “don’t try to convert” I seem to discourage debate. Well, read the discussion I’ve mentioned to see what I mean.
That said, those of you who want to debate the “table of contents” argument are well aware that Protestants have answered that a thousand times. You disagree with our answer and that’s fine with me. I am NOT willing to sponsor that debate. You are welcome to link and post the links that continue the debate if you like.
For instance, Josh the Lutheran has addressed the fallacy that “visible” means “our institutional bureaucracy” here.
http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2008/01/11/0957720.html
LikeLike
This is such an important question and shouldn’t be blown off as RC nitpicking. (Or Orthodox, I should add. I never understand why the Orthodox get left out of this discussion. They may not believe hold to the IC, but the Assumption/Dormition is a very ancient Easter Christian belief)
Jason is absolutely correct. Nowhere in Scripture does it assert what books in Scripture are Scriptural. Nowhere, except in the table of contents.
Why can’t we get a straight answer on that? As well on issues like Trinity and dual nature of Christ. It is not rude or point-scoring. It is an honest, VERY logical question.
Chad:
That is where the Church comes in. You trust God that the Scriptures are true and authoritative. You trust that the Church he left (and he did leave a Church, according to the New Testament) is authoritative, as well.
The Church makes decisions and distinctions like that all the time.
LikeLike
On the other hand, does that mean we accept every addition to scripture?
Each generation adds its folk theology as an accretion to the text and the gospel, if everyone can call it tradition and twist scripture to match it, where do you stop?
LikeLike
I think that the non-explicitness of Mary as the new Eve in the New Testament is not so much identified with being the bride of the new Adam, as it is being the mother of the new people of God (her offspring in Rev 5:17), starting of course with the firstborn, Christ (Rev 12:5). Note also the prophecy in Genesis about Eve’s offspring as opposed to Satan’s offspring.
> Discussions of the meanings of
> Eucharistic language in scripture
> has been going on for 500 years
Does this mean that there was more agreement in the 1500 years before?
> the plain language of scripture (or the
> silence of scripture) should be held in
> higher regard than any other source of
> teaching.
But what happened to traditions received by word of mouth or by letter? There is only one Spirit who inspired Scriptures as well as the Apostles who did not write Scriptures, e.g., Thomas. Where goes the mandate “he who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me”? Is it not the principle of this unchanging Spirit that He sees no obstacle to thereby inspiring oral traditions, too? And if this principle was fine with Him in the Apostolic age, where does Scripture explicitly state that this principle ends after that age, or after the last of the NT epistles was completed, bearing in mind that, I think it is 2 Peter that was the last to be completed? Where is it taught that extra-Biblical is therefore automatically excluded?
LikeLike
Aaaaight theeyun, yooouuu fried chicken eatin’, just as I am sangin’ B,BB, Bamdiss!
—wait! I love fried chicken!! aaagghh! Mountain Catholic boy comes clean. 🙂
LikeLike
I won’t speak for Mark, but I believe he believes it is in consciousness of the authors mentioned when they write what they write.
We agree on much. I totally agree on the development of doctrine. With you pretty much all the way, except for infallibility.
Good discussion. We should call each other names now 🙂
LikeLike
You see, Alan (you miserable papist you 🙂 I can imagine Spurgeon, Gill or the Puritans using that kind of typological language. But it obviously wouldn’t have been in any confession or other required statement of belief.
This is the “too much” principle that troubles me. Someone sees it. Fine. But in the RCC, that often means it reaches the level of infallible interpretation or pronouncement, and then into the liturgy and away we go.
We need a much smaller circle around these matters if anyone seriously- seriously- wants evangelicals to talk about the other claims of the church.
LikeLike
If I were RC, I would say “The text does not teach it, but elements of the text suggest it to some interpreters and the church sees it as a valid teaching based on the text.â€
Okay, so to translate this into Catholic-speak, what you’re saying is, “It’s not there in the literal sense of the text, but it is there implicitly.” Literal not meaning literalism, but rather the immediate and direct context of the passage.
If that is what you mean, then I can agree with that. Or rather, I think it is something a Catholic can validly say. Another Catholic might argue that there is somewhere in the New Testament where it is taught explicitly, but Catholic theology does not depend on that argument.
And the disagreement then becomes, as you said, what role/authority the Church’s reading of Scripture has in understanding it. I would just say that the interpretation of the Church shouldn’t be identified exclusively with Popes or Councils. The theology of the Church was formed by the theology of the Fathers, the Liturgies and life of the early Church, etc. So it is not that the Church thinks up an interpretation and then imposes it, but the Church forms her faith and interpretation through the ages, especially in the early centuries, and that is gradually expressed with greater authority through Popes and Bishops and Councils.
Does Mark argue that the identification of Mary as the New Eve is explicit in the New Testament?
LikeLike
As far as it being explicit in Scripture, I’m pretty sure you’re right Michael. I certainly don’t see it. I do believe though, we can see it implicitly spoken. There are lots of implicitly stated things in Scripture that we all accept.
If I were to try and explain it, I’d say Mary is the New Eve in that she gave birth to the Firstborn of a New Humanity – as the first Eve gave birth to the firstborn of fallen humanity. Therefore, Mary can be seen as the New Eve. Eve was just a woman, a human being, not a goddess. Mary, too, was/is a woman, one of us.
She’s also not explicitly called the Church but there’s a lot of early Church chatter equating Mary with the Church – as “us” – the chosen beloved of God, chosen to be filled with His Own Life, Jesus. We, as the Church, are also called to give birth to Jesus in the world, to say yes, as she first said yes, to being inhabited by Him and to give birth to Him.
So, explicitly stated? No, as you said. Does it need to be? No, and especially (as you’ve noted before) Catholics shouldn’t think they have to make it be. Implicitly? Sure, it makes sense in the spiritual scheme of things. It’s not against anything core that I can think of. Hopefully, I’m on topic enough. Interesting stuff. Peace to you.
LikeLike
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Your use of the phrase “taught in the text” seems to mean “someone, using the text, concludes the following:”
I understand that, but the simple phrase “taught in the text” is not a question about what someone sees with a text in mind. It is a question of words, grammar and definition.
By words, grammar and definition, the statement “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah” is not made in the OT. I believe, as you do, that Jesus is the Messiah described in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 2, etc.
So my contention that “Mary is the New Eve is not taught in the texts of Luke, the Pauline epistles or the Fourth Gospel” is not saying that someone, using those scriptures in reference and implication, can’t make that statement. They can and do.
The question, as all Protestant-RC questions should, becomes a question of the presence of the traditions and teaching office of the church “in” the reading of the words of the text itself.
If I were RC, I would say “The text does not teach it, but elements of the text suggest it to some interpreters and the church sees it as a valid teaching based on the text.”
How am I doing?
LikeLike
I guess we just have fundamentally different views of what it means to be “taught in the text.” The Apostles often looked back at something Our Lord said to them, and only understood it after the Resurrection. They had to connect everything together to see it (John 12:16). This is how we understand Scripture. It has be read with the reflection of tradition, and especially the reflections of the Fathers of the Church. I don’t believe you can separate the text from the lived faith of the Church which is passed on (tradere) in every age. The Old Testament never says, “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah,” but I would say that it is taught in the text of the Old Testament that he is the Messiah. It is not there “plainly,” but it is certainly there. Would you agree with that?
LikeLike
Let me quote me and see if we get somewhere:
>That the Roman interpretation of Eve as the mother of Christians and an icon of the church can be constructed or justified from Roman interpretations of scripture is obvious. But to say that Paul, Luke and the author of the fourth Gospel saw Mary as the new Eve goes outside of what scripture plainly says and into what tradition supplies.
Okay guys. True or False?
I am NOT saying RC theology can’t find a way to construe or relate Mary as the New Eve. (I could even say that in a sermon without a problem, but I wouldn’t claim it as taught in the text.) I’m saying that scripture nowhere says that Mary is the New Eve.
I’m well aware that in the RC system, you can say things are “plainly taught” that are not in the text per se. I do understand the various “layers” of te RC approach to scripture. And I understand that as a Protestant, you believe I can’t read scripture consistently because I won’t acknowledge the infallible church as final authority on scripture.
So, all that being the case, I am simply taking issue with the statement that Luke, Paul and the author of the fourth Gospel all taught in their writings that Mary was the New Eve.
LikeLike
I agree that Mary is nowhere protrayed as the ‘Bride of Christ’ but I think that is going farther then the early Church Fathers, who first used this metaphor, intended.
My (limited) understanding of Mary as the new Eve is not that she is to be seen as the bridegroom of Christ but that she stands in somewhat the same relation to the redemption of Mankind as Eve did in the Fall of Mankind. That is as Christ the New Adam in his obedience to His Father, redeemed us from the effects of Adam’s Sin, so Mary’s Yes to God was analogous to Eve’s rebellion.
{for those who accept the Immaculate Conception, there is also the parallel of Eve, virgin(at the time she rebelled) and without Sin and Mary, virgin and without Sin.}
In this sense, and in this sense only, she is the new Eve.
LikeLike
By the way, this is my first time to your site, so apologies if I’m not accurately representing what your theological views are. I should have looked around first.
LikeLike
The Protestant view of inspiration is virtually identical to your own, minus infallibility of popes and councils.
The issue is not inspiration itself, but why we believe in the inspiration of the New Testament. What do Protestants believe their faith is based on? Scripture. Protestants have absolute faith in the inspiration of the New Testament. But what is that faith in the New Testament based on? If it is based on Scripture, then it has to be shown where the New Testament says “plainly” (your standard, if I understood you accurately) that each book is inspired. If that can’t be shown, then faith in the inspiration of the New Testament is based on Scripture and something else (tradition). How can an explicit identification in the New Testament of Mary as the New Eve be required of Catholics, when Protestants have no explicit identification, for example, of the Gospel of St. Matthew as inspired Scripture? If that is required of Catholics, then the same standard has to be applied to their own belief, which would be invalidated by that standard.
The question is simple: Do texts on Jesus as Adam teach that Mary is Eve/the Bride of Jesus?
I believe that they imply that if there is a New Adam, then there is a New Eve. The identification of Mary as that New Eve is based on other texts of Scripture. For example, Elizabeth’s reference to the “fruit” of Mary’s womb (Luke 1:42), which can be connected to the “fruit” that Eve gave to Adam. Just as Eve gave the fruit which led to our death, so Mary gave the fruit of her womb which led to our life. Was Elizabeth thinking of all this when she said that? We don’t know, but we do know that the Holy Spirit can say something through people (and through Scripture) without even the speaker knowing it (similar to Caiphas in John 11:51). There is no necessity that an explicit passage in the New Testament say that “Mary is the New Eve,” any more than there is a necessity that an explicit passage say “These 27 books are inspired Scripture.” Both doctrines rely on what is implicit, and also rely on tradition.
As far as Mary as the bride of Jesus, she is his mother, not his bride. The Church is his bride.
LikeLike
>If we were limited to what the New Testament says explicitly in actual texts, we couldn’t believe in the inspiration of most books of the New Testament.
Is that your summary of the Protestant view of inspiration of the Scriptures?
The Protestant view of inspiration is virtually identical to your own, minus infallibility of popes and councils.
The question is simple: Do texts on Jesus as Adam teach that Mary is Eve/the Bride of Jesus?
LikeLike
Not at all. We have to start with what, as you say, Scripture says plainly (its literal sense). But that can’t be a limitation to what Scripture says. If we were limited to what the New Testament says explicitly in actual texts, we couldn’t believe in the inspiration of most books of the New Testament. For example, there is no passage in the New Testament that says the Gospel of St. Matthew is inspired. The Gospel itself does not say this, but Protestants accept its inspiration without question (as do Catholics). But how can a Protestant then dismiss the Catholic identification of Mary as the New Eve because it is not stated explicitly in the New Testament, when one of their own beliefs (in the inspiration of a particular book) has no explicit proof either?
LikeLike
>Protestants have complete faith in the inspiration of the New Testament, and rightfully so, but there is at least as much (if not more) support in the New Testament itself for Mary as the New Eve, as there is for the inspiration of individual books. There may be no direct support in the New Testament itself, actually, for the inspiration of most individual books. Their acceptance is entirely rooted in tradition.
So is that a way of saying we can’t discuss what the New testament says in actual texts?
LikeLike
But to say that Paul, Luke and the author of the fourth Gospel saw Mary as the new Eve goes outside of what scripture plainly says and into what tradition supplies.
There is more direct evidence that they saw Mary as the new Eve than that they saw their writings as inspired Scripture. They never say plainly, “This book is inspired Scripture.” There are a few instances where they refer to this implicitly, but they never specify any particular writings that we should accept as inspired Scripture. This information is supplied entirely by tradition. Someone may cite, for example, 2Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God.” But this does not say directly even that 2Timothy is inspired, it speaks implicitly. We accept 2Timothy as Scripture because of tradition. In the same way, for example, St. Luke’s account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth (Luke 1) doesn’t explicitly connect itself with the account of David and the Ark in 2Samuel 6, but it is clear (in light of tradition, and in the text itself) that it is identifying Mary with the Ark of the New Covenant.
It could be asked why the Apostles were not more explicit in their writings in connecting Mary as the New Eve, but it could also be asked why they were not more explicit in collecting a list of inspired writings and handing on a “New Testament” as we know it. These things were passed on through the lived faith of the Church, and were gradually and fully understood.
Protestants have complete faith in the inspiration of the New Testament, and rightfully so, but there is at least as much (if not more) support in the New Testament itself for Mary as the New Eve, as there is for the inspiration of individual books. There may be no direct support in the New Testament itself, actually, for the inspiration of most individual books. Their acceptance is entirely rooted in tradition.
LikeLike
Much obliged! Book sales help keep the fambly in corn flakes.
The best place to order it (and all my other works) is from me. I’ll happily sign it too!
Thanks again!
LikeLike
That was a very even-handed review and I appreciate hearing your take on it from a Protestant perspective. I’ll likely pick this one up since I enjoyed Mr. Shea’s By What Authority? so much.
LikeLike
Thank YOU, Mark. It’s really a wonderful book. If there is a preferred source where you’d like readers to order a copy, please provide me with the link.
(And btw folks, Mr. Shea didn’t send me this book. I bought it myself.)
LikeLike
Thank you, sir! A very kind and generous review! I appreciate it!
LikeLike