I appreciate your viewpoint and I am not going to berate you for not ‘getting it? Learning about the typology of Mary in the Old Testament was something that I had never considered while a Presbyterian and certainly I never heard it preached on. The first time I was shown these biblical mysteries I was very surprised and frankly felt kind of jilted for never having been shown it before by my church.

I can also honestly say that I did not come to accept the Marian dogmas because I was convinced that they were explicit in scripture. That isn’t the point.

Peace and do stick around for future discussion.

“Like I said before, this is forthcoming. In the meantime here is a rather lengthy and robust article that hopes to establish this.”

I read through this and in the end, I have to say I felt exactly like the IMonk when he listened to Scott Hahn on Catholic Mariology (and IMonk even links to your link also). He listened to 5 hours of Scott Hahn on Catholic teachings/doctrine and overall was very impressed with the presentation saying of the first 4 hours:

Many of Hahn’s Biblical insights in these presentations were brilliant. It is obvious that his Catholic setting as a scholar has placed him in a different position to approach the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, than many Protestants can appreciate. It is a richer, deeper sense of interpreting the Bible from within the church than many Protestants would attempt. Again, I would not join him in all of his conclusions, but his method was admirable, usually sound and often very suggestive of deep and helpful Biblical themes.

But when it got to the one hour presentation on Mary, he had this to say, and I echo his thoughts:

But in the one hour plus I listened to Hahn on this topic, I could feel the pain. And I didn’t bring any Tylenol either.

I could feel the pain of the Marian dogmas that have been propagated and made mandatory most recently, and the lack of simple, obvious Biblical evidence for those dogmas.

I could feel the stress of following a trail through scripture that was worthy of an Indiana Jones movie. And that is not an exaggeration. Hahn’s wild ride through the Old Testament to prove his points made the dispensationalist teaching of the rapture seem like John 3:16.

Again and again, Hahn told of “little known” aspects of the Queen-Mother theme in ancient middle eastern monarchies. Again and again, he said that “deeper study” would reveal the role of the Queen Mother. Again and again, he attempted to prove that the ark of the covenant is a Biblical symbol for Mary. With full knowledge that NO Protestant scholars buy his equation of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 with Mary, he persisted in insisting that the ark in the temple at the end of Revelation 11 and the woman in Revelation 12 are the same person.

These are fascinating views and have deep roots in Catholicism, but they aren’t laying there in the texts of scripture to be found and believed. They are a brew of centuries of Catholic scholarship finding what needs to be there.

Taking every available shortcut, and totally avoiding Mark 3, Hahn gave the expected view that Mary was ever virgin and had no other children. He cited the Protestant reformers as allies in this view, which is hardly a useful tactic if you intend to say those same reformers were wrong about so much else. Again, plain statements of scripture? Not available apparently.

He nobly attempted to explain why Joseph would have not had sexual relations with his wife despite the plain language of the Bible by saying Joseph would have considered marital sex and other children as an “unworthy use” of the virgin’s womb. One analogy compared Mary’s womb to fine China and marital sex to a picnic with plastic plates. This negative view of marital sex is something that simply can’t be brought into Christianity without deep negative consequences. Defending such an unnatural marriage with such analogies is insulting to those of us who are willing to listen and think through these difficult topics.

After all this desperation, Hahn never attempted a justification of any kind of the assumption of Mary, only resorted to a logical explanation of the immaculate conception and took for granted that Marian appearances, titles and piety contained nothing of interest. As seems to be the case so often, when we’ve gotten this far into what the church teaches on scanty or no evidence, there’s little hesitancy to put the brakes on or answer the huge questions that emerge.

As I said, a Protestant like myself feels that this sort of presentation is a painful exercise. Much of the “Biblical evidence” was of a kind that could never be brought into a neutral setting and presented seriously. It was as if the subtext was supposed to overtake the text: If you can believe all the rest, you can find a way to wrap your mind around this and make it work.

I pretty much have to agree with this assessment based upon everything I have read, here and elsewhere. So unless you can bring something new to the table, I’m probably not going to be convinced.

good stuff: thank you very much for posting. De Lubac (History and Spirit) quotes from an 11th century prayer for the feast of Annunciation,

“O God, who willed on this day to gather together your Word in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary…”

Ark – Mary. Yes.

And Steve, you said

It doesn’t say that Jesus said everything in the OT points to him. At least that’s now how I understand the above. And that wouldn’t make sense anyway. Every single passage of scripture isn’t a Christological type. I mean, on the face of it, that seemsmore than a bit of an overstatement.

I’d like to recommend to you that book I just mentioned, History and Spirit, by Henri de Lubac—chapter 8 and the conclusion are especially relevant and can be previewed pretty extensively via Google Books (is first book to come up if you search for “history and spirit”). I don’t offer it as some kind of ‘final’ answer or definitive explanation—it’s just a humble recommendation is all. De Lubac’s study is a pretty valuable resource for understanding where the Catholic is coming from on this subject. It’s worth every penny and then some.

Best,
w

I will add to what Sean wrote following Taylor. Typology does not work that way. For example, Joseph is a type of Christ, but in saying that we do not mean that Jesus had a wife and became the prime minister of a nation. David is a type of Christ but we do not then conclude that everything David did, Jesus also did. Now in using types one can get involved in “type stretching” as Taylor alluded to, and that is why it is essential to have a Magisterium to help and guide us in our study and application of Sacred Scripture.

The other issue which you didn’t address is how the woman is linked to the ark. It is not at all clear (at least to this Protestant’s eyess that the woman is Mary). So beyond establishing that the ark as seen in 11 is Mary, you have to establish that the woman is also.

Like I said before, this is forthcoming. In the meantime here is a rather lengthy and robust article that hopes to establish this.

Ok, I’m not trying to be sarcastic here but are you saying that on that long hard trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem that Joseph never helped his poor pregnant wife off the donkey or back on it. That he never took her hand/arm and assisted her? Seriously, of course you’re not.

I’ve seen a similar objection recently. Taylor saw this objection on Canterbury Tales. Allow me to supply his response which I think is fitting.

I discussed “type stretching” over at Biblical Horizons. Every type can be stretched till it becomes ridiculous. For examples, the manna is a type of the Eucahrist. I’ll do what you’re doing with Mary and do it with this Eucharistic type:

“So you’re saying that the manna is a type of the Eucharist? Ha! Shall I go outside every Sunday and look for the Eucharist on the ground? Should I be worried that worms might consume the Eucharist? Are you saying that wine shouldn’t be part of the Eucharist since God didn’t rain wine?”

Do you see how silly this is? All types are limited in scope. Types don’t give an exhaustive account of the reality. If they were exhaustive, then they wouldn’t be types.

“I guess one question one must ask is if indeed the “ark of his covenant was seen within his temple,” to which covenant would this refer? It can’t be the old covenant with the stone commandments, animal sacrifices, and the levitical preisthood, as that covenant was done away with upon the establishment of the New covenant in the upper room. It can only be the new covenant with the Word made flesh, the once for all time sacrifice on the Cross, and Christ as the new and eternal high priest. Since the New covenant refers to Jesus, what must this ark be? Or in light of Sean’s post, the question is rather *who* must this ark be? Jesus wasn’t carried in a box of acacia wood and gold, but carried in the womb of a virgin, who remained a virgin all her life.”

Actually it could be. The question is what image is the John trying to bring to mind here? He’s envisioning the heavenly temple. If he’s trying to further create the image of God’s throne in his temple, then it would the Mose’s ark, as that was seen by the Jews as God’s throne, a symbol of his presence among his people. Because God wouldn’t be sitting on Mary :)

The other issue which you didn’t address is how the woman is linked to the ark. It is not at all clear (at least to this Protestant’s eyess that the woman is Mary). So beyond establishing that the ark as seen in 11 is Mary, you have to establish that the woman is also.

“Interestingly, God foreshadowed Mary’s perpetual virginity in the death of Uzzah. As it was against God’s will for any man to touch the Ark of the old covenant, so too was it with the Mother of Christ.”

Ok, I’m not trying to be sarcastic here but are you saying that on that long hard trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem that Joseph never helped his poor pregnant wife off the donkey or back on it. That he never took her hand/arm and assisted her? Seriously, of course you’re not. And this is a perfect example IMO of a flawed typology. Uzzah died when he touched the Ark because he shouldn’t have, but of course Joseph could touch Mary, he just couldn’t have sex with her. They’re not the same situation, and this appears to be reaching to me.

Thank you for your apology. I know you didn’t mean to offend – you seem like a very nice person here. you just got carried away:) As we basketball fans say, no harm, no foul.

Steve

“By “patristic hermeneutical project” I mean that this is the way the Fathers read the Old Testament. They read it the way Paul read it when he said, “Now these things happened for us as types.””

Thanks for clarifying. But I’d like to make a point here. Paul and his use of typology was inspired. You would agree with me that the writings of the Fathers are not inspired, right? And therefore their typologies might vary in quality, correct? So just because a Father “found” a typology its value may vary. After, one can go to great lengths and strain the comparison at times, would you not agree?

” They read it in light of Jesus’ statement on the road to Emmaus that everything written in the Old Testament points to him. The Evangelist, however, doesn’t record for us just how Jesus showed those disciples that everything pointed to him.”

Uh, I think you need to go back and reread that passage. I don’t think that Jesus said EVERYTHING in the OT points to him.

“And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” (NIV)

It doesn’t say that Jesus said everything in the OT points to him. At least that’s now how I understand the above. And that wouldn’t make sense anyway. Every single passage of scripture isn’t a Christological type. I mean, on the face of it, that seemsmore than a bit of an overstatement.

“So if your rebuttal of a typological argument is that the original passages (types) don’t seem to match their anti-types in (historical-grammatical) context, then you are undermining Jesus’ statement, which, if taken seriously, should allow for these kinds of readings.”

No, if you go back and look at my exchange, my complaint was that in context Sean was apparently saying the scripture was saying something that it wasn’t. I believe that was cleared up in the conversation above if you read closely.

That said, as you admit, the Evangelist didn’t record how Jesus opened the scriptures to them about him. He may have done nothing more than point to the messianic prophesies and how he fulfilled them. You don’t know that he used typology at all. So I’m not undermining Jesus at all anyway.

“As for Paul being inspired, the Catholic Church believes that the Marian dogmas were guided by the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise to send the latter for that purpose. If you disagree with the Church’s hermeneutical method, it’s your word against theirs as to how the Old Testament should be interpreted. Why should anyone accept your methodological critiques?”

I’m not disagreeing with typology as a whole. However, I don’t think you can use it to prove anything about Mary. I could be mistaken but most uses of typology seem to used to say, “Look here is confirmation in the OT of what we have said and have evidence for”. It merely serves as confirming something already known. I mean Paul didn’t say, “Jesus is the messiah” and when asked how do you know that said,”Well, I don’t have any evidence, I didn’t talk to any apostles, he didn’t appear to me, but I did find a typology in the OT about it”.

Let’s take Mary’s alleged assumption for example. There’s no evidence that this ever occurred. Not even in Catholic tradition early on. Even the current pope acknowledged this:

“Before Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers’ answer was emphatically negative… ‘Tradition’ was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Würzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the ‘apostolic tradition.’ And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand ‘tradition’ strictly as the handling down of fixed formulas and texts…But if you conceive of ‘tradition’ as a living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent ‘remembering’ (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet was handed down in the original Word…”

It did not belong to apostolic tradition. So the fact that one can find a typology for an event with no basis in history isn’t going to be very convincing. I mean when you get to that point, you can make up whatever you want.

By “patristic hermeneutical project” I mean that this is the way the Fathers read the Old Testament. They read it the way Paul read it when he said, “Now these things happened for us as types.” They read it in light of Jesus’ statement on the road to Emmaus that everything written in the Old Testament points to him. The Evangelist, however, doesn’t record for us just how Jesus showed those disciples that everything pointed to him. So if your rebuttal of a typological argument is that the original passages (types) don’t seem to match their anti-types in (historical-grammatical) context, then you are undermining Jesus’ statement, which, if taken seriously, should allow for these kinds of readings.

As for Paul being inspired, the Catholic Church believes that the Marian dogmas were guided by the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise to send the latter for that purpose. If you disagree with the Church’s hermeneutical method, it’s your word against theirs as to how the Old Testament should be interpreted. Why should anyone accept your methodological critiques?