Reading I: Revelation 11:19a; 12:1-6a,
10ab
The meaning of this mysterious passage is obscure, and
many interpretations have been suggested. The child who
is born is clearly the Messiah. This is shown by the
application of the messianic
Psalm 2:9
to the child in verse 5, and by the proclamation that
follows his exaltation to the throne of God (v. 10). But
who is the woman? There are three possibilities:
1. She is the old Israel, the nation from whom the
Messiah came. Much in this passage suggests the old
Israel waiting for the birth of the Messiah. The Old
Testament background suggests this (see
Isaiah 66:7). According to this view, the seer is taking up and
partly Christianizing earlier pictures of Israel
waiting for the coming of the Messiah.
2. The woman is the Church, the new Israel, the mother
of the faithful. This is supported by
12:17, which speaks of other children belonging to the
woman who “keep the commandments of God and bear
testimony to Jesus.”
3. An interpretation popular among medieval expositors
and revived in a somewhat more sophisticated form in
recent Catholic exegesis (and clearly accepted by the
choice of this passage for this feast) equates the
woman with the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Probably there is no need to choose between these three
interpretations. For Mary is the daughter of Zion, the
quintessential expression of the old Israel as the
community of faith and obedience awaiting the coming of
the Messiah, the community in which the Messiah is
born.
But she is also the quintessential expression of the new
Israel, of those who “believe” and are
justified on the grounds of their faith, of those who
obey his word and who suffer for the testimony of
Jesus.
|
|
Responsorial Psalm: 45:10, 11, 12, 16
In its original intention, this psalm celebrates the
marriage of an Israelite king to a foreign princess. In
order to fit it to its liturgical use here, an
allegorical interpretation has to be given.
The king in the psalm has to be equated with the Messiah
(there is New Testament precedence for this in
Hebrews 1:8-9); the queen, with Israel, his bride. This provides an
indirect connection with the Blessed Virgin Mary as the
personification of Israel.
But the allegory must not be pressed. Not only does it
do violence to the original meaning, but it does not fit
the desired application.
For Mary is the mother rather than the bride of Christ,
and she is his bride only insofar as she is the
personification of the true Israel, one who believed in
him (Acts 1:14).
|
|
Reading II: 1 Corinthians 15:20-27
This is the passage to which the Protestants appeal
against the dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary. It
asserts that all human beings are in bondage to death,
and that they can only attain to immortality through the
resurrection of the dead. Christ, however, has broken
the bondage of death and has become the first fruits of
the dead.
Meanwhile, all in Christ await their resurrection until
the parousia. There is, therefore, no place in the
“order” for a prior resurrection of the
Blessed Virgin Mary: Christ the first fruits, then at
his coming those who belong to Christ.
It must be left to Catholic exegetes to square the dogma
of the bodily assumption of Mary with this scripture. As
an Anglican, the present writer would simply claim that
the life which all believers have is inalienable by
death, that therefore the Blessed Virgin Mary, like all
the saints, has some kind of continuing existence in
Christ (see
Revelation 6:9), and that we express the high honor due her by
picturing her as exalted to the very throne of
God.
|
|
Gospel: Luke 1:39-56
This gospel falls into two partsthe visitation
narrative and the Magnificat.
There is an interesting textual problem in verse 46.
Some manuscripts read “Elizabeth said,” a
reading that would fit the typology:
Hannah-Samuel/Elizabeth-John the Baptist.
It is arguable, however, that in the structure of the
Lucan infancy narratives, the purpose of which is to
bring out the relation of John to Jesus as that of
forerunner to the Messiah, of inferior to superior, the
Magnificat must be assigned to Mary.
Perhaps the pre-Lucan source, which quite likely came
from the “Baptist” circles, had attributed
the song (modeled on the song of Hannah) to Elizabeth,
and Luke himself transferred it to Mary.
The Magnificat should be read, not as an
individual utterance of Mary, but as the utterance of
the representative of the true Israel. This is indicated
by the switch from the first person singular to the
third person plural in verse 50.
It is the true Israel personfied by Mary who rejoices in
the Lord at the coming of the Messiah, whose humiliation
(“low estate”) the Lord regards, and who
henceforth will be called “blessed” as the
people to whom the Messiah has come. This is not to
downgrade Mary, but to exalt her role as the key-pin of
salvation history.
|
Reginald H. Fuller
|
Copyright © 1984 by The Order of St. Benedict,
Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used
by permission from The Liturgical Press,
Collegeville, Minnesota 56321
|
Preaching the Lectionary:
The Word of God for the Church Today
Reginald H. Fuller. The Liturgical Press. 1984
(Revised Edition)
pp. 558-559
|
|
Thank you to Liturgical Press who makes
this page possible
|
|
To purchase the 3rd edition (2006) of
Preaching the Lectionary
or for more information click picture above.
|
Back
Art by Martin Erspamer, O.S.B. (formerly Steve
Erspamer, S.M.)
from
Religious Clip Art for the Liturgical Year (A,
B, and C).
Used by permission of Liturgy Training Publications.
This art may be reproduced only by parishes who
purchase the collection in book or CD-ROM form. For
more information go to:
http://www.ltp.org/
|
|
|