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. 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.
This gospel falls into two parts—the 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.
|
Preaching the Lectionary: The Word of God for the Church Today Reginald H. Fuller and Daniel Westberg. Liturgical Press. 1984. (Revised Edition). |
 |
|
For more information about the 3rd edition (2006) of
Preaching the Lectionary click picture above.
|
from Religious Clip Art for the Liturgical Year (A, B, and C).
This art may be reproduced only by parishes who purchase the collection in book or CD-ROM form. For more information go http://www.ltp.org