A Bible Study - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians Only

[*Paul*]

Ok Paul I hope this helps us dig deeper into the meaning behind the sacred scripture and its relationshiop to Jesus the Lord and Savior and Mary his/and our Queen Mother. You may dissagree with my opinons and thats totally ok. I will not get offended.

Thanks, if it helps I don’t have any preconceived arguments for this, neither have I ever heard or an attempt to refute it so I’ll look at it as I find it. I will keep in mind your deep devotion to Mary so if I do offend you or hurt you I want you to know that is not my intention and hope you will forgive me.

In LK 1:26-56 we see alot going on here. There is much typologically that can be revealed. For instance. Dr Luke describes the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New ark of the covenant. We see St. Luke purposely using language that parallels and is drawn from 2 Sam referring to the Ark of the covenant. Compare 2 Sam to Lk 1

2 Sam 6:2--david arose and went to Judah

Lk:1:39--Mary arose and went o to hill country Judah

2 Sam 6:9--How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?

Lk 1:43--why is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me

2 Sam 6:10-house of obededom

Lk 1:40-house of Zechariah

2 Sam 6:11--Ark was there 3 months

Lk 1:56--Mary stays 3 months with elizabeth

2 Sam 6:12-David rejoices

Lk 1:47 Marys Spirit rejoices

2 Sam 6:16--leaping and dancing

Lk 1:41-the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb.

Also:

Ex 40:34-35-the glory cloud “overshadows” the ark of the covenant

Lk 1:35 the same(Greek) word is use to describe Mary being "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit.

It would seem that Luke is showing us that Mary is the new Ark. Quite clearly then Mary is seen as the new ark of the new covenant.

These are interesting and I believe they may have some validity though I will come to different conclusions about this than you.

I believe the reason that the ark was considered holy and venerated was not for the ark itself but because it contained the covenant or agreement between God and His people, consider this prophecy:

Jeremiah 3:15-16 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
I believe this is pointing to the time when the old covenant has waxed old and passed away (Heb 8:13). This having happened the ark of the covenant is forgotten about, why? Has it changed? No but because what it contains has been replaced or has served it’s purpose and has had it’s fulfillment in Christ. You see? It’s not the ark itself as an object that was important but because it contained the tables of stone and so on.

It is the same with Mary whilst she was carrying the Holy Child in her womb she did indeed signify the ark of the covenant, she was the casing that carried the Word of God in her and was holy (or set apart) for that purpose. But she cannot perpetually represent the ark of the covenant because the Word left Her body, the ark would just have been an empty box with gold over it and pretty patterns if it did not contain the Word of God. With Jesus it is different, He is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, it is His very identity and we remember Him as such when we come to the Lords table, we are commanded to remember Him as such and proclaim Him as such until He returns.

Another typological example:

The old ark carried 3 things. The Manna, the Rod of Aaron,(A sign of priesthood and authority) and the Ten Words of God or ten commandments.

The New ark, Mary carries the fulfillment of the 3. She carries Jesus Christ who is the Word of God in the flesh(JN 1:1-14) Jesus is the Manna from heaven(Jn 6:49) and he rules with a "Rod" of iron (Rev 12:5) and is our High "Priest"(Heb 3:1) Mary is really the new Ark in a real way .

You speak of this in the present tense, “she carries Jesus Christ” “Is the New Ark”, I place these as past events though the effects of these events are eternal for which Mary has her reward for Her part in them.

Another example of typological fulfillment is the "New Eve" Parallel that Luke presentsm to us in his Gospel and John perfects in his Gospel and Revelation. Apostolic tradition recognized Mary as the new Eve . Fathers Mathetes(Late 1st century), St Justin Martyr, and St Ireneaus(Mid second century), and Tertullian(mid 3rd century) show us that it was believed that Mary is the typological fulfillment of Eve. But in a reversed way.

In Gen 3 we have one Women(Eve) and one Man(Adam) who "disobeyed" God and instead listened to one unholy Angel(satan) and ate one food from one tree that brought death to all.

In Luke the fulfillment of this happens but in reverse and holy way. This is how God restores the first creation. In Lk we have One woman(Mary) who is visited by one Holy angel(Gabriel) who obeys God(unlike Eve) and has one Man(Jesus) who gives us life by his death on a one tree(the Cross) and gives us one food united to that tree for the Life of all(Holy Communion).

Whilst these parallels are interesting I can’t see how this would make Mary our mother. Most importantly scripture doesn’t imply anything to this effect all, I can see how it makes sense to the Catholic mind of course because you start with the belief that she is your mother and so find significance in things like that, but you would still believe it without those parallels. I think it is a worry though as it makes Mary co-redeemer and that is not official Catholic teaching is it?

It's very interesting Athansius and I can see how convincing it is for someone who believes the things about Mary that they do, but I start from a different place and so reach different conclusions, we approach these same verses with different fundamentals, you look at these verses believing she is a perpetual virgin, sinless, mother of God, one who God would not allow to die and your mother. My fundamentals say the opposite so we are highly unlikely to agree.

 

[athanasius]

Thanks, if it helps I don’t have any preconceived arguments for this, neither have I ever heard or an attempt to refute it so I’ll look at it as I find it. I will keep in mind your deep devotion to Mary so if I do offend you or hurt you I want you to know that is not my intention and hope you will forgive me.


These are interesting and I believe they may have some validity though I will come to different conclusions about this than you.

I believe the reason that the ark was considered holy and venerated was not for the ark itself but because it contained the covenant or agreement between God and His people, consider this prophecy:

Jeremiah 3:15-16 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
I believe this is pointing to the time when the old covenant has waxed old and passed away (Heb 8:13). This having happened the ark of the covenant is forgotten about, why? Has it changed? No but because what it contains has been replaced or has served it’s purpose and has had it’s fulfillment in Christ. You see? It’s not the ark itself as an object that was important but because it contained the tables of stone and so on.

It is the same with Mary whilst she was carrying the Holy Child in her womb she did indeed signify the ark of the covenant, she was the casing that carried the Word of God in her and was holy (or set apart) for that purpose. But she cannot perpetually represent the ark of the covenant because the Word left Her body, the ark would just have been an empty box with gold over it and pretty patterns if it did not contain the Word of God. With Jesus it is different, He is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, it is His very identity and we remember Him as such when we come to the Lords table, we are commanded to remember Him as such and proclaim Him as such until He returns.


You speak of this in the present tense, “she carries Jesus Christ” “Is the New Ark”, I place these as past events though the effects of these events are eternal for which Mary has her reward for Her part in them.



Whilst these parallels are interesting I can’t see how this would make Mary our mother. Most importantly scripture doesn’t imply anything to this effect all, I can see how it makes sense to the Catholic mind of course because you start with the belief that she is your mother and so find significance in things like that, but you would still believe it without those parallels. I think it is a worry though as it makes Mary co-redeemer and that is not official Catholic teaching is it?

It's very interesting Athansius and I can see how convincing it is for someone who believes the things about Mary that they do, but I start from a different place and so reach different conclusions, we approach these same verses with different fundamentals, you look at these verses believing she is a perpetual virgin, sinless, mother of God, one who God would not allow to die and your mother. My fundamentals say the opposite so we are highly unlikely to agree.

Hi Paul. Thank you very much for your honest opinions and suggestions on this study. You have some very good points. I would agree with you that the reason the Ark was so holy was because it contained the holy of holies and Jesus did fulfill that. In that sense the Old Ark has passed away and is quite useless as you correctly quoted the prophecy. We believe that the reason Mary is so Holy and was given such special privileges is because of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the reason and the cause for anything good in Mary or us at that much. We believe that He honored her in the perfect sense as the perfect son and fulfilled the covenant typologies. All marian devotion is based upon the fact that Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly. Part of the law was to Honor your mother and father. In the hebrew this word actually means to "glorify". We believe that Jesus glorified his mother by making her the fulfillment of the pristine ark of the convent and the New Eve and the queen Mother of all Christians. In doing this it would be only fitting for him to honor her more than he did the old covenant types of her as all covenant fulfillment's are more real and more powerful than their own testament types.

That being said, we would see Mary as not only having "been"(Past tense) the ark of the covenant and the New Eve of the new Creation but also in some mystical sense(a mystery) still is considered the ark and New Eve in future tense. We Catholics understand this from two levels. 1) from Scripture. We see this (Rev 11:19-Rev 12:1-17). Where we believe she is presented to us in the future apocalyptic heavenly liturgy as the fulfillment of the ark, Eve, and queen Mother of all christians. And 2) We also see this in the Oral Apostolic traditions of the early church that we believe are apostolic in origin. We Catholics believe that the oral apostolic traditions give us proper grids to interpret the scripture and are also part of divine revelation that may or may not be not be explicitly contained in the written word. So we this is one reason why we see her this way. Biblical interpretation in general and our differences in understanding what is divine revelation (Scripture alone or scripture and tradition) may be one thing that also is a reason on why we interpret these things differently. Incoincidentally have you read my paper on the Catholic understanding of divine revelation and the reasons why Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura? It is here: I know we may disagree on this and that is ok. I just feel this may help you understand why we Catholics believe what we do. I hope this paper of wrote will not be offensive . I apologize in advance if it was. I wrote for a my Christology Class last semester and I didn’t think any one else would be reading it but I then thought it might help people understand our point of view better.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53483



We also see Mary as the Queen Mother not only because of our understanding of John 19:26-27 and Rev 12:17(which we believe is polyvalent and stands for both the Church and Mary). But also in this way; We see Jesus as a fulfillment of the Davidic King. All Davidic Kings had Queen Mothers. In ancient Israel the Queen Mother would sit at the right hand of the king and intercede to the King on the peoples behalf. We see this for example in (1 Kings 2:19-20). Catholics and the ancient fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of this Queen Mother for all Christians in JN 19:26-27 and Rev 12:17 especially in view that Jesus was the Fulfillment of the Davidic King and all davidic kings had queen Mothers. We believe that Mary would be the new covenant queen mother but in a spiritual way as these passages allude to.

The title Co-redemptrix and mediatrix are honorary titles and not Dogmas. We believe these titles are quite biblical in nature. It is pretty simple to understand the titles Co-redemprtrix and Mediatrix when it is properly explained. I will give you two very good sources to read that could explain them better than I could. the first is the Nazareth resource library. This place is awesome and it is filled with good catholic apologetics and alot of scriptural reasons for them. It is run by a convert from the presbyterian church(Jimmy Akin) Here he is explaining the title Mediatrix:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q055.htm

and here is another great site explaining the title C0-redemptrix:

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

I hope those help. I know we may not agree on these issues and thats ok but for us Catholics we do believe that these doctrines are biblical and also held in the early Church and seen in the apostolic traditions and writings of the christian Fathers. I have much respect for you and I am enjoying this study, if you would like to move on to the next couple of verse in the Gospel we certainly can. it is up to you.

Oh one more thing. I want to send you a link to “St Paul’s center for Biblical theology”. its run by Catholic scripture scholar Dr Scott Hahn and is a great place to see where Catholics get their understandings biblically from. here is the link:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/

God bless you Paul.

Athanasius

 

[*Paul*]

We believe that He honored her in the perfect sense as the perfect son and fulfilled the covenant typologies.

I do too, he made sure she was looked after after he died by passing her to his closest disciples care.

All marian devotion is based upon the fact that Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly. Part of the law was to Honor your mother and father. In the hebrew this word actually means to "glorify".

We believe that Jesus glorified his mother by making her the fulfillment of the pristine ark of the convent and the New Eve and the queen Mother of all Christians.

I believe He glorified her by giving her the special privelage of carrying him in her womb and sucking at her breasts and raising him. But for em to accept what you are saying I would need more explicit new testamant references. I can anly accept an old testament type when the doctrine is already clear in the new testament. I.e to confirm and strengthen new testament truth not to be the basis of it.

In doing this it would be only fitting for him to honor her more than he did the old covenant types of her as all covenant fulfillment's are more real and more powerful than their own testament types.

I fully believe she has great reward in heaven for her faithfulness but with scripture as my only guide I cannot go beyond this.

That being said, we would see Mary as not only having "been"(Past tense) the ark of the covenant and the New Eve of the new Creation but also in some mystical sense(a mystery) still is considered the ark and New Eve in future tense. We Catholics understand this from two levels. 1) from Scripture. We see this (Rev 11:19-Rev 12:1-17). Where we believe she is presented to us in the future apocalyptic heavenly liturgy as the fulfillment of the ark, Eve, and queen Mother of all christians. And 2) We also see this in the Oral Apostolic traditions of the early church that we believe are apostolic in origin. We Catholics believe that the oral apostolic traditions give us proper grids to interpret the scripture and are also part of divine revelation that may or may not be not be explicitly contained in the written word.

This is of course a heavy difference between us. Yes revelation shows us the ark in heaven in the book of revelation and a woman also but it doesn't tie the two together. You see that because you look at the text through catholic tinted glasses.

So we this is one reason why we see her this way. Biblical interpretation in general and our differences in understanding what is divine revelation (Scripture alone or scripture and tradition) may be one thing that also is a reason on why we interpret these things differently. Incoincidentally have you read my paper on the Catholic understanding of divine revelation and the reasons why Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura? It is here: I know we may disagree on this and that is ok. I just feel this may help you understand why we Catholics believe what we do.

Thank you, and it is worth sharing in this way, I understand your position much better now and that can only be a good thing.

We also see Mary as the Queen Mother not only because of our understanding of John 19:26-27 and Rev 12:17(which we believe is polyvalent and stands for both the Church and Mary). But also in this way; We see Jesus as a fulfillment of the Davidic King. All Davidic Kings had Queen Mothers. In ancient Israel the Queen Mother would sit at the right hand of the king and intercede to the King on the peoples behalf. We see this for example in (1 Kings 2:19-20). Catholics and the ancient fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of this Queen Mother for all Christians in JN 19:26-27 and Rev 12:17 especially in view that Jesus was the Fulfillment of the Davidic King and all davidic kings had queen Mothers. We believe that Mary would be the new covenant queen mother but in a spiritual way as these passages allude to.

I simply rest in the Words of the lord on this one:
St. John 16:26-27 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

I can ask the Father for anything in Jesus Name because I have the full assurance that He loves me, this doesn't leave much room for anything else. If I am doing wrong in this then the fault is in misleading statements such as these.

I hope those help. I know we may not agree on these issues and thats ok but for us Catholics we do believe that these doctrines are biblical and also held in the early Church and seen in the apostolic traditions and writings of the christian Fathers. I have much respect for you and I am enjoying this study, if you would like to move on to the next couple of verse in the Gospel we certainly can. it is up to you.

Yeah i'd like to carry on the study too, sorry I have been delayed, I thave been thinking about what you wrtoe for the last couple of days and I have been a bit unmotivated to respond (probably tired).

Oh one more thing. I want to send you a link to “St Paul’s center for Biblical theology”. its run by Catholic scripture scholar Dr Scott Hahn and is a great place to see where Catholics get their understandings biblically from. here is the link:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/

Thanks for all the links, I have visited some of them and will visit them all soon enough. I like the one where it explains how to deal with fundamentalists, especially the 10 questions fundamentalists hate to be asked that really cracked me up.

God bless you Paul.

Athanasius

God bless you too Athanasius, I would definatly like to continue this study and others too afterwards if you have the time.

Next passage or not?

 

[athanasius]

Yes lets go to the next verse. LK 1:57-80.

I'll let you have the first say.

 

[*Paul*]

A miracle just as God had promised, He spoke and He made good as He always does:

Luke 1:57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

What a time for rejoicing and for reflecting on the living words of scripture:
Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.
Psalms 113:9 He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD.

Fear on all - could all this God stuff really be real?
Luke 1:65 And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
I think that when things like this happen it drives home the reality of a living and personal God to people and they remember His promises and threatenings too. Though the word probably just means amazement I think it's english usage is useful too, such things as this produce wonder and awe in those who love God and have peace with Him and fear in those who spurn His love.
See: luke 7:16, Acts 2:43, 5:5,11, 19:17 and Revelation 11:11

Luke 68-79 The Benedictus:
Zacharius is the third person to be filled with the Holy Ghost in the NT. In verse 70 Zacharius says under inspiration that God's prophets had been predicting the coming of a Saviour, not just since man had been on the earth but "since the world began." There is no room in true history for the suposed 4.6 billion years between the time the world began and the appearance of man.

In verse 77 the ministry of John was to prepare the way for Jesus, it was real evangelism for gave "knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins." It seems obvious too but it is worth mentioning that salvation is non existant with out the remission of sins, it is sin that withholds salvation from us in our natural condition, until the persons penalty of sin is dealt with everything else is pointless.

 

[athanasius]

A miracle just as God had promised, He spoke and He made good as He always does:

Luke 1:57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

What a time for rejoicing and for reflecting on the living words of scripture:
Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.
Psalms 113:9 He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD.

Fear on all - could all this God stuff really be real?
Luke 1:65 And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
I think that when things like this happen it drives home the reality of a living and personal God to people and they remember His promises and threatenings too. Though the word probably just means amazement I think it's english usage is useful too, such things as this produce wonder and awe in those who love God and have peace with Him and fear in those who spurn His love.
See: luke 7:16, Acts 2:43, 5:5,11, 19:17 and Revelation 11:11

Luke 68-79 The Benedictus:
Zacharius is the third person to be filled with the Holy Ghost in the NT. In verse 70 Zacharius says under inspiration that God's prophets had been predicting the coming of a Saviour, not just since man had been on the earth but "since the world began." There is no room in true history for the suposed 4.6 billion years between the time the world began and the appearance of man.

In verse 77 the ministry of John was to prepare the way for Jesus, it was real evangelism for gave "knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins." It seems obvious too but it is worth mentioning that salvation is non existant with out the remission of sins, it is sin that withholds salvation from us in our natural condition, until the persons penalty of sin is dealt with everything else is pointless.

OOH very enlghtening. Good input! The "Benedictus: is awesome and is one of 4 hymns or proclamatory and reflectionary prayers that is used in the Catholic church as her morning liturgical prayer and reflection of the scriptures in the Liturgy of the hours. The others are the "Magnificat" from LK 1:46-55, Simeons "Nunc Dimittis" from Lk 2:29-32 and the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" in Lk 2:14. These liturgical prayers that we pray inthe church make for great spiritual preparations of the heart and mind toward Christ and his role in salvation history and our rejoice with them! Yes I agree with you that Salvation is non-existant without the remission of sins. John will be the first to lead the way to repentance with his message of hope, and he will prescribes a type of baptism that will symbolize this cleansing. Luke shows us how God will prepare his people(through St John) for the greater reality of Jesus and his baptism. Jesus of coarse will come to fullfill this. And As John had prepared them, Jesus will fullfill all and lead them into salvation(By virtue of his death on the Holy Cross and ressurection) and put the Holy Spirit in them as to sanctify them as we will later see. Johns baptism could prepare the heart and mind but it could not affect a permanent change in a person. Only Christ saving grace and the Holy Spirit can and will do that. Indeed Johns baptism was meant to teach us that we need to be willing to come forward and repent and show fruits of our repentance and not just make baptism a lip service or empty ritual. Christian baptism will employ the same need for true repentance and acceptance of the Gospel message by a lived experience, but the baptism that Christ will give and the Church will proscribe will do what Johns couldn't. it will infuse the believer with Christ saving grace and pour out the Holy Spirit on them(Titus 3:5-7, 1 Pet 3:21, 1 Cor 6:11, Mk 16:16) and will remit the sins of the convert(Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38-39, Eph 5:26-27). This of coarse will fullfill Many old testament prophesies and types about Christ and Christian baptism including Ezekiels very own prophecy in (**Ez 36:25-27**), Zechariahs(Zech 13:1), and Isaiah (Isaiah 44:3) and also fulfills many Old testament typologies of baptism in Genesis and Exodus. Ahhh! Sorry thats the systematic doctrinal theologian coming out in me. I may be jumping the gun and going way to much ahead of this study already. Sorry, I get excited. I will just stick to the current verse for now and add a little.

Here in these verses we see the continued thematic structure of the Old testament and a break with it as well. What do I mean? Well, we see Gods covenant oath to Abraham reach its fullfillements here. Like Abraham , Zacharias will have a son in old age and ask for a sign. Indeed the birth of John the baptist shows us that God keeps his covenants promises. A new age is being ushered in here. Now comes a time when people would know their sinful nature and return to the Lord because of this 'Voice crying out in the wilderness"(Lk 1:77).

A few little things:

1) Its intersting to note that even the names of Johns parents echo Gods covenant oath to Abraham. As we see the names Zachariah(remembers) and Elizebath (oath). God will remember his oath of old and fullfill it through John and Jesus.

2) Luke gives us a great hidden detail in Luke 1:76. Not only does Luke reveal who John was but in doing so he also reveals who Jesus is namely, "the most high", and the "Lord" who is God. This is Luke(and the Holy Spirit) showing us that Jesus is God early on in the inspired text! Just as Elizebath did the same when she called Mary the Mother of her "Lord". Luke is a Doctor and he is very interested in detail like most doctors. This is how God used his natural talents in scripture. He used them to show us implicit and explicit details about the nature of Jesus our Lord(who is God) and the role of his Mother Mary(who is seen as the Ark and New eve).

 

[*Paul*]

Well Athanasius your last post was very good, though we protestants (Baptist in my case) tend to have a very different view of baptism to the catholic church which is a major difference really.

Luke 1:80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

I do not believe that this mean John was some sort of a mystic or part of the essenes, that is just something that is read into the text but is not there for all to see. I suppose John was about 30 years old when he shewed himself to Israel as he was only six months older than Jesus:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Not that it matters but it appears to be some kind of age for ministry:
Numbers 4:3 From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

 

[*Paul*]

Luke 2:1-3 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Here we see God moving His hand over the events on earth for a massive fulfilment of prophecy - Christ would be born in Bethlehem just as the cheif priests and scribes understood that passage in Micah to mean (Micah 5:2 & Matthew 2:5)

Taxing of the world most likely means the roman empire, the term is used in a limited sense in Matthew 4:8 i believe. Though he may by some miracle have seen all the kingdoms of the whole world literally in a vision but then there would have been no point taking him to a high hill would there?

Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Her firstborn Son! It has been said many times I suppose but this event is so massive and professing Christians want to forget about it. The Word was made flesh and tabernacled amongst us. I love Christmas. I was nearly talked out of celebrating it by some well meaning baptist brethren about 18 months after my conversion, who's purpose would we be serving by ignoring that God became a man without ceasing to be God to live amongst sinful man and reconcile them to Himself. He should be praised evermore for this massive condecension, would you become a flea to save a race of fleas even though they deserved to be wiped out?

 

[athanasius]

Well Athanasius your last post was very good, though we protestants (Baptist in my case) tend to have a very different view of baptism to the catholic church which is a major difference really.

Luke 1:80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

I do not believe that this mean John was some sort of a mystic or part of the essenes, that is just something that is read into the text but is not there for all to see. I suppose John was about 30 years old when he shewed himself to Israel as he was only six months older than Jesus:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Not that it matters but it appears to be some kind of age for ministry:
Numbers 4:3 From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

You hit the head right on the mark! Excellent! Yes the age thirty has a special meaning to it for the Jews. 30 was considered the age of maturity. Jesus who is the fullfillment of the Davidic King also shares this age of ministry and this shows us his typological fullfillment of David who was also 30 when annointed king(2 sam 5:4).

Theories about the John the Baptist and who he was range from scholar to scholar. And they are just that, theories. people may hold to whateve they want within reason but sometimes people get a little crazy with there theories in my opinion. we all know how destructive and false the so-called theories of the Jesus seminar are. What we do know for sure is that he was the "voice crying out in the wilderness" to prepare the way for the Lord.

 

[athanasius]

Luke 2:1-3 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Here we see God moving His hand over the events on earth for a massive fulfilment of prophecy - Christ would be born in Bethlehem just as the cheif priests and scribes understood that passage in Micah to mean (Micah 5:2 & Matthew 2:5)

Taxing of the world most likely means the roman empire, the term is used in a limited sense in Matthew 4:8 i believe. Though he may by some miracle have seen all the kingdoms of the whole world literally in a vision but then there would have been no point taking him to a high hill would there?

Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Her firstborn Son! It has been said many times I suppose but this event is so massive and professing Christians want to forget about it. The Word was made flesh and tabernacled amongst us. I love Christmas. I was nearly talked out of celebrating it by some well meaning baptist brethren about 18 months after my conversion, who's purpose would we be serving by ignoring that God became a man without ceasing to be God to live amongst sinful man and reconcile them to Himself. He should be praised evermore for this massive condecension, would you become a flea to save a race of fleas even though they deserved to be wiped out?

Yes amen! The fullfillment of Micah 5:2 is excellent point! I agree with you comlpletely. I love Christmas very much too! Yes your right it is profound to think that God himself humbled himself and came down and took on our nature to unite us to him fully so we can become partakers of the divine nature(2 Peter 1:4).

In every Catholic mass the priest at the alter prays a very profound yet simple prayer during the eucharistic prayers. It is a great reminder of our salvation and our union with Christ via his Birth and taking on our flesh. I love the prayer he says. It really echoes this concept of Christmas and 2 Peter 1:4 in a poetic way. He says by this eucharist "May we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity"

Lets see, you said alot of good stuff in your basic outline of Luke 2 so far so I will not need to repeat any of that. It was a very good and right on explanation. A will just add a few things.

What to me is interesting is that we can really see who counts to Christ in these texts from Luke. Salvation is shown to Shepherds, who were looked on as poor. The poor and humble. The awanwim. God hears the cry of these poor as foreshadowed in the Old Testmant(Amos 2:6-7). Jospeh and Mary especially in the earlier text is another example of the humble and poor (anawim) as we read the description of Mary's lowliness and humblness in her fiat(Lk 1:48). Jesus was born of poor parents and was poor himself. As God, he humbled himself to become a human because he loved us so much, even unto death. Some theorize that this is why the demons hate us so much. Jealously?

I think it was Athanasius(through it could have been another Church Father, I forgot) who said "The Son of God became the Son of Man so that sons of Men can become sons of God." How true!

Hmmm. How awesome the Lord's nativity is! A true beautiful mystery of faith to all. Here is something worth noting from the Catholic side. At least historically in the Catholic church we do not believe Jesus had uterine brothers allthough he clearly did have brothers as scripture states.

We look to the term "firstborne" wich is mentioned in Lk 2:7 as not neccessarily always having the biblical implication of meaning that there would be other siblings. This has been a long teaching in church history and has made for interesting biblical exegetical debates by the church fathers themselves. Jerome(the bible scholar and supporter of the Perpetual virignity) vs Helvideous and Jovinian(supporters of the Mary having other children) comes to mind.

The way we see it, the correct use of the term is a birthright, a legal term indicating the one who will continue the name and the one who will recieve the double portion of property of the ancestrial line . Not neccesarily meaning there would be others as scholars have shown. It also had old testmant Messianic significance because it was through the firstborne that the partiarchal blessings and the religious heritage of Isreal were transmitted. This becomes more obvious when we see the strong Jewish Character of the infancy narrative of Luke as he relates the the word Firstborne(Protokos)in reference to Mary's child( a fullfillment of old testament firstborns as he shows us) and not the Greek word Monogenes(Only-born) as in Lk 7:12 .

Well there is alot to unpack I can't waite to get to Jesus baptism. There is some good Old testament forshadowing we will see in the Lords baptism.
Until then Gods bless.

So far I am enjoying this study and you have great points.

 

[*Paul*]

Yes amen! The fullfillment of Micah 5:2 is excellent point! I agree with you comlpletely. I love Christmas very much too! Yes your right it is profound to think that God himself humbled himself and came down and took on our nature to unite us to him fully so we can become partakers of the divine nature(2 Peter 1:4).

By many great and precious promises, I love that verse. Good point.

What to me is interesting is that we can really see who counts to Christ in these texts from Luke. Salvation is shown to Shepherds, who were looked on as poor. The poor and humble. The awanwim. God hears the cry of these poor as foreshadowed in the Old Testmant(Amos 2:6-7). Jospeh and Mary especially in the earlier text is another example of the humble and poor (anawim) as we read the description of Mary's lowliness and humblness in her fiat(Lk 1:48). Jesus was born of poor parents and was poor himself. As God, he humbled himself to become a human because he loved us so much, even unto death. Some theorize that this is why the demons hate us so much. Jealously?

The demons are most likely jealous, they were not given the chance for redemption, they know their doom is sealed as they cried out to Jesus "have you come to torment us before the time" Jesus never became an angel to redeem fallen angels but He became flesh something I believe demons wish to inhabit also which is why we have possesions - so they can experience evil in a different way.
I agree with Jesus being poor on this earth "the Son of man hath no where to lay His head". What do you make of those who say he was rich because He had a seamless robe etc. Some tele-evangelists teach this and use it as justification for seeking after riches (making a merchandise of us.. Peter) one even wrote a book, .. how i found out Jesus was rich.

I think it was Athanasius(through it could have been another Church Father, I forgot) who said "The Son of God became the Son of Man so that sons of Men can become sons of God." How true!

Very true for when He appears we shall appear with him and we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.. St John

The way we see it, the correct use of the term is a birthright, a legal term indicating the one who will continue the name and the one who will recieve the double portion of property of the ancestrial line . Not neccesarily meaning there would be others as scholars have shown. It also had old testmant Messianic significance because it was through the firstborne that the partiarchal blessings and the religious heritage of Isreal were transmitted. This becomes more obvious when we see the strong Jewish Character of the infancy narrative of Luke as he relates the the word Firstborne(Protokos)in reference to Mary's child( a fullfillment of old testament firstborns as he shows us) and not the Greek word Monogenes(Only-born) as in Lk 7:12 .

Only born would noly surely be correct if used in the past tense with knowledge that she only had one child. I just checked where protokos is used elsewhere and i thought I would post them to give us further understanding of it's usage. It certainly never refers to a natural birth sense elsewhere. (Though I have no idea what you would do with the matthew passage in terms of her perpetual virginity).

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Epistle to Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Hebrews 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

and once as first begotten:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

[athanasius]

By many great and precious promises, I love that verse. Good point.

The demons are most likely jealous, they were not given the chance for redemption, they know their doom is sealed as they cried out to Jesus "have you come to torment us before the time" Jesus never became an angel to redeem fallen angels but He became flesh something I believe demons wish to inhabit also which is why we have possesions - so they can experience evil in a different way.
I agree with Jesus being poor on this earth "the Son of man hath no where to lay His head". What do you make of those who say he was rich because He had a seamless robe etc. Some tele-evangelists teach this and use it as justification for seeking after riches (making a merchandise of us.. Peter) one even wrote a book, .. how i found out Jesus was rich.

Very true for when He appears we shall appear with him and we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.. St John

Only born would noly surely be correct if used in the past tense with knowledge that she only had one child. I just checked where protokos is used elsewhere and i thought I would post them to give us further understanding of it's usage. It certainly never refers to a natural birth sense elsewhere. (Though I have no idea what you would do with the matthew passage in terms of her perpetual virginity).

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Epistle to Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Hebrews 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

and once as first begotten:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

All good points. Yes It is sad when the televengelist try to make a get rich scheme out of Jesus and the apostles. The "health and wealth" and "you claim it" Gospel is so ridiculous. I guess they forget to look at Matthew 19:23-24 were Jesus teaches that it will very hard for a rich person to enter heaven. As we both know the health and wealth Gospel really is a result due to uneducated money hungry so-called pastors that lack true biblical exegesis and the ability to see the bible as a whole.

Jesus was shown with a seamless linen garment because he was truly the fulfillment typologically of the Passover Lamb, and the garment was the type the priest used at passover in sacrifice. John was making a typological connection in his gospel in chapter 19. You had a great question! It deserves a good answer. Catholics look at Matthew 1:25 and the word “Till” or “until” and we see this word to have a much broader and fuller biblical meaning than our evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ.

When Catholics look at this passage we see that in scripture that term Till(in Greek Heos) in Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph and Mary had relations following Jesus birth. Rather this conjuction is used elsewhere in Scripture to indicate a certain select period of time, without implying a change in the future. We see this in several passages such as (2 Sam 6:23 , Deut. 34:61 in the Septuagint Greek versions, 1 Tim 4:13). We believe that this is why the many of Fathers in the early church many who knew Greek as a firsthand language and preached also held to Mary’s perpetual virginity.


One big name and early Biblical scholar who mastered the Greek would be St Jerome who in the fifth century debated the Heretics Helvideous and Jovinian over these passages and more. Even Luther and Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary and they also knew and studied the Greek and this passage in Matthew. So to make a long story short, that is why Catholics interpret the passage the way we do we look to scripture, tradition and the church to help us in our understanding. I hope that helps. You had very good points.

 

[*Paul*]

Luke 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
Luke 2:9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. Luke 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

Angels declared the new-born Saviour and were the first evangelists pointing the shepards to the Saviour, you rightly pointed out that they were only sent to some poor & humble shepherds, people who were busy earning a honest living, you're everyday kind of guy. Truly God is no respecter of persons. He overlooked telling the religious leaders first or the mighty ceasers but he chose the shepards, this has it's parrellels too:


1st Corinthians 1:26-29 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Deuteronomy 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

It is a comfort to know that God regards us when we are hard at work and abide with God in it.

You can almost sense that the angels were exited for the earth to be having the wonderful God the son come to live among them and the earth has never been the same since for the followers of Jesus would "turn the world upside down". I wonder if the angels had to be restrained by the father when they witnessed how poorly the Son of God was treated. Of course there is to come a day when they will not be restrained - how terrifying:


2nd Thessalonians 1:7-8 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

But for now it is tidings of great joy as God is redeeming to Himself through Jesus Christ by His Spirit through His gospel a multitude that no man can number who were brought with the blood of the lamb, the high price for our redemption from sin and death.

 

[athanasius]

Continuing with Luke 2 we see several things. After Christ joyful birth. We see the next stage in Christological fullfillment, namely Christ circumcision(Lk 2:21). This circumsion was done to Christ to fully initiate and to show fullfillment of him to God's covenant chosen Isreal(Gen 17:9-14). Christ was the only one who could keep the mosaic law perfectly. He shows his fullfillment by covenanting the same covenant with God as he gave his people to do in Gen 17.

Nowadays Circumcision and keeping the law of Moses is to no avail for us. For we are not under the Law of Moses anymore, Christ fullfilled that. We are no longer bound by the Mosiac Law(Rom 3:28) and Circumcision is longer necessary for us to covenat with God. Christian Baptism is the sacrament that replaces the old covenant of circumsion(Col 2:11-13). it sis the new circumsion made without hands by the grace and Power of the Holy Spirit. It is through this new covenant that we initially enter Gods covenant family(Rom 6:3-11, 1 Cor 6:11). Circumsion and Mosiac law does not justifiy us, only a living faith that works itself out in love does (Gal 5:6) We are now under the law of Christ(Gal 6:2) which is the law of grace and love.

In Lk 2:22-38 Jesus is presented at the temple. Mary give the sacrifce of two turtle doves or pigeons. Initally this cerimony took place because after a women had a child she was disqualified form touching any holy object or entering the temple for 40 days after which the sacrifice was to be made to restore her. in Catholic theology, we do not believe Mary had to techinically do this because we do not believe she was impure, rather we believe that she was sinless from conception. Several of the Church fathers suggested that Mary offered the sacrifce anyway to conform her self to the law so as so as not to give scandal to others. In the same fashion Jesus did not need to be baptized but he underwent this anyway for several reasons which we will look at later.

 

[*Paul*]

Continuing with Luke 2 we see several things. After Christ joyful birth. We see the next stage in Christological fullfillment, namely Christ circumcision(Lk 2:21). This circumsion was done to Christ to fully initiate and to show fullfillment of him to God's covenant chosen Isreal(Gen 17:9-14). Christ was the only one who could keep the mosaic law perfectly. He shows his fullfillment by covenanting the same covenant with God as he gave his people to do in Gen 17.

Right on, it's as Paul says:

Galations 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Nowadays Circumcision and keeping the law of Moses is to no avail for us. For we are not under the Law of Moses anymore, Christ fullfilled that. We are no longer bound by the Mosiac Law(Rom 3:28) and Circumcision is longer necessary for us to covenat with God.

Agreed, it was in the old testament all along that the gentiles would one day worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but God had made no covenent with them, only with the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A new one would be necessary one day just as soon as the problem of that which seperates us from God was taken out of the way.
Isaiah 51:5 My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.

Isaiah 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles

Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Malalchi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Christian Baptism is the sacrament that replaces the old covenant of circumsion(Col 2:11-13). it sis the new circumsion made without hands by the grace and Power of the Holy Spirit. It is through this new covenant that we initially enter Gods covenant family(Rom 6:3-11, 1 Cor 6:11).

I obviously have a different understanding of this being a baptist.
Circumcision was type of casting away the unclean flesh of the old nature when we are born again.
Now then a baby must first be born then eight days later circumcised under the mosaic law. So under the New covenant the new man must first be born from above and then his baptism confirms the covenant he has entered with God. His baptism isn't his new birth neither is circumcision a babys birth.

In Lk 2:22-38 Jesus is presented at the temple. Mary give the sacrifce of two turtle doves or pigeons. Initally this cerimony took place because after a women had a child she was disqualified form touching any holy object or entering the temple for 40 days after which the sacrifice was to be made to restore her. in Catholic theology, we do not believe Mary had to techinically do this because we do not believe she was impure, rather we believe that she was sinless from conception. Several of the Church fathers suggested that Mary offered the sacrifce anyway to conform her self to the law so as so as not to give scandal to others. In the same fashion Jesus did not need to be baptized but he underwent this anyway for several reasons which we will look at later.

It was what the law required, if she didn't do it it would be sin, surely she obeyed the law because it was what God commanded of her. I thought this ceremony isn't to do with sin but ceremonial impurity because of the blood involved in child birth, surely this wouldn't imply that she was spiritually or morally impure?

Anyhow i'm not too sure to be honest so i'll move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 2:30-32 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

I read earlier a comment by a muslim member on here who said that Jesus came for one specific people only (the jews). I assume they say this because of Jesus comment about coming to the lost sheep of Israel only but His ministry extends way past His earthly life. He was indeed fulfilling the prophecies made to the Israelites (too numerous to number here)but the prophets make it clear that God would bring all nations to Himself by His Messiah. The scriptures I posted earlier are examples. also

Genesis 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Galations 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Galations 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

This is why the angel could say:

Luke 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. (Jew and gentile)

 

[*Paul*]

Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

I like the way that Joseph is not called Jesus' father here, a small detail but an important one.

Luke 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

Did this come true? Absolutely, Jesus and His cross are a sign spoken against and hated by many in the land of ISrael and amongst many of the Israelites. But there is in this passage the "rising again" of many in Israel - they fell because they believe not, they will rise again when they shall look on hIm whom they have pierced.

Luke 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

I don't understand this passage Athanasius, I would be interested to here your insight on it, i would imagine it has some significance in cathoilc theology. My problem is with the "that the thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed" it writes as though this is a consequence of the sword peircing through Mary's soul (presumably because of the death of Jesus). I can't make sense of it but I haven't given it too much thought yet.

Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
Luke 2:37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. Luke 2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

As one would expect, the long awaited coming of the Messiah - the Saviour of the world is heralded by signs.The angels announcement to the shepherds, the star to guide the magi, and the confirmation of living prophets & prophetesses.

 

[athanasius]

I don't understand this passage Athanasius, I would be interested to here your insight on it, i would imagine it has some significance in cathoilc theology. My problem is with the "that the thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed" it writes as though this is a consequence of the sword peircing through Mary's soul (presumably because of the death of Jesus). I can't make sense of it but I haven't given it too much thought yet.

Very Good question my friend ,In Catholic biblical theology this passage is loaded with insight. On the level you are asking about, I would suggest that "the thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed" here means that because she is intimately connected to her Son and her role biblically is connected to being the mother of the Church and of all Christians (Rev 12:17, Jn 19:26-27) God gave her special revelation of those who would reject her son's message in which she pondered in her heart as she did many things (Lk 2:19). We believe that as the Mother of the Church and the living she prays for these sinners to come back to her Son, as some private Church approved apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes show. This is one of the reasons why you may hear the Catholics give her the title "Our Lady of Sorrows". Its a biblical title. "A sword shall pierce her heart".. "when she pondered on these things". Hence she is also intimately involved in the passion and suffering of her son in a special way. Her heart is united to his hear and would break at the sight of his passion and death.

In certain Catholic Churches there are beautiful statues of Mary looking sorrowful holding the dead Jesus. This is called the Pieta and represents the fulfillment of this passage in Luke as She is Mother of sorrows. Also sometimes a statue of Mary is seen as having a several swords piercing her heart also thus reflecting this biblical reality.

On a spiritual level (not a literal level) some Catholic biblical scholars and theologians have suggested that this passage also relates to her as being the Spiritual typological fulfillment of the Daughter of Zion( that is one of her titles in Catholic theology) as Lukes words also mirror similar language about Isreal in (Ezekiel 14:17).

I hope that helps. I love your insight on Luke 2:34! Coming up is the finding of Jesus n the temple. and One of my favorite passages to discuss theoloigcally, the baptism of Jesus and preaching of John.

 

[*Paul*]

Very Good question my friend ,In Catholic biblical theology this passage is loaded with insight. On the level you are asking about, I would suggest that "the thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed" here means that because she is intimately connected to her Son and her role biblically is connected to being the mother of the Church and of all Christians (Rev 12:17, Jn 19:26-27) God gave her special revelation of those who would reject her son's message in which she pondered in her heart as she did many things (Lk 2:19). We believe that as the Mother of the Church and the living she prays for these sinners to come back to her Son, as some private Church approved apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes show. This is one of the reasons why you may hear the Catholics give her the title "Our Lady of Sorrows". Its a biblical title. "A sword shall pierce her heart".. "when she pondered on these things". Hence she is also intimately involved in the passion and suffering of her son in a special way. Her heart is united to his hear and would break at the sight of his passion and death.

are you saying that "that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" means that the thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed to Mary? I was reading it as though the thoughts of many hearts would be made open or manifest for all to see.
I'm struggling with this one a bit, I may consult a few commentaries but it's not something I like to do too often as I think it kills the point of biblical meditation.

 

[athanasius]

are you saying that "that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" means that the thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed to Mary? I was reading it as though the thoughts of many hearts would be made open or manifest for all to see.
I'm struggling with this one a bit, I may consult a few commentaries but it's not something I like to do too often as I think it kills the point of biblical meditation.

Good point! biblical mediation is always a good place to start. Catholic commentaries state that Mary was given a advanced glimpse of calvary when the rejection Of Jesus by sinners will bear heavy on her part and her heart will be pierced.

 

[*Paul*]

Luke 2:35: from robertsons word pictures
A sword (ρομφαια). A large sword, properly a long Thracian javelin. It occurs in the LXX of Goliath's sword (1Sa 17:51). How little Mary understood the meaning of Simeon's words that seemed so out of place in the midst of the glorious things already spoken, a sharp thorn in their roses, a veritable bitter-sweet. But one day Mary will stand by the Cross of Christ with this Thracian javelin clean through her soul, σταβατ Ματερ Δολοροσα (Joh 19:25). It is only a parenthesis here, and a passing cloud perhaps passed over Mary's heart already puzzled with rapture and ecstasy.
May be revealed (αποκαλυφθωσιν). Unveiled. First aorist passive subjunctive after οπως αν and expresses God's purpose in the mission of the Messiah. He is to test men's thoughts (διαλογισμο) and purposes. They will be compelled to take a stand for Christ or against him. That is true today.

It seems I wasn't noticing that the comment about the piercing of Marys soul was in a parenthesis , so the comment about the revealing of peoples thoughts goes back immediatly before the parenthesis.