Can We Compare Mary to Jephthah’s Daughter?

2 Responses

Bruce Killian, on September 8, 2012 at 2:23 am said:

BRUCE:

Father Joe, we have the same goal, (to know and love our Lord and Savior and His Mother, the Church, etc. and to bring as many with us into His kingdom as possible). Try to presume that I am not in error (I am quite well informed). Every time you have asserted something is true, I agree. But you use that same or similar assertion to say that what I said was wrong and there I disagree. In each case, I was quoting or paraphrasing the New Testament or our Pope and I gave the references. It is possible for both A and B to be true, e.g. Virgin and Mother. I responded to this blog, because you asked an interesting question. I am not an adversary but a fellow pilgrim striving with you to get to the truth. The truth here I believe is hidden, but available to us with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

FATHER JOE:

Do I judge you too harshly? I did not say everything you write is wrong, but some of your assumptions and “paraphrasing” are unclear and seem to be in disharmony with Catholic teaching. For instance, while there are truths “hidden,” the Church would argue that there is no gnostic secret knowledge. Rather, the truth is readily available, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, as the public revelation of God and the kerygma of the Church.

BRUCE:

There are many mysteries in the Scriptures, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, to search out a matter is the glory of kings” (Proverbs 25:2). Jephthah’s daughter, an innocent virgin was slain and then offered to God, being consumed as a holocaust, so we appear to agree. Can this tell us anything about the Blessed Virgin Mary? I answer yes, because the Old Testament does foreshadow the New.

FATHER JOE:

I, neither deny prophesy nor biblical foreshadowing; however, not every similarity or coincidence is a definite case of such. Forcing too many connections leads to bad scholarship and weakens the argument overall.

BRUCE:

And you apparently answer is no (even though you asked the question) because you say the Resurrection story requires no Old Testament shadow passages. If by this you mean, the Resurrection can be shown true without the Old Testament, I agree.

FATHER JOE:

My concern was the matter of the “third day” for the resurrection being regarded as symbolic while it was a truth verified again and again in the New Testament.

BRUCE:

If you mean that the Old Testament does not cast light on our understanding of the Resurrection, then the Church teaches that it does.

FATHER JOE:

Of course the Old Testament sets the stage for the New. God prepares a people for himself. The Hebrew Scriptures establish essential stages in God’s revelation to man and salvation history. Your failure to understand me is not dissimilar from your stumbling to understand various elements of the Scriptural testimony. Of course, you are still obliged to study and learn. My insistence is that this should be done prior to trying to teach.

BRUCE:

When I said there were no passages, I said I was paraphrasing Pope Benedict XVI in his new book Jesus of Nazareth, Book 2 (2011). He wrote that the resurrection was according to the Scriptures and Jesus explained those Scriptures to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus on the day of the Resurrection so it can only refer to the Old Testament. On page 252 or Jesus of Nazareth, Book 2 said, “What the risen Lord taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus now becomes the basic method of understanding the figure of Jesus: everything that happened to him is the fulfillment of the ‘Scriptures.’ Only on the basis of the ‘Scriptures,’ the Old Testament, can he be understood at all.”

Near the bottom of page 257 in reference to the resurrection he also wrote, “So for Scriptural background we could certainly look to Psalm 16:10, but also to basic promise texts like Isaiah 53. There is no direct Scriptural testimony pointing to the ‘third day.’”

FATHER JOE:

What is probably meant is that there is no reference to the “third day” in the Old Testament. There are quite a few in the New.

BRUCE:

The thesis that the third day may possibly have been derived from Hosea 6:1-2 cannot be sustained …

So the Pope says, Old Testament does tell the story of what happened at the resurrection, its message is hidden.

FATHER JOE:

The question here is about the specific Creedal reference. The bishops at council were pinpointing the Gospel testimony. The Old Testament allusions would not stand by themselves.

BRUCE:

Paul wrote the gospel he preached before any other canonical gospel was penned (and Tradition and oral testimony are not Scripture).

FATHER JOE:

Sacred Tradition is, along with Sacred Scripture, a font of divine revelation.

BRUCE:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 – “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

FATHER JOE:

Thank you for the clarification. You need to make your context clearer. I cannot read your mind, only your comments. You spoke of hidden messages and such usually implies a cult with elite membership and a charismatic leader with the proposed ability to decipher such. What you apparently meant by hidden messages was that there were truths where the fullness of meaning would only be revealed in Jesus Christ. The hidden comes to light or is given a deeper meaning in light of the incarnation and Christ’s saving work.

BRUCE:

You say, “You continue to commit many errors in your remarks. For instance, you write that Satan would not have allowed the process to proceed if he had any inkling of what God’s plan was.” You say that such a view is heretical. The problem is I immediately quoted and cited the apostle Paul who said the same thing, the only difference is that substitute “Satan” for the “any of the rulers of this age” (1 Corinthians 2:7-8).

FATHER JOE:

Where do you get off making such a substitution? What you said was very different. Paul writes, “Rather, we speak God’s wisdom, mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory, and which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7-8). God’s will cannot be circumvented. The mysterious or “hidden” wisdom is literally the gift of faith in Jesus Christ. Paul is saying that had the Roman and Jewish leaders been fully aware of Christ’s identity, then they would not have been so quick to condemn him as a false Messiah. The substitution of “Satan” does not work. He would never accept the lordship of Jesus Christ.

BRUCE:

That God’s plan was not at risk, I agree completely. But Paul said he was speaking of secret wisdom and none of the rulers of this age understood it for if they had they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”’ So because Satan is one of the rulers of this age (Jesus referred to Satan as the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11, etc.). Therefore Satan did not understand God plan. Satan did not realize that by executing Jesus on as Cross, Jesus was offering Himself as a sacrifice to redeem the world that Adam had given to Satan. So because God knows what Satan knows, God was able to reveal His plans in a hidden manner so that Satan did not realize His plan, but God could reveal that plan to us. I have a feeling that both Jesus and Mary had discerned God’s plan from the Holy Scriptures but they did not reveal that plan in a way that Satan understood, so Satan was caught unaware.

FATHER JOE:

I do not know the extent of Mary’s infused science, but I do know that Jesus is no amnesiac deity. You write, “I have a feeling that both Jesus and Mary had discerned God’s plan from the Holy Scriptures.” No, a thousand times no. Jesus possessed the beatific vision and was always aware of his saving mission. While he had experiential knowledge, and grew in “wisdom and grace” as a man; he was always conscious of himself as divine and could call upon his eternal knowledge and infinite power.

As for the devil’s awareness, there is theory or conjecture about this, but there are also indications in Scripture that the devil was particularly alert to Christ as the Holy One of God. Indeed, our Lord had to silence the demons who blurted out knowing who he was. Did the devil fully know that the Cross itself would be transformed from a sign of defeat to one of victory? God could have saved us in another way, but he opted to do it this way. The devil is intelligent, but he is arrogant and is restricted to his own nature and the bondage of sin. The repudiation of Christ by his people is very attractive to him. The Great Tempter is himself subject to temptation. Jesus is a target he cannot resist. It should also be said that the devil does not know the future. This truth is suggested by the Church’s exorcists. Murdering Christ would seemingly put an end to his work of preaching, healing and offering forgiveness to others. But God plays the devil for a fool. What should have been the devil’s most successful moment of spite becomes a point of divergence in salvation history. As you said, we are redeemed and are no longer the devil’s property. Jesus dies that we might live. My point is simply that it did not matter if Satan understood God’s plan or not. It made no difference. Unlike human beings, the devil cannot change his mind. Most importantly, neither men nor the devil can inhibit divine providence.

BRUCE:

Satan knew and wanted to reveal that Jesus was the Christ, but Satan did not recognize that Christ would annul the Mosaic Covenant by His death and resurrection.

FATHER JOE:

The Church hesitates in speaking of Christ annulling the Mosaic Covenant. The Jews are still God’s People. Jesus is the fulfillment of that covenant in his own blood. There is only one covenant, but the New takes to itself the Old. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and the Savior of the world.

BRUCE:

Satan wanted the Christ to die, but he did not realize that that death was sacrificial and in that sacrificial death, Jesus would reclaim the world. While Christ spoke openly about the fact that He would suffer and die, and that it was necessary for the Christ to die, He did not reveal why except in part at the consecration of the Eucharist (after Judas, and therefore Satan had left). So God’s plan was hidden from Satan.

FATHER JOE:

I still suspect that part of the equation is that the devil could NOT help himself. Certainly he knew that God was up to something and he was aware that he could not win against God’s power and plans.

Squirmishes he might win but a few battles do not mean ultimately winning the war. If God wanted to keep a secret, it seems that he was not trying too hard. Look at Isaiah 53:1-2: “Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; He had no majestic bearing to catch our eye, no beauty to draw us to him. He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, knowing pain, Like one from whom you turn your face, spurned, and we held him in no esteem. Yet it was our pain that he bore, our sufferings he endured. We thought of him as stricken, struck down by God and afflicted, But he was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquity. He bore the punishment that makes us whole, by his wounds we were healed. We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all. Though harshly treated, he submitted and did not open his mouth; Like a lamb led to slaughter or a sheep silent before shearers, he did not open his mouth. Seized and condemned, he was taken away. Who would have thought any more of his destiny? For he was cut off from the land of the living, struck for the sins of his people. He was given a grave among the wicked, a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong, nor was deceit found in his mouth. But it was the LORD’s will to crush him with pain. By making his life as a reparation offering, he shall see his offspring, shall lengthen his days, and the LORD’s will shall be accomplished through him. Because of his anguish he shall see the light; because of his knowledge he shall be content; My servant, the just one, shall justify the many, their iniquity he shall bear. Therefore I will give him his portion among the many, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death, was counted among the transgressors, Bore the sins of many, and interceded for the transgressors.”

BRUCE:

You said that the Creed refers to the Gospels not the Old Testament. The catechism says the Creed refers to both the New and the Old Testaments so we are both right in this point.

FATHER JOE:

But this is not what you wrote: “The Creed and 1 Corinthians were written before the canon of the New Testament was officially Scripture so the Scriptures referred to were the Old Testament.” I have no problem with Old Testament prophecy, but place the gravity with the person and saving life of Jesus. You subtracted the New Testament. You were wrong. I am glad you have accepted the correction, but you were NOT correct before.

UNIVERSAL CATECHISM:

CCC 652 – Christ’s Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life. The phrase “in accordance with the Scriptures” indicates that Christ’s Resurrection fulfilled these predictions.

BRUCE:

Yes the Church did have the teaching of the Apostles (Acts 2:42), but when they referred to the Scriptures at least during the early apostolic period they referred to the Old Testament. The only exception is later in the apostolic period where Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) and that was shortly before Peter died about 62 to 64 AD.

FATHER JOE: The Christian community claimed the Hebrew Scriptures for its own. No one questions this. But we were talking about the Creedal reference, to which this is somewhat off the point.

UNIVERSAL CATECHISM:

CCC 639 – The mystery of Christ’s resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness. In about A.D. 56 St. Paul could already write to the Corinthians: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. . .” The Apostle speaks here of the living tradition of the Resurrection which he had learned after his conversion at the gates of Damascus.

BRUCE:

This point from the catechism does speak of a living tradition, but that is in reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus. The reference to the Scriptures are not Tradition but actual writings the Old Testament.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, the living tradition was more complex than stories or ideas about Christ’s death and resurrection. The living tradition would include the basic structure of the Church, the exercise of authority, the celebration of the sacraments like the Eucharist, etc. Paul says that he hands on what was given to him. When he narrates the Last Supper, he is literally sharing the liturgical tradition he has received. These are the words Paul would have used when he offered the Eucharist. The living tradition continues to this very day. The oral tradition about Christ in the earliest days would eventually be written down, first in lost documents like the Sayings Source and eventually in the Gospels and other works. Some of these would be judged distinctly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

BRUCE:

You said, “While there is biblical typing or foreshadowing, such is not the source of the resurrection stories on the third day.” Again, I agree, but I did not say the only source of the resurrection stores was the Old Testament, I said the resurrections stories were foreshadowed.

FATHER JOE:

What you said was not clear. Indeed, what you seem to be saying now is at odds with what you wrote before. You wrote: “Therefore, the OT presents the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Jesus. But there is no one passage, one can turn to that proves this, rather I believe it comes from a collection of passages that present the message in shadow or type.” If the primary source is the “OT” or Old Testament, you are indeed saying that the source for the resurrection on the third day is only foreshadowed. But the main source is the New Testament. You cannot have it both ways. In any case, you have clarified that the New Testament is crucial to the question and that satisfies me on this point.

BRUCE:

Not every detail of an antitype needs to match the type or Isaac would have needed to be crucified by Romans on Mt Moriah rather than being bound on an altar.

FATHER JOE:

And not every typing is a true foreshadowing either.

UNIVERSAL CATECHISM:

The unity of the Old and New Testaments

CCC 128 – The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

CCC 129 – Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

CCC 130 – Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when “God [will] be everything to everyone.” Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God’s plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

BRUCE:

The antitype must in some way be greater than the type so if Rizpah is Saul’s concubine she is still his woman.

FATHER JOE:

It is a prerogative of the Magisterial Church to tell us what Old Testament persons and events prefigure those of the New Testament. It is not for you and me. Does the Pope compare Rizpah to the Virgin Mary? Or is this merely your own private speculation? Call her want you will, this lamenting mother is still a concubine and that is a long ways from Mary and her virginal marriage to Joseph and her spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

BRUCE:

But a good case can be made that the Hebrew word translated concubine would better be translated wife (although maybe a second level wife. For example after Abraham’s wife Sarah died, he married Keturah. Keturah is called his wife in Genesis 25:1-4, but she is called his concubine in 1 Chronicles 1:32-33. While Hagar the woman that bore Ishmael to Abram was never called his concubine, but rather always Sarah’s handmaid. In Hebrew and in Greek there is no separate word for wife in both cases the word for wife is “woman of a man” so his woman and by interpretation his wife. Hebrew ishshah or Greek goonay or goonikos. Since the crucifixion and resurrection were of “first importance,” it make sense that God telescoped details of the resurrection by type throughout the Old Testament.

FATHER JOE:

If I wanted I could play the word-games with you too, and not with borrowed scholarship either. The Hebrews regarded concubines as both slaves and secondary wives of low importance. However, the word WIFE here is hardly synonymous with the real article. You are bending over backwards to make a case that seems flimsy to me. But, if you can show where the Pope agrees with you, I would relent in my repugnance to this notion. I just do not see a strong parallel with Mary.

BRUCE:

As for Joseph being a king, a primary purpose of the genealogy in Matthew was to show that Jesus was in the line of the Israelite kings and so has the proper genealogy to be the Christ if Jesus had the proper credentials to be king, then so did Joseph because Jesus inherit kingship.

FATHER JOE:

Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Not everyone of the royal Davidic line was a king. His genealogy is given because the male line was customarily recorded for Jews. It is probable that Mary was also of the line of David, given that couples usually married within their own tribe.

BRUCE:

I felt like it was a challenge to find references to a link between Mary and Jephthah’s daughter from the Church fathers, but the search proved fruitful for making a link between Miriam (Mary’s namesake) and Jephthah’s daughter. The Fathers link these women because both women went out with timbrel and dancing celebrating a victory. There are only a few mentions of this timbrel and dancing mentioned together in the Scriptures. The first is the incident of Miriam dancing on the third day after Passover (Exodus 15:20), on the shore of the Red Sea after the destruction of the Egyptian Army. This is also the first time Miriam’s name is mentioned and hers is the only name mentioned among any of the women dancing with a timbrel. This reference is very important because the destruction at the Red Sea was the preeminent victory pointing to Jesus’ victory over Satan at the cross and resurrection. Miriam is not mentioned as having any husband or children. The second is Jephthah’s daughter and the third is with women coming out to rejoice in David’s victory over the Philistine giant Goliath (1 Sam 18:6) A good case can be made that these all occurred at the same time of the year (spring) when kings go out to war (2 Sam 11:1; 1 Chr 20:1) In each instance there was a great victory and women were rejoicing in that victory. This would lead one to speculate that Mariam (the Greek forms of the English Mary) had a timbrel with her and she approached the tomb with dancing rejoicing at the return of the bridegroom Jesus.

FATHER JOE:

Okay, what fathers of the Church made the connections you just mentioned? You said it was easy to find them but you did not mention even one. You still insist that Mary approached the tomb of Jesus and kept watch there. But no matter whether she did or not, there is no evidence. While what you write is caged in scholarship it remains heavily speculative and unconnected to the facts of the matter. I still think you confused Mary Magdalene with the Blessed Mother and just refuse to admit the fundamental mistake.

BRUCE:

While you may not be able to recognize that typology revealing depth to the New Testament story, it is obvious to me that the Rizpah and Jephthah’s daughter are both probably types of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

FATHER JOE:

I know of no sources for the Rizpah connection. However, I admitted in my initial post that some authorities made a connection between Jephthah’s daughter and the theme of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Of course, you would take matters even further.

BRUCE:

I did not say Mary was killed, I said she was raptured. Her old body was consumed in fire and she immediately got a new and immortal body.

FATHER JOE:

There is nothing in the Dogma of the Assumption that speaks of Mary being raptured or remade in fire. You are confusing this mystery with the pagan myth of the phoenix which is destroyed and reborn from the fire.

BRUCE:

Jephthah the one who killed that innocent virgin made that promise at the prompting of the Spirit and is noted as a man of faith in Hebrews 11.

FATHER JOE:

Are you saying, as a Christian, that the slaughter of his innocent daughter was a genuine direct expression of God’s will?

Look at what Hebrews 11:32-35 actually says: “What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions, put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders. Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.”

Paul is simply giving a list of traditional Jewish heroes. Jephthah is not being praised for keeping his vow in killing an innocent child but in being a successful general in the defense of God’s people. Paul seems aware of the disconnection because he adds a reference to the “women” who “would not accept deliverance.” Jephthah’s daughter would bravely submit herself to her fate, mourning her maidenhood, as a woman of faith.

BRUCE:

Also I have not confused the Blessed Virgin with Mary Magdelene. The Blessed Virgin was present at the resurrection and both Jesus and she are gone at the time when Mary Magdelene and company first arrive, because Jesus is gone, probably because He was conversing with His mother out of sight.

FATHER JOE:

Jesus appeared to his apostles in the locked Upper Room. The Scriptures tell us that Mary and other women had assembled with the brethren there (Acts 1:14). But there is nothing in the New Testament about the Blessed Mother keeping watch outside the borrowed tomb. Now you are fantasizing that when Mary Magdalene did not see him, he was off somewhere talking to Mom. Traditionally the Church teaches that Mary Magdalene is the FIRST public witness to see the risen Lord. Speculation, even from a Pope about Mary, does not dismiss this fact.

BRUCE:

Mary kept watch in the cemetery (maybe with only one tomb). But this was a very special case.

FATHER JOE:

I do not believe so. You have no evidence to make your case. Even Pope John Paul II who thinks there was a special private meeting with Mary does not locate it at the tomb. You refuse to admit fault and dig a deeper and deeper hole for yourself with contrived rationalizations.

BRUCE:

Jesus’ death was a sacrifice so rather than His body being unclean it was most holy. Second, where Jesus body and blood were stored was a tabernacle so Mary was keeping watch at “the” tabernacle.

FATHER JOE:

What is the Scripture text for this proposed tabernacle? Traditionally the cave (tomb) was where people placed bodies to corrupt so that they might later be removed and placed into ossuary for burial in a permanent grave. The preparation of the body, for which the women (not the Blessed Mother) came to the tomb would have both honored the body and had facilitated such a natural process. Of course, in the case of Christ, they found the tomb empty. If the tomb were a tabernacle, it was so just for a moment. At the death of Christ, his human soul truly left his body (the Catholic definition of death). At his resurrection, the soul is restored to its rightful place and our Lord puts on immortality. The Catholic tabernacle does not store the dead flesh of Christ, but as with the Eucharist, the risen Lord, whole and complete.

BRUCE:

The tomb of Jesus was not like any other grave, in that Tomb was His sacrificed body and blood (the bloody part of His sacrifice). That tomb was a tabernacle, and His Body and Blood did not undergo corruption and by definition all sacrifices become corrupt by the third day (Leviticus 19:6-7). How did Jesus’ body avoid the corruption that occurs on the third day? by being consumed in a holocaust.

FATHER JOE:

The “holocaust” of Christ, a word the Church shies away from these days in deference to the Jews and the memory of German Nazism, is not the tomb but the Cross. “Holocaust” here is understood as a synonym for the word “sacrifice.” The emphasis is placed upon how our sins murdered Christ. There is no literal fire in the tomb. Indeed, the body wrappings were found intact and undamaged. You are buying into Discovery Channel pseudo-science about radiation from the resurrection and how it burned an image into the shroud.

BRUCE:

When the disciples arrived at the tomb all they find is various pieces of linen and two angels. Everything else in gone (in Jesus’ tomb everything that had his blood on had to be buried with Him). Jewish practice requires that anything with the diseased person’s blood need to be buried with them and they were washed before burial. Jesus’ blood was washed into the floor of the tomb and His cross, and the ground and rocks at the foot of the cross were buried with Him. So like Elijah’s sacrifice on Mount Carmel, Jesus’ body, blood, wood, stones, dirt and water were consumed by holy fire (1 Kings 18:38), but the linen was not destroyed as happened to Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:5).

FATHER JOE:

Christ’s body is not consumed, it is changed. This is part of the Christian mystery. Even today, the one we receive in Holy Communion is the same Jesus Christ who ministered two thousand years ago, albeit raised from the dead. You are forcing biblical connections where they do not belong. You should stop doing this and trust the Magisterium and the received faith. Speculation should not replace revealed truth. You are forcing connections from obscure references and the dissociated events. Those who do that have left the world of fact and have entered that of imagination or fiction. You are trying to fill in details that just are not available. As long as the core message is intact, I have little concern about such an operation. Historical romances often blend fact with fiction. But you are wrong to purport your speculation as legitimate or as verified truth.

BRUCE:

The empty tomb represents the end of the sacrifice, as end of Mass all there are some vessels (e.g. chalice and paten), and some linen (altar cloth, vestments, corporal, purificator). In Hebrew the word for basin or chalice (which is were the blood of the sacrifice was collected) is SAF, this word also means entry particularly of the temple. So remaining at the tomb are the large stone that blocked the entrance –the paten covering the chalice; the entrance/tomb which is the chalice and inside are the altar cloth/vestments, corporal and purificator. Jesus rose from the dead, the word rise in Hebrew is holah where we get the word holocaust, Jesus rose as the smoke of His sacrifice, and created for Himself an eternal body.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5592&t=RSV

FATHER JOE:

You are too much into magic in imagining Jesus disappeared and was remade in a puff of smoke.

Actually, the end of the sacrifice of Jesus is when he says it is ended, not in the tomb but on the Cross. We read, “When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit” (John 19:30). The Mass is the re-presentation of the one-time offering or oblation of Calvary, albeit in a clean and unbloody manner. This is made possible because of the Easter event. We receive in Holy Communion the resurrected Lord, whole and complete. Our faith is found not in the trappings of the empty tomb but in the fact that Jesus is alive. Our faith hinges upon the redemptive work of Christ on the Cross and his resurrection from the dead. Jesus appears outside the tomb, along the road to Emmaus, on the beach, and in the Upper Room. He offers us forgiveness and a share in his life. The word study is interesting but not topical to this discussion. The rock over the cave is not even figuratively a paten. The ledge that holds the corpse of Christ would be a closer analogy. But such comparisons are strained. There is a cloth for the head and one for the body. There is little else. There need be no one-to-one connection in all elements between the passion and death of Christ with either the Last Supper or the Mass.

BRUCE:

“12. Also Jephthah was persecuted, as Jesus was persecuted. Jephthah, his brethren drove out from the house of his father; and Jesus, His brethren drove out and lifted up and crucified. Jephthah though persecuted arose as leader to his people; Jesus though persecuted arose and became King of the Nations. Jephthah vowed a vow and offered up his firstborn daughter as a sacrifice; and Jesus was lifted up as a sacrifice to his Father for all the Gentiles.”

FATHER JOE:

Now we jump back to the topic of Jephthah again and you cite the Persian, Aphraates. The century-plus old translation you cite was by the Anglican, Dr. John Gwynn and the link where it is posted is a Coptic, not a Catholic site. The quotation is somewhat convoluted. The comparison is first between Jesus and Jephthah but ends as one between Jephthah’s daughter and Jesus. This reference would be the minority view as compared to that suggested by St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostom who were more in tune with the other early Church fathers. Jephthah was a great Jewish general. He was successful against great odds. He was victorious not because of his oath, but in spite of it. As St. John Chrysostom would tell us, his repugnant act would move the Jews to renounce all such blood-oaths from that time forward. We read: “For if after that vow and promise He had forbidden the sacrifice, many also who were subsequent to Jephthah, in the expectation that God would not receive their vows, would have increased the number of such vows, and proceeding on their way would have fallen into child-murder. But now, by suffering this vow to be actually fulfilled, He put a stop to all such cases in future. And to show that this is true, after Jephthah’s daughter had been slain, in order that the calamity might be always remembered, and that her fate might not be consigned to oblivion, it became a law among the Jews, that the virgins assembling at the same season should bewail during forty days the sacrifice which had taken place; in order that renewing the memory of it by lamentation, they should make all men wiser for the future; and that they might learn that it was not after the mind of God that this should be done, for in that case He would not have permitted the virgins to bewail and lament her. And that what I have said is not conjectural, the event demonstrated; for after this sacrifice, no one vowed such a vow unto God. Therefore also He did not indeed forbid this; but what He had expressly enjoined in the case of Isaac, that He directly prohibited; plainly showing through both cases, that He doth not delight in such sacrifices” (Homily 14:7). St. John Chrysostom would be the greater authority in this matter of the Jewish general.

BRUCE:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54862448/Schaff-Wace-A-Select-library-of-Nicene-and-post-Nicene-fathers-of-the-Christian-church-Second-series-1893-Volume-6

FATHER JOE:

St. Jerome writes Against the Jovians (1:23): “And whereas he (Paul) prefers the fidelity of the father Jephthah to the tears of the virgin daughter, that makes for us. For we are not commending virgins of the world so much as those who are virgins for Christ’s sake, and most Hebrews blame the father for the rash vow he made, ‘If thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be for the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.’ Supposing (they say) a dog or an ass had met him, what would he have done? Their meaning is that God so ordered events that he who had improvidently made a vow, should learn his error by the death of his daughter.” We can make the connection with God the Father or Jesus, but it is a poor typology because Jephthah has made a foolish and rash vow. Nevertheless, the faithful witness of her sacrifice would be remembered. Writing to Julian (118:5), we read: “Jephthah too offered up his virgin daughter, and for this is placed by the apostle in the roll of the saints. I would not therefore have you offer to the Lord only what a thief may steal from you or an enemy fall upon, or a proscription confiscate, what is liable to fluctuations in value now going up and now down, what belongs to a succession of masters who follow each other as fast as in the sea wave follows wave, and—to say everything in a word—what, whether you like it or not, you must leave behind you when you die. Rather offer to God that which no enemy can carry off and no tyrant take from you, which will go down with you into the grave, nay on to the kingdom of heaven and the enchantments of paradise.” He commends that the holy men or monks offer up THEMSELVES in holiness of life.

BRUCE:

In Aramaic the word brother includes brothers and cousins. The people of Jesus’ hometown (his relatives) tried to kill Him and drove Him away. Jesus was also rejected by many in Israel (He was despised and rejected Isaiah 53:3).

FATHER JOE:

Yes, I have argued as much.

BRUCE:

There were more than just the apostles at the Last Supper. Both of the disciples on the road to Emmaus had to have been at the Last Supper, because that is the only place where bread had been broken that one could recognize Jesus.

FATHER JOE:

No, you are wrong. There were numerous occasions when our Lord ate with others and also the miracles where he fed the multitude. The restriction of the Last Supper to the apostles is an important element of Catholic doctrine. Only the apostles are made his first bishop-priests. If the other disciples had been there then the Lord’s ordination of the twelve would have extended to them when he commanded, “Do this in remembrance of me.” It is a private setting where our Lord institutes both the Eucharist and the Priesthood. Here is another case-in-point where you draw false conclusions from an absence of real facts. It is also illustrative of a Protestant tendency toward private interpretation in lieu of conformity to decisive universal Magisterial teaching.

BRUCE:

If these disciples were present at the Last Supper it is reasonable to assume that there were others there as well. If there were others then the presence of Mary would be logical because the Seder was to be celebrated with one’s family.

FATHER JOE:

This is the liberal position of the dissenters who argue for women priests. They claim that Mary and other women and men (disciples) were at the Last Supper and thus shared in the conferral of holy orders. This false teaching was denounced by the Church and by Pope John Paul II in his letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS and Pope Paul VI in his confirmation of INTER INSIGNIORES from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

BRUCE:

Since Peter in Acts 2 tells us that the 120 disciples were all witnesses of the risen Lord Jesus and because Mary was numbered with the disciples (Acts 1:14; 2:1), Mary was a witness to the resurrection because she was part of the all that were witnesses (Acts 2:32). Several Church Fathers mention Mary in reference to the resurrection saying Jesus either appeared to her first or not at all.

FATHER JOE:

Mary was indeed a witness of the resurrected Lord, but (according to Scripture) in the Upper Room, not at the tomb. She was not present (unless in an adjacent room) when our Lord celebrated the Last Supper. It was not an ordinary Seder and the regular rules no longer applied.

BRUCE:

Bl. John Paul II spoke on this topic:

Pope John Paul II in his general audience of Wednesday, 21 May 1997 offered several reasons for concluding that the first person to see the resurrected Lord was His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Although this is not what we would call a de fide teaching – Catholics are free to believe it or not – there is much spiritual fruit to be had by meditating on this point.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_21051997_en.html

“After Jesus had been laid in the tomb, Mary ‘alone remains to keep alive the flame of faith, preparing to receive the joyful and astonishing announcement of the Resurrection’” (Address at the General Audience, 3 April 1996; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 10 April 1996, p. 7).

“If the authors of the New Testament do not speak of the Mother’s encounter with her risen Son, this can perhaps be attributed to the fact that such a witness would have been considered too biased by those who denied the Lord’s Resurrection, and therefore not worthy of belief.”

FATHER JOE:

The Pope is speaking here about the intimate relationship between the Mother and the Son. It is speculative because there is no biblical support for such an initial appearance to Mary. Of course, in her Mother’s heart, she may have indeed been the first to sense that he was back among them. However, she would not have had to travel to the tomb. Just as with visionaries around the world who encounter her; her Son could just as easily have come to her anywhere and exchanged her tears of sorrow for those of joy.

BRUCE:

http://www.defendingthebride.com/pp/tomb/

“Where was Jesus at before Mary Magdalene saw Him? Jesus has a physical body. When Mary Magdalene went to the tomb it was empty. She went to the Apostles and He was not there. Later, she sees Him and He says that He has not yet ascended to the Father. John 20:17 To where or to whom had Jesus gone ? With so many prominent individuals eliminated it doesn’t seem hard to choose between Pontius Pilate and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Jn 21:25.”

“How do we explain Mary’s absence from the tomb on Easter morning ? Mary, most likely a single mother at this point, was very devoted to her only Son and she followed Him all the way to the cross, even when most of the Apostles did not. She faithfully followed Jewish custom. (Luke 2:21-24, 39 John 2:2-5) No doubt Mary was exhausted with grief and probably slept a good part of the Sabbath, but after that what else would she have been thinking about other than her only Son ? When Mary Magdalene (Luke 24:10) went to finish anointing the body why did the Blessed Virgin Mary not go as well? It only makes sense if Mary had known that Jesus was not there.”

“If a person has one particular piece that fits perfectly into a puzzle and no other piece can fit and one cannot even imagine a piece that would truly fit, then it is reasonable to conclude that this particular piece is the correct one.”

FATHER JOE:

It is all very interesting, but it is still speculation. Indeed, the Pope only offered it as such, not as certain faith. If even saints can experience bilocation, I doubt we can use this argument to say that Jesus was meeting with his Mother while the tomb was empty. Of course, this initial conversation was about Mary keeping vigil at the tomb, something the Pope does not claim. Mary Magdalene and the other women at first saw neither Jesus nor Mary. When Jesus shows himself, Mary is nowhere around. Given her age and the trauma she had endured, do you not think they would have brought her? It is probable that she was weakened by her Son’s passion and they did not want to inflict the further ordeal of treating and anointing his dead body. Note that the women indicated through their questions that they fully expected to find a corpse.

BRUCE:

I believe that a strong case can be made that Jephthah’s virgin daughter is a type of Mary and it helps fit the piece of the puzzle that if Adam is a type of Jesus and Eve is a type of Mary and they were the first humans that Jesus and Mary are the first immortal humans.

FATHER JOE:

I mentioned Jephthah’s daughter precisely as a type for Mary in regard to her virginity, which was a view put forward by various authorities in the Church. My contention was that the apparent slaughter of an innocent girl makes the episode a difficult one for Christian spiritual reflection. Adam and Eve are more than types, they are literally regarded as the first Man and the first Woman, through whom sin and death entered the world. In their own right they are father and mother to all the living. Jesus and Mary are regarded as the new Adam and the new Eve through whom forgiveness and life are restored. Are Jesus and Mary the first immortal humans, particularly as our Lord died and Mary endured her “falling asleep,” considered a euphemism for death by Cardinal Newman and Pope John Paul II. Adam and Eve, all the patriarchs and prophets, the righteous Jews and Gentiles are among the dead to whom our Lord descended. He opens the gates to heaven and is the bridge for all those who believed and were chosen by God. Along with all the saints in the history of the Church, they are also immortal. They will live forever. Given that Adam and Eve are in heaven with our Lord and Mary, in the chronology of the world, who were really the first immortals of material creation? What we can say is that the bodies of neither Jesus nor Mary knew the corruption of the grave. They are signs to us all that we will not remain ghosts forever and that we are not simply the food for worms.
Bruce Killian, on August 23, 2012 at 5:56 am said:

BRUCE:

I found your blog researching Mary and Jephthah’s daughter. Jephthah’s daughter typifies Mary’s sacrifice because she with oil and lit lamp kept vigil at the door to the tomb anticipating His return. There are three instances in the OT where God prompted human sacrifice Gen 22; Jud 11; and 2 Sam 21—all point to Jesus but the latter two point to Mary watching then being offered/raptured. At the resurrection, Jesus the new Adam was clothed with immortality and so was Mary the new Eve, 1 Co 15:23 “each one in proper order” so Mary had to be second. Then since she had a new body, like Jesus, she could remain, but she could not die, and she could not stay forever, so she had to be taken. Like Rizpah, King Saul’s widow, Mary kept watch over His body during the heavy rains at the harvest, where God showed his displeasure from heaven. She kept Satan (an antitype of birds of the air) from defiling Jesus. Like Jephthah’s daughter she was the first through the when He returned and so became a holocaust. With Jesus, she in the twinkling of an eye was changed. Jesus appeared to be a gardener because He was collecting His mother’s ashes (antitype of the red heifer Num 19). Jesus did not leave at the Ascension He remained in the Eucharist, He left on Good Friday and His servant watched at the door for His return not knowing the hour.

FATHER JOE:

The Scriptures present us with Mary Magdalene, not the Virgin Mary, as going to the tomb of Christ. She does so to honor and to anoint the body. Jephthah’s daughter no doubt waited for her father, but then her rush to the door would result in her own death by his hand. I really do not see the connection you are trying to make.

I am aware of these three Old Testament sacrificial events. However, except for Jephthah’s daughter, I do not see Mary prefigured in them. One might argue a type for the sacrifice of Christ and his fidelity to his Father. As for my reference to Jephthah’s daughter, it is in regard to the matter of virginity.

Genesis 22 – Attempted offer of Isaac by Abraham.

Judges 11 – The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter.

2 Samuel 21 – Seven of Saul’s sons are executed as a blood debt.

Mary is given the fitting honor of her assumption; however, such is viewed as a gift and not as a strict necessity. Jesus is God. Mary is still only a creature.

Actually, a number of authorities, like Cardinal Newman and Pope John Paul II did believe that she died but that she remained incorruptible. In any case, she is not merely given a new body, but as with Christ, the body is transformed. It is in this sense made new. The glorified state means no more suffering, sickness or death. It is also a body that while substantial is not limited by place or time, as with Jesus appearing in the locked upper room. She is raised body and soul into heaven.

What rains? What harvest? Mary kept watch at the Cross.

Actually the dove is an image of the Holy Spirit. How did Mary keep Satan at bay? Her Son was the source of any and all redemptive power. Am I missing something?

Mary followed Jesus to the holocaust or sacrifice of the Cross. Again, I cannot follow you or find sense in various aspects of what you write. When Jesus appeared to his followers after his resurrection, the work of our redemption had been completed. The High Priest had rendered his sacrifice of propitiation. The Mass resonates and is one with this saving mystery.

Okay, I know you are trying to be thoughtful, but your comment comes across as somewhat fanciful. Jesus is not collecting his Mother’s ashes. Huh? The Magdalene does not at first recognize Jesus because the last time she saw him he had been scourged and dead. While he carries the wounds in his hands, feet and side as signs of his identity and victory, he is alive and healed.

You are wrongly confusing a number of important elements. Jesus died on Good Friday. He descended to the righteous dead. Come Easter, we have the resurrection. Jesus appears to the women at the tomb and the men on the road to Emmaus. He will appear to his apostles in the Upper Room (with his mother). He will appear to his apostles along the beach. He ascends to the Father to sit at the right hand of the Father. We are not orphaned and he is still present and active within the Great Mystery of the Church where we encounter him in the sacraments, particularly the sacraments of Initiation and the Eucharist. He promises to return one day as judge and in glory for the consummation of all things. Many years later, at the end of her life, Mary is assumed body and soul into heaven. We are all called to be good sentinels for the Lord. There was no singular servant (or even Mary) left to await his return. I have no idea what “door” you are talking about.

BRUCE:

I am sorry my comment was so brief that it seemed cryptic and confused. I am quite well versed on the Bible and reasonably well versed on Catholic doctrine. I found your blog while searching to see if anyone else had the same insight that I recently had. Which was the link between Mary and Jephthah’s daughter and your blog was the closest link I was able to find in a brief search. I was presenting something that I believe the Scriptures teach, but the Scriptures do not say it openly with such clarity that one can be certain of the details. I have only had these insights a few weeks.

In both the Nicene Creed and the New Testament, we are told that the death and resurrection of Jesus was according to the Scriptures. The Creed says, “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures.” Paul says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Both the Creed and 1 Corinthians were written before the canon of the New Testament was officially Scripture so the Scriptures referred to were the Old Testament. Therefore, the OT presents the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Jesus. But there is no one passage, one can turn to that proves this, rather I believe it comes from a collection of passages that present the message in shadow or type. Pope Benedict XVI in his book on Jesus’ last week was not able to point to a passage that could demonstrate the resurrection on the third day, he pointed to several that alluded to resurrection on the third day.

This series of events was a mystery hidden in the OT, because Satan would not have allowed the process to proceed if he had an inkling of what God’s plan was. Paul says, “No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had; they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:7-8). If the resurrection of Jesus were hidden in the OT, we would not expect to see the rapture of Mary clearly revealed there either. I call this Mary’s rapture because I believe she was nearly instantly changed from dwelling in a mortal body to dwelling in an eternal body.

Since the Scriptures testify to Jesus’ death and resurrection, there is a hidden message (and I believe that it is a pervasive message) that testifies to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. One of those ways of testifying to this message is Biblical types, where God who foreknows what will happen, has events that foreshadow future events recorded. Only the details He deemed necessary are recorded for future generations to recognize His marvelous plans. Jesus’ resurrection occurred by Him being consumed as a holocaust.

God told Abraham to offer his only beloved son as a holocaust in the region of Moriah (Gen 22:2) and Solomon built the Temple on mount Moriah (2 Ch 3:1). So the Jesus and Isaac were offered up in the same location. Isaac was willing to lay down his life and Abraham was willing to offer Isaac by burning him up entirely as a holocaust offering to God. The Father sent Jesus who was willing to be offered up. There are many any links to Jesus-Isaac here are a few: both carried the wood of his sacrifice up the mountain, both were bound and placed on the altar. There is also a link between the ram that was offered and Jesus. The church fathers testified to this interpretation. Isaac like Jesus was an innocent victim but he was symbolically resurrected on the third day.

The next story that I believe is a type of Mary the mother of Jesus is the story of king Saul’s widow Rizpah watching over the bodies of her only two sons and five nephews. The story of Rizpah has many parallels to Mary. Mary was also the widow the rightful king of Israel Joseph (Matt 1:16), she also kept watch over her only son certainly at least at the cross, but I believe it can be shown continued to do so near the door to His tomb.

Rizpah’s sons were innocent, but condemned and executed by the official government on a holy mountain (2 Sam 21:6 RSV) and crucified (2 Sam 21:9 Douay and Vulgate) very similar to Jesus. They were left exposed to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. Birds of the air are a type of the demons (both are winged creatures of the heavens and birds of the air are always bad in Jesus’ parables (This is why I think it likely that Mary was dealing with demonic activity while keeping watch [Jesus in the garden, and Adam and Eve in the garden]). Jesus was also innocent, condemned and executed by crucifixion on a holy mountain (on which Jerusalem was built). The events take place at the same time of the year, at the time of the barley harvest which began after Passover (Lev 23:10-14). Rizpah kept a watch, but on Passover all Israelites were commanded to keep watch (Exodus 12:42). Jesus always kept watch outside and at night on Passover.

Jesus was crucified on the eve of the official Passover so all Israelites had to stay awake that night and keep watch. So Mary she kept watch that night after Jesus died (in fact it was likely almost impossible for her to sleep because of her sorrow). Where did she keep watch? Jesus was crucified and buried in a public garden (John 19:41) just outside the walls of Jerusalem what better place to keep watch than there where she already was?

So if Rizpah is a type of Mary what can we learn from the type? Rizpah stretched out (like a tent) her sackcloth to the rock (but usually translated spread sackcloth on a rock and kept watch), but if it is raining a tent makes sense for both Rizpah and Mary. Second, there was a famine. A famine could have occurred either because there was no rain (or if there was rain at the harvest because rain at the harvest damaged the crop and rain at the harvest was a sign of God’s displeasure (1Sam 12:17-18). But the Scriptures also speak of a spiritual famine and harvest. If only Mary kept watch for the return of Jesus, there was a famine of faith in Jesus. Since the antitype is greater than the type, a spiritual famine fits. There is a whole series of signs in the heavens in the sun, moon and stars at Jesus’ birth and death and heavy rain would be just one more sign and it would indicate God’s displeasure with the execution of His only beloved son. The only areas of speculation are did Mary spend all day and all night Saturday keeping watch in the rain. A person in sorrow may not even be able to sleep. An argument for rain could be the lack of any mention of anyone visiting the tomb on Saturday except the temple guards watching the tomb. Another support for this argument is most of the time the events narrated are inside.

Now we come to the topic of discussion was Jephthah’s daughter a type or shadow of Mary the mother of our LORD. The Church fathers considered her one (but I have only found references to this not what they said about her except mentioning they were both virgins). Again, there are many similarities between Jephthah and Jesus. Jephthah was not accepted by his brothers and was driven away; Jesus was not accepted by his brothers and driven away. Both were considered illegitimate. Both had only one immediate family member and that person was a virgin. Both collected a band of men around themselves. Both were mighty warriors who single handedly were able to turn defeat into victory. Both were famous. Jephthah returned from victory over a great enemy the Ammonites. Jesus returned after victory defeating a greater enemy Satan and his armies. Jephthah reclaimed Gilead and Jesus reclaimed the world. Both ended up or will end up ruling Jephthah over his whole tribe and Jesus will rule over the whole world. Both retuned after their victory. Jesus return was in the tomb, Jephthah’s return was to his home. If they do link, both were waiting at the door when their warrior returned in victory.

Mary is the one person who can represent the entire Church and she is the one person who could always counted on to do the right thing. It is clear none of the apostles or other disciples were keeping vigil at the tomb, they all came to the tomb after the resurrection. When did Jesus leave? Was it at the Ascension? No, He said “I am with you always” and He is in the Eucharist (Matt 28:20). He is the master and bridegroom who left at His death and returned at His resurrection. The parables Jesus told of those “watching at the door” for their master’s return (Mark 13:34) return from wedding banquet (Luke 12:36) virgins watching at the door (Mat 25:10). Who was waiting for Jesus to return? Was there no one watching? I believe Mary was there watching for His return. The parable of the ten virgins was to wait for the return of the bridegroom. Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection was when He was wed to the Church (Eph 5:25). Mary was the one faithful virgin waiting for His return. A possible reason that this story is not presented clearly in the Scriptures is to avoid the tendency of some to worship Mary. On the other hand it can go a long way to supporting the Assumption and Queenship of Mary.

Since Jesus is the new or last Adam (1 Cor 15:45) and since he received His new life in the garden like Adam received his life in the garden of Eden, where is Mary the new Eve, is not in the garden receiving her new life. Mary was consumed as a holocaust like Jephthah’s daughter, but she like Jesus immediately received her immortal body.

I have many more insights into what happened at the tomb, but I have purposely kept this simple and brief—this topic could be expanded to book length. Other passages that clearly can be added to this story are Elijah on Mt. Carmel (1Ki 18); Moses making a covenant with the people (Exo 24); the wedding of Samson in Timnah (Jud 14); or Nadab and Abihu being consumed by holy fire (Lev 10); and the red heifer ritual (Num 19:1-20:1); and Adam and Even in Eden (Gen 2-3).

FATHER JOE:

Actually, while elements of the Apostles’ Creed may go back into early Christian antiquity (before 200 AD), the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (Nicene) which you quote was formulated between 325 AD (Nicea) and 381 (Chalcedon). The biblical canon that the Catholic Church still uses today was formally established at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD. While there was some dispute about the canon, the New Testament writings were already in circulation and known when the Nicene Creed was promulgated. The Scriptures to which the Creed refers (about our Lord’s crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection) were principally the proclaimed Gospels (life of Jesus), not just indeterminate Old Testament allusions and prophecy. It is for this reason that the historicity of the Gospels is crucial for the Church. As for the third day signification for the resurrection, we read:

Matthew 16:21 – “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.”

Matthew 17:23 – “’…and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.’ And they were overwhelmed with grief.”

Matthew 20:19 – “’…and hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.’”

Mark 8:31 – “He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and rise after three days.”

Luke 9:22 – “He said, ‘The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.’”

Luke 18:33 – “’and after they have scourged him they will kill him, but on the third day he will rise.’”

See also Mark 9:31; 10:34; Matthew 28:6; and Luke 24:7. You say there are no passages, but there are MANY which proclaim this truth clearly.

The Gospels were all written after Christ’s saving work and finished no later than 125 AD. The evangelists are not absolutely tied to chronology. Prophecies about the third day are mentioned again and again because such were fulfilled by Christ. The Holy Father grounded his book on the Scriptures as understood by the Church. While there is foreshadowing or typing in the Old Testament toward the New, this teaching about the third day is not dependent upon any Old Testament shadow-passages. Indeed, the Catholic worship on Sunday is connected to the fact that our Lord died on Good Friday and rose from the dead on Easter Sunday. Sunday Mass worship is an expression of the changed Sabbath and the emphasis upon the resurrection and our new creation in Christ.

You continue to make remarks that are problematical. For instance, you write that “Satan would not have allowed the process to proceed if he had an inkling of what God’s plan was.” Such an exaggerated view about demonic power and the defectability of divine providence would be judged heretical. While we do not believe in fate or destiny, the game is fixed. Within the equation of human freedom, God will always win. Neither the devil nor evil men could impede divine providence. A fallen creature is no match for the Creator, regardless of what he knows or thinks he knows.

St. Paul acknowledges that many did not penetrate the mystery of Christ’s identity. And yet, Jesus spoke openly about himself and his mission. There are many details about the resurrection appearances of Christ. Such testimonies (in both Scripture and Sacred Tradition) were known to the bishops who gave us the creeds. While the apostolic community began with only the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, you are wrong that the early Catholic-Christian faith community only had the Old Testament. The oral tradition was quickly put to writing during the early Patristic period. The Gospels are various lives of Christ. Mary’s assumption is not detailed there because the gravity of the story is upon her Son. Further, she would live some years after the time chronicled in the Gospels. Mary’s body was taken or assumed into heaven. It was changed, but it was still her.

There is no Gnostic secret or hidden message. The Good News of Christ is an open proclamation. Anything else would reduce the Church to a cult. While there is biblical typing or foreshadowing, such is not the primary source of the resurrection stories (on the third day). Jesus was not symbolically raised up; rather he actually raised himself from the dead by his own power on the third day. Jesus is God. He has the power to do such things.

You jump in your comment from talking about Jesus to the subject of Mary and the typing of Rizpah. Rizpah was not a proper widow but was a concubine. It is probably improper to compare the Virgin Mary to her likes. Mary was indeed a widow, but the Church refrains from speaking about St. Joseph as a king. Rather, like many others, he was of the Davidic tribe. Mary kept watch at the Cross, but it was another Mary that Scripture relates who went to the tomb.

The Gibeonites wanted the death of Saul’s sons as retribution for how they felt he had wronged them. Crucifixion was a terrible but not unheard of form of execution. Just because it is similar to Christ’s death does not mean any actual connection. Rizpah might be a symbol of the mother who defends the name and dignity of sons murdered or oppressed by the state. But you go further and look for symbolism where there is practicality. She literally defended their bodies against birds, not demons.

It was Jesus, not Mary, who really vanquished the devil or demons. She stood in solidarity with him at the Cross. Jesus was innocent but also in charge. He freely lays down his life.

Our Lord and the apostles sang the Passover hymn or Great Hillel after the Lord’s Supper. There was no reference to Mary or other women at the commemoration. The Seder meal dating is in question because the Synoptics and John are not in sync, although many contend that John places Jesus on the Cross when Passover lambs are being slaughtered for theological reasons. Pope Benedict XVI suggests, following the Qumran calendar, that Jesus and the apostles did indeed celebrate the Passover a day early (without a lamb) or rather making Jesus the Lamb of God. After the crucifixion, Mary may have immediately gathered with the apostles since she was placed in John’s charge. But there is nothing about her going to the tomb. You are confusing her with Mary Magdalene. I think you make too much of the concubine Rizpah as a type or figure for Mary. Indeed, I would argue against such a line of speculation. The most we can say is that like Mary she mourned the loss of her children. You suggest that the portents of nature were to show “God’s displeasure with the execution of His only beloved Son.” This notion runs against the underlying thread in John that Jesus was in control and freely laid down his life, it was not taken from him. Jesus is faithful to the Father’s will and his mission, even unto the Cross. We must be careful not to make too much of a few details and thus find ourselves prone to fiction and error.

You say that the Church fathers referenced Jephthah’s daughter as a type for Mary. Which fathers? What did they actually say? Often the conversation is about fidelity to oaths. I would be interested to know. The majority of ancient commentaries take it at face value that her father literally sacrificed her. I am aware of a minority position that she was not murdered but was rather dedicated to lifetime virginity and service of God. If true, this would make her a stronger model for Mary’s role as a perpetual virgin and handmaid of God. However, I am of the view that it is more likely that her father slaughtered her. In any case, you shift the comparison with this poor girl and Mary to Jephthah and Jesus. You would compare our Lord to one who kills the innocent? You might have that in common with the fourth century Aphraates who saw Jesus alternately signified in Jephthah and then in his daughter. I suspect it is an early attempt to understand Christ as both priest and victim. But the Old Testament story is a hard sell today, or is it? In light of abortion on demand, and now euthanasia, I would not be surprised by anything.

Jesus had cousins but no brothers in the sense that they were children of Mary. Mary and his brethren sought him out. They did not abandon him. Jesus does not sacrifice his Mother, the Virgin Mary. Mary has a Son. Jephthah sacrifices his young virgin child. His daughter mourns her maidenhood because she will never be a mother. Instead of parallels, we find various disconnects. Bad scholarship would force connections where there are disconnects.

I will say it again; there is no biblical evidence that Mary kept any extended vigil at the tomb. She might have, but it cannot be proven. When the other women come to anoint and care for the body, they are surprised to find the tomb empty. Theirs was not a pleasant duty. Treating a dead body would facilitate its corruption so that the bones could later be buried.

We are all called to be sentinels or watchmen for the Lord. But this does not mean we have to wait in cemeteries for the dead to emerge from their graves. While Jesus could have made a special or private appearance to Mary, it was not necessary for Jesus’ Mother to set up house outside of Christ’s borrowed tomb. Such speculation does nothing to support the dogma of the Assumption or Mary’s title as the Queen of the Saints.

Jesus is the new Man or the Second Adam (not the last Adam as such). Mary is the Sorrowful Mother but she is not consumed in any fiery holocaust. She simply falls asleep and is translated into immortality. Her body is not replaced; rather it puts on immortality, and is taken up into heaven. Jesus’ body is glorified, but he still had the nail prints and the wound in his side as signs that he was no ghost or fantasy or imposter.

If you are interested in these subjects, I would urge you to take some academic courses in Scripture and Catholic teaching. There are a few good online programs. Without the tools, you are bound to make mistakes and draw false conclusions.