Madonna and ChildIn an apparent fishing expedition, Mr. Gerry Soliman of Solutions Finder Apologetics and moderator of the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry once asked me this question:
“I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.”
I was very much aware of the concern of Mr. Soliman. In fact, as I analyzed it, “[t]he real concern of Mr. Soliman, based on his question, is to debunk the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Of course, we know that in Genesis 3:16, God cursed the fallen Eve with the words: “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” So, Mr. Soliman’s point really is: if Mary is free from original sin, then she should be free from child-bearing pains; but, if the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, why did she cry out in pain as she was about to give birth? (Rev. 12:2).
I answered that we don’t interpret “birth pains” in Rev. 12:2 literally. I didn’t see any problem with not interpreting “birth pains” literally because I noted the points of agreement between Mr. Soliman’s position and ours. Mr. Soliman believes that the “chapter [12] is symbolical.”
As I held Mr. Soliman’s word that he, too, does not interpret Rev. 12:2 literally, and based on our point of agreement, I proceeded to explain why Rev. 12:2 does not affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception – from the Catholic view. Thus, I cited Catholic exegetical and magisterial references to present our view. The whole text of my explanation may be found here. http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/08/woman-in-revelation-12-part-ii.html.
In a recent article, I exposed Mr. Soliman’s “intellectual dishonesty” for quoting my statement out of contest and pitting against another statement of Rev. Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, CRS although those specific statements Mr. Soliman quoted were discussing separate topics. On January 23, 2011, Mr. Gerry Soliman posted an article in his blog responding to my article on the Woman of Revelations 12.
Noteworthy in his article that he did not confront the issue I specifically posed: Did Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and I contradict each other based on our statements that Mr. Soliman quoted in his blog? Remember that, as I repeatedly pointed out, that the exact quoted portions of our respective statements were discussing different issues; hence, no contradiction. For this, I issued an appeal to Mr. Gerry Soliman and demanded that he face the issue squarely. (See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_24.html).
In his article, Mr. Gerry Soliman lamely explained that he “was only able to make short articles on how he contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.” Notice how Mr. Soliman stood pat on his allegation despite having been proven beyond doubt that the exact statements he quoted from me and Fr. Arganiosa were discussing two (2) different things. My statement was discussing the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2 while Fr. Arganiosa’s statement was responding to a query on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelation 12:1. Until now, Mr. Soliman has not yet figured that out – as he may still be in denial stage. I give that to him.
In his answer to my article on “intellectual dishonesty,” Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently skirted that charge and responded instead to answer my old article on the “Woman Clothed with the Sun.” He said: “Before we go on with our response I would like to thank Atty. Llasos for his time and attention to my query. I would also like to apologize for not thanking him sooner and providing an immediate response.” I really don’t mind if Mr. Soliman doesn’t answer right away; he can always take his time. Personally, I may not have answered some of the issues he raised in his blog against me because I don’t monitor his blog (he only has two followers, I think). I only reply if a fellow Catholic refers to me Mr. Soliman’s articles.
For clarity and order, I will just follow the division of topics Mr. Soliman made in his article at http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html. He started with the discussion of the birth pains in Revelations 12:2.
Mr. Soliman’s words are in red while mine are in black. Quoted portions from my previous articles are in blue.
To summarize Atty. Llasos (sic) response, the birth pains in verse two is not literal.
Mr. Soliman is correct. I don’t take the birth pains in Rev. 12:2 as literal. I cited reference scholarly materials on the exegesis of the meaning of “birth pains” as not being understood literally. For instance, I cited John McHugh who notes: “The woman, we read was ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish’ is never once used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, the apocrypha, the papyri or the Fathers to denote the pains of physical birth; and this is all the more remarkable when one remembers the scene of a painful birth is alluded to in these writings. The word can perhaps best be rendered as ‘going through torment or torture’, and it is therefore a very surprising verb to encounter when one recalls the radiant description of the woman in 12:1” [John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Doubleday & Company, Inc.: Garden City, NY, 1975) p.411].
Mr. Soliman did not refute this assessment. He is on record saying that he does not take the “woman” in Revelation 12 literally as he believes that the chapter is symbolical (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5249487892866557785&postID=4175179942859431188). Hence, there is clearly no real dispute regarding the “birth pain” in Rev. 12:2 as not literal. This is a conceded matter. So what is Gerry Soliman crowing about?
Rather, it's Mary's suffering as she witnessed her Son suffering on Calvary.
Yes, although not exclusively so (given the richness of God’s Word, there are nuances which do not call for a simplistic answer). After citing John Mc Hugh, I summarized his points, thus:
“Indeed, Revelation 12:2 does not show that the woman is experiencing physical labor pains, and if the author of the Apocalypse had wanted to say so, he would have certainly used such language. Instead, here it seems that the Seer of Patmos is speaking of a double birth. The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.”
As I have argued before, there is no official interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary.
Three points to ponder.
First, as I also pointed out before, Mr. Soliman suffers from inherent mental inconsistency here. Mr. Soliman does not believe that the Roman Catholic Church existed for the first 300 years. It would be hypocritical for him to demand an “official interpretation” from a church he thinks did not exist at that time.
Second, there was no need for an “official interpretation” that the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary during the first 300 years. It was not an issue that needed to be officially settled. I argued:
“Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that.”
For Mr. Soliman to ask for an official interpretation, he must show the necessity for it and the controversy that demanded it at that time. There were in fact controversies that necessitated an official interpretation from the Church. For instance, the Divinity of Christ was officially and dogmatically settled, in a much later date than Mr. Soliman demanded – in 325 A.D. in the Council of Nicaea. All the other Christological controversies were officially, formally, dogmatically and infallibly settled in Church Councils in much, much later dates. Gerry Soliman is guilty of double standard here. He demands of an official interpretation of Mary as the woman of Revelation 12 which he does not demand of others.
Third, why the first 300 years? That is a purely arbitrary end point. Mr. Soliman does not explain why he chose the first 300 years as the cut-off period. He failed to present any manual in patrology that requires patristic sources to be confined only in the first three centuries of the Christian era.
Hence, this point of Mr. Soliman is invalid.
Neither were there church fathers during that time ever interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary. Atty. Llasos hides behind the reason that, and we quote, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church.
I was not hiding behind anything. I was stating an obvious fact which Mr. Soliman conveniently ignored. As I pointed out –
“And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!
In A Handbook of Christian Faith, John Schwarz stated that “[t]he final recognition and acceptance of the books of the New Testament cannot be dated precisely, as with the Old Testament, but it appears that as early as the middle of the second century there was already general agreement on twenty of the twenty-seven books – all except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation” [John Schwarz, A Handbook of Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bethany House Publishers), 2004].
Because of the foregoing facts, I cited as reference Dr. Tim Perry who concluded: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113].
More on the canon and the Fathers of the Church when we go to that part of Mr. Soliman’s outline.
The interpretation is so far-fetched.
Thus saith Gerry Soliman!
For those who depict that the other verses surrounding it pertains to the birth of Christ (specially 12:5), they will find it hard to explain why the interpretations switch back and forth from the birth of Christ, to His suffering, and back to His birth again.
Contrary to what Mr. Soliman would like to believe, we don’t find it hard to explain. And so does an Evangelical scholar, Dr. Tim Perry. Citing Brown et al., Dr. Perry stated: “[W]hen Revelation was placed in the same canon of Scripture with the Gospel of Luke and the Fourth Gospel [in which Mary and the people of God seem to be symbolically related], the various images of the virgin, the woman at the cross, and the woman who gave birth to the Messiah would reinforce each other” [Brown et al., Mary in the New Testament, p. 239].
What's the obvious reason? To avoid compromising the Immaculate Conception.
Look who’s talking? Mr. Soliman is vigorously opposing any Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 because he knows that to admit Marian interpretation in the passage would provide ample Biblical support to Catholic Marian doctrines like the Assumption and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He is fully aware of that as in fact he categorically stated that “Revelations 12 is quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support, among others, the Marian doctrines of her Assumption and Coronation.” So, Mr. Soliman has to exert his utmost to oppose Marian interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12. That’s how far Mr. Soliman’s bias and prejudice can go. He will reject off hand even the interpretations of other Protestants and Evangelicals that contradict his position. He would say that the opinion of these authors, even if they are scholars, are not binding on all Evangelicals. Isn’t that double standard and hypocrisy? If the positions of other Protestants and Evangelical scholars are not binding on him, neither can his opinion be binding on them, what more on us?
Roman Catholics often times relate their interpretation of Revelations 12 with their interpretation of other verses. For example, in 12:1 the term woman (who is Mary for them) has something to do with the term woman in Genesis 3:15 thereby affirming that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy fulfilled in Mary. Another they relate 12:17 with John 19:26-27 to affirm Mary's spiritual motherhood. These are questionable interpretations connected to more questionable interpretations.
Mr. Soliman commits the fallacy of assumption no probata – assuming without proving. He concluded that our interpretations are questionable without proving that they are so. What makes our interpretations are questionable? Our interpretations are questionable for you because they contradict your opinion.
Besides, what’s wrong with relating interpretations of Revelations 12 with other verses? That is a legitimate tool of Biblical hermeneutics. Is Mr. Soliman now throwing overboard the principle of “scriptura scripturam interpretatur” popularized by the Reformers?
Mr. Soliman must have forgotten that “the Bible is its own best commentary” [John Schwarz, A Handbook of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House Publishers, 2004) p. 29]. For John Schwarz, this “means that the New Testament interprets Old Testament” (ibid). For James I. Packer, the “second basic principle of interpretation is that Scripture must interpret Scripture; the scope and significance of one passage is to be brought out by relating it to other” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html).
Since it seems that he is against this principle, what happened to Mr. Soliman’s Reformed Theology?
Furthermore, if they can interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as an individual woman, how come we don't see any effort to allude an individual woman for Revelations 17? It can't be done, or they just don't want to?
Why should we? There’s no need to bring coal to Newcastle. When ain’t broke, don’t fix it! It’s not that it can’t be done or we just don’t want to but there’s no need for it. Revelations 17:18 already categorically settled the interpretation of the woman in chapter 17: “And the woman that you saw is the great city which was dominated over the kings of the earth.” I doubt it if Mr. Soliman’s reading of Revelations Chapter 17 reached that far.
This is what happens when Roman Catholic traditions influence biblical interpretations.
This is what happens when an individual’s bias, theology and man-made traditions influence biblical interpretations.
The woman of Revelations 12 has been interpreted historically as people of God.
Mr. Soliman failed to cite historical references to prove that it is so. It is a claim founded on nothing but spittle.
It is only when one is influenced by Roman tradition that an allusion to Mary becomes the product.
The reference to the abstraction “Roman tradition” betrays Mr. Soliman’s anti-Catholic mindset and bias. Sloganeering such as this one is nothing but a pathetic attempt at argumentum ad invidiam.
The World Evangelical Fellowship, hardly a fan of Catholic Mariology, seems to be influenced by what Mr. Soliman terms as “Roman tradition.” It says: “In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1)” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92)]. [Note: Mr. Gerry Soliman admitted that he has not yet read this book but made a veiled accusation that we may have taken the statement out of context].
No comments:
Post a Comment