Episode 81: Year B – 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode, we focus on two details found in the readings for this upcoming 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, both of which have to do with Mary. The first detail, found in the first reading, taken from Genesis 3:9-15, is the enmity that God promises to set between the devil and the “woman.” For Catholics, as we shall see, this relates to Mary’s freedom from sin: both original and personal. The other detail is found in the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 3:20-35, where Jesus seems to downplay the role of Mary by talking about who truly is his “mother” and “brothers.” Of course, this has apologetical significance for Catholics because it would seem to provide biblical evidence that Catholics make too big of a deal about Mary being the Mother of God.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In this episode, we’re going to focus on two details found in the readings for this upcoming 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, both of which have to do with Mary. The first detail, found in the first reading, taken from Genesis 3:9-15, is the enmity that God promises to set between the devil and the “woman.” For Catholics, as we shall see, this relates to Mary’s freedom from sin: both original and personal. The other detail is found in the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 3:20-35, where Jesus seems to downplay the role of Mary by talking about who truly is his “mother” and “brothers.” Of course, this has apologetical significance for Catholics because it would seem to provide biblical evidence that Catholics make too big of a deal about Mary being the Mother of God.
Let’s start with the first reading. The part of the passage that I want to focus on starts in verse 14, where God begins to address the serpent after the serpent successfully tempted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit:
“Because you have done this, you shall be banned
from all the animals
and from all the wild creatures;
on your belly shall you crawl,
and dirt shall you eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike at your head,
while you strike at his heel.”
Scholars see in this passage the first announcement in the Old Testament of the coming of the New, which is why they commonly refer to it as the protoevangelium, which is Latin for “first gospel.” And Christians since the first century have seen the “woman” in it as prophetically foreshadowing Mary. The woman is said to give birth to a male child who will defeat Satan, hence the good news. Jesus is a male child born of a woman and defeats Satan—the good news fulfilled. Therefore, seeing this woman as a reference to Mary in the spiritual sense is a legitimate interpretation.
Now, Catholics often appeal to this passage as evidence for biblical convergence with the Sacred Tradition that Mary was free from original and personal sin. Pope Pius XII does it in Ineffabilis Deus, 1854. Notice, God says he will put “enmity” between the woman and Satan, between her seed and Satan’s seed, implying that neither the woman nor her seed would be of Satan’s seed. Some have seen in this a reference to the woman not being part of fallen humanity—whether original or personal sin—like Eve before the Fall.
Like Eve, who was created without original sin, Mary as the New Eve is created without original sin. This is necessary at least for Mary as the New Eve to be on a par with the first Eve. But as the fulfillment of the type, Mary remains free from personal sin, unlike Eve, who fell into it.
Now, Protestants are not short of comebacks to our interpretation of this text. We’re going to look at two of them here. I also address these in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments.
James White argues in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy (pg. 204) that this passage doesn’t reveal a “complete enmity” between “the woman” (Mary) and the serpent (Satan) that Catholics need to support their belief. He tries to reduce the Catholic interpretation to absurdity: “Since there is enmity between believers and the world, does that make all believers sinless? Does the fact that we still have sin in our lives mean that no enmity exists at all?”
Basically, White’s argument is that Catholics can’t appeal to the “enmity” spoken of in Genesis 3:15 because “enmity” doesn’t necessarily entail complete enmity, which is what Catholics need to use this verse as biblical support for Mary’s freedom from both original and personal sin. Enmity can exist between believers and Satan, so White argues, and at the same time believers will not be completely sinless as Catholics say Mary was.
How do we respond?
It’s true that “enmity” doesn’t necessarily entail complete enmity. As applied to Eve and her offspring, each will have some separation from the devil but not total separation. Eve is not totally separated because she sinned. However, there is some separation because, as tradition has it, she repented. Concerning Eve’s offspring, we know they wouldn’t be totally separated from the devil because they would be marred by both original and personal sin. But, like Eve, there would be some separation because some of Eve’s offspring would have charity within their souls and be saved.
This lack of complete enmity, however, only holds on this level of interpretation. On a different level, a spiritual or prophetical level, complete enmity is a viable interpretation.
Consider, as mentioned above, that Christians throughout the centuries have viewed this text as the protoevangelium, seeing in the “seed of the woman” a prophetical reference to Jesus. On this prophetical view, the “enmity” that the woman’s seed has with Satan (“I will put enmity between . . . your seed and her seed”) is complete, given that Christians believe Jesus was free from both original and personal sin (Heb. 4:15).
Now, according to the inspired author, the enmity that Jesus has with Satan is equally applied to the woman: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.” Since on this prophetical level of interpretation the enmity between Satan and Jesus is complete, which means freedom from both original and personal sin, it follows that on the prophetical view the enmity between Satan and the woman is also complete—the prophetical woman, Mary, is to be free from both original and personal sin.
Now, you might get a Protestant to concede that this passage doesn’t give us the complete enmity between Jesus and Satan that we need for the belief that Jesus was entirely sinless and that we need to look elsewhere for such support. But this ironically would work in favor of a Catholic reading of the text.
Whatever other evidence we present for Jesus’ complete sinlessness (no original or personal sin)—Hebrews 4:15, for example—would allow us to read the “enmity” between Jesus and Satan in Genesis 3:15 as complete. This follows the “Scripture interprets Scripture” principle advocated by Protestants. And since the enmity the woman has with Satan parallels the enmity between Jesus and Satan, we could read the enmity between the woman and Satan as complete as well.
Finally, White’s counter-argument misses the contrast between the new woman and the first woman, Eve, in the spiritual sense of the text. If the enmity between the new woman and Satan were not to be complete and permanent, as a Protestant might argue, then there would be nothing new about the prophetical woman. She would be just like Eve in that she would eventually fall under Satan’s dominion due to sin. Such an interpretation would undermine the biblical typology that God is intending to establish in the spiritual sense of the text.
Protestant apologist Ron Rhodes presents a second comeback. He thinks it’s a stretch to apply “the woman” to Mary. But he’s willing to concede this for argument’s sake. Even on this reading, Rhodes doesn’t see the text as suggestive of Mary’s sinlessness. He writes in his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics (pgs. 292-293),
For, indeed, the text indicates that while there will be enmity between the offspring of the woman and that of the devil, nevertheless the victory itself lies in the Messiah alone, who is one individual from among the woman’s seed. It is never prophesied that “the woman” herself would be victorious, so any need for an immaculate conception of the woman vanishes. The woman’s only significant role is to give birth to the human-divine Messiah.[i]
In response, this argument is based on the premise that if this passage is to converge with the Catholic Tradition that Mary was without sin, it would have to speak of the woman having victory over the serpent like the Messiah. But that’s not true. Given our above argument that on the prophetical level the enmity between Satan and the woman is complete, the enmity that God puts between Satan and the woman is sufficient to affirm a convergence.
Moreover, even though the Hebrew text for this passage does indicate that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent, it’s also legitimate to see in the text the woman crushing the serpent’s head, at least in an indirect way. The reason is that the woman, Mary, cooperated in the events that led to the serpent’s head being crushed. She agreed to be the vessel for the male child to come into the world for the sake of crushing the serpent’s head (Luke 1:38). She was struck by the serpent insofar as she suffered seeing her son hanging on the cross, which was prophesied by Simeon: “a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 2:35). Jimmy Akin sums it up nicely in his 1997 article at catholic.com “Who Will Crush the Serpent’s Head?”
Jesus directly crushed the serpent and was directly struck by the serpent, while Mary indirectly crushed it and was indirectly struck by it, due to her cooperation in becoming the mother of Christ.
Given that Catholics have grounds to read in a spiritual way the woman crushing the serpent’s head, Catholics could meet the above challenge and say, “The woman does have victory over the devil.” And if victory over the devil is required to see a reference to the woman’s sinlessness, and we can see the woman as a prophetical image of Mary, then Catholics can read the woman’s victory as a reference to Mary’s sinlessness.
Let’s now turn to the Marian detail in the Gospel reading, which taken from Mark 3:20-35. The verses that I want to highlight are verses 31-35:
His mother and his brothers arrived.
Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
A crowd seated around him told him,
“Your mother and your brothers and your sisters
are outside asking for you.”
But he said to them in reply,
“Who are my mother and my brothers?”
And looking around at those seated in the circle he said,
“Here are my mother and my brothers.
For whoever does the will of God
is my brother and sister and mother.”
The detail that sometimes comes up in apologetical discussions is Jesus’ statement, “Who are my mother and my brothers? . . . Here are my mother and my brothers.” For some Christians, this shows that Catholics give too much honor to Mary as the mother of Jesus.
Now, in response to this objection, Joe Heschmeyer has a great article at catholic.com entitled “Jesus Puts Mary in Her Place.” Joe does a great job in that article, so I’m simply going to summarize here what he says there.
The bottom line is this: Jesus is not downplaying Mary’s role as the Mother of God. Rather, he’s revealing that membership within God’s kingdom is not restricted to blood ties but is open to those who have faith.
Mark tees up his whole Gospel with the kingdom motif in 1:15. He quotes Jesus saying, “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” The kingdom that Jesus proclaims is not just some generic notion of God’s kingdom but specifically prophetic restoration of the Davidic kingdom. And Jesus’ listeners would have heard this proclamation this way.
Now, the Davidic kingdom was built upon ties of blood and marriage. But Jesus is revealing that his kingdom, which is the Davidic kingdom, is not just restored but transfigured, because membership within his kingdom is no longer conditioned by blood ties. Rather, membership within his kingdom is conditioned by “doing the will of God.” This was to fulfill the prophecies that the kingdom of God in the Messianic age would consists of peoples of all nations. As Isaiah says concerning God’s house, this new house “shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isa. 56:7).
The cool thing about this new membership in Christ’s kingdom is that Mary becomes our mother, spiritually speaking. This is revealed in Revelation 12, which depicts Mary as the Davidic Queen Mother in Christ’s kingdom and then says in verse 17 “her offspring” are “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (v. 17).
Now, there are a couple of other details in this Gospel reading that are worth drawing your attention to, although we don’t have time to reflect on them. The first is the claim in verse 22 that Jesus was “possessed by Be-elzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” This is significant for proving the historical veracity of the early Christian claim that Jesus was an exorcist. It meets the criterion of embarrassment. For further details, check out my article at catholic.com “Why Jesus’ Miracles Aren’t Legend,” and episode 63 of the Sunday Catholic Word, which deals with readings for the 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B.
The other detail that I want to briefly draw your attention to is Jesus’ teaching, “who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.” This verse comes up in conversations surrounding the doctrine of purgatory. So, if you’re interested in finding out how, check out my book Purgatory is for Real: Good News About the Afterlife for Those Who Aren’t Perfect Yet.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that brings us to the end of this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B gives us ample opportunity to prepare for apologetical discussions. The details that we focused on were details that come up in discussions about Mary: her sinlessness and the honor that is due to her as Mother of God.
There are other details, however, that relate to Purgatory and the historicity of Jesus’ exorcism ministry.
So, a bit of treasure chest for the apologist.
As always, thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!
[i] Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, 292-293.