As I previously wrote, in Genesis and Revelation, the word "woman" is used to denote a female:
"And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)
The woman in Genesis 3:15 is Eve and it is an offspring of hers (though generations later) that will crush Satan. God could have said "I will put enmity between you and Eve..." but God never addresses Eve by name. She is always referred to as "the woman." In fact, it is not until verse 20 we are told Adam named his wife Eve. So how else would God have referred to her? She did not yet have a name.
"A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun" (Genesis 12:1)
All we are told is that a woman appeared in heaven. She is not named. John could have said "Mary clothed with the sun" but does not identify the woman. John knew Mary and could have named her but only says "a woman." Naturally, it would be a woman, even if said metaphorically, because only women give birth. One could just as convincingly argue that Israel "gave birth to a son" (i.e. the Messiah). Revelation is full of imagery and figurative language.
“Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem." (John 4:21)
Here, Jesus addresses the Samaritan woman at the well as "woman." I hear no one suggesting she is Mary, or this ties her back to the "woman" in Genesis or the "woman" in Revelation. It was a common way to address a woman and not as harsh as it might sound to our ears today. In fact, Jesus addresses a woman as "woman" 7 times in the NT including Mary his mother (twice), Mary Magdalene, the woman caught in adultery, the Samaritan woman at the well, the crippled woman in Luke 13:10-17, and the Canaanite woman in 15:21-28. Calling his mother Mary "woman" is hardly a unique occurrence nor does that tie it to the gender designation in the Genesis and Revelation passages. This attempts to draw a parallel where there is none in Scripture. It may be RC teaching that these passages tie together but that cannot be established from Scripture.
No one said "woman" is exclusively used for Mary, but children did not call their mother "woman" every day. You want "woman" to be used for a female EXCEPT for Revelation, where the mother of Jesus is obviously Mary. As I've pointed out, Mary wears clothes, perhaps clothes of the sun in Heaven. Israel sure does not wear clothes. And so many anti-Catholics wish to deny Mary the title of queen, a title given to every other mother of the king in the Davidic kingdom since Solomon. A queen, of course, wears clothes and a crown. It's quite clear to me that Mary is the primary woman being spoken of, but, again, there are twelve tribes of Israel as there are twelve Apostles and other allusions to Israel, and I believe Israel is a secondary meaning. John was pointing back to Genesis when he then describes the wedding at Cana and Mary, addressed as "woman." The New Eve's request at the wedding is the catalyst for the public miracle and the journey through the New Adam's ministry to the cross. Eve was the catalyst for grave sin by Adam.
Also, the fact that even sinned by eating the fruit of a tree and Jesus died on a cross made from the wood of a tree is not proof of any parallel. Most fruit grows on trees and wood has long been a common building material. The Romans could have constructed crosses out of metal but that would have been too costly and metal was needed for more important things. There is no certain symbology here.
Yes, the Romans "could have," but God KNEW what they WOULD do. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, wrote:
2. And wonder not that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten
Son of God, who died on its behalf. Moreover one man's
sin, even Adam's, had power to bring death to the world; but
if by the trespass of the one death reigned over the world, how shall not life much rather reign
by the righteousness of the One Romans 5:17-18? And if because of the tree of food they were then cast out of paradise, shall not
believers now more easily enter into paradise because of the Tree of Jesus? If the first man formed out of the earth brought in universal death, shall not He who formed him out of the earth bring in
eternal life, being Himself the Life? If Phinees, when he waxed
zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the
wrath of
God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but
gave up Himself for a ransom 1 Timothy 2:6, put away the
wrath which is against
mankind?
Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org
