The Assumption in the Bible

The "B.I.B.L.E., yes that's the book for me, I stand upon the word of God the B.I.B.L.E". Children's songs. As a Protestant, I grew up singing this one. You may have as well. So, obviously on a journey to Catholicism, one must stop and ask about the Assumption or any Catholic doctrine, "Where's that in the Bible?"

Biblical Precedent

For starters, Elijah and Enoch were both assumed into heaven (2 Kings 2:1-12, Hebrews 11:5). Thus, we have historic Biblical precedent for this particular miraculous phenomena. We also have no place in scripture that says, "Enoch and Elijah were the only ones assumed into heaven"--no where to be found. In turn, we can say at this point that the Assumption of Mary is (1) not against Christian sensibilities, (2) is an instance of an historical event, and (3) has a typology in Scripture. Not a real slam dunk case against it, right?

You can imagine that all of this would make a Protestant become a little uncertain. They might have to say that "I still don't see it in the Bible" or "that's fine if you believe it, but I don't think it's necessary." But, if it's true, and Jesus is the Truth, the necessity of assent is correlative to the seriousness or commitment of the inquirer. You or I may care less about the orinthological implications of a study of a Red-footed Falcon, but if we were bird lovers we would care. The Mother of Christ's journey to her eternal beatitude for a Christ lover should barely seem obscure, and if this truth is attainable, we should long to know it since Jesus is The Truth (Psalms 42:1) and the truth sets us free (John 8:32).

Are there any allusions to Mary's Assumption in the Bible? First, Scripture is abundantly clear that we should hold fast as Christians not only to the written word but the oral traditions of the Apostles (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Jn 2:24, 1 Jn 4:6). To abnegate this responsibility is to cease to act Biblically and to nullify the word of God by the man-made modern tradition of rejecting Apostolic tradition. Second, Psalm 132:7-8 has traditionally been interpreted by Catholics as a prophecy about Mary's Assumption. In the passage, Mary as the Arc of the New Covenant is brought back to heaven by God. 

Apocalyptic Message of Hope?

As we consider the actual historical date of the Assumption, we notice that it may have likely coincided with great persecution and then a time of brief relief. In Revelation 12 we notice something like this being wrought by God for "The Woman". In Revelation 12:13, the dragon "pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child". She is then given "two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert" (v.14) and "Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments (works) and bear witness to Jesus (faith)" (v.17).

If John is writing this after the Assumption, writing it in the apocryphal language of his day to "codify" the events of the Church in common mythological language that would be easily understood by his audience, and writing it to give hope to those under persecution, it is hard to imagine what other interpretation of this passage makes sense. Could John be motioning to those under persecution that the Virgin is now in heaven and that their prayers for her protection have been answered? Would the Holy Mother's bodily Assumption into heaven bring great relief to those who were watching their fellow believer's bodies being mutilated and tortured? 

Moreover as we converge upon the multiplicity of probabilities, considering the historical, philosophical, theological, and liturgical movement in time that brings one to a belief in the Assumption of Mary, it is in that paradigm of probabilities that this passage is rendered the most intelligible. However, it is not enough as an article of faith for it to be the most intelligible from the data. Rather, the Church is the "ground and pillar of truth." As such, it was in the solemn pronouncement of the dogma by Pope St. Pius XII that the Church was bound to believe it. May it also bring us great hope in our time of trial as we see the body persecuted by the cult of hedonism and debauchery. May we see in the Blessed Virgin, the true end of the our bodies: union with God.

Even more, may the dogma of the Assumption of Mary stand as a sign of contradiction in a world constantly throwing off God and that we, too, will "mount up with wings like eagles" like our Blessed Mother as we "hope in the Lord" (Is 40:31).

The Assumption in Church History

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537). -Martin Luther

 

"So then, the great Mother of God, so mysteriously united to Jesus Christ from all eternity by the same decree of predestination, immaculately conceived, an intact virgin throughout her divine motherhood, a noble associate of our Redeemer as he defeated sin and its consequences, received, as it were, the final crowning privilege of being preserved from the corruption of the grave and, following her Son in his victory over death, was brought, body and soul, to the highest glory of heaven, to shine as Queen at the right hand of that same Son, the immortal King of Ages." -Venerable Pope St. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (The most bountiful God)

In order to understand the historical precedent for the doctrine of the Assumption, we have to look back into the early liturgical life of the Church. In the Biblical record, we certainly do not have any direct statement saying that Mary was assumed into heaven. Can the Church know something after the Biblical narrative? Is the Book of Acts open to future "acts" and are those "acts" worthy of Christian assent? Orthodox and Catholic Christians celebrate the assumption of Mary into heaven (the Orthodox call it "Dormition") since, well, it happened. As Taylor Marshall has pointed out in the link above, Catholics believe in the Assumption of Mary "as, say, the fact that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated or the fact that the St. Louis Cardinals won the 2006 World Series. One day Mary's body lay in a tomb. The next day it did not."

Of course there is the possibility that Mary's body was taken by someone to make credible the miraculous claim. However, this claim is not historically plausible in much the same way that a similar story regarding Christ would be false. There is theory and then there is historical evidence.

The actual celebration of the Assumption dates to St. Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century.  The earliest western account of the Assumption of Mary can be found in Gregory of Tours work Glory of the Martyrs. In Glory, it is recounted that the Blessed Virgin died, her body was taken away by the Apostles with much fare, and then 3 days later her body was assumed into heaven. It should be noted that the Church was just newly emerging from persecution and it is reasonable to assume that her liturgical calendar would evolve slowly.

Do we know the exact date of the Assumption? Historian Warren Carrol in his work The Founding of Christendom places the date of the Assumption of Mary approximately A.D. 49. Taylor Marshall suggests that A.D. 63 is the best candidate from the tradition.

The question that still begs is why wait so long to define the Assumption as dogma (1950)? Why have a defined dogma, wouldn't it just work as a myth of Christian piety? The Church has always only defined a dogma that she holds once it is sufficiently challenged by heresy. The Church also, generally, in these acts of defining dogma upholds other doctrines insomuch that by defining a new dogma, she strengthens the others. The Assumption acts like this.

Take into consideration the opening quote from Luther regarding the Blessed Virgin. Does this sound like the sentiment of most Protestants today? No. So, clearly there was a general degradation of the understanding of Mary amongst protestants from the reformation through the four centuries that would pass before the Assumption was defined as dogma. Conversely, the doctrine of the Assumption redeems Mary's dignity that was lost over those 400 years, reaffirms the Christocentricity of Marian dogmas, and thereby fortifies, even more, the humanity of Christ and thus our salvation.

However, this was not just a Protestant problem. Pope St. Pius XII had just recently written in his encyclical Humani Generis about the prevailing tide of modernism in the culture; even calling to attention the scientism which sought to discredit all supernatural phenomena. These philosophical novelties in the culture at large were certainly in the spirit of the attitude that would discredit the historical reality of the Assumption. I do not think it was an accident that the three months later Pope St. Pius XII would solemly define Mary's assumption as dogma.

As Pope St. Pius XII says , "(Mary) defeated sin and its consequences, received, as it were, the final crowning privilege of being preserved from the corruption of the grave and, following her Son in his victory over death, was brought, body and soul, to the highest glory of heaven." Keeping these facts in mind, I believe we can say the dogma of the Assumption:

(1) Affirms Mary's conquering of sin (and thereby affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary)

(2) Connects her Assumption to the victory won by her Son

(3) Reaffirms her unique privilege in salvation history

(4) Confronts the radical modernism prevalent in culture and beginning to pervade religion

(5) And, "Looses" (Matt 16:19) what is in heaven for the sake of bringing the "kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven"(Matt 6:10)

(Next: The Assumption in Sacred Scripture)