Mary's Bodily Assumption

by Matthew Levering

In Mary’s Bodily Assumption , Matthew Levering presents a contemporary explanation and defense of the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption. He How does the Church justify a doctrine that does not have explicit biblical or first-century historical evidence to support it? With the goal of exploring this question more deeply, he divides his discussion into two sections, one historical and the other systematic. Levering’s historical section aims to retrieve the rich Mariological doctrine of the mid-twentieth century. He introduces the development of Mariology in Catholic Magisterial documents, focusing on Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Munificentissimus Deus of 1950, in which the bodily Assumption of Mary was dogmatically defined, and two later Magisterial documents, Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium and Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris Mater . Levering addresses the work of the neo-scholastic theologians Joseph Duhr, Aloïs Janssens, and Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange before turning to the great theologians of the nouvelle théologie ―Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Louis Bouyer, Joseph Ratzinger―and their emphasis on biblical typology. Using John Henry Newman as a guide, Levering organizes his systematic section by the three pillars of the doctrine on which Mary’s Assumption biblical typology, the Church as authoritative interpreter of divine revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the fittingness of Mary’s Assumption in relation to the other mysteries of faith. Levering’s ecumenical contribution is a significant engagement with Protestant biblical scholars and theologians; it is also a reclamation of Mariology as a central topic in Catholic theology.

Genres: Theology, Religion

280 pages, Paperback

First published November 15, 2014

About the author

Matthew Levering (PhD, Boston College) is professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including Ezra & Nehemiah in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. He is also coauthor of Holy People, Holy Land and Knowing the Love of Christ.

Reviews

[Jarrett Vandiver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was Mary, the mother of God, taken up body and soul into Heaven at the end of her life? Also, why does it matter? Is it necessary? Doesn’t it cause more unneeded division between Catholics and Protestants today?

Levering makes the case that not only did the Assumption happen, but that it is an apostolic teaching that is (1) contained in divine revelation and (2) is fitting in light of all dogmatic theology.

I am convinced that this dogma is true, good, and beautiful. However, even if someone is not on board, I would challenge you to consider it hypothetically just to ponder what it might mean for the Christian life: Mary’s assumption means that our bodies matter, that her pure self-surrender to God ended in her being taken up, not by her own power, but lifted by God’s power. This is a peaceful surrender every Christian is called to embody. This type of surrender is the only path to real happiness and sanity in our world. Most importantly, this dogma shows that Mary is the “proto-Christian”: what is true of Mary will be true of every person united to Jesus Christ by faith. She is praying for us and inviting us to say to the Lord as she did: let it be unto me according to thy word. Then, at the last day when death is swallowed up in victory, we will be taken up with Mary and all the saints on the last day, body and soul.

Here is his argument for the dogma:

I found his approach to be modest but still intellectually appealing: he uses John Henry Newman’s “convergence of probabilities” criteria to say (from the standpoint of reason), that the Assumption almost certainly happened. In fact, the Assumption was *assumed* (sorry) to be a “sententia certa” (a certain conclusion) by Catholic and Orthodox theologians for centuries in light of other divine truths. Just as Urbain le Verrier “discovered” Neptune without seeing it by making a certain conclusion based on mathematical truths, the Assumption stands as a certain conclusion in dogmatic theology. If Mary is the Mother of God, preserved free from original sin, is the new Eve, the New Ark of the Covenant, the woman in Revelation 12, then the Assumption becomes a natural and certain conclusion.

The convergence of probabilities, according to Levering, are in three pillars:

1) Biblical typology: Levering analyzes Catholic, Protestant (Richard Hays), and Orthodox philosophies of typology to show that the Assumption is more than warranted in light of a good understanding of typology.

2) Analogy of Faith: essentially, this is means that the dogma is “fitting”: Levering uses the following reasoning to make his case: If (a) Scripture consistently binds holiness to life, and (b) Mary is, by the Incarnation itself, uniquely holy, then it is exactly what one would expect that she share uniquely in the Resurrection life of her Son. As Levering puts it: “The doctrine of Mary’s Assumption teaches that Mary, continuing her holy and unique participation in the mysteries of her Son, shares uniquely in Christ’s victorious suffering and thus also uniquely in Christ’s Resurrection.” The typology of the ark reinforces the point: “Mary’s Assumption means that the new ark of the covenant did not corrupt, her Son did not simply discard the flesh that gave him flesh, but instead is now present bodily with her Son in heaven.”

3) Universal recognition: what might be surprising to those reading arguments in favor of the Assumption is that, in Catholic theology, we would understand the “sense of the faithful”—that is, a universal agreement of the church on faith and morals (bishops and laity) to be infallible. Since the feast of the Assumption was universally celebrated east and west in the liturgy of the Church by at least the 5th c., the conclusion is that the Holy Spirit guided the faithful to accept and proclaim this truth. Since Christ promised that the Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, it makes no sense to think that He would allow the entire Church to be fooled into celebrating a major feast for 1500 years over an event that did not, in fact, happen.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let me begin by stating that I was an unbeliever of Mary's bodily assumption before I read this work and I remain an unbeliever after reading what is, in my opinion, a very solid defense of the dogma in this book. But with the typological, biblical and historical evidence given here, I still remain unconvinced that this particular doctrine ought to be considered Christian dogma. However, I commend this book to Protestants who think that this dogma only comes from some wacky latter patristic tradition. I was quite surprised by the biblical and typological arguments used in this work to argue his thesis, that the assumption of Mary is proven by the Scriptures typologically first of all and traditionally secondly. Levering dialogued with Protestants like Richard Hays, Peter Enns, and Peter Leithart on the issue of typological interpretation for the dogma of Mary's bodily assumption, which was quite helpful.

Even so, I remain unconvinced. I'm thankful for Levering, holding out the olive branch to us, not only from another tradition, but also desiring to delve into our traditions. I'm looking forward to reading more from him because he actually seems interested to find a common and visible unity among orthodox Christian traditions.