Saturday, December 3, 2011

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

In the comments, Waterloo Region African asked how early Christians thought of Mary as the New Ark.  I think that the best answer is that St. Luke lays this out pretty clearly in the first chapter of his Gospel.  He draws some incredibly obvious parallels between Mary's visit to Elizabeth and David's movement of the Ark through the hill-country of Judah. These are ones that a well-read Jewish audience should have been able to pick up on, and it helps reveal who Luke is telling us Jesus is, as well as the role he says Mary plays.

Start with the Old Testament passage.  From 2 Samuel 6:2-14:
And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Ba'ale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim.

And they carried the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abin'adab which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahi'o, the sons of Abin'adab, were driving the new cart with the ark of God; and Ahi'o went before the ark. And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the LORD with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. And David was angry because the LORD had broken forth upon Uzzah; and that place is called Pe'rez-uz'zah, to this day.

And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" So David was not willing to take the ark of the LORD into the city of David; but David took it aside to the house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite. And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of O'bed-e'dom the Gittite three months; and the LORD blessed O'bed-e'dom and all his household.

And it was told King David, "The LORD has blessed the household of O'bed-e'dom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of O'bed-e'dom to the city of David with rejoicing; and when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.
Here are the seven things to notice:
  1. David “arose and went” to move the Ark.
  2. They're in Judah (they start out from Baale of Judah)
  3. They're in the hill country: Abinadab's house is on one of these hills, and it's navigating these hills that causes the ox to stumble, the Ark to totter, and Uzzah to touch the Ark, which causes God to strike him dead.
  4. David, vexed by the death of Uzzah, asks, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?
  5. Obededom and his household are blessed by the presence of the Ark. 
  6. David dances before the Ark.
  7. The Ark stays with Obededom for three months.
Compare this with Luke 1:39-45,56 (I'm skipping over the beautiful Magnificat for the sake of brevity):
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechari'ah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." [...] And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home.
And again, the seven things to notice:
  1. Mary “arose and went” to transport her and her Son to the household of Elizabeth.
  2. They're in Judah.
  3. They're in the hill country.
  4. Elizabeth's question mirrors David's, but is asked out of joy, rather than vexation: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
  5. Elizabeth is blessed by the presence of Mary (“the mother of my Lord”).
  6. John the Baptist dances in the womb upon hearing Mary's greeting.
  7. Mary stays for three months.
So both Mary and David “arose and went” on these journeys, to the same place (the hill-country in Judah) for the same length of time (three months).  David dances before the Ark, and John the Baptist dances before Mary.  David asks, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” Elizabeth asks, “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”  And Elizabeth was blessed to be visited by the Mother of the Lord, just as Obededom was blessed to be visited by the Ark.

Now, St. Luke chose to include all of those minor details (including that it was the hilly country, and that Mary stayed for three months) for a reason.   Likewise, he chose to words things in the precise way that he did for a reason - to say that she “arose and went,” for example (the only time he uses this Old Testament expression in his Gospel).

There are three reasons that it makes sense for Luke to choose this particular passage (2 Samuel 6), of all the Old Testament descriptions of the Ark, to show the parallel to Mary:
  • It reminds us that even at this point, immediately after the Annunciation, Mary is carrying Jesus Christ. 2 Samuel 6:2 reminds us that it is “the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim.”  That's an important reminder, in the middle of a chronological retelling of a series of events.
  • It's our first hint that Jesus Christ is Lord.  Again, the Ark contained the enthroned LORD of hosts.  If Mary is the new Ark, that means that Jesus is the enthroned LORD of hosts.  We take this for granted today.  At the time Luke is writing, it's a shocking claim.
  • It shows how Mary is set aside by God.  This is the exact passage in which Uzzah is struck dead for touching the Ark.  This helps explain Mary's consecrated Virginity -- her strange response in Luke 1:34, for example, or the fact that the Isaiah 7:14 prophesy required the Christ to be both conceived and born of a Virgin, when a Virgin conception would have been sufficient to establish the miracle.  These odd details make perfect sense if Mary is the new Ark.  
Ark of the Covenant Monstrance at
St. Stanislaus Catholic Church, Chicago
Nor is St. Luke the only one New Testament writer to have this insight. In Revelation 11:19-12:2, here's what John sees:
Then God's Temple in Heaven was opened, and the Ark of His Covenant was seen within His Temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with Child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.
Sure enough, this woman “brought forth a Male Child, One who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:5).  That is, we're dealing with the Mother of Jesus here.  It's true that this passage likely refers to the Church as well as Mary,  But once you read Luke 2, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it's not for nothing that John is shown the Ark immediately before being shown the Mother of God.

For more on this subject, there's a helpful article here.  It includes other interesting details, like the connection between the “overshadowing” of Mary in Luke 1:35 and the overshadowing of the Shekinah Glory Cloud in the Old Testament.

27 comments:

  1. And what was contained in the Ark? Manna from Heaven, the Bread of Life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Ark also contained the written Word of God, and Mary the Ark of the New Covenant, contained The Word Made Flesh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read somewhere (can't remember where off the top of my head) that the word for "dance" used to describe St. John the Baptist's response to Mary/Jesus/the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth's womb is the same word used to describe David's action before the OT Ark.

    I was completely blown away by these parallels (between Luke and 2 Samuel) when I first learned of them. How similar I am to the African Eunuch in Acts 8! "How can I understand [Scripture] unless someone teaches me?"

    I've since found that this is a great passage to use in apologetics when sharing the Catholic faith with Bible-only Christians, for at least four reasons:
    1. It so clearly teaches, from Scripture, an important truth about Mary...and one that leads to so many others, including her Immaculate Conception.
    2. This passage teaches about Mary in a way that is disarming (it's all right there, plain for anyone to see and examine, with almost no interpretive leap required). The parallel is hard to ignore once one has seen it. Barring reasonable counter-arguments, those who deny that Mary is rightly called the NT Ark must call into question the extent to which their tradition is motivated by anti-Catholic bias (rather than a complete, docile surrender to Scriptural teaching).
    3. It shows that there are things in the Bible, when taken apart from the assistance of a guide (most especially Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium), that loving, faithful Bible-only Christians often miss. At least in my own experience, I've never met a Protestant laymen or pastor who had even heard of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. (I had always thought of Mary as the Ark from Revelation 12, but I still felt a bit helpless knowing how this connection in Revelation is often dodged.)
    4. Finally, as stunned as I was to learn of the Luke/2Samuel connection, I soon learned (on the next Marian feast day), that the Church pairs these Scriptures in the Mass. I saw anew that the Church is a wise Mother who, like Mary, ponders the Word deeply in her heart.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ready, very good points.

    I've come across a few protestants who were shocked at John 6:50 onwards. They mentioned how Jesus sounded like "...a Papist..."
    ;-)

    One does need to start with the idea that the Catholic Church might have something useful to say and teach before one will ever begin to take Her seriously, but once that first log in the dam is dislodged, the rest come crashing down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Joe:
    [Wow, 2Sam. 6:2-14 is quite the parallel if not taken too far! I didn't realize that. But that said, you did take it too far by emphasizing Mary's presence and not the Lord's. The point of the Ark of the Covenant was WHO sat upon it, not the Ark itself.]
    1) "5. Elizabeth is... my Lord")." - "...and John the Baptist dances before Mary."
    Elizabeth was already blessed by the Lord with The Baptist who jumped in the womb because of the Lord's presence, not Mary's presence. (Not to say that THE LORD'S presence, and not Mary's, was another blessing on top of the blessing that was John the Baptist.)
    2) "...a Virgin conception would have been sufficient to establish the miracle." (I don't know about the capital V.)
    Who other than Mary would've believed that as far as evidence is concerned. (Look at Joseph. He looked to quietly divorce her. It took a dream to believe.) The evidence was in the broken hymen AFTER the birth when the blood covenant of marriage occurred according to Jewish OT traditions; when Mary lost her virginity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is precisely the Lord's presence in Mary that emphasizes Mary's presence as the Ark. No one can elevate Mary more than Jesus did. St. Luke (and Joe, by pointing at the gospel writer) are merely pointing this fact out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael Addison,

    It seems you're viewing the issues raised in your comments through a protestant lens (which I used to wear). You seem to think that by discussing Mary, the Lord is somehow on a lower level or excluded. But it's not an either-or thing, it's a both-and. Mary only ever points us to Christ, and these things we discuss only ever point to Christ. Mary is venerated as the New Ark precisely and only because who was inside of her.

    Even the Marian dogmas are an extension of Christology, and not just some things made up to make us love Mary more (even though they do).

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Taylor: Yes, I am 'Protestant'. I hope God calls you back, too. Anyways, you said, "Mary is venerated as the New Ark PRECISELY and ONLY because who was inside of her." You used 'was', no? So why would you still consider her The New Ark since she no longer has the Lord in her womb? My point to Joe about taking a parallel concerning her too far definitely applies to The New Ark in a current-sense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Taylor: I should've said, "using the present tense" instead of, "in a current-sense". Not that it totally matters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. michaeladdison:

    If Mary is not the Ark anymore, then does Revelation depict her as so in the book of Revelation?

    Because, even though (as Joe said) "the woman" is Israel, or the Church, the fact that John desribes this "woman" as the ark of the covenant means that she represents more than Israel; more than the Church.

    I would be interested to hear your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "then *why* does Revelation despict her as so ..."

    Sorry, typo..

    ReplyDelete
  12. Michael:

    I/we still consider her the Ark in the same way that the Ark of the [Old] Covenant didn't simply become a box when everything was removed from it.

    Furthermore, a human is infinitely more valuable than a container, just as Christ is infinitely more valuable than the manna, commandments, and staff in the "Old" Ark. Also, once something is made holy it stays holy. I'm not a Bible scholar by any means, but I can't think of anything in the Bible that was holy or made holy and simply "lost" its holiness.

    Nobody knows what happened to the Ark for sure. Although there are random rumors of its location, we don't have any idea or relics. But it would be the relic for those practicing Judaism. Surely they would have kept better tabs on it. It is the same with Mary. Surely someone who held, birthed, and raised Christ, someone who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, etc. would have had a popular grave. So where is it/where are her relics? Same thing.

    Somewhere Dr. Brant Pitre mentioned how the Old Ark was sealed up and never seen again, but Mary fit the prophecy of when it would return (both in her Earthly life and in Revelation).

    ReplyDelete
  13. "So why would you still consider her The New Ark since she no longer has the Lord in her womb?"

    Taylor makes some great points which I won't repeat. I'll simply ask this: if the original Ark of the Covenant was found today, but contained nothing inside it, how do you think Jews would treat it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you have 11 minutes, this video does a good job with Biblical evidence explaining Mary's prominence in our faith.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Christian, Taylor, and Pilgrim: She's not depicted at all in Revelation. 1) The Ark is the literal Ark in heaven. The temple on earth was but a picture of the temple in heaven. 2) The woman is Israel. 3) The man-child is the 144,000 Jews, sealed. (Dake Annotated for points 1-3)
    There was a parallel within the 2Sam. 6:2-14 story. That is all. She is NOT the Ark. Shoot, for those of us who are born-again and receive the Spirit, there's a parallel within us, too.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Michael,

    This is the second time you've defended that reading of Revelation 12 with nothing more than a citation to "Dake Annotated."

    So let's address Finis Jennings Dake Much of his Scriptural commentary was written from prison: as a 35 year-old preacher, he'd been arrested for transporting a 16 year-old across state lines “for the purpose of debauchery and other immoral practices,” and plead guilty. For this, his ordination was revoked by the Assemblies of God.

    But even Saints make mistakes, I suppose. More damning is the fact that he claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit with a “special anointing” that gave him special knowledge of the Scriptures, yet he denied the Trinity, and taught that Scripture required segregation. This crosses the line from “fallen man” to “false prophet” and “heretic” by any orthodox Christian standard. Yet you'll listen to this guy's testimony over the testimony of the earliest Christians, who died for the Faith?

    But Dake aside, there's an even more glaring problem: that exegesis of Revelation 12 seems pretty clearly wrong. The Woman of Rev. 12 is described as the Mother of both (a) “a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter” (Rev. 12:5) and (b) “the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus” (Rev. 12:17). This makes sense as (a) Jesus and (b) the Saints.

    But to claim that (a) is the 144,000 doesn't make sense here. Why would they be described as a child, singular, and why would they be described as a male child? Why, for that matter, would they be distinguished from those who hold fast to their testimony about Jesus? Did the 144,000 not hold to the testimony? So I think that's bad exegesis that you're supporting only by citing to a false prophet who denied the Trinity.

    Of course, when this is connected with your apparent admission that yes, Luke 1 really does describe Mary (as opposed to all Christians) as the new Ark, it's increasingly looking like you'll go to nearly any lengths to avoid an interpretation of Scripture that honors the Mother of the Lord.

    I.X.,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  17. The arguments here for Mary being the new Ark are compelling and convincing. I've never thought of her as such and certainly it gives me something to think about.

    What about the temple gate. What say you on that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Michael Addison: "The evidence was in the broken hymen AFTER the birth when the blood covenant of marriage occurred according to Jewish OT traditions; when Mary lost her virginity."

    Actually, Catholics believe Mary was perpetually an intact and undefiled Virgin even in and after the birth of Jesus. It wasn't just a "virgin conception" it was a "virgin birth."

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Joe:
    1) "...he denied the Trinity, and taught Scripture required segregation."
    Concerning the Trinity: Dake didn't deny the Trinity. He believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Don't believe everything you read. That guy in the article didn't use whole teachings/quotes, manipulating the topic.
    Concerning segregation: Yes, he did teach segregation incorrectly from Scripture, and I definitely disagree with him on that.
    2) "But Dake aside,... who denied the Trinity."
    a) The "child" was taken to heaven. Jesus was a man, Joe. Don't let the statues of Mary with child confuse you. b) The saints will rule during the thousand-year reign with some iron, figuratively speaking (Psalm 149:5-6). c) "The rest of her offspring" are those Jews whom believe in the tribulation after they see that the 144,000 disappear. Her offspring in the desert are those in Petra/Selah, as Scripture indicates, who won't believe until the Second Coming when He defeats the Mahdi (Antichrist) and Jesus of Islam (False Prophet).
    [Look at more of Rev. 12. Satan hasn't been cast out of heaven yet, in a forever sense. He still accuses us who believe until the time of Rev. 12 occurs.]

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Paul: I believe in a virgin conception and birth, also. I'm talking when she and Joseph came together after the birth, hence the evidence of the miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Micahel: "I'm talking when she and Joseph came together after the birth, hence the evidence of the miracle."

    And where can I find that in the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Michael - I apologize for my last comment. I was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I was trying to provoke you also. It was out of line.

    God Bless

    ReplyDelete
  23. Michael,

    I don't know who this Dake guy is; I've never heard of him. Why should I take your assertion that Mary is not mentioned in Revelation?

    My assertion is that she is. Joe's assertion is that she is. The Church's assertion is that she is. Even some Lutherans say she is.

    So why would your assertion be right, I suppose is waht I'm asking.

    ReplyDelete
  24. WRA,

    To understand the idea of Mary as the Temple Gate, you have to understand the idea that Christ's Body is the Temple foretold in Ezekiel 40-48 (both His Physical Body, and His Mystical Body, the Church).  I address what this means for Jesus, the Church, and Mary here.  I'm glad you asked!

    I.X.,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  25. Michael,

    I pointed out earlier that Dake denied the Trinity. You deny this since he "believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." But if you read the link, nobody's denying this. Yes, he believed in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. But he claimed that they were three separate Gods. The Trinity is the doctrine that God is Three-in-One. Dake denies the One. In other words, he's not a monotheist.

    For example, from his commentary on 1 Samuel 4:8, in which the Philistines refer to the Israelite "gods," Dake writes:

    “These pagans knew and understood the correct way to refer to God, using the plural form which indicates more than one person in the Godhead. There are three separate and distinct persons in the Trinity. 'Elohiym could have been translated "gods" over 2,347 times, but is retained in the plural only 216 times. See The Trinity."

    So by his own account, he understood the Trinity to be Three Gods united in purpose.

    That, anyway, is what I've gathered from what I read. I don't pretend to be a particular expert on Dake, and don't own (or care for) any of his work. If you can quote something from Dake showing that he believed that there was only one God (as Isaiah 45:21-23 and innumerable other passages teach), I'd love to see it.

    Regarding segregation, I'm relieved to see that we agree that Dake is totally off-base on that. But doesn't that undermine your belief in his status as an inspired prophet?

    I.X.,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Joe: You're digging everywhere to find nothing? OK, you know he acknowledged God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. He also stressed they are one in unity, perfection, divinity, etc. I know I've been better in my comments, as you've said, but concerning denying the Trinity: WHATEVER! Also, concerning your 'status as an inspired prophet' comment: Do not you, yourself say that not all saints are perfect? Plus, to my knowledge, he never claimed to be a prophet.

    ReplyDelete
  27. fantastic points altogether, you simply gained brand new|a new} reader. What would you suggest about your submit that you just made a few days in the past? Any positive?
    BEARPAW Women's Meadow Short 604W Boot

    ReplyDelete