Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Maynard · May 15, 2013

It is said that the Old Testament prefigures the New Testament and that the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament. This is applicable in many ways; for example, the Aaronic high priesthood is replaced by Jesus the High Priest, the Passover is replaced by the Lord's Supper, baptism replaces circumcision, the sacrificial system is replaced by Christ's ongoing once-and-for-all propitiation. All of these things point to the fact that the New Covenant is an improvement on the Old Covenant.

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, He saith, 'Behold, the days come', saith the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah...I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." (Heb 8:6-8,10)

In exactly the same way, the Ark of the Old Covenant is replaced by the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary represents this Ark of the New Covenant. To this effect, the symmetry between the Old and New Testaments is striking.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ark of the Covenant
"Then a cloud covered the
tent of the congregation,
and the glory of the Lord
(episkiasei) filled the tabernacle.
(Ex 40:34) [/TD]
[TD="colspan: 8"][/TD]
[TD] Mary
"The Holy Spirit will come
upon thee, and the power
of the Most High will
overshadow (episkiasei) thee"
(Lk 1:35)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The parallels between Luke's account of the Visitation between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant continue. Once such connection is seen by comparing 2 Samuel 6:15 with Luke 1:44:

"So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn." (2 Sam 6:15)

"For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy." (Luke 1:44)

The term used here is anephonesen, which means "shouts of joy". It is not a commonly-used word; in fact, it is only used in the context of a liturgical celebration and even then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present.
Literally translated "to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone". Therefore, if this powerful witness is reserved only in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and the same word is used regarding Mary, then Mary must be the Ark of the New Covenant.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ark of the Covenant
1) the Ark is on a journey (2 Sam 6:2)

2) David dances before the ark (2 Sam 6:14)

3) David asks, "How shall the ark of the Lord come to me"? (2 Sam 6:9)

4) The ark stayed in the house of Obededom for three months (2 Sa 6:11)[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD] Mary
1) Mary is on a journey (Lk 1:39)

2) John leaps in the womb of Elizabeth (Lk 1:41)

3) Elizabeth asks, "how is it that the mother of my Lord should
come to me?" (Lk 1:43)

4) Mary stayed for 3 months (Lk 1:56)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

With respect to the specific nature of the Old Covenant Ark, the similarities continue. Moses and the Israelites built the Ark of the Covenant to house the tablets of the Decalogue, otherwise known as the 10 Commandments. (Ex. 25:8-16). The Lord instructed His People to also place manna that He had given them in the desert on the Ark (Ex.16:32-35). Centuries later, when King Solomon built the Temple of Jerusalem, the priests brought the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple and placed it inside the Holy of Holies (3 Kgs. 8:3-7) (cf. Heb. 9:1-5).

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ark of the Covenant
1) carried word of God written on stone tablets (Ex 25:8-16)

2) manna placed in it (Ez 16:32-35)

3) shepherd's staff of Aaron (high priest)

4) contained Aaron's rod[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 5"][/TD]
[TD]Mary
1) carried in her womb the Incarnate Word of God to be written on people's hearts (Heb 8:10)

2) carried Jesus, the Bread of Life (Jn 6:58)

3) carried Jesus, the eternal High Priest

4) Jesus will "rule the nations with a rod of iron" (Rev 12:5)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Also, consider John's description of the Woman and the Dragon in Revelation 12. Many scholars agree that the woman, who "was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth" (Rev 12:2) and eventually "gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod." (Rev 12:5) is actually Mary. In other words, the male child destined to rule all nations is Jesus, and the woman who gave birth to Him was Mary. Then, look just a few preceeding verses:

Then God's temple was opened, and the ark of His covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm." (Rev 11:19)

We see, then, that the appearance of the Ark immediately precedes the appearance of the Woman. This is felt to be a clear reference to Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, just as the flashes of lightning, etc., is the Cloud of Glory (the Shekinah Glory).

So, what does this have to do with Mary's Perpetual Virginity? Just as the Ark was a holy vessel which bore the Divine Presence, Mary was the holy living vessel chosen to bear the Lord God. The Ark was a created thing, just as Mary was a created being, for the purpose of carrying the presence of God. This explains also the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because only something "perfectly endowed with grace" (Greek kecharitomene, Luke 1:28) was fit to carry God, as the Ark was made only of the purest gold for God's word (Ex 25:11-21).

Now, if God's presence "overshadowed" Mary, why did Joseph refrain from intercourse at all? The answer is that even he recognized her special consecration as God's living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God's presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter:

"Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle." (Ex 40:34-35)

Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God's presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God's presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz'zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark:

"And when they came to Na'chon's threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz'zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God." (2 Sam 6:6-7)

Don't think that Joseph wasn't aware of this story - the fact that Uz'zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregnancy and afterwards as well, because if God's Presence had indeed "overshadowed" Mary's womb, Mary's womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44:

"This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord." (Ez 44:1-3)

Finally, this belief in Mary's Perpetual Virginity as the New Ark has been present from the earliest Christians:

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides." (Athanasius of Alexandria, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin)

This belief is not restricted to the Catholic writers - even the earliest Protestant Reformers believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

Martin Luther "He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)

Ulrich Zwingli "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Corpus Reformatorum v. 1, p. 424)

John Calvin ""There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew)
Source - Mary, the Ark...

Praise God.

mwc68 · May 15, 2013

I agree with this 100%! I still do not understand why people don't t least give her the respect she deserves. I have heard her referred to in all sorts of unflattering ways here, and your essay is an awesome lesson in who the Holy Mother is, and why she remained a virgin.

starfield · May 15, 2013

Mary did not remain a virgin her whole life. Jesus had siblings.
Mark 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

didymos · May 15, 2013

mwc68 said:

I think she DOES get the respect she deserves at CC, just you wait and see.

Maynard · May 15, 2013

starfield said:

That common argument is actually based on an erroneous assumption and a misunderstanding of the use of the word "brother" in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages.

This is a bit long, but it is very important. Do read it all. It is very insightful, and will help you gain a much greater understanding concerning the truth of the matter..

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)
In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphosin one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.
Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Also, the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ "brethren" saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

Fundamentalist Arguments

Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).
Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

"Brethren of the Lord"

Angela53510 · May 15, 2013

I find it very poor hermeneutics to compare Old Testament Greek with New Testament Greek. Seeing as the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and only later, after the diaspora was it translated into Greek, that being the Septingint, or LXX.

So Eisogesis again on this post.

However I was thinking about this weird comparison of the ark to Mary. Really, it creeps me out, but that is just my personal feelings. Exegetically, the ark was lost forever. It is last mentioned in the Old Testament in 2 Chronicles 6:11, which is the last book of the Hebrew Bible, but much earlier in time than some of the other books. I believe the Ark disappeared for two reasons. One was because God's people were disobedient. The second reason is because God did not want people worshiping it. So if we want to continue your poor parallelism, that would mean that Mary is dead and lost, and we are not to worship her. (Read Hebrews 9 in context, if you want to find one of the last references that is not symbolic to the Ark of the Covenant - it is all about JESUS being the mediator of a new covenant, not Mary!!)

I respect Mary, because God chose her to bear the Saviour of the world. And she brought him up along with the rest of her children. And she was even there at the cross for him. A great mother, no doubt. But the ark of the covenant?? That is missing the whole point of the Ark, which was a place to keep the tablets of the 10 commandments, which was the Mosaic covenant, which Jesus fulfilled, not Mary!

A lot more wrong with this post, comparing Aaron's rod to the rod Jesus carried (does this have anything to do with Mary?? Is she a ruler?) David dancing before the ark, and John leaping in the womb? That is a pretty far stretch to compare those two things. One was the living Saviour, the other was a symbol of God's covenant, which was superseded by the Davidic covenant, anyway.

I could go on, but I will let you rant and rave and use Greek and Hebrew improperly until someone else points out other obvious nonsense in this post.

kardiaoangelous · May 15, 2013

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD]Ark of the Covenant
"Then a cloud covered the
tent of the congregation,
and the glory of the Lord
(episkiasei) filled the tabernacle.
(Ex 40:34) [/TD]
[TD="colspan: 8"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 8"][/TD]
[TD] The Body of Christ
Acts 2:3-4 "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Mary does not by herself compare to the tent of the congregation. She houses none of them. She by herself is not God's tabernacle body which pictured the temple of God. The faithful elect Saints are that temple.

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

That word episkiasei was also used of Paul's shadow falling on ones who needed to be healed. You make too much out of that word.

Acts 5:15 "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them."

4enlightment · May 15, 2013

Jesus had came to complete our end of the bargain, and the covenant says if we doesn't keep the laws, we are to be put to death. So Jesus came to die in our place so that we can have another chance to reconcile us back in the presents of God; but this time He going to have it done by trusting spirits that doesn't give into temptations and which man had fallen into. And this time it will surely produce some good fruits. But this time it will be a final judgement on those that are truly righteous and whom that are evil; but when man had done the teaching, they had corrupted the hearts of the righteous and made all to be put endanger for judgement. Mary was the symbol for the carrier of door that almost wasn't going to be; but now there's a way to the light. So Mary was the one whom put up the door by keeping herself free from corruption.

starfield · May 15, 2013

Maynard said:

But she may have vowed to stay a virgin until marriage (she was still engaged to Joseph then). Hence she was querying how she would conceive since she had not yet married Joseph. Then the angel informed her that the conception would be through the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:34 (ESV) And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" That passage doesn't indicate that she vowed perpetual virginity, even in marriage.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" Matt 1:18 (KJV). The implication of that phrase is that they ultimately consummated their marriage.

Whether or not those passages I posted suggest Jesus' biological siblings, I think it’s illogical to propose that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage. I mean for what reason would she have had to remain a virgin in marriage? To be glorified like God?

No passage of the scripture suggests perpetual virginity of Mary. It's an unsubstantiated claim.

PennEd · May 15, 2013

It seems to me the only point to this thread is to elevate Mary for some reason. I don't have a problem with the Ark comparison, but both the Ark and Mary are ONLY the vessels and in NO way should either be exalted. I completely agree with Angela who points out that we have to be VERY careful that we don't direct our worship ANYWHERE except toward Jesus Christ.

mwc68 · May 15, 2013

PennEd said:

And why shouldn't Mary be elevated? She is the Mother of the Son of God. I agree she should not be worshiped. But she should not be discarded either. Only a vessel? That is very disrespectful to the Mother of our Lord and Savior

Tintin · May 15, 2013

Mary was God's instrument. She was blessed but she's no greater than any other believer, in the eyes of God.

danschance · May 15, 2013

Awesome thread. I love this kind of information of types. God has show me a few things on types and symbolism, but this is new to me. Thankx for posting.

mwc68 · May 15, 2013

Tintin said:

Luke 1:46-55, Luke 2:34-35, nuff said

Tintin · May 15, 2013

Yes, Mary's a heroine of the Christian faith but again, she's no better than anyone else in Christ.

mwc68 · May 15, 2013

And the beat goes on............

danschance · May 15, 2013

I would also like to point out that I do give Mary her respsect, On the other hand, the bible never says to worship her or to pray to her after her departure from earth or any saint. Mary certainly was a great woman but my respect for her stops there. I refuse to worship her as some do.

4enlightment · May 15, 2013

mwc68 said:

Mary was a symbol for all those that kept themselves pure while living in this corrupted world. Like in the story of Joseph and Aseneth. Aseneth had kept herself pure also. These are the ones that help kept the world turning. And Ruth also has purity in her. Only thing that if you can sum them all up into one vessel, or as a memorial to the ones that kept themselves pure in the present of God during hard times, will be okay. It wouldn't be worshipping them, but it would be like an memorial to them all.

DinoPaul · May 15, 2013

i dont understand how people can say the bible says this and not that when 50% of the other stories they have are not in the bible, because people choose to not include them...not god...and also only men were most likely allowed to make these choices....because when the bible was put together women had no say in alot of things

PennEd · May 15, 2013

MWC, I agree there are those that go overboard and belittle Mary unfairly. I appologize if you thought I had, it was not my intent and i don't believe I did. But a FAAAAR greater offense is the almost fixation and massive elevation of Mary by catholics.

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

didymos

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Tintin

Guest

danschance

Guest

Banned

Tintin

Guest

Banned

danschance

Guest

Banned

DinoPaul

Guest

Senior Member