Posted on 02/03/2014 1:36:37 AM PST by markomalley
The Feast Yesterday of the Presentation of Jesus was a rich fare. In my homily I did not have time to cover all I wanted to. Frankly, the moment of the Presentation was one of the most dramatic in Biblical history, and yet almost no one noticed. Lets consider this astonishing moment.
The first part of this post is review for those of you who read regularly. To skip to the newer insights goo down to the red line.
Joseph and Mary have ascended to Jerusalem to fulfill two ancient mandates: the Rite of Purification for a woman after childbirth and the Rite of Presentation of their firstborn male child, Jesus. These rites set the stage for a dramatic moment in Biblical history, a moment missed by almost everyone. We shall explore this dramatic moment shortly but first a little background.
Jewish law considered that, after a woman gave birth she became ritually impure for a period. While this seems unjust to us, the Jewish notion was rooted in the flow of blood that occurred in childbirth and just about anyone who came in contact with blood incurred a ritual uncleanness for a period of time. The Book of Leviticus has this to say regarding a woman who has given birth:
The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. ” ‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.” ‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ ” (Lev 12:1-8).
As you can see, there is a fairly negative concept at work here from a modern viewpoint. A woman becomes ritually unclean by giving birth. This was due not to birth per se but to the flow of blood and/or other fluids at birth. Even more distressing to modern notions is that a woman who gave birth to a daughter was considered ritually unclean for even longer! Alas, it is well that the power of the Church to bind and loose has freed us from this thinking. Keep in mind that this was ceremonial law, not moral law and, hence, the Church is not setting aside immutable moral law in abrogating such notions of ritual impurity.
Obedient to the Law – Nevertheless Joseph and Mary, obedient to law make the dramatic ascent to the Temple, the Son of God carried in Mary’s arms. It is forty days since the birth of the Lord in fulfillment of the Law.
As they ascend the glorious steps to the Temple Mount they also fulfil another requirement of the Law:
You are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD. Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons. “In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ (Ex 13:12-15)
But something even more dramatic takes place here. To understand what it is, let’s look back to 587 BC.
The Babylonians had invaded Jerusalem and the unthinkable had happened. The Holy City was destroyed and, along with it, the Temple of God. Inside the Temple something even more precious than the building had been housed: the Ark of the Covenant.
Recall what the Ark of Covenant was in the Old Testament. It was a box of Acacia wood, covered in gold. Inside it were placed: the two tablets on which God inscribed the Ten Commandments. Also in it was the staff of Aaron, and a vile of the Manna. More importantly, in this box, this ark, dwelt the very Presence of God in Israel. God mysteriously dwelt within, much as is the case today in our understanding of the tabernacle in our Catholic Churches.
The Lost Ark – Incredibly however, the Ark was lost when the Babylonians destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 587 BC. It was never found again. Some thought Jeremiah had hid it in the Mountains, others that the priests had hastily hid it in the maze of caves beneath the Temple Mount. Others argue it was taken to Ethiopia. But in the end, the Ark had gone missing.
Empty Temple – When the Temple was rebuilt some eighty years later, the Holy of Holies was restored but the Ark was missing. The High Priest still performed the yearly ritual and entered the Holy of Holies, but the room was empty. Some argued for a spiritual presence in the Temple, but in fact the Ark and the certain presence of God were missing in the Temple after 587 BC. The Ark was never found and returned there. Something, someone, was missing. The very Holy of Holies was an empty room, the Ark, and the presence of God it carried were missing: the Ark, the mercy seat, gone. Would it ever be found? Would it ever be returned to the Temple? Would the Holy Presence of God ever find its way to the Temple again?
The ascent to Jerusalem is a steep one. The mountains surround Jerusalem and the City sits up at a higher altitude than the area around it. As the ancient Jews made the climb they sang the psalms of ascent: Psalms 120-134. As Joseph and Mary ascended they too sang the words that instilled joy: I Lift up mine eye to the mountains from whence cometh my help (121)…..I rejoiced when they said to me let us go up to the House of the Lord (122)…..To you O Lord I have lifted my eyes (123)….Like Mount Zion are those who trust in the Lord (125)….Out of the depths I call unto you O Lord! (130)…..Let us enter God’s dwelling, let us worship at the Lord’s footstool. Arise O Lord and enter your dwelling place, You and the Ark of your strength! (132)….Come and bless the Lord, You who stand in the House of the Lord Lift your hands to the Sanctuary and bless the Lord. The Lord bless you from Zion (134).
Singing these songs, Mary carried Jesus. The climb was even more difficult carrying a newborn babe. But the burden was sweet. A final ascent up the stairs to the Temple Mount. Likely they entered on the southern side through the Huldah gates. Going up the steep stairs, through the tunnel in the walls and emerging on to the bright Temple platform above.
God had returned to His Temple. He, and the Ark who carried him, were found. Mary the Ark, carrying Jesus in her arms. Jesus, very God, true God from True God. Yes, God and the Ark had been found and God was once again present among His people on the Temple Mount. Scripture says:
And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? (Mal 3:1-2)
What a dramatic moment. And yet what a remarkable understatement by God! If I were to direct the moment I would have called for trumpet blasts, peals of thunder and multitudes of angels! And everyone would fall to their knees in recognition of the great fulfillment and the great return of God to his Temple.
Yet, it would seem only an elderly Man and woman took any note at all: Simeon and Anna. They alone understood they were in the presence of greatness and beheld the drama of the moment:
Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” There was also a prophetess, Anna…Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2)
Yes, here was the dramatic moment awaited for centuries. The ark of God was found (Mary), and God (Jesus) returned to his temple. But only a few noticed. Just a few understood and celebrated.
And what of us? At every Mass Jesus, God himself is present. Yet how many notice? Do they really see him? Or do they see only the human priest and the human elements of the Mass. Do you see? Do you notice? Are you Simeon? Anna? Mary? Joseph? Or are you just among those on the Temple Mount who miss the dramatic moment of God with us?
Good overview, but i cannot recall where it says that the broken tablets were what was placed in there.
Also of note is the postulation here on reconciling 1 Kings 8:9 with Heb. 9:4.
The rod is a symbol of authority.
Christ, the Good Shepherd.
Christ, the Judge.
2) A Pot of Manna, and
The bread from heaven that kept God's people alive.
John 6:31ff Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat…I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
3) The Broken Tablets from Mt Sinai.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
Those items in the Ark represent three cases of disobedience to His Plan.
You are critically incorrect here. The items in the ark are prefigurements of Christ.
And God, the Holy Spirit overshadowed the ark and filled it (cf. Exodus 25).
Now we could run through more prefigurement. How the ark traveled on the way to Jerusalem and stopped at a small town in the hill country outside Jerusalem (and then how Mary traveled to Elizabeth...in the hill country outside Jerusalem). How David leaped for joy (how John the Baptist leaped for joy).
But I don't want to bother with it, as it wouldn't change your thinking in the least bit.
After all, Catholicism has nothing to do with the Bible and no amount of quoting the Bible by Catholics will change some folks' minds about it.
“no amount of quoting the Bible by Catholics “
Anyone can quote. Quoting to support something not taught is called taking it out of context... Regardless of denomination.
True, and that is one of my chief complaints against anti-Catholic antagonists
... Regardless of denomination.
Having said that, if you can show where I cited something that would change its meaning "in context," I'd like to read that.
“Having said that, if you can show where I cited something that would change its meaning “in context,” I’d like to read that.”
You opined out interesting things that are not taught. You use it to make Mary into something God didn’t teach. A “type” that isn’t revealed as a type, is an interesting observation and no more.
You can see a horse in the clouds, but it isn’t a horse. It remains just a horse-shaped cloud. When you insist it is sky horse and teach horses have power over the sky, you’re just making up things that go far beyond reality.
Both are false statements, and the issue for me relative to your statement is not simply whether the golden ark prefigured Mary - and i do not disallow you can make a case for that, but i do reject that as helping warrant the demigodess stature ascribed in manifold ways to the Mary of Rome - but the issue now it is that while you appeal to Scripture for your interpretation, you cannot claim full assurance upon that basis, lest you be as an evangelical, and your goal in using Scripture must be to convince us to submit to Rome in order to find real assurance of Truth.
Moreover, as the veracity of RC doctrine is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, nor do they even need any actual evidence thereby, then your interpretation carries no real weight even for Catholics, unless Rome officially teaches it.
Furthermore, as RCs have great liberty to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome, then unless Rome officially teaches it another RC could interpret the Ark differently.
Really?
The problem I have with the statement is that you haven't shown me that God has taught otherwise. In essence, my interpretation of what you wrote is that although I have cited Scripture and cited it in context, I've applied an improper interpretation to the passages I've cited.
Yet this has been the orthodox belief since the beginning of Christianity. To demonstrate that,
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the “ark” made manifest. Hippolytus, in Daniel 6 (From around 200 AD)
Or, from a few decades later:
Most of the holy fathers, and patriarchs, and prophets desired to see Him, and to be eye-witnesses of Him, but did not attaint hereto. And some of them by visions beheld Him in type, and darkly; others, again, were privileged to hear the divine voice through the medium of the cloud, and were favoured with sights of holy angels; but to Mary the pure virgin alone did the archangel Gabriel manifest himself luminously, bringing her the glad address, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured!" And thus she received the word, and in the due time of the fulfilment according to the body's course she brought forth the priceless pearl. Come, then, you too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, "Arise, O Lord, into Your rest; You, and the ark of Your sanctuary." For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily 1 On the Annunciation (from c. 260 AD)
Again, I have no interest in posting all of the respective quotes. Nor am I trying to assert that the above two that I did quote are Divinely Inspired and on a par with the Scriptures...so don't go there. The reason I did quote those two is to show that this is no new idea. It is not a product of the medieval Church (in fact, both those quotes pre-dated the First Council of Nicea and even the Edict of Milan. So they would both be from a period before Constantine went and "paganized" the Church (an Alexander Hislop allusion with the last). I also don't believe that either Hippolytus or Gregory created that belief out of whole cloth and, considering one was in Rome and the other in Asia Minor, it's doubtful that they were horribly close collaborators.
The point is that the interpretation I offer is one that is consistent with the vast majority of Christian thought for the Church's first 1,500 years (the only Patristic writer that I can think of who said anything contrary was Irenaeus, who thought of the Ark as Christ's body...and I can see some major issues with that thought -- on the surface, it sounds almost Nestorian). But you say "you're wrong" without showing where I'm wrong.
So where am I wrong?
Good point. Deut 10:2 points out that God remade 2 tablets from stock made by Moses and gave them to Moses and Moses came down and placed them in the Ark.
Other studies observe that when a contract or covenant is made, one copy is given to both parties to keep as the original agreement. One set being those given to Moses for Israel and the other retained by God in the Ark. I don;t know if that teaching is consistent, but I had been taught that perspective.
It appears Hebrew tradition holds the broken and whole pieces were both placed in the Ark, but Deut 10 clearly states nothing else was in that ark than the two remade tablets.
The Ark may be a prefigurement of Jesus Christ, with the wood representing His humanity and the gold His Diety. It doesn’t seem consistent to make a blood offering on the Mercy seat which covers the Ark, unless the offering covers all sin, so unless they represent the sin imputed to Christ, I don’t find the contents to represent Christ. I agree He is given all authority, He provides, and He fulfills the Law, but that is consistent with those pieces representing our sin in those areas.
Almighty God established a very special, real "God Presence" in the tiny "Ark of the Covenant", then later, Almighty God established a very special, real "God Presence" inside the tiny body of the Blessed Mary, and Almighty God also establishes a very special, real "God Presence" in the tiny Sacred Hosts of His Holy Eucharist today, just as He solemnly proclaimed He would as recorded in numerous texts in the Bible.
It is amazing how so few people there in the Temple back then at the "Presentation" (two -- Simeon and Anna) actually recognized God's Salvation in the form of that little baby Jesus, and also how few ever recognized God in Jesus throughout His entire life here on earth -- even to His death on Calvary, when most human beings there were just too ignorant and foolish and blind to recognize who He really was, and yelled evil, insulting things at Him, and grievously attacked and killed the "Son of God".
That same kind of blindness continues to this very day, with these "know-it-all", stubborn, willfully ignorant, self-appointed-authority types who simply cannot/will not permit the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ today in the Holy Eucharist which God Himself instituted. In their foolish pride, they sadly "prefer the darkness to the light", as Jesus said many would.
Just as some saw just a human baby in the Temple, or saw just a strange human man telling them to "eat His flesh and drink His blood" (as recorded in John 6) and promptly abandoned Him, or saw just a mocked and severely beaten human man hanging and dying on cross on Calvary, some today see just bread and wine, not the Real Presence of our Lord and our God in His Holy Eucharist, as He solemnly proclaimed in numerous biblical citations. In their stubbornly foolish ignorance, and prideful, self-inposed blindness, they all thought/think they knew/know better than God.
I believe the fate of those who mocked and rejected the Real Presence of God back then (in His humanity) will be the same fate as those who stubbornly and willfully mock and reject the Real Presence of God today in His Holy Eucharistic Presence.
Thanks again, markomalley, and have a great evening!
“Yet this has been the orthodox belief since the beginning of Christianity. To demonstrate that,...(From around 200 AD)”
As it turns out, the beginning of Christianity was two hundred years earlier.
Let’s set aside the late entry of this idea, because truth isnt determined by time or the number of people who believe an idea. There is no evidence the Apostles believed or taught this. More importantly, the Scriptures do not teach that Mary is the fulfilled ark.
You and other Catholics “see” what you’ve written and string these observations together, believing that by organizing them, the Scripture must be teaching the whole thing as a truth, ergo, Mary IS the ark. They remain just interesting observations.
You are correct that these are interesting observations. You are trying to make observations into a teaching, which goes beyond the main point of the passage.
God sat upon the Mercy Seat and filled the ark. The symbolism was not that the ark would represent God, but was the vessel upon and within that He would choose to place Himself.
Since, until the incarnation of Christ, no man had ever seen God, making the blood offering upon the mercy seat was representative of offering that sacrifice to God.
The belief that Mary is the Ark of the new Covenant is not one elevating her in any way to "Godhood" or "demi-Godhood", but is a statement that she is the (created, formed from the dust of the earth) vessel where God chose to place Himself. Though I can appreciate that somebody wouldn't want to attach that "title" to her, I, for the life of me, cannot fathom how one could deny the essential facts of the situation. Just as I can appreciate where one would be reticent to actually state the Nicene Creed, how a Christian can deny the facts that are contained therein escapes me.
I'm wondering, though, if the problem is not Marian but actually a Christological problem. (I'm speaking here generically about those who believe Christ is the Ark, not about you specifically)
If one believes that Christ was the Ark, then it follows that since the Ark was a created thing, then Christ was a created thing (or, at a minimum, His body was a created thing)...and then that God chose to dwell in and around that created thing. That flies in the face of orthodox Christian belief that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father (as opposed to being created by the Father) and that Christ chose to become incarnate (that is, become in the flesh), taking His flesh from Mary.
The extreme end of that belief is Arianism (that Christ was a created being and, though the son of God, was a mere man).
The slightly more moderate version is Nestorianism or some form of Adoptionism, which separates the divine and human nature of Christ into two separate "persons" or "natures" -- and that Mary only gave birth to the human "person" of Christ, the divine being assumed at some point after birth. (This flies in the face of the orthodox teaching of the hypostatic union: that the divine and human natures of Christ, though distinct, were unified in one substance and one person)
That's where I have a massive problem with the idea that the Ark was Christ.
So instead, there is no problem with God who can be placed in a little box?
That is an ontological question. How much volume does spirit consume? Infinite? None? Someplace in between?
That's a really, really negative view.
The manna = Christ the bread of life. The rod = Christ the true High Priest. The Tablets = Christ the new Moses, the new Lawgiver.
It’s a very positive view.
Only one day a year did the High Priest enter into the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and spread the blood on the Mercy Seat for the Atonement of all sin.
It isn’t the Law, nor Providence, nor Authority that saves us from the penalty of sin. It is the Blood, which covers all sin, including the sins of disobedience as represented by the three items in the Ark.
God wasn’t contained in the Ark, rather He dwelt in the Tabernacle, the Dwelling Place, and His presence known by the Shekinah Glory (Glory of His Dwelling).
I’m curious, how did Aaron’s rod that budded and the sealed ephod of manna represent disobedience?
Numbers 17:10
The Ark of the Covenant is also referenced as the Ark of Testimonies.
Num 17:10
(10) And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron’s rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.
Numbers 15-17 describes the rejection of legitimate Authority as chosen by God by the others in the Israelite tribes. The last situation begged by Moses and Aaron, resulted in the Lord directing the 12 families to bring a rod each, one of the Levi’s with Aaron’s name on it, and the one He chose would bud. Aaron’s rod budded.
Numbers 17:10 points directly at the rod to represent a token against the rebels. It represented their sin,..i.e. their disobedience to God’s Authority.
Numbers 17:10
The Ark of the Covenant is also referenced as the Ark of Testimonies.
Num 17:10
(10) And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron’s rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.
Numbers 15-17 describes the rejection of legitimate Authority as chosen by God by the others in the Israelite tribes. The last situation begged by Moses and Aaron, resulted in the Lord directing the 12 families to bring a rod each, one of the Levi’s with Aaron’s name on it, and the one He chose would bud. Aaron’s rod budded.
Numbers 17:10 points directly at the rod to represent a token against the rebels. It represented their sin,..i.e. their disobedience to God’s Authority.
I’ve always thought of the rod that budded as God’s showing that He is the source of Life. BTW, the rod also bore almonds! IIRC. I always thought of the ephod of Manna as God showing them that it is He who will sustain the believers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.