Mary: The Ark of the New Covenant

Catholic Culture ^ | February 24, 2006 | Steve Ray

[NYer]

Why do Catholics call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant? Answering that question will take us on a journey through the Old and New Testaments.

For example, Luke wove some marvelous things into his Gospel that only a knowledgeable Jew would have understood — a Jew who knew Jewish Scripture and had eyes to see and ears to hear. One of the things he would have understood is typology. So what is typology?

We all know that the Old Testament is full of stories, people, and historical events. A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something in the New Testament. It is like a taste or a hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized. Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ's revelation. Typology is the study of these types and their fulfillment. Augustine said that "the Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed" (Catechizing of the Uninstructed, 4:8).

The idea of typology is not new. In his letter to the Romans, Paul says that Adam was a type of the one who was to come — Christ (Rom. 5:14). Early Christians understood that the Old Testament was full of types or pictures that were fulfilled or realized in the New Testament.

Here are a few more examples of biblical typology:

• Peter uses Noah's ark as a type of Christian baptism (1 Pet. 3:18-22).
  
  
• Paul explains that circumcision foreshadowed Christian baptism (Col. 2:11-12).
  
  
• Jesus uses the bronze serpent as a type of his Crucifixion (John 3:14; cf. Num. 21:8-9).
  
  
• The Passover lamb prefigures the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7).
  
  
• Paul says that Abraham, in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, "considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" (Heb. 11:19).

The Ark of the Old Covenant
God loved his people and wanted to be close to them. He chose to do so in a very special way. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "The prayer of the people of God flourished in the shadow of the dwelling place of God's presence on earth, the ark of the covenant and the temple, under the guidance of their shepherds, especially King David, and of the prophets" (CCC 2594). God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle surrounded by heavy curtains (cf. Ex. 25-27). Within the tabernacle he was to place an ark made of acacia wood covered with gold inside and out. Within the Ark of the Covenant was placed a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant (cf. Heb. 9:4).

When the ark was completed, the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory) covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34-35; Num. 9:18, 22). The verb for "to cover" or "to overshadow" and the metaphor of a cloud are used in the Bible to represent the presence and glory of God. The Catechism explains:

In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory — with Moses on Mount Sinai, at the tent of meeting, and during the wandering in the desert, and with Solomon at the dedication of the temple. In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures [types]. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the "cloud came and overshadowed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and "a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!"' Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his Ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming. The glory of the Lord "overshadowed" the ark and filled the tabernacle (CCC 697).

It's easy to miss the parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God.

God was very specific about every exact detail of the ark (Ex. 25-30). It was a place where God himself would dwell (Ex. 25:8). God wanted his words — inscribed on stone — housed in a perfect container covered with pure gold within and without. How much more would he want his Word — Jesus — to have a perfect dwelling place! If the only begotten Son were to take up residence in the womb of a human girl, would he not make her flawless?

The Virgin Mary is the living shrine of the Word of God, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant. In fact, St. Luke's account of the annunciation of the angel to Mary nicely incorporates the images of the tent of meeting with God in Sinai and of the temple of Zion. Just as the cloud covered the people of God marching in the desert (cf. Num. 10:34; Deut. 33:12; Ps. 91:4) and just as the same cloud, as a sign of the divine mystery present in the midst of Israel, hovered over the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Ex. 40:35), so now the shadow of the Most High envelopes and penetrates the tabernacle of the New Covenant that is the womb of Mary (cf. Luke 1:35) (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, The Shrine: Memory, Presence and Prophecy of the Living God).

Luke weaves additional parallels into the story of Mary — types that could be overlooked if one is unfamiliar with the Old Testament. After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sam. 5:1-6:12).

David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sam 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obededom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:9-14).

Compare David and the ark to Luke's account of the Visitation:

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah 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 fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (Luke 1:39-45).

Here are the parallels:

• Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided) are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
  
• When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something — drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
  
• When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb — and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
  
• When the Old Testament ark arrived — as when Mary arrived — they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth's greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
  
• The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God's presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).

It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.

The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Deut. 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: "a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded." Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary's womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God's people alive in the wilderness; in Mary's womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life. In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary's womb is the true priest. In the third century, St. Gregory the Wonder Worker said that Mary is truly an ark — "gold within and gold without, and she has received in her womb all the treasures of the sanctuary."

While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries — no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple?'

At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions — these were added in the twelfth century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.

What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? "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" (Rev. 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.

But does this passage really refer to Mary? Some say the woman represents Israel or the Church, and certainly she does. John's use of rich symbolism is well known, but it is obvious from the Bible itself that the woman is Mary. The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil) — and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor. 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rev. 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.

John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about this passage in Revelation:

I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image unless there had existed a Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the "man-child" spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not "the Woman" an allusion to his mother?

Later in the same chapter we read that the devil went out to persecute the woman's other offspring — Christians — which certainly seems to indicate that Mary is somehow the mother of the Church (Rev. 12:17).

Even if someone rejects Catholic teaching regarding Mary, he cannot deny that Catholics have scriptural foundations for it. And it is a teaching that has been taught by Christians from ancient times. Here are a few representative quotations from the early Church — some written well before the New Testament books were officially compiled into the final New Testament canon.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: "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" (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213-c. 270) wrote: "Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, 'Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy 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" (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: "Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God . . . with men"' (CCC 2676).

The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.

Mary the Ark As Revealed in Mary's Visit to Elizabeth

Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant	Mary: Ark of the New Covenant
The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1-11).	Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).
Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).	John the Baptist — of priestly lineage — leapt in his mother's womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).
David asks, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9).	Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43).
David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).	Elizabeth "exclaimed with a loud cry" in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42).
The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).	Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).
The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).	The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39-45).
The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God's presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11).	Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).

Inside the Ark

Inside the Ark of the Old Covenant	Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant
The stone tablets of the law — the word of God inscribed on stone	The body of Jesus Christ — the word of God in the flesh
The urn filled with manna from the wilderness — the miraculous bread come down from heaven	The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41)
The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest	The actual and eternal High Priest

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***What is your religious faith and how exactly was it insulted??***

This guy (Invincibly Ignorant)started pulling this on some of the threads I was posting on.

A search of his earlier posts to other threads shows he was a Christian who claims to have converted to Judaism.

Here is what he said on another thread...

***Posted by Invincibly Ignorant to zeeba neighba
On Religion 02/20/2006 1:05:28 PM CST · 79 of 130


You really have some kind of problem with Jews. I don't know if its a "Christ-killer" mentality or what but you should try and be more sensative.***

And another....



****Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

Posted by Invincibly Ignorant to NYer
On Religion 02/15/2006 9:05:43 AM CST · 20 of 1,889


This protestant coverted to Judaism. :-)****



So, Mr. Ignorant, I will ask you the same question I have asked before and you never answer...
What sin did Israel commit that was so bad that the jewish people have been without a temple or sacrifice for almost 2000 years?

[restornu]

some of you as yourself, are so nice in replying to others who's' understandings are different, when discussing a point of view and some throw verbal acid!

As lurker on the last thread I could not help but to respond and point out how testy many were over something that seem fraction of a hair of differences!

Discussions and exchange is nice it can cause one to think and learn or understand each other!

[restornu]

This only further demonstrates the degree of your ignorance. The writings of the OT at one time have included more and less of what we now consider canon.

The Catholic Church defined what we now have in our Bibles. Protestants -- Luther, Calvin and others -- made additional changes.

How can you say that there are millions who say the Bible is infallible?

Many here on this forum have said that over and over through the years!

You your sefl might have said it!

[restornu]

Low blood sugar!

[FormerLib]

I always thought it had something to do with lithium, but you just never know.

[Jaded]

Huh?

[restornu]

My point is some can be nice when having a discussion and others are very difficult of not taking on to return in kind!

Some times one can get caught up and before they know it instead of a discussion and exchanging points of view it become a free for all and very unpleasant!

some of these folks can be downright mean and insulting!

[infool7]

NYer Awesome post!

May Our Lady Queen of the Angels send Michael the Archangel to aid you in battle. If She hasn’t already, you do appear to be tireless in your defense of the faith.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Exactly. We can learn from each other, politely and lovingly or we can play mean games, which does little good, IMHO. Most of us are pretty solid in what we believe. We know why we believe what we believe. In our discussions, it can be useful to explain to others why we have come to the conclusions we have, but after a point, we have to agree to disagree or start bashing each other with verbal planks. What good does it do to bash each other?

IMHO, of course.

[Aquinasfan]

Excellent post. Thanks!

[Desdemona]

bump

Can't think this morning. Too much rehearsal. Brain cells dead.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So, Mr. Ignorant, I will ask you the same question I have asked before and you never answer... What sin did Israel commit that was so bad that the jewish people have been without a temple or sacrifice for almost 2000 years?

Ah. They ate ice cream when they were supposed to be giving it up for Lent?

[markomalley]

We can learn from each other, politely and lovingly or we can play mean games, which does little good, IMHO. Most of us are pretty solid in what we believe. We know why we believe what we believe. In our discussions, it can be useful to explain to others why we have come to the conclusions we have, but after a point, we have to agree to disagree or start bashing each other with verbal planks. What good does it do to bash each other?

An extremely good point that bears repeating! (It would be nice if that comment could be put on the front page of the religion forum...imho)

[sneakers]

Thanks for the excellent post. Bumping to read later in its entirety!

[nanetteclaret]

Dear Andysandmikesmom -

I would like to be the first to say "Welcome Home!"

I have been where you are! I was brought up as a Presbyterian, then became Episcopalian as an adult, and just a few months ago was confirmed as a Roman Catholic. If you are searching for Truth, you will find it - in the Catholic Church. I, too, could never have imagined actually being Catholic even a year ago, but sometimes when one finally understands Truth, it is like a lightbulb going on. Everything finally makes sense...

The EWTN Religious Catalogue has a wealth of books which tell conversion stories. They are always very interesting and enlightening. God certainly moves in mysterious ways! Also, you might check out EWTN's show "The Journey Home" which will be on tonight (Monday) at 8 p.m. EST. The show features guests who have either converted from another religion or denomination or Catholics who left the Church but then came back. It's always very interesting and enlightening.

Please freepmail me if you have any questions or if I may be of any help. My journey took about 35 years, and many, many questions answered, but better late than never! I truly breathed a sigh of relief after Confirmation, as I realized that I was safely home inside the Church - such an awesome gift from Our Lord!

nanette

[magisterium]

In the interests of fairness, there is a distinction that needs to be made here.

From a Christian standpoint, you are right when saying that the OT canon - along with the NT canon, of course - was fixed by the Catholic Church in the 4th and 5th Centuries. And that is all that should matter to us, since we believe that the Holy Spirit guided the process from the viewpoint that Christianity, as a fullfillment of Judaism, had supplanted it with respect to authority. However, the Jews today, obviously, do not recognize that authority of the early Church to decide anything. Their ancestors came up with the Jewish canon of Scripture on their own, at the rabbinic council of Jamnia (also known as Javneh) about 90 AD.

It is true that the two canons differ, in that the Jews adopted the Masoretic text (Hebrew) and the Christians adopted the Septuagint text (Greek). It is true, from our standpoint, that the Jewish council, coming 60 years after the founding of the Church and 20 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, no longer had the authority to canonize Scripture. And, finally, it is true that the council of Jamnia was convened in the first place largely to circumvent the growth and authority of Christianity. Nevertheless, looked at from the Jewish POV, our councils mean nothing to them, and, regardless of its motivations, Jamnia determined their canon of Scripture without our help. The Jewish canon being independently derived, they would say that they owe us "nothing." By default, they arrived at a canon that is 39/46 the same as ours; they're not about to acknowledge us in the process. On purely human terms, they would be correct in saying we had nothing to do with their Scripture.

[magisterium]

Welcome Home! May God be with you and guide your steps to the fullness of His revelation!

[NYer]

May Our Lady Queen of the Angels send Michael the Archangel to aid you in battle.

Thank you!

Are you familiar with St. Michael's Santuario in Italy? Here is the history behind it.

In Apulia, on Monte Gargano, the town of Monte Sant’Angelo contains the most famous shrine of the Latin West dedicated to the Archangel Saint Michael. Placed on top of the mountain this singular Basilica made up of a complex of constructions around the grotto from various eras, gives evidence of a good fifteen centuries of history. From remote times this is a place of pardon and prayer, famous in the entire Christian world. An anonymous writer, who lived more than a thousand years ago, describes it thus:
“The shrine of Saint Michael is known and extolled everywhere not for the splendour of its marble, but for the prodigious events that took palce here; of modest form, it is nevertheless, rich in celestial virtue, because the Archangel Michael himself deigned to set up and consecrate it, who being mindful of human frailty, came down from heaven so that men could participate in things divine in that temple”.
We hope you will have an interesting and fruitful visit in this holy place, born through the inscrutable will of Our Lord on the high peak of the rugged and suggestive Gargano and as if suspended between the sky and the sea, between the divine and the human.

The origin of the shrine

The origin of the shrine goes back to the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 6th century. Some old written documents give evidence to this: a letter sent by Pope Gelasio I in 493 - 494 to Giusto, Bishop of Larino, another letter from the same Pontiff to Herculentius, Bishop of Potenza, (492 - 496) and a note dated 29 September reported by the martyrologer Geronimiano.
But it is the Liber de apparitione sancti Michaelis in Monte Gargano, which was drafted, in the 8th century, which reconstructs with precision and evocation the miraculous events, which gave origin to the cult of the Archangel Michael on the Gargano.
This is connected with the memory of four apparitions that have taken place in the course of the centuries. They are related with extraordinary and moving vivacity and they testify to the miraculous events that took place there.
The first traditionally dated 490 is the most astonishing and is called the episode of the bull.

You can visit the Santuario online at this link.

CLICK HERE

[NYer]

...its just clearly apparent to me, that indeed, it is the Catholic religion which does hold within it, the Truth...and this is something that even just a few years ago, I would have never dreamed of saying...

Bless you! Rest assured of my prayers on your journey.