Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary's Visit to Elizabeth in Luke 1, Ark Imagery and the Early Fathers
www.TheSacredPage.com ^ | 12/14/10 | Michael Barber

Posted on 12/14/2010 10:40:33 AM PST by Mighty_Quinn

Patristic sources often link Mary, the mother of Jesus, to ark of the covenant imagery. Where did this tradition originate? At first glance, it might be suspected that such language is merely the result of reckless allegorization. After all, the New Testament never links Mary with the ark. . . right?

Here I want to make the case that the imagery of Mary as ark can be found in Luke’s Gospel. In particular, I want to look at a story relevant to the Christmas season: Luke's account of the Visitation, i.e., Mary's visit to Elizabeth. The story is rich in Old Testament echoes. As we shall see, it seems the fathers were much more careful readers of the New Testament than is often realized. This should raise a few eyebrows. Please let me know what you think in the com-box.

Mary as the Ark of the Covenant in Patristic Sources

First, let me establish the assertion I made above, namely, that patristic writers linked Mary with the ark. A few citations will do. Note that this is by no means an exhaustive survey.

Hippolytus (c. a.d. 170–c. a.d. 236):  “At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested....And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body” [Dan .vi].
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. a.d. 296– c. a.d. 373): "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. a.d. 213– c. a.d.  270): "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).

St. John Damascene (c. a.d. 676–c. a.d. 749): “This day the Holy and Singular Virgin is presented in the sublime and heavenly Temple… This day the sacred and living Ark of the Living God, who bore within her womb her own Creator, took up her rest within that temple of the Lord that was not made with hands… And David her forefather, and her father in God, dances with joy…” [Oration on the Glorious Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God the Ever-Virgin Mary, 2].

Echoes of the Ark in Luke 1

In Luke 1 we read about Mary’s journey to visit her cousin Elizabeth. We read that “Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country of Judah” (1:39). When she arrives, Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women’”(1:42).  Elizabeth asks, “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (1:43). She states, “For behold when the voice of your greeting came to my ears the babe in my womb leaped for joy” (1:44). After Mary responds with a long prayer praising God we read, “And Mary remained with her about three months” (1:56).

At first glance it seems that there are no clear Old Testament allusions in any of this—after all, no specific passage is cited. However, a more careful look reveals numerous Old Testament allusions in the story. Among other things, the line “Blessed are you among women” (1:42) clearly evokes Deborah’s prayer (cf. Jdg 5:24).  Likewise, scholars have detected numerous links between Mary’s prayer in the story and Hannah’s in 1 Samuel 2. Luke is clearly subtle in his use of the Old Testament; he does not need formula quotations.

Yet what I want to focus on here are the allusions to the story of the ark’s journey to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. There we read about David’s bringing the holy vessel into the newly conquered city of Jerusalem. In the beginning of the chapter we read about David’s first attempt to lead the ark into Zion—an attempt that is aborted after a man dies for touching the ark.

Indeed, the first attempt seemed doom to failure from the get-go: the ark was carried on a cart, rather than being properly carried on poles (2 Sam 6:3; cf. Exod 37:4). It is only after the cart tips over that Uzzah puts his hand to ark, presumably, as a last ditch effort to save the ark from hitting the ground, and dies (2 Sam 6:6–7). The ark remains at the house of one “Obededom” for a period of time before, after the man's house is blessed, David decides to bring the ark into Jerusalem properly (cf. 2 Sam 6:11–12). This time the ark is properly “borne” by the Levites (2 Sam 6:13) and David leads the ark in a glorious procession, which involves him offering sacrifice and blessing the people (cf. 2 Sam 6:16–19).

The parallels between the ark’s journey in 2 Samuel 6 and Mary’s journey in Luke 1 are striking. Indeed, the language in Luke 1 mirrors that of the LXX.

Both “arose” in are linked with the region of Judah.
“Mary arose [ἀνίστημι] and went with haste into the hill country of Judah” (Luke 1:39).
—“And David arose [ἀνίστημι] and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah” (2 Sam 6:2).

In both stories a “blessing” is pronounced.
“[Elizabeth] exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed [εὐλογημένη] are you among women’”(Luke 1:42).
—“[David] blessed [εὐλόγησεν]the people in the name of the Lord” (2 Sam 6:18).

Both Elizabeth and David ask how they are worthy to be in the presence of the Ark/Mary.
“And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me [ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρὸς ἐμέ]? (Luke 1:43).
—“[David] said, ‘How can the ark of the Lord come to me [Πῶς εἰσελεύσεται πρός με ἡ κιβωτὸς κυρίου]?’” (2 Sam 6:9).

“Leaping” occurs in both stories.
“For behold… the babe in my womb leaped [ἐσκίρτησεν] for joy” (Luke 1:44).
—“Michal . . . looked out the window and saw David leaping [MT: pāzǎz] and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam 6:16).

Both Mary and the ark remain somewhere for “three months”.
“And Mary remained with her about three months [μῆνας τρεῖς]” (Luke 1:56).
—“And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months [μῆνας τρεῖς]” (2 Sam 6:11).

These parallels are, in my opinion, very difficult to dismiss as mere coincidence. In other words, it seems more likely that Luke is drawing on 2 Samuel 6 than that these similarities are present by chance.

The upshot of it all appears to be that Luke describes Mary's visit to Elizabeth in terms evocative of the ark’s journey to Jerusalem. In other words, Luke seems to describe Mary as the new ark of the covenant.

The Ark and the Woman in Revelation 12

Interestingly, both "ark of the covenant imagery" and that of "the mother of the Messiah" also appear to be linked in the same context in other place: the Apocalypse. In Revelation 12 we read about a woman who gives birth to a male child who rules the nations “with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5). The language is clearly Davidic and is obviously drawn from Psalm 2. In sum, the child born is clearly the messiah. The woman is therefore—whatever else she may be—the mother of the messiah.

Notably, the scene in Revelation 12 immediately follows a vision of the ark. The connection is obscured for contemporary readers a bit by the chapter and verse markers added later to the text, but a careful reading will note that the vision of the ark immediately precedes the imagery of the “woman”: “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. Chapter 12 1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun. . .” 
Incidentally, I might also note that many commentators see Isaiah 7:14 in the backdrop of Revelation 12, a passage also linked with Mary in the New Testament. 

Conclusion

It would seem then that the patristic writers were not without precedent in linking Mary with the ark—the New Testament contains at least two places where the connection is made.  Reckless allegorization or insightful contemplation? Clearly, the latter.

Of course, if the new covenant is superior to the old covenant, it would also seem that the ark of the new covenant would exceed in holiness that of the old. In light of this, the early church’s affirmation of Mary as panagia, i.e., “all-holy,” makes good sense.   


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: advent; ark; arkofthecovenant; catholic; christmas; mary; visitation

1 posted on 12/14/2010 10:40:40 AM PST by Mighty_Quinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn

“Reckless”

The Bible is clear that no man was “all holy” except Jesus. Also, this comes dagerously close to elevating Mary to someone who should be worshipped and prayed to...both a no-no in the Bible.


2 posted on 12/14/2010 10:55:16 AM PST by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
“After reading Hoehner’s arguments on the death of Christ (Friday crucifixion, Nisan 14 or April 3, AD 33), I wrote to him and suggested that another argument that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that he presented himself to the nation on Nisan 10 was that it fulfilled the typology of Exodus 12:1–6. To my surprise and delight, Hoehner wrote back! And he politely pointed out that my argument could only be brought in as tertiary evidence, for although Jesus did indeed fulfill the typology of the OT, as historians we must look at the evidence that is of a historical nature—that is, evidence that both Christians and non-Christians would embrace—and we must also recognize that typological fulfillment often went in various directions, preventing us from cherry-picking in support of a view. For example, Jesus was not a year old when he died; he was not killed by fire but by crucifixion, etc. In other words, typology can be used in a confirmatory manner for historical study, but not as primary or secondary evidence. It’s what one brings in when discussing the results of one’s investigation.” (Triablogue )

3 posted on 12/14/2010 11:03:25 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

Fasten your seat belt, my FRiend.


4 posted on 12/14/2010 11:05:39 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Fasten your seat belt, my FRiend.

And gird your loins.
5 posted on 12/14/2010 11:18:45 AM PST by rickomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
In Revelation 12 we read about a woman who gives birth to a male child who rules the nations

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

Let me get this straight, the ark is seen in heaven in chapter 11 and the woman is pictured as being on earth in chapter 12. Yet the mere proximity of these two images allegedly connects Mary with the ark? Curious interpretative approach.

… appear to be linked in the same context in other place:

Appearances apparently are deceiving. Let’s play a game of “We can make the Bible say anything we wish cuz we are the One True Church®.”

6 posted on 12/14/2010 11:41:02 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
Benedict XVI did not even omit to provide a sacrifice to this de facto goddess. It is reported that, "In a gesture of filial love, the Pope then offered the Madonna a golden rose." One is reminded immediately of the similar offerings presented by the Philistines to the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, particularly given Catholicism's claim (or at least the claim of her apologists) that Mary is the "ark of the New Covenant." ( Mary Worship Still Alive in Catholicism)

7 posted on 12/14/2010 11:46:52 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. a.d. 213– c. a.d. 270): "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).
This very homily has been cited to prove the antiquity of the festival of the Annunciation, observed, in the West, March 25. But even Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work. The feast of the Nativity was introduced into the East by Chrysostom after the records at Rome had been inspected, and the time of the taxing at Bethlehem had been found. See his Sermon (a.d. 386), beautifully translated by Dr. Jarvis in his Introduction, etc., p. 541. Compare Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 164, and Justin, vol. i. p. 174, this series. Now, as the selection of the 25th of March is clearly based on this, we may say no more of that day. Possibly some Sunday was associated with the Annunciation. The four Sundays preceding Christmas are all observed by the Nestorians in commemoration of the Annunciation.

Another difficulty in the works of the early Fathers is that many of them are held to be spurious and unauthentic, whilst the genuineness of others is disputed. I leave the discussion in all cases to the judgment of learned critics. My general rule has been to make my quotations from writings the authenticity of which is commonly acknowledged. Sometimes, however, I have cited works of doubtful genuineness, or which, at any rate, were not written as we now have them by the Fathers to whom they are attributed, but whose date, as assigned to them by critics, falls within the first six centuries, to which period I confine myself. When I quote from a doubtful or unauthentic work, or depart exceptionally from this general rule, I note the fact.

"These homilies are of doubtful genuineness."

(Misquoting Gregory the Wonderworker )


8 posted on 12/14/2010 11:52:51 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

James White Is anti-charismatic, anti-catholic and no miracles like apostles since biblical days. He is very narrow minded person. I would never trust his blog. Neither would most charismatics.


9 posted on 12/14/2010 5:29:17 PM PST by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
James White Is anti-charismatic, anti-[Roman] catholic and no miracles like apostles since biblical days. He is very narrow minded person. I would never trust his blog. Neither would most charismatics.

I'm not a charismatic nor Roman Catholic. There are no apostles so there can be “no miracles like [the] apostles” today. The infallibility of the pope, immaculate conception, etc are fraudulent beliefs.

As far as “narrow minded”, everyone draws a line somewhere. Everyone to the right of you is narrow minded, just as you are narrow minded to everyone on your left. What's your view of One Pentecostals?

10 posted on 12/14/2010 5:37:32 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn

Ark of the New Covenant bump!


11 posted on 12/14/2010 5:39:41 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry, this link got messed up: Misquoting Gregory the Wonderworker
12 posted on 12/14/2010 5:40:46 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Of course there can be miracles today. Where is your faith?


13 posted on 12/14/2010 5:44:12 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
Mary's Visit to Elizabeth in Luke 1, Ark Imagery and the Early Fathers
The Heart of Mary [OPEN]
Feast of the Visitation (of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Elizabeth) [Ecumenical]
SEASON OF ANNOUNCEMENT - Sunday Dec. 3, 2006 -The Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF THE VISITATION FROM 2001-2005
Jesus taught that abortion is wrong while He was in the womb of Mary. (Luke 1)
The Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
14 posted on 12/14/2010 5:47:50 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Of course there can be miracles today. Where is your faith?

Of course. I was referring to those miracles which were for the authentication of the apostolic office. No apostles, no apostolic miracles.

15 posted on 12/14/2010 5:48:06 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

The first apostles WERE the first Bishops!

And they have appointed bishops down the line. Of course there are apostles today!

Holy Orders has three steps —

Diaconate
Priesthood
Episcopate

I realize this may not be what you believe, but there is an unbroken line of succession to the apostles in only one place.....the Catholic Church.


16 posted on 12/14/2010 5:50:58 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Why do Catholics always talk about the Early Church Fathers (Apostolic Fathers)?[Ecumenical]
The Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

17 posted on 12/14/2010 5:53:47 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Hi Top- I was referring to miracles by men through the Holy Spirit. Also one pentecostals are the non trinity types?


18 posted on 12/14/2010 6:05:55 PM PST by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I realize this may not be what you believe, but there is an unbroken line of succession to the apostles in only one place.....the Catholic Church.

I understand the theory. It can't be proven one way or the other, but it really doesn't matter. Apostolic succession through a particular line of men as a mark of the Church is not an apostolic teaching, i.e., it's not taught in the Bible.

19 posted on 12/14/2010 6:12:43 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting. (Apostolic Succession)

20 posted on 12/14/2010 6:16:22 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
Hi Top- I was referring to miracles by men through the Holy Spirit.

God performs miracles by the operation of the Holy Spirit, although not at the level we see in the NT Scriptures since the apostles were still alive and the canon of Scripture was not yet complete. Most NT miracles were office confirming.

Also one pentecostals are the non trinity types?

But that's a narrow minded statement, isn't it?

21 posted on 12/14/2010 6:31:15 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Of course there are apostles today!

There are no apostles today. One qualification of an apostle was to know Christ face to face and be a witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-23).

22 posted on 12/14/2010 6:35:42 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

So sad to think that you view yourself not as an apostle spreading the word of the Lord.

We ARE Christ’s hands and feet today. Perhaps it would be easier for us to call ourselves disciples — proclaiming the Lord and calling non-believers to conversion.

Have a good week.


23 posted on 12/14/2010 6:50:45 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
So sad to think that you view yourself not as an apostle spreading the word of the Lord.

There are lots of things I'm not, according to the Bible. But the Bible is my standard, not any appeal to sympathy.

disciples

That's one of the things I am.

24 posted on 12/14/2010 7:06:23 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The Truth About Mary and Scripture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

It would be nice if people would actually take just a few moments to watch this.
Answers many questions.


25 posted on 12/14/2010 7:15:59 PM PST by Not gonna take it anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn; Not gonna take it anymore; Celtic Cross; shurwouldluv_a_smallergov; Judith Anne; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!

26 posted on 12/14/2010 8:05:47 PM PST by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

Already asked for the ping.

Read your mail. LOL


27 posted on 12/14/2010 8:13:13 PM PST by Not gonna take it anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Let me get this straight, the ark is seen in heaven in chapter 11 and the woman is pictured as being on earth in chapter 12. Yet the mere proximity of these two images allegedly connects Mary with the ark?

Curious interpretative approach.

Actually, not curious at all. And I'm not a Roman Catholic trying to defend this scholar. However, the original Greek New Testament had no chapter or verse numbers, nor even paragraph divisions (nor often even punctuation)...these are all things added by later editors--who weren't necessarily correct in their division of things (as it is not part of the original inspired text). Direct proximity in a text often usually does connect things, or else why would the John and the Holy Spirit have written it this way?

Here's the passage in question, as written, without the added chapter and verse divisions:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. (Rev 11:19-12:1,2)
One should not be quick to dismiss observations of the early Church Fathers--they discerned from Scripture and clarified basically all the fundamentals all Christians of all stripes call essential.

One should also not dismiss Old Testament imagery in place in the (historically true) New Testament stories--as the New Testament writers knew the Old Testament like the back of their hand, and expected their readers to as well--and while reconting history, could well recount true events that have eerie Old Testament historic precedents. I think many solid evangelical Protestant scholars would agree with this scholar's take on this...

Did Mary bear Jesus in a similar way that God chose to be especially present in the Ark? Yes. Does that mean we should pray to her, no. Does that mean she deserves our highest respect as a godly woman and the one chosen to be the mother of our Lord? Absolutely.

28 posted on 12/14/2010 9:55:57 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: narses

Great post, narses. Very interesting study in typology.

No, it doesn’t make me want to be Roman Catholic, but, it does help me appreciate the depth and quality of the Gospel of Luke, and the great honor given to the humble mother of our Lord.


29 posted on 12/14/2010 10:06:54 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sigzero
The Bible is clear that no man was “all holy” except Jesus.

I agree. Jesus Christ -- God and Man, both inextricably interlinked is the only "all holy man".

Just as the first Ark should not be worshipped as God, neither should the second be worshipped as God.

Mary is not worshipped as God -- she is/was just a created being. A created being that bore God for 9 months and gave birth to Him, but a created being none-the-less. Filled with grace to enable that weak human vessel to be able to carry the power and majesty that is God, but a weak human vessel nonetheless.
30 posted on 12/15/2010 7:25:25 AM PST by Cronos (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

I tried to make the point here that the claim of the Mary/ark view among the early church fathers is questionable. Many of the works cited are considered "Dubious and Spurious". E.g., regarding the Gregory the Wonderworker quotes, Philip Schaff states, “But even [Alexius Aurelius] Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work.”

I also view the imagery of the woman in the wilderness as not primarily about Mary, but rather it is a picture of the Church. After Christ’s ascension, she is said to be protected for a period of “one thousand two hundred and sixty days.” This harkens back to the timing of the two witnesses in Rev. 11:3. It seems clear that is time period is associated with Christ’s Church. The image here is of the church in the wilderness being nourished by the gospel.

We also see the parallel in imagery between this righteous woman and the woman of Revelation 17. She is described as “that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” I believe this is reference to apostate Jerusalem of that day, also called “the great city” in Rev. 11:8. The contrast here would be between the earthly city and the heavenly one (Heb. 12:22ff; Gal. 4:26; Rev. 21:2).

31 posted on 12/15/2010 7:46:16 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
Interesting article; thanks!

As the Ark of the Covenant contained the commandments, the “written Word of God”, so Mary, for nine months contained the Son of the living God- the “Word made flesh”.

The title “Ark of the New Covenant” makes sense to me!

32 posted on 12/15/2010 8:16:56 AM PST by shurwouldluv_a_smallergov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn; AnalogReigns; Salvation
Did Mary suffer physical pain at the birth of Christ?

Answering in the negative, Aquinas quotes Augustine, "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain." (Summa Theologica, III Question 35 Art. 6). Aquinas goes on to state:

I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q[28], A[2], Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according toIsa. 35:1, 2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."

Yet in the description of the woman in Rev. 12 we read, "Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth."

33 posted on 12/15/2010 9:29:09 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn

It’s simple really: the Ark carried the Words of God. We are told by St. John that Christ is the Word of God made flesh. Mary carried Christ in her body. Therefore, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

Thank you for honoring Mary with this post on Christmas Eve. Sad that some feel the need to denigrate her even on this night. At the very least, she was Christ’s longest and most faithful follower, who endured uncertainty, hardship and exile on His behalf, before anyone else believed in Him. Surely she deserves honor for that alone.

Except that she’s so much more.


34 posted on 12/24/2010 11:58:30 PM PST by Melian ( See Matt 7: 21 and 1 John 2: 3-6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson