Mary as the Ark (for Brewmax and JustAsking4)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jordan_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jordan_Francis

Guest
I came across this in reading Scott Hahn’s Hail Holy Queen. I always accepted the Church’s interpretation that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, but I never supposed that this interpretation has implicit scriptural support. This is useful in other debates on these forums because showing that St. Luke thought of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant has strong implications for the understanding of her as sinless.

The title “Ark of the New Covenant” is not explicitly given in scripture. However, it is strongly alluded to in Luke’s birth narrative:

If you turn to Mary’s visit to Elizabeth you can see some astonishing parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. Hahn writes that:
“Luke’s language seems to echo the account, in 2 Samuel, of David’s travels as he brought the Ark to Jerusalem” (64)
Click to expand...
1. The story in 2 Samuel begins as “David arose and went” (6:2)

Luke’s account of the visitation begins: “Mary arose and went” (1:39)

2. - Mary and David both proceed to the hill country of Judah

3. David acknowledges his unworthiness with the words **“How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” **(2 Sam. 6:9)
  • Elizabeth says the same thing verbatim to Mary "Why is it granted that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?"
4. - David “danced” in the presence of the Ark
  • John the Baptist leaps in the womb of his mother
5. - finally, in Samuel, the Ark remains in the hill country for 3 months
  • Mary remains in the hill country for 3 months
Is this merely just co-incidence? The parallels I think are quite obvious.
 
The Ark of the Covenant contained:

The tablets of the Law
The priestly staff of Aaron that budded
The last of the manna

Mary contained in her womb:

The Word of God (and the fulfillment of the Law)
The Eternal High Priest
The Bread of Life

Am I the only one who sees this issue as a no-brainer?
 
A major stumbling block to many individuals is the mindset that is so intent on making Mary not even ‘just another person’ but a SINFUL person, chastized by Jesus and repudiated by Him. . .a person who is convinced that ‘this sinful person’ is Mary is going to consider even calling her Mother of God (Theotokos) is ‘too much’, and will go BALLISTIC at the idea that she could EVER be compared with something ‘important’ like the Ark of the Covenant.

Ah, they will say. Just another example of how Catholics focus on everything but JAY-sus. Why don’t they just think about JAY-sus?
 
For many non-Catholics it fails to be a no brainer because they refuse to open their hearts and their minds. They will read scripture with a predetermined idea of what it means and fail to see what is really in front of them.
Also for many non-Catholics, if they admit that any part of Catholic Doctrine that is diiferent from theirs is true, they will have to admit that the Catholic Church is correct - and then what else might the Catholics be right about. Once they start down the road of actually seeing the truth there is no turning back and for many that is a scary thing indeed, because for them it would mean that someday they will become Catholic.

Stillkickin:thumbsup:
 
Stillkickin said:
For many non-Catholics it fails to be a no brainer because they refuse to open their hearts and their minds. They will read scripture with a predetermined idea of what it means and fail to see what is really in front of them.
Also for many non-Catholics, if they admit that any part of Catholic Doctrine that is diiferent from theirs is true, they will have to admit that the Catholic Church is correct - and then what else might the Catholics be right about. Once they start down the road of actually seeing the truth there is no turning back and for many that is a scary thing indeed, because for them it would mean that someday they will become Catholic.

Stillkickin:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Heh, heh. See my sig.

But I don’t think seeing Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant should threaten any Protestant’s Protestantism. She carried the Word of God, the Great High Priest, and the Bread of Life in her womb.

Wait: maybe I see your point. When they so downplay priesthood and Eucharist and limit the Word of God to the book – well, maybe they WOULD balk at the imagery.
 
Jordan_Francis said:
The title “Ark of the New Covenant” is not explicitly given in scripture. However, it is strongly alluded to in Luke’s birth narrative:

If you turn to Mary’s visit to Elizabeth you can see some astonishing parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. Hahn writes that:

1. The story in 2 Samuel begins as “David arose and went” (6:2)

Luke’s account of the visitation begins: “Mary arose and went” (1:39)

2. - Mary and David both proceed to the hill country of Judah

3. David acknowledges his unworthiness with the words **“How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” **(2 Sam. 6:9)
  • Elizabeth says the same thing verbatim to Mary "Why is it granted that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?"
4. - David “danced” in the presence of the Ark
  • John the Baptist leaps in the womb of his mother
5. - finally, in Samuel, the Ark remains in the hill country for 3 months
  • Mary remains in the hill country for 3 months
Is this merely just co-incidence? The parallels I think are quite obvious.
Click to expand...
did you know:

Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln?

Lincoln’s assasin shot him in a theater and fled to a warehouse while Kennedy’s assasin shot him in a warehouse and fled to a theater?

they both have the same number of letters in their names?

the list goes on… is this coincidence?

(okay, just having a little fun here. i have read Hail Holy Queen a few times and do see the similarities)
 
Tantum_ergo said:
A major stumbling block to many individuals is the mindset that is so intent on making Mary not even ‘just another person’ but a SINFUL person, chastized by Jesus and repudiated by Him. . .a person who is convinced that ‘this sinful person’ is Mary is going to consider even calling her Mother of God (Theotokos) is ‘too much’, and will go BALLISTIC at the idea that she could EVER be compared with something ‘important’ like the Ark of the Covenant.

Ah, they will say. Just another example of how Catholics focus on everything but JAY-sus. Why don’t they just think about JAY-sus?
Click to expand...
i think you are mischaracterizing the motives of some. i think it’s amazing that God would choose (did choose and continues to choose) to accomplish His work through broken vessels like us. Mary, being a sinner like everyone else (using other’s words, not sure where i stand on this one yet) was chosen by God for the highest honor. what hope that can give us!! i think that is the attitude that protestants see as missing from catholics. many catholics i know think they have to perform to be able to be used by God, when all we have to do is be willing to be used:
“Let it be done to me as You have said”
 
Well naturally I am not claiming that every person is of this mindset (many is not ‘all’); the idea of ‘broken vessels’ is certainly Scriptural and beautiful --certainly St. Peter and St. Paul are good examples of this. But merely because we have so MANY examples of ‘broken vessels’ so to speak doesn’t mean that all who are part of Scripture are ‘broken’ --or that (as we see in Mary) any ‘break’ wasn’t ‘fixed’ by God prior to her conception. The parallels with Eve and the Ark are there not to give us hope that ‘broken vessels’ like us can ‘shine’ like Mary. (We can however shine like Sts. Elizabeth, Mary Magdelene, Martha, Priscilla, Dorcas, Mary of Cleopas, and also Ruth, Esther, Susannah, Rachel, Leah, Rebecca, Hannah, et. al). Mary’s role --Mother of God–is unique, just as the Ark of the Covenant is unique. Certainly we can have temples–or churches–we can even have the Real Presence in our Churches --but Mary IS special, and that does not mean she HERSELF made herself special but that God CHOSE her. In THAT we can certainly also do well to do as she did, and to say as she did, “I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to thy word.”
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Well naturally I am not claiming that every person is of this mindset (many is not ‘all’); the idea of ‘broken vessels’ is certainly Scriptural and beautiful --certainly St. Peter and St. Paul are good examples of this. But merely because we have so MANY examples of ‘broken vessels’ so to speak doesn’t mean that all who are part of Scripture are ‘broken’ --or that (as we see in Mary) any ‘break’ wasn’t ‘fixed’ by God prior to her conception. The parallels with Eve and the Ark are there not to give us hope that ‘broken vessels’ like us can ‘shine’ like Mary. (We can however shine like Sts. Elizabeth, Mary Magdelene, Martha, Priscilla, Dorcas, Mary of Cleopas, and also Ruth, Esther, Susannah, Rachel, Leah, Rebecca, Hannah, et. al). Mary’s role --Mother of God–is unique, just as the Ark of the Covenant is unique. Certainly we can have temples–or churches–we can even have the Real Presence in our Churches --but Mary IS special, and that does not mean she HERSELF made herself special but that God CHOSE her. In THAT we can certainly also do well to do as she did, and to say as she did, “I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to thy word.”
Click to expand...
i would agree (not that i completely agree), but my point was that protestants aren’t trying to besmurch (i know i’ve heard that word so now i’m trying to use it but i don’t know if it’s spelled correctly) Mary as much as they are trying to associate themselves with her.
 
bengal_fan said:
i would agree (not that i completely agree), but my point was that protestants aren’t trying to besmurch (i know i’ve heard that word so now i’m trying to use it but i don’t know if it’s spelled correctly) Mary as much as they are trying to associate themselves with her.
Click to expand...
They also, as a rule, tend to be completely unfamiliar with why Mary’s position came to be seen in a brighter light as a result of the dogmatic definitions concerning the Person of Jesus. They’re just not on that page. Some of them reject the councils outright (even though some of those accept the doctrines elucidated by those councils). It is a morass of confusion
 
bengal_fan said:
did you know:

Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln?

Lincoln’s assasin shot him in a theater and fled to a warehouse while Kennedy’s assasin shot him in a warehouse and fled to a theater?

they both have the same number of letters in their names?

the list goes on… is this coincidence?

(okay, just having a little fun here. i have read Hail Holy Queen a few times and do see the similarities)
Click to expand...
Nice, story about former US Presidents. My private definition of coincident is 2/more interesting separate occations, but I can not yet explain the reason(s) logically. In general, I do not believe in coincidence. There has to be a message, but not yet discovered.
 
mercygate said:
They also, as a rule, tend to be completely unfamiliar with why Mary’s position came to be seen in a brighter light as a result of the dogmatic definitions concerning the Person of Jesus. They’re just not on that page. Some of them reject the councils outright (even though some of those accept the doctrines elucidated by those councils). It is a morass of confusion
Click to expand...
i know very very few protestant sects that reject the church councils (up until Trent of course!). most mainline use the Nicene Creed weekly. they all use the Bible (which came from councils), they believe in the Trinity (councils), etc.
 
Stillkickin said:
For many non-Catholics it fails to be a no brainer because they refuse to open their hearts and their minds. They will read scripture with a predetermined idea of what it means and fail to see what is really in front of them.
Also for many non-Catholics, if they admit that any part of Catholic Doctrine that is diiferent from theirs is true, they will have to admit that the Catholic Church is correct - and then what else might the Catholics be right about. Once they start down the road of actually seeing the truth there is no turning back and for many that is a scary thing indeed, because for them it would mean that someday they will become Catholic.

Stillkickin:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Good point, indeed! watch out, the first step is a DUSEE!:bigyikes:
 
Jordan_Francis said:
I came across this in reading Scott Hahn’s Hail Holy Queen. I always accepted the Church’s interpretation that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, but I never supposed that this interpretation has implicit scriptural support. This is useful in other debates on these forums because showing that St. Luke thought of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant has strong implications for the understanding of her as sinless.

The title “Ark of the New Covenant” is not explicitly given in scripture. However, it is strongly alluded to in Luke’s birth narrative:

If you turn to Mary’s visit to Elizabeth you can see some astonishing parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. Hahn writes that:

1. The story in 2 Samuel begins as “David arose and went” (6:2)

Luke’s account of the visitation begins: “Mary arose and went” (1:39)

2. - Mary and David both proceed to the hill country of Judah

3. David acknowledges his unworthiness with the words **“How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” **(2 Sam. 6:9)
  • Elizabeth says the same thing verbatim to Mary "Why is it granted that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?"
4. - David “danced” in the presence of the Ark
  • John the Baptist leaps in the womb of his mother
5. - finally, in Samuel, the Ark remains in the hill country for 3 months
  • Mary remains in the hill country for 3 months
Is this merely just co-incidence? The parallels I think are quite obvious.
Click to expand...
Oh, you’ve really opened a can of worms here! How about printing a catechism that says “New Testament” on the cover? They might consider it then… 👍
 
bengal_fan said:
i know very very few protestant sects that reject the church councils (up until Trent of course!). most mainline use the Nicene Creed weekly. they all use the Bible (which came from councils), they believe in the Trinity (councils), etc.
Click to expand...
You are correct about the mainstream denominations. Most, however, do not accept anything after Chalcedon. Even in those denominations that DO accept the 1st 4 councils, you will find that MANY seminary trained pastors, as well as most people in the pew flat-out reject calling Mary “Mother of God” which was defined at the 3rd Council.

Then you have those denominations and self-styled NON-denominations whose creed is “No creed but Christ!” – Yet they affirm the Trinity.

Go figure.
 
mercygate said:
You are correct about the mainstream denominations. **Most, however, do not accept anything after Chalcedon. ** Even in those denominations that DO accept the 1st 4 councils, you will find that MANY seminary trained pastors, as well as most people in the pew flat-out reject calling Mary “Mother of God” which was defined at the 3rd Council.

Then you have those denominations and self-styled NON-denominations whose creed is “No creed but Christ!” – Yet they affirm the Trinity.

Go figure.
Click to expand...
should always be careful when generalizing folks. no judgement, just saying “most” isn’t really accurate. i would say many or some, but not most.

i haven’t met very many pastors who wouldn’t call Mary “Mother of God”. just haven’t met many who would go that far.
 
bengal_fan said:
should always be careful when generalizing folks. no judgement, just saying “most” isn’t really accurate. i would say many or some, but not most.

i haven’t met very many pastors who wouldn’t call Mary “Mother of God”. just haven’t met many who would go that far.
Click to expand...
Which mainstream denominations accept anything after Chalcedon? Even the Episcopalians, back in the days when they cared about such things, only acknowledged the first four in public, though privately nodding to the first seven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top