I appreciate your comments very much. The parallels between the Greek words used are extremely interesting.

As I stated, the exodus/return pattern is frequent, and I certainly see these factors as providing extra support. Luke does similar things in Acts, also.

Marys’ womb can also be considered a Holy of Holies as there are numerous parallels between womb and tomb in Scripture.

Mary can also be considered a type of the Land (which is also feminine in Hebrew) made once again fruitful. (Notice that, as Israel, Jesus is also pictured as Land coming up out of the waters.)

Where it goes off the rails is when Uzzah’s death is used to support Mary’s sinlessness, or this type is made the foundation for the eucharistic procession, or Mary is considered to be a permanent Holy of Holies when there is no obvious or typological support.

Thanks for your interesting comments. I welcome any criticism and hope I can count on further input from you around here.

Kind regards,
Mike

I’m a student of typology – endlessly fascinating endeavor! – and am not and never have been Catholic myself. I would like to comment on your point about the Ark of the Covenant. (I just noticed that MS Word wants to capitalize “ark of the covenant”!)

I understand that you recognize the many parallels between the “Visitation” account in Luke 1 and the Ark’s journey narrated in 2 Samuel 6. The cumulative effect of the many commonalities between them makes the typological connection impossible to be denied. I can’t help but recognize its validity.

OTOH, I understand that you’re trying to say that in the specific context of Luke 1 the Ark should be interpreted as an image of Christ, not of Mary.

I can see a link between the person of Christ and the Ark, but, in the precise context of Luke 1, it seems inescapable to me that the comparison is made between the Ark and the person of Mary the mother of Jesus. That’s the whole gist of the correlation between the stories of 2 Samuel and Luke.

Each correspondence found between 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1 makes a point that associates Mary and the Ark. For example (sorry for all caps since there aren’t any formatting options):

2Sa 6:9 And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and said, How shall THE ARK OF THE LORD come to me?
Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?

2Sa 6:11 And THE ARK OF THE LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months.
Luk 1:56 And MARY abode with her about three months.

The parallel is perfect and exact. And it makes all the sense. Christ is the incarnate Word (Greek: Logos) of God. The tablets of the Law were the written Word (Hebrew: Davar) of God – hence the “decaLOGUE.” The typological correspondence is clear. The Ark held the written Word of God in stone just as Mary held the living Word of God in flesh inside her womb. Ark is a feminine noun in Greek and its capacity of receiving the Word inside coheres with the feminine overtones associated with quiescence and receptivity.

Just like the Cloud of God’s Glory “overshadowed” (episkiazo, LXX) the Ark in the heart of the tabernacle (Exodus 40:35; Leviticus 16:2), the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” (episkiazo) Mary (Luke 1:35). The same rare Greek word is employed here.

Another very rare Greek word used in the account is anaphoneo (Luke 1:42) Mary shows up and Elizabeth “cries” (anaphoneo) with a loud voice. The word appears only here in the entire NT. Where is it used in the Greek OT? ONLY when the Ark shows up! It appears but a few times, most especially in the parallel narrative of the Ark’s travel in Chronicles. Brenton’s translation of the LXX so renders it:

1Ch 15:28 And all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of a horn, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, playing loudly (anaphoneo) on lutes and harps.

1Ch 16:4 And he appointed before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, Levites to minister and lift up the voice (anaphoneo), and to give thanks and praise the Lord God of Israel. [It just occurred to me as I copy this that Elizabeth was a Levite…]

The evidence seems overwhelming and incontrovertible. The comparison takes place between a box that had the great honor of accommodating the written Word and a woman that had the great honor of sheltering the Living Word.

In Christ our Lord,
Victor

For sure – but Jesus is a new Adam and the church the new Eve (typified by Mary Magdalene). This is what I meant by Mary as mother being the antitype of old Eve: Eve and Mary bookend the Old Covenant. As you said, Mary is a type of the original Eve. But I do not believe she entered the New Covenant as a “new Eve.” She is the mother not the bride. I hope that makes sense.

Re #2, she was the mother of all living, but she could only give birth to sinful men. God changed that with Christ and made the Old Covenant new. It is our unity with Him (as a corporate bride) that gives us true life. Therefore it is actually we who are the New Eve and have children.

I believe this is linked to baptism also (sorry to harp on this!) Circumcision was about killing the bad offspring through the death of Christ. Now with a new Covenant head, credo-baptism is about entering the city He founded, the New Eve, as the nations bring their glory into her.

1. Jesus is the “seed of the Woman” tha crushes Satan’s head. Eve was the original woman, making Mary a type of the original eve.

2. Mary was the mother of Christ, who drew the church to himself at his resurrection. Eve is called the “mother of all the living” and those within the church are “alive”. THerefore another aspect of Mary as Eve.

I understand your points (I think), but I’m also not totally convinced that their is no warrant for calling Mary a “new Eve”. Though i certainly agree with you on perpetual virginity.