A guest post by Luke Welch.

I’ve been reading The Hobbit again, out loud, to our children, and this time through, one phrase in the first chapter caught my attention.

When Bilbo first encounters Gandalf as an adult, he exhales a list of memories of the greatness and fearful unpredictability of the old wizard:

Not the wandering wizard that gave Old Took a pair of magic diamond studs that fastened themselves and never came undone till ordered? Not the fellow who used to tell such wonderful tales at parties, about dragons and goblins and giants and the rescue of princesses and the unexpected luck of widows’ sons?  (The Hobbit, Chapter 1).

In the Bible, there are two widows who received their sons from the dead: the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17), and the widow of Nain (Luke 7). In both cases, a visit by a prophet results in the resurrection of the widow’s only son. In both cases, the miracle vindicates the prophet, resulting in a confession, a testimony, that the prophet is God’s man indeed.

A prophet
…..visits
……….the “displaced” widow
……….whose son dies or is dead;
……………The prophet performs a miracle
……….and raises the son to life;
……….which brings a testimony
…..of the vindication
of the prophet. [1]

The importance of the vindication of the prophet is often overlooked. Here are the announcements from both stories:

And Elijah took the child and brought him down from the upper chamber into the house and delivered him to his mother. And Elijah said, “See, your son lives.” And the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24)

And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” (Luke 7:15-16)

Resurrection is extraordinary, and therefore entirely unexpected. It is incredible except for those who have witnessed it first-hand. And when it does occur, it reveals that the prophet is under the power of the Spirit of God and confirms his God-given authority to speak for God to the people of God.

Of course, there is another historical resurrection which follows the same pattern.

Jesus was the “only Son” of a widow, Mary. It is likely that Joseph died before Jesus’ baptism. From the beginning of His ministry, at His first miracle (turning water into wine in John 4), Mary treats Jesus as the “man of the house.” While on the cross, Jesus delegates His Covenant responsibility to shelter Mary. He passes it to the next believing man of the family, His younger cousin John, son of Zebedee (John 19.26-27).

Then, her son, her only son, is killed by God (cf. 1 Kings 17:20, Isaiah 53:10).

And so Jesus is resurrected, and Mary receives back her dead.

That leaves us with a question. What does this say about the prophet? Elijah was known to be the Spirit’s mouth because of the resurrection he received through prayer. Jesus was known to be the Great Prophet rising up among the people, because he gave resurrection. But who resurrected Jesus?

It was the Holy Spirit himself (Romans 1:4). Of course, we hear from Paul later on that the resurrection of Jesus was a Trinitarian act (cf. Romans 8:11ff). But even there, the Power of the Holy Spirit is what is emphasized in this life-giving to dead sons.

So, in Mary’s receiving back her dead, we are justified in looking for a testimony, a vindication, of that Prophet. The next great prophetic voice was that of the Spirit in the testimony of Jesus. He was in the apostles, as eyewitnesses to the resurrection. They vindicated Jesus, and history continues to vindicate them. The Spirit is the jar of holy oil that never runs out.

_______________________________
[1] Mike Bull: I’ve expanded a little on Luke’s original outline here, to bring out the echo of the Ten Commandments: Word from God, alienation from the Land, mother and father, knife and fire, theft/gift and true witness, and finally, shelter and sheltered. Concerning the alienation from the Land, “The location of the miracle in Nain is also possibly an allusion to the raising of the Shunamite woman’s son by Elisha because Nain is only a couple of miles north of Shunem (cf. 2Ki 4:). So the event and location are both allusions to Elijah and Elisha.” [bible.org] The prophets ministered to those outside of Israel to provoke Israel to jealousy.

or Matthew’s Literary Artistry 2.

Sabbath (Genesis) – Light
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week,

…..Passover (Exodus) – Firmament
…..Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

…..…..Firstfruits (Leviticus) – Land (Altar)
…..…..There was a violent earthquake,

…..…..…..Pentecost (Numbers) – Lights
…..…..…..for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven

…..…..Trumpets (Deuteronomy) – Hosts
…..…..and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

…..Atonement (Joshua) – Mediators
…..His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

Booths (Judges) – Rest
The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

Notes:

Day 1 is obvious. Day 2 has women in veils (Ezekiel 13:17-21 aligns women’s veils with the veil of the Temple as well).

An earthquake is literally a land-quake. The Altar-mountain is split in two as the old worship dies to bring life to the new. Olivet was symbolically split in two as Ebal and Gerizim, or Zion and Gerizim, the blessed and the cursed. Jesus’ resurrection body was new grain and fruit sprouting up out of the Land on Day 3, the Firstfruits.

The angel came down, just as the Spirit would come down at Pentecost. The new Lampstand Law was being tipped out, and the old stars were beginning to fall.

My Lord, what a morning!
My Lord, what a morning!
Oh, my Lord, what a morning
when the stars begin to fall.

Oh, you will hear the trumpet sound
to wake the nations underground,
Looking to my Lord’s right hand
when the stars begin to fall.

Peter Leithart mentioned recently that Gilgal means “wheel.” [1] Just as Jacob rolled back the stone from the well to bring new life, and God “rolled back” the flesh through circumcision, rolled back sin through the wilderness wandering, and rolled back time for Hezekiah [2], so now the stone was rolled back. He was restoring the years eaten by the locust. Smooth, round stones, angelic hosts and resurrection are always at step 5. [3]

What is even more interesting is that the angel sits on the stone at the same point in the structure as Moses sat on the stone between priest and king when Joshua fought against Amalek.

The angel is robed as a priest, a mediator. The tomb was “whitewashed” in an integrated way: it was clean on the inside and the out. And the stone was a “white stone” from the ephod, which signified that the atonement by the High Priest had been accepted. Also, we have the appearance of the head (lightning) and the covering of his body (snow), the singular and the plural (collective) Mediator.

At ingathering, the armies sent by the Jews are scattered, as all Babels are. The Ark was now in the field, but now the field was the world. The Jewish “succession,” their Covenant continuity (Land), was coming to an end, eclipsed by a greater commission.

In the greater structure, these dead men match chiastically the “falling down dead” of the soldiers who came to arrest Jesus in the Garden. Then, He was “passed over” with the sword. But now, now, He was passing through their midst unmolested as a blazing torch. [4]

_________________________________
[1] See Peter J. Leithart, (I’ll add this link when I can find it. The search mech on his blog isn’t the best.)
[2] See If I Could Turn Back Time.
[3] At Step 3, we have unhewn, rough altar stones. At Step 4 they are hurled at the Bride caught in adultery and she dies under the Law. At Step 5, she is resurrected, picks up hewn, smooth Temple stones from the brook and hurls them back at her accuser, Goliath, the serpent. Time is rolled back as a smooth tombstone. He is exiled at Step 6.
[4] See Pass-over and Pass-through.

or Receiving the Implanted Word

Mary’s song, like most songs in the Bible, seemed to me to contain mostly extraneous material. My modern mind couldn’t relate her words to the version of Christianity I was familiar with. I guess that’s because it was a version bereft of much understanding of the Old Testament.

Mary’s song seems to follow the matrix pattern. As such, it is a new Creation, and a new Tabernacle, (John 1:14, “dwelt” is literally “tabernacled”). It is the liturgical response of the bride to the promise of Covenant succession – the Covenant succession. This new generation was also regeneration.

And Mary said: 
“My soul glorifies the Lord 
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 

The first step concerns a call to service (Genesis). Mary received that from Gabriel and this statement begins her response.

for he has been mindful 
of the humble state of his servant. 

The second concerns the humbling of the new servant (Exodus). The prophets fall on their faces before God and are then exalted and given a new job to do, a new word. In Mary’s case, it was the Word incarnate.

From now on all generations will call me blessed, 
for the Mighty One has done great things for me— holy is his name. 
His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. 

The third step is the exaltation of the servant, and their “Levitical” instructions. Step 3 is Moses receiving the Law on Sinai. It is the spies returning with a huge haul of grapes from the Promised Land – a promise of a future inheritance. It is Christ ascending out of the waters of the Jordan to be blessed by the Father. It is Christ ascending and opening the New Covenant scroll. Here, it is his conception. It is the mystery of all those Old Testament miraculous conceptions finally opened. Like Moses, Mary “receive[d] with meekness the implanted Word, which is able to save your souls.” As Israel, Mary submitted to the word and became an engraved tablet of flesh, now crying out in song as a living stone. [1]

He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; 
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. 
He has brought down rulers from their thrones 
but has lifted up the humble. 

Step 4, Day 4, is about rulers, governing lights in the firmament (Pentecost). As “Numbers” it is also the testing of God’s people. The stars of Judah were about to fall (Matthew 24:29) and be replaced with a Covenant people who would truly “shine like stars” (Daniel 12:3) and rule from the true Holy Place. [2] The carcasses of the unfaithful Jews would fall in the wilderness, like those of their ancestors (Hebrews 3:17).

He has filled the hungry with good things 
but has sent the rich away empty. 

Step 5 concerns abundance and plunder, and a new army called from the Valley of Dry Bones (Trumpets/Deuteronomy). Those in Judah who were hungry for righteousness would be filled (Matthew 5:6; Revelation 7:16) but the rich would weep and howl (James 5:1). [3]

He has helped his servant Israel, 
remembering to be merciful 

We are up to the Day of Covering (Atonement). It is Adam anointed as mediator for the race on Day 6. It is the High Priest representing Israel before God. Remember, this always involves two goats under Adam’s faithful judgment. There is always a true bride and a harlot. The sins are always expelled to Azal. Just as a sword would pierce Mary’s soul, the Word-sword that Jesus would bring would cut the Old Covenant people in two to make something new (Luke 2:35; Matthew 10:34; Revelation 1:16).

to Abraham and his descendants forever, 
even as he said to our fathers.”

The final step concerns Covenant succession. This one speaks for itself. The betrothal promise of Day 3 is consummated on Day 7. [4] The grapes are finally wine. The blood of circumcision is fulfilled at last and presented to the Father (Revelation 5). The Messianic line ceases to be blood and becomes Spirit. [5]

________________________________________________
[1] See Crying Stones.
[2] See Big Government, Jesus’ New Broom and In the Air.
[3] See Fools’ Gold. 
[4] See Marriage as a Promise of Wine.
[5] Dispensationalists just don’t get this. To coin Jordan’s phrase once again, “The blood goes up and the Spirit comes down.” See Esau’s Ladder.

Hello 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

 

Hi Victor

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 would also add that the Ark lid, the kapporet, as a type of the Land, was the Lord’s footstool. See Peter Leithart’s The Footstool of His Feet.

or Drive-By Typology

——————————————————————————-
Rome has this whole nutty Oedipus thing going. They want the infantile security of Mary’s breast when God calls them to grow up, to be as individuals men worthy of a bride’s affections, and corporately a bride who adores only her Husband!
——————————————————————————-

Verifying typological connections is a tricky business. Like driving, it is not a skill but an art. This means that although there are certain rules to follow, above all of that there are situations where being steeped in the types and structures of the Bible is the only way to proceed with wisdom. James Jordan recently commented that any such exegesis should be carried out within the conversation of the church, and:

“The popular notion that everyone should be able to read and exegete the Bible equally, as a result of learning some so-called “science” of hermeneutics, is about as stupid as thinking everyone can write music like Bach and Beethoven by studying the rules of harmony and counterpoint; or that anyone can be a Shakespeare.”

I’m no Shakespeare, but James Jordan’s identification of the biblical “universals” and an explanation of biblical types has helped me enormously. The Bible matrix structure has also helped me enormously. They are typological “systematics.” It is this kind of grounding, like practising scales on a piano, that enables us to more easily identify abuses of typology — such as the claim that Mary is a “New Eve.” Dischordant notes can be used to great effect in great music, but it takes a practised musician to know when it is within a greater “harmony” and when it is not. This is beyond the basic scales.

Mary is the New Eve?

Mary is very clearly Old Covenant. She is a type of the woman with 12 stars (sons) as a crown, a fruitful tree in the garden. But Mary is only part of the picture. She typifies one facet of first century Judah and only one. There is also the cursed tree with only leaves and no fruit.

The Old Covenant people is typified by other women, too. What about Herodias, who, like Athaliah, like Jezebel, formed false alliances and executed the faithful?

Mary’s Womb as Holy of Holies

The Temple was still a Holy Place until the crucifixion, or even until Pentecost. At Pentecost, the glory moved from ‘Saul’ to ‘David’, from Jesus’ mother Mary to Mary freed from seven demons, filled with a new Spirit. If anyone is a type of the resurrected Israel — the Christian church — Mary Magdelene is!

Then the Holy of Holies womb of Judah deliberately became a tomb. Like Rome, Judah gilded her own merit and put it on a pedestal. It refused to partake of Jesus’ death and denied His resurrection. But it was a womb opened by Christ for the very purpose of having more children. This is where totus Christus comes in. Jesus is the head of a body, and the birth pangs He referred to concerned the body, the revelation of the sons of God.

With Israel being divided in two by the creative Word, the unfaithful defiantly became a separate woman, Hagar instead of Sarah, the liar of the two prostitutes in Solomon’s court, a harlot who rejected the head and then rejected the body as if they were unclean things. Like Athaliah, Judah wanted nothing to do with Covenant succession and would wipe out this new Messianic line (just as Rome attempted with Protestantism). She was holding onto her “irrevocable” gifts tooth and claw. In rebellion, she even gave birth to an army of false brothers, Judaisers (unholy Nazirite locusts), as contenders for the throne. Then, get this, to end her harlotry, God actually “commanded” her to be truly fruitful one last time. Because she had become a new Egypt, He called His children to “come out of her” so they might avoid her plagues. She died in childbirth and there was no resurrection.

The main point here is, the womb is opened miraculously for the very purpose of having more kids, raising an army. Even the ‘harlot’ side of Israel bore children as a synagogue for Satan. Eternal virginity has Onan and Ichabod written all over it, just like Rome. Perpetual virginity is not sinlessness. It is a whitewashed tomb, a gilded sarcophagus, full of dead men’s bones.

God wants Covenant heirs to take dominion. Why wouldn’t Joseph and Mary’s life typify this, like every other marriage in Israel? Jordan writes:

“[Concerning] typological ‘evidences’ for Mary as perpetual virgin, queen of heaven, etc. I assert here that these have never been the reasons for Marian doctrines, but that they have been brought into consideration by those who are already completely convinced of those doctrines because of their traditions. As the previous discussion demonstrated, I believe, there is no Biblical warrant for the notion that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus Christ. The Bible explicitly states that Joseph did not routinely have sex with her until after her purification.” [1]

 

Mary as the Ark of the Covenant?

Here is a perfect case of drive-by typology. Tom Riello writes:

“I am surprised that you do not think that perpetual virginity of Mary has no typological basis in the Old Testament. Here is a case where you use the Greek Orthodox against the Church of Rome [concerning papal apostolic succession] and yet here is a case where the Greek Church would say to you, ‘bite your tongue.’

Surely the travel narrative in Luke’s Gospel, of Mary traveling to Elizabeth in the Visitation, follows the pattern of the travel narrative of the Ark in 2nd Samuel 6. The comparisons are astounding and if Luke did not intend this, then the happy hand of providence surely made sure that he would do this. The early Church almost unanimously acclaimed Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant and with good reason, as the Ark under the Old Law carried the Word (Tablets), the Manna, and the budding rod of Aaron (as Hebrews informs us).

As I am confident you know, typology works from the lesser to the greater and if that is the case, and it is, then if the lesser covenant Ark was pure, holy and immaculate and not to be touched (Uzzah) then why should we should expect that under the New and greater covenant that the Ark is pure, holy and immaculate.” [2]

There was later  a comment about a Pope claiming this visit to Elizabeth was the first Eucharistic Procession! I’m afraid this is an instance of starting with a “doctrine” and then looking for typological evidence to support it. The exodus/return pattern is common throughout Scripture, but observing these leads us to see Christ as the Ark, not Mary. He is the Law incarnate (in a box), not Mary. He is the mediator that protects us from coming face to face with the Law of God, not Mary. He was the One speared so the good things hidden in the Ark could be poured out (Word, Sacrament, Government). He is the box carried on human legs. [3] His was the sinless blood that allows us to approach the heavenly throne of grace, not Mary’s. The whole thing is back to front. This is where the “eternal virginity” is imposed on the text.

The Catholics agree with typology being a process of lesser to greater. But Mary is a type of the faithful Old Covenant remnant. She is lesser, and as Jordan points out, we hear nothing of her after Acts 1. Like John the Baptist, she passed the baton on.

Rome’s Oedipus Complex

The Roman church fails to understand the difference between a mother and a bride, and how the process of Covenant succession flows through the OT. The RCC follows the church fathers’ error concerning Mary as New Eve and sees this as the foundation for the “unveiling” of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. But Mary isn’t the New Eve, the church is, so that whole construct is a very badly built house of cards. Mary is, if anything, the antitype of the Old Eve. Her Son begins a new creation, and creation comes before Eve does. Rome has this whole nutty Oedipus thing going. They want the infantile security of Mary’s breast when God calls them to grow up, to be as individuals men worthy of a bride’s affections, and corporately a bride who adores only her Husband! This is the process of Covenant succession. Mum doesn’t figure in the new equation. A man leaves his father and mother and begins a ‘new covenant.’ Mary grew old and was then under her Son’s care, under His New Covenant, brought into His new house.[4] The house of Jacob is absorbed by the new house of Joseph. The Tabernacle of David is absorbed by the Temple of Solomon, etc.

I hold the Bible as an authority over church tradition, including the fathers. Jordan and Leithart deftly identify the “universals” that we find in biblical types. That’s why I call this process “systematic typology.” By this I mean symbols contained in repeated structures, which allows us to verify the connections. I can say Judas being sent out from the last supper is both a type of the coming destruction of Judah and an antitype of the scapegoat because all three events follow the structure of the seven feasts in Lev. 23. None of these Marian claims meets such a criterion. They are one-offs and drive-bys. If we practice our scales enough on the actual biblical structures, aberrant ideas like Mariolatry stick out like a sore thumb, or in this case an extra limb! They rub the Bible’s fur the wrong way. 

I should say that an identification of biblical structure is also the reason I strongly disagree with Jordan and Leithart concerning infant(ile) baptism, but that’s another story. In my opinion, that’s where they also get fluffy and rely on tradition and read biblical types the wrong way.[5] That’s where they see typological “support” for an extrabiblical practice. This too rubs the Bible’s fur the wrong way. Mariolatry and paedobaptism get childhood and maturity round the wrong way, and I can demonstrate from the Scriptures that this is so. It is no one-off or drive-by type.

(As always, I may sound uncharitable and arrogant at times but I am not. I am dealing here with ideas and if I ever attack anything, it is ideas. I consider all these men brothers in Christ, and part of that relationship is the ability to be frank within the bounds of love. I am ever willing to be corrected on any doctrinal point as long as the Scriptures are our agreed standard over any tradition. Any idea can and should be tested without mercy as long as one’s ammunition is Scripture.)

___________________________________________
See the discussion and comments at:
[1] Concerning BMEV, More Thoughts on BMEV and Protestants and BMEV.
[2] Discussion in comments under Ecclesial Deism.
[3] I was then accused of Nestorianism, but explained, “Seeing Christ as the Law written on tablets of flesh is not inevitably Nestorianism. I believe Jesus was/is in fact more truly human than you or I. His glory was temporarily veiled. The contents of the box were both as divine and as human as the box. Jesus was the Word, Sacrament and Government man. Is there a name like “Nestorianism” I can call the error of giving Mary the obvious symbolic divinity of the Ark? The Ark lid was a symbol of the throne of God (see Leithart http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-50-the-footstool-of-his-feet/). Adding Mary into the mix is foreign to the Bible, whatever the fathers or church tradition says. So, yes, Mary’s journey was like the Ark’s journey, but so was every exodus throughout the OT (and my book outlines most of them). We don’t give this divinity to anyone else.”
[4] See Behold Your Mother.
[5] See Cutting Off Flesh By Water.

“Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.”  John 19:27

Although they are spread throughout the four gospels, Jesus’ seven words from the cross are easy to put in chronological order. Once in order, they follow the themes of the annual Feasts.

At Firstfruits, Christ on the cross is Moses, mediating between heaven and earth. From the mountain, He transfers His legal responsibility for His mother to John.

He calls her Woman. At this point in the garden, the Lord married Adam to Eve. Of the seven elected Judges, this is Deborah, the warrior-mother. This step is always about the Covenant head lifted up to make a house for Greater Eve.

With this loving act, Christ prefigures the responsibility for the faithful remnant of Old Covenant Israel being transfered to the Apostles.

Interestingly, Revelation 18:7-8 follows the same structure. At the Firstfruits/’Woman/Bride’ step, Israel, who has rejected and killed her Messiah, says, “I am no widow.”