Victor on the Visitation
.
Victor left some comments on Mother of Invention which I think deserve a new post:
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.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 am
Hi Mike!
– I appreciate your comments very much. The parallels between the Greek words used are extremely interesting.
Thanks, Mike! I’m glad these remarks made sense! It seems like when Mary is the subject at hand, some form of mental defense wall raises up and people suddenly stop either thinking or talking about the subject for fear of sounding “too Catholic”. I myself don’t find people on the Web discussing, much less accepting, this obvious correlation.
– The parallels between the Greek words used are extremely interesting.
Yes, it is unavoidable to come to the conclusion that, just as the there was an Ark of the Old Covenant, Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant. That is the Bible teaching that inevitably comes across when we compare Scripture to Scripture.
– 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.
I don’t understand. Where is an “exodus/return pattern” in Luke 1? I can see a journey/trip, but not exactly a return/exit yet.
Do you also mean that in Acts Luke introduces similar exodus patterns?
– Marys’ womb can also be considered a Holy of Holies.
Great insight! This is yet another level of correlation. On this other level, we can take Mary as a “temple” of the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:9) And so, if she is a temple, her womb was the “Holy of Holies” which contained the very presence of God! Amazing.
Now check out yet another level: just as the Old Covenant manna was put in a golden pot, the New Bread from Heaven found His place in the womb of Mary! And the golden pot was placed inside the Ark, reinforcing the concept of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. – Exodus 16:33; Hebrews 9:4
This is the self-similarity over scale that characterizes systematic biblical typology – the symbols reiterate and confirm the same concepts on different levels of the text.
–…as there are numerous parallels between womb and tomb in Scripture.
It seems as you are comparing the Holy of Holies to “tomb”. Is my impression correct?
– Mary can also be considered a type of the Land (which is also feminine in Hebrew) made once again fruitful.
Interesting! This relates to the universal archetype of “Mother Earth”. It also makes me think of the womb/earth parallelism in Psalm 139:13,15:
Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
– (Notice that, as Israel, Jesus is also pictured as Land coming up out of the waters.)
I didn’t know about that. Can you help me?
– Where it goes off the rails is when Uzzah’s death is used to support Mary’s sinlessness,
It doesn’t make sense. I’ve heard about Uzzah’s death in association with the idea of Mary being ever virgin, since the Bible says that the ark shouldn’t be “touched” (Numbers 4:15) and the same word “touch” is applied to women with the meaning of not having sexual relations with them. (Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29) I think maybe that was what you meant.
But I can’t see how it can be used as a demonstration of Mary being always virgin. This is getting things backwards. It is like trying to prove the Trinity by showing Isaiah 6:3. Since God is Trinity, “Holy, Holy, Holy” coheres with Trinitarian teaching, but this text by no means demonstrates the Trinity; it sounds even silly to do it that way. The Trisagion only corroborates with the Trinitarian doctrine. Similarly, if they want to demonstrate that Mary was ever virgin, this has to be shown in some other way, and then the link to Mary as the Ark could be used as corroborative evidence. But if someone uses it as “proof” it gets unreasonable and even somewhat ludricous.
–…or this type is made the foundation for the eucharistic procession,
What? Did someone state that this was the “foundation” of the “eucharistic procession”? First, the validity of the “eucharistic procession” should be demonstrated before we can think about the account of Luke 1, just like in the case of Uzzah.
–…or Mary is considered to be a permanent Holy of Holies when there is no obvious or typological support.
It is self-evident that Mary was not a permanent Holy of Holies, except in the sense of 1 Corinthians 3:16. She was the vessel that received God Incarnate for nine months only.
OTOH, I wouldn’t push it too far and insist that “we cannot say she is a Holy of Holies” just because it was temporary. Although it remains in the past, it was a sublime and unmatched event in the very heart of History. Likewise, Christ stayed on the Cross for only a few hours, but we typologically still call it His “throne,” and the center of our preaching is “Christ crucified”. – 1 Corinthians 2:2
It occurred to me as I think about this that Christ being NINE months in the womb of His mother seems to have a relationship with the Holy of Holies through numerical symbolism. You see, the Number 3 is customarily associated with holiness: for example, the THIRD Person of the Trinity is the HOLY Spirit, the THIRD Book of the Bible is the Book of HOLINESS and the place that was called the HOLY OF HOLIES was a perfect cube (1 Kings 6:20) – when we raise a number to the THIRD power we say it was “cubed”. Since 3 is related to holiness, 9 (= 3 x 3) seems to echo that idea by reinforcing that number-concept.
This therefore makes me think that the Lord remained 9 (= 3 x 3) months in the Holy of Holies (= 3 x 3)! – Hebrews 9:3
– Thanks for your interesting comments. I welcome any criticism and hope I can count on further input from you around here.
Thank you very much. Iron sharpens iron and I’m glad of being of help. I wish I had more time to spend on these subjects. I’m still struggling to understand these patterns that you post on the blog.
Victor
Isa 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, is the Lord of hosts: the whole EARTH is full of his glory.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 am
Hi Victor
Thanks again for these observations.
On Isaiah 6:3, see
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/08/13/what-the-seraphim-really-said/
For a basic explanation and rundown on the pattern you will have to get my book!
Kind regards,
Mike