timeimmortal

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is “the New Ark”. In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary’s revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ’s plan of salvation for all people.

That’s not just some whimsical Catholic invention, mind you; it is right there in the Bible. Looking back at what we covered regarding hermeneutics, and reading the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, we can see that Scripture itself justifies the belief that Mary is indeed the New Ark: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

Brant Pitre notes that “a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don’t have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke’s account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and “overshadow” (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High “overshadows” (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David “arose and went” to the hill country of Judah to bring up “the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary “arose and went” into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David “leaped” before the Ark as it was brought in “with shouting” (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John “leapt” in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth cried “with a loud shout”: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for “three months” (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth’s house, “three months” (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and “tabernacles” among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary’s body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

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, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God’s Temple “in heaven.” Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the “child” (Jesus) and the “dragon” (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new “Ark” of the Covenant.”

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary’s pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, let’s think about where we’ve gone before, up to this point. We noted that in the Book of Leviticus, even a sexual act between husband and wife would result in ritual defilement until the next evening, provided that there was a discharge of semen that resulted from it. We also know, from numerous descriptions and passages within the Bible, that Jews held the Ark of the Covenant not only in high regard, but in fearful esteem; the power of the Ark was well-attested, and in the common practice of the Jewish Religion only the high priest could enter into its holy presence. It was death to the enemies of the Hebrew people, and full of the power of God.

In short, the Ark ought to have inspired reverence, and yet a most dreadful fear, in the hearts of all who knew its purpose and power. And for the average Jew, it did just that.

We know from Scripture that Joseph was a faithful, righteous Jew who followed the law of Moses. For Joseph, the Ark would indeed have been the holiest of holies, something which he would be (rightly!) fearful to approach, if he beheld it. Of course, at the time that Joseph learned that Mary, his bride-to-be, was with child, the Ark had long been absent from the Temple. But the tabernacle was still present, and every Jew understood its meaning. Joseph certainly would have understood it.

And it is Joseph who provides us with our first hint, in the New Testament that Mary was indeed a virgin for all her days after the birth of Christ. Joseph feared to take Mary as a wife, and had to be reassured by the angel that it was the Lord’s will that he do so (c.f. Matthew 1:20). Why would Joseph feel fear? Granted, the passage appears in the context of Joseph suspecting Mary of adultery, and in our modern, sex-saturated culture it would be only too easy to eisegetically assume that this was the source of his fear; the law of Moses imposed a harsh penalty on any man who consorted with an adulteress.

But that isn’t really what the angel is saying, is it? The angel tells Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife — that is, Joseph is not to be afraid of Mary herself. And while it seems strange to our sex-saturated culture to think so, the view of Christians throughout history has been that what Joseph actually feared was Mary’s sanctity. The angel assured Joseph that the child within her womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and it is reasonable to expect that Mary, once Joseph learned of her pregnancy, had shared with him the angel’s own words to her (c.f. Luke 1:35). Taken together, these facts would have surely given Joseph pause, and would certainly have made him piously fearful of the body of his wife-to-be, as surely as any faithful Jew would be afraid of the power and sanctity of the Ark.

Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself, knowing (as he would certainly have known) that for him to engage in even normal marital sexual relations with Mary would have brought about a customary, temporary ritual defilement upon both her and him?

Now, up to this point, O Reader, we haven’t directly examined the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity as can be justified directly from Scripture. That is coming up next, and will take us first into the Gospel of Luke. With a little luck, I’ll even get it written today…if not, rest assured that it will be the first thing I work on come tomorrow.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

The Book of Numbers immediately follows the Book of Leviticus in the canon of Scripture, and in a way could be considered an extension of Leviticus. Almost all of Leviticus is comprised of Moses giving the law to the people, and Numbers consists in large part of Moses giving yet more ordinances for the people to observe. And much like Leviticus, the subject matter covered in each successive chapter of Numbers shifts and changes according to no discernable pattern, covering issues pertaining to all aspects of life.

A while ago, Brant Pitre pointed out a series of vows detailed in Numbers 30, which pertain to different categories of women within the population.

Numbers 30 begins with a discussion of vows which can be taken by an unmarried woman:

[3] Or when a woman vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house, in her youth,
[4] and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[5] But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

Here, the vow hinges on the matter of whether the father of the woman hears the vow; unless he objects, his consent is implied and assumed, and every pledge the woman has made is binding on her in the eyes of the Lord. It should also be noted that the father is only afforded a limited window of response; if he has an objection to any vow made by his daughter, he must respond and object to it within the same day it comes to his attention.

Moving a bit further into Numbers 30, though, we come upon vows which can be taken by married women:

[6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
[7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[8] But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

Two things have shifted here. First, the scope of the woman’s utterance has been expanded — whereas the young, unmarried woman’s vows were what were binding, the married woman’s vows and careless utterances are both binding, if her husband does not object. And that is the second thing which has changed: it is not the role of her father to object any longer; her husband must do so. The terms of his objection, and its consequences, remain the same.

It is probable that the reason that young, unmarried women are not bound by careless utterances, whereas married women are bound thusly, is intended by the author and the Spirit to denote the shift in maturity between the young woman still living with her family and the older woman who has entered into marriage.

A third category of vows is found as we continue reading Numbers 30. In this case, the vows are those which can be taken my a widowed or divorced woman:

[9] But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.
[10] And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
[11] and her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
[12] But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not stand: her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.

This ordinance confirms the perpetuity of a woman’s vows; if her husband had previously consented to a vow she had made, then that consent — and, by extension, the vow — extends past the time when the husband has died or sought a divorce. The vow is binding on the woman in the eyes of the Lord. Only her husband may overturn the vow, and then only within a limited time period; if the vow was allowed to stand until such time as the husband passed away or left, then the vow would remain binding, in the Lord, even after the departure of the husband.

In other words, the vow would be perpetual.

Now, the Reader should note that in all these cases, the vows are of a general nature. Fortunately, reading still further in Numbers 30, we are given some context regarding the types of vow each category of woman might make.

[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
[14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
[15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.

Here we see all the previous ordinances given context; these vows concern, principally, a woman’s oath to “afflict herself”, whether as an unmarried woman, a married woman, or a widow. Citing Jacob Milgrom, a preeminent Torah scholar, Brant Pitre notes that the idea of self-affliction “was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussion three kinds of vows:

1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.”

And notice something else, O Reader. Numbers 30:15 is the odd note on which the giving of these vow-related ordinances ends, and it provides a final measure of permanence to the vows. All through the ordinances pertaining to the vows in Numbers 30, it is noted that the responsible man — the woman’s father or husband, depending on circumstance — has only a day in which to object to the vow. If he does not, the Lord considers the vow binding, and in his silence the responsible man gives his assent to the vow made by the woman to “afflict herself.”

Numbers 30:13-14 does technically give the responsible male the option of wiping away a previously-made vow, or at least would seem so to do. However, Numbers 30:15 sounds the final note on the matter, by noting that if the husband of a woman should compel her to abandon a previously made vow which, according to the law, became binding in the eyes of the Lord, he shall bear her iniquity. The sin of breaking a vow with the Lord, in other words, would fall not on the woman, but on the man who compelled the breakage.

And as Pitre notes, “Matthew’s Gospel tells us: Joseph was a “righteous man” (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence — and her words “How can this be, since I know not man?” in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34) — and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin.”

A common objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity that I have heard, although not recently, is simple disbelief that a Jewish woman living 2,000 years ago would have been able to remain celibate even in a marriage; what husband would allow it? And yet, the idea of a consecrated virgin was not alien to the ancient world (both in Hebrew religious tradition and in several pagan Religions as well). Moreover, in the New Testament, Paul offers several teachings on the matter of celibacy and abstinence (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 4) — clearly, even over two millennia ago, there was ample room in religious traditions for women to elect to remain virginal all their days, and for husbands to accept that reality.

Possible Objection #2: could the vows referred to have been temporary in nature? Nothing in the text of Numbers 30 specifically states that they are perpetual.

Response to Objection #2: As Pitre notes, one cannot deny “that the text could be applied to temporary vows, but there are two things that make me think the primary context is permanent vows…First, what meaning would a temporary vow of sexual abstinence have for an unmarried virgin in her father’s house?!! This is the first category, and as far as I can see it must primarily refer to a permanent vow of abstinence, of which the father approves. To suggest otherwise would mean that Numbers envisions the unmarried woman having sexual relations outside of marriage. This makes no sense…Second, what meaning would a temporary vow of abstinence have for a widow? If she was taking a vow of temporary abstinence for sexual relations with her husband, she would obviously be automatically be released from the vow by his death!

If a permanent vow of sexual abstinence is in view in both these cases, it makes sense to me to suggest that the primary meaning of the third category is the same: a permanent vow of sexual abstinence. In Mary’s case, it is only a permanent vow that explains her response to Gabriel while she is betrothed to Joseph: “How shall this be, since I know not man” (Luke 1:34; present tense).”

At any rate, as the Reader can see, we are verging into New Testament territory here. Coming up next we will take a closer look at Mary, especially as related to us by Luke, and also at Joseph.

The Book of Leviticus is an interesting read, although it should be noted that the shifts in topic can be rather glaring at times. Leviticus 14 seems primarily concerned with leprosy and the response of the community to a leper, and Leviticus 16 concerns the “holy place” (presumably there the Ark of the Covenant was kept), and also discusses sin offerings. And wedged between these two wildly divergent topics is Leviticus 15, which concerns male and female “discharges”.

The first half of Leviticus 15 concerns seminal discharge by a man, and concludes its treatise on the attendant ritual uncleanliness that accompanies a discharge of semen with the following observation:

[18] If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.

I don’t think it needs to be said that when one is reading the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, one should be mindful of the common euphemisms for sex. In the Book of Genesis, the term “know” is the typical euphemism for sexual intercourse; “lies with” is also used quite often, especially in the articulation of the law of Moses.

Possible Objection #1: We could just take “lies with” at its plain meaning, and assume that it does not refer to any actual act of sexual congress.

Response to Objection #1: True enough. But were we to concede that point, we would likewise have to concede that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not refer to any homosexual sex act. And I think most faithful Christians would disagree with just such a conclusion.

Anti-Marian Christians tend to believe that even if Mary did have sexual intercourse, this would not would not have prevented her from e.g. being called “blessed” of all nations. This is technically true, but where some anti-Marians have gone wrong is with the assumption that, under Jewish law, “sex in marriage is not sinful”, that “Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph, her husband.”

Let us come back to Leviticus 15:18, then. The verse would seem to suggest that, according to Jewish law, any sexual act between a man and a woman that results in an emission of semen renders both man and woman unclean until the evening. It’s a minor defilement, admittedly, but it is still a ritual defilement.

Jumping ahead to Leviticus 20:10, we note that adulterers — male and female — are to be put to death. Given the absence of mention of any death penalty in Leviticus 15, it is probably safe to assume — since pre-marital and extra-marital sex carry death penalties under Levitical Law (c.f. Levititus 20, almost the entire chapter) — that Leviticus 15:18 refers to normal sexual relations between husband and wife (or between a man and a slave woman, as per Leviticus 19:20-22, but that is another matter).

Let us be clear, then: if a husband and wife have sex, and if there is a discharge of semen as a result of that sexual act, then this results in a minor ritual defilement for both man and woman: both are unclean until the evening (presumably, this means the next evening). So when the concerned anti-Marian Christian objects that proper marital sexual relations do not bring defilement upon the couple, he or she is actually incorrect, and perhaps a bit ignorant of Levitical Law.

I will grant, of course, that Christians do not need to follow all the ordinances of the Law of Moses (although most Christians tend to think that at least a few select ordinances thereof are still binding), because Christ has fulfilled the law. But let us not forget that both Mary and Joseph were Jews, not Christians, and would have lived according to the law. Had they had any sexual relations, they would certainly have observed the tenets of the law pertaining to seminal discharge…and in doing so, they would have been following the extant covenant between God and mankind at the time.

Now, it would be tempting to jump ahead at this point and begin looking at, for example, the Gospel of Luke. However, before we do that, we need to look at the Book of Numbers for a moment, and at what I am sure is, for many Christians, a little-known aspect of Jewish religious devotion: vows of sexual abstinence taken by women, married and unmarried.

Often, when raising opposition to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Christians will insist that we take Scripture at its plain meaning, that we pay attention to the “clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.” The latter sentiment is a good one; the former is not.

How should we approach Scripture, hermeneutically speaking? This could make for a lengthy topic in and of itself, I suppose, and then one I don’t have much time to get into in detail. Most anti-Marian Christians that I have encountered tend to suggest that we employ a firmly literal hermeneutic when interpreting Scripture, and that (as noted above) we take what is written in the Bible at its plain meaning.

The problem with insisting on the use of literal hermeneutics, and with insisting that Scripture be taken at its “plain meaning”, is that nobody really does that with any kind of consistency. Let me put that more plainly: no Christian ever takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — indeed, many of us are often guilty of a certain hypocrisy when we insist upon just such an approach. More often than not, what we really mean when we insist on taking things at their plain meaning is: “let us use my interpretation of Scripture; let us take it at what I say its meaning is.”

That’s a rather harsh thing to say, I admit, but let’s consider a few examples. There is not a perfect 1:1 correlation between anti-Marianism and a rejection of e.g. Eucharistic doctrine, but most of the Christians I’ve met who denounce the perpetual virginity of Mary as a flawed Catholic teaching tend to likewise denounce the Eucharist — the real, literal presence of Christ in the bread and wine — as false. And yet, if we take John 6 at its plain meaning, we should have no other choice but to assume that Christ intended for us to receive that which was literally his flesh and blood in our repetition of the Last Supper.

[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

There’s really no two ways about that: if our hermeneutic is to always take Scripture at its most obvious meaning, on a passage-by-passage basis, then we should all be Eucharistic Christians. That we are not all Eucharistic Christians means that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so when it is convenient to the point we are making.

But let’s take a few more generalized examples, to better illustrate the point. Consider Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:

[27]“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

[28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into Hell.
[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Taking this passage at its plain meaning, it would be very easy for Christians to justify, say, plucking out the eye of a person caught reading Playboy magazine. Likewise, it would be very easy for Christians to justify lopping off the hands of thieves. And yet, no legal system which as a Judeo-Christian basis to it issues such punishments; moreover, many Christians rightly denounce Islamic countries which do effect such disfiguring punishments upon convicted criminals. Here again, then, we see that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so out of convenience, when it suits our point to do so.

Similarly, rare indeed is the Christian who takes the Book of Revelation at its plain meaning. The last book of the Bible is full of fantastic imagery and whimsical creatures; it simply cannot be taken at any kind of plain meaning, but is instead widely understood to be a profound metaphor, both for things to come and for things that have already transpired (Revelation is not just an eschatological prophecy; there is strong evidence to suggest that it was also intended as a message of hope to the persecuted churches of the day, using its amazing imagery to describe events happening under the reign of Nero).

In like manner, rare is the Christian who takes James 2:20-24 at its plain meaning — to do so would be to advocate for works-based salvation, which is of course incorrect. Similarly, when Christians look at the Song of Songs, we do not take it at its plain meaning, at least not directly. That book of the Bible mentions God very rarely (you can easily count the instances of His mention in it on one hand, and then probably without using all five digits), and at its most basic meaning is nothing more than page after page of erotic love poetry, a back-and-forth dialogue between two lovers. The most plain meaning at which Christians take that book’s contents is as a powerful image of the love that should bless the marital union of man and woman; more often, however, the Song of Songs is understood as a metaphorical image of the intensity of God’s love for humanity, which Paul tells us is imaged in the marital union (c.f. Ephesians 5:21-33).

To put it plainly, then, and succinctly: no Christian takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — were we all to do so, we would all be Eucharistic in our faith practice, and we would lop the hands off of convicted thieves. Taking the plain meaning of what is written in Scripture can be an important hermeneutical step, to be sure, but it is not a valid hermeneutic on its own. Indeed, Paul confirms this when he instructs us to hold to the traditions by which we were taught (2 Thes 2:15), and to trust in the Church — the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) — to reveal the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) according to those traditions.

This, then, begins to point us in new direction by which we should attempt to understand Scripture and its teachings, and it is this direction which I propose to use in the analysis that follows: let us take Scripture at its intended meaning.

Of course, this is a difficult proposition. Living as we do nearly 2,000 years after the authors of the New Testament, and many additional centuries after the authors of the Old Testament, it is impossible for us to fully know the minds, or the intent, of those who wrote the various books of the Bible. We can only see in a mirror dimly, and can know only in part.

But we are not totally blind, either. The Spirit wove its breath and intent through the whole of Scripture (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16-17), and one truth cannot contradict another. Therefore, it must be the case that there exists a coherency between the teaching of any one particular part of Scripture and the whole of Scripture.

Jesus actually gives us an example of this principle in action, when he met Cleopas and the other disciple on the road to Emmaus (c.f. Luke 24:13-31). He opened the Scriptures to the two men and, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. He didn’t just enumerate His own teachings, or his own acts, but tied all of those things into the broader picture of history and prophecy, demonstrating the consistency of the whole of Scripture as it pertained to His own life, death, and resurrection.

That’s a lesson for us, in our own attempts to make sense of Scripture and its teachings; it is the model for our own hermeneutics. We should take care to consider each passage and teaching in Scripture in the context of the whole of the Bible. This helps us form an understanding not only of the intent of the authors of any particular part of Scripture (who would, of course, have been mindful of other, pre-existing written texts that eventually became the books of the Bible), but of the intent of the Spirit when and as it inspired them.

So, as we turn now to the formal matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity, let us attempt to take Scripture not at its most plain meaning, but at its intended meaning. To do that, we must first journey into the Old Testament, to help us understand a few things about Judaism, the law of Moses, sex and marriage within that paradigm, and celibacy.

Let’s begin with the Book of Leviticus.

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is “the New Ark”. In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary’s revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ’s plan of salvation for all people.

Brant Pitre, over at Singing in the Reign, has an excellent article up concerning some of the symbolism within the Bible, drawn from both the Old Testament and the New Testament that demonstrates that Scripture itself justifies this belief: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

When the New Testament is read in light of the Old, a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don’t have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke’s account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and “overshadow” (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High “overshadows” (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David “arose and went” to the hill country of Judah to bring up “the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary “arose and went” into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David “leaped” before the Ark as it was brought in “with shouting” (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John “leapt” in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth cried “with a loud shout”: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for “three months” (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth’s house, “three months” (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and “tabernacles” among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary’s body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

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, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God’s Temple “in heaven.” Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the “child” (Jesus) and the “dragon” (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new “Ark” of the Covenant.

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Indeed, I have always rather enjoyed Mark Shea’s take on the matter: “As an Evangelical, my own tradition found it remarkably easy to detect bar codes, Soviet helicopters, the European Common Market, and the Beatles encoded into the narrative of Revelation. But when Catholics suggested that the woman of Revelation might have something to do with the Blessed Virgin occupying a place of cosmic importance in the grand scheme of things, this was dismissed as incredible. Everyone knew that the woman of Revelation was really the symbolic Virgin Daughter of Zion giving birth to the Church. A Jewish girl who stood at the pinnacle of the Old Covenant, summed up the entirety of Israel’s mission and gave flesh to the Head of the Church saying, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” — what could she possibly have to do with those images? Why, that would suggest that she was the Virgin Daughter of Zion and the Flower of her People, the Model Disciple, the Icon of the Church, the Mother of Jesus and of all those who are united with Him by faith and…”

Oh, wait.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary’s pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, here we have to take a foray into the Book of Leviticus, specifically to the fifteenth chapter. Verse 18 reads thusly: “If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.”

Now, given that elsewhere in the Levitical Law, adultery is condemned in the harshest possible terms, the passage above can safely be assumed to refer to legitimate sexual intimacy between a husband and his wife. Bearing that in mind, let’s state plainly what the above law means: normal sexual relations between a husband and his wife, under the Law of Moses, render husband and wife temporarily unclean (”until the evening”). Within the Jewish law, there is an implied defilement in the sexual act.

Good Reader, given that Joseph was a faithful Jew, he was likely mindful of this law of Moses, as surely as he was mindful of all such laws. Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself?

Now, I also mentioned the Assumption of Mary, which was the feast celebrated last Friday, August 15th. Brant Pitre goes on to explain the connection between Mary’s being the New Ark and the belief that she was assumed, bodily, into Heaven.

…the evidence suggests to me — others may differ — that one reason ancient Christians may have believed in the bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven is that they recognized her as the New Ark of the Covenant.

The Church continues to teach that “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 966). The resurrection, our hope, is at the heart of this dogma. If ancient Christians identified Mary as the Ark and knew about the Jewish tradition that the Ark would be the first to be “resurrected,” then it may have provided theological support for their belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into the heavenly Temple. In fact, they would not even have had to know the Jewish tradition, since the Psalms themselves describe the “ascent” of the Ark into the Temple alongside a prophecy that was interpreted by ancient Christians as referring to the resurrection of Jesus:

Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place,
You and the Ark of your might…
For your servant David’s sake,
Do not turn away the face of your messiah. (Psalm 132:8-9)

With these words, our reflection comes full circle: Where else could the Ark belong, but in the Heavenly Temple?

I sometimes get impatient with those who attack the Catholic faith as pagan and/or un-Biblical, and when I do I sometimes challenge them to come up with one paragraph from the Catechism — one doctrine or teaching of the Church — which cannot be defended biblically. It’s kind of a trick question, but there is ultimately only one direct answer which is possible, and paragraph 966 of the Catechism is it. Of all Catholic doctrine, only the belief in the bodily Assumption of Mary cannot be directly constructed from Scripture.

That’s not to say that the Church just invented the belief, of course. Though the Assumption was “dogmatically proclaimed” (that is: formally confirmed to be a part of Catholic doctrine) only last century, the actual origins of the belief can be traced back to the very earliest days of the Church, even to before the formal canonization of Scripture in 390 A.D.

And even though there is no place in the Bible which states a confirmation of Mary’s assumption, the doctrine itself is not indefensible from Scripture, as Pitre has shown. Scripture doesn’t tell us directly what fate ultimately befell Mary, but it presents us with a number of distinct clues and hints as to her role in God’s ultimate plan, and as to her significance. She was the New Ark, and all nations should rightly call her blessed.

Catholics are often accused of focusing too much attention on Mary, but I wonder if perhaps the reciprocal question shouldn’t be asked: is it possible that non-Catholics focus too little attention on her, given how obviously significant she is not only as the mother of Jesus, but as a unique outward sign of God’s New Covenant with humanity, as the new and first tabernacle, and as the New Ark…the resurrected Ark?

I’m going to take a day’s break from all the brouhaha that normally percolates through the blog here. It’s Friday, and it’s a good time to turn my thoughts away from the matters that trouble the world which I inhabit, and the orbits I find myself in. It would be nice to start preparing myself for Sunday, for Mass, and for yet another encounter with the Lord.

I’m talking, of course, about Eucharist, the source and summit of Christian faith. And also, both inside and outside of Catholicism, one of the most misunderstood aspects of the faith.

Catholicism makes what seems, initially, to be a very bold claim: that Christ Jesus literally becomes present in the breaking of the bread at each and every Mass, that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, retaining only the “accidental” (to use the Aristotelean term) of qualities of each — the bread and wine still look like bread and wine, and still taste like it. But, contrary to the “if it quacks like a duck” thinking of the rest of the world around us, Catholics nevertheless boldly assert that despite the fact that the bread and wine seem, by all appearances, to still be bread and wine, they are in fact anything but.

It’s a bold declaration of complete faith…faith not in the Church (as an institution), nor faith in the priest, nor faith in the wafer itself. No, it is a declaration of faith in Christ, an affirmation of the Catholic belief that Christ really is Lord and King of all creation, and the He does so love the world — and everyone in it — that He desires to draw to Him those who profess their need for Him.

Equally, it is a declaration of faith in a Christ whose love and desire to be in communion with those who profess their need for His promise of salvation and forgiveness of sin that He will make Himself present to them, in keeping with His promise that He would be in the midst of any number who gather in His name. We all must die in due course and will, in so doing, end up before the Lord. But prior to that, Christ — out of love — elects to come into our presence too. His love for humanity is so great, and His desire to be in communion with us so powerful, that He will step down, but for a moment, to be with us in our present-tense reality, appearing before us in a guise at once hidden and yet obvious, as surely as He appeared to the disciples walking on the road to Emmaus.

It’s a powerful belief. But then, Christ is Lord and King of all creation — it is proper that a teaching pertaining to the direct intersection of Christ and the world is powerful.

Within Scripture, the first hints of the Eucharist are presented in the Gospel of John, in chapter 6. The close association between the Eucharistic revelation and the Paschal Meal is at once obvious.

[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.”
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him,
[9] “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?”
[10] Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.”
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”
[15]Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

These are not usually the verses cited in any apologetic concerning the Eucharist, but I would like to preface my analysis by noting the significance of the event within them. A large multitude has gathered to see and hear the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus — deeply moved — worries after the need of the people to eat. There is precious little food available to achieve that end, of course — to feed five thousand, two loaves and five fishes would amount to mere crumbs per person.

And so Jesus effects a miracle, both as a sign to the people and as a test of faith for the disciples. I’ve always thought the scene’s portrayal in Jesus of Nazareth captured the mood of the disciples perfectly, and I am still struck by the image of the apostle John holding forth an empty basket, apologizing that what little is in it is all he has. And yet, when the camera pans back to the basket, it is overflowing.
Read the rest of this entry »